Category World News

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.

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:

Maduro abducted – amid diplomacy and limited strikes

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.

Iran bombed – when ‘two weeks’ of diplomacy appeared imminent

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.

Iran protest calculus: What’s Trump’s plan?

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.

Which other countries is Trump threatening?

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.

Calculated unpredictability?

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.

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.

‘Abnormal’ patterns of circulation

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 single narrative, multiple formats

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.

Direct Israeli involvement

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.

Turning protests into an ideological war

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”.

Calls for foreign intervention

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.

The ‘puppet masters’ behind the network

Al Jazeera’s network analysis identified specific “central nodes”, or accounts that played a pivotal role in amplifying the hashtag.

• “Rhythm of X”: This account emerged as a central hub for interaction. Created in 2024, it has changed its handle five times. Its content focuses almost exclusively on supporting Israel, promoting the Iranian monarchy and calling for US action against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

• “Nioh Berg”: This verified account created in 2017 (which has also changed its name five times) identifies its user as a “Jewish Iranian activist”. It presents her as a key voice in the movement and says she is wanted by Iranian authorities.

• “Israel War Room”: The analysis shows a strong overlap between the “Nioh Berg” network and the “Israel War Room” account, which regularly disseminates security and political content aligned with Israeli state narratives.

Manufacturing a crisis

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.

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:

Why have Bangladeshi cricketers boycotted BPL matches?

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.

Which matches have been hit by the players’ boycott so far?

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.

What are the players’ demands?

The players were demanding Islam’s removal from the board.

What did Nazmul Islam say about the cricketers?

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?”

How has the BCB responded to the players’ demands?

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.

Have the players called off the boycott after Islam’s sacking?

Neither the CWAB nor the players have made a statement on the status of their boycott since Islam’s sacking.

How and why could Bangladesh potentially not play the T20 World Cup?

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.

Why does BCB not want to send its team to India?

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.

What happens if Bangladesh doesn’t play the T20 World Cup matches in India?

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”.

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.

Protests in Iran, which began in late December 2025 over the country’s worsening economic conditions, have escalated into a broader challenge to its clerical leadership, which has been in power since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Tensions with the United States have mounted since US President Donald Trump suggested that Washington could militarily intervene in Iran if there was a crackdown on protesters.

Critics of the Iranian government, primarily in the West, claim that thousands of people have died in the protests. In particular, the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) put the death toll at 2,615 on Wednesday.

However, the Iranian government said these numbers have been exaggerated, and Iranian state TV reports put the figure at about 300.

On Wednesday night, Trump’s tone softened when he said he had received assurances from Iran that the killings of protesters in Iran had stopped and that executions of detained demonstrators would not go ahead.

But his earlier threats to attack Iran prompted Tehran to warn of retaliation and, on Wednesday, Qatar ‌confirmed some personnel ‍had been removed from the Al Udeid air‌base, which hosts US armed forces, saying it was ‌in ⁠response ‌to “current ‍regional ‌tensions”.

There have been some clashes between demonstrators and security forces in Iran, resulting in deaths. An ongoing internet blackout – which entered its eighth day on Thursday – has made it particularly difficult to track the actual number of deaths, according to watchdog NetBlocks.

What do we know about the death toll in Iran?

Iran has not released an official death toll, but authorities stated this week that more than 100 members of the security forces have been killed in clashes with protesters. Opposition activists said the toll is much higher and includes more than 1,000 protesters.

HRANA said the number of people killed had climbed to at least 2,615 on Wednesday.

Norway-based organisation Iran Human Rights (IHR) reported on Wednesday that at least 3,428 protesters had been killed in a crackdown on demonstrations.

But the same day, Iranian state TV said mass funerals were taking place in Tehran that would include 300 bodies of security force members and civilians.

In an interview with Fox News on Wednesday, Iranian ‍Foreign ‍Minister Abbas Araghchi denied that Tehran had plans to execute protesters. During this interview, Araghchi downplayed the death toll that is being reported.

“I certainly deny the numbers and figures they have said. It is an exaggeration, it is a misinformation campaign, only to find excuses, only to do another aggression against Iran,” Araghchi said, adding that the number was being exaggerated to involve Trump in the conflict.

Al Jazeera cannot independently verify any of the figures that have been reported.

Among all of these figures, HRANA’s numbers are the ones that are most cited by news organisations worldwide.

What is HRANA?

According to its website, US-based HRANA is the news agency affiliated with Human Rights Activists in Iran (also known as HRAI and HRA), which is described as “a non-political and non-governmental organisation comprised of advocates who defend human rights in Iran”.

The website states that HRAI was formed in 2005 but does not name or provide details about who formed the organisation.

It says that in February 2006, a small group of Iranian activists gathered to organise protests against human rights violations in the country.

“That effort lay the foundation of a larger vision that ultimately led to the establishment of an organization later known as Human Rights Activists in Iran,” the website states, adding that, initially, the effort was focused on political prisoners. It supported victims’ families, documented abuses and ran public education campaigns in Iran.

Why is the group now based in the US?

By March 2010, the group was legally registered inside Iran, shifting from a “semi-secret organization into one which openly operated in Iran”, it states.

The organisation adds that during this time, the group decided to publicly disclose the names of its leaders. “By publicly disclosing the names of our leaders, we hoped to neutralize such suspicions that have historically led to brutal crackdowns in the past.”

However, the government did crack down on it, it says.

The website adds: “The military-style crackdown of our organization on March 2, 2010 left our members even more determined than before to re-group and ultimately rebuild the necessary infrastructure needed to continue our work despite the security risks that threatened each and every one of us.”

According to a document published by Amnesty International on March 12, 2010, HRAI reported that Iranian security forces raided the house and workplace of at least 29 of its members between March 2 and March 3, arresting 15 people.

The website adds that soon after the crackdown, HRAI registered in the US as a nonprofit organisation, and focused on recruiting skilled members, integrating technology into its operations and “obtaining appropriate sources of financial support”.

What is HRANA’s assessment of the crisis in Iran?

This week, HRANA reported that of the 2,615 people killed, 2,435 were protesters, 153 were affiliated with the government or military, and 14 were civilians who were not protesting.

Besides the death toll, HRANA has reported that 18,470 people have been arrested over the course of 617 protests in 187 cities, beginning on December 28 in Tehran.

HRANA has also published news articles online with names, photos, ages and more information about some of the people who it says have been arrested or killed.

What do we know about HRANA’s backers, members and methodology?

Al Jazeera contacted HRANA for comment, but a spokesperson declined to disclose information about the group’s members or funding sources, citing security concerns.

The spokesperson told Al Jazeera that the organisation confirms all data with primary sources, but said it could not disclose the identities of individuals or organisations in Iran with whom HRANA corroborates information. Its methodology for collecting and analysing data is not provided on its website.

How has HRANA’s previous reporting compared with official government figures?

Iran fought a 12-day war with Israel from June 13 to 24 in 2025.

HRANA reported that over the course of the conflict, 1,190 people were killed and 4,475 were injured in Iran. These figures included civilian and military casualties. The organisation additionally reported that during the war, 1,596 people were arrested by Iranian security forces.

By contrast, according to Iran’s Ministry of Health and Medical Education, 610 people were killed and 4,746 people were injured over the course of the war.

In September 2022, a young woman named Mahsa Amini, aged 22, was arrested in Tehran for allegedly wearing her hijab improperly. She collapsed while in custody and died in hospital a few days later.

Her death caused national outrage and widespread protests in Iran that lasted for several weeks. The slogan “woman, life, freedom” was chanted in the streets.

HRANA reported in October 2022 that 200 people died and about 5,500 people were arrested during those protests.