标签： Asia

A post-World Cup semi-final political gesture has ignited a transatlantic diplomatic firestorm, linking a decades-old sovereignty dispute to ongoing Middle East alliance tensions. After Argentina’s 2-1 World Cup semi-final victory over England in Atlanta, Argentine players unfurled a banner reading “Las Malvinas son Argentinas” — “The Malvinas are Argentine” — reawakening the long-running sovereignty dispute over the South Atlantic archipelago, known to Britain as the Falkland Islands. The incident is now under formal review by FIFA, the global governing body of football, which prohibits overt political messaging during official tournament matches.

The call for a major U.S. policy shift on the dispute came from Marc Zell, chairman of Republicans Overseas Israel, an Israeli-American conservative Republican leader. Zell has leveraged the on-pitch demonstration to urge former U.S. President Donald Trump to abandon Washington’s long-standing neutral stance on the Falklands question, framing the move as leverage against the United Kingdom for its refusal to join a U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran, which Zell labeled “a dastardly betrayal”.

Writing on social media, Zell argued that the Trump administration should re-evaluate U.S. policy toward the Falklands/Malvinas in recognition of Argentina’s pro-U.S. and pro-Israel alignment, a stark contrast to Britain’s rejection of participation in conflict in the Strait of Hormuz. “FIFA may fine them. The British press is outraged. But Argentina has been a steadfast friend of the United States and of Israel — and friends deserve to be heard,” Zell stated, adding that “The Malvinas question deserves a serious answer from Washington.”

Notably, Zell’s call received immediate backing from Argentina’s strongly pro-Israel president Javier Milei, who has made unwavering support for Israel a core tenet of his foreign policy agenda. Milei has stood with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu throughout the military campaign in Gaza, has publicly explored converting to Judaism, and has pledged to move Argentina’s Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — a move aligned with U.S. Republican policy priorities. Responding to Zell, Milei affirmed that his administration is making steady diplomatic progress toward reclaiming sovereignty over the Falklands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, and their surrounding maritime areas, dismissing critics of the move as immature.

“While some are busy throwing tantrums befitting a terminally mononeuronal teenager, we, through the diplomatic route, are getting closer every day to the recovery of the Malvinas Islands, Georgias, and South Sandwich Islands, and the surrounding maritime space,” Milei said. Zell later thanked Milei for publicly endorsing his position, cementing the unusual alignment between the conservative American-Israeli activist and the Argentine president on the sovereignty issue.

British officials issued a blunt rejection of the sovereignty claim immediately after the banner was displayed. “The World Cup might not be ours, but the Falkland Islands definitely are,” a UK government spokesperson stated.

The dispute over the archipelago stretches back more than two centuries. Britain first claimed the islands in 1765, when a British ship landed on the territory, and reasserted its sovereignty claim in 1833. Argentina has contested British control of the islands since its independence, and the dispute erupted into open armed conflict in 1982, when Argentina’s ruling military dictatorship launched an invasion of the islands. The 74-day war that followed killed 649 Argentine troops, 255 British service members, and three Falkland Island civilians, ending with British retention of control over the territory. In a 2013 referendum held on the islands, 99.8 percent of participating voters opted to remain a British overseas territory.

Against a backdrop of fresh U.S. military strikes on Iranian targets in early 2026, former President Donald Trump has ramped up pressure on Tehran, calling on congressional Republicans to attach new Iranian sanctions to a long-delayed bill targeting Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. This latest demand comes as Western sanctions on Iran, one of the broadest and longest-running embargo regimes in modern global history, have already reshaped Iran’s economy, political trajectory, and its standing on the world stage for decades.

As independent outlet Middle East Eye outlines in a comprehensive breakdown, the modern sanctions regime against Iran did not emerge overnight. Its roots stretch back to November 1979, just months after the Iranian Revolution ousted the Western-backed Shah. When Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, Washington responded by freezing more than $8 billion in Iranian assets held by U.S. financial institutions. By April 1980, that initial freeze expanded into a full ban on all imports of Iranian goods and services to the U.S.

The 1981 Algiers Accords resolved the hostage crisis, leading to eased restrictions and the return of most frozen assets. But just three years later, Washington reimposed sweeping restrictions, slapping an arms embargo on Iran and formally designating the Islamic Republic a “state sponsor of terror.” That move followed the 1983 bombing of U.S. and French barracks in Beirut, which Washington blamed on Iran-backed Hezbollah, cementing a adversarial framework that would shape policy for decades.

Through the 1990s, sanctions expanded dramatically as global fears grew over Iran’s emerging nuclear program. In 1995, President Bill Clinton issued executive orders imposing a total ban on all U.S. trade and investment with Iran. The following year, Congress passed the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which introduced groundbreaking “secondary sanctions” that penalized foreign companies investing in Iran’s energy sector, effectively cutting Iran off from most of the global oil trade. While provisions targeting Libya were later scrapped, the act has been reauthorized repeatedly by Congress ever since.

By the mid-2000s, multilateral sanctions joined unilateral U.S. measures. The U.N. Security Council imposed its first set of restrictions on Iran in 2006, after the International Atomic Energy Agency referred Tehran to the body over its uncooperative uranium enrichment program. Through the 2010s, the Security Council expanded those measures, focusing on an arms embargo and asset freezes for individuals and firms tied to Iran’s nuclear work. Unlike U.S. sanctions, U.N. measures are legally binding on all member states, though Russia has repeatedly rejected key provisions. In 2008, the Western-backed Financial Action Task Force blacklisted Iran over alleged money laundering and terrorist financing ties, further isolating it from the global financial system; today, Iran remains one of only three countries on the FATF blacklist, alongside Myanmar and North Korea.

Pressure escalated further in 2012, when the SWIFT global banking network cut off Iranian financial institutions at Washington’s behest, deepening Iran’s financial isolation. That same year, the EU – then the largest buyer of Iranian oil – introduced its own oil embargo and asset freezes over nuclear concerns. The EU has since expanded sanctions to target Tehran over its 2022 and 2026 anti-government protests and its military support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The most significant breakthrough in the standoff came in 2015, when world powers reached the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a landmark nuclear agreement between Iran, the U.S., UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the EU. The deal went into effect in January 2016, requiring Iran to cap its uranium enrichment activities and open all its nuclear facilities to rigorous international inspections in exchange for broad sanctions relief. The JCPOA unlocked tens of billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets and allowed Iran to resume full oil exports, marking the most significant diplomatic normalization between Iran and the West in decades.

That progress unraveled just two and a half years later, when then-President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA in May 2018 and reimposed all U.S. secondary sanctions. Trump argued the original agreement, negotiated by the Obama administration, still left Iran able to develop a nuclear weapon and would spark a regional nuclear arms race. Iran responded by gradually increasing its uranium enrichment beyond the JCPOA’s limits, eroding the core constraints of the deal.

In 2020, the U.S. attempted to trigger a JCPOA “snapback” mechanism to reimpose expired U.N. sanctions, but the move was widely rejected as unlawful by all other remaining JCPOA signatories, and U.N. sanctions were lifted as scheduled. The dynamic shifted again in August 2025, when France, Germany, and the UK reversed their position amid growing concerns over Iran’s expanding uranium stockpile, triggering the snapback to reimpose U.N. sanctions over the strong objections of China and Russia. The UK, now independent of EU policy after Brexit, imposed its own set of targeted sanctions in 2023, designating the powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) – a core institution of the Iranian state – for sanctions over alleged hostile activities globally.

For nearly half a century, sanctions have gutted Iran’s economy, even though the country holds one of the world’s largest reserves of oil and natural gas. Cut off from formal global energy markets, Iran now relies on a “shadow fleet” of aging tankers to sell discounted crude on the black market, with most shipments going to China. While international law technically exempts humanitarian goods like food and medicine from sanctions, most global banks and shipping firms avoid handling even these transactions due to steep compliance and legal risks, exacerbating shortages and pushing inflation to crippling levels. That economic pressure was a core driver of the widespread anti-government protests that shook Iran in January 2026.

Following the outbreak of open hostilities between the U.S., Israel, and Iran in late February 2026, sanctions have become the central bargaining chip in negotiations to end the conflict. In mid-June, the two sides signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that outlined a path to sanctions relief: the U.S. would terminate all unilateral and multilateral sanctions against Iran on a negotiated schedule and release billions in frozen Iranian assets held in banks around the world. Shortly after the deal, Iranian lead negotiator Mohammad Ghalibaf announced that an agreement had been reached to unlock $12 billion in frozen Iranian funds. Trump later confirmed the deal, but claimed the funds would only be released to buy food exclusively from U.S. farmers – a condition Tehran has rejected outright.

As part of the June MoU, Washington issued a 60-day waiver for Iranian oil exports, and Iran agreed to cap uranium enrichment and reopen the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping. But the fragile agreement has already collapsed: after renewed hostilities broke out between the two sides, Trump declared the ceasefire “over,” canceled the oil sanctions waiver, reimposed a military blockade on Iranian ports to stop covert oil exports, and hit Tehran with a new round of restrictions.

Even if a new final peace deal is reached, lifting the full panoply of Western sanctions faces significant political and procedural hurdles. First, most U.S. sanctions are codified in congressional legislation, meaning they require approval from both the Senate and House of Representatives to be overturned – and many lawmakers in both parties have long held hawkish positions on Iran and have blocked previous sanction relief deals. Second, the IRGC’s designation as a terrorist organization by the U.S., EU, and UK means that even if broad sanctions are lifted, global businesses will still face severe legal barriers to trading with any entity tied to the group, which permeates almost every sector of Iran’s economy. Third, lifting U.N. sanctions requires approval from all five permanent members of the Security Council: while China and Russia have long supported ending sanctions, the U.S., UK, and France remain hesitant to fully roll back measures. For its part, the EU has signaled it is open to lifting nuclear-related sanctions if Iran verifiably curbs its enrichment program, but removing all EU sanctions requires unanimous approval from all 27 member states, and EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has indicated that sanctions imposed over Iran’s human rights record will remain in place even after a nuclear deal.

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has announced a hardline policy that any Israeli nationals discovered within the country’s borders will face immediate deportation, a stance rooted in the nation’s decades-long non-recognition of the state of Israel. The prime minister’s remarks came in response to unfolding allegations that Israeli citizens have secretly joined a high-profile tech-focused digital nomad community in the southern Malaysian state of Johor, triggering an official multi-agency investigation into the project. The initiative under scrutiny is Network School, a physical tech community venture founded by former Coinbase chief technology officer and American investor Balaji Srinivasan. Marketed on its official platform as a “frontier community of techno-optimists” focused on translating online digital networks into tangible startup-focused societies, the project is based in Forest City — a massive $100 billion reclaimed land development in Johor. The investigation was launched after social media users raised claims that a number of participants in Network School held Israeli citizenship, entered Malaysia under dual nationality by using passports from third countries, and thus violated the country’s immigration rules. In an official statement released Tuesday, Malaysia’s Ministry of Home Affairs confirmed it had opened the probe into the community. Following the allegations, Israeli media outlet Ynet reported that Malaysian authorities had already started cross-checking the identities of all foreign nationals associated with the project. Onn Hafiz Ghazi, chief minister of Johor state, has directed the home ministry and other relevant enforcement bodies to conduct a full, comprehensive review of the venture’s operations. His instruction lays out clear terms for the probe: investigators must verify the identities and nationalities of all people linked to the project, examine their travel documentation and the alleged use of second passports, confirm the validity of their entry passes, cross-check their stated purpose for visiting against their actual activities in the state, and ensure all activity aligns with Malaysian law. “The state will not allow any parties to use Johor as a base to spread ideologies or movements that are against the law, sovereignty and interests of Johor and Malaysia,” Onn Hafiz Ghazi told local media. To date, Malaysian immigration officials have completed preliminary checks on 266 foreign nationals from 40 different countries connected to the Forest City community, and have confirmed that all of those screened hold valid immigration documentation. No Israeli nationals have been publicly identified as part of the ongoing investigation, and authorities have not released any updates on final findings. As a Muslim-majority Southeast Asian nation, Malaysia has never maintained formal diplomatic relations with Israel. The country’s longstanding policy bars holders of Israeli passports from entering the country without exceptional, special government approval, though it does not currently have formal legislation banning dual citizens of Israel and other nations from entering using their non-Israeli passports. Malaysia’s position on Israel has remained consistent since it gained independence from British colonial rule in 1957, and the country has long been one of the most outspoken supporters of Palestinian statehood and rights in the Southeast Asian region. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who has repeatedly and harshly criticized Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza as genocidal, reaffirmed the country’s unwavering support for the Palestinian cause in his comments on this investigation. “If we find any Israeli, we will deport them immediately because we do not recognise Israel,” Anwar told local media. The prime minister added that if the investigation confirms the presence of Israeli nationals in Network School, immediate action will follow: “If it turns out that the claims are true, they will be deported immediately. All relevant authorities are already conducting an investigation into the matter.”

In a development that has stirred mixed interpretations across Beijing and Washington, the United States has allowed a 2020 national emergency declaration tied to Hong Kong to expire, resulting in the partial lifting of targeted sanctions — but the core executive order that stripped the semi-autonomous city of its preferential US trading status remains fully in effect.

The sequence of moves unfolded over the weekend, with China’s foreign ministry first announcing that Washington had confirmed it would end the 2020 President’s Executive Order on Hong Kong Normalization, a statement that initially fueled speculation that Hong Kong’s lost trade privileges could be restored. That reading was quickly clarified by a US State Department spokesperson, who told the Associated Press that while former President Donald Trump allowed the attached national emergency declaration to expire, Executive Order 13936 — the policy that revoked Hong Kong’s special trade status — remains active. The order explicitly states that Hong Kong no longer maintains sufficient autonomy from Beijing to justify differential trade and legal treatment separate from mainland China.

The US Office of Foreign Assets Control confirmed Friday that the expiration of the national emergency prompted it to delist individuals sanctioned under the declaration. However, most of those affected will remain subject to penalties: a senior anonymous Treasury Department spokesperson confirmed that 39 out of the 48 individuals removed from the emergency declaration sanction list have been moved to a separate sanction roster maintained under the 2020 Hong Kong Autonomy Act. High-profile figures including current Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee and former leader Carrie Lam were among those transferred, the spokesperson confirmed. The Treasury spokesperson framed the non-renewal of the national emergency as part of broader US sanctions modernization efforts, designed to eliminate duplicate penalties and streamline enforcement for greater effectiveness.

Executive Order 13936 was originally signed by Trump during his first presidential term in July 2020, a response to Beijing’s implementation of a sweeping national security law for Hong Kong. Beijing has repeatedly defended the law as a critical measure to restore stability after months of large-scale anti-government pro-democracy protests in 2019, which represented the most significant challenge to Sino-Hong Kong governance since the 1997 handover of the former British colony to Chinese rule. The order revoked all preferential trade and travel treatment for Hong Kong that had been in place for decades, aligned with US national security, foreign policy, and economic interests at the time.

Full ramifications of the US policy adjustment are still coming into focus, with the White House directing all media inquiries on the lapse of the national emergency to the Treasury Department. Early official reactions from Chinese officials have leaned positive: China’s Commerce Ministry noted Friday that the US move fulfills commitments made on Hong Kong during bilateral trade talks held in Madrid last year. “The U.S. side’s actions represent an important step in fulfilling the consensus reached during the bilateral economic and trade talks. China appreciates it,” the ministry said in an official statement.

Hong Kong’s local government also framed the shift as a positive development. “Safeguarding Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability serves the common interests of China and the U.S. and also aligns with the general expectation of the international community,” the government said in a statement, adding that it hopes Washington will continue to respect China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong and the city’s rule of law, eventually leading to a full resumption of normal economic and trade ties.

The policy shift comes two months after a face-to-face meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, and is being widely interpreted as a small signal of warming bilateral relations ahead of Xi’s planned visit to the US later this year. The move follows another recent goodwill gesture: earlier this month, a high-profile pastor from China’s underground Christian community who had been detained since October was released from custody after Trump raised his case directly with Xi during their Beijing meeting.

However, conflicting initial interpretations of the policy change between Beijing and Washington have left uncertainty about the long-term trajectory of ties on Hong Kong. Six years after the national security law was enacted, dozens of leading pro-democracy activists remain imprisoned, including former media tycoon Jimmy Lai. International critics of the law argue that the civil liberties and independent judicial system Beijing pledged to preserve for 50 years following the 1997 handover have eroded sharply in recent years.

This report includes contributing reporting from Associated Press writer Joshua Boak in Washington, and has been updated to correct earlier misreporting that incorrectly stated the entire executive order would not be renewed.

In a contentious vote held on Thursday, Israel’s national parliament, the Knesset, has given final approval to a divisive new law that legalizes gender segregation across postgraduate higher education programs across the country. The legislation cleared the legislative body with a narrow margin, recording 52 votes in favor compared to 43 votes cast against the measure.

Under the terms of the new law, accredited Israeli universities will gain legal permission to establish separate, gender-specific study tracks for students enrolled in master’s and doctoral degree programs. The law also formally codifies a 2021 ruling issued by the Israeli High Court of Justice, which had previously approved gender-segregated bachelor’s degree pathways when paired with a set of specific regulatory restrictions.

The bill was spearheaded by Knesset member Limor Son Har-Melech, a representative of the far-right Otzma Yehudit party led by Itamar Ben-Gvir. In remarks following the vote, Son Har-Melech framed the legislation as a tool to advance educational access for women from demographic sectors that she claimed have historically been denied equal educational opportunities.

Proponents of the new rule have echoed this framing, arguing that the policy will expand access to higher education for religious women, who often hold gender-separated learning as a core personal and religious requirement. Zvi Sukkot, a Knesset member from the far-right Religious Zionism party led by Bezalel Smotrich, added that the law serves to expand personal freedom of choice for students with differing religious needs.

However, the legislation has drawn fierce condemnation from opposition political figures and progressive lawmakers, who have decried the policy as a dangerous rollback of gender equality in Israeli public life. During the parliamentary vote, several opposition legislators held up protest signs emblazoned with the slogan “Segregation is exclusion” to demonstrate their opposition.

Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the opposition Yisrael Beiteinu party, issued a sharp rebuke of the government, accusing the ruling coalition of seeking to transform Israel into a repressive “Ayatollah state.” Drawing a parallel to existing gender segregation practices in the ultra-Orthodox city of Bnei Brak, where men and women often walk on separate sidewalks, Lieberman called on university and academic leadership across the country to refuse to implement what he labeled “this madness.”

Merav Michaeli, a senior Labour Party lawmaker, also criticized the new law, rejecting the argument that segregated education can ever be equal. “There is no such thing as segregated but equal,” Michaeli said, noting that the policy comes as part of a broader pattern of rollbacks to gender equality pushed by the current right-wing ruling coalition.