header
Fifa is facing new questions over the increasingly fraught World Cup next year, with the issue of how to treat Iran while the country is involved in a conflict with the co-host the US.
There are no provisions within Fifa's regulations to prevent Iran from playing their group matches in the US, despite the country being subject to military action by the Trump administration and Iranian citizens being under a travel ban that prevents them from entering the country. The ban contains an exemption that could apply to players, staff or associated families with teams at the 2026 Fifa World Cup.
Iran, who faced USA in the group stage of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, qualified in March for their fourth consecutive World Cup. Although 2026 is also being hosted by Canada and Mexico, only by being given a specific slot in group A could Iran avoid playing in the US, with their matches then taking place in Mexico.
If Iran won that group they would stay in Mexico for their last-32 game and any last-16 match. Should they go further – and they have never reached a World Cup knockout game – they would then play in the US.
Fifa did not respond on Monday to a request for comment from the Guardian and will likely be considering its options before the World Cup draw, which is due to take place in December. The decision will be a difficult one for its president, Gianni Infantino, who has associated himself closely with President Donald Trump, who authorised the use of US bombs on Iranian nuclear sites last weekend.
Infantino and the Fifa Council will have the final say on inclusion in the competition and the makeup of the draw, but the organising committee for Fifa competitions will be expected to have input. The committee has members from Canada, Mexico and Iran, and its chair is Uefa's president, Aleksander Ceferin. In 2022, his organisation announced that Ukraine and Belarus would be kept apart in Uefa competition draws, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and his action may provide an example for Fifa to follow.
Before the World Cup draw in Qatar, the agreed draw constraints included limitations on where teams could be selected but this related only to a 'general principle' that no more than one team from each confederation (excluding Europe) should appear in a given group.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Western Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Starmer to commit to spending 5% of GDP on defence by 2035 at Nato summit
The target, expected to be formally agreed by Nato countries at a summit in The Hague this week, includes spending 3.5% on 'core defence' and another 1.5% on 'resilience and security'. It represents a significant jump from the current 2% Nato target, and from the UK Government's aim of spending 2.5% of GDP on defence from 2027 and 3% at some point after the next election. But the figure is in line with the demands of US President Donald Trump, who has called for Nato allies to shoulder more of the burden of European defence. Ahead of his trip to the Netherlands, Sir Keir Starmer said the increased spending target was 'an opportunity to deepen our commitment to Nato and drive greater investment in the nation's wider security and resilience'. He said: 'We must navigate this era of radical uncertainty with agility, speed and a clear-eyed sense of the national interest to deliver security for working people and keep them safe.' The Government expects to spend 1.5% of GDP on resilience and security by 2027. The details of what counts towards that target are due to be set out during this week's summit, but it is likely to include spending on energy and border security as well as intelligence agencies. But increasing core defence spending to 3.5% will not happen until 2035, with at least two elections likely to take place before then. Nor would Downing Street say how the increase would be paid for, with a spokesman describing the figure as 'a projected target' that allies would review in 2029 when Nato carries out its next capability assessment. The Royal United Services Institute has estimated that increasing core defence spending to 3.5% by 2035 would cost £40 billion a year more than keeping the figure at 2.5%. Conservative shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge said the Tories welcomed the higher Nato target, but said the Government's commitment was 'both unfunded and a decade away, when the threat we face is real and imminent.' He said: 'The Chancellor failed to set a path to 3% in the spending review, and this is another announcement without a plan. 'Instead of using smoke and mirrors to inflate defence spending, Labour must get to 3% this parliament and back our country's defence with a fully funded plan.' Sir Keir's announcement came as the Prime Minister prepared to fly to the Netherlands for the two-day Nato summit against the background of both the war in Ukraine and escalating hostilities in the Middle East. The Prime Minister's official spokesman said Sir Keir would continue to press for a diplomatic solution to the Israel-Iran crisis. Volodymyr Zelensky, who met Sir Keir Starmer at Downing Street on Monday, is also expected to attend the summit (Jeff Moore/PA) He will also urge allies to help secure a 'just and lasting peace' in Ukraine by showing strength and providing Kyiv with 'the support it needs to defend itself against continued Russian aggression'. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is also expected to attend the summit, but not take part in the main discussions of the North Atlantic Council. Ahead of the summit, Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte described the move to spend more on defence as a 'quantum leap' that would make the organisation 'a stronger, a fairer and a more lethal alliance'. But it was reported on Sunday that Spain had reached a deal that would see it exempted from the 5% target. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said that Spain would be able to keep its commitments to the 32-nation military alliance by spending 2.1% of GDP on defence needs. Tuesday will also see the publication of the UK's national security strategy, which is expected to call for the whole of society to become more resilient and recognise national security 'means more than it used to'. The document will tie together a series of reviews commissioned by the Government, including the recent strategic defence review, a review of the Aukus alliance with the US and Australia and an audit of relations with China.
BBC News
37 minutes ago
- BBC News
Did President Trump have legal authority to launch Iran strikes?
Since US President Donald Trump ordered strikes on several nuclear facilities in Iran over the weekend, Democrats as well as lawmakers from his own party have questioned his authority to do Congressman Thomas Massie said on X that the strikes were "not Constitutional", and another Republican Congressman Warren Davidson wrote "it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional".But Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson defended the president, saying he "evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act" and that there's "tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties".BBC Verify has asked legal experts whether Trump's actions were in line with the Constitution or whether he should have consulted Congress first. What does the Constitution say about military action? There are two parts of the US Constitution that are relevant here: Article I and Article I specifically lists the ability "to declare war" as one of Congress' Article II - which lays out the president's powers - says that "the president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army", and sources at the White House have told the BBC they see this as the rationale for the strikes on experts have said that Article II could be interpreted as giving the president the authority to use military force in certain circumstances aren't specifically laid out in the Constitution - but they have been subsequently interpreted to include "actual or anticipated attacks," or to "advance other important national interests" according to experts at the Council for Foreign interests could include the prevention of nuclear proliferation - which Trump administration said was their justification for the strikes on constitutional experts told BBC Verify that Trump had some authority under these circumstances to order the military strikes on Iran."The short answer is yes, he did have the authority here," says Claire Finkelstein, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. "There is a long standing practice of presidents engaging in isolated military engagements without congressional approval." Another constitutional law expert, Jessica Levinson at Loyola Marymount University, said the president has limited authority to authorise air strikes as long as it "doesn't begin to resemble a war, and there is no clear definition of when that occurs".However, Andrew Rudalevige, a professor of government at Bowdoin College, told BBC Verify he didn't believe Trump had the authority to launch the latest strikes as there wasn't a sudden attack to Article I gives Congress the power to declare war, the provision has rarely been last time Congress evoked this power was in 1942 after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor during the Second World War. Before this point it had been used on just 10 occasions since experts also told us that presidents using their authority to order military actions without getting approval from Congress has become more Bellinger, who was a legal adviser in the White House under President George W Bush, said: "Over the last several decades, Congress has acquiesced more and more in presidential uses of military force for a variety of purposes without congressional authorisation.""Congress and the courts have effectively negated the requirement of a declaration," Jonathan Turley, a conservative constitutional expert, told BBC Verify. What have other presidents done? President Barack Obama authorised airstrikes in Libya without requesting permission from Congress, which his administration justified under Article II, as was the case for the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan in during Trump's first term in office, he ordered the killing of Iranian military officer Qasem Soleimani without congressional President Bill Clinton launched strikes in the Balkans in the 1990s without prior approval, and more recently, Joe Biden did the same when hitting Houthi targets in Yemen as well as in Syria during his presidency. "This authority has been repeatedly used by presidents throughout our history," said Mr Turley."In 2016, Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs from Syria to Libya to Somalia without such calls for impeachment. History and precedent favours Trump in this action."Speaker Johnson cited examples by previous presidents when defending Trump, saying: "Presidents of both parties have acted with the same commander in chief authority under Article II.""President Obama went on an eight month campaign bombing Libya to take down the regime there. I never heard a Democrat balk about any of that, and suddenly, now this, they're just up in arms. It's all politics." What about other laws? Critics of Trump's strikes on Iran have also pointed to the War Powers Resolution which was passed in 1973 following America's withdrawal from the Vietnam War to limit the president's ability to wage war without consulting Congress the law does allow the president to use force without Congressional approval in emergencies, it states that they should "in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities"."It does not appear that President Trump complied with this requirement," says Mr Bellinger. "Based on reporting so far, it appears that President Trump did not actually have substantive consultations with Congress, but rather simply informed several Republican leaders."US media has reported that Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had been called about an an hour before the strikes began but with little White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on X that the administration made "bipartisan courtesy calls to Congressional leadership" and spoke to Senator Schumer in advance of the resolution also says that Congress must be notified within 48 hours after military action has taken of Defense Pete Hegseth said that Congress "were notified after the planes were safely out" and that they "complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act". What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Starmer accepts Trump demand on defence spending rise
The increase will see a major rise what UK taxpayers spend on defence. Sir Keir has committed to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next Parliament, a timetable which could stretch to 2034. READ MORE: The previous Conservative government had committed to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. But ahead of the beginning of the Nato summit, the Prime Minister said the UK must navigate "this era of radical uncertainty with agility, speed and a clear-eyed sense of the national interest" to keep people safe. 'That's why I have made the commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security. This is an opportunity to deepen our commitment to Nato and drive greater investment in the nation's wider security and resilience. President Trump in the White House on Saturday (Image: AP) 'After all, economic security is national security, and through this strategy we will bring the whole of society with us, creating jobs, growth and wages for working people." The UK government expects most Nato members will agree to spend 3.5% of GDP on core defence, such as the armed forces and weapons, and 1.5% on resilience and security. Under the plan the UK expects to reach at least 4.1% of GDP in 2027. However, Nato member Spain has not agreed after the country's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, last week said he would not commit to the 5% figure. It was reported on Sunday evening that Spain has reached a deal with Nato that would see it excluded from the 5% spending target. Mr Sanchez said that Spain would be able to keep its commitments to the 32-nation military alliance by spending 2.1% of GDP on defence needs. SNP defence spokesman Dave Doogan said the Prime Minister's announcement underlined that previous defence cuts had put UK security "at risk". He said: "Westminster has spent decades slashing defence spending in Scotland and depleting our armed forces capabilities - cutting Scottish regiments, personnel, ships, aircraft and with it, eroding the relevance of defence within Scottish communities which is so vital to recruitment and retention. "Today's announcement exposes that successive Westminster defence cuts represented a catastrophic false economy, which has put our security at risk. After years of neglect, it's vital that this latest UK government finally delivers a full and fair share of funding for Scotland's conventional forces to boost defences at our end of this island and deliver jobs and investment across Scotland's communities. 'It is vital that increased public funds are spent well - and our defence capabilities are reinforced wisely. Westminster's track record of illegal wars and doomed interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan coupled with Whitehall's litany of procurement disasters such as Nimrod MRA 4 and Ajax Armoured Fighting Vehicles, have put the safety of our troops at risk and wasted £Billions in taxpayers' money. "The UK must now regroup with our European allies on defence procurement and manufacturing rather than glorying in being isolated from the EU while being dismissed by the US at the same time. The need for this strategic and pragmatic way forward, to galvanise Euro-Atlantic security, was made abundantly clear when the EU penned an €800bn defence deal with the increasingly irrelevant UK very much looking in from the outside." Nato secretary general Mark Rutte said a defence investment plan, set to be agreed at the gathering, 'introduces a new baseline, 5% of GDP to be invested in defence'. Speaking at a press conference ahead of the summit, the former Dutch prime minister said the move would be a 'quantum leap'. He told reporters: 'As the world becomes more dangerous, allied leaders will take bold decisions to strengthen our collective defence, making Nato a stronger, a fairer and a more lethal alliance. 'This will include a major new defence investment plan, raising the benchmark for defence investment to 5% of GDP.' He said the defence plan 'that allies will agree in The Hague introduces a new baseline: 5% of GDP to be invested in defence. 'This is a quantum leap that is ambitious, historic, and fundamental to securing our future.' US President Donald Trump has previously called for nations in the 32-member bloc to commit to 5%. Defence was one of the areas that benefited at the spending review earlier this month, when figures published by the Treasury showed that average annual real-terms growth for defence between the 2023-24 and 2028-29 financial year is 3.6%.
