Read the daily news to learn English

Israel’s planned expansion of Lebanon ground campaign fuels fears of prolonged occupation

Israel’s announcement on Monday of a ground campaign in new areas of southern Lebanon is fuelling fears of a prolonged occupation among hundreds of thousands of displaced Lebanese. Concerns intensified after Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, drawing comparisons with Gaza, warned displaced Lebanese forced from their homes would not be allowed to return until the safety of Israelis near the border was guaranteed, remarks that appeared to suggest the presence of Israeli troops could become prolonged. “Hundreds of thousands of Shi’ite residents of southern Lebanon who have evacuated or are evacuating their homes in southern Lebanon and Beirut will not return to areas south of the Litani line until the safety of northern residents is ensured,” Katz said in a statement. ‘‘Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and I have instructed the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] to destroy the terror infrastructure in the contact villages near the border in Lebanon,” he added, “just as was done against Hamas in Rafah, Beit Hanoun and the terror tunnels in Gaza”. Under the November 2024 ceasefire agreement, Hezbollah was to pull back from southern Lebanon and the Lebanese military was to take over, in exchange for Israel ceasing its bombardment of the country. Israel said Lebanon never upheld its part of the deal, and it continued to carry out near-daily air strikes against what it said were Hezbollah positions and weapons. The new war began when Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel on 2 March, prompting Israel to launch a campaign across Lebanon. Since then, the conflict has escalated sharply and has already pushed beyond the parameters of the 13-month Israel-Hezbollah war of 2023-24. Israel has displaced about 1 million people from wide swathes of the country. Reports indicate more than 800 people have been killed, with some reports citing 826 to more than 850 deaths since the escalation began. Ramzi Kaiss, a Lebanon researcher for Human Rights Watch, said Katz’s statement raised the risk of forced displacement, a war crime. “Preventing civilians from returning to their homes in an area that is nearly 10% of Lebanon’s territory, until some vague ‘safety’ standard is secured, would be unlawful and further raises the risk of forced displacement, which would be a war crime,” said Kaiss. To the hundreds of thousands of displaced residents of villages south of the Litani River, the Israeli defence minister’s statement brought fears of an occupation similar to the one they experienced from 1982 to 2000, when the Israeli military occupied the area. “God forbid we return to the days of the previous border-strip occupation. We’re afraid of that, honestly. It took us years before we were able to return to Naqoura. To return to that would be very difficult,” said Abbas Awadeh, a member of the municipality of Naqoura who has himself been displaced. Virtually everyone has fled Naqoura, a beach resort town that sits directly on the Lebanese-Israeli border, since the Israeli military issued a displacement order last week. The IDF ordered all residents south of the Litani to “temporarily” move north on 4 March ahead of what it said were strikes on Hezbollah targets, followed by two more sweeping displacement orders in different areas of the country. A prolonged displacement was the worst fear for those residents, many of whom are now sleeping on the street. “People really want to return to their towns, because the situation is very difficult. Sometimes a person can’t even secure food. Displacement is humiliating,” said Awadeh. Far-right figures within Israel’s governing coalition have increasingly called for harsher military action against Hezbollah, with some advocating the creation of a security buffer inside southern Lebanon. The finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, warned earlier this month that Beirut’s southern suburbs could be reduced to something resembling Khan Younis in Gaza, a reference to the widespread destruction caused during Israel’s war with Hamas. ‘‘The ground operation in southern Lebanon is an expression of Israel’s new security doctrine in the aftermath of October 7,’’ says Prof Yagil Levy, the head of the Open University Institute for the Study of Civil-Military Relations in Israel. ‘‘It is unfolding the renewed occupation of parts of southern Lebanon. Yet Israel is not returning to the years 1982–2000, when it occupied part of Lebanon but was dragged into a guerrilla war whose casualties forced it to withdraw. This time, it seizes territory and removes the population, thereby ensuring full freedom of action and reducing the risk of guerrilla operations emerging from villages.’’ Levy says that, in this spirit, a perimeter was established in the Gaza Strip, which currently covers about half of its territory, and that ‘‘now the idea of the perimeter is also being applied in Lebanon.’’ ‘‘Israel regards this new security doctrine as feasible because the world, above all the United States, effectively accepts the principle of Israel’s right to absolute security, and thus implicitly accepts the principle that an Arab civilian population constitutes a form of risk,’’ he adds. ‘‘This doctrine is also taking shape in the West Bank, as reflected in the more flexible rules of engagement and the authority given to settler militias to remove Palestinian civilian communities.’’ According to analysts, Israel’s expanding military operations in southern Lebanon appear increasingly aimed at reshaping the balance of power ahead of any diplomatic settlement. While international efforts to halt the fighting continue, Israel’s advance into Lebanese territory may give it greater leverage in negotiations by establishing new facts on the ground. Despite the blanket displacement order, the Israeli military was not forcing all villages to vacate. Certain border villages, particularly those with large Christian populations, were not being forced to do so. Selective displacement was a parallel to the 1982 occupation, when Israel allowed residents of certain Christian or Sunni villages to remain and even issued work permits for residents to work inside Israel proper. Seven villages along the eastern Lebanese-Israeli border, the so-called Arqoub area, decided to remain in their homes after officials received calls from the Israeli military telling them they could stay. “They [the Israeli military] said: ‘Don’t leave your homes, don’t go anywhere, don’t get involved and don’t allow any strangers to come close to you,” said Qassem al-Adiri, the mayor of Kfar Shouba, one of the villages in the Arqoub area. The Israeli military also called municipal officials in Rmeish, a Maronite Christian village on the western Lebanese-Israeli border, telling them they could stay and would not be targeted, as long as they ensured no Hezbollah fighters would enter the village. After the call, all displaced people sheltering in the town were asked to leave. “We will stay in our homes as long as we are peaceful and safe and not involved in armed activity. We are outside of this conflict, we are innocent,” said al-Adiri.

European countries reject Trump’s call for help to reopen strait of Hormuz

European countries have ruled out sending warships to the strait of Hormuz, despite threats from Donald Trump that Nato faces “a very bad future” if members fail to help reopen the vital waterway. Germany ruled out participation in any military activity, including efforts to reopen the strait. “There was never a joint decision on whether to intervene. That is why the question of how Germany might contribute militarily does not arise. We will not do so,” the chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said. He added: “This Iranian regime must come to an end,” but that “based on all the experience we have gained in previous years and decades, bombing it into submission is, in all likelihood, not the right approach.” The country’s defence minister, Boris Pistorius, said: “This is not our war, we have not started it. “What does Donald Trump expect from a handful of European frigates in the strait of Hormuz that the mighty US navy cannot manage alone? This is the question I find myself asking,” Pistorius said. Keir Starmer said the UK would not be “drawn into the wider war” but was working on “a viable plan”. “Ultimately, we have to reopen the strait of Hormuz to ensure stability in the [oil] market. That is not a simple task,” said the prime minister. He did not rule out any form of action but said it would have to be agreed by as “many partners as possible”. European politicians have emphasised diplomatic efforts to reopen the strait, which carried about a fifth of the world’s oil and liquified fossil gas until its effective closure by Iran. Italy’s foreign minister, Antonio Tajani, said on Monday that “diplomacy needs to prevail” and his country was involved in no naval missions that could be extended to the area. He cast doubt on expanding the remit of existing EU missions in the Red Sea to the strait of Hormuz, “since they are anti-piracy and defensive missions”. The position taken by the three major European countries was striking because they had avoided criticising Trump over his decision, alongside Israel, to attack Iran 16 days ago. Soon after the first strikes, the US president said the goal of the military campaign was regime change, but the war has since become a wider regional conflict, causing energy prices to soar. Australia, France and Japan have said they had no plans to send warships. At a press conference on Monday, Trump repeated his call on allies to help reopen shipping in the strait, saying “some are very enthusiastic about it and some aren’t”. He reiterated he was “not happy with the UK”, but he thought it would be involved. Trump had called on other countries to enter the war by sending ships to the strait to protect commercial vessels and unblock oil shipments. Raising the pressure, he told the Financial Times in an interview on Sunday: “It’s only appropriate that people who are the beneficiaries of the strait will help to make sure that nothing bad happens there. If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response, I think it will be very bad for the future of Nato.” EU foreign ministers meeting on Monday decided against extending the remit of their small naval mission in the Red Sea. A proposal to change the mandate of Operation Aspides to help secure the strait drew little enthusiasm from member states, said the EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas. “There was in our discussions a clear wish to strengthen this operation, but for the time being there was no appetite in changing the mandate,” Kallas said. European ministers have said they need to know more about the US’s and Israel’s war aims. The Estonian foreign minister, Margus Tsahkna, said US allies in Europe wanted to understand Trump’s “strategic goals. What will be the plan?” Greece, which provides the headquarters for Operation Aspides, also said on Monday it would not engage in any military operations in the strait. Israel said on Monday that it had launched a “wide-scale wave of strikes targeting infrastructure” in Tehran, Shiraz and Tabriz. It also claimed that overnight strikes had destroyed a plane used by Iran’s late supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at Mehrabad airport in Tehran. According to Israeli officials, the plane had been used by senior Iranian political and military figures for domestic and international travel, as well as for coordination with partner states. An Israeli military spokesperson, Nadav Shoshani, told reporters that detailed operational plans were in place for the next three weeks, along with additional plans extending further ahead. “We want to make sure that they are as weak as possible, this regime, and that we degrade all their capabilities, all parts and all wings of their security establishment,” said the lieutenant colonel. The conflict is increasingly reverberating across the Gulf. Oil-loading operations were suspended at the United Arab Emirates port of Fujairah after a drone attack started a fire. Fujairah, on the Gulf of Oman just outside the strait of Hormuz, is the outlet for roughly 1m barrels of crude a day – about 1% of global demand. Civil defence teams were working to contain the blaze, officials said, adding that no casualties had been reported. A separate drone-related incident near Dubai airport set a fuel tank ablaze and briefly disrupted flights. Air raid sirens also sounded across central Israel after Iran fired a missile that was intercepted, causing debris to fall near Tel Aviv. Loud explosions were heard over the Old City in Jerusalem. In a message published on Telegram on Monday morning, Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, rejected the idea that Tehran was seeking a ceasefire. “Our refusal of a ceasefire does not mean we want war,” he said. “But this time the war must end in a way that our enemies will never think of repeating these attacks or this aggression again.” Israel has expanded its ground operations in southern Lebanon, moving troops to what it called “new locations” in its operations against Hezbollah. The deployment follows a rocket barrage fired at Israel by the Iran-backed group earlier this month. At least 850 people have been reported killed in Lebanon, including more than 100 children. Germany, one of Israel’s staunchest allies in Europe, said an Israeli ground offensive in Lebanon was an “error” that would exacerbate the already highly tense humanitarian situation in the country. “We urgently call on our Israeli friends: do not take this path – it would be an error,” Merz said.

Middle East crisis live: European countries resist Trump’s demand for help to clear the strait of Hormuz

Shrapnel from ballistic missiles fired by Iran and debris from the Israeli interceptors that shot them down fell on Monday around Jerusalem’s walled Old City and some of its most sacred Christian, Muslim and Jewish sites, Israeli police have said. There were no casualties or major damage reported at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre or the nearby Al-Aqsa Mosque compound or Temple Mount, a flashpoint site that is holy in both Islam and Judaism. The BBC reported that large pieces of shrapnel also fell in Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem, including close to the British consulate, and close to the Knesset. Photographs distributed by police and seen by Retuers showed three officers carrying what appeared to be a large metal ring-shaped part of a missile off a red-tiled roof adjacent to the Holy Sepulchre. Another image showed a police cordon around a small area in the Al-Aqsa compound plaza which also houses the golden Dome of the Rock, with small fragments strewn on the floor. “Jerusalem District police, bomb disposal teams, and Border Police units have secured the sites and are currently working to eliminate any remaining risk to the public,” police said in a statement.

Trump’s threats to Nato reveal glaring absence of any strategy on Iran

If there was a moment when the absence of a US strategy on Iran was exposed, then this was it. Donald Trump demanded on Saturday that the UK, China, France, Japan and others participate in a naval escort for oil tankers through the strait of Hormuz. Despite launching the attack on Iran, with Israel, the White House does not seem to have fully anticipated what was likely to follow. Iran had few good military options for fighting back, but attacking US bases, US allies and merchant shipping in the Gulf was the most obvious response – to try to impose costs on the west. Iran had been gearing up for a long period of resistance, with Ali Khamenei, the former supreme leader, pressing subordinates to name four levels of succession in the expectation that he and others might be killed. So far, in the two-week bombing war, the US has focused on Iran’s navy and missile sites. But this has not managed to eliminate the asymmetric threat posed against undefended merchant ships. Sixteen have been attacked, according to the Lloyd’s List journal, and tankers do not want to risk the journey through the strait. Ten days ago, Trump urged tanker owners to “show some guts” and make the passage, even though the US navy appeared unwilling to undertake it. “The US has not done it because the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group can sit 200km off Oman and strike Iran with little risk,” said Matthew Savill of the Royal United Services Institute thinktank. Chris Wright, the US energy secretary, suggested last week that after further airstrikes, the US navy might be in a position to escort tankers “by the end of this month”. Iran has, in theory, a range of small-scale attack options, including Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps speedboats, aerial drones and up to 5,000 sea mines (though despite repeated US media speculation, these appear not to have been deployed yet). But, in a reflection of the lessons from the war in Ukraine, the indications are that Iran is having most success attacking with sea drones (uncrewed surface vessels that resemble speedboats as shown in this video). One may have struck the Mayuree Naree, a vessel from Thailand, last week. Trump, fixated on military power, had no particular desire to work with any country other than Israel – and none wanted to join in starting a war against Iran. As a result, naval preparation by US allies before the start of the war was nonexistent. None of Britain, France, China and Japan had warships ready to take up convoy duties. For any escort operation to be viable, it might require eight to 10 destroyers, according to Richard Meade, the editor-in-chief of Lloyd’s List, though that would be enough to protect only “five to 10 vessels, making a transit every day and a half”. That would amount to about 10% of prewar shipping volumes. At the same time, there has been a muted response to Trump’s appeal for help. Japan, for whom international military deployments are legally complex, said it had yet to receive a formal request from the US. China has not responded to the appeal, making it possible that Trump may respond by delaying a visit to Beijing at the end of the month. Over the weekend, the US president said in an interview that Nato allies should feel obliged to take part. “Now we’ll see if they help us,” he told the Financial Times, warning of “a very bad future” for the alliance if they did not. The threat came despite Nato covering only Europe and North America and more than a year of heavy US messaging that Europe should focus on the defence of its own continent, not the Middle East, Indo-Pacific or elsewhere. France has sent eight warships to the eastern Mediterranean but said it was not ready to go to Hormuz until the “most intense” fighting was over. The UK has struggled to prepare a destroyer and had to rush HMS Dragon out of dry dock, destined for Cyprus. The UK has been criticised for failing to anticipate the need to have a warship in the region when the US was assembling two carrier strike groups. However, the Royal Navy was focused on deploying the Prince of Wales aircraft carrier into the north Atlantic later this year as part of an Arctic protection mission demanded by Trump at the time of his pursuit of Greenland.

French political parties seek alliances before final round of local elections

Political parties in France are hastily attempting to negotiate strategic alliances before the final round of local elections this weekend, after a strong showing by the far right and the radical left. This Sunday’s final-round vote for mayors and local councillors in major cities including Marseille, Lyon and Paris is expected to be close. The municipal elections runoffs are seen as a crucial test of political strategy and alliances before next year’s presidential election. Emmanuel Macron’s two terms in office come to an end in spring 2027 and there is uncertainty about who will next lead the EU’s second-largest economy. In Paris, after the first round at the weekend, the Socialist Emmanuel Grégoire was solidly ahead of the former culture minister, Rachida Dati, who nonetheless said she still hoped to win control of the capital for the right after the left’s 25 years in power. Dati spent Monday trying to negotiate a form of alliance with the centrist candidate, Pierre-Yves Bournazel, to boost her chances, despite the two of them exchanging bitter criticisms while campaigning. In a book published during the campaign, The Battle for Paris, Bournazel described Dati during her time as justice minister as being “inebriated with narcissism”. She said he was the “physical incarnation of the stupidest right in the world”. He later said he was against the “brutalisation” of politics. It was uncertain whether they could achieve an alliance and in what form. In September, Dati will go on trial in Paris for alleged corruption and abuse of power. She is accused of lobbying for the Renault-Nissan carmaking group when she was a member of the European parliament. She has denied all wrongdoing. Grégoire on Monday highlighted the trial and warned that Dati represented the “Trumpisation” of political life, saying an alliance between her and Bournazel “made no sense”. Meanwhile, Sarah Knafo, a European parliament member for the far-right anti-immigration Reconquest party made significant gains in wealthy areas of the west of Paris, scoring 10%, enough for a place in the second round. This was a first for Paris, which has traditionally not registered significant scores for the far right in local elections. Knafo’s partner is the TV pundit Éric Zemmour, who founded Reconquest and has convictions for inciting racial hatred. Sophia Chikirou, candidate for the radical left Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s party, La France Insoumise (LFI), also made it to the second round in Paris and said she was waiting for a call from Grégoire about how best to block the right. But Grégoire, who is running for a “left union” between parties including Socialists and Greens, has ruled out any alliance with Chikirou. Mélenchon’s party, which over the past decade has not pushed for a strong local presence, fielded more candidates this time and is likely to gain local councillors. Bally Bagayoko won the mayoral race for the LFI in the first round in Saint-Denis, the second-largest city in the Paris region – beating the Socialist Mathieu Hanotin, who was one of the faces of local politics during the 2024 Olympics. The LFI is also on track to take Roubaix, a symbol of France’s post-industrial north. In Toulouse, after the LFI scored higher than expected, its candidate made an alliance with the Socialist representative, hoping to beat the right-wing incumbent mayor, Jean-Luc Moudenc, who called it “the alliance of shame”. The LFI and Socialist candidates also joined forces in Avignon in the south-east. The centre-left Raphaël Glucksmann, seen as a potential presidential candidate for 2027, criticised any alliances between the centre left and the LFI, saying Mélenchon’s party had done well in cities such as Toulouse and Limoges but that the centre left had done broadly far better across France. In Marseille, Marine Le Pen’s far-right the National Rally (RN) saw a strong score for its mayoral candidate, Franck Allisio, in the first round, coming just behind the incumbent Benoît Payan, who leads the Printemps Marseillais left grouping which includes Socialists and Greens. Capturing Marseille, France’s second-largest city, would mark a major breakthrough for the RN, which has traditionally struggled to gain ground in large cities. The close-run final round for Marseille mayor will be one of the most keenly observed this weekend. Payan on Monday refused to join up with the LFI candidate who also made the final round. Payan said he wasn’t up for “compromises” or “arrangements” and instead called for “clarity” on the left to vote to keep the RN out of power. The RN saw 24 mayors elected in the first round. Some second-round run-offs will now be difficult, including the southern city of Toulon, where other parties may move to try to block the RN. In Nice, France’s fifth biggest city, the RN ally Éric Ciotti is well placed for the final round, largely due to his long local experience in the French Riviera city. He did not run on the RN ticket, but any victory would be claimed by the party as a sign of a new form of alliance between the traditional right and the far right. Ciotti quit as leader of the traditional right’s party, Les Républicains (LR), to join forces with Le Pen in 2024.

Are fuel price increases making you cut back? We would like to hear from you

The conflict in the Middle East has disrupted global shipping routes and caused a surge in global oil market prices. The strait of Hormuz, one of the most important waterways in the world, through which about a fifth of international oil supplies usually travel, has been all but closed since the start of the US-Israel war on Iran. Last week, oil prices topped $100 per barrel for the first time since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine four years ago. The price of kerosene has been especially affected by the conflict and, in several parts of the world, has been rising faster than other fuels such as petrol and gas. The Indian government has invoked emergency powers and directed refiners to maximise production of LPG, to prevent a shortage of the fuel widely used for cooking. It cut sales to industry to avoid a shortage for 333 million homes with LPG connections, Reuters reported. In Sri Lanka, LPG and kerosene are commonly used for cooking in domestic settings. On Sunday, Sri Lanka introduced fuel rationing to extend the life of its supplies. Under the new system, motorcycles will be allocated 5 litres, cars 15 litres, and buses 60 litres of fuel per week. And last week, Pakistan’s prime minister Shehbaz Sharif said schools would close for two weeks, and office workers would work more from home as he announced a range of measures to cut fuel use and government spending to cope with surging oil prices. We’d like to speak to people who are consciously cutting back on fuel use, in light of the recent price increases. How are you doing this? Are you taking fewer journeys? Are you finding ways to conserve fuel? Are you limiting the fuel you use for other things, like heating or cooking, opting to forgo hot food and sticking with cold meals? We would like to hear about how these adjustments are affecting you. If you’re having trouble using the form click here. Read terms of service here and privacy policy here.

Belgian PM condemned over call to repair relations with Russia to ease energy costs

Belgium’s prime minister, Bart De Wever, has been criticised for calling for the normalisation of relations with Russia to re-establish cheap energy supplies. The Flemish nationalist leader’s judgment was questioned in Belgium and beyond after he said on Saturday that the EU needed to make a deal with Russia. “We are losing on all fronts, we must end the conflict in Europe’s interest,” he told the Belgian newspaper L’Echo. De Wever said Europe had to rearm “and at the same time we must normalise relations with Russia and regain access to cheap energy. It is common sense. In private European leaders tell me I am right, but no one dares say it out loud.” Bringing Russia to its knees would only be possible with “100% support from the United States,” he said, adding that Washington was sometimes closer to Vladimir Putin than Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Belgium’s foreign minister, Maxime Prévot, quickly distanced himself. “Russia refuses to allow European participation at the negotiating table. It is sticking to maximalist demands,” he said. “As long as this lasts, speaking of normalisation will be perceived as a sign of weakness that will sap European unity, which we need more than ever.” Prévot, from a centrist party that is part of De Wever’s coalition, said easing pressure would be “giving Putin exactly what he wants.” Asked about De Wever’s comments on Monday, Lithuania’s foreign minister, Kęstutis Budrys, recalled the demands Russia had laid down in 2021 shortly before its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. They included Nato removing any troops or weapons deployed to countries that entered the alliance after 1997, effectively meaning much of eastern Europe, including Poland, the Baltic states and Balkan countries. Budrys said: “We know their demands coming back from ‘21. And that will be not only related to Ukraine, that will be related also to us and to the deployment of the forces and many other things. So we have to collect our strength.” He said he expected a positive result from talks with Russia when Europe had “the sticks in the hands”, citing the use of Russian frozen assets, which are largely held in Belgium. It is not the first time De Wever has set himself at odds with the EU mainstream. He was instrumental in blocking the EU’s use of Russia’s frozen assets to aid Ukraine, arguing that Belgium could be on the hook to repay the cash in the event of any legal action. EU leaders agreed instead to take out a €90bn (£78bn) loan to fund Ukraine’s war effort and public finances, but Hungary is holding the plan up. De Wever’s preference for a return to cheap Russian energy is also at odds with EU plans. The bloc agreed in December to phase out all Russian gas by November 2027 and reiterated a target to end Russian oil imports by the end of the same year. The EU energy commissioner, Dan Jørgensen, told reporters on Monday that it was important to stick to those goals. “We have been for too long dependent on energy from Russia, making it possible for Putin to blackmail us with energy, making it possible for Putin to weaponise energy against us,” he said. He said it would be “a mistake for us to repeat what we did in the past”.

China ‘still communicating’ with US over Trump visit despite talk of delay

China says it is in communication with the US about Donald Trump’s planned visit to Beijing, despite hints from the US president that he might delay the trip if his prospective hosts do not help to unblock the strait of Hormuz. China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said: “Head-of-state diplomacy plays an irreplaceable strategic guiding role in China-US relations. The two sides are maintaining communication regarding President Trump’s visit to China.” Trump had suggested the highly anticipated trip to Beijing this month could be suspended if China did not respond to the US’s request for help from third countries in securing the strait of Hormuz. The strait is a crucial passage for international trade, which has been disrupted by the US-Israeli war with Iran. On Monday, White House officials said the trip could be delayed because of the Iran war. Scott Bessent, the US treasury secretary, said this was because of “logistics” and not because of any spat about Chinese support in the Middle East. “We will see whether the visit takes place as scheduled,” he said. “But what I do want to parse – and there’s a false narrative out there – that if the meetings are delayed, it wouldn’t be delayed because the president’s demanded that China police the strait of Hormuz.” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said it was “quite possible” the meeting would be delayed. Trump is due to be in Beijing from 31 March to 2 April, where he will meet Xi Jinping, China’s president. In an interview published by the Financial Times on Sunday, the US president said: “It’s only appropriate that people who are the beneficiaries of the strait will help to make sure that nothing bad happens there. “I think China should help too because China gets 90% of its oil from the straits.” China imports about 50% of its crude oil through the strait of Hormuz. Beijing has declined to address Trump’s requests, made over the weekend, for other countries to send warships to help secure the vital shipping route. On Monday, Lin called for a ceasefire in Iran to “prevent further escalation of tensions, avoid turmoil in the region, and prevent greater impacts on global economic development”. He said China was “maintaining communication with all parties” about the situation and was committed to promoting “de-escalation and easing tensions”. Tehran has effectively closed the vital waterway, through which about 20% of the world’s oil passes, in retaliation for airstrikes by the US and Israel that killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. The blockage has caused the largest oil supply disruption in history and sent global oil prices soaring. China is reportedly in talks with the Iranian regime about allowing oil tankers to pass through from the Gulf, but no definitive outcome has been agreed. Trump and Xi met in South Korea in October and agreed a temporary truce to the US-China trade war that shook the global economy last year. Bessent and the Chinese vice-premier He Lifeng are due to conclude trade talks in Paris on Monday before the Xi-Trump summit. The two sides have been discussing possible agreements on agricultural and critical mineral trade, with Reuters reporting that the talks have been “remarkably stable” despite the chaotic international environment. In recent weeks, China has declined to comment on whether Trump’s launch of a major war in the Middle East involving a key Chinese strategic partner would undermine the forthcoming Xi-Trump summit. A face-to-face meeting between the two leaders is seen as vital to restoring stability between the world’s two biggest economies. A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Washington said in a statement to CNN on Sunday: “China will continue to strengthen communication with relevant parties, including parties to the conflict, and play a constructive role for de-escalation and restoration of peace.” Although China has not officially commented on how recent events may influence the summit, nationalist bloggers and state media suggested that the meeting could be called into question. Niu Tanqin, an influential foreign affairs blog with ties to Chinese state media, said the “United States was actually begging China to help clean up the mess” created in Iran. Ren Yi, a nationalist Chinese commentator whose comments are often close to Beijing’s position, wrote on X: “The US openly tramples on international law, launching outrageous attacks against a sovereign state (which also happens to be China’s friendly partner), drawing increasing condemnation and resistance from the international community. Under such circumstances, why expect China to ‘roll out the red carpet’ for Trump?” Additional research by Yu-Chen Li