DORTMUND, Germany (BN24) — Bayern Munich overturned a halftime deficit to defeat Borussia Dortmund 3-2 in a dramatic Bundesliga Klassiker at Signal Iduna Park on Saturday, with Harry Kane scoring twice and Joshua Kimmich delivering a late winner in a five-goal spectacle.
The match, one of Germany’s fiercest rivalries, shifted sharply after the break following a tense and tactical first half in which Dortmund capitalized on limited opportunities while Bayern controlled possession.
Dortmund struck first in the 26th minute through Nico Schlotterbeck, who headed home from a set piece despite having earlier escaped a potential red card for a high challenge on Josip Stanišić. The referee opted for a yellow card after reviewing the incident, a decision that left Bayern players visibly frustrated.
Schlotterbeck’s goal came against the run of play. Bayern had dominated the opening exchanges, pressing aggressively and circulating the ball quickly. Dortmund struggled to gain sustained possession but relied on rapid transitions and the energy of the home crowd to remain competitive.
The home side also faced an early setback when captain Emre Can was forced off before halftime with a left knee issue after requiring multiple treatments. Ramy Bensebaini replaced him. Coach Niko Kovač had initially left Bensebaini and Serhou Guirassy on the bench, managing their workload during Ramadan.
Despite their territorial advantage, Bayern created few clear chances before the interval. Joshua Kimmich tested goalkeeper Gregor Kobel from distance, but Dortmund maintained their narrow lead at halftime.
The contest changed dramatically after the restart.
Bayern equalized in the 54th minute when sustained attacking pressure finally broke Dortmund’s defensive resistance. Kane, largely quiet in the first half, positioned himself perfectly to tap home from close range and make it 1-1.
Momentum shifted decisively in Bayern’s favor in the 64th minute. Stanišić was brought down inside the penalty area by Schlotterbeck, and the referee pointed to the spot. Amid loud protests from the home supporters, Kane stepped up and converted. Kobel got a hand to the shot, but the strike had enough power to find the net.
It marked Kane’s second goal of the evening and continued a prolific run for the England captain, who has now scored multiple goals in four consecutive matches.
As Bayern seized control, tension inside Signal Iduna Park intensified. Every tackle drew loud reactions from the crowd, and the tempo remained relentless.
Dortmund found a late response in the 83rd minute. A cross from Marcel Sabitzer evaded its intended target and reached Daniel Svensson, who struck a first-time volley into the net to level the match at 2-2 and reignite the stadium.
However, Bayern delivered the decisive blow just four minutes later. A rebound fell to Kimmich at the edge of the penalty area, and the midfielder struck a left-footed volley into the net to restore Bayern’s lead at 3-2.
Dortmund pushed forward in the closing minutes, but Bayern’s defense held firm to secure all three points.
The match illustrated two contrasting halves. In the first, Bayern’s possession dominance lacked penetration. Dortmund absorbed pressure effectively and capitalized on a set-piece opportunity.
After the interval, Bayern increased the tempo and committed more players forward, stretching Dortmund’s defensive shape. The introduction of quicker transitions and more aggressive positioning around the penalty area created space for Kane and others to exploit.
Kane’s performance was pivotal. While he touched the ball sparingly in the opening 45 minutes, his movement improved significantly after the break. His ability to occupy defenders and anticipate second balls changed the dynamic of Bayern’s attack.
Kimmich’s late winner reflected Bayern’s persistence. Often tasked with controlling the rhythm in midfield, he demonstrated attacking composure at a critical moment.
The victory could have meaningful consequences in the Bundesliga title race. Matches between these two clubs often influence the psychological balance of the season, and Bayern’s ability to respond under pressure reinforced their championship credentials.
For Dortmund, defensive lapses proved costly. Despite disciplined stretches and clinical finishing from limited chances, the inability to maintain composure late in the game underscored ongoing inconsistencies.
The contest also highlighted the razor-thin margins in elite fixtures. Schlotterbeck’s early disciplinary escape loomed large, as he later both scored and conceded the penalty that shifted momentum.
Beyond the tactical and statistical dimensions, the Klassiker once again delivered high drama. With five goals, a penalty, controversial officiating decisions and a late winner, the match lived up to its reputation as one of Europe’s marquee domestic rivalries.
Bayern’s comeback underscored their depth and resilience. Dortmund’s response, though spirited, ultimately fell short.
As the Bundesliga season enters its decisive phase, this result may resonate far beyond Signal Iduna Park.
(NBC) — President Donald Trump declared Saturday that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is dead following coordinated U.S. and Israeli strikes carried out before dawn, a claim that had not been confirmed by Iranian authorities.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump described Khamenei as “one of the most evil people in history” and framed the reported killing as a decisive blow against Iran’s leadership.
“This is not only Justice for the people of Iran, but for all Great Americans, and those people from many Countries throughout the World, that have been killed or mutilated by Khamenei and his gang of bloodthirsty THUGS,” Trump wrote.
Khamenei, who had served as Iran’s highest political and religious authority since 1989, oversaw the country’s military posture and nuclear strategy for more than three decades. As supreme leader, he wielded final authority over the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and maintained decisive influence across Iran’s government.
Earlier Saturday, Trump addressed emerging accounts that Khamenei had been killed in airstrikes, telling reporters, “We feel that that is a correct story.” He asserted that “most” of Iran’s senior leadership was “gone,” adding, “The people that make all the decisions, most of them are gone.”
Iranian officials did not immediately confirm the report.
An Israeli official told NBC News that Israel was “99% sure” Khamenei had been killed in an earlier strike and was completing final verification procedures. A senior U.S. official familiar with the situation said Washington believes Khamenei is dead based on communications from Israeli authorities. Another senior official briefed on military operations and intelligence assessments told NBC News that Khamenei is “almost certainly dead.”
In a separate interview with NBC News, Trump said the strikes extended beyond a single operation.
“There were three attacks,” Trump said. “And you know about the one that was covered, but there were two other attacks, which inflicted very great losses on their leadership.”
When asked about the timing, Trump indicated the strikes occurred “over the last 24 hours.” Speaking by phone with NBC News, he characterized the impact as extensive.
“A large amount of leadership” had been killed, Trump said. “I don’t mean like two people,” he added, without offering specific figures.
Pressed on who might succeed Khamenei, Trump responded, “I don’t know, but at some point they’ll be calling me to ask who I’d like.” He quickly added that he was “only being a little sarcastic.”
The comments came after weeks of escalating rhetoric from the White House as the administration pursued negotiations aimed at constraining Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. Trump had repeatedly suggested that military action remained under consideration if diplomacy failed.
“We have a big decision to make. You know that. Not easy, not easy. We have a very big decision to make,” Trump said during a visit Friday to Corpus Christi, Texas. “I’d rather do it the peaceful way. But they’re very difficult people, I want to tell you that, they’re very dangerous people, very difficult people.”
Khamenei’s reported death, if confirmed, would mark one of the most consequential leadership losses in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. He succeeded Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and consolidated power over decades, guiding Iran through regional conflicts, economic sanctions and contentious nuclear negotiations with Western powers.
The potential elimination of Iran’s top cleric raises immediate questions about succession and stability within the Islamic Republic. Iran’s constitution assigns the Assembly of Experts the responsibility of appointing a new supreme leader, but no publicly acknowledged successor had been formally designated. Analysts say the absence of a clear transition plan could heighten tensions within the clerical establishment and among security forces.
At the same time, Iran has historically responded to external military pressure by rallying nationalist sentiment. While Trump portrayed the strikes as a turning point for the Iranian public, it remains unclear whether domestic unrest would follow or whether state institutions would tighten their grip.
The broader regional implications are also uncertain. Iran maintains a network of allied militias across the Middle East, and retaliation could extend beyond direct missile exchanges. Oil markets and global shipping lanes, particularly the Strait of Hormuz, are closely watched amid fears of further escalation.
As of Saturday evening, Iranian state media had not acknowledged Khamenei’s death. Without confirmation from Tehran, Trump’s declaration leaves a significant gap between U.S. assertions and official Iranian statements.
The situation remains fluid, with military operations and diplomatic responses still unfolding across the region.
Explosions tore through the heart of the Middle East’s most stable and prosperous capitals Saturday, transforming the glittering skylines of Dubai, the strategic facilities of Bahrain, the transportation hubs of Kuwait, and the northern territories of Jordan into smoking battlegrounds as Iranian retaliation for U.S.-Israeli strikes dragged previously insulated Gulf nations into a rapidly metastasizing regional war.
The thunderous detonations shattered decades of carefully maintained neutrality and security across Gulf monarchies that had invested fortunes building reputations as safe havens for international business, tourism, and financial services. Within hours, those investments lay threatened as missiles and drones struck civilian hotels, military installations, airports, and residential towers in coordinated Iranian attacks that crossed red lines Tehran had historically respected.
Iranian missiles slammed into Dubai’s world-renowned Fairmont hotel on the opulent Palm Jumeirah peninsula shortly after midday, setting the five-star luxury property ablaze and sending terrified residents scrambling for safety as their gleaming metropolis became a war zone. Social media footage captured flames erupting near the hotel’s entrance as four people sustained injuries—images that instantly circulated globally, demolishing Dubai’s carefully cultivated image as an oasis of stability surrounded by Middle Eastern chaos.
“Everyone is very scared,” one Dubai resident conveyed as explosions echoed across the city and air defense systems struggled to intercept incoming projectiles. “There is footage of missile interceptions all over the city. I am packing a suitcase just in case … not that we can leave, because airspace is closed. It is the thing we have all been frightened about happening, and now it has.”
The scenes represented nightmares Gulf leaders had worked desperately to prevent—their modern cities transformed overnight from showcases of development and prosperity into targets in conflicts they had attempted remaining neutral within. The attacks exposed the vulnerability of nations that had bet their futures on economic diversification and international engagement while wars raged around them.
In Bahrain, the small island nation hosting America’s Fifth Fleet headquarters, an Iranian drone deliberately flew into a high-rise building in what appeared to be a targeted strike, detonating and engulfing the skyscraper in flames that illuminated Manama’s skyline. The spectacular explosion sent residents fleeing as burning debris rained onto streets below, creating panic in a capital unaccustomed to combat.
Earlier strikes had hit Bahrain’s national security agency headquarters with missiles, demonstrating Iran’s capability to strike sensitive government facilities across the tiny nation whose strategic location in the Persian Gulf has made it invaluable to American military operations for decades. Social media footage appeared to show projectiles impacting the massive U.S. Naval Forces Central Command installation—headquarters of the Fifth Fleet that patrols vital shipping lanes through which one-fifth of global petroleum supplies transit daily.
While U.S. officials acknowledged some infrastructure damage at the Fifth Fleet headquarters, they maintained that no American casualties resulted from the Iranian bombardment. However, the successful strikes on the heavily fortified naval facility demonstrated that even America’s most protected Middle Eastern installations remained vulnerable to Iranian missile and drone capabilities that have advanced substantially over recent years.
Kuwait experienced its own trauma as a drone crashed into the nation’s primary airport, wounding several employees and damaging critical aviation infrastructure that serves as a vital hub connecting the Arabian Peninsula to global air routes. The assault forced immediate flight cancellations and sent travelers fleeing terminal buildings as sirens wailed and emergency responders converged on the facility.
The airport strike represented particularly ominous escalation, targeting civilian transportation infrastructure rather than military installations and raising prospects that commercial aviation across the Gulf region could become collateral damage in the expanding conflict. Airlines immediately began reassessing whether Gulf airports remained safe for operations, threatening economic disruption far beyond immediate combat effects.
Jordan, the Hashemite Kingdom that has maintained delicate balancing acts between Western allies and regional powers throughout decades of Middle Eastern turbulence, found itself caught in the crossfire as explosions rocked its territory. Fires blazed across the northern city of Irbid as missile debris from Iranian projectiles intercepted by Jordanian and Israeli air defenses fell from the sky and ignited, transforming residential neighborhoods into danger zones.
Jordan’s General Command military source told NBC News that two Iranian ballistic missiles targeting Israel or U.S. facilities had been shot down over Jordanian airspace, with flaming wreckage scattering across populated areas. The kingdom—which shares borders with Israel, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia—suddenly confronted the reality of becoming a battlefield in conflicts it had worked assiduously to avoid.
The attacks on Dubai, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Jordan represented a dramatic expansion of Iranian military operations beyond historical boundaries. In previous confrontations between Tehran and Western powers or Israel, Iran had generally refrained from directly striking Gulf Arab nations despite hosting substantial American military presence, apparently calculating that attacking oil-rich monarchies risked alienating potential diplomatic intermediaries and provoking military responses the Islamic Republic preferred avoiding.
Saturday’s violence demolished that restraint as Iranian missiles and drones struck multiple Gulf capitals in what Tehran characterized as self-defense against American bases but which inevitably endangered civilian populations and infrastructure across nations that had attempted maintaining cordial relations with both Iran and the United States.
The United Arab Emirates, which includes Dubai among its seven emirates, announced that at least one person died in Abu Dhabi from falling debris following an Iranian strike—the first confirmed civilian fatality from attacks on Gulf territories. The death underscored how rapidly the expanding conflict was producing casualties among populations far from the epicenters of U.S.-Israeli-Iranian confrontation.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps declared via state television that it had targeted “the headquarters of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, other U.S. bases in Qatar and the UAE, as well as military and security centers.” The announcement confirmed that Iranian military planners had deliberately selected targets across multiple Gulf nations rather than concentrating retaliation exclusively on Israel or specific American installations.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Gulf governments “we have no intention to attack them but we are actually attacking the American bases in the act of self-defence.” However, the strikes on Dubai’s Fairmont hotel—a civilian luxury property far from military facilities—and Kuwait’s commercial airport directly contradicted claims of limiting attacks to military targets, exposing the hollowness of Iranian assurances.
Qatar’s Ministry of Defense confirmed intercepting a third wave of Iranian attacks targeting its territory, while Bahraini authorities reported multiple strikes against both military and civilian locations. The small Gulf nations found their sophisticated air defense systems—purchased at enormous expense from Western suppliers precisely to prevent such scenarios—struggling to intercept the volume of incoming projectiles as Iran demonstrated capabilities exceeding previous assessments.
The attacks drew immediate condemnation from Gulf governments unaccustomed to foreign powers treating their territories as combat zones. Qatar characterized Iranian strikes as a “direct assault on national security,” while multiple Gulf states warned they possessed rights to respond militarily to sovereignty violations—raising the terrifying prospect of direct Gulf-Iranian warfare that could engulf the world’s most critical energy-producing region.
“The information and material circulating on social media do not correspond with any danger at the terminals, rather to the panic among passengers,” the Pacific Airport Group insisted regarding chaos at other regional airports, though their statement did little to calm populations watching explosions light up their cities’ skylines.
For residents across the Gulf, the violence represented the materialization of long-dreaded scenarios. Dubai residents who had spent Saturday morning enjoying beach clubs and shopping in air-conditioned malls found themselves by afternoon watching missile interceptions streak across skies they had always assumed remained safe. Bahraini families accustomed to evening strolls along Manama’s waterfront corniche instead huddled indoors as explosions echoed across their tiny island. Kuwaitis who had planned weekend travel suddenly confronted a disabled airport and closed airspace that trapped them in a conflict zone.
Gas stations across the region developed long lines within hours as residents rushed to fuel vehicles for potential evacuation, while grocery stores experienced runs on bottled water, canned goods, and other essentials as populations prepared for extended conflict. Banks witnessed increased activity as customers withdrew cash against possibilities that electronic payment systems might fail if infrastructure sustained additional damage.
The psychological impact extended beyond immediate danger. Generations of Gulf residents who had grown up insulated from the wars, revolutions, and violence that plagued surrounding regions suddenly confronted the reality that their wealth and modernity provided no immunity from conflicts sweeping the broader Middle East. The carefully constructed narrative that economic development and diplomatic engagement could maintain security collapsed as missiles fell on luxury hotels and commercial airports.
Gulf leaders faced catastrophic policy failures as explosions demonstrated that attempts remaining neutral in intensifying U.S.-Iranian confrontation had proven futile. Despite hosting substantial American military presence while maintaining economic ties with Iran and attempting to mediate between adversaries, the monarchies found themselves targeted anyway—suffering attacks that threatened their fundamental development models predicated on stability and security.
The economic implications stretched far beyond immediate damage costs. International corporations with regional headquarters in Dubai would reassess whether the city remained suitable for operations if missile attacks could occur without warning. Tourism industries that generated billions in revenue for Gulf economies faced potential collapse if travelers viewed the region as a war zone. Financial services sectors built on perceptions of Gulf stability confronted questions about whether markets could function normally amid armed conflict.
Energy markets reacted nervously to violence in the Persian Gulf region that produces approximately one-third of global petroleum supplies. While no strikes had yet targeted oil infrastructure—Gulf states’ most critical economic assets—traders recognized that if the conflict persisted or intensified, energy facilities could become targets either deliberately or accidentally, potentially disrupting supplies and spiking prices globally.
The attacks also exposed military vulnerabilities that Gulf nations had spent billions attempting to eliminate. Despite purchasing cutting-edge air defense systems, advanced fighter aircraft, and sophisticated radar networks, the small kingdoms discovered that determined adversaries could still penetrate their defenses and strike targets across their territories. The realization that massive defense expenditures could not guarantee security would force fundamental reassessments of Gulf military strategies.
Diplomatically, the explosions placed Gulf leaders in impossible positions. They faced pressure from Washington to support American operations against Iran while simultaneously needing to avoid further Iranian retaliation that could devastate their economies and threaten regime stability. Some Gulf ruling families maintain close relationships with figures like Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law who exercises substantial influence over Middle East policy, potentially giving them channels to advocate for de-escalation.
However, analysts cautioned that attacking Gulf territories might backfire for Iran by transforming previously sympathetic voices into adversaries demanding military responses. Gulf states that had attempted mediating between Washington and Tehran might instead join international coalitions against Iran if their populations demanded retaliation for sovereignty violations and civilian casualties.
As darkness fell Saturday across smoking Gulf capitals, residents confronted uncertain futures. Whether the explosions represented isolated incidents in a conflict that might quickly resolve or opening salvos in extended warfare that would transform the region remained unclear. Air raid sirens, burning buildings, and closed airspace had replaced the normalcy that Gulf populations had assumed represented permanent conditions rather than temporary privileges that could evaporate when great powers chose warfare over diplomacy.
The psychological transformation from security to vulnerability, from confidence to fear, from certainty about futures to doubts about survival marked Saturday as a historical turning point for Gulf societies. The explosions that rocked Bahrain, Dubai, Jordan, and Kuwait not only damaged buildings and killed people—they shattered illusions about immunity from Middle Eastern violence that had shaped Gulf identities and ambitions for generations.
(AP) — Israeli officials said Saturday that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed during a sweeping military operation carried out by Israel and the United States, a development that could profoundly destabilize Iran’s leadership and intensify an already expanding regional war.
Two Israeli officials, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of a formal announcement, told The Associated Press that Israel had confirmed Khamenei’s death after strikes hit his compound early Saturday. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a nationally televised address, cited “growing signs” that Khamenei had been killed when Israeli forces targeted his residence in Tehran.
There was no immediate confirmation from U.S. officials or from Iran. Earlier in the day, Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, told NBC News that Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian were alive “as far as I know,” describing the assault as “unprovoked, illegal and absolutely illegitimate.”
Khamenei, 86, succeeded Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini following the 1979 Islamic Revolution and held ultimate authority over Iran’s government, military and judiciary. As supreme leader, he commanded the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and shaped all major policy decisions in the Islamic Republic. No successor had been publicly designated.
President Donald Trump, who earlier confirmed that U.S. forces had begun “major combat operations in Iran,” urged Iranians to rise against their ruling clerics.
“When we are finished, take over your government,” Trump said in a video message. “It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
The United States military reported roughly 12 hours after the first strikes that there were no American casualties and minimal damage to U.S. installations despite what it described as “hundreds of Iranian missile and drone attacks.” U.S. targets in Iran included Revolutionary Guard command facilities, missile and drone launch sites, air defense systems and military airfields.
Image, captured by Airbus, shows multiple destroyed or heavily damaged structures within the Tehran complex of Iran’s supreme leader. Photograph: Airbus/Soar Atlas
Iranian state media, citing the Red Crescent, said at least 201 people had been killed and more than 700 wounded nationwide. In southern Iran, a girls’ school was struck, leaving at least 85 dead, according to a local governor speaking on state television. The U.S. Central Command said it was aware of the reports and reviewing them.
Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes against Israel and U.S. facilities in Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar. Israel’s military said Iran launched “dozens” of missiles, many of which were intercepted. Emergency service Magen David Adom reported 89 people lightly injured.
Saudi Arabia said an Iranian attack targeting its capital and eastern region was repelled. Bahrain reported damage to buildings near the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet headquarters in Manama. Kuwait’s civil aviation authority said a drone struck near its main airport, injuring several employees, and Jordan said it intercepted 49 drones and ballistic missiles.
Israel said it killed several senior Iranian officials in addition to Khamenei, including the commander of the Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iran’s defense minister. The Israeli military also said the secretary of Iran’s Security Council was among those killed. Neither the United States nor Iran publicly confirmed those claims.
The U.N. Security Council scheduled an emergency meeting Saturday afternoon. The International Atomic Energy Agency said on X that it was closely monitoring developments and had detected “no evidence of radiological impact.”
Iran requested an urgent session of the IAEA Board of Governors over what it described, through a letter posted by the semiofficial Tasnim news agency, as threats to safeguarded nuclear facilities.
The operation unfolded during the holy month of Ramadan and marked the second time in eight months that the Trump administration has ordered direct military action against Iran amid stalled nuclear negotiations. The most recent round of talks collapsed Thursday.
Flights were disrupted across the Middle East, and air defense systems were activated over several capitals. Air traffic slowed across the Persian Gulf, raising concerns over the safety of shipping lanes, particularly the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a third of the world’s seaborne oil exports passed in 2025.
If confirmed, Khamenei’s death would represent the most consequential decapitation of Iranian leadership since the founding of the Islamic Republic. Unlike the targeted killing of military commanders in past confrontations, the elimination of the supreme leader strikes at the core of Iran’s theocratic structure.
Iran’s constitution provides for an Assembly of Experts to appoint a new leader, but the absence of a clearly identified successor could ignite internal power struggles between clerical authorities and the Revolutionary Guard. The Guard, already central to Iran’s security and economic systems, may assert greater authority in the transition.
Even so, regime change is not assured. Iran’s leadership has historically consolidated power during external crises, and nationalist sentiment could blunt calls for uprising despite Trump’s appeal. Analysts note that previous domestic protest movements were met with harsh crackdowns. The Human Rights Activists News Agency has documented thousands of deaths in recent unrest, underscoring the risks for demonstrators.
Regionally, Iran retains influence through allied militias in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Retaliatory strikes may expand beyond direct missile exchanges, potentially targeting energy infrastructure or maritime routes. Any sustained disruption to the Strait of Hormuz could reverberate through global energy markets.
Diplomatically, the joint U.S.-Israel campaign marks a dramatic shift from containment to overt confrontation. Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, who has mediated nuclear talks, said on X that renewed military action undermined active negotiations and warned that neither U.S. interests nor global peace would benefit.
Domestically in the United States, some Democrats criticized Trump for proceeding without congressional authorization, while White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said Republican and Democratic leaders had been briefed in advance.
As night fell, Israeli forces said new strikes were underway against missile launchers and air defense systems in central Iran. Exchanges of fire continued, signaling that the fallout from Saturday’s operation may shape the Middle East’s political landscape for years to come.
President Donald Trump announced early Saturday that the United States military has begun what he described as “major combat operations in Iran,” confirming American participation in a widening military campaign alongside Israel amid escalating tensions over Tehran’s nuclear program.
“A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran,” Trump said in a video posted at 2:30 a.m. Eastern on Truth Social. He framed the action as defensive, declaring that the objective is to protect Americans by eliminating what he characterized as imminent threats posed by Iran’s government.
“It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular my administration, that this terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said. “They can never have a nuclear weapon.”
Two U.S. officials told NBC News that the operation is being carried out from both air and sea. One official indicated that a broad array of fighter aircraft are involved. Another said American forces are striking Iranian military and security installations. Three U.S. officials said Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from Navy vessels toward targets inside Iran.
The Associated Press separately confirmed that the United States and Israel initiated coordinated strikes Saturday, with one apparent early target near offices associated with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran.
Iranian state media acknowledged multiple explosions across the country. Blasts were reported outside Tehran and in several cities, including Qom, Hamedan, Kermanshah, Karaj, Tabriz, Ilam and on Qeshm Island in the Persian Gulf. Iran’s semi-official FARS news agency said detonations were heard throughout the capital, while images broadcast on state television showed thick plumes of smoke rising over parts of Tehran.
Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency indicated that Iranian airspace had been closed.
An Israeli defense ministry spokesperson said Israel initiated what it called a preemptive strike aimed at removing threats to the country. “The State of Israel has launched a preemptive strike against Iran to remove threats against the State of Israel,” the spokesperson said, cautioning that retaliatory missile and drone attacks against Israeli territory could follow.
Sirens sounded across Israel as the strikes unfolded. The Israeli military said the alerts were intended to prepare civilians for the possibility of incoming projectiles. Israeli television networks shifted coverage to bomb shelters as much of the country’s streets appeared largely empty.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz publicly acknowledged the offensive as smoke billowed over Tehran.
A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of ongoing operations, told NBC News that American forces are actively participating in the strikes with Israel and that the campaign remains underway.
In his address, Trump cautioned that conflict could bring American casualties, particularly if Iran retaliates.
“My administration is taking every possible step to minimize the risk to U.S. personnel in the region,” Trump said. “Even so, the Iranian regime seeks to kill. The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties. That often happens in war.”
There have been no immediate indications of American deaths or injuries linked to the initial wave of strikes.
Trump’s announcement follows months of mounting tension tied to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. During his recent State of the Union address, the president accused Tehran of pursuing “sinister nuclear ambitions.” The United States had been engaged in nuclear discussions with Iran, but the diplomatic track appeared increasingly strained in recent weeks.
The administration has significantly bolstered U.S. military assets in the Middle East. A second carrier strike group, the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group, was ordered to the region earlier this month. The USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group was already operating nearby following a deployment decision announced Feb. 13.
NBC News reported that the U.S. ambassador to Israel circulated guidance urging Americans who wished to depart to do so “TODAY,” an email that NBC said it reviewed and that was first disclosed by The New York Times.
Iranian lawmaker Ebrahim Azizi issued a defiant message on social media after the strikes. “We warned you!” he wrote. “Now you’ve started down a path whose end is no longer in your hands.”
Iranian media outlets confirmed at least two strike sites in central Tehran. Additional blasts were reported near maritime facilities, including Asaluyeh and the port of Chabahar, suggesting attention to naval capabilities.
Eric Schouten, chief executive of the Netherlands-based Dyami security intelligence firm, told The Associated Press that the strikes appear to be “preparatory shaping actions.” He said disabling radar systems, surface-to-air missile batteries and command nodes would typically precede a broader air campaign intended to secure air superiority.
“The broader pattern suggests preparatory shaping actions,” Schouten said. He described the operation as consistent with the opening phase of a coordinated military campaign rather than a symbolic show of force.
The launch of major combat operations marks one of the most significant escalations between Washington and Tehran in decades. While U.S. administrations have previously conducted targeted strikes — including the 2020 killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani — a sustained joint campaign with Israel aimed at degrading Iranian military infrastructure carries far-reaching implications.
If the operation extends over several days, as two U.S. officials suggested to NBC News, it could test Iran’s capacity for asymmetric retaliation. Tehran has historically relied on proxy forces across the region, including groups in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, to respond indirectly to Israeli and American actions.
The mobilization of two carrier strike groups signals both deterrence and preparation for escalation. Such a force posture not only enables extended air operations but also communicates readiness to defend U.S. assets and allies against counterstrikes.
The strikes also arrive at a delicate geopolitical moment. Energy markets could react sharply if maritime routes in the Persian Gulf are disrupted. Qeshm Island’s proximity to the Strait of Hormuz — through which a significant share of global oil flows — heightens concerns over potential shipping interference.
Domestically, Trump’s decision underscores a hard-line approach that prioritizes coercive leverage over diplomatic compromise in confronting Iran’s nuclear trajectory. Whether the campaign succeeds in constraining Tehran’s capabilities without triggering broader regional war remains uncertain.
For now, U.S. and Israeli officials have signaled determination to continue operations as events rapidly unfold across the Middle East.
TUNIS, Tunisia (BN24) — A Tunisian appeals court on Thursday sentenced former Prime Minister Ali Larayedh to 24 years in prison over allegations that he facilitated the travel of Tunisian fighters to Syria during the country’s civil war, in a case that has deepened political divisions in the North African nation.
The ruling, delivered late Thursday by the Appeals Court of Tunis, reduced by 10 years the 34-year prison term previously imposed in a lower court decision in May 2025. Prosecutors had sought the 34-year sentence, which the trial court had upheld before the case moved to appeal.
Larayedh, who served as Tunisia’s prime minister from 2013 to 2014 in the turbulent period following the Arab Spring uprising, has consistently denied wrongdoing. The case — widely known in Tunisia as the “Tasfir” case, using the Arabic term referring to travel for jihad — centers on accusations that officials during his tenure enabled or failed to prevent the departure of Tunisian nationals to join armed groups in Syria.
The appeals chamber upheld Larayedh’s conviction while reducing the overall sentence. Court officials did not immediately release a detailed explanation of the judgment.
Seven other defendants were sentenced in the same proceeding, receiving prison terms ranging from three to 28 years, according to court findings announced Thursday.
Larayedh’s political party, the Islamist opposition movement Ennahda, criticized the ruling, characterizing it as politically driven. Party representatives argued that the proceedings lacked conclusive evidence and described the prosecution as part of a broader campaign targeting opposition figures.
The former prime minister’s initial trial, held last year, was marked by controversy, including disputes over the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence presented. Defense attorneys questioned whether prosecutors had established a direct link between Larayedh’s official actions and the departure of Tunisian fighters to Syria.
Tunisia was one of the largest sources of foreign fighters during the height of the Syrian conflict. Thousands of Tunisians are believed to have traveled to Syria and Iraq in the early and mid-2010s, raising long-standing questions about state oversight, border controls and the role of political actors during a period of fragile democratic transition.
Larayedh led the government during a particularly volatile chapter in Tunisia’s post-revolution history, as the country struggled to stabilize its institutions following the 2011 uprising that toppled longtime President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. His term coincided with mounting security challenges, including political assassinations and the growing influence of extremist networks.
The “Tasfir” case has become one of the most politically sensitive judicial proceedings in Tunisia in recent years. Critics say it reflects widening tensions between the current authorities and opposition parties, particularly Ennahda, which once dominated Tunisia’s parliament and led several coalition governments after the revolution.
Government officials have maintained that the judiciary is acting independently and that the case is rooted in national security concerns rather than political calculations.
While the court’s ruling addresses specific allegations tied to the Syria conflict, the broader implications extend well beyond Larayedh’s personal fate.
Tunisia’s democratic trajectory has faced significant strain in recent years, with institutional reforms and political restructuring reshaping the balance of power. Legal actions against prominent political figures have drawn scrutiny from domestic and international observers concerned about due process and judicial independence.
The “Tasfir” proceedings also reopen unresolved questions about accountability during the chaotic years following the Arab Spring. At that time, Tunisia’s security institutions were undergoing rapid transformation, and oversight mechanisms were still evolving. Critics of the prosecution argue that decisions made during that period should be understood within the broader context of state fragility rather than viewed solely through a criminal lens.
Supporters of the verdict, however, contend that the scale of Tunisian recruitment into foreign conflicts warranted a thorough reckoning. They argue that any official negligence or complicity must be addressed to restore public trust in state institutions.
The reduction of Larayedh’s sentence on appeal may signal a degree of judicial recalibration, though it does not fundamentally alter the conviction itself. Legal analysts note that appeals courts often reassess sentencing proportionality while leaving core findings intact.
Beyond the courtroom, the ruling is likely to reverberate across Tunisia’s political landscape. Ennahda, once a central force in the country’s post-revolution governance, has seen its influence diminish amid shifting public sentiment and structural political changes. The conviction of a former prime minister further complicates the party’s efforts to reposition itself.
The case may also affect Tunisia’s international image. During the early years after the Arab Spring, the country was widely regarded as the most promising example of democratic transition in the region. Ongoing legal battles involving high-profile political figures risk reinforcing perceptions of instability or political polarization.
At the same time, the proceedings underscore Tunisia’s struggle to reconcile security imperatives with civil liberties. The Syrian conflict drew thousands of foreign recruits from across North Africa and Europe, and governments throughout the region continue to grapple with the legal and political consequences.
For Larayedh, the appeals court’s decision marks a significant chapter in a legal saga that has unfolded over several years. Whether further legal recourse remains available was not immediately clear.
As Tunisia navigates a complex political era shaped by post-revolution legacies, security concerns and evolving governance structures, the outcome of the “Takfir” case stands as a defining moment not only for a former prime minister, but for the country’s broader debate over accountability, justice and the meaning of its democratic experiment.
CAIRO (BN24) — More than 100 charity kitchen workers have been killed since Sudan’s civil war erupted in April 2023, according to accounts gathered by The Associated Press and data compiled by the Aid Workers Security database, which monitors major incidents affecting humanitarian personnel worldwide.
The toll highlights the growing risks faced by civilians running community-led food programs in a conflict that has devastated much of the country and pushed parts of the western Darfur region toward famine.
Enas Abab, 19, said her father was among those killed in the North Darfur capital of al-Fasher. She recounted that after fighters from the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces seized control of the city in October, they detained him and demanded ransom.
When relatives said they were unable to pay, the family was later informed that he had been killed.
“He worked at the charity kitchen from the beginning of the war,” Abab said. “He distributed food and drink to people in the camps and gave medicine to those with high blood pressure and diabetes.”
The RSF has been battling Sudan’s military since April 2023 in a power struggle that has fractured the country. Al-Fasher became a focal point of intense fighting as the RSF laid siege to the city, restricting supplies before storming it.
United Nations officials have indicated that only about 40% of al-Fasher’s 260,000 residents managed to escape the assault alive, with thousands wounded. The fate of many others remains unclear.
Abab said she still does not know where her father’s body is. A month after his death, her husband vanished. Fearing for her safety, she fled north with her young son and sought refuge in Egypt.
Farouk Abkar, 60, also worked at a community kitchen in al-Fasher, distributing sacks of grain at Zam Zam camp, roughly 15 kilometers (9 miles) south of the city. He described surviving drone strikes and armed raids before fleeing.
He recounted an attack by RSF fighters on the camp kitchen. “One of them started hitting me,” Abkar said. “When I tried to run, he grabbed me and punched me in the face. Some of my teeth were knocked out.”
Abkar said he escaped under cover of darkness, walking for 10 days with his daughter until they reached safety. Now living in Egypt, he shares a cramped apartment with at least 10 other Sudanese refugees and says he cannot afford medical treatment.
The Aid Workers Security database, which tracks serious incidents involving humanitarian personnel globally, has documented the mounting toll on those working in Sudan’s grassroots relief networks. While precise figures are difficult to verify in conflict zones, the database and interviews with affected families indicate that more than 100 kitchen workers have been killed since the war began.
In Darfur and other areas experiencing heavy fighting, food shortages have intensified. Markets have collapsed, farmland has been abandoned and supply routes have been cut off. Famine conditions are spreading in some districts, according to humanitarian agencies.
Community-run kitchens have become critical lifelines, often providing the only reliable source of meals. Operated by volunteers and funded through local donations or diaspora support, they serve displaced families sheltering in camps and neighborhoods shattered by shelling.
Yet the very visibility of the kitchens has exposed workers to danger. Aid volunteers have been abducted, robbed, detained, beaten and killed. Ransom demands, often ranging between $2,000 and $5,000, have been imposed on families, with sums sometimes escalating after partial payments are made, activists and relatives said.
The United Nations has stated that it remains unclear whether kitchen workers are targeted specifically because of their humanitarian roles or because of perceived ties to one of the warring factions.
Activists say the prominence of kitchen volunteers in their communities may make them conspicuous targets. Their work, which requires organizing food distribution and interacting with large numbers of displaced residents, can draw scrutiny in areas controlled by armed groups.
Despite the threats, many kitchens continue operating. For communities cut off from formal aid channels, they represent not only sustenance but also solidarity places where neighbors share information, pool resources and offer emotional support.
Sudan’s civil war, pitting the RSF against the national army, has produced one of the world’s gravest humanitarian crises. Millions have been displaced internally or across borders. Infrastructure has crumbled, hospitals have closed and agricultural cycles have been disrupted.
The targeting deliberate or incidental of grassroots relief workers underscores a broader erosion of civilian protection. International humanitarian law affords safeguards to aid personnel, but enforcement mechanisms are limited in fragmented conflicts.
The deaths of kitchen workers also illustrate how modern warfare increasingly engulfs informal civilian networks. Unlike international aid agencies, community kitchens operate without armored vehicles, security escorts or global visibility. Their volunteers are neighbors — teachers, farmers, parents — who step into relief roles out of necessity.
The impact extends beyond immediate casualties. Each killing can shutter a food distribution point, depriving hundreds of families of daily meals. In famine-prone areas, the loss of even one kitchen can accelerate malnutrition rates, especially among children and the elderly.
For refugees who have fled to countries like Egypt, trauma compounds economic hardship. Survivors often arrive with untreated injuries and limited means to access healthcare. Host countries, already facing resource constraints, struggle to accommodate the influx.
Diplomatic efforts to broker a ceasefire between Sudan’s warring factions have repeatedly faltered. Without sustained humanitarian corridors and security guarantees, civilian-led relief initiatives will remain vulnerable.
The resilience of Sudan’s community kitchens, however, reflects a broader pattern of local self-organization in times of state collapse. Even amid bombardment and siege, volunteers continue to cook, distribute supplies and care for the sick.
Whether the international community can translate concern into effective protection remains uncertain. For families like Abab’s and Abkar’s, the cost of inaction is already measured in lives lost and in kitchens that have fallen silent where meals were once shared.
NEW YORK (BN24) — The U.S. housing market has shifted decisively in favor of buyers, with sellers now outnumbering buyers by 44% nationwide, according to a new analysis from Redfin.
In January, the country had roughly 600,000 more home sellers than buyers, marking one of the largest imbalances recorded since the brokerage began tracking the metric in 2013. The gap is second only to December 2025, when sellers exceeded buyers by 45%, the firm’s data show.
By Redfin’s definition, any market where sellers exceed buyers by more than 10% qualifies as a buyer’s market. Using that benchmark, the United States has remained in buyer-friendly territory since May 2024.
The shift gives prospective buyers greater negotiating power. When listings significantly exceed demand, purchasers can take more time, request concessions and avoid bidding wars that characterized much of the pandemic-era housing boom.
Redfin estimates there were about 1.36 million buyers in January, down 1% from December and 8% from a year earlier — the lowest level recorded in the dataset. The number of sellers also fell 1% month over month to 1.96 million, marking the sharpest monthly decline since June 2023 and the smallest overall seller count since February 2025. Compared with January last year, however, the number of sellers was up 2%.
The imbalance reflects a mix of economic pressures and shifting consumer sentiment. Elevated mortgage rates, persistently high home prices, layoffs in certain industries and broader political and economic uncertainty have discouraged many would-be buyers from entering the market.
At the same time, some homeowners have removed listings after failing to secure offers, while others have opted against selling after seeing nearby homes close below asking prices.
The New York Post cited Redfin’s findings in its coverage, noting that the current spread between sellers and buyers is historically wide.
Despite the nationwide buyer advantage, local conditions vary widely.
Only five of the 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas qualified as sellers’ markets in January, meaning buyers outnumbered sellers in those locations.
Newark, New Jersey, had 31% fewer sellers than buyers, making it the strongest seller’s market among major metros. Nassau County, New York, followed with 29% fewer sellers than buyers. Milwaukee and Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, each registered 26% fewer sellers, while New Brunswick, New Jersey, showed a 17% seller shortfall.
In Milwaukee, constrained supply continues to drive competition. Local Redfin Premier agent W.J. Eulberg attributed the tight conditions to declining mortgage rates and limited inventory.
“Two things are fueling Milwaukee’s seller’s market: a drop in mortgage rates and a lack of inventory,” Eulberg said in Redfin’s analysis. “Mortgage rates are lower than they were six months ago and a year ago, which has brought buyers back into the fold. And while listings are creeping back up, we still have less than three months of supply. That means buyers don’t have a lot of homes to choose from, which is driving up prices and competition.”
Milwaukee posted an 11% year-over-year increase in median sale price in January — the largest gain among the top 50 metro areas.
Across the five seller-dominated markets, prices rose an average of 5% compared with a year earlier. That contrasts with a 3% annual increase in six markets deemed balanced and a 1% rise in the 39 buyer-leaning metros, suggesting that softer demand is limiting price growth in much of the country.
Many of the most buyer-friendly markets are concentrated in the South and along the West Coast. Miami recorded the widest buyer advantage, with 159% more sellers than buyers. Fort Lauderdale followed at 128%, Austin at 124%, Nashville at 120% and San Antonio at 114%.
The widening gap between sellers and buyers signals a market that is cooling, though not collapsing. Unlike the 2008 housing crisis, today’s environment is defined less by distressed sales and more by affordability constraints and cautious consumers.
Mortgage rates remain elevated compared with the record lows of 2020 and 2021, significantly increasing monthly payments. Even modest rate fluctuations can alter purchasing power by tens of thousands of dollars over the life of a loan.
At the same time, many homeowners remain locked into low-rate mortgages secured during the pandemic. That “rate lock” effect discourages selling, as moving would often mean financing a new home at a higher interest rate. The result is a paradox: inventory has improved relative to recent years, but not enough to fully rebalance supply-demand dynamics in certain regions.
The sharp decline in buyer numbers to record lows suggests a deeper affordability strain. Wage growth has not kept pace with housing costs in many metropolitan areas, limiting entry for first-time buyers. Student debt burdens and higher living expenses further constrain purchasing capacity.
For buyers who remain active, however, conditions are more favorable than at any point in the past several years. Fewer bidding wars, more price reductions and longer listing times offer opportunities to negotiate.
For sellers, the environment demands strategic pricing. Overpricing homes in a buyer’s market can result in extended time on the market and eventual price cuts, which may weaken negotiating leverage.
Looking ahead, market direction will hinge largely on interest rate trends and broader economic stability. If mortgage rates ease further, demand could recover modestly, narrowing the seller-buyer gap. Conversely, continued economic uncertainty may prolong the imbalance.
For now, Redfin’s January data underscores a clear reality: across much of the country, buyers hold the advantage — a reversal from the frenzied, seller-dominated landscape that defined the housing market just a few years ago.
ISLAMABAD (BN24) — Artillery exchanges along the volatile Pakistan Afghanistan frontier struck residential areas and a mosque this week, wounding civilians including women and children as clashes between the two neighbors intensified, residents and officials said.
People living near the disputed sections of the border described shells landing in densely populated areas, damaging homes and forcing families to flee. Community members in affected districts said the explosions shattered windows and left several civilians injured.
Authorities in Afghanistan, led by the country’s Taliban administration, acknowledged that cross-border strikes had occurred. However, officials disputed some casualty figures circulating locally and indicated that their forces had launched retaliatory operations targeting positions near the frontier.
Pakistani officials, meanwhile, asserted that their security forces responded to militant activity originating from across the border. Both sides claimed to have inflicted losses on the other’s military units, though independent verification of battlefield accounts remained unavailable.
At the center of the confrontation is Pakistan’s long-standing allegation that fighters from Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) are operating from Afghan territory. Islamabad has repeatedly accused the group of using safe havens inside Afghanistan to stage attacks against Pakistani security forces and civilians.
Afghanistan’s Taliban authorities have rejected those accusations, insisting they do not permit armed groups to use Afghan soil to target other countries. The administration in Kabul has instead blamed escalating tensions on what it describes as unilateral military actions by Pakistan along the frontier.
The border, which stretches roughly 2,600 kilometers (1,600 miles), has long been a flashpoint. Known as the Durand Line, it cuts through rugged terrain and tribal regions where communities straddle both sides. Its status has historically been disputed, contributing to recurring friction.
In recent days, key crossings have remained largely closed, disrupting commercial shipments and halting daily cross-border movement for traders, laborers and families with ties on both sides. Transporters reported long queues of trucks carrying perishable goods, while residents described shortages of essential supplies in some local markets.
Regional diplomatic initiatives aimed at defusing the crisis have so far yielded little progress. Efforts by neighboring countries to encourage dialogue have not produced a breakthrough, leaving both governments facing one of their most serious standoffs in years.
Security analysts note that relations between Islamabad and Kabul have grown increasingly strained since the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan in 2021. Initially, Pakistani officials had expressed cautious optimism about cooperation with the new authorities. But a surge in militant attacks inside Pakistan many attributed to the TTP has eroded trust.
The TTP, ideologically aligned with the Afghan Taliban but organizationally distinct, has waged an insurgency against the Pakistani state for more than a decade. Islamabad maintains that cross-border sanctuaries allow the group to regroup and plan operations. Kabul has consistently denied offering refuge.
Civilians living near the frontier often bear the brunt of such escalations. In villages affected by the recent shelling, families sought shelter overnight amid fears of renewed bombardment. Local elders appealed for restraint, warning that prolonged fighting would compound humanitarian pressures in already fragile districts.
Neither government released comprehensive casualty figures. Military spokespeople on both sides highlighted what they described as defensive measures and emphasized their readiness to safeguard territorial integrity.
The latest confrontation underscores the precarious security dynamic shaping Pakistan–Afghanistan relations. While cross-border skirmishes are not unprecedented, the scale and intensity of recent exchanges point to deepening mistrust.
For Pakistan, curbing militant violence has become a pressing domestic priority. A rise in attacks targeting police and military personnel has fueled public concern and placed pressure on authorities to respond decisively. Linking these incidents to alleged cross-border networks strengthens Islamabad’s justification for tougher border enforcement but also risks provoking retaliatory measures.
For Afghanistan’s Taliban administration, the accusations carry diplomatic and economic consequences. Kabul is seeking broader international recognition and relief from economic isolation. Persistent claims that militant groups operate freely within its territory complicate those ambitions.
The closure of border crossings highlights another layer of vulnerability: economic interdependence. Afghanistan relies heavily on trade routes through Pakistan for access to seaports, fuel and consumer goods. Prolonged disruptions could worsen inflationary pressures and humanitarian strain inside Afghanistan, where millions already depend on aid.
At the same time, Pakistan’s border regions face economic fallout when trade halts. Small businesses, transport workers and daily wage earners depend on the steady flow of goods and people. Interruptions can quickly ripple through local economies.
Diplomatically, the standoff presents a test for regional mediation mechanisms. Neighboring states have a vested interest in preventing sustained instability that could spill across borders. However, without direct bilateral trust-building measures, external mediation may have limited impact.
Strategically, the clashes reveal the enduring volatility of the frontier itself. The mountainous terrain complicates surveillance and control, and overlapping tribal affiliations blur jurisdictional lines. Even minor incidents can escalate rapidly amid mutual suspicion.
The immediate question is whether both governments will recalibrate to prevent further civilian harm. Historically, periods of heightened tension have alternated with fragile truces. Yet the underlying grievances militant sanctuaries, border recognition and political distrust — remain unresolved.
As artillery fire subsides and diplomatic channels continue behind closed doors, communities along the frontier confront an uncertain future. For residents who share ethnic, familial and commercial ties across the boundary, the geopolitical dispute is not an abstract matter of statecraft but a daily reality measured in safety, mobility and livelihood.
Whether this episode marks a temporary spike or a more sustained deterioration in relations may depend on the willingness of Islamabad and Kabul to move from public recriminations to practical security coordination a step that has proved elusive in the past.
NYON, Switzerland (BN24) — The Round of 16 matchups for the 2025/26 UEFA Champions League were finalized Friday following the official draw at UEFA headquarters in Nyon, producing a series of high-profile clashes among Europe’s elite clubs.
Pics: Kalshi
The knockout bracket features heavyweight encounters, renewed rivalries and a historic debut appearance at this stage of the competition, setting the tone for what promises to be a compelling run toward the final in May.
Among the standout pairings, Manchester City will once again face Real Madrid, continuing a recent pattern of meetings between the English and Spanish giants in the latter stages of the tournament. The two clubs have developed one of the defining rivalries of modern European football, frequently colliding in decisive knockout rounds.
Defending champions Paris Saint-Germain were drawn against Premier League side Chelsea, a tie that pits continental holders against one of England’s most resurgent squads.
In another marquee fixture, Galatasaray will meet Liverpool, while Italy’s Atalanta take on German champions Bayern Munich.
English representation remains strong in this year’s knockout field. Newcastle United are set to face Spanish powerhouse Barcelona, and Tottenham Hotspur will clash with Atlético Madrid.
Elsewhere, Norway’s Bodø/Glimt have reached the Champions League knockout stage for the first time in their history and will face Portugal’s Sporting CP. Meanwhile, Bayer Leverkusen were paired with Arsenal in what observers view as one of the most evenly matched contests of the round.
The confirmed ties are:
Paris Saint-Germain vs Chelsea Galatasaray vs Liverpool Real Madrid vs Manchester City Atalanta vs Bayern Munich Newcastle United vs Barcelona Atlético Madrid vs Tottenham Hotspur Bodø/Glimt vs Sporting CP Bayer Leverkusen vs Arsenal
The Round of 16 will be contested over two legs, scheduled for March 10/11 and March 17/18, 2026. Kickoff times are set for 18:45 CET and 21:00 CET.
The quarterfinals will take place April 7/8 and April 14/15, 2026, with matches beginning at 21:00 CET. Semifinal fixtures are slated for April 28/29 and May 5/6, also at 21:00 CET.
The final is scheduled for May 30, 2026, with kickoff at 18:00 CET.
This year’s bracket underscores the competitive depth of the modern Champions League. Several ties resemble matchups more commonly associated with semifinals or finals.
Manchester City’s latest encounter with Real Madrid continues a rivalry that has shaped recent editions of the competition. Tactical evolution, squad depth and managerial adjustments will again be decisive factors. The margin between the two sides has historically been narrow, often determined by moments of individual brilliance.
PSG’s meeting with Chelsea also carries broader significance. As defending champions, PSG face immediate pressure to assert dominance against a Premier League side that thrives in transitional play and high-tempo matches. Chelsea’s European pedigree ensures the contest will test PSG’s defensive resilience.
Arsenal’s pairing with Bayer Leverkusen could prove pivotal for both clubs’ continental ambitions. Leverkusen’s disciplined structure and attacking efficiency contrast with Arsenal’s possession-based approach, suggesting a tactically balanced affair.
For Bodø/Glimt, the knockout debut marks a milestone not only for the club but also for Norwegian football. Advancing beyond the group stage reflects the increasing competitiveness of smaller-market teams capable of leveraging tactical organization and home advantage.
The broader picture reveals strong English participation, reinforcing the Premier League’s financial and competitive influence in European football. However, Spanish and German clubs remain formidable, preserving the traditional power balance within UEFA competitions.
As the tournament moves into its elimination phase, squad rotation, injury management and fixture congestion will shape outcomes. With domestic leagues intensifying simultaneously, maintaining peak performance across competitions will be critical.
The 2025/26 Round of 16 promises not only elite matchups but also narrative continuity — rivalries renewed, newcomers emerging and established powers defending legacy. With Europe’s most prestigious club trophy at stake, the path to May’s final is now clearly defined.
