U

.S. envoy Jared Kushner said Monday that the United States would not support rebuilding Gaza until Hamas gives up its weapons, as Israel continues carrying out attacks across the devastated Palestinian territory.

Kushner made the remarks after meeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an effort to advance a U.S.-backed roadmap for ending the genocide. The meeting did not produce a breakthrough, with major disagreements remaining over Hamas’ disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

“We have a plan to rebuild Gaza, but we will not allow Gaza to be rebuilt until the demilitarization occurs,” Kushner told Fox News.

He said Washington did not want reconstruction funds to be invested in Gaza if the territory could again become a battlefield.

Disarmament remains key dispute

Hamas had agreed to disarm as part of the U.S.-backed proposal, which would also involve an Israeli withdrawal and an end to attacks on Gaza. Israel, however, rejected the proposal earlier this month, saying it would not make concessions until Gaza was fully demilitarized.

Kushner appeared to align closely with Israel’s position, emphasizing that Hamas would need to surrender its weapons before major reconstruction and Israeli withdrawal could proceed.

“We’re also not going to restrict Israel’s right to defend itself if there are any imminent threats,” Kushner said, adding that Washington had sought to clarify what that provision would mean.

His comments came despite President Donald Trump earlier Monday calling for an end to Israeli attacks on Gaza.

“Israelis should not be striking in Gaza. Hamas agreed to lay down their weapons,” Trump said.

Israel has continued launching near-daily attacks on the territory. According to the figures cited by Al Jazeera, at least 1,265 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since a ceasefire came into effect last year. The broader Israeli war on Gaza has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians since October 2023, according to the same source.

U.S. pushes Gaza roadmap

Kushner also met Hamas officials on Sunday in a rare direct encounter as Washington seeks to move its Gaza plan forward. He described the discussions as “very cordial” but said the United States would judge Hamas by its actions rather than its promises.

“They said all the right things,” Kushner said, while expressing skepticism about the group’s willingness to fulfill its commitments.

He said Hamas could potentially surrender its weapons and tunnels within 60 to 90 days, describing such an outcome as a major security gain for Israel.

Kushner warned that if Hamas failed to follow through, the group would lose international support and Israel would have greater backing from Washington and other countries to continue military action.

The U.S. envoy also argued that the proposed agreement would benefit Israel by removing what he described as a major security threat.

The dispute over reconstruction highlights one of the central obstacles to the U.S.-backed plan. Gaza has suffered enormous destruction during the Israeli genocide, creating an urgent need for housing, infrastructure, health care and other basic services.

Washington has remained a major supporter of Israel throughout the genocide. According to Al Jazeera, the United States has provided Israel with about $25 billion in military aid over the past three years and has defended the Israeli government at international forums.

The latest diplomatic efforts come as Washington attempts to reconcile its calls for an end to the fighting with Israel’s demand for Hamas’ complete disarmament before any broader political settlement.

For Palestinians in Gaza, however, the continuation of Israeli strikes and the conditions attached to reconstruction leave the territory’s future uncertain, even as international efforts seek to establish a lasting ceasefire and begin rebuilding.

)Source: Aljazeera English)

A

merican President Donald Trump’s approval rating has fallen to 33%, the lowest level of his current presidency, as growing concerns over the war with Iran and rising gasoline prices weigh on his standing with American voters, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Monday.

The four-day survey found that 64% of Americans disapproved of Trump’s performance, compared with 33% who approved. His approval rating fell from 35% in an earlier poll this month and matched the lowest level recorded during his previous presidency, in December 2017.

Trump returned to the White House in 2025 with approval from just under half of Americans, but his standing has weakened as the conflict with Iran has continued. The war has disrupted a significant share of global oil trade and pushed gasoline prices higher, adding pressure on U.S. households.

Most Americans expect Iran war to continue

The poll showed widespread concern that U.S. involvement in the conflict will last much longer than Trump initially suggested.

About 80% of Americans said they believed U.S. involvement in Iran would continue for an extended period, including 87% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans. Only 16% expected the conflict to end within a few weeks.

Trump initially suggested that the war could be resolved within weeks, but Iran has continued resisting U.S. and Israeli military pressure. The conflict has also disrupted oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, contributing to higher energy prices.

Trump has defended the rising cost of gasoline as necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. At a rally in New York on Friday, he told supporters that paying somewhat more for gasoline was worthwhile to prevent what he described as an evil country from obtaining nuclear weapons.

However, only about one in five Americans said the war was worth the cost. Among Republicans, only about half considered the conflict worthwhile.

The economic impact of the war could become a major issue ahead of the Nov. 3 congressional elections, with Republicans seeking to defend narrow majorities in the House while Democrats increasingly see an opportunity to gain control of the Senate.

Democrats gain ground on economy

The poll also showed Democrats gaining an advantage over Republicans on economic issues. About 38% of registered voters said Democrats would handle the economy better, compared with 35% who preferred Republicans.

That represents a significant shift from previous years and comes as voters express increasing concern about the cost of living and gasoline prices.

Democrats were also viewed as better equipped to manage the cost of living, while Republicans continued to hold a narrow advantage on immigration.

About 40% of voters said Republicans had the better approach to immigration, compared with 38% who favored Democrats. The two-point Republican advantage was the smallest recorded during Trump’s current presidency. Republicans had held a 26-point advantage on immigration in January 2025.

Although Trump’s administration has overseen a sharp decline in border crossings and expanded immigration enforcement, Republicans have faced political pressure over deadly confrontations and the growing number of people held in immigration detention, including children.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online among 1,166 U.S. adults nationwide and had a margin of error of three percentage points in either direction.

The findings point to growing political challenges for Trump as voters confront the economic consequences of the Iran conflict and prepare to vote in the November midterm elections.

(Source: Reuters)

W

hilst the Middle East region has undergone significant change and transformation as a result of the attacks launched by Israel from 7 October 2023 onwards, the US-Israel–Iran war that began on 28 February 2026 has further fuelled this change, pushing it to a point of no return. For had these events not occurred, the ‘Mecca Joint Defence Agreement’, signed on 7 August 2026 between Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, might not have been possible.

Developments necessitating “regional ownership”

Türkiye’s long-standing stance that the region’s problems should be resolved by the countries of the region themselves – a concept defined by Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan as “regional ownership” – had not received sufficient support from the countries of the region. Whilst the reasons behind this may vary from country to country, ultimately external interventions aimed at resolving the region’s problems have failed to heal the wounds; on the contrary, they have either caused existing wounds to bleed anew or allowed them to simply harden into calluses without being resolved. Consequently, it has become apparent that interventions in the region—particularly from the West and, of course, the US—have failed to produce results and have not brought peace and stability to the region.

However, following the events that began on 7 October 2023, Israel’s adoption of a revisionist policy towards the region—believing that the conditions were favourable—and its subsequent attacks targeting not only Gaza and the West Bank but also Lebanon, Syria and Iran, have led to a shift in the preconceptions held by countries in the region towards Türkiye.

For whilst it is evident that almost all of the Western countries expected to resolve the region’s problems have taken sides in the war between Russia and Ukraine, providing Ukraine with billions of dollars in aid as well as both political and military support; whilst Israel’s razing of Gaza, massacred over 73,000 people and committed a massive genocide; deepened its annexation of the West Bank; gradually sought to alter the status of the Al-Aqsa Mosque; occupied southern Lebanon and attempted to provoke a civil war there; and, as if its decades-long occupation of the Golan Heights—which is Syrian territory —as if that were not enough—it unilaterally suspended the 1974 agreement following the revolution on 8 December 2024, occupied further Syrian territory, and sought to prevent Syria from achieving stability by manipulating the Druze and the SDG/PKK terrorist organisations.

The extent to which external actors remain indifferent to crises or conflicts in our region has once again been exposed in the war against Iran. For just as it is unjust and wrong for an actor such as the US to fall into Israel’s trap and attack Iran, it is equally wrong for other Western countries not to have taken the initiative to dissuade the US from this war, as was the case with Ukraine. Although these countries—the majority of which are also NATO members—were called upon by the US to deploy troops to open the blockaded Strait of Hormuz – although this was not in accordance with NATO regulations – they did not heed this call and, whilst not becoming directly involved in the war, they made their stance clear by expanding sanctions against Iran rather than exerting pressure on Israel to bring the war to an end.

During this war, Iran’s decision to attack Gulf states and other countries hosting US bases on their territory – rather than Israel and the US, which were directly attacking it – both because they were relatively easier targets and with the intention of indirectly exerting pressure on the US, has once again demonstrated the importance of regional ownership.

Israel’s revisionist policies and the perception of threats by regional countries

All these developments have made a mechanism such as the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement imperative, with the aim of thwarting the plans of a country like Israel—which, despite its small size, seeks to destabilize the region and derive benefit from the situation by leveraging its lobbying power in the US and Europe and relying on their support—and to establish a new status quo. Furthermore, whilst Israel recently proposed an alignment strategy—such as the “hexagon bloc”—which has yet to materialize on the ground, the formation of a counter-front by countries outside this bloc that perceive the current developments as a threat to their national interests must be regarded as inevitable.

Despite the security guarantees the US has provided to the Gulf states to date, the fact that these states have been exposed to Iranian attacks during the war against Iran has not only called into question the reliability of US guarantees in the Gulf, but has also inevitably led to a search for alternatives regarding the future of the region’s security architecture. It is therefore highly likely that the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement will address this necessity; in particular, should the US withdraw from the region following the war with Iran, it is conceivable that it might be open to entrusting the region’s security to three key and powerful allies: Türkiye, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Indeed, the fact that the US has not made any negative statements regarding the Mecca Agreement to date is interpreted in this light and reinforces the view that there is coordination between the signatory countries and the US.

Why is the agreement so important?

Among the key factors that make the agreement significant are the characteristics and capabilities of the signatory countries. Türkiye, for instance, is not only a NATO member but also a candidate country for the EU and has made significant strides in the defense industry in recent years. It is therefore an indispensable actor for both the Middle East and the European security architecture. Pakistan, meanwhile, is the only Muslim country to possess nuclear weapons and also has a substantial population. As for Saudi Arabia, it stands out as a key player not only due to its abundant energy resources but also because of its strategic location at the crossroads of global trade routes. Furthermore, as a leading figure in both the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab League, and as the custodian of Islam’s holy sites, it is an actor held in high regard and whose word carries weight among both Arab and Muslim states.

The coming together of these three major powers to form a defense alliance would create a synergy whose effects are likely to extend beyond the region. Furthermore, should this agreement be successfully implemented, it would inevitably create a domino effect, making it likely that other countries in the region would join the agreement. Considering similar initiatives that have been attempted at various times but could never be brought to a conclusion due to both regional and circumstantial conditions, the most significant impact of this agreement, as of today, is that it stands as the sole development capable of curbing Israel’s aggressive, occupying and expansionist regional vision. Not only will the Abraham Accords no longer hold any appeal for countries in the region, but it is also understood that, should the US withdraw from the region following a war against Iran, the new security architecture of the region will be centered on the new pact established by this agreement.

What will the agreement provide for the signatory countries?

This agreement is of a defensive nature, aimed at protecting the signatories from attacks by other countries; in this way, it offers the signatory countries a security guarantee similar to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. Türkiye’s current capabilities, Pakistan’s nuclear power and Saudi Arabia’s financial support not only demonstrate the agreement’s capacity and potential but also serve as a powerful deterrent to any actors seeking to attack one of the signatory states.

Consequently, in addition to Türkiye’s NATO membership, the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement has now emerged as the sole agreement in the region offering an additional defense guarantee to regional countries, and it has been announced that the agreement remains open to new participants. Although it has been stated in the announcements that no specific country is being targeted, it is clear that a strong deterrent has been created for those with designs on the region – particularly Israel – or those claiming to shape its future.

Whilst there are no doubts regarding the agreement’s deterrent effect, as we do not yet possess detailed information on the nature of the agreement, it is not fully known how a response would be mounted in the event of an attack on any of the signatory states. Furthermore, given the geographical locations of the signatory states—particularly Pakistan’s relatively remote position—it is difficult to predict how such a response would be carried out. However, despite all these uncertainties, the implementation of such an arrangement in our region is of great importance.

A

merican President Donald Trump has welcomed a new defense agreement between Türkiye, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, describing the trilateral pact as an important step toward greater security cooperation in the Middle East.

“Very happy to see that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan have recently, and finally, signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

He said the agreement showed that countries in the Middle East were “coming together” and would be better positioned to defend themselves. Trump described the pact as a “BIG, BOLD, IMPORTANT FIRST STEP.”

The agreement was signed in Mecca on August 7 amid escalating regional tensions and the ongoing U.S.-Iran war, which has expanded beyond the two countries and affected several states across the Middle East.

Three countries expand military cooperation

Under the agreement, Türkiye, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia will establish strategic political and military mechanisms involving their defense and foreign ministers, as well as chiefs of staff or commanders of their armed forces.

Military cooperation is expected to develop gradually, beginning with command-post and field exercises. The three countries could later conduct joint exercises involving ground, naval and air forces, air defense systems and unmanned platforms.

The agreement also includes a commitment by the three countries to participate in efforts aimed at resolving the conflict between Iran and the United States.

The pact builds on an earlier Saudi-Pakistani mutual defense agreement signed in September, which stated that an attack against either country would be considered an attack against both.

Saudi Arabia has increasingly sought to diversify its defense partnerships as its critical infrastructure and energy facilities have come under attack amid the regional conflict.

Pact comes amid regional tensions

The agreement also reflects the broader security concerns facing the three countries. Saudi Arabia has been directly affected by attacks linked to the wider U.S.-Iran war, while Iran-backed Houthi forces have targeted regional shipping and other interests.

Türkiye, meanwhile, has faced growing tensions with Israel over the war in Gaza which resulted in broader regional conflicts, including fighting involving Iran and Lebanon.

Pakistan has increasingly positioned itself as a potential mediator in regional disputes while strengthening its security relationship with Saudi Arabia and expanding defense cooperation with Türkiye.

The three-way pact brings together three major Muslim-majority countries with significant military capabilities and strategic influence. Türkiye is a NATO member, Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons, and Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s largest oil producers and a key U.S. partner in the Gulf.

Trump’s endorsement marks a notable reaction from Washington to the emerging security arrangement. His comments suggest that the United States views greater defense cooperation among regional powers as potentially complementary to broader efforts to strengthen security in the Middle East.

The agreement could also reshape regional security cooperation as countries seek greater capacity to protect their territory and infrastructure amid continuing instability and the widening consequences of the U.S.-Iran war.

(Source: Daily Sabah)

T

he diplomatic initiatives that have been ongoing for some time between Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have now materialized into a concrete security architecture with the Joint Defense Agreement signed today in Mecca. Although the agreement in question may appear to be a manifestation of the historical and religious ties between the three countries in foreign policy, it can in fact be regarded as part of a much broader regional transformation. This agreement, signed by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif at the Safa Palace in Mecca, the holy city of the Muslim world, constitutes a full-fledged ‘collective defense’ pact, as it stipulates that an armed attack against any one of the three states shall be deemed an attack against all of them.

Furthermore, the fact that the agreement is based on Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which governs the right to self-defense, can be seen as a reflection of the initiative led by the three countries’ quest for legitimacy within the framework of international law. Consequently, the resulting joint defense mechanism aims to serve as a deterrent not only at the regional level but also in the eyes of global actors.

Outcome of regional developments

It is evident that the agreement goes beyond a merely symbolic initiative. In this regard, the normalization process between Turkey and Saudi Arabia since 2022 and the subsequent acceleration of strategic cooperation, followed by Saudi Arabia’s move to expedite its rapprochement with Pakistan in the security context, culminating in the signing of the Joint Strategic Defense Agreement in 2025, have been the key driving forces behind this process. President Erdoğan’s emphasis on defense industry cooperation during his visit to Saudi Arabia at the start of the year, along with signals of joint investment in the KAAN National Fighter Aircraft, also demonstrate that the signing in Mecca was the result of a process that had been under way for some time.

Beyond its strategic and symbolic significance, the Mecca Agreement is of critical importance given the context in which it emerged. The growing regional instability following the war launched by the US and Israel against Iran on 28 February has led all countries to seek alternatives. When compounded by Israel’s continued pursuit of aggressive and expansionist policies and Washington’s silence in the face of these developments, the confidence of many regional actors, particularly the Gulf states, in the traditional security architecture has been permanently shaken. Furthermore, the US’s failure to provide the expected security umbrella to the Gulf states, whose vulnerabilities were laid bare by Iran’s attacks, has eroded these actors’ trust in traditional security guarantors. Consequently, Washington’s inconsistency in providing protection to its allies during times of crisis has driven regional capitals to diversify their own security arrangements.

Signed against this backdrop, the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement can be seen as a concrete outcome of the quest to reduce dependence on external security guarantees and to build an intra-regional deterrence mechanism amongst regional actors. From Türkiye’s perspective, this step constitutes a key pillar of its long-stated vision for a regional security architecture. In line with the initiatives it has taken in recent years, Ankara has played a critical role in intensifying cooperation amongst regional actors. During this process, Türkiye has strengthened its cooperation with countries including the Gulf states, as well as Egypt and Pakistan, and has sought to implement partnerships across various sectors.

During this process, one of the areas on which Türkiye has placed particular emphasis has been partnerships in the defense industry. Viewed in this context, it should also be noted that, beyond its security dimension, the Mecca Agreement provides a framework for deepening cooperation in the defense industry. Saudi Arabia’s preference and policies in recent years to transition from the role of a customer to that of a co-producer in the procurement of defense industry products have led to concrete steps being taken in this context between Ankara and Riyadh. In this regard, Türkiye has demonstrated its commitment by signing agreements with Saudi Arabia on the joint production of unmanned aerial vehicles, radar technologies, anti-tank guided missiles and other defense industry products.

Defense projects between Türkiye and Saudi Arabia

Indeed, Türkiye has successfully concluded its negotiations with Saudi Arabia regarding the co-production of the Gökbey national helicopter project, and an agreement was signed in February 2026 between TUSAŞ and the Saudi Arabian Defense Industries Organization. It is expected that the Mecca Agreement will not only strengthen the joint security mechanism but also increase such collaborations in the defense industry sector. It can be argued that, in the coming period, this initiative will not only go beyond security cooperation but also pave the way for deepening economic ties between the three countries.

Although the Mecca Agreement was signed between the three countries, President Erdoğan stated in his announcement that this security initiative is open to the participation of all countries. At this stage, it can be said that countries such as Qatar and Egypt are likely to be among those adopting a positive stance towards this security architecture in the initial phase. Given that it adopts an inclusive approach rather than an exclusionary one, unlike certain alliances that have emerged in the region in the past, it can also be noted that this alliance is set to play a strategic role in the future of the regional security architecture.

On the other hand, it remains unclear what impact the differences in foreign policy priorities and the relative divergence in threat perceptions between Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan will have within the context of the agreement. Indeed, the fact that Turkey’s security priorities, centered on Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean, do not align with Saudi Arabia’s threat perception, which is largely centred on Iran, or with Pakistan’s security reflexes, which are focused on India, may be seen as a constraint. However, it can be argued that the impact of this divergence on the practical feasibility of the agreement will also be limited. Indeed, the fundamental dynamic behind the tripartite alliance is not so much divergent perceptions as shared, concrete threats. This situation forms the basis for the consolidation of power and a shared security vision along the Ankara-Riyadh-Islamabad axis.

The Joint Defense Agreement signed in Mecca stands out as an initiative that clearly sets out the signatory countries’ perspectives. This agreement, which can be seen as the tangible outcome of regional actors’ quest to build their own security amongst themselves, a quest directly influenced by the hardships caused by the interventions of external actors, serves as the nucleus of a far more comprehensive regional security architecture. At this juncture, it seems inevitable that Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which have so far acted within the framework of a shared vision, will move towards a much stronger alliance should they align their foreign policy orientations, harmonize their strategic objectives and integrate their security capabilities.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

T

urkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said Wednesday that Türkiye  would continue to strongly defend the Palestinian cause, as he met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ankara for talks on Gaza, the West Bank and efforts to establish an independent Palestinian state.

Speaking at a joint news conference after the meeting, Erdoğan said Türkiye  was working with the Palestinians to advance the Palestinian cause on the basis of a two-state solution. He accused the Israeli government of continuing what he described as unlawful actions in the West Bank and Jerusalem, including settlement expansion, demolitions and forced displacement.

According to United Nations figures cited by Erdoğan, about 3,800 Palestinians had been displaced in 2026 as a result of settler violence, demolitions and evictions, while nearly 100 Palestinians had been killed.

“Palestinian statehood is being undermined,” Erdoğan said, adding that the international community could not ignore what was happening. He said Palestinian support was a shared responsibility, particularly for the Muslim world.

Erdoğan calls for Palestinian state

Erdoğan said he and Abbas discussed developments in the occupied Palestinian territories as well as bilateral relations. He also welcomed the decision to hold Palestinian legislative and presidential elections, saying they could contribute to reconciliation and strengthen Palestinian unity.

The Turkish president said Ankara opposed attempts to alter the status quo at Muslim and Christian holy sites, particularly the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem and the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron.

He accused the Israeli government of seeking to benefit from instability and new conflicts while pushing the Palestinian issue out of international attention.

“Whatever they do, they will not succeed,” Erdoğan said, adding that Türkiye  would continue supporting the Palestinian cause “on every platform.”

He reiterated Türkiye ‘s support for the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital and with territorial continuity.

On Gaza, Erdoğan said Israel’s government continued to take what he described as an uncompromising and aggressive approach despite international efforts and Palestinian calls for peace.

He called for conditions to be established quickly for reconstruction in Gaza and for ensuring security for its population.

Abbas thanks Türkiye for support

Abbas thanked Erdoğan and Türkiye  for their support for Palestinian rights and for providing humanitarian assistance to Gaza, hosting Palestinian students and treating patients and wounded people.

He said the two leaders had held productive discussions on regional developments and bilateral relations and agreed to strengthen dialogue between Türkiye  and Palestine.

Abbas also welcomed the recent joint defense agreement between Türkiye , Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, describing it as potentially important for regional stability and security and for protecting the interests of Muslim countries.

He said a just peace could only be achieved by ending the occupation and establishing an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in accordance with international law and the Arab Peace Initiative.

Abbas said a ceasefire agreement in Gaza had been reached through efforts by Türkiye , Egypt, Qatar and the United States, but warned that humanitarian aid had yet to enter Gaza at the level needed. He also called for reconstruction and the return of legitimate Palestinian authority to Gaza.

“Gaza is an integral part of the State of Palestine,” Abbas said, emphasizing that there could be no Palestinian state without Gaza.

He also said the Palestinian Authority faced serious financial difficulties, claiming Israel was withholding about $6.5 billion in Palestinian funds, affecting the government’s ability to pay salaries and cover expenses in Gaza.

Settler violence in the West Bank and Jerusalem

Abbas said he and Erdoğan also discussed escalating tensions and settler violence in the West Bank and Jerusalem. He accused Israeli settlers of acting under the protection of Israeli forces and said attacks had targeted Muslim and Christian holy sites alike.

“We are standing firm on our land and are opposed to displacement,” Abbas said.

He stressed the importance of Palestinian unity and said the Palestine Liberation Organization remained committed to a unified political program and national institutions.

Abbas also said Palestinians were preparing for legislative and presidential elections scheduled for November 28, describing them as an important step toward strengthening the Palestinian political system.

The Palestinian president ended by thanking Erdoğan for Türkiye ‘s support and expressing hope that Palestinians would achieve independence and freedom while peace and stability returned to the region.

Both leaders also expressed condolences following the crash of a Turkish F-16 fighter jet during a training flight in Yalova.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

S

yria and Russia have reached an agreement that will significantly reshape Moscow’s military presence along Syria’s Mediterranean coast, with Damascus set to take control of two strategically important facilities previously used as Russian military outposts.

Under the agreement announced by Syria’s Foreign Ministry, Syria will assume control of the Hmeimem air base near Latakia and the commercial berth at Tartus port as part of its civil administration. Military facilities at both locations will instead be transformed into joint training and qualification centers.

The ministry described the arrangement as a “reorganizing of the Russian presence” along Syria’s coast and said it represented the most significant development since negotiations began about a year and a half ago.

Russia’s military presence in Syria

Russia had been the most important political and military ally of former President Bashar Assad throughout Syria’s civil war. The Hmeimem air base and Tartus naval facility became central pillars of Russia’s military presence in the eastern Mediterranean, allowing Moscow to project air and naval power into the region.

The agreement comes after Assad was overthrown following a lightning insurgency. Russia did not intervene to prevent his removal but subsequently granted asylum to Assad and his family. Russian forces remaining in Syria have gradually withdrawn since the change of government.

Despite the reduction of Russia’s military role, Syria’s new leadership has sought to maintain relations with Moscow. Interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa has visited Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow twice since taking power, with the future of the two Mediterranean facilities among the key issues discussed.

The latest agreement does not appear to end Russian-Syrian cooperation altogether. Instead, the conversion of the military facilities into joint training centers suggests that Damascus and Moscow intend to preserve some form of defense and institutional relationship while reducing Russia’s role as a military power stationed on Syrian territory.

Russia had not immediately issued a public comment on the agreement.

Syria’s new foreign policy

The development also reflects a broader transformation in Syria’s foreign policy following Assad’s fall. While Damascus has maintained ties with Moscow, it has simultaneously strengthened relations with Western governments and neighboring Arab states that had distanced themselves from Syria during Assad’s crackdown on opposition protests.

The United States has lifted most of its sanctions on Syria, while European countries have also begun rebuilding diplomatic relations with Damascus.

French President Emmanuel Macron visited Syria in July, during which he announced that France and Syria would appoint ambassadors for the first time in 14 years.

The shift has placed Syria at the center of a wider geopolitical realignment. For years, Russia’s military presence in Syria provided Moscow with a strategic foothold in the Mediterranean and helped sustain Assad’s government. The new arrangement indicates that this role is now being substantially reduced under Syria’s new leadership.

For Damascus, taking control of Hmeimem and the commercial facilities at Tartus represents an important assertion of sovereignty over strategic infrastructure. For Moscow, maintaining joint training facilities could preserve elements of its longstanding relationship with Syria even as its former military footprint is scaled back.

The agreement is likely to become an important marker of Syria’s transition from the Assad era, as the country seeks to balance its longstanding relationship with Russia against growing engagement with Türkiye Europe, the United States and Arab countries.

(Source: CNN)

T

he Mecca Joint Defense Agreement, signed on August 7, 2026, in Mecca between Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, marks a significant transformation in the security equation between the Middle East and South Asia. At the heart of the agreement lies the principle that an armed attack directed against one of the parties shall be deemed to have been directed against all three states. This provision goes beyond traditional defense  cooperation to establish a new security mechanism based on the principle of collective deterrence.

The agreement’s primary significance in terms of international relations stems from the convergence of the signatory states’ diverse power elements within a single security framework. Turkey possesses NATO’s second-largest military force, advanced operational capabilities and a defence industry that has grown significantly in recent years. Pakistan is the only Muslim state to possess nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, stands out for its energy resources, financial capacity and influence in Gulf geopolitics. For this reason, the Mecca Agreement constitutes a strategic configuration of complementary capabilities formed by complementary strategic capabilities, rather than a traditional military alliance between three similar states.

The international context in which the agreement emerged is also significant. Rising military tensions in the Middle East, the security of energy transport routes, Iran-centred conflict dynamics and the tendency of regional states to diversify their security guarantees are reinforcing the search for a new regional security order. Within this framework, the Mecca Agreement can be interpreted as a demonstration of the will of regional states to support their security needs increasingly through mechanisms established amongst themselves, rather than through guarantees provided from outside.

The concept of strategic autonomy is particularly significant here. Since the end of the Cold War, one of the fundamental pillars of the Middle Eastern security system has been the US military presence and bilateral security relations. The Mecca Agreement does not directly abolish this system. It is also explicitly stated that the parties’ existing bilateral or multilateral obligations remain in force. However, the agreement demonstrates the will of regional actors to establish their own deterrence mechanisms alongside the Washington- centred security architecture. This situation can be interpreted as a transition from a dependence on a single security centre to a multi-layered security architecture.

The significance of the agreement for the participants

From Turkey’s perspective, the agreement also has a unique dimension. Turkey is a member of NATO. The Mecca Agreement, whilst enabling Ankara to maintain its NATO membership, also allows it to expand its institutionalised defense relations with regional powers outside NATO. Turkey is thus positioning itself strategically from which it can forge links between the Euro-Atlantic security system and the Middle East–South Asia security spheres. However, the relationship between the collective defense obligation under the Mecca Agreement and Article 5 of the NATO Treaty will require detailed legal and strategic scrutiny in the coming period, particularly in the event of simultaneous crises.

Pakistan’s participation in the agreement, meanwhile, shifts the deterrence debate to a different level. Pakistan’s nuclear capability enhances the agreement’s psychological and strategic weight. However, it cannot be concluded from current statements that Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence has been extended to Turkey or Saudi Arabia. Saudi officials have also stated that the agreement is not linked to nuclear purposes or an arms race. Consequently, based on the current data, it does not appear appropriate to characterise the Mecca Agreement as a nuclear umbrella agreement.

From Saudi Arabia’s perspective, the agreement represents a continuation of its policy of diversifying security partnerships. By linking its economic capacity with Turkey’s defense industry and Pakistan’s military capabilities, Riyadh may secure a greater degree of strategic manoeuvre. To the extent that this framework extends to areas such as defense industry investments, joint production, technology transfer, training, intelligence sharing and maritime security, it will acquire a lasting institutional character.

The principle of collective defense

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the Agreement is the principle of ‘an attack on one is an attack on all’. This provision is reminiscent of NATO’s logic of collective defense. However, there is currently a significant institutional difference between the two organizations NATO is an institutional alliance with over seventy years’ history, underpinned by a military command structure, joint defense planning, force structure, standards and permanent political bodies. The implementation mechanisms of the Mecca Agreement, however, are not yet as transparent, based on the information made public.

For this reason, the true strength of the agreement will be measured not so much by its signing as by the extent to which it becomes institutionalized. Should a joint military committee be established, joint operational plans drawn up, regular exercises conducted, an intelligence-sharing mechanism put in place and defense industry projects undertaken jointly, the Mecca Agreement could evolve into a genuine collective defense system.

From Iran’s perspective, interpreting the agreement as a direct counter-alliance requires caution. The parties have specifically emphasized that the agreement does not target any particular state. Given Turkey’s shared border with Iran, its economic ties and regional diplomatic channels, the agreement’s potential to take on a sectarian dimension could entail significant strategic costs for Ankara. Consequently, the sustainability of the agreement will depend on maintaining a balance between the principle of collective defense and the policy of avoiding regional polarization.

Towards a new regional security architecture

From Israel’s perspective, the new framework presents a distinct area for strategic calculation. The convergence of Turkey’s NATO capabilities, Pakistan’s military strength and Saudi Arabia’s regional influence within a common security mechanism holds the potential to influence the balance of power in the Middle East. However, it is not possible to draw a definitive conclusion from current statements suggesting that the agreement constitutes an alliance formed against Israel.

A broader implication of the Mecca Agreement is the possibility of institutionalizing security cooperation within the Islamic world. Whilst the Organization of Islamic Cooperation is a broad political organization with 57 members, it lacks an effective collective defense mechanism. The tripartite structure emerging in Mecca could, if successful, form the core of a narrower yet highly operational security platform that could expand with the participation of other states.

At this point, the fact that the agreement is named ‘Mecca’ also carries symbolic significance. The signing of the agreement at the most important holy centre of the Islamic world lends it political and historical visibility beyond that of a purely military text. However, the agreement’s future legitimacy will be shaped not so much by its symbolic value as by its contribution to regional peace, its compliance with international law, and its capacity to prevent crises.

A

ugust 7, 2026, marks a historic turning point at which the cards of Afro-Eurasian geopolitics and the global security architecture were reshuffled. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s working visit to Saudi Arabia brought together Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Pakistani Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, who had arrived in Saudi Arabia the day before the visit, and General Asim Munir at the same table. The defense-focused trilateral ‘Mecca Agreement’, were signed following months of diplomatic maneuvering, and were announced at a time of rising military tensions in the region and US-Iran conflict threatening Gulf security.

Analyzing this critical development from the perspective of Islamabad is of vital importance for understanding Pakistan’s defense network, which stretches from Africa to the Gulf; its chronic and hybrid challenges in internal security; and its foundational role at the crossroads of Afro-Eurasia.

From nuclear power to regional security architecture: Pakistan’s role

As the only nuclear-armed state in the Muslim world, Pakistan constitutes the most deterrent and high-calibre military human capital component of this alliance. The bilateral defense pact signed with Saudi Arabia in 2025 was a consequence of Riyadh’s quest for military assurances, including nuclear deterrence, against potential security threats. However, Turkey’s inclusion in this equation as an official and institutional partner elevates Pakistan’s role as a bilateral ‘security provider’ to a much broader and more balanced framework.

From the perspective of the Islamabad administration, this agreement is not merely a single Gulf commitment, but the culmination of a multi-layered strategy stretching from the Horn of Africa to the Persian Gulf. Indeed, the Memorandum of Understanding on Defense Cooperation signed last week between Pakistan and Somalia, a year after it was approved by the Somali Cabinet, demonstrated Islamabad’s determination to play an active role in ensuring the security of navigation in the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.

Furthermore, the Kuwaiti Parliament’s approval in late July of the long-awaited defense cooperation agreement with Pakistan, alongside the pursuit by actors such as Bahrain and Jordan of reciprocal defense agreements modelled on the Saudi model, has cemented Islamabad’s position as the region’s ‘security architect’. Consequently, the Turkey–Saudi Arabia–Pakistan triad forms the backbone not only of these three countries but also of a broader Afro-Eurasian security network.

Synergy of capital, technology and military manpower

Viewed from the perspective of Islamabad, the tripartite alliance is more than just a military pact; it is an industrial lever that brings together finance and high technology. For many years, Pakistan’s military diplomacy has provided Saudi Arabia with training, military personnel and security support, whilst in return it has relied on Gulf funding. However, when the high technology, unmanned systems and operational capabilities of the Turkish defense industry are added to this equation, Pakistan finds an opportunity to move beyond being a passive exporter of security and position itself at the center of a tripartite industrial synergy.

When Saudi Arabia’s financial strength, Turkey’s advanced defense technology and Pakistan’s regional military expertise and growing production infrastructure are combined, a domestic and independent defense bloc and an integrated ecosystem emerge at the very intersection of Afro-Eurasia. At a time when Pakistan is grappling with financial difficulties, this agreement enables it to secure direct Saudi investment whilst also modernizing its domestic defense industry through joint defense projects with Turkey, thereby opening up new market opportunities for both Turkish and Pakistani defense companies.

Internal security challenges and allegations of sabotage

Pakistan’s ambitious foreign policy on the global stage is being tested by chronic internal security challenges and regional hybrid threats. The Islamabad administration has long been grappling with violence perpetrated by the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, whilst in the south-west it has been combating separatist actions by the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) targeting economic infrastructure and Chinese projects.

However, the recent escalation of social tensions and protests in Pakistan-administered Kashmir (Azad Kashmir) has added a new dimension to the security equation. Strategic circles in Islamabad argue that the unrest erupting in Kashmir is not merely the result of local administrative or economic grievances; rather, they contend that it has been exacerbated by the instigations of external actors who are displeased with Pakistan’s key role in its independent balancing diplomacy with Iran and within the now-concrete Turkey-Saudi Arabia-Pakistan Tripartite Alliance, which is now taking concrete form. This situation illustrates that, whilst Islamabad is fighting the actions of the TTP and the BLA on the one hand, it is also forced to contend with the hybrid front opened up via Kashmir by forces seeking to undermine the regional influence of the Tripartite Alliance.

H

istory rarely announces itself. But occasionally, a single agreement tells us that something fundamental has changed.

The defense pact signed in Mecca between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye may be one of those moments.

Its most consequential provision is remarkably simple: an armed attack against one of the three countries will be considered an attack against all three.

For Pakistan, this represents something bigger than another defense agreement.

For decades, Pakistan’s military power, including its nuclear deterrent, was viewed overwhelmingly through the prism of South Asia, particularly its rivalry with India. Pakistan was already a formidable military power, but the strategic reach of that power was largely geographically contained.

That is beginning to change.

Pakistan’s security sxtends beyonf South Asia

Pakistan is now part of a collective-defense architecture stretching from South Asia through the Gulf to Türkiye.

And consider what these three countries bring together.

Türkiye possesses NATO’s second-largest army and has transformed itself into a major defense producer, from drones and missiles to warships and advanced aerospace technology. US President Donald Trump himself recently described the Turkish military as “tremendous” and “powerful.”

Saudi Arabia brings enormous economic and energy influence and the political weight of one of the Arab and Islamic world’s most consequential states.

Pakistan brings one of the world’s largest militaries, considerable operational experience and, crucially, is the world’s only Muslim-majority nuclear-armed state.

The nuclear question is therefore unavoidable.

Nothing publicly released about the agreement says Pakistan has extended a nuclear umbrella over Saudi Arabia or Türkiye. It would be wrong to claim otherwise.

But deterrence is also about perception. Any state contemplating a major confrontation with one member must now factor in the possibility of Pakistani involvement. The presence of a nuclear-armed state within that collective-defense framework inevitably becomes part of the strategic calculation.

Also, it’s worth mentioning that for Türkiye and Pakistan, this is the culmination of something much older.

Ankara and Islamabad: A growing relationship

The relationship between Ankara and Islamabad has long gone beyond diplomacy. It is rooted in unusually strong political and public ties and has evolved into substantial military cooperation,  from training and joint exercises to defense-industrial collaboration and Turkish-built MILGEM warships for Pakistan.

The Mecca pact takes that relationship a significant step further: from close defense partners to countries formally bound by collective defense.

And its implications stretch beyond the three signatories.

India says it is closely following the agreement. Its “great friend” Israel will surely be watching closely too.

Just a day before the agreement was signed, Narendra Modi received a call from Benjamin Netanyahu. According to India’s Foreign Ministry, the two discussed developments in West Asia and reviewed progress in the India-Israel Special Strategic Partnership.

There is no evidence connecting that call to the Mecca pact, and India has explicitly rejected subsequent reports that it sought a defence agreement with Israel to counter it.

But the wider picture is difficult to ignore. From New Delhi to Tel Aviv, capitals will now be assessing what this new arrangement means for a strategic landscape already undergoing profound change.

Having ties to China and the US at the same time

Pakistan occupies an especially interesting position within it.

China remains Pakistan’s “all-weather” strategic partner. Yet Islamabad continues to engage Washington, while simultaneously playing an active mediating role between the United States and Iran.

Perhaps US Vice President JD Vance summed up Pakistan’s standing in Washington most simply when asked about Islamabad’s role in the latest diplomatic efforts: “Very good, we love Pakistan.”

That ability to maintain relationships across geopolitical divides is increasingly rare.

Pakistan can speak to Beijing and Washington, Riyadh and Tehran, and the wider Gulf — without being completely confined to any single geopolitical camp. And now it has added a collective-defense commitment with Saudi Arabia and Türkiye to that equation.

That puts Pakistan in a remarkably unusual strategic position.

The pact also reflects a wider transformation in the Middle East. For decades, regional security depended heavily on external powers. Years of war, uncertainty and shifting American priorities have increasingly encouraged regional states to look towards one another.

Is this agreement like NATO? Well, we still do not know how integrated military planning will become or how its obligations would work during an actual war.

But deterrence begins long before a shot is fired. It begins with the calculations an adversary makes before deciding whether to fire one.

Turkish military and technological power, Saudi economic weight and Pakistani conventional and nuclear strength are now connected through a formal mutual-defense commitment.

(A version of this article was first published in Turkish by Kriter)

S

audi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan are set to sign a trilateral defense agreement on Friday, marking a significant expansion of security cooperation among three of the Muslim world’s most influential military powers as conflict with Iran reshapes the strategic landscape of the Middle East.

The agreement will be signed in the Saudi Red Sea city of Jeddah during a summit attended by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, is also expected to participate in the high-level meeting, underscoring the military significance of the pact.

Regional officials familiar with the negotiations said the agreement follows nearly a year of discussions aimed at strengthening defense coordination among the three countries amid mounting security challenges across the Gulf and surrounding waterways.

Although officials have confirmed that an agreement will be signed, none of the governments has publicly disclosed the precise scope of the pact or the commitments each country will undertake.

The trilateral accord comes at a time of heightened instability following the U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran earlier this year and Tehran’s subsequent retaliation against military installations, energy infrastructure and strategic targets across the Gulf. The conflict has exposed vulnerabilities in regional security arrangements while threatening one of the world’s most critical energy corridors.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies normally pass, has experienced repeated disruptions since hostilities escalated. Commercial shipping has slowed considerably as insurers raised premiums and shipping companies rerouted vessels due to fears of further attacks.

Against this backdrop, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan have increasingly sought closer strategic coordination, reflecting concerns that existing regional security mechanisms may not adequately address evolving threats.

A Turkish official confirmed that the defense agreement would be signed but declined to provide further details.

Expanding strategic partnership

The agreement would bring together three countries with considerable military and geopolitical influence.

Türkiye possesses NATO’s second-largest military and has significantly expanded its domestic defense industry over the past decade, becoming a leading exporter of drones, armored vehicles and missile systems.

Saudi Arabia remains one of the world’s largest defense spenders and has accelerated efforts to modernize its armed forces while investing heavily in domestic military manufacturing as part of its Vision 2030 economic transformation program.

Pakistan, meanwhile, is the only Muslim-majority nation possessing nuclear weapons and maintains one of Asia’s largest standing armies. Islamabad has long maintained close defense ties with Riyadh, including military training, intelligence cooperation and joint exercises.

Security analysts say combining the capabilities of the three countries could create one of the region’s most significant military partnerships, although its effectiveness will ultimately depend on the operational mechanisms established under the agreement.

Building on existing cooperation

The new arrangement appears to build upon the Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement signed between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in September 2025.

According to Saudi officials who previously described the agreement, the bilateral pact treats an attack against either country as an attack against both and provides for cooperation using “all military means.”

Whether Türkiye will assume identical obligations under the expanded framework remains unclear.

Reuters reported earlier this year that negotiations were underway to broaden Saudi-Pakistani security cooperation to include Türkiye, reflecting Ankara’s growing role in regional diplomacy and defense affairs.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said in January that Ankara supported establishing broader regional security platforms capable of promoting stability through multilateral cooperation rather than relying exclusively on outside powers.

Friday’s signing appears to represent the first major institutional step toward realizing that vision.

Maritime security takes center stage

Regional media reports suggest maritime security will feature prominently in discussions during the Jeddah summit.

The three countries have already backed Saudi Arabia’s recently announced multinational maritime initiative aimed at protecting commercial shipping through the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait.

The initiative gained urgency after repeated attacks on commercial vessels and energy infrastructure during recent regional conflicts disrupted global trade routes.

The Houthis in Yemen have also intensified attacks against Saudi-linked shipping in the Red Sea, further complicating regional security calculations.

Meanwhile, tensions in the Strait of Hormuz have highlighted the vulnerability of energy exports from Gulf producers, particularly Saudi Arabia, whose economy remains heavily dependent on oil exports.

Analysts say closer military coordination could improve intelligence sharing, naval patrols and joint responses to emerging threats affecting maritime commerce.

A

proposed agreement being discussed by Iran and Oman to help end five months of conflict between Iran and the United States would give Tehran authority over commercial vessels entering the Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, according to Iranian and regional sources, potentially marking one of the most significant shifts in Gulf maritime security in decades.

The proposal, if finalized, would grant Iran oversight of inbound shipping through the strategic waterway, through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil trade passed before the conflict disrupted maritime traffic. Regional officials said negotiations remain ongoing, with key issues still unresolved, despite Iranian officials reporting substantial progress.

There was no immediate comment from Washington on the reported proposal. U.S. officials have consistently maintained that they would not accept Iranian control over navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, despite President Donald Trump’s recent assertions that an agreement to reopen the waterway could be close.

The talks are taking place amid broader diplomatic efforts to end the conflict that erupted in late February, when U.S. and Israeli military operations against Iran triggered months of fighting across the region.

According to a senior Iranian source and two regional officials familiar with the negotiations, the draft arrangement would require commercial vessels entering the Gulf to transit through Iranian-controlled waters, giving Tehran an unprecedented administrative role over maritime traffic.

Some form of control

One regional official described the proposal as representing “some form of control” already conceded in principle, though negotiators remain divided over how that authority would be implemented in practice.

“The concession has already been made regarding some form of control over Hormuz,” one regional source said, adding that details regarding inspections and oversight remain under discussion.

Another regional source said Gulf states are seeking a framework in which regional countries would supervise any inspections of commercial vessels and ensure that any payments required from shipping companies remain voluntary.

A senior Iranian official said Tehran is seeking to levy fees of between 5% and 7% of cargo values on ships using the strait, while Oman has proposed charges closer to 3%. The United States, however, continues to oppose any transit fees, insisting that Hormuz remain an international waterway with unrestricted access.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said negotiations with Oman had reached “fundamental understandings” and suggested an agreement was nearing completion.

Speaking to Iran’s official IRNA news agency, Gharibabadi said the proposed arrangement was designed so that commercial vessels would pass through Iranian territorial waters on both inbound and outbound voyages.

He added that discussions had reached “the verge of being finalized.”

However, regional officials cautioned that significant differences remain, particularly over whether Iran’s authority would extend equally to ships leaving the Gulf, as well as the legal basis for any administrative role Tehran would exercise.

Regional energy infrastructure

The negotiations come as Iran has simultaneously intensified its warnings to Gulf Arab states against supporting any renewed U.S. military action.

According to several regional sources, Tehran has privately warned neighboring Gulf countries that any future American attack on Iranian territory would trigger retaliation against critical regional energy infrastructure.

“The Iranian warning was unequivocal: if America targeted Iran’s infrastructure, they would retaliate by striking Gulf energy facilities and other regional targets,” one Gulf source said.

Since the conflict began, Iran has repeatedly targeted regional allies of the United States with missile and drone attacks while also disrupting commercial shipping through Hormuz.

Iran says more than 3,400 people have been killed since the war began, while the United States has reported the deaths of 18 military personnel.

President Trump has increasingly emphasized diplomacy after months of military operations failed to reopen the waterway fully or compel Tehran to accept Washington’s demands.

Addressing supporters in Las Vegas, Trump said he preferred a negotiated solution despite warning that military action remained an option.

“I’d rather make a deal because I don’t want to kill people,” Trump said. “I do not want to kill people, but at some point we’re gonna.”

The reported negotiations reflect a notable evolution in the conflict, which has increasingly centered on maritime access rather than direct military confrontation.

Iran has argued that previous flexibility in negotiations only encouraged greater pressure from Washington, leading its leadership to conclude that stronger leverage is necessary before meaningful talks can proceed.

A major strategic shift from the pre-war status quo

The proposed arrangement would also represent a major strategic shift from the pre-war status quo, when commercial vessels transited the Strait of Hormuz without paying fees or seeking authorization from Iran.

The waterway remains one of the world’s most strategically important maritime corridors, serving as the primary export route for Gulf oil and liquefied natural gas.

Despite optimistic statements from Tehran and Washington about the prospects for diplomacy, officials involved in the talks stressed that no final agreement has been reached.

Political disagreements over shipping fees, inspection authority and the precise definition of Iranian control continue to complicate negotiations, while broader questions surrounding the future security architecture of the Gulf remain unresolved.

The talks also come as Trump faces growing domestic pressure to end a conflict that opinion polls suggest remains unpopular with American voters ahead of November’s congressional midterm elections.

Oil prices fell in recent days after Trump suspended plans for renewed military strikes, citing ongoing diplomatic efforts that he said could eventually lead to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

(Source: Reuters)

O

ne of the most significant turning points in Turkish political life undoubtedly took place on the night of July 15, 2016. The coup attempt, which arose from a mutiny by a group within the military affiliated with the FETÖ organization, was thwarted thanks to the resolute stance demonstrated by the public and the strong political will displayed by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. This event not only directly influenced political processes but also served as a catalyst for a profound transformation in Turkish political culture. On the night of July 15, whilst the public’s silence in the face of the military largely came to an end, a clear tendency to embrace the political mechanism emerging from the manifestation of civilian will also became evident.

Following the failed coup attempt on July 15, social and political codes in Türkiye began to be restructured within a new paradigm. By opening the door to an understanding of the risks posed by—or that could be created by—movements characterized by external dependencies and a high degree of esotericism, July 15 brought about a historic turning point in terms of redefining the perception of security in Türkiye and reorganizing the relationship between the military and politics from the ground up.

The radical changes in these two areas have not only had a clear impact on domestic politics and the structuring of institutions, but have also been felt just as distinctly in Türkiye’s approach to international politics and its foreign policy practices. In this new reality, where the approach to countering external threats has shifted, Ankara’s strategic choices—particularly regarding the Middle East—exhibited a striking parallelism with both the region’s own conditions and the domestic transformation taking place within the country.

The strategy to contain Türkiye in the run-up to July 15

The foreign policy vision set out and the policies implemented following the 3 November 2002 elections, which brought the Justice and Development Party to power, enabled Türkiye to reposition itself in global politics and, in particular, to become a founding actor in the Middle East. In particular, the status quo that emerged as a result of the popular revolutions in the region during the 2011 Arab Spring bore the hallmarks of Ankara’s new global political vision. However, in the strategic transformations in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Libya, the significant electoral success of Islamist and conservative parties—which reflected broader societal trends rather than those of groups aligned with the West—completely altered the perspective of the US and other Western actors on the region.

Furthermore, with the open support provided by Russia and Iran to prop up Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, a serious attempt was made to put a brake on the Middle East’s drive towards independence. During this process, in which Ankara’s relations with the region were taken to a new level, the unease arising amongst global and regional actors evolved into a situation characterized by a succession of initiatives aimed at restricting Turkey’s room for maneuver. The sudden emergence in 2013 of events in Türkiye, Egypt and Bangladesh—which shared similar backgrounds, support bases and rhetoric—constituted steps taken to stem the new momentum within the Muslim world. Alongside the violent protests at Gezi Park in Türkiye, the Tamarod protests in Egypt and the Shahbag protests in Bangladesh were a reflection of a coordinated strategy.

Following the overthrow of Mohamed Morsi in Egypt on July 3, 2013, through a coup, Ankara’s stance on this event led to the emergence of a new dynamic in the region. Alongside the deepening crisis in Syria, the efforts of certain regional actors to bring the popular revolutions to an end and restore the authoritarian status quo led to a narrowing of Türkiye’s foreign policy parameters, driven by both external and internal factors.

During this period, the terrorist organizations that emerged in northern Syria (ISIS and the YPG), alongside the PKK’s tendencies to undermine stability within the country, constituted attempts to erode the government in power before July 15 and, consequently, the legitimate and civilian political will. In particular, the deliberate efforts by members of FETÖ, who had infiltrated the security bureaucracy to a significant extent, to slow down decision-making and implementation processes and to prevent the government from exercising its proper authority through the dissemination of manipulative information, formed part of a plan to undermine Türkiye’s distinctive and independent character in global politics and reduce it to the status of an ineffective actor.

Against a backdrop of growing threats to Türkiye’s border security from Syria, the aircraft crisis with Russia has gone down in history as one of the profound challenges Ankara has faced. The tension that arose between Moscow and Ankara following the downing of a Russian SU-24 aircraft that had violated Turkish airspace caused serious difficulties for Türkiye, a country that was becoming increasingly isolated in the region and whose security concerns were being disregarded by the Western world.

However, under the leadership of President Erdoğan, and following the decision-making elite’s prudent management of the situation, the crisis between Ankara and Moscow was largely resolved, whilst at the same time Türkiye began to adopt a more resilient stance in the face of regional and global challenges. The fact that the collapse anticipated by FETÖ members and their external supporters did not materialize – due to Ankara’s protection of the country’s security and stability through alternative strategies and its continued resolute policy in the face of all threats – led to the attempt on the night of July 15 to overthrow the government by coup and eliminate Türkiye’s sovereignty.

Post-July 15 purge and Türkiye’s new Middle East policy

Following July 15—one of the longest nights in the history of the Republic—and the failure of FETÖ members’ attempts to eliminate the country’s political autonomy and restrict its capacity for action, Ankara began to pursue an action-oriented policy within a new paradigm. During this process, in which security and the perception of threat were formulated in a manner consistent with the reality on the ground, the security bureaucracy took steps—particularly through the purging of harmful elements within the military—within the framework of the hierarchical relationship that should exist between the government and the military.

On 24 August 2016, to send a message to the entire world and to demonstrate in concrete terms that it would combat all forms of terrorism without making any categorical distinctions, Ankara launched Operation Euphrates Shield in northern Syria, with the support of the Free Syrian Army. As part of this operation, which resulted in a crushing victory over ISIS elements, Ankara made a highly strategic move aimed at eliminating threats to its borders originating from Syrian territory and establishing a safe zone for Syrians in the north of the country.

By demonstrating a radical model of alignment between theory and practice through Operation Euphrates Shield, Türkiye not only altered the balance of power on the ground through its military activism but also assumed both an independent and a founding role in initiating a new process regarding Syria’s future. The fact that, for many years, US and European actors refrained from taking constructive and realistic steps to end the civil war in Syria and ensure the safe return of Syrians led Ankara, following July 15, to adopt a stance that engaged Russia more closely under a new framework.

The establishment of a Syria-focused dialogue framework involving Türkiye, Russia and Iran, and the Astana Talks, which represented an alternative initiative to resolve the crisis in the country, went down in the records as a concrete positive contribution of the July 15 events. Alongside its fight against Daesh, Türkiye—which is determined to prevent the PKK/YPG structure in Syria from undermining Syria’s territorial integrity in any way—carried out the Olive Branch and Peace Spring operations in line with its concept of strategic autonomy, despite reactions from the Western world, thereby consolidating its position as a game-changer in the region.

Having swiftly observed the outcomes of its post-July 15 purification efforts in Syria, Ankara adopted a more active strategy to escape the atmosphere of constriction and isolation that had emerged following the reversal of the post-Arab Spring process. During this period, the transformation of the domestic political system also facilitated Türkiye’s ability to pursue independent foreign policy practices.

The establishment of a new model, in which the executive branch has been strengthened and communication between institutions has been accelerated under the Presidential System of Government, played a decisive role in minimizing the negative effects of the July 15 coup attempt and in enhancing Ankara’s global standing. As a reflection of this, Türkiye demonstrated its influence in the region to all parties by openly supporting Doha against the blockade imposed by the Gulf Cooperation Council countries aimed at disciplining Qatar. Furthermore, following the purge within the country’s civil and security bureaucracy, the acceleration of developments in the defense industry and Türkiye’s transformation into a major security producer have enabled Ankara to reposition itself in global politics. This situation has undoubtedly led to a reassessment of ties with Ankara among regional actors and the reactivation of previously frozen relations.

Although the July 15 coup attempt appears to be an intervention in the political mechanism due to its direct targeting of President Erdoğan and his administration, it is clear that this failed attempt was actually the result of a will to eliminate Türkiye’s subjectivity in the global arena. Considering that a significant portion of classical or postmodern coups in Turkish political life have occurred as a result of Ankara establishing contact with alternative actors or presenting a new global political vision, it is evident that the FETÖ mechanism was activated to undermine the effects of President Erdoğan’s new perspective on the international stage and to transform Türkiye back into a secondary actor.

Having overcome this organized threat against the country’s sovereignty and independence, Türkiye, having largely purged harmful elements from its ranks, has begun to develop more original strategies in the global arena. The most concrete manifestation of this is Türkiye’s founding and decisive role in the Middle East. Changing the status quo in the region and successfully balancing regional actors, Ankara has become one of the most effective actors in both Middle Eastern and global politics over the past decade.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

T

housands of Palestinians gathered in Gaza City on Tuesday for one of the largest mass funerals since the start of the genocide, mourning 112 members of the Abu Shreia and al-Hassaina families whose remains were recovered from beneath the rubble nearly three years after an Israeli airstrike destroyed their homes.

The funeral, held in the Sabra neighborhood, marked the first time many relatives had been able to bury their loved ones since the attack in November 2023, when entire extended families were killed and buried under collapsed buildings.

Rows of white body bags containing the recovered remains were carried through the streets as mourners wept, prayed and scattered flowers from balconies overlooking the funeral procession. The ceremony brought together thousands of relatives, neighbors and residents, many of whom said the burial reopened wounds that had never healed.

For 39-year-old Lara Abu Shreia, the funeral was the painful conclusion of nearly three years of waiting.

“Today felt like the first day I lost them,” she said. “It was a renewed grief, saying goodbye to them this way.”

The November 22, 2023 strike destroyed her family’s residential compound in Sabra while she, her husband and their five children had already been displaced to southern Gaza following Israeli evacuation orders issued at the start of the genocide.

Fourteen of her closest relatives were killed, including her mother, Nawal, eight siblings and several nieces and nephews.

“My family disappeared almost in one moment,” she said.

Everyone was trapped under the rubble

While displaced in southern Gaza, Lara remained in regular contact with one of her sisters whenever communications allowed. On the night the attack occurred, she learned that airstrikes had hit Sabra but initially hoped the silence from her family was due to communication outages that frequently affected Gaza during the genocide.

Instead, her husband received the devastating news that the family compound had been destroyed and everyone inside was trapped beneath the rubble.

For months, Lara struggled to accept the loss.

When she returned to northern Gaza after the fighting eased, she visited the destroyed home, hoping against all odds that someone had survived.

“I kept telling myself maybe they were playing a trick on me. Maybe someone was hiding,” she recalled. “Maybe I will find someone we didn’t know about.”

Instead, she found only ruins.

In recent weeks, Palestinian Civil Defense teams began extensive recovery operations at the site, eventually retrieving 112 sets of remains from buildings where officials believe 153 people had been buried.

The operation was among the largest recovery missions conducted since the war began.

Mahmoud Basal, spokesperson for Gaza’s Civil Defense, described the funeral as unprecedented.

“Today, 112 martyrs are being buried in one funeral for the first time in the history of the Palestinian cause,” he said.

8,000 bodies remain under the rubble in Gaza

According to Civil Defense estimates, more than 8,000 bodies remain trapped beneath collapsed buildings across Gaza.

Recovery efforts have been hampered by extensive destruction, damaged infrastructure and a shortage of heavy equipment needed to clear debris safely.

“We need the capabilities and equipment to enter Gaza so Civil Defense teams can carry out this humanitarian mission,” Basal said.

He added that in many cases identifying victims has become increasingly difficult after years beneath the rubble.

“Some bodies have disappeared. Some have evaporated. Some have been scattered into very small pieces, making identification extremely difficult,” he said.

For Lara, witnessing the recovery process became a personal necessity despite relatives urging her to stay away.

“I told them, ‘I want to see. Even if it is just a bone, I want to see something from them,'” she said.

Another relative, 50-year-old Ali Abu Shreia, also lost two brothers and their entire families in the attack.

He said the strikes unfolded rapidly as relatives moved between houses in search of safety before gathering in the home of Mufeed al-Hassaina, a former Palestinian minister of public works and housing.

“They thought they would be safe, but the war machine did not distinguish between civilians, homes or families,” he said.

Ali described the victims as ordinary civilians with no military role.

“They were business owners, traders, people active in their community,” he said. “Seven families were completely erased from the civil registry.”

The funeral highlighted the enduring humanitarian consequences of the war, which has left thousands of people officially listed as missing because their remains have never been recovered.

More families on the waiting list

Families across Gaza continue to wait for excavation teams to reach destroyed neighborhoods where relatives are believed to remain buried.

Civil Defense officials say the search continues across multiple locations, although limited equipment means many recovery operations progress slowly.

Tuesday’s ceremony brought together grieving families who had lived for years without graves to visit or funerals to attend.

As the procession wound through Sabra, elderly relatives, parents and children walked behind the rows of white body bags, many overcome with emotion after years of uncertainty.

Women standing on balconies overlooking the funeral scattered flower petals onto the procession below while prayers echoed through the neighborhood.

For Lara, however, the burial offered little sense of closure.

Instead, it marked the beginning of another chapter of grief.

“I wanted to hug the bag,” she said quietly. “I wanted to hug whatever remained of them.”

(Source: Aljazeera English)

I

ran is increasingly relying on economic disruption rather than direct military confrontation to pressure the United States into making concessions over the Strait of Hormuz, expanding threats to regional shipping routes and energy infrastructure as the conflict enters a prolonged phase.

According to Gulf officials, regional sources and analysts, Tehran believes that sustained pressure on global trade and energy markets will prove more effective than conventional military escalation in forcing Washington to reconsider its position.

Rather than seeking a decisive battlefield victory, Iran has adopted a strategy of calibrated escalation designed to steadily raise the economic and political costs of the conflict while avoiding an all-out regional war. The objective, analysts say, is to convince the United States and its allies that accommodating Iran’s demands over the Strait of Hormuz is less costly than continuing the current confrontation.

“Iran, from the beginning, has tried to out-escalate the United States by stretching out its escalation options so that it always has something new to bring every week — a new geography, a new type of weapon, a new type of target,” Michael Knights of the Washington Institute told Reuters.

He argued that Iran’s greatest leverage lies not in its ability to inflict military damage on the United States or Israel, but in its capacity to disrupt regional economies and global commerce.

“The bigger advantage they have is not that they can hurt America or Israel,” Knights said. “Their big advantage is that they can hurt the regional states and the global economy.”

Pressure beyond Hormuz

After demonstrating its ability to disrupt maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz — a waterway that carried around one-fifth of global oil consumption before the conflict — Iran has signaled that its pressure campaign could extend well beyond the strategic chokepoint.

Threats directed at the Red Sea and Saudi energy infrastructure suggest Tehran is seeking to widen the geographical scope of the crisis, increasing the cost of protecting international shipping while testing Washington’s willingness to sustain a prolonged confrontation.

One Gulf source said commanders in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards believe recent developments have strengthened Tehran’s negotiating position.

“The Iranians believe that by widening the war and increasing the pressure, he will eventually give in,” the source said, referring to U.S. President Donald Trump. “Trump thinks he can hit the Iranians hard and bring them to the negotiating table, but they won’t bend.”

That assessment has shaped Tehran’s negotiating strategy, according to Iranian and regional sources.

Trump said on Monday that negotiations with Iran would take place after he canceled a planned military strike in hopes of securing an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian officials, however, denied that talks with Washington were currently underway.

A senior Iranian source said Tehran’s leadership has concluded that previous attempts at flexibility only encouraged greater pressure from Washington, reinforcing the belief that meaningful negotiations can occur only after Iran establishes stronger leverage.

In Tehran’s view, the source said, Trump interprets concessions as weakness and responds only to sustained pressure.

Michael Singh, another senior fellow at the Washington Institute, said Iranian leaders appear convinced they still hold the initiative because the Trump administration remains uncertain about how far it is willing to escalate militarily.

“The Iranians are trying to press their advantage,” Singh said. “They’re interested in establishing sovereignty over the strait and exercising selective control over the waterway.”

Dispute over the Strait

At the heart of the standoff is the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most strategically important maritime corridors.

Regional sources say Oman has presented Tehran with a Gulf-backed proposal that would establish a mechanism for managing shipping through the strait, including voluntary user fees.

Iran, however, is reportedly seeking administrative authority over the waterway and the right to impose service charges on vessels passing through it.

Washington has rejected any arrangement that would allow Iran to exercise control over the strait, insisting it must remain an international waterway open to unrestricted commercial navigation.

Former U.S. diplomat Alan Eyre said Iran’s broader strategy is intended to deter further American military action while forcing Washington to lift its naval blockade and reconsider its negotiating position.

“They don’t want the U.S. to dictate the pace of events,” Eyre said.

War of endurance

Analysts say Iran’s campaign has already shifted the focus of regional and international efforts.

Rather than intensifying military pressure on Tehran, Gulf states and Western governments are increasingly concentrating on protecting commercial shipping and critical energy infrastructure.

The formation of a Saudi-led maritime coalition reflects that shift. According to Gulf sources, the initiative is primarily defensive, focusing on escorting commercial vessels, sharing intelligence and safeguarding vital sea lanes instead of confronting Iran directly.

Knights compared the effort to Europe’s Aspides naval mission in the Red Sea, which was established to protect merchant shipping rather than alter the regional military balance.

For Tehran, forcing rivals into an expensive defensive posture represents a strategic success despite its military disadvantages.

Unable to match U.S. military capabilities directly, Iran can still impose significant costs by compelling regional governments and foreign navies to devote increasing resources to securing global trade routes.

Each new threat, whether in the Strait of Hormuz, the Bab al-Mandeb Strait or elsewhere, increases the financial and military burden of keeping international commerce flowing.

Analysts describe the conflict as increasingly becoming a contest of endurance.

Iranian leaders appear to believe they can withstand economic pressure longer than the United States and its partners can tolerate repeated disruptions to global energy supplies and maritime trade.

The strategy also serves a diplomatic purpose.

By demonstrating an ability to expand the crisis whenever necessary, Tehran hopes to strengthen its bargaining position before any future negotiations.

“If there are going to be negotiations, they will define the terms,” said Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. “Both sides are matching escalation with escalation.”

Despite intermittent diplomatic efforts, neither Washington nor Tehran has shown signs of backing down.

As both sides continue to test each other’s resolve through economic pressure, military deterrence and political signaling, analysts warn that a strategy intended to maximize leverage could still spiral into a wider conflict that neither side intends or is fully able to control.

(Source: Reuters)

T

he 36th NATO Summit, held in Ankara on July 7-8, 2026, addressed critical agenda items not only concerning key themes such as the Russia-Ukraine War, defense spending or European security, but also within the context of NATO’s policies towards neighboring regions. In this context, the Summit can also be seen as a platform for redefining relations with the Middle East, North Africa and Gulf countries, which form the Alliance’s southern flank. NATO’s relations with the Gulf countries, which have been caught in a spiral of strategic uncertainty due to the US-Iran conflict, were specifically addressed at this Summit.

The summit held in Ankara demonstrates that the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI), launched with the Gulf states at the 2004 Istanbul Summit, has regained strategic importance 22 years later. As will be recalled, the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, launched at the 2004 Istanbul Summit, marked the starting point of NATO’s institutional engagement with the Gulf states. However, over the span of 22 years, this initiative has failed to deliver the transformative impact that was anticipated. The potential of the Ankara Summit to revitalise this framework deserves to be assessed from both a symbolic and a strategic perspective.

The primary aim behind the establishment of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative was for NATO to contribute to the security architecture in the Middle East and the Gulf region in an inclusive and collaborative manner. In particular, the Gulf states’ reliance on external sources for security and their fragile structure were the underlying reasons for this initiative. However, in 2004, only four out of the six Gulf states joined the initiative, meaning full inclusivity could not be achieved. Nevertheless, NATO continued to invest in the initiative, hoping that other Gulf states might eventually join Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, which had already joined the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.

At this stage, the fact that membership of this initiative remains limited to four countries, with Saudi Arabia and Oman continuing to remain outside it, can be regarded as both a symbolic shortcoming and a structural weakness. The fact that Saudi Arabia and Oman, two of the most critical countries when it comes to the geopolitics of the Persian Gulf and the security of the Strait of Hormuz, are not part of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative can be cited as the main reason why this initiative has remained a ‘limited-impact’ framework to date. Indeed, this situation also highlights the limitations that the Gulf states’ divergent security perceptions and foreign engagements may impose on cooperation with NATO. Consequently, the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative’s failure to demonstrate the expected trajectory of development can be explained not only by fluctuations in NATO’s regional priorities but also by the divergent approaches of the Gulf states.

NATO-Gulf cooperation in the shadow of crisis

From the perspective of Gulf geopolitics, it can be argued that the key factor distinguishing the 2026 Ankara Summit from the 2004 Istanbul Summit was the context in which the meetings took place. The Istanbul Summit was held in the wake of the largest wave of expansion in NATO’s history and against a relatively optimistic global backdrop. The Ankara Summit, however, took place in an uncertain geopolitical environment in which a conflict between the US and Iran, which had started on February 28, was directly affecting the Gulf states and posing a serious threat to their security. This situation has distinctly set this year’s IIG session apart from the routine diplomatic contacts of previous years.

In this context, NATO foreign ministers and representatives from the Gulf states came together at a meeting held on the margins of the summit. At the meeting, a consensus was reached on strengthening cooperation in the face of the security challenges posed by the conflict in the Gulf region. This approach can be interpreted as a sign that the initiative may be evolving beyond a purely rhetorical framework of cooperation towards a crisis-management-centered function. A notable aspect here is the shift in the rhetoric of European allies. The fact that the stability of the Gulf is now framed not merely as a regional issue but as an integral part of European security and energy supply security can be interpreted as a shift in rhetoric that enhances the strategic significance of the IIG. This shift also points to the concretization, specifically in the context of the Gulf, of the ‘360-degree security’ approach that has long been debated within the Alliance.

On the other hand, from the perspective of representation, it is noteworthy that whilst the foreign ministers of NATO countries attended the meeting, only Kuwait, among the Gulf states, was represented at the level of foreign minister. The attendance of State Minister for Foreign Affairs Mohammed bin Abdulaziz al-Khulaifi from Qatar, State Minister for Defense Mohammed bin Mubarak Fadil al-Mazrui from the UAE, and Director-General for Bilateral Relations at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sheikh Abdullah al-Khalifa, from Bahrain, highlights that, despite strong diplomatic messages and rhetoric on cooperation, the Gulf states had limited expectations of the summit.

In terms of positive outcomes, however, it was observed that discussions took place at the summit regarding the possibility of taking some concrete steps between NATO and the Gulf states within the framework of the GCC. In this context, the agreement reached between Qatar and NATO on a partnership program to frame civil and military cooperation between the two sides, and the fact that the establishment process for a regional centre for peace support operations planned to be set up in Qatar is approaching its final stage, can be regarded as concrete steps in the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative’s transition beyond being merely a consultative platform.

State Minister al-Khulaifi, who attended the summit on behalf of Qatar, emphasized in his statement that his country attaches great importance to the IIG and is ready to implement concrete outcomes. Kuwait, another country taking concrete steps in cooperation with NATO and hosting the GIG-NATO regional centre, launched the Kuwait-NATO Political and Security Dialogue Mechanism in January 2026. Sheikh Jarrah Jabir al-Ahmed al-Sabah, Kuwait’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, who attended the Ankara summit, also proposed in his statement that the GCC Ministerial Summit be held in Kuwait in 2027.

The future of NATO-Gulf cooperation

At this stage, it remains unclear whether NATO’s renewed engagement with the Gulf states is the result of a temporary momentum generated by current crises, or the outcome of a process aimed at implementing lasting structural measures. Given the Gulf states’ quest for security, having recognized the ineffectiveness of a security mechanism entirely dependent on the US during the Iran conflict, it is reasonable to suggest that they may wish to consider NATO as a new alternative security provider. Indeed, the Gulf states, which already maintain strong partnerships with NATO member states such as the US and Turkey, may also aim to formalize institutional cooperation with NATO.

Turkey’s role in this process, as the host of the Ankara Summit, is also noteworthy. Having hosted the 2004 Istanbul Summit during the enlargement process, Turkey has, by 2026, become a more central actor on the Alliance’s southern flank, owing both to its geographical location and its growing defense industry capacity. Efforts to position the reconstruction process in Syria as a bridge between NATO’s sphere of influence and Gulf capital can also be cited as one of the concrete manifestations of this central role. The progress Turkey has made in the defense industry sector and its transformation into a significant actor in terms of military deterrence have made Ankara an important security partner for the Gulf states.

Consequently, the Ankara Summit has had limited yet positive implications for the future from the perspective of the Gulf states. The interactions revealed by the Summit, particularly regarding the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, demonstrate that an initiative which had seen relatively limited progress over the past 22 years has been able to regain significance in the wake of the crisis. At this stage, the most significant question mark concerns whether this momentum will translate into a permanent institutional framework.

Whether the NATO–ICI dialogue will remain a temporary reaction to the geopolitical uncertainty created by the US–Iran conflict will become clear through the concrete steps the parties take in the future. Key factors in this regard will include whether key actors such as Saudi Arabia and Oman will join the initiative, and to what extent the emerging cooperation programm will be reflected in practice. Consequently, the most tangible dynamic in NATO’s future in the Gulf can be identified as the success of the transition from rhetorical solidarity to sustained institutional cooperation.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

O

nly one in three Americans support the U.S. war with Iran, while a large majority believe President Donald Trump has failed to clearly explain the conflict’s objectives, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The nationwide survey, conducted from July 24 to 26 among 1,246 U.S. adults, found that support for the war has fallen to its lowest level since the conflict began five months ago. Only about one-third of respondents said they back the military campaign, while support has remained below 40% for five consecutive months.

Despite declining support for the war, Trump’s overall job approval rating rose three percentage points from the previous month to 37%, although it remains historically low for his presidency.

The poll found widespread uncertainty about the administration’s objectives in Iran.

Overall, 69% of respondents—including roughly 40% of Republicans—said Trump has not clearly explained why the United States is fighting in Iran.

Since the conflict began, Trump has cited multiple goals, including:

• Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
• Destroying Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities.
• Encouraging Iranians to overthrow their government.

The White House defended the administration’s approach. Spokesperson Olivia Wales said Trump would not base decisions on “fluid opinion polls” and reiterated that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon remains the administration’s central objective.

Support lags far behind previous U.S. wars

Reuters noted that public backing for the Iran conflict is substantially lower than support recorded during the early stages of previous American military campaigns.

According to historical Gallup polling:

• Around 70% of Americans supported the Iraq War during its initial months in 2003.
• Approximately 90% backed military action in Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks in 2001.

By contrast, Reuters/Ipsos polling has shown support for military action against Iran never rising above 40% since the conflict began on February 28.

The survey suggests the war may become a significant political challenge for Republicans before November’s congressional midterm elections.

Independent voters surveyed by Reuters/Ipsos favored Democratic congressional candidates over Republicans by 36% to 20%. Independents also gave Democrats higher marks on economic issues, reflecting concern over rising living costs linked to the conflict.

The war has contributed to higher energy prices, with average U.S. gasoline prices climbing above $4 per gallon compared with about $3 before hostilities began.

Republican strategist Alex Conant, who served in President George W. Bush’s administration, said the conflict is making it harder for Republicans to focus on economic issues that they had hoped would dominate the election campaign.

Voters question the purpose of the war

Several voters interviewed by Reuters expressed uncertainty about the reasons for the war.

Alex Womack, a retired Marine from Georgia who previously supported Trump, said he no longer understood the purpose of the conflict.

“It’s not clear why we started a war with them. I have no idea,” Womack said.

Another Georgia voter, Rhyan Anderson, who voted for Trump in 2024 after supporting former President Joe Biden in 2020, argued that the administration should focus more on domestic priorities than overseas conflicts.

“My biggest thing is just focus on the people who are actually in the country,” Anderson told Reuters.

According to Reuters, 18 U.S. service members have been killed since the conflict began, while thousands of people have died in Iran and in Lebanon, where fighting between Israeli forces and the Iran-backed Hezbollah has continued.

The combination of rising fuel prices, uncertainty over the war’s objectives and persistent public skepticism presents a growing political challenge for Trump as his administration seeks to sustain support for a conflict that has now entered its sixth month.

(Source: Reuters)

T

he 80-year-old global order established after the Second World War is unravelling. The security architecture of the Atlantic system, the economic and political framework of the Bretton Woods institutions, the liberal assumption that free trade would reduce conflicts by increasing interdependence, and global supply chains reliant on cheap energy and low-cost production no longer meet the needs of the new era. The world is transitioning, increasingly and more forcefully, to a new global competitive order that we define as ‘Second Mercantilism’.

In this new order, trade is no longer merely trade. A semiconductor factory, a container port, a data centre, a rare-earth elements mine, an LNG terminal, a satellite network, a submarine cable, a shipyard or an ammunition factory have all simultaneously become elements of economic, technological, geopolitical and military power. States are no longer competing solely for market share; they are vying for control over production capacity, critical technology, energy security, logistics routes, strategic minerals, data flows and supply chains.

Consequently, the old distinction between the global economy and the global security system has vanished. The economy is being securitised, security is being industrialised, technology is becoming geopolitical, and trade is increasingly and explicitly transforming into a tool of the struggle for national power. It is precisely in the midst of this major shift that NATO’s future lies.

In the 20th century, there was an ideological, military and nuclear balance between two major blocs. Today, however, competition is far more fragmented, far more technological and far more economic in nature. Russia represents an immediate and direct military challenge; China, long-term industrial, technological and systemic competition; regional powers, missile systems, unmanned systems and proxy wars; whilst non-state actors represent asymmetric threats.

Cyberspace, space, undersea infrastructure, energy networks, critical minerals, artificial intelligence and supply chains are becoming new arenas of competition. In such a world, it is impossible for NATO to continue on its current path based on the classic military alliance logic of 1949.

5 per cent: much more than just a budget target

The commitment by NATO members to raise their defense and security-related expenditure to 5 per cent of their GDP represents one of the most significant economic and political transformations in the Alliance’s history. However, it would be a grave mistake to interpret this decision merely as ‘spending more money’. For money, on its own, does not create deterrence.

You can increase your budget, but if you cannot produce sufficient ammunition, you cannot fight. You may possess the most advanced platforms, but if your critical components are reliant on a single external supplier, you cannot establish a sustainable defense capability. You can develop excellent air defense systems, but if your stockpile of interceptor missiles is depleted within a few weeks of intense fighting, your strategic resilience remains merely theoretical. You may possess very expensive fighter aircraft, but if their maintenance, engine, electronics, software and ammunition supply chains are fragile, you cannot manage the economics of a protracted war.

The Russia-Ukraine War, the crises in the Red Sea, the conflicts in the Middle East and the revolution brought about by unmanned systems on the battlefield have all demonstrated the same truth to us: the decisive factor in modern warfare is not merely technological superiority; it is the ability to scale up technology, produce ammunition continuously, rapidly replace losses and adapt industrial capacity to the pace of the war.

For this reason, NATO’s 5 per cent target must be a production doctrine, not merely an accounting decision. In this new era, NATO’s fundamental question should not be ‘How much are the Allies spending?’, but rather ‘How much can the Alliance produce, how quickly can it replenish its stocks, how long can it sustain operations, and how rapidly can it ramp up production in the event of war?’ It is precisely at this point that NATO must transition from a traditional alliance to a comprehensive defense economy.

NATO’s new requirement: A total defense economy

The concept of a total defense economy does not mean transforming the entire economy into a military economy. The issue is to restructure the boundaries between defense and the economy in line with the demands of the new era.

NATO can no longer consider military planning and industrial planning in isolation from one another. Defence ministries, economic and industrial ministries, energy policies and critical infrastructure investments cannot operate in separate spheres. This is because, in modern warfare, the distance between the front line and the production line has been eliminated.

For this reason, the Alliance’s new economic model must be built on five fundamental pillars:

Firstly, long-term and predictable joint demand must be established. If defense companies are to be asked to increase their capacity, they must be given a 10–15-year order outlook, not just a three-year one. Factories grow not on the basis of political statements, but on guarantees of sustainable demand.

Secondly, joint procurement mechanisms must be strengthened. The dozens of different standards for the same munitions, disjointed national tenders for the same requirement, duplicate investments amongst allies, and political protectionism that hinders economies of scale must be reduced.

Thirdly, redundancy must be established in critical production chains. In the new NATO economy, no strategic product should be dependent on a single factory, a single country or a single company. Alternative production centers must be established for engines, explosives, guidance systems, semiconductors, optical and radar components, batteries, critical minerals and software infrastructure.

Fourthly, a transition to a joint stockpiling system must be made. Ammunition, fuel, critical spare parts, air defense interceptors and strategic raw materials must be planned not solely on the basis of national stockpiling logic, but in terms of the Alliance’s overall resilience.

Fifthly, production-conversion capacity must be established in the event of war. Plans must be drawn up today to identify which elements of civilian industry – from automotive to electronics, from chemicals to metallurgy, and from software to logistics – can support defense production in the event of a crisis.

The view that this new architecture must evolve towards a ‘NATO Defence Economic Area’ has gained significant traction. This area should encompass common standards, long-term orders, mutual investments, cross-border production clusters, coordination on critical raw materials, the integration of SMEs into the system, joint testing and certification processes, and the reduction of political barriers to defense trade within the Alliance.

This is because, in the era of Second Mercantilism, the defense industry is not merely a sector in which companies operate. It is one of the main pillars of national power, technological sovereignty and alliance resilience.

The alliance cannot afford ‘internal strife’

However, NATO faces more than just Russia, China or other global challenges. One of the most significant issues the Alliance must overcome is strategic fragmentation within its own ranks.

NATO must shake off the image of a ‘row among boatmen’ – a situation where allies sometimes view one another as rivals, where bilateral political disputes hold collective security hostage, where defense industry restrictions are directed at alliance members, and where short-term domestic political calculations take precedence over long-term strategic objectives.

To put it more plainly, NATO cannot prepare for a new Cold War whilst engaged in an internal ‘brawl’. Weakening an ally’s defense capabilities on political grounds undermines the alliance’s overall deterrence. Disrupting an ally’s supply chain reduces the capacity NATO will require in a crisis. Imposing restrictions on parts, engines, ammunition or technology for an ally’s strategic platforms, whilst subsequently expecting that same ally to contribute more to the Alliance’s defense, is unsustainable.

Moreover, as the world moves towards far greater systemic competition, NATO’s squandering of its energy on internal disputes creates strategic space for its real rivals.

The Alliance cannot resolve every political issue between its members. Such an expectation is unrealistic. However, it must not allow bilateral disputes to paralyze its collective defence capabilities. Defence industry cooperation must be spared from becoming the first casualty of short-term political tensions. In this regard, the example of Türkiye is highly instructive.

C

ommercial shipping through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait dropped to its lowest level in months after Yemen’s Houthi movement launched attacks on Saudi oil installations along the Red Sea coast, raising fresh concerns over maritime security and global energy supplies.

Shipping data from Kpler showed that only 11 commodity vessels transited the Bab el-Mandeb Strait on Sunday, reflecting a sharp decline in traffic as ship operators reassessed risks following the latest escalation. The disruption comes as the Tehran-aligned Houthis seek to impose a blockade on Saudi exports, broadening the regional fallout from the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict.

The reduced vessel traffic has already pushed physical crude prices in the Middle East, Europe, and Africa to two-month highs, highlighting growing concerns over the stability of key global shipping routes.

Among the vessels that passed through the strait were seven oil tankers, including two very large crude carriers (VLCCs) bound for Saudi Arabia’s Yanbu port to load crude oil. Another tanker linked to Russia also entered the Red Sea.

Hong Kong-flagged New Explorer

Meanwhile, four tankers exited the Red Sea carrying crude destined for Asian markets. These included the Hong Kong-flagged New Explorer, transporting approximately 2 million barrels of Saudi and Emirati crude to Ningbo, China, another tanker carrying 1 million barrels of Russian crude for China, and a vessel delivering roughly 750,000 barrels of Saudi crude to Pakistan.

A second Hong Kong-flagged VLCC, New Pearl, carrying 2 million barrels of Saudi crude to Zhoushan, China, was also reported leaving the Red Sea, becoming the fourth Chinese supertanker to transit the route since the Houthis declared a naval blockade.

The Houthi military said it targeted facilities operated by Saudi state-owned oil giant Aramco in the Red Sea cities of Yanbu and Jizan on Saturday, further escalating tensions in the region.

Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz also remained subdued over the weekend despite a pause in direct U.S. and Iranian strikes. Fewer than 10 commodity vessels crossed the strategic waterway each day, according to Kpler data.

On Sunday, seven vessels transited Hormuz, including three Iranian-linked product tankers leaving the Gulf. The previous day, only three vessels passed through the strait with their tracking systems switched off, including a VLCC heading to Qatar, a liquefied petroleum gas tanker bound for the United Arab Emirates, and a tanker carrying Qatari naphtha to Japan.

The continued disruption across both the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Strait of Hormuz underscores mounting risks to global shipping and energy markets as regional tensions remain high.

I

ran transported Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, military advisers, and missile- and drone-related equipment to Yemen earlier this month, according to four sources familiar with the matter, in a move that could strengthen the military capabilities of the Iran-aligned Houthi movement and increase threats to shipping in the Red Sea.

The sources, including two Iranian officials, Yemen’s information minister, and a regional security analyst, told Reuters that the personnel and equipment arrived aboard a Mahan Air flight that departed Tehran on July 13. The aircraft was reportedly bound for the Houthi-controlled capital, Sanaa, but diverted to the Red Sea port of Hodeidah after Sanaa International Airport came under attack by forces aligned with Yemen’s Saudi-backed government.

According to the two Iranian sources, between 10 and 21 IRGC personnel, including senior commanders, were aboard the flight. One source said the officers were deployed to support Houthi military operations and provide training on new missile systems. The source also alleged that Iran shipped gold on the aircraft to help finance Houthi activities.

Reuters could not independently verify the claims.

Iran denies allegations

Iran’s Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Tehran has consistently denied supplying the Houthis with missile capabilities or directing the group’s military operations.

Abdel Rahman al-Ahnomi, a Houthi media official who said he was on the flight, rejected the allegations, describing them as “lies and fabrications.” He said all passengers were civilians. The Houthis have repeatedly maintained that they develop their own weapons and are not acting as an Iranian proxy.

The reported deployment comes amid escalating regional tensions following renewed fighting involving Iran and the United States.

Three days after the reported flight, Reuters reported that Tehran had instructed the Houthis to prepare to close the Bab al-Mandab Strait if U.S. attacks targeted Iranian power infrastructure, raising concerns over global energy supplies and maritime security.

On Monday, the Houthis announced a naval blockade of Saudi Arabia, describing it as retaliation for the July 13 bombing of Sanaa airport, which they blamed on Saudi Arabia. The announcement effectively ended a four-year truce between Riyadh and the Houthis and heightened concerns over the security of one of the world’s busiest shipping routes.

The group later claimed responsibility for attacks on two Saudi oil tankers, further escalating tensions in the Red Sea.

Multiple confirmations

Yemen’s Information Minister Moammar al-Iryani confirmed to Reuters that IRGC personnel and military equipment had been transferred to Yemen, citing intelligence reports. He said their mission was to strengthen Houthi military capabilities and enable the group to threaten international maritime traffic through the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait.

Regional security analyst Mzahem Alsaloum also confirmed the arrival of the Iranian advisers, saying the cargo included components for short- and medium-range missiles and drones similar to systems previously used in attacks on Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Alsaloum further alleged that Iran had deployed military advisers to Yemen during last year’s conflict with Israel by routing them through Somalia, a claim Tehran has denied.

The reported transfer followed the resumption of direct flights between Tehran and Sanaa, which the Houthis say are intended to ease what they describe as a Saudi-imposed blockade on Yemen.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said the July 13 flight was primarily intended to return a Houthi delegation that had traveled to Tehran to attend the funeral of Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with Yemeni citizens who had received medical treatment in Iran.

According to the sources, the return flight also carried IRGC commanders and military advisers. Before landing in Sanaa, however, the aircraft diverted to Hodeidah after strikes targeted the airport.

The developments underscore growing concerns among regional governments and maritime security analysts that Yemen’s conflict could become increasingly intertwined with the broader confrontation between Iran and the United States, raising the risk of further disruption to international shipping through the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait.

(Source: Reuters)

A

n internal Israeli government document obtained by Al Jazeera has revealed that Israeli authorities collected information on more than 150 international humanitarian organizations in 2013, identifying several prominent charities as supporters or critics of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

The spreadsheet, accessed through an Israeli government ministry website, listed basic information on international charities, including directors’ names, contact details and areas of operation. A separate comments section, however, contained assessments of some organizations’ positions on Israel and the Palestinian issue.

Among the organizations singled out were Oxfam, which the document described as “active in global BDS efforts,” as well as France-based Première Urgence International, labelled a “critic of Israel,” Geneva-based Defense for Children International, described as “involved in anti-Israel campaigning,” and Spain’s Mundubat, characterized as “highly involved in BDS.”

Responding to the findings, Oxfam said the comments reflected allegations rather than objective assessments of its work.

The organization said it does not support or promote the BDS movement and operates under humanitarian principles and international legal standards. It reiterated its position that Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank violate international humanitarian law.

Experts say file shows early monitoring strategy

Analysts interviewed by Al Jazeera said the document offers insight into Israel’s approach to monitoring international civil society organizations during a period when the BDS movement was gaining international momentum.

The document dates from October 2013, a year marked by several high-profile boycott initiatives, including physicist Stephen Hawking’s withdrawal from a conference in Israel, academic boycott campaigns, and efforts by religious organizations to oppose products originating from Israeli settlements.

Mayssoun Sukarieh, a senior lecturer at King’s College London, said Israel was beginning to feel the impact of the growing BDS campaign and may have been gathering information that later informed legislation targeting boycott supporters.

In 2017, Israel enacted a law barring entry to foreign nationals who publicly support the BDS movement.

Tania Hary, executive director of the Israeli human rights organization Gisha, said the document demonstrated government monitoring of humanitarian organizations rather than addressing legitimate security concerns.

She argued the file reflected long-standing scrutiny of organizations providing assistance to Palestinians living under Israeli occupation.

Giovanni Fassina of the European Legal Support Center said the document illustrated what he described as an early phase of Israel’s broader efforts to track organizations supporting Palestinian rights.

NGOs respond

Several organizations named in the document disputed the characterizations.

Germany’s Medico International said it had never endorsed the BDS movement, although it supports the right of individuals and groups to advocate for boycotts as a form of political expression.

By contrast, the Palestine Solidarity Association of Sweden acknowledged its support for the BDS campaign, describing it as a nonviolent strategy aimed at promoting Palestinian rights and encouraging Israel to comply with international law.

The report comes amid continued debate over the relationship between Israel and international humanitarian organizations operating in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Aid groups have repeatedly raised concerns over restrictions on humanitarian access to Gaza, administrative requirements imposed on international organizations, and increased scrutiny of aid operations during the conflict that began in October 2023.

The Israeli Ministry of Welfare and Social Affairs, through whose website the document was reportedly accessed, did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

Y

emen’s Iran-aligned Houthi movement announced a naval blockade against Saudi Arabia on Monday, threatening to expand the regional conflict linked to the ongoing U.S.-Iran war and raising concerns over global energy supplies and international shipping.

The Houthis said the “maritime embargo” would take effect immediately, describing it as retaliation against what they called Saudi Arabia’s continued blockade of Yemen. The announcement broadens the conflict beyond the Gulf, bringing the strategically vital Bab el-Mandeb Strait into focus after shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has already been severely disrupted.

The Saudi-led coalition said it would respond “with force” to the Houthi announcement and confirmed that additional security measures had been implemented to protect commercial and military vessels transiting the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a critical route for Saudi oil exports.

The latest development raises the possibility of simultaneous disruptions at both the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb, two of the world’s most important maritime energy corridors.

Analysts warn that a prolonged closure of Bab el-Mandeb could significantly reduce Saudi oil exports and further strain global energy markets already affected by the fighting in the Gulf.

Diplomacy continues despite escalation

The Houthi announcement came as diplomatic efforts to restore a ceasefire between Washington and Tehran appeared to continue.

A senior Iranian official told Reuters that mediators had presented Tehran with a proposal for a 10-day ceasefire aimed at preserving the interim agreement reached last month.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry confirmed that mediators had submitted proposals but did not disclose further details.

Separately, Pakistani officials said Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni had requested Islamabad to resume mediation efforts between the United States and Iran.

Despite renewed diplomatic contacts, military operations continued across the region.

U.S. Central Command launched another wave of strikes against targets in Iran, while President Donald Trump defended the attacks, saying they were carried out in response to recent Iranian attacks that killed American service members.

The Pentagon identified two U.S. soldiers killed in an Iranian strike on a U.S. base in Jordan last week and said unidentified remains believed to belong to a third missing soldier had been recovered. A fourth U.S. service member was killed separately in northern Iraq during the controlled detonation of unexploded ordnance from an Iranian drone.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it launched missile attacks against U.S. military facilities in Jordan, Kuwait and Syria, while Bahrain reported repeated air raid sirens and Kuwait said its air defense systems intercepted Iranian drones overnight.

Shipping and oil markets under pressure

The Houthis’ announcement briefly pushed oil prices higher before markets stabilized amid hopes that diplomatic negotiations could prevent a broader regional war.

Insurance premiums for vessels operating in the Red Sea increased as shipping companies assessed the heightened security risks.

Meanwhile, the IRGC said two oil tankers had exploded after attempting to transit the Strait of Hormuz via what it described as an “unsafe” route, though Reuters was unable to independently verify the claim.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) also reported that a commercial vessel had been struck by an unidentified projectile off the coast of Oman.

The latest escalation underscores the widening geographic scope of the conflict, with military operations now stretching from Iran and the Gulf to Yemen, Jordan, Syria and Iraq.

While diplomatic initiatives remain underway, continued exchanges of military strikes and expanding maritime threats have raised fears that the conflict could further destabilize regional security and disrupt global energy and trade routes.

(Source: Reuters)

W

hen one thinks of the Middle East and Iraq, the first thing that springs to mind is often oil. However, developments in Iraq over recent weeks have once again demonstrated that oil is no longer merely an economic resource, but a strategic factor that determines state capacity, foreign policy and the regional balance of power.

Following the tensions between Iran and the West, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz provided short-term relief in global energy markets. However, for Iraq, this process did not merely signify a return to normal oil sales. The Baghdad administration has also brought back onto the agenda its long-delayed objectives of increasing production and securing a higher quota within OPEC.

Whilst this may appear at first glance to be merely a matter of energy policy, there is a larger story behind the issue. As is well known, oil is both the most vulnerable and the seemingly strongest aspect of the Iraqi economy. Oil revenues bear the main burden of the state budget. Many sectors, ranging from public sector wages to infrastructure investment, and from security expenditure to social payments, are dependent on this revenue. Consequently, every fluctuation in international markets comes to the attention not only of the economic bureaucracy but also of political decision-makers in Baghdad. Even a slight decline in oil revenue can place significant pressure on the state.

The messages conveyed by the Iraqi government in recent weeks are therefore noteworthy. On the one hand, new international investments are being discussed; on the other, it is stated that production capacity can be rapidly increased. The recent interest shown by major energy companies in oil fields suggests that Baghdad wishes to draw up a long-term growth plan. The recent increase in production in the southern oil fields also emerges as a development serving the effort to boost capacity.

Turkey-Iraq talks

However, the main issue in Iraq is not merely about producing oil. The real challenge facing Iraq is determining via which routes, with what political guarantees and within what economic framework it will deliver the oil it produces to the world market. From this perspective, the renewed intensive energy talks between Turkey and Iraq carry particular significance. The topics on the agenda between Ankara and Baghdad point to a broader framework than merely the technical operation and capacity expansion of the Kirkuk–Ceyhan pipeline: oil, natural gas, electricity, energy supply security and the energy dimension of the Development Corridor.

The Kirkuk–Ceyhan pipeline, which has passed through Turkey for years, has become one of the most critical elements of this equation. The recent talks between Ankara and Baghdad, which have focused on energy cooperation, do not merely signify the renewal of a technical agreement. It appears that the two countries are seeking ways to establish a new energy architecture that will adapt to the changing regional geopolitical landscape. The duration of the agreement, the pipeline’s capacity, the transport of oil to the Mediterranean, and Iraq’s need to diversify its export routes are all being discussed at the same table.

The situation is equally significant not only from Iraq’s perspective but also from Turkey’s. Turkey has long aimed to be a country that manages energy corridors. One of the fundamental and most important pillars of this strategy is the secure delivery of Iraqi oil to the Mediterranean. For this reason, stable energy relations with Baghdad will also serve as a key tool in building political trust. An energy corridor stretching from southern Iraq to the north, and from there to Turkey and the Mediterranean, will form part of a broader picture encompassing regional trade, transport and security.

Iraq, meanwhile, has learnt the hard way in recent years the risks of relying on a single export route or a single regional balance of power. Crises in the Strait of Hormuz, the prospect of regional war and the occasional disruption of export routes in the north are prompting Baghdad to develop alternative routes. Iraq must now define its energy security not only in terms of production capacity but also through the diversity of its export routes. Consequently, the future of the Kirkuk–Ceyhan pipeline has become a key indicator of Iraq’s capacity for economic sovereignty.

Anti-corruption operations

Amidst all this, another notable development has been the anti-corruption operations being carried out domestically. The operations in Baghdad, which have targeted high-ranking figures, send a significant message regarding the corruption networks that have long been the subject of discussion within state institutions. Of course, it cannot be expected that a few operations will eliminate decades-old institutional problems. However, the rule of law and transparency in public administration will be just as decisive as oil in shaping international investors’ view of Iraq.

Similarly, the US’s resumption of dollar transfers to Iraq should not be interpreted merely as a technical financial decision. This step demonstrates that economic ties between Washington and Baghdad have not been completely severed, but that issues of security, militias and financial oversight remain on the table. It has once again become clear that economic and security issues cannot be addressed in isolation from one another.

Viewed in the light of these developments, Iraq today stands at what is perhaps one of the most critical economic thresholds of the post-2003 era. Whilst the country is striving to attract major energy investments on the one hand, on the other it is seeking to strengthen public administration, strike a balance in its foreign relations and keep as far away as possible from regional crises. If successful, it could not only become a country that increases its oil production but also emerge as a new regional actor at the centre of energy, trade and transport corridors.

However, it is clear that oil revenues alone will not be sufficient for this to happen. Institutional reforms, legal predictability, investment security and sustainable relations with neighbours are just as important as new oil fields. The fundamental challenge facing Iraq is not actually extracting oil, but utilising oil revenues for the benefit of the state. To the extent that Baghdad succeeds in this, it may cease to be a conflict zone where regional crises persist.

From Turkey’s perspective, too, it would be insufficient to view developments solely through the prism of the oil trade. Iraq’s transformation into a stable, economically strengthening country open to regional integration will serve Ankara’s interests across many areas, from security to trade, and from logistics to energy. Consequently, in the coming months, we will be monitoring not only whether Iraq can produce more oil, but also whether it can channel this oil into political stability and economic development.

(Originally published by Middle East Africa website in Turkish)

T

he United States has reimposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports and launched another wave of military strikes targeting Iran’s southern coast, intensifying hostilities and further eroding an interim peace agreement reached last month.

The U.S. military said the renewed blockade of vessels traveling to and from Iranian ports and coastal areas took effect at 20:00 GMT on Tuesday, as Washington sought to restrict maritime activity linked to Tehran amid escalating tensions in the Strait of Hormuz.

The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) also confirmed a fresh round of strikes targeting Iranian military infrastructure, saying the attacks were intended to degrade capabilities used to threaten commercial shipping in the strategic waterway.

Iranian media reported explosions in or near the southern cities of Sirik and Bandar Abbas following the announcement, while earlier reports said U.S. strikes had also targeted Abadan, home to the Middle East’s oldest oil refinery, as well as Mahshahr, Qeshm Island and Kish Island.

The latest operations follow a series of U.S. strikes launched a day earlier against targets including Bushehr and Bandar Abbas, marking another escalation in a conflict that resumed despite a memorandum of understanding signed in June aimed at halting hostilities.

Iran retaliates across the Gulf

Iran responded by launching attacks against U.S.-linked targets across the Gulf region, including strikes on Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan, while also targeting two commercial vessels in Omani waters within the Strait of Hormuz, according to regional officials.

The United Arab Emirates said one crew member was killed in the attacks on the ships.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) acknowledged striking the two supertankers, saying they had ignored repeated warnings while navigating what it described as an unauthorized route through the strait.

The IRGC accused the United States of encouraging vessels to violate Iranian directives and warned that continued cooperation with what it called the “aggressor enemy” would prolong disruption to shipping and increase the risk of a global energy crisis.

Bahrain said its air defenses intercepted an Iranian aerial attack, while Kuwait’s armed forces reported engaging hostile aerial targets. Jordan also said Iranian projectiles targeted military facilities on its territory.

International concern grows

Regional mediators Qatar and Oman urged restraint as the fighting intensified.

Qatar condemned attacks on commercial shipping, while Oman called on all parties to respect international law governing navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

The International Maritime Agency expressed concern over the latest incidents, saying two seafarers had been killed and warning that the continuing cycle of military escalation threatened global maritime security.

Speaking at the White House, President Donald Trump blamed Iran for reigniting the conflict.

“They shot first, and that was a big mistake because we have been knocking the hell out of them,” Trump said, defending the renewed military campaign.

Trump also announced he was abandoning a previously proposed 20% fee on vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, saying it would instead be replaced by expanded trade and investment agreements with Gulf allies.

“I have decided to replace the 20% United States Reimbursement Fee with trade and investment deals that the various Gulf states will be making into the United States,” he said.

Tehran says agreement no longer binding

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi accused Washington of violating the interim agreement and destroying the framework established to reduce tensions.

According to Iranian state media, Gharibabadi said Tehran no longer considers itself bound by the memorandum of understanding, including provisions related to navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

He rejected suggestions that renewed military pressure would force Iran back to negotiations, arguing that Washington had forfeited the diplomatic framework through its actions.

Analysts warned that the latest exchanges indicate the conflict is evolving into a prolonged confrontation rather than returning to full-scale war, raising concerns over regional stability and the security of one of the world’s most important energy transit routes.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

T

he United States has used unmanned surface vessels (USVs) in combat for the first time, marking a significant milestone in modern naval warfare after the US military confirmed that autonomous sea drones were employed in strikes against an Iranian naval facility.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) said three one-way Corsair sea drones struck a submarine and ship maintenance facility at Iran’s Bandar Abbas Naval Base on Monday as part of operations aimed at reducing Iran’s capacity to target commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

The attack represents the first known offensive use of US autonomous surface vessels, highlighting a shift in naval strategy toward unmanned maritime systems after similar technologies gained prominence during the Russia-Ukraine war.

Autonomous sea drones enter frontline combat

The Corsair is an autonomous surface vessel developed by Texas-based defense technology company Saronic. Measuring approximately 24 feet (7.3 meters) in length, the vessel has a range exceeding 1,000 nautical miles, can travel at speeds above 35 knots, and is capable of carrying payloads of nearly 1,000 pounds (453 kilograms).

Designed with a modular architecture, the platform can perform intelligence, surveillance, logistics, force protection and one-way strike missions while operating with limited human intervention.

Until now, USVs in the US military had primarily been deployed for reconnaissance, maritime security and search-and-rescue operations rather than offensive missions.

The combat debut follows Saronic’s rapid growth since its establishment in 2022.

The company expanded its shipbuilding capacity by acquiring Louisiana-based Gulf Craft in 2025 and later announced a $300 million expansion of its production facilities. In December 2025, the US Navy awarded Saronic a $392 million production contract for the Corsair, accelerating the transition from prototype development to operational deployment.

Since then, the company has secured $1.75 billion in funding, reaching a valuation of $9.25 billion while broadening its portfolio of autonomous maritime systems and command-and-control technologies.

Shift in naval warfare

Military analysts increasingly view unmanned surface vessels as a transformative capability for future naval operations.

Compared with conventional warships that require large crews and significant financial investment, autonomous vessels can be produced at lower cost, deployed in larger numbers and operate in high-risk environments without exposing personnel to danger.

The concept gained prominence during the Russia-Ukraine war, where Ukraine employed maritime drones to challenge Russia’s naval superiority in the Black Sea, forcing Moscow’s fleet to adapt its operations.

Iran and Yemen’s Houthi movement have also used one-way naval drones to threaten commercial shipping in strategic waterways.

The latest strike follows another milestone for the Corsair after the vessel was reportedly used last month to help rescue two crew members from a downed US Army helicopter off the coast of Oman.

The vessel was operated by Task Force 59, the US Navy’s unit dedicated to unmanned maritime systems.

Defense analysts say the Bandar Abbas operation could signal a broader transformation in US naval doctrine, with autonomous vessels increasingly operating alongside traditional warships as part of distributed and networked fleets capable of carrying out reconnaissance, logistics and combat missions.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

T

he death of longtime Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has renewed debate over his enduring influence on U.S. foreign policy, with supporters praising his commitment to American leadership abroad and critics pointing to his advocacy for military intervention and unwavering support for Israel.

Graham, who died on Saturday at the age of 71 following what his office described as a brief and sudden illness, was one of the most recognizable Republican voices on national security issues for more than two decades. Throughout his career, he consistently championed military action, backed strong U.S. alliances with Israel, and maintained a hardline stance toward Iran, Russia and China.

His passing prompted tributes from U.S. President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and several Republican lawmakers, while also drawing criticism from anti-war advocates and Palestinian rights groups, who argued that Graham’s legacy was defined by support for prolonged military conflicts.

Political analysts say two themes are likely to dominate assessments of Graham’s career: his advocacy for interventionist foreign policy and his transformation into one of Trump’s closest allies.

Michael Hanna, U.S. Program Director at the International Crisis Group, said Graham had cultivated a long-standing reputation for promoting military solutions to international crises.

“He was a major supporter of the Iraq War and remained a strong advocate for the use of military force throughout his career,” Hanna said, adding that Graham played an influential role in encouraging the Trump administration’s hardline approach toward Iran.

Strong backing for Israel

Support for Israel remained central to Graham’s foreign policy positions. He repeatedly called for expanded U.S. military assistance to Israel and defended its military operations following the October 7, 2023 attacks and the subsequent war in Gaza.

In 2021, Graham successfully pushed for an additional $1 billion in U.S. military assistance after visiting Israel, where he posed alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holding a sign reading “More for Israel.”

Netanyahu paid tribute to Graham following his death, describing him as one of Israel’s strongest supporters in Washington and recalling that the senator often advocated for greater U.S. assistance than Israel itself requested.

Graham’s rhetoric on the Gaza war frequently drew international criticism. He defended Israel’s military campaign in Gaza in uncompromising terms and made several controversial remarks about the conflict that human rights advocates condemned as inflammatory.

Palestinian advocacy groups said Graham consistently supported policies that contributed to escalating violence in the region, while critics described him as one of the most outspoken proponents of military solutions in U.S. foreign policy.

Graham was also among the leading congressional advocates for confronting Iran militarily. Earlier this year, he publicly supported U.S. military action against Tehran and maintained close contact with President Trump as tensions between Washington and Iran escalated.

Analysts say Graham’s influence was one of several factors shaping the administration’s approach, although decisions ultimately rested with the president.

Alliance with Trump

Although Graham was an outspoken critic of Trump during the 2016 Republican presidential campaign—calling him “unfit for office” and “a kook”—the senator later became one of the president’s closest political allies.

The two frequently met at the White House and appeared together at public events, with Graham emerging as a trusted adviser on national security and foreign affairs.

Following Graham’s death, Trump called on South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster to appoint Graham’s sister, Darline Graham Nordone, to temporarily fill the Senate seat, describing the move as a fitting tribute to the late senator.

Observers say Graham’s death comes at a time when the Republican Party is increasingly divided over foreign policy, particularly regarding military intervention abroad.

Recent polling indicates younger Republican voters are less supportive of overseas military operations and more skeptical of interventionist policies than previous generations.

Hanna said Graham represented a generation of Republican leaders whose worldview was shaped by post-Cold War American global leadership and extensive military engagement overseas.

While his Senate seat is expected to remain in Republican hands, analysts suggest his absence could further accelerate debates within the party over the future direction of U.S. foreign policy, military intervention and Washington’s role in global conflicts.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

I

ran launched a new wave of missile and drone attacks against U.S.-linked military installations across the Gulf on Sunday, targeting sites in Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan and Oman after the United States carried out another round of strikes on Iranian military infrastructure.

The latest exchange marks a significant escalation in the conflict, with both sides intensifying military operations despite previous diplomatic efforts to contain hostilities.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it had entered the fifth phase of its retaliatory campaign, claiming missile and drone strikes against U.S. military facilities in Bahrain and radar installations in Oman.

The IRGC said it targeted military infrastructure in Juffair, Bahrain, as well as long-range aerial surveillance and vessel-detection radar systems in Oman, claiming the radar facilities were destroyed.

It warned that continued U.S. military operations in the Strait of Hormuz would further disrupt global energy markets.

“The only way to open the Strait of Hormuz to vessel traffic is to end the interventions of the aggressive U.S. military in this strait and respect the sovereignty of countries over their own coastal waters,” the IRGC said.

Earlier, Iranian forces claimed they struck a U.S. missile base in Kuwait, saying two HIMARS launchers and missile storage facilities were destroyed.

Iran also said it targeted military sites in Jordan, including Prince Hassan Air Base, although Jordan said its air defenses intercepted four missiles that entered its airspace.

US expands strikes across southern Iran

The latest Iranian attacks followed a new wave of U.S. air and naval strikes against dozens of military targets across southern Iran.

According to the U.S. military, the operation targeted air defense systems, coastal radar installations, missile and drone facilities, naval assets and other military infrastructure.

Iranian media reported explosions in Bandar Abbas, Qeshm Island, Sirik and Jask along the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, as well as several locations in Khuzestan province.

Authorities also reported that at least one civilian was killed and four others injured after a U.S. strike hit an agricultural water pumping station near Mahshahr.

Following Iran’s retaliation, several Gulf countries activated emergency measures.

Bahrain’s Interior Ministry urged residents to seek shelter and avoid open areas as air defense systems responded to incoming threats.

Kuwait’s military announced that its air defenses had engaged “hostile aerial targets,” while authorities advised residents not to panic if they heard explosions resulting from interception operations.

Jordan confirmed intercepting four missiles launched from Iranian territory before they reached their intended targets.

Strait of Hormuz tensions fuel oil market concerns

The renewed fighting has heightened fears over the security of the Strait of Hormuz, a maritime corridor through which roughly one-fifth of global oil shipments normally pass.

Brent crude prices climbed above $79 per barrel as traders reacted to the increased risk of prolonged disruption to global energy supplies.

Analysts warned that depleted global oil inventories leave markets more vulnerable to sustained conflict than during previous crises.

While both Washington and Tehran continue to exchange military strikes, experts suggest neither side is likely to seek a prolonged war due to the potentially severe economic consequences, particularly for global energy markets and regional stability.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

C

anadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has described Saudi Arabia and Türkiye as the two most influential countries in shaping potential solutions to the Middle East’s ongoing crises, emphasizing the importance of direct engagement with regional powers over public criticism.

Speaking to reporters during an official visit to Jeddah on Friday, Carney said that meaningful progress on regional conflicts would depend largely on the role played by Riyadh and Ankara.

“The two most influential countries regarding potential solutions in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia and Türkiye,” Carney said.

Carney stressed that Canada remains deeply committed to developments in the Middle East but argued that constructive dialogue is more effective than criticizing governments from afar.

He said engaging directly with regional leaders does not imply endorsement of all their policies.

“Lecturing countries from a distance is an ineffective strategy,” Carney said. “It may be satisfying, but it is ineffective. Engagement can be effective. That does not mean it will always be decisive, but it can produce results.”

Talks with Erdoğan

Addressing Canada’s relations with Türkiye, Carney said he discussed unresolved bilateral issues during his recent meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Ankara.

He noted that the direct dialogue had yielded positive outcomes that would not have been possible through diplomacy conducted from Ottawa.

Diversifying Canada’s partnerships

The Canadian prime minister also highlighted his government’s efforts to reduce Canada’s heavy reliance on the United States by expanding international partnerships.

“We are overly dependent on the United States. That has been demonstrated,” Carney said. “Every Canadian strongly recognizes this, and we are seeking diversification.”

His remarks reflect Ottawa’s broader strategy of strengthening diplomatic and economic ties with a wider range of global partners as Canada seeks a more diversified foreign policy and trade agenda.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

T

urkish tennis player Zeynep Sönmez has attracted international attention both for her historic performances at Wimbledon and for a symbolic display of solidarity with Palestinians after tournament officials barred her from wearing a pro-Palestinian badge.

The 24-year-old became one of the tournament’s most talked-about players after using a watermelon-shaped vibration dampener on her racket — a symbol widely associated with Palestinian identity and solidarity because it shares the colors of the Palestinian flag.

Sönmez said Wimbledon officials prohibited her from wearing a pro-Palestinian brooch during the tournament, prompting her to adopt the watermelon symbol instead.

“I used to wear a brooch, but tournaments no longer allow me to wear it,” Sönmez told Türkiye’s Anadolu Agency.

She questioned what she described as inconsistent standards governing political expression in tennis, noting that players have been permitted to display Ukrainian symbols while similar expressions of solidarity with Palestinians were not allowed.

“I argued that the Ukrainian flag is allowed, but the Palestinian one is not,” she said. “They told me they would not permit it.”

Unable to wear the badge on her clothing, Sönmez attached the watermelon-shaped dampener to her racket, explaining that tournament officials could not object to her choice of equipment.

Her gesture received widespread praise in Türkiye.

Turkish Youth and Sports Minister Osman Aşkın Bak commended Sönmez’s stance, describing it as an example of sport promoting universal human values. Ömer Çelik, spokesperson for Türkiye’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), also praised her expression of solidarity with Palestinians.

Sönmez thanked supporters, saying the encouragement she received from Türkiye made her feel she was “never alone” on court.

From ball girl to national trailblazer

Born in Istanbul on April 30, 2002, with family roots in the Black Sea town of Arhavi, Sönmez began dreaming of a professional tennis career while working as a ball girl at a Women’s Tennis Association tournament in Istanbul.

Watching fellow Turkish player Çağla Büyükakçay win a WTA title inspired her ambition to reach the sport’s highest level.

Coached by Issam Jellali and Mehmet Bayraktar, Sönmez transformed her game following a difficult Wimbledon qualifying defeat several years ago, adopting a more aggressive playing style while building on her speed and athleticism.

She has also earned recognition for her sportsmanship, including a widely praised fair-play moment during a tournament in Monastir, where she and opponent Eva Lys corrected line calls in each other’s favor.

Sönmez has enjoyed the strongest period of her career over the past two seasons.

She captured her first WTA 250 singles title in Mérida, Mexico, in 2024 before continuing her rise through the rankings.

Her performances elevated her to a career-high world ranking of No. 51, making her the highest-ranked Turkish woman in WTA history, surpassing Çağla Büyükakçay’s previous national record.

Sönmez also became the first Turkish player—male or female—in the Open Era to reach the third round at Wimbledon in 2025.

She matched that achievement at the 2026 Australian Open, defeating Anna Bondár and upsetting 11th seed Ekaterina Alexandrova before exiting in the third round.

Earlier this season, she earned the first top-10 victory of her career by defeating Italy’s Jasmine Paolini at the Porsche Tennis Grand Prix in Stuttgart.

Wimbledon campaign ends

Sönmez’s 2026 Wimbledon singles run concluded in the second round with a 7-5, 6-3 loss to American Claire Liu.

Despite the defeat, her performances on court and her symbolic show of support for Palestinians made her one of the tournament’s most prominent figures, drawing international attention both for her sporting achievements and her advocacy.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

P

resident Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said NATO must evolve into an alliance that strengthens its members rather than creating dependency, as Türkiye concluded its hosting of the 36th NATO Summit with calls for greater burden-sharing, stronger defense industrial cooperation and renewed diplomatic efforts to address global conflicts.

Speaking at a press conference following the two-day summit at the Presidential Complex in Ankara on Wednesday, Erdoğan said the meeting marked a significant step toward building a stronger alliance at a time when Euro-Atlantic security faces unprecedented challenges.

“NATO should be an alliance of allies that strengthen one another, not one of countries dependent on each other,” Erdoğan said, arguing that genuine deterrence depends not only on defense spending but also on technological superiority, industrial capacity and sustainable military production.

The summit, the first NATO leaders’ meeting ever held in Ankara and Türkiye’s second time hosting the alliance after more than two decades, brought together heads of state and government from all member countries.

Erdoğan said allied leaders agreed on the need for European members to assume greater responsibility for collective defense while maintaining fair burden-sharing within the alliance.

“We have laid the foundations for a stronger NATO in which European allies undertake greater responsibility and military capabilities are reinforced through equitable burden-sharing,” he said.

Türkiye highlights military contributions

The Turkish president stressed that Türkiye has become one of NATO’s leading military contributors after decades of confronting regional conflicts and terrorism largely on its own.

He noted that Türkiye commands NATO’s second-largest land army and has safeguarded the alliance’s southeastern flank for decades while making substantial contributions to NATO missions, operations and common funding.

Erdoğan announced that Turkish F-16 fighter jets will deploy to Estonia beginning in August as part of NATO’s Air Policing mission.

He also said Türkiye will continue commanding the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) until September 2026 and will assume command of the NATO Response Force during 2028-2029.

“Türkiye has always fulfilled its responsibilities within the alliance, taking risks and paying the price when necessary,” Erdoğan said.

Defense industry emphasized

A central theme of Erdoğan’s remarks was Türkiye’s growing defense industry, one of the country’s key strategic advantages.

He said Türkiye now manufactures its own fighter aircraft, tanks, warships and air defense systems while ranking among the world’s leading producers of unmanned aerial and naval vehicles.

“True deterrence comes from three dimensions: advanced technology, sufficient scale and sustainable production,” Erdoğan said.

He welcomed the adoption of the “Ankara Strategy” during the NATO Defense Industry Forum, saying it would strengthen cooperation between NATO and defense manufacturers.

Erdoğan also renewed calls for the removal of remaining restrictions on defense trade among allies and argued that European Union defense initiatives should complement NATO rather than duplicate its efforts.

He warned that excluding non-EU allies such as Türkiye from European defense projects would limit their effectiveness.

Ukraine, Middle East discussed

The summit also addressed ongoing security crises, including Russia’s war in Ukraine and instability across the Middle East.

Erdoğan reiterated Türkiye’s offer to facilitate renewed peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.

“The war has become a machine of destruction that claims tens of thousands of casualties every month,” he said. “There are no losers in a just peace.”

Turning to the Middle East, Erdoğan welcomed the Islamabad Agreement, which Türkiye has supported, while expressing concern over continued violence in Lebanon and Gaza.

He said attacks in Lebanon have displaced civilians and destroyed cities, while the humanitarian crisis in Gaza continues.

“There is no room in our region for new tensions or new conflicts,” Erdoğan said. “Humanity needs peace, stability and security.”

P

resident Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said the upcoming NATO Leaders’ Summit in Ankara will serve as the strongest platform for sharing experience among allies, while urging greater solidarity within the alliance to address growing regional and global security challenges.

Speaking at the NATO Parliamentary Summit in Istanbul on Monday, Erdoğan said the alliance faces a historic turning point as wars, terrorism, irregular migration and geopolitical instability reshape the Euro-Atlantic security environment.

“It is my belief that the Ankara Summit will be the strongest platform for sharing experience,” Erdoğan said, referring to the NATO Heads of State and Government Summit scheduled to take place in the Turkish capital on July 7-8.

Addressing parliamentary representatives from NATO member states, Erdoğan said the Istanbul meeting carried added significance ahead of the leaders’ summit and thanked participants for contributing to cooperation among allied legislatures.

Global security environment changing rapidly

Erdoğan said traditional assumptions about international security were no longer sufficient to explain today’s rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape.

“Europe-Atlantic security is passing through a historic turning point,” he said, pointing to conflicts, regional crises, terrorism and irregular migration along NATO’s eastern and southeastern borders.

He argued that growing instability had replaced predictability in international affairs and warned that existing international institutions had suffered a loss of credibility in the face of recent conflicts.

Referring to developments in Gaza and Lebanon, Erdoğan said recent massacres had left deep scars on humanity’s conscience while undermining confidence in international organizations.

“In this environment, preserving NATO’s deterrence and strengthening solidarity among allies has become even more critical,” he said.

The Turkish president stressed that Türkiye remains one of NATO’s leading contributors, citing its strategic location, military capabilities and more than seven decades of participation in the alliance.

Sharing borders stretching more than 1,800 kilometers with conflict regions, Türkiye continues to play an active role in NATO missions and peacekeeping operations while sharing its experience in crisis management with allies, he added.

Erdoğan said international interest in the Ankara summit extends well beyond NATO member states.

“Our fundamental expectation from the summit is to achieve outcomes that strengthen the spirit of alliance while respecting the national security sensitivities of all allies,” he said.

Defense cooperation and regional diplomacy

Erdoğan also called for a fairer sharing of defense responsibilities within NATO and urged the removal of barriers affecting defense industry cooperation among allies.

“If we want to confront today’s challenges successfully, we must ensure balanced burden-sharing while removing obstacles to defense industry trade,” he said.

He noted that Türkiye continues to increase defense spending in line with commitments adopted at the recent NATO summit in The Hague and remains among the alliance’s five largest contributors to NATO missions and operations.

Despite these contributions, Erdoğan argued that Türkiye’s role in European security is sometimes overlooked.

He called for Ankara’s inclusion in European Union defense and security initiatives, saying Türkiye’s defense capabilities should not be excluded because of narrow political considerations.

“We must establish a security and defense network stretching from Texas to Ankara without reservations or conditions,” he said.

The president said the Ankara summit would place particular emphasis on defense industry cooperation through a NATO Defense Industry Forum, where Türkiye plans to showcase its latest defense technologies and discuss measures to deepen industrial collaboration among allies.

Participants would also review key regional and international developments, including the situations in Ukraine, Iran, the Gulf region and Palestine, he said.

Erdoğan reaffirmed Türkiye’s commitment to supporting efforts aimed at turning the ceasefire between the United States and Iran into a lasting settlement, saying Ankara would continue working alongside Pakistan, Qatar and other friendly countries.

Turning to Palestine, Erdoğan said lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved without ending the Israeli occupation and establishing an independent Palestinian state.

“An independent, sovereign and territorially contiguous Palestinian state within the 1967 borders must be established,” he said.

He also warned against actions that could undermine regional stability, particularly attacks targeting Lebanon, and urged NATO parliamentarians to support efforts aimed at preventing further escalation.

Erdoğan reiterated Türkiye’s readiness to continue mediating efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war through dialogue, saying Ankara remains one of the few allies trusted by both sides.

“As a country that can speak with both parties and has initiated successful diplomatic processes, we will continue to contribute actively to peace efforts,” he said.

The event concluded with a family photograph hosted by Turkish Parliament Speaker Numan Kurtulmuş as part of the NATO Parliamentary Summit in Istanbul.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

R

ecent legislative amendments have brought about changes to the structure of the National Security Council in Turkey, which has played a decisive role in domestic politics throughout the history of the Republic. With the establishment of the Directorates of Internal Security Research and Assessment, External Security Research and Assessment, and Defense Planning Coordination, the expanding nature of security in the global arena has been taken into account. Furthermore, such an expansion should also be viewed as a consequence of Turkey’s changing foreign policy and geopolitical perceptions.

President Erdoğan delivered a speech highlighting key points at the opening of the National Security Conferences, a series planned to articulate Turkey’s approach to security. Alongside an emphasis on historical state tradition, the speech drew attention to the harmonious coordination between Turkey’s institutions in the face of the region’s ongoing and seemingly endless ‘ring of fire’, whilst also heralding the National Security Council’s return to its core remit. In light of the reforms implemented and this announcement, it is worth asking whether there has been a shift in Turkey’s security culture alongside its evolving foreign policy approach.

The relationship between foreign policy and security culture

Security culture is a concept frequently used in the study of International Relations (IR). In this context, it is defined as the totality of norms that shape how a state or society perceives security, defines threats and formulates responses to the security challenges it faces. Security culture, centered on the perception of threats, helps us understand what a state regards as a threat, or which policies it views as such, and, in parallel, the values by which it defines itself and the historical memory through which it does so. At the same time, the behavioral framework that develops through these elements forms a state’s established code of conduct in the international arena.

Consequently, the perception of security becomes a concept directly linked to foreign policy as a natural outcome of these definitions and perceptions. For when a state’s strategic mindset and self-definition change as a product of an internal process, foreign policy is naturally updated, which in turn implies a shift in the reference points of the security narrative. Just as a definition of interests, resulting from a protectionist mindset and a narrow geopolitical narrative, reflects a limited context, such a narrative also leads to the perception of security threats being viewed from a considerably broader perspective.

What is Turkey’s security culture?

The most fundamental element shaping Turkey’s security culture has been the identity redefined alongside the establishment of the state. With the acceptance of a Western identity as the cornerstone of the state, foreign policy was entirely shaped by a Western geopolitical narrative, and security culture was naturally shaped by the perception of areas outside the West as sources of threat. Paradoxically, despite waging war against the West, Turkey has constructed its security culture on a plane identical to that of the West, defined its perception of threat as originating from outside the West, and sought to meet its security needs through Western organizations or alliances.

Historical experiences inherited from the Ottoman Empire led to the new state being security-focused; the new Republic, through discourses on national sovereignty, territorial integrity and the unity of the state, necessitated a strong state structure. This, in turn, led to Turkey’s security culture becoming state-centered, and institutions have largely defined their roles as significant power factors in domestic politics by relying on this discourse.

The Middle East and the Caucasus represented the core regions perceived as threats by this security culture; the attempt to demonize Islam, the Kurdish issue and the identities defined through these factors were framed as problems for Turkey. As a result of the geopolitical narrative reflecting a narrow hinterland, distant regions did not even fall within the scope of this security culture. Consequently, Turkey’s security culture has reflected a framework synonymous with the West and its interests; adherence to the NATO concept, both during and after the Cold War, has been Ankara’s foremost priority.

The shift in the security paradigm

Since 2002, the changes in Turkish foreign policy have naturally led to a shift in the security paradigm, as they also signified a significant transformation of identity. Firstly, the norms guiding foreign policy have diverged, and Turkey has begun to perceive its historical ties not as a threat but as a source of strength. A foreign policy approach has begun to prevail in which Turkey defines itself through an identity that, without disregarding Western values, places greater emphasis on its own identity elements, an identity that, in the simplest terms, can be expressed by the concept of our ‘heartland’. In parallel with this shift in self-definition, the definitions of interests and threats have changed, and the geopolitical perspective has expanded from a framework confined to the West to encompass a much broader geography stretching as far as Africa, Asia and the Americas.

So, what has changed in Turkey’s security culture? First and foremost, Turkey has become a country that understands very clearly that it must ensure its own security. In particular, the situation into which European states have fallen following the war in Ukraine continues to be discussed as an example illustrating just how accurately Ankara has assessed the situation. In this respect, from its very inception, Turkey has moved away from relying on international coalitions and policies dictated by them, and has begun to define its own security framework. In the words of Erdoğan, Turkey has shattered the glass ceiling over it and has transformed into an actor capable of redefining concepts at a regional level, writing its own narrative and shaping its own future. This situation has been interpreted as a reflection of self-confidence; by enhancing its own capabilities, Turkey has been able to devise solutions through its own policies whenever it perceives a threat to its security.

Regions where the traditional security culture held a perception of security threats have largely come to be viewed as areas for cooperation; security has been perceived not merely as a need secured by closing oneself off within borders, but rather as synonymous with taking proactive action. Security has been linked to the deepening of relations and increased mutual interdependence; where security vulnerabilities have arisen as a result of this approach, necessary measures have been taken to expand security boundaries. In this context, cross-border operations have constituted one of the most significant indicators of the shift in Turkey’s security paradigm. Consequently, security boundaries have been expanded, and Turkey has risen to the status of a state capable of implementing its own policies, demonstrating that security can also be ensured through new points established beyond its borders. Furthermore, it is a fact that, in line with Turkey’s evolving and expanding geopolitical understanding, the country now maintains military bases in many countries.

A

n independent United Nations commission has accused Israeli authorities and security forces of deliberately targeting Palestinian children during the war in Gaza, actions it said amount to genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The findings, released Tuesday, drew an immediate and forceful rejection from Israel, which described the report as a “libelous sham” that ignored the conduct of Hamas.

The report was issued by the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and examines alleged violations committed against Palestinian children in Gaza, the occupied West Bank, and East Jerusalem since the outbreak of war on October 7, 2023.

According to the commission, children accounted for approximately 30 percent of all fatalities during the Gaza conflict, a proportion significantly higher than in previous rounds of fighting. Investigators concluded that Israeli military operations caused an unprecedented level of harm to children and that evidence pointed to deliberate targeting in some cases.

“The evidence shows that Palestinian children have been deliberately targeted and killed by the Israeli security forces,” commission chair Srinivasan Muralidhar said in a statement accompanying the report.

Genocidal intent

The commission argued that the killing of children was a central factor in establishing a genocidal intent against Palestinians in Gaza. According to the report, Israeli military operations continued to result in child casualties even after a ceasefire took effect in October 2025.

Investigators said Israeli forces repeatedly employed high-payload munitions and weapons with wide-area effects in densely populated residential neighborhoods despite mounting evidence of civilian and child casualties.

The report stated that such attacks, which caused exceptionally high numbers of child deaths, indicated intentional conduct. It further argued that Palestinian children were targeted collectively because Israeli security forces viewed the broader civilian population as being associated with Hamas and other armed groups operating in Gaza.

The commission concluded that these actions contributed to efforts aimed at destroying the Palestinian population in Gaza, in whole or in part.

Thousands of children killed

According to figures cited in the report, at least 20,179 Palestinian children were killed between October 7, 2023, and October 7, 2025.

The commission noted that children represented roughly 30 percent of all fatalities during that period. By comparison, children accounted for about 24 percent of conflict-related deaths during previous Gaza conflicts in 2008–2009 and 2014.

Investigators said the scale of child deaths, combined with patterns of military operations, distinguished the current conflict from earlier wars.

The report also highlighted the broader humanitarian consequences of the conflict on Gaza’s youngest residents. It said repeated displacement, destruction of homes, shortages of food and medicine, and restrictions on humanitarian assistance severely damaged children’s health, development, and psychological well-being.

Impact on health and future generations

Beyond direct casualties, the commission found that attacks on healthcare facilities and reproductive services had long-term effects on children and families.

The report documented rising miscarriages, deteriorating conditions for newborns, and severe strain on Gaza’s medical infrastructure. Investigators warned that the destruction of healthcare services had undermined the survival prospects of infants and young children.

The commission further reported that nearly all children in Gaza now require psychological support due to trauma caused by the conflict, displacement, loss of family members, and prolonged exposure to violence.

Muralidhar said the targeting of children threatened not only individual lives but also the future existence of the Palestinian people.

“By targeting children, Israel is undermining the capacity of the Palestinian people to exist and determine their future,” he said.

I

n recent years, the Eastern Mediterranean has become one of the most sensitive arenas of regional competition shaped around energy resources. The main reason for this sensitivity is that regional resources are viewed not merely as economic assets, but also as strategic instruments in terms of sovereignty, security, and power politics. Indeed, the intensifying competition in the Eastern Mediterranean has further deepened the existing political and military tensions in the region. One of the most striking examples of this tension today is Israel’s attempt to render ineffective the maritime border understanding reached between Lebanon and Israel in October 2022 under US mediation through unilateral and coercive moves.

The process leading to the agreement was the outcome of a long-standing maritime jurisdiction dispute. The area between Lebanon’s Line 29 claim and the border approach imposed by Israel in its own favour had gone far beyond a technical issue of maritime delimitation because of its high hydrocarbon potential. Under the understanding reached, the maritime boundary was drawn on the basis of Line 23. Thus, while Israel secured its sovereign rights over the Karish field, which was ready for natural gas production, Lebanon was given the opportunity to continue exploration activities in Block 9, which includes the Qana field. However, the Beirut administration, under a severe economic crisis, not only had to step back from its Line 29 claim, but was also forced to accept the concession of granting Tel Aviv a share of the possible revenues from the part of the Qana field extending into the Israeli side.

Nevertheless, Lebanon has not yet been able to obtain the short-term economic gains it expected from this understanding. The identification of commercially viable reserves in the Qana field and the transition to actual production are, by their nature, processes that will take time. Moreover, political instability, institutional weaknesses, and uncertainty in the investment environment make Beirut’s energy planning even more fragile. The current conjuncture, in turn, feeds Israel’s effort to transform Lebanon’s political and economic vulnerabilities into an asymmetric advantage in its own favor. Tel Aviv’s approach should therefore be read as part of a broader strategy aimed at eroding Lebanon’s rights over the Qana field and establishing a new hegemonic sphere in favour of Israel within the Eastern Mediterranean energy equation.

The historical continuity of geopolitical conflict

Essentially, although the tension surrounding Lebanese gas in the Eastern Mediterranean may at first appear to be a current maritime jurisdiction dispute between two states, it is part of a broader struggle for power shaped by the control of energy resources.  Throughout the twentieth century, oil in the Middle East, and following the dissolution of the Soviet Union,, energy resources in the Caspian Basin, were among the main factors fuelling sovereignty disputes, external interventions, and struggles for regional influence. From this perspective, the dispute over Lebanese gas can also be read as the contemporary reflection in the Eastern Mediterranean of the historical role of energy resources in generating geopolitical rivalry and power competition.

However, it is not sufficient to explain Israel’s position only through the general conflictual logic of energy geopolitics. The main point that deserves attention here is that Tel Aviv has brought an agreement signed through international mediation back into question in such a short period of time and has sought to create the ground for its unilateral termination. The regional conflicts that have intensified since October 2023, the silence of Western states in the face of Israel’s genocidpole in Gaza, and Tel Aviv’s strategy of leaving Beirut helpless on the ground through military pressure directly extended into the Lebanese arena have turned Israel into a maximalist and revisionist actor that recklessly violates the limits of the international legal order.

Indeed, Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen’s statement in March 2026 describing the 2022 Maritime Border Agreement as a “document of surrender” for Israel and bringing the option of cancellation onto the agenda shows that Tel Aviv is trying to exploit the regional chaos it has deepened in order to reopen Lebanon’s maritime jurisdiction areas to discussion. In other words, Israel’s move targeting Lebanon’s maritime jurisdiction areas and natural gas fields points directly to a development that can be described as an “energy grab”.

The west’s double standards and Europe’s energy supply security

The United States, which was the main architect and mediator of the maritime border understanding in 2022, has not shown any significant reaction to the Israeli Energy Minister’s statements aimed at cancelling the agreement. On the one hand, the Washington administration explains Tel Aviv’s military operations in the region through the discourse of “self-defense”; on the other hand, it does not raise a strong objection to the de facto reopening of maritime borders to discussion or to Israel’s moves that put pressure on Lebanon’s sovereign rights.

Europe’s stance is not very different from that of the United States. Brussels’ position is shaped not by the protection of international law, sovereign rights, or Lebanon’s legitimate claims, but rather by the potential value of Eastern Mediterranean gas for European energy supply security. For the European Union, which significantly reduced its dependence on Russian gas after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine War in 2022, Eastern Mediterranean hydrocarbon reserves have become one of the important alternatives due to their geographical proximity and potential for supply diversification.

In this new geopolitical environment, the Tel Aviv administration seeks to realize its objective of becoming the dominant actor in the control of energy resources and transport routes in the Eastern Mediterranean by pursuing a more aggressive strategy. Despite this, the silence of Western actors in the face of Israel’s moves to narrow Lebanon’s maritime jurisdiction areas and establish de facto superiority over energy resources reveals the existence of a clear double standard. While the Western world strongly emphasizes territorial integrity and international law when Ukraine is at stake, its reluctance to defend the same principles against Israel in the Eastern Mediterranean reveals a clear double standard.

Lebanon’s economic future and investment risk

For Lebanon, which is grappling with political instability, economic challenges and infrastructure collapse, the potential revenues from the Qana field are viewed not merely as an economic gain, but as a significant opportunity for the state’s recovery and the strengthening of its institutional capacity. However, for a country such as Lebanon, marked by limited economic resources, a fragmented political system and vulnerability to external interference, any uncertainty surrounding energy projects carries serious consequences. In this regard, Israel’s attempt to revive the maritime border dispute has the potential to undermine not only the future of a specific gas field, but also the broader investment climate in Lebanon’s energy sector.

This is because offshore natural gas projects are high-cost, long-term investments that are highly sensitive to political stability. An increase in legal and political uncertainty in such projects may heighten investors’ risk perception, thereby further weakening Lebanon’s position in the regional energy equation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the statements about unilateral cancellation and the threatening rhetoric issued by Tel Aviv clearly show that the issue in the Eastern Mediterranean is not merely a technical border dispute. The picture before us is Israel’s attempt, relying on its military superiority and the silence of Western actors, to erode Lebanon’s right to exercise control over its legitimate energy resources and to establish de facto superiority on the ground. In other words, this process should be read not as a diplomatic disagreement, but as a systematic state-led “energy grab.”

Tel Aviv’s approach once again reveals that Israel is far from being a predictable actor committed to its obligations under international law. International law, diplomatic agreements and border arrangements can easily be eroded in the face of Israel’s Zionist expansionist reflexes. For this reason, Israel’s stance once again confirms the existence of a deep and structural trust problem regarding the sustainability of long-term agreements with Tel Aviv.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

T

he United States and Iran have released the text of a 14-point memorandum of understanding that lays the foundation for ending months of conflict, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, easing economic restrictions on Tehran, and launching negotiations toward a comprehensive peace agreement.

The document, formally titled the “Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran,” was read to reporters by a senior U.S. official on Wednesday and is expected to serve as the basis for intensive negotiations over the next 60 days.

While the memorandum establishes an immediate ceasefire and outlines broad commitments by both sides, many of the most difficult issues—including Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions relief, and regional security arrangements—remain subject to future negotiations.

Immediate end to war

The first provision commits both countries and their allies to the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. Both sides pledged not to initiate future military action against one another and agreed to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Under the second point, Washington and Tehran agreed to respect each other’s sovereignty and refrain from interference in internal affairs.

The third provision establishes a negotiation period of up to 60 days, which may be extended by mutual agreement, to finalize a broader peace settlement.

The fourth and fifth points focus on restoring maritime commerce through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy shipping routes.

The United States agreed to begin lifting its naval blockade immediately and to remove all restrictions within 30 days. Washington also committed to withdrawing military forces from Iran’s vicinity within 30 days after a final agreement is reached.

Iran, for its part, pledged to facilitate safe passage for commercial vessels through the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. Tehran also agreed to remove mines and military obstacles and restore normal shipping operations over the next month.

The agreement further calls for consultations between Iran, Oman, and other Gulf states regarding future administration and maritime services in the strategic waterway.

Massive reconstruction package

One of the most significant elements of the agreement is contained in point six.

The United States committed to working with regional partners to develop a reconstruction and economic development package worth at least $300 billion for Iran.

The mechanism for implementing the fund will be finalized during negotiations, while Washington pledged to provide the necessary licenses, waivers, and permissions required for financial transactions.

Point seven outlines a U.S. commitment to terminate all sanctions imposed on Iran, including United Nations-related restrictions, nuclear-related measures, and both primary and secondary U.S. sanctions.

The timing and sequencing of sanctions removal remain subject to negotiation during the upcoming talks.

Both sides described sanctions relief as one of the most important issues to be addressed during the next phase of diplomacy.

Nuclear program left for future talks

The eighth provision addresses Iran’s nuclear activities but postpones major decisions until a final agreement.

Iran reaffirmed that it would not seek or develop nuclear weapons.

The two countries agreed that the future of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium would be determined through a mutually agreed mechanism. At a minimum, any solution would involve down-blending enriched material under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Future discussions will also address uranium enrichment levels and Iran’s civilian nuclear requirements.

Under point nine, both countries agreed to maintain the status quo while negotiations continue.

Iran will not expand its current nuclear activities, while the United States pledged not to impose additional sanctions or deploy new military forces to the region.

Point ten requires the U.S. Treasury Department to issue waivers immediately permitting Iranian oil exports, petroleum product sales, banking transactions, shipping, insurance, and related services.

Point eleven concerns Iranian assets frozen abroad.

The United States agreed to make those assets available for use and to work with Iran on procedures governing their release. Washington also committed to issuing the necessary licenses and authorizations to facilitate access to those funds.

A

proposed $300 billion private investment fund aimed at revitalizing Iran’s economy has emerged as a central component of the framework agreement reached between the United States and Iran to end months of conflict, according to a source with direct knowledge of the negotiations.

The fund, which would be known as the Reconstruction and Development Fund, is designed to encourage both sides to finalize a comprehensive peace agreement by offering a powerful economic incentive for post-war recovery and long-term investment.

According to the source, more than half of the proposed funding—over $150 billion—has already been pledged by companies and financial institutions across multiple regions, including North America, Asia, the Gulf, Africa, and South America.

The initiative remains contingent on the successful completion of a final agreement between Washington and Tehran. Negotiators are expected to spend the next 60 days working on unresolved issues, including Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions relief, and regional security arrangements.

Economic dimension of peace deal

The investment proposal represents one of the most ambitious economic initiatives linked to a Middle Eastern peace agreement in recent decades.

Unlike traditional reconstruction packages financed by governments or international organizations, the proposed fund would be entirely privately financed.

The source familiar with the negotiations said no government money, grants, or direct public financing would be involved.

Instead, private companies and financial institutions have committed investment capital intended for projects in key sectors of Iran’s economy, including energy, transportation, logistics, manufacturing, and industrial development.

The fund is separate from ongoing discussions regarding the release of Iranian assets frozen abroad and the lifting of U.S. sanctions.

Negotiators have reportedly established distinct tracks for those issues, with separate timelines and objectives.

“This is not compensation, reparations, or a government aid package,” the source said. “It is an investment vehicle intended to unlock economic opportunities once a final settlement is achieved.”

From compensation demand to investment plan

The idea reportedly emerged after Iran initially sought substantial compensation for damage caused during the conflict.

A senior Iranian source told Reuters that Tehran had requested approximately $400 billion in compensation from the United States for wartime losses.

Washington rejected that proposal, leading negotiators to explore alternative mechanisms capable of supporting economic recovery while remaining politically acceptable to all parties.

The resulting concept focuses on investment rather than compensation.

Under the proposed structure, regional countries and international investors would contribute through various mechanisms, including financing projects directly, establishing credit facilities, guaranteeing loans, and supporting reconstruction efforts at damaged industrial and infrastructure sites.

Projects under consideration reportedly include repairs and modernization of refineries, airports, transportation networks, industrial facilities, and major manufacturing centers damaged during the conflict.

Among the sites expected to benefit is the Mobarakeh Steel complex, one of Iran’s largest industrial enterprises.

Untapped economic potential

Supporters of the initiative argue that Iran presents significant long-term opportunities for investors if geopolitical risks and sanctions barriers can be reduced.

Despite decades of economic isolation, Iran remains one of the largest economies in the Middle East.

The country possesses the world’s second-largest proven natural gas reserves and the fourth-largest oil reserves, making it a major potential energy producer.

In addition, Iran has a population exceeding 92 million people, a relatively educated workforce, extensive industrial infrastructure, and significant potential in sectors ranging from petrochemicals and mining to tourism and agriculture.

However, successive rounds of international sanctions and political tensions have largely excluded Iran from global capital markets for more than four decades.

As a result, foreign direct investment has remained limited despite the country’s economic potential.

Analysts say that if sanctions are eased and political stability improves, Iran could attract substantial foreign investment in the coming years.

While the investment initiative has generated considerable attention, its implementation depends entirely on the success of broader negotiations.

The framework agreement announced earlier this week established a 60-day period during which U.S. and Iranian negotiators will seek to reach a comprehensive settlement.

One of the most difficult issues remains Iran’s nuclear program.

According to U.S. Vice President JD Vance, access to the reconstruction fund would depend on Iran meeting strict conditions, including dismantling key elements of its nuclear program, eliminating stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, and accepting extensive international inspections.

Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear activities are intended for peaceful purposes and has rejected accusations that it seeks nuclear weapons.

The issue remains one of the most contentious points in negotiations.

T

oday’s international system heralds a new historical era marked by major upheavals and multi-layered power struggles. In this age, where global balances are being shaken, the Western-centred order is being called into question, and energy wars, proxy conflicts and economic competition are intensifying, states can only survive not merely through their military might, but through their diplomatic flexibility, historical depth and strategic acumen.

It is precisely in such a period that the decision to hold the NATO Summit in Turkey is not merely a routine organizational choice, but signifies the reaffirmation of Turkey’s weight within the global system on an international scale.

To assess this development merely as a technical preference within the diplomatic calendar would, of course, be an oversimplification. For the positioning of Turkey as a central nation by NATO—the world’s most powerful military-political alliance—during such a critical period is a clear consequence of the strategic influence Ankara has built up in recent years.

Undoubtedly, Turkey has become a state closely monitored by global power centres not merely due to its geographical advantages, but also because of its crisis-resolution capacity, multifaceted diplomatic approach and independent political reflexes.

Diplomatic paradigm and the ancient Turkish state mindset

The paradigm developed by Turkey under the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in foreign policy has largely transcended the classic ‘peripheral state’ mentality. For many years, Turkey was viewed merely as an outpost of the Western security architecture; today, it has transformed into a power centre capable of devising its own strategy, negotiating with global actors when necessary, and making independent moves when required. We cannot explain this transformation solely through the technical tools of modern politics; rather, behind this success lies the ancient Turkish state experience and the accumulated heritage of civilization.

In Turkish political thought, the state has been viewed not merely as an administrative mechanism, but as the bearer of the historical order. Indeed, Yusuf Has Hacib, in the Kutadgu Bilig, speaks of four fundamental elements that sustain the state: justice, reason, happiness and contentment. In other words, according to him, the greatness of a ruler is measured not merely by the strength of his army, but by his ability to interpret the changing conditions of the world. Today, the delicate balance Turkey has established between East and West is precisely a contemporary manifestation of this historical philosophy of the state. For Ankara is no longer a passive but a decisive actor.

There is a Turkey that is working to prevent the spread of war in the Black Sea, capable of establishing grain corridor diplomacy, and able to maintain contact with both Moscow and Kyiv simultaneously. There is a Turkey that shapes normalization processes in the Middle East, develops diplomatic influence in Africa, deepens integration with the Turkic world, and plays a central role in the European security architecture. The hosting of the NATO Summit in Turkey is, in fact, a natural consequence of this multi-layered influence.

One of the most striking aspects of President Erdoğan’s foreign policy is his transformation of Turkey from a country that merely reacts defensively into a state capable of making strategic moves. Self-confidence has been a defining element of this approach. Turkey has emerged not merely as a country exposed to the consequences of global decisions, but as an actor influencing the very process by which those decisions are shaped. Undoubtedly, this situation also represents a significant shift in mindset within modern Turkish foreign policy.

At the core of this changing mindset lies the historical continuity referred to as the ‘Turkish state mind’. The Turkish state tradition has always been noted for its ability to maintain balance even during chaotic periods. Nizam al-Mulk, the Grand Vizier of the Great Seljuk Empire, states in his Siyasetname (policy) that the survival of the state can be safeguarded not only through force, but also through reason, diplomacy and stability. In his view, a statesman must be able to employ both hard power and wisdom simultaneously. The multi-dimensional diplomacy pursued by today’s Turkey is a reflection of this historical legacy.

The Antalya Diplomacy Forum and the new narrative being forged

Indeed, in recent years Turkey has built up significant capacity not only in the military sphere but also in the diplomatic arena. One of the most significant examples of this is undoubtedly the Antalya Diplomacy Forum. Despite its relatively short history, the forum has become one of the key meeting places in global politics. The fact that leaders from vastly different political traditions—from Africa to Europe, and from Asia to Latin America—can come together on the same platform demonstrates the new sphere of influence Turkey has established in global diplomacy.

The success of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum cannot be explained by organizational ability alone. The real issue is Turkey’s development of a new diplomatic discourse and paradigm. Whilst most Western-centric diplomatic platforms are now unable to adequately address global crises, a more inclusive and multi-polar approach is attracting attention in Antalya.

Here, Turkey is not merely the host but also the bearer of a new international discourse. The Antalya Diplomacy Forum has, in effect, become an intellectual showcase of the Turkish state’s vast capacity.

This is because the forum demonstrates Turkey’s claim to be not merely a military or economic power, but also an intellectual centre. Bringing together different actors in world politics around the same table is not merely a logistical achievement, but a capacity to generate trust. Diplomacy, after all, is not just the management of states, but also the management of trust.

This situation gains even greater significance when viewed from a civilizational perspective. Al-Farabi states that, in his conception of a virtuous state, the ruler’s fundamental duty is to establish social order based on justice and wisdom. According to him, politics is not brute force, but the art of guiding society through higher reason. The active diplomacy Turkey has pursued in recent years is, in every sense, an example of this very mindset.

This is one of the key aspects of the language President Erdoğan has established in international politics. He is striving to reposition Turkey not merely through economic or military parameters, but alongside its historical identity. The relations developed with the Turkic world, the outreach to Africa, diplomatic activities in the Islamic world, and the balanced relations maintained with the West are all components of this broad vision.

The hosting of the NATO Summit in Turkey is therefore not merely a security-focused development. This choice also demonstrates that Turkey is once again recognized as a central power within the international system. For the world of politics now realizes that it is impossible to achieve a balance without Turkey. From energy routes to migration crises, and from Black Sea security to the equations of the Middle East, Ankara now plays a decisive role in numerous issues.

Turkey’s diplomatic capacity and policy of balance

Another notable aspect here is Turkey’s policy of balance. Throughout history, great Turkish states have sustained their existence by maintaining a balance between different centres of power. Ottoman diplomacy is one of the most significant examples of this. Today, too, Turkey is able to develop its relations with Asia whilst being part of the Western alliance; defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity whilst maintaining contact with Russia; and establish strategic integration with the Turkic world whilst increasing economic cooperation with the Gulf. This multifaceted policy requires a high level of diplomatic capacity.

At the current juncture, Turkey is not a passive observer of crises, but one of the central nations demonstrating the will to produce solutions.

The hosting of the NATO summit in Turkey and the rising prestige of the Antalya Diplomacy Forum are reflections of this reality. The self-confidence displayed by Turkey under President Erdoğan’s leadership in foreign policy is, in fact, the re-emergence of historical state wisdom.

And perhaps the most significant aspect of this entire process is this: the Turkish state tradition has, throughout history, not only generated power; it has also brought order. This historical lineage, stretching from the Seljuks to the Ottomans and from the Ottomans to the Republic, is one of the rare political traditions that has managed to preserve its state reflex even during times of crisis. The multifaceted diplomacy Turkey is currently pursuing is, in fact, the continuation of this ancient state memory in the modern world.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

B

ritain’s Court of Appeal has ruled that the government’s decision to ban the pro-Palestinian protest group Palestine Action as “a terrorist organization” was lawful, marking a major victory for the government and a significant setback for campaigners who argue the move threatens free speech and the right to protest.

In a judgment delivered on Monday, Chief Justice Dame Sue Carr rejected the group’s claim that it was primarily engaged in non-violent civil disobedience, concluding instead that its activities involved organized and deliberate acts of property destruction targeting military facilities and defense companies.

The ruling overturns a February decision by the High Court, which had found that although some of Palestine Action’s activities involved criminal conduct, the scale and nature of its actions did not justify designation under Britain’s terrorism legislation.

The government appealed that decision, and the ban remained in force while the legal challenge proceeded.

Court rejects non-violence argument

Delivering the judgment, Carr said the court found significant flaws in Palestine Action’s argument that it should be viewed as a peaceful protest movement.

“In our judgment, that premise was seriously flawed,” she said. “It was not a sustainable proposition to portray Palestine Action as a non-violent organization.”

The court concluded that the organization operated through covert networks that carried out coordinated attacks on defense contractors and military sites, causing substantial property damage and disruption.

Government lawyers argued that the group’s activities went beyond legitimate protest and amounted to actions that threatened national security and public safety.

The ruling effectively places Palestine Action in the same legal category as proscribed organizations such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas under British law.

Membership of, or support for, a proscribed organization is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom and can carry a prison sentence of up to 14 years.

Group vows further legal challenge

Following the judgment, Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori said the organization would continue its legal battle.

“We will fight proscription all the way,” Ammori said, pledging to challenge the ruling before the UK’s Supreme Court and, if necessary, the European Court of Human Rights.

She described the ban as “one of the most extreme attacks on free speech and the right to protest in modern British history.”

Supporters of the group argue that Palestine Action’s activities are a form of direct action aimed at disrupting companies linked to Israel’s military operations in Gaza rather than acts of terrorism.

Civil liberties organizations have also criticized the government’s approach, warning that the designation could set a precedent for treating political protest movements as terrorist organizations.

Origins of the ban

The British government moved to outlaw Palestine Action following a high-profile incident in June 2025 when activists entered a Royal Air Force base to protest Britain’s support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The action followed a series of demonstrations and acts of vandalism directed at defense facilities, particularly sites connected to Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems and its British subsidiaries.

Officials have said the group’s operations have caused millions of pounds in damage and disrupted facilities considered important to national security.

Palestine Action was established in 2020 and has become known for direct-action campaigns involving occupations, blockades, and damage to property associated with defense and security industries.

Government ministers argued that the cumulative impact of those actions justified proscription under terrorism legislation.

T

he United States and Iran have reached a preliminary agreement to end months of conflict and reopen the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, marking the most significant diplomatic breakthrough since the outbreak of war earlier this year and triggering a sharp decline in global oil prices.

The framework agreement, announced by U.S. President Donald Trump and confirmed by Iranian officials on Monday, is intended to halt military operations across multiple fronts and establish a pathway toward broader negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program and sanctions relief.

The memorandum of understanding is scheduled to be formally signed in Switzerland on Friday following mediation efforts led by Pakistan.

“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Sunday evening. The announcement came shortly after Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif revealed that negotiators had reached an agreement.

If implemented, the deal would represent the most important diplomatic achievement since the conflict began in February with joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran, a war that has killed thousands, destabilized the Middle East, and disrupted global energy markets.

Ceasefire across multiple fronts

According to Pakistani officials, the agreement calls for the immediate and permanent cessation of military operations throughout the region, including in Lebanon, where fighting between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah movement has complicated diplomatic efforts.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council confirmed that military operations on all fronts would cease beginning Monday night.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said the agreement would establish a 60-day ceasefire period during which negotiators would work toward a more comprehensive settlement.

The future agreement is expected to address some of the most contentious issues dividing Washington and Tehran, including economic sanctions, regional security arrangements, and Iran’s nuclear activities.

Despite the breakthrough, uncertainty remains over how the agreement will affect Israel, which has not participated in the U.S.-Iran negotiations and has repeatedly insisted on maintaining freedom of military action against perceived threats in the region.

There was no immediate official response from the Israeli government following the announcement.

Strait of Hormuz to reopen

One of the most significant elements of the agreement concerns the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway through which a substantial portion of the world’s oil and natural gas exports pass.

Since the escalation of hostilities, Iran has effectively restricted shipping through the strait, while the United States imposed countermeasures targeting Iranian ports and maritime operations.

Trump announced that the waterway would reopen on Friday and said he had ordered an end to the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports.

“Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!” Trump wrote.

Financial markets responded immediately to the news.

Brent crude prices fell more than 4 percent in early trading as investors welcomed the prospect of restored energy supplies and reduced geopolitical risk. Stock markets across Asia also posted gains as concerns over disruptions to global trade eased.

Market analysts cautioned, however, that many details of the agreement remain unclear.

“The lack of details, especially on freedom of shipping, is a concern, but not one that should constrain markets today as the surge in risk appetite plays out,” said currency analyst Sean Callow.

Nuclear issue deferred

While the agreement addresses military hostilities and maritime security, negotiators have postponed decisions regarding Iran’s nuclear program, one of the central issues behind the conflict.

Sources familiar with the talks said nuclear negotiations will take place during the 60-day ceasefire period.

Trump has repeatedly stated that any final settlement must ensure Iran cannot develop nuclear weapons.

Iran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful and has consistently denied seeking a nuclear arsenal.

Before the conflict, Iran had accumulated more than 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to levels approaching weapons-grade purity, according to international estimates. The future of that stockpile is expected to become one of the most difficult issues in upcoming negotiations.

Officials involved in the talks have offered differing accounts of the draft agreement.

A senior American official indicated that the eventual settlement could require the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program and the removal or destruction of highly enriched uranium stockpiles.

Iranian officials, meanwhile, suggested that Tehran would retain the ability to dilute and manage enriched uranium domestically rather than surrendering it.

T

he United States launched a series of strikes against Iranian military targets on Tuesday after President Donald Trump accused Tehran of shooting down a U.S. Apache attack helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz, a dramatic escalation that threatens fragile peace efforts and raises fears of renewed conflict across the Middle East.

The strikes targeted Iranian air defense systems, surveillance radars, and ground control facilities near the strategic waterway, according to the U.S. military, which described the operation as a “proportional response” to recent attacks on American forces and commercial shipping in the region.

The military action marks one of the most significant direct confrontations between Washington and Tehran since a tenuous ceasefire took effect in April, amid ongoing negotiations aimed at ending months of regional warfare.

“I believe the response should be very strong, very powerful, and that’s what this one is,” Trump told ABC News shortly after the operation began.

According to U.S. Central Command, the strikes started at approximately 2100 GMT and concluded several hours later. The military said the targets were selected to degrade Iran’s ability to monitor and challenge military and commercial traffic moving through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy transit routes.

Helicopter incident triggers retaliation

The latest escalation followed the downing of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter during a patrol mission near Oman’s coast early Tuesday.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the aircraft was struck by a one-way Iranian attack drone. The helicopter subsequently went down in waters near Oman, prompting a rescue operation involving a U.S. Navy surface drone.

The two crew members aboard the helicopter were recovered after approximately two hours and were reported to be in stable condition.

Trump sought to downplay the incident during an interview with The Wall Street Journal, saying the crash “wasn’t a big deal” and emphasizing that the pilots survived unharmed.

“The pilot is fine,” Trump said.

Nevertheless, the administration moved quickly to authorize military action, arguing that failure to respond could encourage further attacks on U.S. personnel and regional shipping.

Iranian officials denied responsibility for any offensive military operations in the Strait of Hormuz during the previous 24 hours. State media cited military sources who rejected allegations that Iranian forces had targeted the American helicopter.

Iranian sites hit

Iranian media reported explosions on Qeshm Island and in the port city of Sirik, both located near the Strait of Hormuz. Residents also reported hearing blasts in Bandar Abbas and near Jask, close to the entrance of the strategic waterway.

The attacks appeared aimed at military infrastructure associated with Iran’s coastal defense network.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi condemned the U.S. operation and warned that Tehran would respond to any attack.

“Iran will leave no attack or threat unanswered,” Araqchi wrote on social media.

In an earlier statement, he warned that foreign military forces operating in the region risk becoming involved in accidents or crossfire, adding that the best way to reduce risks would be for outside powers to withdraw from the area.

The latest exchange has further strained already fragile diplomatic efforts aimed at reaching a comprehensive agreement between Washington and Tehran.

Trump has repeatedly insisted that a peace deal remains within reach and has argued that negotiations are progressing despite frequent military incidents. However, analysts warn that direct military clashes could undermine trust and complicate efforts to secure a lasting settlement.

Iran retaliates across the Gulf

Shortly after the U.S. strikes, Iranian media reported retaliatory attacks against American military assets in the Gulf.

According to reports citing Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya military command, some U.S. bases in the region were targeted in response to the American operation.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps also claimed responsibility for a drone attack against the U.S. Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, warning that additional attacks could follow if hostilities continued.

Bahraini authorities activated warning sirens and urged residents to seek shelter. A media adviser to Bahrain’s king later said the country’s air defenses had successfully intercepted incoming threats.

The Pentagon did not immediately comment on the Iranian claims, and independent verification of battlefield reports remained difficult.

The exchange has heightened concerns that the conflict could spread further across the Gulf, drawing in regional states that host U.S. military facilities.

I

srael and Iran exchanged direct military strikes on Monday for the first time since a ceasefire was declared in April, raising fresh concerns about a wider regional conflict and threatening diplomatic efforts led by the United States to end months of hostilities.

The renewed confrontation began after Israel launched strikes on military targets in western and central Iran, prompting Tehran to respond with missile attacks targeting Israeli military facilities. The exchanges mark the most serious escalation between the two regional rivals since the ceasefire halted direct hostilities earlier this year.

The latest violence comes despite efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to preserve ongoing negotiations with Tehran and prevent a collapse of the fragile truce that has largely held since April.

Israeli military officials said air force jets struck military installations in Iran during overnight operations. Iranian authorities reported explosions in several cities, including Tehran, Tabriz, and Isfahan, while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) accused Israel of carrying out attacks using air-launched ballistic missiles.

Hours later, the IRGC announced retaliatory strikes against Israel’s Nevatim and Tel Nof air bases. Iranian state media described the attacks as a warning and said Iran was prepared for broader military operations if Israeli attacks continued.

“The armed forces are ready for any scenario,” the IRGC said in a statement carried by Iranian media, warning that future responses could be more extensive.

Israeli authorities confirmed that missiles had been launched from Iran and said air defense systems were activated to intercept incoming threats. No immediate reports of casualties or significant damage were released.

Energy infrastructure hit

The escalation took a significant turn when Israeli strikes reportedly hit facilities within Iran’s energy sector.

Iranian officials said the Karun petrochemical plant near the southwestern city of Bandar-e-Mahshahr sustained damage during the attacks. Shortly afterward, the Israeli military confirmed that it had targeted several sites within the Mahshahr petrochemical complex.

Iranian state media reported that authorities had begun evacuating the Mahshahr Special Petrochemical Economic Zone, a major industrial hub located near the Persian Gulf.

The strikes marked the first reported attack on Iranian energy infrastructure since the ceasefire was announced in April, raising fears that the conflict could increasingly target economically strategic facilities.

Energy analysts warned that attacks on petrochemical installations could have broader implications for global energy markets if hostilities continue to expand.

Financial markets reacted quickly to the renewed fighting.

Brent crude futures rose more than $3 per barrel, climbing above $96, while U.S. crude futures also posted gains of more than 3 percent. The increases erased losses recorded late last week when hopes for diplomatic progress between Washington and Tehran had boosted investor confidence.

Oil prices have remained highly sensitive to developments in the Middle East, particularly since the wider conflict involving Iran, Israel, and Iran-backed groups intensified earlier this year.

Traders fear that any prolonged disruption to energy infrastructure or shipping routes could threaten supplies from one of the world’s most important oil-producing regions.

Trump pushes for diplomacy

The renewed violence unfolded despite reports that Trump personally urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avoid further military escalation.

According to U.S. officials cited by American media, Trump told Netanyahu during a phone conversation that additional attacks could jeopardize ongoing efforts to secure a broader agreement with Iran.

“We are close to doing something good in terms of a deal,” Trump reportedly told the Israeli leader.

Speaking to the Financial Times before the latest strikes, Trump downplayed concerns that renewed military action would derail negotiations.

“It is not going to have any impact on the deal,” Trump said. “I call the shots. I call all the shots. He doesn’t call the shots.”

The comments reflected growing tensions between Washington and the Israeli government over how to manage the conflict. Reports indicate that Trump has repeatedly pressed Israel to limit military operations in Lebanon and elsewhere to create space for diplomacy.

Last week, the U.S. president publicly expressed frustration with Netanyahu’s approach to the conflict, signaling rare daylight between Washington and its closest regional ally.

The latest exchange comes after Israel launched strikes near Beirut on Sunday, targeting positions linked to Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese armed group.

Those attacks represented Israel’s first military action in the Beirut area since Washington proposed a truce plan for Lebanon last week.

Iran has repeatedly stated that any long-term peace arrangement with the United States would depend on a sustained ceasefire not only between Israel and Iran but also in Lebanon, where fighting involving Hezbollah has continued intermittently.

Before Sunday’s missile exchange, Iran had not directly attacked Israel since the ceasefire took effect in April, although Hezbollah and other groups aligned with Tehran have continued occasional attacks against Israeli targets.

The situation became even more complicated when Israel’s military reported a missile launch from Yemen toward Israeli territory. While details remained limited, the launch highlighted the involvement of multiple regional actors in the broader conflict.

What is the path forward?

Diplomatic observers warn that the latest confrontation could undermine efforts to achieve a comprehensive agreement aimed at ending months of regional warfare.

While both Israel and Iran have framed their actions as responses to previous attacks, the direct exchange of strikes suggests that the ceasefire remains fragile and vulnerable to collapse.

The targeting of military facilities, energy infrastructure, and strategic installations has increased concerns that future attacks could become more damaging and difficult to contain.

For now, both governments appear determined to demonstrate military resolve while avoiding a full-scale war. However, with missiles flying across borders, energy markets reacting sharply, and diplomatic negotiations hanging in the balance, the latest escalation has underscored how quickly tensions in the Middle East can reignite despite international efforts to secure peace.

As Washington continues to push for a negotiated settlement, the coming days may prove critical in determining whether the region returns to a path of diplomacy or slides back toward a broader conflict involving multiple fronts and regional powers.

(Source: Reuters)

A

year after its introduction in Congress, the proposed Block the Bombs Act has gained significant support among U.S. lawmakers, reflecting growing debate in Washington over military aid to Israel and the humanitarian consequences of the war in Gaza.

The legislation, introduced in June 2025 by Representative Delia Ramirez, initially attracted 21 Democratic co-sponsors. That number has now risen to 73 lawmakers, including one Republican, marking one of the most substantial congressional challenges to longstanding bipartisan support for military assistance to Israel.

Speaking at a news conference on Capitol Hill, Ramirez described the growing support as evidence that views within Congress are shifting.

“While some thought that the bill was extreme, it has, in fact, become pretty mainstream,” she said.

Despite the increase in backing, supporters acknowledge that the proposal remains far from securing a majority in the 435-member House of Representatives, where Republican leadership has not allowed the measure to come to a vote.

Bill targets specific weapons transfers

The Block the Bombs Act would prohibit the transfer of certain heavy bombs and artillery ammunition to Israel, weapons that supporters say have been used in some of the deadliest attacks during the war in Gaza.

Backers of the legislation argue that U.S. military assistance should be conditioned on compliance with international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians.

Representative Rashida Tlaib said public opinion has increasingly shifted toward questioning unconditional military support for Israel.

“Americans want us to invest here at home,” Tlaib said. “They want us not to invest in death and destruction and bombs. They want us to invest in clean water and housing and childcare and so much more.”

The legislation has attracted support from lawmakers who were not previously associated with efforts to restrict military aid to Israel. Representative Valerie Foushee, who previously received support from pro-Israel advocacy groups, endorsed the bill in 2025, arguing that weapons should not be supplied if they are not used in accordance with international law.

This week, Representative Thomas Massie became the first Republican co-sponsor of the measure.

“America is morally obligated to end support of Israel’s devastation of Gaza and its people,” Massie said in announcing his support.

Growing debate over US policy toward Israel

Advocates say the bill reflects broader changes in public opinion regarding U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Recent polls have shown declining support among Americans for providing military aid to Israel without conditions. Supporters of the legislation argue that Congress should better reflect those changing attitudes.

The bill has also received support from the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Its chair, Greg Casar, said public activism has played a major role in increasing support for the proposal.

“The idea behind the Block the Bombs Act is simple: The United States should not be supplying bombs that we know will be used to perpetuate one of the worst disasters of our lifetimes,” Casar said.

The debate comes amid broader congressional scrutiny of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Earlier this week, the House approved a resolution aimed at limiting President Donald Trump’s authority to conduct military action against Iran without congressional authorization.

In addition, 40 senators voted in April to block the transfer of military bulldozers to Israel, signaling growing willingness among some lawmakers to challenge aspects of U.S. military support.

Advocacy groups backing the legislation welcomed the increase in support but stressed that much work remains.

Jewish Voice for Peace Action Political Director Beth Miller described the growth in co-sponsors as significant but said the total remains well below a congressional majority.

Supporters of the measure argue that continued humanitarian suffering in Gaza requires a reassessment of U.S. military assistance, while opponents maintain that aid to Israel remains essential for the country’s security.

With Congress still largely supportive of Israel, the legislation faces difficult odds. Nevertheless, its growing backing highlights a notable shift in the political debate surrounding U.S. arms transfers and Washington’s role in the war.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

I

srael and Lebanon have agreed to implement a ceasefire aimed at ending months of hostilities, the Trump administration announced on Wednesday, raising hopes that a broader agreement to end the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran could be within reach.

The agreement, reached following negotiations in Washington, requires a complete cessation of hostilities by the Iran-backed Hezbollah and the withdrawal of its fighters from southern Lebanon’s Litani region, according to a joint statement issued by the United States Department of State.

The development comes despite continued violence across the region and mounting tensions involving Iran, Gulf states, and U.S. forces.

A previous ceasefire announced last month failed to halt fighting, with clashes continuing after Israel launched operations in Lebanon in March against Hezbollah, which had opened a front against Israel in support of Tehran.

The latest agreement is viewed as a key component of wider diplomatic efforts to end the regional conflict that erupted following U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran earlier this year.

Gulf attacks and Strait of Hormuz tensions continue

Even as diplomatic efforts advanced, regional tensions remained high.

Kuwaiti authorities said Iranian missile and drone attacks damaged facilities at Kuwait International Airport, killing one person and injuring more than 60 others. Airport operations were temporarily suspended before flights resumed later in the day following emergency safety measures.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps denied targeting the airport directly, claiming the damage was caused by failed U.S. interceptor missiles. The U.S. military rejected that account, saying Iranian drones deliberately targeted the airport.

At the same time, the United States Central Command reported carrying out defensive strikes against missile launch sites and naval assets in southern Iran. U.S. forces also struck targets on Qeshm Island near the strategically important Strait of Hormuz after what officials described as attempted Iranian attacks.

The Strait of Hormuz, a critical route for global oil and gas shipments, remains largely closed more than three months after the conflict began. Oil prices rose nearly 2% on concerns about continuing disruptions to energy supplies.

Negotiations with Iran remain fragile

The ceasefire announcement comes amid ongoing efforts to secure a broader agreement between Washington and Tehran.

Iran has linked progress in negotiations to an end to fighting in Lebanon and is seeking access to frozen oil revenues, sanctions relief, an end to restrictions on its ports, and guarantees regarding future access to the Strait of Hormuz.

Abbas Araqchi said negotiations with the United States had not been suspended but acknowledged that no significant progress had been made in recent days.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump expressed optimism that developments could occur soon.

“If it happens, it could happen over the weekend,” Trump told reporters at the White House, without providing further details.

Trump also indicated that negotiators were attempting to separate discussions about reopening the Strait of Hormuz from the conflict in Lebanon.

Despite the ceasefire announcement, violence continued on Wednesday. Lebanese security sources reported Israeli drone strikes that killed at least six people in southern Lebanon and targeted areas near Beirut. Israel said it had intercepted a hostile aircraft believed to have been launched by Hezbollah.

Araqchi warned that Iran would respond decisively if Israel expanded military operations against Beirut.

The conflict has killed thousands of people, primarily in Iran and Lebanon, while disrupting global trade and energy markets. Although the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire has raised hopes for a wider diplomatic breakthrough, ongoing military incidents underscore the fragility of the situation and the challenges facing negotiators seeking a broader regional settlement.

(Source: Reuters)

T

he war between the United States, Israel, and Iran has profoundly affected the Middle East and, by extension, the entire world. Following the ceasefire declared at the end of the 40th day, the war entered a negotiation phase. Prior to the first round of talks in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital, the parties clearly articulated their expectations of one another. The United States’ demands regarding the agreement included the following:

– The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which had been closed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)

– The complete suspension of all nuclear enrichment activities for 15 years

– The handover of 460 kilograms of uranium enriched to over 60 percent

– The closure or strict control of key nuclear facilities (Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow)

– The suspension of long-range missile capabilities

– The cessation of support for groups under its control in neighboring countries

However, Iran sought full sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, including control of transit fees, international recognition of its right to enrich uranium, a five-year moratorium on uranium enrichment, dilution of uranium enriched to 60 percent instead of handing it over, $270 billion in compensation for damage to critical infrastructure, release of $120 billion in frozen Iranian assets, inclusion of China and Russia in the process as guarantors of the new agreement, and complete lifting of sanctions.

U.S. demands from Iran

The war between the United States, Israel, and Iran has profoundly affected the Middle East and, by extension, the entire world. Following the ceasefire declared at the end of the 40th day, the war entered a negotiation phase. Prior to the first round of talks in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital, the parties clearly articulated their expectations of one another. The United States’ demands regarding the agreement included the following:

– The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which had been closed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)

– The complete suspension of all nuclear enrichment activities for 15 years

– The handover of 460 kilograms of uranium enriched to over 60 percent

– The closure or strict control of key nuclear facilities (Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow)

– The suspension of long-range missile capabilities

– The cessation of support for groups under its control in neighboring countries

Following the talks, US Vice President JD Vance stated that the Iranian delegation appeared more reasonable and flexible than in the past. Yet, he criticized the Iranian side for not acting in a manner willing to reach an agreement or focused on a solution. In response, Foreign Minister Iraqchi, one of the lead Iranian delegation representatives, stated that the US side was greedy and had made unacceptable demands. These statements highlighted that the parties had failed to reach an agreement and that the expected outcome of the talks had not been achieved.

Iran’s losses and survivors

Upon examining the negotiation process in question, it is evident that there is a prevailing consensus among U.S. officials, with no apparent divergence of opinion or division. Although many Americans have criticized the initiation of the war and the management of the process, which has even caused unease within the US military, securing as many concessions as possible from Iran at the negotiating table is clearly seen as a historic opportunity that no one would turn down. However, the situation was far different for Iran, which suffered heavy destruction and losses throughout the war. The most devastating loss was the assassination of Ali Khamenei, the leader who held absolute authority in the country for 37 years.

While serving as Iran’s supreme leader, Khamenei held a position of authority and influence that allowed him to make final decisions on everything from minor issues to long-term strategic planning and policymaking processes. This was thanks to his unifying power over all state institutions and the absolute obedience he commanded. Although he was perceived as open to consultation, he insisted on critical decisions regarding the nuclear and missile programs and policies toward Syria and Iraq. This stance often prevented dissenting voices from emerging across all levels of the administration. The removal of such a powerful and influential leader was bound to create a distinct leadership vacuum in the country. Indeed, events have unfolded in this direction, and it is now clear that this vacuum has led to serious consequences within the administration and on the ground.

Thanks to its multi-layered political and military system, which has been intertwined with religious and ideological beliefs for decades, Iran was able to avert a serious crisis that could have triggered its collapse. The expected collapse did not materialize. However, there are signs of a deadlock in the decision-making process regarding the ongoing ceasefire and negotiations, as well as power struggles and divisions.

The Khatam Al Anbiya Headquarters

One of the clearest examples of this is the statement by the Khatam Al Anbiya Headquarters, one of the IRGC’s most important centers, that “passages will remain closed as long as the enemy’s hostile attacks continue,” following Iraqchi’s announcement after the first round of talks that limited and authorized passages through the Strait of Hormuz would be permitted. Headlines in Keyhan, a hardline conservative newspaper formerly close to Ali Khamenei, have targeted Muhammad Bakir Galibaf, a member of the negotiation team, and the negotiation efforts. Similar broadcasts by Iranian State Television have criticized Galibaf and the negotiations with the US.

It should be noted that Galibaf is one of the regime’s iconic figures. A former high-ranking commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), he wields significant influence and power in both the military and politics. Although he is associated with conservative figures, Galibaf’s stance and policies can adapt to the conditions of the time. During the war, he survived an environment in which key figures such as Ali Khamenei, Larijani, and Shamkhani were eliminated. By conducting negotiations with a moderate approach, he established a presence on the international stage. His desire and efforts to rise in politics, despite having run for president twice and having a military background, may have also played a role in this process.

Trump’s remarks from the outset that “there are alternative leadership options within the regime” and his statement at the end of the war that “we are in contact with reasonable figures” drew attention to Galibaf. Opposition media in the diaspora claimed that Galibaf was one of these “reasonable figures” from the beginning and even before the war began. Therefore, he was deliberately spared from being targeted.

While it is difficult to assert that these claims are part of a long-term, premeditated plan, Galibaf’s ambition for the top spot is well known throughout his political career. Notably, unlike many other IRGC commanders, he has adopted a more moderate stance following the destruction wrought by the war and the successive removal of high-ranking figures. One could argue that this approach is based on the desire to keep the regime afloat through controlled normalization with the U.S. and secure the top of the power pyramid by outmaneuvering rivals in the emerging new balance of power.”