I

raqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zeidi’s visits to Washington, Tehran and Ankara in quick succession are significant in terms of demonstrating the new government’s approach to foreign policy. For Iraq, Washington and Tehran are two capitals closely linked to security, capital, historical influence and developments in Iraqi domestic politics. Ankara, on the other hand, represents the most concrete, stable and reliable economic route through which the country can access global markets. For this reason, al-Zaidi’s visit to Ankara immediately following his engagements in Washington and Tehran should not be viewed as a mere neighbourly visit. This visit demonstrates that Baghdad, which has placed economic development at the centre of its government program, views Türkiye not merely as a trading partner but as a strategic gateway in Iraq’s production, transport and energy equation.

The most significant aspect of the talks in Ankara is not the number of documents signed, but rather the needs of Iraq and Türkiye that they address. Five memoranda of understanding were signed between the two countries covering educational and academic cooperation, youth and sport, industrial property, rail and road transport via the Fishhabur–Ovaköy border crossing, and the development of transport infrastructure in Iraq in exchange for natural resources. Whilst the first three agreements broaden the social and institutional foundation of the relationship, the latter two are of direct strategic importance for Iraq’s economic future. This is because these agreements strengthen the necessary links to move the Development Corridor Project – which aims to connect the Grand Faw Port in Basra to the Turkish border via Iraq and from there to Europe – into the implementation phase.

The visit also demonstrates that the strong relations established between Iraq and Türkiye in recent years are being maintained by the new Iraqi government. During President Erdoğan’s visit to Baghdad in April 2024, 27 legal texts were signed, whilst 11 documents were signed at the High-Level Strategic Cooperation Council meeting held in May 2025. The fact that Zaidi has included Ankara in the itinerary of his first foreign visit since taking office suggests that Türkiye has secured a permanent place in Iraq’s development plans.

Oil production but lack of control

Iraq has been producing oil for many years but has been unable to establish sufficient control over the routes by which this oil is transported. The fact that a very large proportion of oil revenues depends on exports via the southern ports and the Strait of Hormuz means that any military tension in the Gulf directly becomes a problem for the Iraqi budget. The closure of ports and disruption to tanker traffic affects not only oil companies but the entire state apparatus, from public sector wages to social spending. Road, rail and pipeline links via Türkiye therefore represent both a means of facilitating trade and a tool for economic security from Baghdad’s perspective.

This is where the true significance of the Development Corridor comes to the fore. If successful, the project—which is planned to link the Port of Faw to Türkiye via a network of approximately 1,200 kilometres of railways and motorways—will do more than simply transport containers from Basra to Türkiye. It will also create new industrial zones, logistics centres, energy networks and urban development areas along the route. Given Iraq’s young population and high unemployment rate, this transformation could provide an alternative to the limited employment opportunities currently available in the oil sector alone.

Türkiye plays a role in this equation that no other neighbour can easily fulfil. Iran is linked to Iraq through energy, trade and political networks, whilst the Gulf states can provide capital to Iraq. However, Türkiye is the only direct neighbour capable of connecting Iraq to the European market by road and rail, and to the Mediterranean via Ceyhan. Moreover, the economic foundation between the two countries will not be built from scratch. Trade volume between Türkiye and Iraq reached approximately 17 billion dollars in 2025, and Turkish companies have undertaken over 1,000 projects in Iraq with a total value of around 40 billion dollars. The setting of a medium-term trade target of 30 billion dollars during the Ankara talks demonstrates the will to roughly double the current level of trade.

Developments in the energy sector also demonstrated that the visit was not limited solely to the transport agenda. Although no long-term, comprehensive energy agreement was signed at the ceremony in Ankara, TPAO’s acquisition of a 15 per cent stake in the company managing BP’s operations in Kirkuk is a step that could transform Türkiye from merely being a buyer and transit country for Iraqi oil into a production partner.

A few days after the visit, Türkiye and Iraq signed a provisional agreement extending the use of the existing oil pipeline for another year, with a capacity of 750,000 barrels per day. This also showed that the talks in Ankara had begun to produce concrete results. Whilst time is being gained to prepare a broader energy agreement, Baghdad has secured the use of the only operational oil export pipeline. Given that the pipeline carries approximately 170,000 barrels per day, increasing the current capacity could be a significant step in Iraq’s efforts to reduce its dependence on the Strait of Hormuz.

The secret behind the fifth agreement!

The signing ceremony in Ankara also brought to light the main obstacle facing the Iraqi government. Whilst the signing of five agreements was expected, President Erdoğan’s realization that one agreement had not been signed, followed by Zaidi’s turn to Iraq’s Minister of Transport, Veheb al-Hasani, and the subsequent inclusion of the remaining documents in the signing process, were widely discussed in the media of both countries. Hasani later explained the incident as a technical and protocol-related disagreement. A spokesperson for the Iraqi Ministry of Transport, however, stated that there had been a prior dispute on the Iraqi side—involving the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Oil—regarding the inclusion of the document in the visit’s program.

In contrast, some Iraqi and Turkish commentators alleged that the minister, who has a background in the Badr Organization, was attempting to slow down the Development Corridor agreement under Iranian influence. This claim could not be definitively confirmed, and the available information is insufficient to characterize the events as a definitive act of sabotage by Iran. However, the incident itself remains significant. Whether the problem stems from a lack of protocol, inter-institutional disagreement or political influence, it demonstrates that during the implementation of strategic decisions in Iraq, different ministries, parties and actors with external connections are not acting in unison. Viewed from this perspective, the success of the Zaidi government’s economic program will in fact depend not so much on how many agreements it signs abroad, but rather on the extent to which it can implement state decisions at home.

Economy in Ankara, missiles on the ground

The joint Saudi Arabian–US air strikes that took place immediately after the visit to Ankara once again demonstrated just how fragile the security environment is in which Zaidi’s development diplomacy is being conducted. US Central Command stated that the strikes targeted logistics and weapons sites belonging to groups it alleged were directed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Reports citing Iraqi and Iranian sources stated that at least 20 members of the Hashd al-Shaabi were killed. Baghdad condemned the strikes as a violation of its sovereignty, and Zaidi cancelled his visit to Riyadh, which had been scheduled for July 30. Thus, within a matter of days, Iraq – which had been discussing transport corridors and economic integration in Ankara – has once again been drawn into the military arena of US-Iranian tensions.

This development does not diminish the importance of the Ankara visit; on the contrary, it enhances it. This is because the path for Iraq to extricate itself from regional military rivalry does not lie solely in maintaining balanced relations with Washington and Tehran. Iraq must raise the cost of the conflict by developing its economic ties, thereby forcing countries to step back from clashing on its territory. It would be difficult to claim that the intensive trade, energy and transport networks to be established with Türkiye will provide Baghdad with an absolute security guarantee. However, these links will make Iraq’s stability more valuable to Türkiye, Europe, the Gulf states and international companies. Economic interdependence alone will not prevent war, but it will help Iraq move away from being perceived solely as a country defined by militias, military bases and spheres of influence.

Looking at Zaidi’s initial foreign policy moves, he is seeking investment from Washington, political balance from Tehran and economic links from Ankara. Among these three capitals, Türkiye stands out for offering the most viable route to turn Iraq’s geography into an economic advantage. Multi-billion-dollar deals in Washington could provide capital and technology. Relations with Tehran cannot be entirely disregarded in terms of internal stability. However, Iraq’s ability to generate non-oil revenue, open up to Europe, create new employment opportunities and reduce its dependence on the Strait of Hormuz depends to a large extent on the operationalisation of the routes extending northwards.

Ultimately, the visit to Ankara has done more than simply demonstrate Iraq’s growing rapprochement with Türkiye; it has also revealed the direction of the new government’s approach to development. The real issue is not the signing of the five documents. The real issue is whether the pipeline stretching from Ovaköy to Faw, the oil flowing from Kirkuk to Ceyhan, and the $30 billion trade target will make the Iraqi state stronger and more independent. If the Zaidi government can support these projects with institutional reform, transparency and state authority, relations with Türkiye could transform Iraq’s quest for balance in foreign policy into an economic strategy. Otherwise, the documents signed in Ankara will simply be added to the long list of agreements that Baghdad has accumulated over the years but has been unable to implement. .

(Originally published in Turkish by Middle East Africa)

T

he United States and Iran traded threats over a new economic confrontation on Monday, with Washington preparing what it described as an unprecedented sanctions campaign and Tehran warning it could halt all oil exports from the Persian Gulf if the pressure continues.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was due to unveil new sanctions targeting countries and companies that continue trading with Iran, describing the campaign as “the single greatest financial offensive ever marshaled against an adversary.”

The measures come after months of war between the United States, Israel and Iran that have damaged Iran’s military and economic infrastructure while disrupting energy markets and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

“The economic D-Day” will begin with the new measures, Bessent wrote in an opinion article published in the Financial Times, warning countries that continue doing business with Iran that they could face consequences.

Iran threans to halt oil exports

Iran responded with a threat to dramatically escalate the economic confrontation.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said Tehran could stop all oil exports from the Persian Gulf if the U.S. economic campaign continued.

“If the economic war continues, not a single drop of oil will be exported,” Rezaei said in a social media post, adding that Iran would regard countries supporting Washington’s economic campaign as participating in an act of war.

The warning raises the possibility of a further disruption to global energy markets. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a major share of the world’s oil supplies normally passes, has already been brought close to a standstill by the conflict.

Iran retains missile and drone capabilities that it has used against U.S. allies in the Gulf and has threatened commercial shipping in the strategic waterway.

The new U.S. sanctions campaign comes as Washington and Tehran remain far from a negotiated settlement. Although direct military strikes between the two countries have stopped for several weeks, the two sides have yet to resume substantive negotiations.

The conflict began on February 28 with U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran. Months of fighting have killed thousands of people, most of them in Iran and Lebanon, and inflicted extensive damage on Iranian infrastructure.

Iran also suffered the killing of its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during the conflict, while the United States has reported 18 military personnel killed and more than 750 wounded.

Struggling economy but still standing

Despite the economic pressure, Tehran has maintained a defiant public stance. Iranian officials, however, have acknowledged that the country’s economy was already under severe strain before the war because of years of sanctions, high inflation, currency weakness and energy shortages.

The war has added to those problems by damaging infrastructure, disrupting trade and reducing production, leaving Tehran facing major reconstruction costs.

Iranian officials have warned that further economic pressure could deepen hardship, fuel public discontent and undermine the government’s legitimacy.

Washington is also seeking support from major trading partners, particularly China, which has remained one of Iran’s most important economic partners.

Bessent has urged Beijing to cooperate with the U.S. campaign, noting that China has historically obtained a large share of its oil imports from the Gulf.

China has rejected the use of economic pressure as a solution to the conflict.

“Sanctions and pressure do not help resolve the problem,” a spokesperson for China’s embassy in Washington said, while calling for diplomacy.

Calls for diplomacy continue

With direct U.S.-Iran talks stalled, several countries have attempted to mediate between the two sides. Qatar, Pakistan and Turkey have all been involved in diplomatic efforts aimed at preventing a further escalation.

Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, was expected to visit Tehran on Monday as part of Islamabad’s efforts to promote regional peace and security. Pakistani officials said the visit would include discussions on the latest developments and Washington’s threatened sanctions.

The economic confrontation comes at a particularly sensitive moment for global energy markets. Any further disruption to Gulf oil exports could send prices sharply higher and increase pressure on countries already struggling with elevated energy costs.

For Washington, the sanctions campaign is intended to force Iran back to the negotiating table by increasing the economic cost of refusing U.S. demands.

For Tehran, the threat to halt oil exports represents an attempt to demonstrate that Iran can impose significant costs on the United States and its allies if economic pressure continues.

The confrontation therefore risks developing into a wider contest over energy, trade and financial access, even as military operations remain suspended.

With neither side showing signs of abandoning its core demands, the latest exchange of threats suggests that the six-month conflict has entered a new phase — one in which economic pressure and control of global energy supplies could prove as important as military power.

(Source: Reuters)

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)

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

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)

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 military operation launched by the US and Israel against Iran on February 28, 2026, which has now evolved into a fragile ceasefire, has reopened the debate on NATO’s institutional and geographical boundaries. The Trump administration’s stance, demanding that its European allies make their airspace and military bases available for use, as well as deploying active naval assets to the Strait of Hormuz, has triggered a structural tension within the Alliance.

Whilst Article 5 of the Treaty limits the obligation of collective defense to attacks on the territories of member states in Europe or North America, Article 6 further narrows this geographical scope by clarifying the definition of the ‘North Atlantic area’. Although the fact that the Washington–Tehran crisis unfolded entirely outside NATO’s formal area of responsibility provided a legal basis for the Alliance to refrain from taking the initiative as an actor, strategic considerations have been the decisive factor here. Although the Alliance claims to be a ‘global security actor’, its members prefer to define the organization as a regional defense pact, whilst avoiding turning their ‘out-of-area’ engagements into an institutional obligation.

Trump’s demands and Europe’s alliance dilemma

The most striking manifestation of the crisis at the operational level is the profound asymmetry between the expectations of the hegemonic power and the allies’ capacity to resist. Washington’s demands have gone beyond a classic burden-sharing debate to become a test of loyalty for the allies. The main objection raised from the European side in the face of this demanding stance is the political rejection that the process has been escalated without consultation with the allies and that ‘the war in question is not Europe’s war’. During this process, Spain adopted the toughest stance by closing its military bases and airspace to US use; Italy demanded strict prior coordination, whilst France and the UK raised various reservations regarding the allocation of bases.

However, despite these restrictive decisions, the European continent – led by Germany – effectively served as a vital logistical base for American military operations. As the crisis deepened and Iran began retaliatory strikes against Gulf states, France, Italy and the UK deployed their military forces to the region to fend off missile and drone attacks, thereby taking up active positions on secondary fronts. On the other hand, whilst the closure of the Strait of Hormuz dealt a severe blow to Europe’s economic interests, the capacity limitations of their own armed forces and their reluctance to be drawn into a conflict imposed by the US led European states to reject Trump’s demand to reopen the strait by military force. This collective refusal by Europe paved the way for Trump to accuse his allies of disloyalty and to threaten to withdraw the US from NATO.

This situation has left European decision-makers facing a classic ‘alliance dilemma’. Allies found themselves caught between, on the one hand, the fear of being drawn into a conflict in the Middle East (entrapment) in the name of US regional interests, and, on the other, the anxiety of being abandoned (abandonment) without the protection of the American security umbrella in the face of the Russian threat. This structural impasse has pushed Europe towards a strategy of ‘active inertia’, one that appeases the US politically whilst refraining from military engagement.

Legal basis for operations outside Article 5

Two historical precedents in which NATO was able to take action even in crises falling outside the scope of Article 5 provide an important comparison of how this structural limitation can be overcome. The Alliance’s military engagement in the Bosnian crisis (1992–1995), which it experienced during the post-Cold War period, was based on a process of deriving legitimacy directly through the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) phased authorisation mechanisms. Similarly, in Libya, the Alliance’s basis of legitimacy was derived not from its own founding articles but from the UN Security Council’s authorisation to protect civilians (Resolution 1973);

NATO became the institutional vehicle implementing this authorisation due to its command-and-control capabilities, yet the composition of participants remained variable, with members such as Germany remaining on the sidelines. The possibility of this scenario being repeated in the Iran crisis is structurally precluded: Russia and China’s veto powers on the Security Council block any Bosnia- or Libya-style authorisation from the outset. This has reinforced the conclusion that NATO has no capacity to take institutional action on the Iran issue, either within its own Articles 5 and 6 framework or through the UN; consequently, the only realistic option remaining is individual or coalition-based action centred on the US-Israel axis.

Furthermore, the Alliance’s structural fissures are manifesting themselves in various ways on the ground. The Alliance’s past operations against piracy in the Gulf of Aden or its missions to combat terrorism and smuggling in the Mediterranean demonstrate a modest yet functional capacity for action that underpins NATO’s claim to protect global trade routes. However, these historical examples are fundamentally at odds with the military and political nature of the threat in the Strait of Hormuz: Whilst operations in the Gulf of Aden or the Mediterranean are policing-style missions conducted against weak and non-state actors, patrolling under the NATO flag in the Strait of Hormuz amounts to engaging in a direct show of force with a sovereign state possessing advanced ballistic capabilities.

Indeed, this structural incompatibility came to the fore as recently as 2019, amidst the deepening US-Iran nuclear crisis and a situation where attacks on oil tankers were threatening global trade. At that time, rather than uniting under a common umbrella, NATO members established two separate naval forces, each operating independently and guided by opposing strategic rationales: the US-led IMSC (2019), focused solely on military deterrence, and the French-led EMASOH (2020), which aimed solely at diplomatic de-escalation without being drawn into the US–Iran conflict. The fact that this two-pronged structure, with its conflicting objectives, has been established outside NATO has clearly demonstrated that the Alliance lacks a shared perception of threat and the capacity for joint decision-making in ‘out-of-scope’ crisis regions.

Turkey as a NATO member

The evasive manoevres of European allies are transforming into a far more complex geographical and strategic equation centered on Turkey, which forms the Alliance’s south-eastern flank. Turkey’s long-standing border with Iran and its reflexes to preserve the regional balance of power, combined with a normative opposition to Israel’s military doctrine, are keeping Ankara away from kinetic conflict and forcing it into a conciliatory diplomacy.

Whilst this strategy of isolation is accepted by Washington, strategic infrastructure integrated into NATO, such as the Kürecik radar and Incirlik Air Base, which Turkey hosts on its own territory, creates structural pressure and the risk of ‘spatial entrapment’. To prevent these facilities from being instrumentalized by the US for unilateral operational intelligence or pre-emptive strikes, Ankara has blocked American manoevres by strictly limiting the rules of use within the Alliance’s formal defense framework. This stance demonstrates that geographical realities shape a security framework far more decisively than Alliance texts.

Ultimately, the ‘active inaction’ strategy developed by European states whilst caught in the ‘alliance dilemma’, alongside Turkey’s efforts to restrict the use of NATO infrastructure under its sovereignty to counter the risk of ‘spatial drift’, have clearly demonstrated that the allies will not unconditionally align themselves with a hegemonic power’s unilateral regional conflict. Although Donald Trump has sought to portray the Alliance as a weak and ‘ineffective’ institution in the eyes of the public, citing the allies’ rhetorical distancing and limited support as justification, the logistical and operational realities on the ground point to the exact opposite.

The difficulties the US has faced throughout the crisis against Iran, which possesses asymmetric capabilities, have clearly highlighted the limits of unilateral force projection, despite its military superiority. Ultimately, this crisis has paradoxically demonstrated the extent to which a hegemonic power needs the strategic depth and structural alliance architecture offered by its allies in order to consolidate its regional presence and project power.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

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)

I

ran is expected to receive the first shipment of hundreds of Chinese-made shoulder-fired air defense missile systems within weeks under a deal valued at between $60 million and $70 million, according to three sources familiar with the agreement cited by Reuters.

If completed, the purchase would represent one of Tehran’s largest known efforts to rebuild its short-range air defenses since months of fighting with the United States and Israel exposed weaknesses in its ability to protect military facilities and strategic infrastructure.

The contract reportedly covers between 300 and 400 man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), including the Chinese-made QW-12 and FN-16 missile systems.

According to Reuters, the agreement was signed through Zhongqing Baoshang International Investment, which the sources said acted as an intermediary between Iran and the Chinese supplier.

The total value of the contract is estimated at $60–70 million, although the sources cautioned that delivery schedules, quantities and implementation details could still change.

Iran’s foreign ministry did not immediately comment on the report.

China’s foreign ministry denied the claims, stating:

“The relevant reports are completely groundless. China has consistently played a role in promoting peace and ending the conflict.”

The parent company, Zhong Qing Bao Shang Group, also did not immediately respond to Reuters’ request for comment.

Air defense overhaul after months of war

Reuters said Iran is seeking to strengthen its defenses after U.S. and Israeli strikes targeted facilities connected to its missile, drone and air defense programs during the recent conflict.

Military analysts note that portable air defense systems are particularly valuable because they can be quickly deployed by small teams and relocated frequently, making them less vulnerable than fixed air defense batteries.

The reported purchase would significantly expand Iran’s inventory of short-range air defense weapons designed to engage Low-flying aircraft, helicopters, and drones.

The QW-12 and FN-16 are infrared-guided missile systems intended to protect military bases, energy infrastructure and other sensitive locations against aerial threats.

Defense experts cited by Reuters consider the QW-12 less advanced than newer Chinese systems such as the QW-18 and QW-19 but say it remains capable of providing an effective layer of short-range protection.

According to the sources, initial shipments were expected to leave Urumqi in western China before transiting through Pakistan into Iran.

The sources did not specify whether the transfers would occur by air or overland.

Pakistan firmly denied any involvement.

The military’s media wing, the Inter-Services Public Relations, called reports linking Pakistan to the transfer of Chinese air defense systems “absolutely concocted and false.”

Reuters also reported that Iran has explored overland transportation routes for Chinese military equipment and dual-use components to reduce the risk of disruption.

Growing military ties with China

The reported procurement comes amid expanding defense cooperation between China and Iran despite years of international sanctions on Tehran.

European and Middle Eastern security sources told Reuters they were aware of discussions involving possible Iranian purchases of several QW-series MANPADS, including the QW-12, QW-18 and QW-19 variants.

Reuters previously reported that Iran was also negotiating with China to acquire anti-ship cruise missiles, although it could not determine whether that agreement was finalized.

If the current deal proceeds, it would underscore Iran’s continued reliance on a combination of domestic weapons production and foreign suppliers as it rebuilds military capabilities following months of conflict.

(Source: Reuters)

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)

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)

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)

T

he United States and Iran exchanged another round of military strikes on Thursday, sharply escalating tensions in the Gulf and raising fresh concerns over the stability of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy corridor.

The latest escalation came after U.S. forces launched a second wave of attacks against Iranian military infrastructure overnight, with Washington saying the operation was intended to safeguard freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz following Iranian attacks on commercial shipping.

Iran responded hours later by launching missile and drone strikes against U.S. military facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait, marking another direct exchange between the two countries despite previous diplomatic efforts to halt the conflict.

The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) said its latest operation struck approximately 90 military targets across Iran, including air defense systems, coastal surveillance installations, missile and drone storage sites, naval assets and military logistics infrastructure along Iran’s southern coastline.

The strikes followed an earlier round of attacks this week in which U.S. forces targeted more than 80 Iranian military sites.

Speaking to reporters while returning from the NATO summit in Türkiye, U.S. President Donald Trump defended the operation, describing it as retaliation for Iran’s attacks on commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

“We just hit them very hard,” Trump said. “Every time they hit us, we’re going to hit them 20.”

Earlier, Trump declared that the interim agreement intended to halt fighting between Washington and Tehran was effectively “over.”

Iran retaliates against US bases

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced that it had carried out strikes against U.S. military positions in Bahrain and Kuwait in response to the American attacks.

The Guards warned that further retaliation would follow if the United States launched additional strikes against Iranian territory.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said the Strait of Hormuz would operate only under what he described as “Iranian arrangements,” adding that U.S. “bullying and breaking its commitments no longer come without a cost.”

Iranian state media reported that three people were killed and several others injured in U.S. strikes near Ahvaz in southwestern Iran.

Multiple locations along Iran’s southern coast were reportedly hit, including Bandar Abbas, home to Iran’s largest commercial port and major naval facilities belonging to both the Iranian Navy and the Revolutionary Guards.

Additional strikes were reported in Konarak, Chabahar and Iranshahr, where a firefighter was killed during an attack on the city’s airport. Iranian media also reported damage to a railway bridge near Aqqala in northern Iran.

Oil prices climb

Global oil prices rose as markets reacted to renewed fighting and concerns that continued hostilities could threaten shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies normally pass.

Brent crude futures rose more than 1% to nearly $79 per barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude also gained more than 1%.

The latest exchange follows a familiar pattern seen during previous rounds of fighting, with Iranian attacks on commercial shipping followed by U.S. military retaliation and subsequent Iranian strikes on American military facilities in the Gulf.

Despite the escalating military exchanges, analysts say both sides may still be seeking to strengthen their negotiating positions while avoiding a broader regional war, although the collapse of the interim agreement has significantly reduced prospects for an immediate diplomatic breakthrough.

(Source: Reuters)

N

ATO leaders gathered in Ankara on Wednesday for the second day of a high-stakes summit dominated by renewed military tensions between the United States and Iran, the ongoing war in Ukraine, and growing debates over defense spending and alliance unity.

The summit, hosted by Türkiye, was expected to focus primarily on strengthening NATO’s collective defense capabilities. However, fresh military exchanges in the Middle East quickly shifted attention toward regional security and the risk of a broader conflict.

The United States launched new strikes against Iranian targets overnight, saying the attacks were a response to Iranian assaults on commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Iran retaliated by launching missiles and drones at U.S. military facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait, marking the most significant escalation since the two countries reached a preliminary ceasefire agreement last month.

Speaking alongside NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte before the main summit session, U.S. President Donald Trump declared that the interim understanding with Tehran was effectively finished.

Defense spending remained another major issue throughout the summit. Rutte praised Trump’s long-standing pressure on allies to increase military expenditures, arguing that recent commitments represented a significant transformation in European defense policy.

“When you have achieved this, this is a huge win,” Rutte said, noting that European allies and Canada had dramatically increased investments in military capabilities over recent years.

Trump nevertheless criticized several NATO members, reserving particularly strong criticism for Spain, which he accused of failing to contribute adequately to the alliance. He even suggested ending trade with Spain, calling it “a terrible partner in NATO.”

Ukraine on the Agenda

Meanwhile, Ukraine remained high on the summit agenda as Russia continued large-scale attacks across the country.

According to Ukrainian officials, Russia launched another overnight assault involving missiles and drones, highlighting Kyiv’s continued need for advanced air defense systems. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy urged NATO partners to accelerate military assistance, particularly in strengthening Ukraine’s ability to intercept cruise missiles and other aerial threats.

Russia, for its part, reported intercepting hundreds of Ukrainian drones overnight while accusing Kyiv of attacking energy infrastructure deep inside Russian territory, including oil refineries and fuel facilities.

The renewed violence reinforced concerns that diplomatic efforts to end the more than four-year war have stalled despite repeated international mediation attempts.

A comprehensive 360-degree security approach

Beyond immediate military challenges, NATO leaders also discussed the alliance’s long-term strategy. Türkiye emphasized the importance of maintaining a comprehensive 360-degree security approach that addresses threats on both NATO’s eastern and southern flanks while strengthening cooperation on cyber security, infrastructure protection, and defense industrial production.

Alliance officials stressed that military readiness now extends beyond traditional armed forces and includes resilient supply chains, secure communications, and the ability to counter cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns.

The deteriorating security situation in both Eastern Europe and the Middle East has underscored NATO’s growing challenge of responding simultaneously to multiple crises while maintaining unity among its members.

As discussions continued behind closed doors, leaders faced mounting pressure to produce concrete commitments on defense capabilities, support for Ukraine, and coordinated responses to instability in the Middle East.

With tensions rising on several fronts, the Ankara summit is expected to shape NATO’s strategic priorities for the coming years, testing the alliance’s ability to balance collective defense, crisis management, and political cohesion in an increasingly uncertain global security environment.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

T

he United States and Iran exchanged their heaviest military strikes since last month’s ceasefire on Wednesday, raising fears that the fragile truce between the two longtime adversaries has effectively collapsed as President Donald Trump declared the interim agreement with Tehran was “over.”

The renewed escalation unfolded as NATO leaders gathered in Ankara, where Trump confirmed that Washington had resumed military operations against Iran following what U.S. officials described as Iranian attacks on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

According to the United States, the latest strikes were launched in response to Iranian attacks on three commercial vessels transiting the strategic waterway, one of the world’s most important oil shipping routes.

Iran responded by announcing missile and drone strikes against U.S. military facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait, marking one of the most significant direct confrontations between the two countries since fighting resumed.

The exchange represents the most serious breach of the preliminary ceasefire reached last month following weeks of conflict and negotiations mediated by regional partners.

“I think it’s over”

Speaking alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on the sidelines of the alliance summit, Trump signaled that Washington no longer viewed the interim memorandum of understanding with Tehran as viable.

“I think it’s over,” Trump told reporters when asked about the agreement that had temporarily halted fighting.

The U.S. president also dismissed prospects for renewed engagement with Iran, saying he no longer wished to negotiate with Iranian leaders, whom he described as “sick people.”

His remarks suggested the diplomatic process that had accompanied the ceasefire has effectively broken down, even as military exchanges continue to intensify.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry accused Washington of undermining the agreement through both military action and economic pressure.

In a statement released Wednesday, Tehran said recent U.S. airstrikes, together with Washington’s decision to revoke Iran’s oil sales license, had rendered key parts of the ceasefire arrangement “ineffective.”

Iran also accused the United States of interfering with maritime arrangements governing passage through the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that such actions had made implementation of the truce increasingly impossible.

The ministry warned neighboring countries hosting U.S. military forces not to allow their territories to be used for further American attacks against Iran, an apparent reference to Gulf states including Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

The warning followed Iran’s announcement that it had launched missiles and drones against U.S. military targets in Bahrain and Kuwait earlier in the day.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards also reported that one member of its naval forces had been killed while confronting U.S. drones near the southern port of Mashahr.

The latest military exchanges have raised concerns that the conflict could once again spread across the wider Gulf region, threatening global energy supplies and commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which carries roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil exports.

Regional tensions grow as aviation warning expanded

The renewed fighting has already prompted international aviation authorities to strengthen safety warnings across the Middle East.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) announced that commercial airlines should avoid operating within both Iranian and Iraqi airspace because of the heightened risk of military activity.

The updated advisory remains in effect until August 31 and replaces an earlier warning that had also covered Lebanese airspace.

EASA continues to advise airlines to exercise caution when operating near Bahrain, Kuwait, Israel, Jordan, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates because of the potential for further military escalation.

The deteriorating security situation overshadowed discussions at the NATO summit in Ankara, where alliance leaders were expected to focus on defense spending, regional security and support for Ukraine.

Instead, much of the attention shifted to Trump’s remarks on Iran and his broader comments on NATO allies.

Criticism against Spain

The U.S. president also launched a sharp attack on Spain, accusing Madrid of failing to meet its defense commitments within NATO.

Trump said he had instructed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to halt all trade with Spain, calling the country “a terrible partner” in the alliance.

“I don’t want anything to do with Spain,” Trump told reporters.

He also criticized NATO over Greenland, renewing longstanding complaints about the Arctic territory and alliance burden-sharing.

The renewed conflict between Washington and Tehran comes after weeks of fragile diplomacy aimed at preventing another prolonged regional war.

Although the interim agreement had reduced direct military confrontation, tensions remained high over Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions, maritime security and regional influence.

With both sides exchanging military attacks and publicly questioning the viability of previous agreements, regional governments are increasingly concerned that the Gulf could once again become the center of a wider confrontation involving U.S. forces and Iranian-backed groups.

The latest developments also place additional pressure on NATO leaders meeting in Ankara, many of whom have emphasized the importance of preventing further instability in the Middle East while maintaining freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

As military operations continue and diplomatic rhetoric hardens, the future of any negotiated settlement between Washington and Tehran appears increasingly uncertain.

(Source: Reuters)

F

ollowing approximately 100 days of tension, Iran and the US announced on Sunday 14 June that they had reached an agreement on a memorandum of understanding. On 17 June, the text of the 14-point memorandum of understanding was signed by US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Mesud Pezeşkiyan. Thus, an agreement has been reached that will launch a 60-day negotiation process between the two countries. The final outcome will be determined by the agreement reached at the conclusion of these 60 days of negotiations. From this perspective, it is fair to say that the current memorandum of understanding serves as a sort of ‘goodwill document’ to initiate the negotiation process between the two countries. This document also serves as a guide regarding the issues to be addressed during the negotiation process. In this context, it is worth examining in detail the matters covered by the Memorandum of Understanding.

Matters covered by the memorandum of understanding

The provisions set out in the 14-article Memorandum of Understanding are broadly divided into two categories. Some of these are provisions that come into force upon the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding, whilst others are provisions expected to come into force subject to the outcome of the 60-day negotiations.

Accordingly, Articles 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 of the Memorandum of Understanding cover the matters that come into force upon its signing. Article 1 stipulates that the US, Iran and their allies must immediately and permanently cease hostilities on all fronts where tensions persist, particularly in Lebanon. This article also emphasises that the parties shall henceforth refrain from initiating war or military operations against one another, shall not issue threats, and that Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity shall be guaranteed. Consequently, the implementation of this article extends not only to the US and Iran but also to Israel and Hezbollah. Indeed, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Arakchi stated in a statement that one party to the agreement consists of the US and Israel, whilst the other comprises Iran and Hezbollah. From this perspective, any potential conflict between Hezbollah and Israel is of critical importance. Given Israel’s statements that it will not withdraw from the territories it occupies in Lebanon, it is clear that this provision is also one of the factors rendering the agreement fragile.

Another important issue—the keeping of the Strait of Hormuz open and the regulation of transit—is addressed in Articles 4 and 5 of the Memorandum of Understanding. Accordingly, the US will lift its naval blockade against Iran within 30 days, commencing immediately after the signing of the agreement. In return, Iran will ensure that traffic through the Strait of Hormuz returns to pre-war levels within 30 days. It has been stated that Iran will not charge fees to ships transiting through the Strait of Hormuz for a period of 60 days. Once the 60-day period has ended, it is envisaged that Iran will reach an agreement with Gulf states, primarily Oman, regarding transit arrangements. It has also been stated that the US will withdraw its troops from the vicinity of Iran. According to statements by US officials, this does not imply that the US will withdraw from its bases in the region; rather, it refers to the restoration of the US military presence to its pre-war status.

Iran’s frozen assets

Another issue expected to be implemented following the signing of the memorandum of understanding concerns Iran’s frozen assets and restrictions on its oil sales. Under Articles 10 and 11 of the Memorandum of Understanding, the US Department of the Treasury will issue the necessary authorizations regarding Iran’s oil sales and related insurance, transport and banking transactions, which will remain in force until sanctions are lifted. In addition, Iran’s frozen assets will be released. The details regarding the implementation of these articles will be determined during the negotiation process.

In addition to the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding that come into force upon signature, there are also provisions that will come into force with the final agreement, which is expected to be signed following 60 days of negotiations. These provisions cover more fundamental issues than those that come into force upon the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding and require detailed technical information.

The sanctions imposed on Iran in connection with its nuclear program also constitute one of the provisions contained in the Memorandum of Understanding. The sanctions are addressed in Articles 6 and 7 of the Memorandum of Understanding. Accordingly, all sanctions imposed on Iran – primarily those enacted through United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions and those unilaterally imposed by the US – will be lifted. In addition, the US will plan an investment program worth at least 300 billion dollars, with the assistance of its regional allies, to support Iran’s economic development. The program will operate entirely under US supervision. It is stated that this program has been established by the US as an alternative to Iran’s claim for war reparations. [OO1] The implementation of the program is contingent upon a final agreement following the negotiations. The issue of sanctions, meanwhile, constitutes one of the first matters to be addressed upon the commencement of negotiations.

An examination of the articles of the Memorandum of Understanding reveals that, alongside operational provisions, there are also articles containing general provisions. For example, Article 2 of the Memorandum emphasizes that Iran and the US shall respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and shall not interfere in each other’s internal affairs.

Finally, Articles 12, 13 and 14 regulate the operation of the Memorandum of Understanding. According to these articles, a mechanism will be established to monitor the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding. Once the provisions set out in Articles 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 of the Memorandum of Understanding have entered into force, the two parties will commence 60 days of negotiations. The final agreement reached following the 60-day negotiations will also be confirmed by a UN Security Council resolution.

Risks and opportunities

One of the most significant aspects envisaged by the Memorandum of Understanding concerns Lebanon. Accordingly, it provides for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Lebanon and guarantees of Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity. However, Israel has stated that it will not withdraw from the territories it occupies in Lebanon; not content with this, it has also launched attacks on Lebanese territory following the announcement that an agreement had been reached between Iran and the US. Similarly, the memorandum of understanding signed between Iran and the US has drawn predominantly negative reactions from within Israeli domestic politics.

Channel 14, based in Israel and a staunch supporter of Netanyahu, has levelled harsh criticism at Trump over the signed memorandum of understanding. This situation has prompted a reaction from US Vice-President JD Vance. Consequently, it is evident that the memorandum of understanding is highly fragile, given that Israel – one of its indirect parties – has adopted such an adversarial stance. However, as can be inferred from the reactions of Trump and his deputy Vance, the US administration appears determined to secure a final agreement. Yet, only time will tell whether this US determination will be sufficient to rein in Israel.

Another risk factor is the potential for new regulations governing transit through the Strait of Hormuz. According to the provision in the memorandum of understanding, Iran will temporarily allow transit through the Strait of Hormuz without charging any fees. However, once the 60-day period has expired, a new arrangement will be put in place in consultation with other Gulf states, primarily Oman. Indeed, Iran has previously held discussions with Oman on this matter. Iran maintains that transit through the Strait of Hormuz should be under the control of both Oman and Iran. In this regard, it proposes that a specific fee be charged in return for the service provided. Furthermore, Iran has raised the issue of distinguishing between military and civilian transit. Iran’s refusal to back down from these demands, coupled with the other side’s refusal to accept them, poses a risk to the negotiation process.

Although the signed memorandum of understanding contains elements of risk, it represents the highest-level interaction between the two countries since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. For the first time since then, the presidents of the two countries have signed a document aimed at securing peace. This not only signals the beginning of a new era but also demonstrates that 47 years of hostility have borne no fruit. The most concrete example of this is the tensions and conflicts that have arisen between the two sides over the past year. For this reason, the memorandum of understanding signed is more likely to evolve into a lasting agreement than previous ones.

Unlike other negotiations, the current talks are taking place against a backdrop where other options – primarily war – have already been tried alongside diplomacy. Given that war, as the most radical option, has proved fruitless, it is clear that the two sides have no alternative to diplomacy. Consequently, it is highly likely that the new process that has been initiated will result in peace. However, given that the negotiations leading to the KOEP lasted 18 months, it is clear that a 60-day period is not sufficient for a comprehensive agreement. It is therefore reasonable to assume that this period will be extended and that a longer-term process is on the cards.

(Originally published in Turkish by SETA Foundation)

G

ulf Arab states are reassessing their long-standing security relationship with the United States following Washington’s emerging agreement with Iran, amid concerns that the proposed deal could reshape the regional balance of power and leave key security issues unresolved.

The framework agreement between the United States and Iran, announced after months of conflict and negotiations, has been welcomed across the Gulf as a step away from a wider regional war. However, analysts and diplomats say many governments in the region remain deeply uneasy about its long-term implications, particularly regarding Iran’s military capabilities and growing regional influence.

The agreement seeks to end hostilities between Washington and Tehran, reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping and establish a process for broader negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions relief and economic reconstruction. While Gulf capitals support efforts to prevent another devastating conflict, many officials are questioning whether the arrangement adequately addresses their security concerns.

Trust in US erodes

For decades, Gulf monarchies have relied heavily on the United States as their principal security guarantor. American military bases, naval deployments and defence partnerships have formed the backbone of regional deterrence against external threats, particularly from Iran.

Yet confidence in those guarantees has gradually weakened over the past several years.

Regional observers point to a series of developments that have fuelled doubts, including the limited U.S. response to attacks on Saudi oil facilities in 2019 and Washington’s broader shift toward reducing its military footprint in the Middle East.

Those concerns have resurfaced following the latest U.S.-Iran agreement, which many Gulf officials view as another indication that Washington is increasingly prioritising diplomacy and strategic disengagement over long-term military commitments in the region.

The agreement also introduces new arrangements affecting navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most strategically important maritime corridors. Under the framework, Iran is expected to play a role in future discussions on managing commercial shipping alongside Oman and other regional stakeholders.

Possible Iranian influence on maritime security

For Gulf countries whose economies depend heavily on energy exports passing through the waterway, the prospect of expanded Iranian influence over maritime security has generated considerable debate.

Analysts argue that while reopening shipping lanes would benefit global energy markets, Gulf governments remain cautious about any arrangement that could strengthen Tehran’s leverage over regional trade.

The deal also leaves several contentious issues unresolved.

Although negotiations on Iran’s nuclear activities are expected to continue during a 60-day transition period, the current framework does not directly address Tehran’s ballistic missile programme or its relationships with armed groups across the Middle East.

Many Gulf governments have long regarded those issues as posing a more immediate security challenge than Iran’s nuclear ambitions alone.

During a regional tour following the announcement of the agreement, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio sought to reassure Gulf allies that Washington would continue consulting closely with them throughout negotiations and would not pursue policies that undermine their security.

Rubio emphasised that future discussions concerning Iran’s missile program would be coordinated with regional partners and reaffirmed America’s commitment to longstanding alliances in the Gulf.

Despite those assurances, regional analysts say trust has been weakened by years of uncertainty surrounding U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Diversifying military partnerships

Several experts argue that Gulf states increasingly believe they must prepare for a future in which they shoulder greater responsibility for their own defense.

As a result, some governments have accelerated efforts to diversify their military partnerships and defence procurement beyond traditional suppliers.

Turkey has emerged as one potential alternative source of military equipment and defense cooperation, reflecting a broader strategy of reducing dependence on any single security partner.

At the same time, Gulf countries continue to strengthen economic ties with the United States. Major investment commitments announced in recent years demonstrate that while questions persist over security arrangements, economic cooperation remains a central pillar of bilateral relations.

The proposed agreement with Iran also includes plans for a multibillion-dollar reconstruction and investment fund intended to support Iran’s economic recovery after the conflict.

Although Washington has indicated that Gulf participation would be important, several regional governments have said they have not yet committed funding and are awaiting further details before making any decisions.

For many Gulf leaders, preventing another regional war remains the immediate priority.

The recent conflict exposed the vulnerability of Gulf states to missile and drone attacks and highlighted the economic consequences of disruptions to energy exports and international shipping.

T

he U.S. Senate has voted to direct President Donald Trump to halt military action against Iran, marking the first time since the passage of the 1973 War Powers Act that both chambers of Congress have approved a resolution seeking to end a president’s involvement in an ongoing conflict.

The Senate approved the measure on Tuesday by a vote of 50-48, following its earlier passage in the House of Representatives. The resolution reflects growing unease in Congress over the war that began on February 28, when U.S. and Israeli forces launched attacks on Iran, and signals a widening split between Trump and some members of his own Republican Party.

Although the practical effect of the resolution remains uncertain, the vote represents one of the most significant congressional challenges to Trump’s foreign policy since he returned to office.

Historic congressional action

The measure was passed under the framework of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, legislation enacted after the Vietnam War to limit presidential authority to conduct military operations without congressional approval.

No previous war powers resolution had successfully passed both the House and Senate.

Under the legislation, Congress directed the president to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities involving Iran. However, the White House maintains that the resolution has no legal force because it is not submitted to the president for signature or veto.

The administration also argues that active hostilities effectively ended following a ceasefire reached on April 7.

A White House official dismissed the vote as largely symbolic, saying it had “no significance” and noting that the resolution passed only because two Republican senators were absent.

Trump responded sharply to the vote, calling it “poorly timed and meaningless” in a social media post. He accused lawmakers who supported the measure of making negotiations with Tehran more difficult and providing “comfort” to Iran.

Republican support signals growing unease

The Senate vote largely followed party lines, but four Republicans broke ranks to support the resolution.

The Republican senators voting in favor were Susan Collins, Rand Paul, Bill Cassidy, and Lisa Murkowski.

Meanwhile, Democratic Senator John Fetterman voted against the measure, becoming the only Democrat to oppose it.

Two Republican senators, Mitch McConnell and David McCormick, did not participate in the vote.

The House had approved the same measure earlier this month by a margin of 215-208, with four Republicans joining Democrats in support.

The vote highlights growing frustration among lawmakers over a conflict that has become increasingly unpopular with the American public.

Public opinion turning against the war

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Tuesday, only one-quarter of Americans believe the war against Iran has been worth its costs. A majority of respondents also expressed concern that any ceasefire or peace agreement could collapse.

The conflict has generated political challenges for the Trump administration as it seeks congressional approval for tens of billions of dollars in additional funding linked to military operations.

At the same time, several Republican lawmakers have recently shown greater willingness to oppose the president on key issues, including immigration spending and a proposed fund intended to compensate political allies whom Trump says were unfairly targeted by federal authorities.

T

he political crisis in Iraq, which lasted for approximately six months, was partially resolved on May 14, when Ali Faleh Kazem Al-Zaidi’s government secured a partial vote of confidence in parliament. However, it would be an oversimplification to view the situation in Baghdad merely as a delayed government negotiation. For whilst politics in Iraq may appear to be functioning today, the balance that sustains the system is becoming increasingly fragile.

The presidential election process laid this bare. For months, a two-thirds majority could not be secured in parliament. The election of Nizar Amedi, the candidate of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), as president cleared the way for the government; however, the resulting picture points to a period in which new power distributions are becoming visible rather old balances continuing. Indeed, the fragmentation within the Shia political sphere, the intensifying rivalry between the KDP and the KYB, the emergence of more pragmatic networks among Sunni political actors, and the internal divisions within groups aligned with Iran all indicate that the political landscape in Baghdad has shifted.

Nevertheless, it would be incorrect to claim that the system has completely collapsed. Indeed, in the new framework, the presidency remains with the Kurds, the premiership with the Shias, and the speakership of parliament with the Sunnis. However, it is evident that the political balance underpinning this structure no longer reflects the old Iraq. In the current order, alliances are formed more flexibly, the political arena is becoming more fragmented, and actors are acting more pragmatically. Yet the state apparatus is failing to centralize to the same extent.

It is possible to interpret this emerging picture as a form of ‘asymmetric continuity’. In other words, the system continues, but the political algorithm that sustains it is changing. Indeed, as the sphere of representation expands, decision-making capacity becomes increasingly fragile. The manner in which the Zeydi government was formed also demonstrated this. Of the 23 ministers, only 14 were able to secure a vote of confidence in parliament. The confidence votes for some ministers were postponed, some candidates withdrew, and others were outright rejected. For Iraq, the issue is no longer merely forming a government; it is about establishing a state structure that functions, can make decisions, and possesses the capacity to exercise sovereignty over the country.

Foreign policy balance

It is precisely at this point that the US-Iran balance is once again becoming decisive. Historically, Iraqi politics has been interpreted through the narrow prism of ‘whether the US or Iran is “winning” Yet the recent process has revealed a different picture. Neither can Iran be pushed outside the system, nor can Washington establish a decisive sphere of influence on its own. In this sense, a more controlled model of competition appears to have emerged. The parties are not completely eliminating each other’s room for manoeuvre, but are attempting to establish strategic boundaries.

This situation felt particularly in the security sphere. The fact that certain figures close to Iran can hold positions in the government demonstrates that Tehran’s influence persists, whilst reservations regarding certain critical security posts highlight Washington’s sensitivity regarding Iraq’s security architecture. From the US perspective, the issue is not to eliminate Iranian influence entirely. Given the fragile structure in Iraq, such a move would risk making the system even more unstable. Consequently, within the new balance taking shape in Baghdad, a controlled competitive arena has emerged where the parties do not completely exclude one another but rather limit each other’s scope of action.

The Zeydi government’s program also reflects this very search for balance. The approach of “Stable State – Productive Economy – Balanced Partnerships” actually sets out the government’s orientation quite clearly. Upon close examination of the program, it becomes apparent that security, the economy and foreign policy are not treated as independent spheres, but as components of the same strategic framework. It is fair to say that the strengthening of state capacity, economic reforms, energy investments, the centralization of security decisions and a policy of balance in foreign affairs are all assessed within the same framework.

One of the notable points here is that the government program largely retains the roadmap established during the Sudani era. In particular, the Development Corridor Project, efforts towards integration in the energy sector, and the approach to regional connectivity are continuing. However, despite this strategic continuity in the government program, the political composition of the cabinet appears more fragile compared to the Sudani era. A structure is emerging that is more political, more fragmented and generates more bargaining. Consequently, the fundamental challenge facing Baghdad will be managing the tension between strategic continuity and political fragmentation.

The new equation in Iraq and Türkiye

The recent shift in Türkiye’s policy towards Iraq takes on its full significance precisely here. This is because Ankara no longer views the Iraqi theatre solely through a security-centric lens. The approach that had long been shaped by the PKK threat, border security and military operations is giving way to a broader strategic framework. Iraq’s political stability, economic capacity, regional connectivity and state institutionalization have become direct strategic issues for Türkiye.

Indeed, during the presidential election process and government negotiations, Ankara did not pursue a policy focused on ensuring the victory of a specific candidate or group. For Türkiye, the issue centered not so much on who would become prime minister, but rather on the question of how relations could be maintained within the new equation emerging in Iraq. The swift messages of support issued immediately following the formation of the Zeydi government were also a continuation of this approach.

It is possible to interpret the approach that has become more visible in recent times through the lens of ‘conjunctural rationalism’. Türkiye is upholding its fundamental strategic principles. Iraq’s territorial integrity, political unity, protection from conflict, and the preservation of regional stability remain unchanging priorities for Ankara. However, Türkiye is now implementing these principles through more flexible networks of relations and shifting on-the-ground balances. The controlled normalization developing with the KYB, the new political balance emerging in Kirkuk, and the thaw in relations between Ankara and Sulaymaniyah are all part of this transformation.

This strategic expansion is also evident in the security sphere. Türkiye’s ‘Türkiye Without Terrorism’ process has now moved beyond the traditional security approach confined to the border. This is because the issue is not merely the PKK’s military presence. The structure stretching from Qandil to Sinjar, and from Mahmur to the disputed territories, has also become part of Iraq’s sovereignty crisis.

Ankara’s broader strategic approach

For this reason, Ankara has recently been developing a broader strategic approach that, alongside military operations, seeks to build state capacity, institutional cooperation, economic integration and connectivity. Today, Türkiye does not view the security issues emerging in the Iraqi and Syrian theaters solely through the prism of the presence of armed groups. The real issue lies in the political, military and economic vacuums arising in areas where state capacity has eroded. For this reason, alongside moving security risks away from the border, Türkiye is seeking to establish a regional stability corridor that will contribute to filling these vacuums as much as possible.

The Development Corridor Project therefore holds a special place. It appears that Iraq, which has long served as a transit zone for conflicts, is for the first time turning towards an endeavor to establish itself as a regional hub through connectivity. Iraq’s status as a central country is regaining significance here. For Iraq is not merely a fragile geography; it is also one of the Middle East’s most critical transit zones.

Virtually every regional crisis in recent years has demonstrated this once again. The US-Iran tensions, the fragility arising after the Gaza war, and the new equation emerging following Israel’s attacks on Iran have all directly affected Iraq. This is because Iraq continues to be one of the areas where regional power struggles intersect. For this reason, any political vacuum that emerges in Baghdad can quickly transform into an arena of regional competition.

However, this very central geographical position also affords Iraq a significant strategic advantage. In terms of energy routes, trade corridors, transport networks and regional connectivity, Iraq’s geopolitical position makes it one of the Middle East’s most critical hubs. Consequently, whether the country reverts to a fragile fault line beset by conflict and proxy struggles, or emerges as a hub for regional integration, holds the potential to produce outcomes that will shape not only Iraq’s but the entire region’s future.

Precisely for this reason, it would be a mistake to interpret the strategic rapprochement that has emerged between Türkiye and Iraq in recent times as merely a routine bilateral process. The new ground being established here is evolving into one of the key battlegrounds in the struggle between security-centered fragmentation and connectivity-centered integration in the Middle East. However, the sustainability of this process does not depend solely on the strategic will demonstrated by Ankara. Baghdad also needs to manage the balance between political flexibility and state capacity. Therefore, the direction Iraq takes in the coming period will directly affect not only the country’s domestic political future but also the direction along which the regional order will be shaped.

(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

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)

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.”

T

he late Nelson Mandela said, “work to support courage where there is fear, foster agreement where there is conflict, and inspire hope where there is despair”. This may well apply to Pakistan’s position during a critical period of the escalating conflict between the United States and Iran. Many parties were unable to, or perhaps remained either reluctant or hesitant to get involved amidst waves of retaliatory strikes, a political and media discourse that had reached a new peak since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, and a division in stances regarding the ongoing conflict.

However, one thing there was absolute agreement on the necessity of reaching a détente that would lead to the opening of the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation, thus restoring global economic activity, and ensuring the continued export of energy supply to consumers, including Pakistan, which considers the stability of the Strait and the region crucial to its economy and maritime security. The Pakistani initiative came at a pivotal moment, acting as a decisive factor in achieving a ceasefire, in an attempt to reach a consensus between both parties to end the conflict and quash its repercussions.

The initiative raised numerous questions about Islamabad’s role, which some might interpret as exploiting a political vacuum that other parties were unable to fill, adding to Pakistan’s regional influence, especially in view of the escalating tensions. There are also ongoing concerns about the continuation of the crisis, and its repercussions at the regional and international levels, as well as its economic and security implications for Pakistan itself. There is a conviction that an early effort at mediation allows more room for negotiation, and that the longer the initiative is delayed, the less willing the conflicting parties will be to accept a compromise. Therefore, Pakistan’s involvement at this juncture is commendable, even if it is limited, as it occurred during a period of transition, not after the situation had already stabilized.

Pakistan’s initiative to find a solution to the crisis between the United States and Iran may be viewed through the lens of political, economic, and geographical factors. The country has good relations with both sides, and is utilizing other channels of communication, such as with Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye, to advance its mediation efforts. It is worth noting that regional stability, and internal stability in Iran itself is important to Pakistan, which shares a long border of 900 km with its western neighbor. Islamabad fears the spillover of any political turmoil in Iran that may have sectarian and security repercussions for Pakistan, not to mention other repercussions on the energy markets, and on regional and global trade. Thus, Islamabad saw an opportunity to draw attention to itself as an important regional player and a diplomatic power capable of playing a prominent role during crises, which enhances its political standing and its international relations. Despite all this, the Pakistani initiative has raised many questions and perhaps drawn skepticism about Pakistan’s intentions and its role at this particular time.

Pakistan and the parties to the conflict

The relationship between Pakistan and the Western powers, particularly the United States, has always been complex and volatile. It can be described as a pragmatic partnership rather than an alliance based on mutual trust. This relationship has witnessed periods of intense rapprochement but also periods of sharp tension, depending on the changing circumstances and strategic interests of each party. During the Cold War, the relationship was very close, allowing Pakistan to join US-backed alliances such as the Baghdad Pact and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), in exchange for military and financial aid. This cooperation reached its peak during the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, when Pakistan played a prominent role in supporting the ‘Mujahideen’, while receiving direct assistance from the United States. However, this harmony did not last long.

After the end of the Cold War in 1991, the relationship cooled off, especially with the emergence of Pakistan’s nuclear program, which led the United States to impose sanctions. The attacks of September 11, however, revived Pakistan’s ties with the United States, through the logistical and intelligence support provided by Islamabad to Washington, despite lingering suspicions about Pakistan’s duplicity in its dealings with the West. Its unstable surroundings worried western analysts, and in recent years the United States’ suspicions of Pakistan’s intentions have increased, especially following Islamabad’s growing rapprochement with Beijing through a series of economic projects and defense partnerships, particularly in military manufacturing and technology transfer. Consequently, the relationship between the two sides is determined by regional and international power balances, without any guarantee of a lasting political and strategic convergence.

Conversely, since its separation from India in 1947, Islamabad has maintained a relatively good relationship with Tehran, recognizing its direct proximity to its western neighbor, and understanding that any regional conflict in which Iran is directly involved will immediately affect Pakistan. This would have several repercussions, including disruptions to the transport of natural resources such as oil and gas, the potential for refugee flows, and the possibility of an escalation in sectarian tensions within Pakistan, given that approximately 20% of the population is Shia, who could potentially ignite an internal crisis. Therefore, in any escalation between Iran and the United States, such as the one that occurred following the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force in 2020, Islamabad has been quick to intervene diplomatically, emphasizing the need to respect the sovereignty of states and renounce the use of force.

Pakistan has also stressed that it will not allow its territory to be used in any conflict against any neighboring country, especially since Islamabad intends to maintain good relations with Tehran, Washington, Riyadh, and other regional actors. Meanwhile, tensions occasionally surface between Iran and its Gulf neighbors, albeit with some noticeable variations. Consequently, Islamabad knows it will have to maintain the delicate balance that grants it a regional role, and presents itself to the world as an influential state capable of resolving conflicts, thus giving it greater diplomatic weight.

Current regional events have cast a shadow over the political and economic landscape, given the difficulty of reaching a formula for consensus between the United States and Iran. This has prompted Islamabad to intervene and adopt a mediation initiative, hosting direct negotiations at the highest level. This step has been described by many as the result of precise political and security calculations that take into consideration the repercussions of escalation in the region and its impact on Iran’s neighbors, and on the region as a whole.

The Pakistani initiative did not come about as a reaction at a particularly sensitive moment, but rather as a direct protection of its internal security and its economy, which cannot withstand the devastating effects of being drawn into regional conflicts, which in itself seems a justifiable reason for such action. However, the timing of Islamabad’s entry as a mediator has raised many questions, at a time when countries such as Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Egypt were themselves seeking to bridge the divide and reduce tension. Therefore, what was it that prompted Islamabad this time to adopt the mediation role that Oman has played between the United States and Iran for many decades?

A regional role or an opportunistic approach?

There may be several interpretations of Pakistan’s decision to take a mediation role at this critical juncture, involving two parties whose relationship has been marked by open hostility since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Some believe that Islamabad’s move stems from a desire to ensure regional stability, which is essential for the smooth flow of maritime traffic, the uninterrupted flow of energy resources to consumers, and the avoidance of internal tensions in Iran. This is to say nothing of the potential influx of refugees and border tensions, as well as the economic shocks associated with disruption to energy prices, trade, shipping, and insurance. Therefore, according to this argument, Islamabad has adopted a mediating stance to prevent escalation and seek diplomatic solutions to the crisis, given that a protracted conflict threatens both regional and internal Pakistani security. Thus, the mediation role reflects a desire to prevent the expansion of the regional war, an attempt to de-escalate tensions between competing powers, and a commitment to maintaining a strategic balance between all parties to the conflict, without siding with any of them. The initiative embodies Pakistani political traditions of keeping channels of communication open with all competing powers.

On the contrary, some believe Pakistan’s move is driven by opportunistic motives. Perhaps, Islamabad saw an opportunity to regain its diminishing standing and bolster its international presence, at a time when it is grappling with economic difficulties and political instability. Others view this as less credible, arguing that it is seeking to improve its image abroad, particularly in the United States, and strengthen its ties with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. Such a move would grant it diplomatic prestige and the ability to present itself as an indispensable regional power.

This comes within the framework of repositioning itself after years of relative isolation and attempting to balance its relationships with regional actors like Iran and Saudi Arabia, especially given the Joint Defense Agreement (JDA) with Riyadh, which places Islamabad in a precarious position, particularly in the event of a potential clash between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, it seeks to maintain balanced relations with other regional and international players such as Türkiye and the United States, a position which could lead to economic gain, broader security cooperation, defense-industry partnerships, and debt relief. With the disruption to energy supplies, Islamabad has been forced to implement austerity measures, shortening school days and working hours to conserve energy.

Ensuring a de-escalation of the regional situation would in fact bring significant benefits to Pakistan. These include guaranteeing access to Iranian oil at affordable prices once sanctions are lifted, and the completion of the long-awaited Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline. By avoiding further escalation, Islamabad would also secure a safe trade corridor to Central Asia via Iran, as evidenced by the shipment of the first batch of Pakistani frozen meat to Uzbekistan in April 2026. This is particularly important given that trade routes through Torkham and Chaman, key strategic border crossings and vital trade arteries from Afghanistan to Central Asia, remain closed due to ongoing strained relations between Islamabad and Kabul. Furthermore, internal stability in Iran would prevent Indian attempts to infiltrate Pakistan’s Baluchistan via the Chabahar project, thus thwarting any encirclement efforts by New Delhi. These benefits would also prevent India from attempting to extend its influence through Iran into Pakistani Baluchistan.

According to an extreme view, still others believe that Islamabad may be complicit in a conspiracy against Tehran, given the actions of the United States, Pakistan’s historical ally, and Iran, its ideological antithesis and the primary rival of Saudi Arabia, a key Pakistani ally in the region. Maintaining complete neutrality in these circumstances would therefore be extremely difficult. This view is supported by the mobilization of forces and the stringent sentiment that the United States continued to express while negotiations were underway.

US and Pakistani forces in Saudi Arabia

This included the entry of two American destroyers into Saudi waters in the Arabian Gulf and the arrival of Pakistani forces at King Abdulaziz Air Base in the Eastern Province, accompanied by fighter jets and various weapons. Some interpreted this as an activation of the JDA between the two countries, an agreement considered a strategic buffer for Saudi Arabia and an additional layer of deterrence. It is worth noting that there were also reports that Pakistan simultaneously hosted some Iranian aircraft at Nur Khan Air Base, to protect them from any American military strikes. These included RC-130 intelligence and reconnaissance aircraft and C-130 transport aircraft. Conflicting views call for a deep reassessment of Pakistan’s actual role in the negotiations, which means that Islamabad’s initiative appeared to be not so much altruistic as a geostrategic maneuver to achieve substantial gains under the guise of ensuring the region’s security.

There remains the factor of China, which strongly supports the negotiating track adopted by Pakistan, preferring a diplomatic solution to escalation. China supports Iran, not only because the latter is a key partner in trade and energy, but also because it is a reliable strategic ally in any future confrontation with the United States. Beijing does not want any disruption to shipping lanes, and at the same time seeks a balanced relationship with Washington, as was evident during US President Donald Trump’s visit to China on May 13, 2026. Therefore, it prefers to play a supporting role in negotiations rather than leading them. Reports indicate that Beijing pressured Tehran to accept de-escalation and enter negotiations, exploiting Iran’s need to export its oil to the Chinese market.

In short, Islamabad’s hosting of negotiations between two parties that are extremely important to its national security involves several possible motives, including that this is at the request of the United States, which is trying to end the crisis with the least number of losses and concurrently to save face. It may also be driven by other parties such as Saudi Arabia, which is keen on the security of the region at a time when it is accelerating towards achieving its economic ambitions that require a degree of regional stability.

Despite the regional competition with Iran, Riyadh sees the stability and prosperity of its northern neighbor as a greater opportunity for rapprochement, at a time when its relationship with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is shrouded in much ambiguity. Thus, the outcomes of Pakistan’s role and what the conflict will lead to is likely to indicate much of what the region will face, which also means that the true implications behind the role that Pakistan is playing may become clear later, for Pakistan itself, for the two parties to the conflict, and for the entire region.

I

ran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has ordered that the country’s stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium must remain inside Iran, according to two senior Iranian sources, hardening Tehran’s position during sensitive peace talks with the United States.

The directive directly challenges one of Washington’s key demands in negotiations aimed at ending the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. American officials, backed by Israel, have insisted that Iran’s highly enriched uranium be removed from the country as part of any long-term agreement.

The dispute over the uranium stockpile has emerged as one of the central obstacles in efforts to secure a broader peace arrangement following months of regional conflict and a fragile ceasefire now holding between the sides.

President Donald Trump said this week that the United States would not allow Iran to retain the material.

“We will get it. We don’t need it, we don’t want it. We’ll probably destroy it after we get it, but we’re not going to let them have it,” Trump told reporters at the White House.

Israeli officials have also told Reuters that Trump assured Israel the uranium stockpile would ultimately be transferred out of Iran and that any peace agreement must include such a provision.

Western governments have long accused Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons capability, particularly after Tehran enriched uranium to 60% purity — far above civilian requirements and closer to the 90% level generally associated with weapons-grade material. Iran has consistently denied seeking nuclear weapons.

Fragile ceasefire

According to the Iranian sources, the Supreme Leader’s order reflects deep concerns within Iran’s leadership that surrendering the uranium stockpile would weaken the country’s deterrence and leave it vulnerable to future attacks by the United States or Israel.

“The Supreme Leader’s directive, and the consensus within the establishment, is that the stockpile of enriched uranium should not leave the country,” one source said.

Iranian officials reportedly fear that the current pause in hostilities could merely be a tactical maneuver before renewed military action. A shaky ceasefire has been in place since fighting erupted after U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iranian targets on February 28, followed by Iranian attacks on Gulf states hosting American military bases and clashes involving Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Negotiations have also been complicated by a U.S. blockade of Iranian ports and Tehran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial route for global oil shipments. Pakistan has been mediating talks between the parties, though no major breakthrough has yet been announced.

Iran’s senior peace negotiator, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, said Wednesday that “obvious and hidden moves by the enemy” suggested Washington was preparing additional attacks.

Trump, meanwhile, warned that the United States remained prepared to strike Tehran again if Iran refused to accept a peace deal, although he indicated Washington might wait “a few days” before making further decisions.

Compromise over uranium stockpile?

Despite the hardened rhetoric, Iranian officials suggested that possible compromises remain under discussion.

One Iranian source said Tehran may consider reducing the sensitivity of its uranium stockpile by diluting part of it under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency rather than sending it abroad.

“There are solutions like diluting the stockpile under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” the source said.

Before the war, Iran had reportedly signaled willingness to export roughly half of its uranium enriched to 60%, but that position shifted after repeated threats from Trump of possible military action.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has maintained that the conflict cannot fully end unless Iran’s enriched uranium is removed, Tehran halts support for regional proxy groups, and its ballistic missile program is dismantled.

The IAEA estimated before the conflict that Iran possessed approximately 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%. It remains unclear how much survived subsequent strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossisaid earlier this year that much of the remaining stockpile was believed to be stored in underground facilities near Isfahan and Natanz.

Iran argues that part of its highly enriched uranium is intended for civilian purposes, including medical research and a Tehran-based reactor that operates using uranium enriched to around 20%.

As negotiations continue, the future of Iran’s uranium stockpile appears set to remain one of the most contentious issues standing between a lasting ceasefire and renewed conflict in the Middle East.

(Source: Reuters)

I

n the context of the effects of the war launched by the U.S. and Israel against Iran on February 28 on the Gulf region, the saying “Geography is destiny” is a particularly apt description. The Gulf states, which were not direct parties to the war, have been affected almost as negatively as the warring parties by this process. From the war’s very first days, the Gulf states, known as the “oasis of prosperity” in the Middle East, began to emerge as the biggest losers of this process, following Iran’s retaliations. While not all have been affected equally, the myth of the “Gulf’s inviolability” has ended, opening the door to a bleak future for the region’s monarchies.

In this context, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which could be considered the actors closest to the US politically, have borne the brunt of the blow. Their cautious statements in the early days of the war gave the impression that they were avoiding taking sides. However, the use of US military bases on their territory during the conflict was viewed by Iran as an unacceptable pretext.

They attempted to maintain security ties with Washington while keeping tensions with Tehran under control, but the rapidly rising tension and chaos soon made it impossible for these countries to avoid becoming targets. Bahrain and Kuwait, which pursue low-intensity foreign policies, were similarly affected. In both countries, critical infrastructure, including US military bases, ports, and water treatment facilities, was targeted by Iran at various times.

Position towards Iran

The differing reactions of the Gulf countries during the war resulted in varying impacts of the conflict. From this perspective, Oman and Qatar’s positions during the war set them apart from other Gulf states. Although Qatar sustained heavy damage and expelled Iranian diplomats, the Doha administration’s decision to maintain dialogue with Tehran was notable. Oman, on the other hand, stood apart from all other Gulf states. It became one of the few Gulf countries not targeted by ballistic missiles from Tehran and emerged as one of the most important mediators between Iran and the US.

Throughout this process, both countries adopted a measured approach. However, Oman engaged in intensive mediation efforts to prevent the outbreak of war in the pre-conflict period. It can be argued that the common ground underpinning these countries’ approaches lies in their distanced stance toward the U.S. and Israel, coupled with a relatively closer position regarding their relations with Iran.

A common factor among the Gulf states, which have been affected by the war to varying degrees, is growing security concerns. The deployment of air defense systems in the Gulf following drone and missile attacks on critical infrastructure, particularly energy facilities, marked a turning point in terms of defense for the Gulf states. Iran’s unexpectedly aggressive stance, coupled with the Gulf states’ realization that they were facing this aggression alone, constituted a significant turning point.

The Gulf states were disappointed by the failure of the security architecture, which had been based on the assumption that the US would protect them, to withstand this severe test. This disappointment has driven the Gulf states to develop alternative security mechanisms. Consequently, while the Gulf states realized during this war that the U.S. would not directly protect them, they also recognized the need to form alliances with other actors to ensure their security and prepare for a potential Iranian threat after the war. It has become evident that countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar are trying to strengthen security cooperation by working with important regional actors, including Türkiye, Pakistan, and Egypt.

Economic impact

The economy is another area where the concrete effects of the war have been particularly felt in the region. The Gulf region, one of the most important hubs for the global energy supply, found itself in the midst of the conflict. The initial impact was felt in the form of rising oil prices. While some shipments were diverted to alternative routes due to the war, this has increased costs and extended delivery times.

Although rising oil prices above $100 per barrel might appear favorable for the Gulf states, which are exporters, the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for hydrocarbon products reaching global markets, remained at the center of military activity. Coupled with rising insurance costs and the complete halt of transit, the Gulf states were deprived of one of their main sources of income.

In this context, Oman is the only country that stands apart from the other Gulf states. Due to its geographical location, Oman is not dependent on the Strait of Hormuz. Consequently, its oil revenues have risen in line with the increase in prices during this period. Oman continued to export oil, particularly to Asian countries, from its LNG facility in Kalhat, even during the war. Shipments also continued from Mina al Fahal, the country’s most important oil export hub. Omani crude oil traded at $120 per barrel when global oil prices were at $100. This played a critical role in the country’s economy.

Beyond hydrocarbon trade, the economic impacts of the war on Gulf countries have also been highly destructive. In the United Arab Emirates, a key tourism hub in the region, tourist activities came to a complete standstill. Hundreds of hotels in Dubai were left entirely empty within a short period, and thousands of future bookings were canceled. Following the damage to the region’s “safe haven” image, there was a capital outflow amounting to billions of dollars, particularly from Dubai, a recognized global financial center. While the Abu Dhabi and Dubai stock exchanges suffered significant losses, the property market declined by up to 30 percent.

Another sector severely affected by the war is the aviation industry. Major Gulf airports, such as those in Dubai, Doha, and Abu Dhabi, which serve as key hubs for global air transport, became completely non-operational in the early days of the war. They were subsequently forced to operate at minimum capacity. As a result, tens of thousands of foreign workers, who form the backbone of the Gulf labor market, have left the region, negatively impacting consumption and the labor market. Due to these factors, many Gulf countries, including the UAE, are expected to experience severe economic contraction by 2026.

Social impact and expectations of peace

On the other hand, the war has undoubtedly impacted societies in the Gulf. While the effects were limited to daily life and the food supply chain during the war, the erosion of the region’s sense of security has had a traumatic effect on Gulf societies accustomed to nothing but prosperity and development for decades. Consequently, some Gulf citizens have reportedly temporarily relocated with their families to safe havens such as London, Zurich, Singapore, and Istanbul. Uncertainty has also rapidly increased for the millions of foreign workers who play a key role in daily life and the labor market across the Gulf states. The fact that some of the migrant workforce, particularly in the energy and construction sectors, is considering returning to their home countries risks disrupting the already fragile labor market balance. Meanwhile, rising energy and logistics costs are reflected in daily living expenses, and price increases have been observed in food and essential consumer goods.

Although the effects of the war are gradually subsiding following a temporary ceasefire, the Gulf states are prioritizing lasting peace. The Gulf states’ key priorities in the post-war period include the cessation of cross-border threats, particularly from Iran; the guarantee of regime security; and the permanent removal of barriers to energy exports. The Gulf states also expect Iran to struggle for regional influence through proxy forces and to limit Tehran’s nuclear capabilities. Finally, establishing a new security architecture and implementing defense mechanisms to ensure regional security are of critical importance to the Gulf states.

Conversely, one could argue that the collapse of the Iranian regime or the country’s descent into deep instability in the post-war era would also pose a risk to the Gulf states. A resulting power vacuum could lead to uncontrollable consequences that go beyond the current threats. The emergence of a more radical Iranian regime would also pose risks to the Gulf states. A Tehran administration capable of holding the Gulf regimes accountable for events during the war could threaten the Gulf states for decades to come. From this perspective, the Gulf states would prefer Iran to remain an actor whose capacity to generate security concerns is limited and with whom limited dialogue can be maintained rather than being perceived as a threat. Consequently, the Gulf states greatly value entering the post-war period in an environment free of threats from Iran.

The war initiated on February 28 by the U.S. and Israel targeting Iran has had its most intense regional impact on the Gulf states at this stage. The Persian Gulf’s role as the logistical hub and economic heart of the war is the primary reason for this. Consequently, although a temporary ceasefire has been established, the Gulf states now face a vortex of uncertainty within their own borders, as this war has transformed from a crisis unfolding elsewhere. This serves as a reminder that crises seemingly far removed from the Gulf states are much closer than they appear. As the most vulnerable actors in the climate of uncertainty created by the war, the Gulf states are calling for an immediate end to the conflict while attempting to prepare for the new political, military, and economic order set to emerge.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

S

ince almost the very beginning of the attacks carried out by the US and Israel against Iran, the Strait of Hormuz has been one of the most significant factors influencing the course of the war. The Strait of Hormuz also fundamentally affects whether the current peace talks stall or progress. The most significant reason for this is that economic and commercial considerations have come to the fore amongst the global repercussions of armed conflicts today.

Since passage through international straits, particularly the Strait of Hormuz, is critical, the regime governing passage has become a significant concern. In this context, questions have arisen about whether any state has the right to close an international strait and whether restricting, closing, or imposing a blockade on international straits during wartime is legally permissible.

Given the illegality of many actions in the US/Israel-Iran conflict, it would be beneficial to clarify the legal principles governing transit through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital international maritime transport route, during wartime.

The importance of international straits and channels

Apart from the Strait of Hormuz, there are other straits and channels around the world that are of central importance to international maritime transport. The Strait of Gibraltar, the Turkish Straits, and the Straits of Singapore and Malacca are among the most important of these. The Strait of Gibraltar is the only maritime passageway connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the open ocean. The Straits of Singapore and Malacca are maritime passages between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea in Southeast Asia. Stretching between Singapore and the Riau Islands of Indonesia, these straits are among the busiest waterways in global maritime trade. Approximately 40 percent of the world’s merchant vessels pass through them. They form the route for most oil and raw material shipments destined for Asia’s industrial giants, such as China, Japan, and South Korea.

The Turkish Straits system, comprising the Straits of Istanbul and Çanakkale and the Sea of Marmara, is the only waterway connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. The Turkish Straits are of vital importance to the economies and military security of countries bordering the Black Sea. Currently, over 50,000 ships, including more than 10,000 tankers, pass through the Turkish Straits each year, making them crucial for the transit of food, oil, natural gas, and commercial goods.

Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important oil transit points. This strait is the sole route connecting Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain to the rest of the world, and it is also the only functional maritime transport route for oil exports from Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In 2024 and 2025, more than a quarter of total global seaborne oil trade and approximately one-fifth of global oil and petroleum product consumption passed through the Strait of Hormuz. Furthermore, approximately one-fifth of the global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade passed through the strait in 2024, primarily from Qatar. Consequently, even temporarily halting the passage of oil or LNG tankers through the strait is likely to increase global energy prices, shipping costs, and lead to significant supply delays.

Man-made waterways that connect seas are known as sea canals. The Panama and Suez Canals are the most prominent examples. The Panama Canal was constructed under the 1903 Washington Treaty between Panama and the United States and completed in 1914. Governed by the “Treaty on Permanent Neutrality and the Operation of the Panama Canal,” signed by the United States and Panama in 1977, the Panama Canal provides a direct passage between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Meanwhile, the Suez Canal is an artificial waterway that is approximately 190 kilometers long and connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea. Transit through the canal is regulated by the Istanbul Convention, a multilateral treaty signed in 1888, which permits all ships, regardless of nationality or purpose, to pass through. The canal handles approximately 10–15 percent of global maritime trade. It serves as a critical transit point for the transport of oil, natural gas, and container freight in particular.

Transit through international straits during armed conflicts

According to international law, the right to transit through international straits during peacetime is considered a “right of innocent passage.” However, this right is not absolute, meaning the coastal state may suspend transit if it becomes harmful. This suspension does not essentially amount to a total ban on passage; rather, it is an exceptional power that the coastal state may exercise when the passage of a specific vessel or vessels becomes “detrimental” to the coastal state’s peace, security, or order. In situations where transit has become entirely harmful, exceptional circumstances may arise in which transit may be suspended entirely, provided that the suspension is not indefinite and is for reasons such as health inspections.

Unlike the right of innocent passage, the “right of transit passage” through international straits is an inalienable right recognized by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which 172 states are currently parties. According to Article 38 of the Convention, all ships and aircraft have the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded.

However, it can be said that the rules governing the right of passage through international straits change significantly during wartime. In the event of war, two situations may arise. The first situation occurs when one or more states bordering the strait is involved in the war. These straits may be characterized as “international straits involved in the war.” The second scenario is when none of the states bordering the strait are involved in the war. These straits are referred to as “neutral,” or non-belligerent, straits.

International straits involved in a war that do not consist entirely of a single state’s territorial waters, where a route passes through the high seas or exclusive economic zone, cannot be exercised by the coastal states beyond their own territorial waters.

If an international strait involved in a war consists entirely of territorial waters, then those waters also form part of the general theater of hostilities. This means that the entire strait becomes a theater of war. Subject to the relevant provisions of the laws of war, enemy ships and aircraft in these straits may be attacked, and enemy and neutral merchant ships may be stopped and seized. The coastal state has the right to deny passage to all enemy ships and aircraft.

Neutral ships

However, these straits cannot be closed to ships belonging to states that are not parties to the conflict, i.e., neutral ships. There is a prevailing view that peaceful shipping traffic should be allowed to pass through the straits with minimal disruption. While states bordering an international strait may be inclined to close it, even to peaceful shipping, if they are parties to an international armed conflict, completely closing international straits, particularly by using sea mines, would not be lawful. This was stated in the International Court of Justice’s judgment on April 9, 1949, in the Corfu Channel case. Neutral warships and merchant vessels must not be deprived of their right of passage, or their inalienable right of innocent passage, through international straits belonging to parties to an international armed conflict.

As for neutral international straits not involved in the war, transit generally takes place under peacetime conditions. According to Article 38(2) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a “right of transit passage” exists through neutral straits, which must not be impeded. Transit must be continuous and expeditious for the purpose of passing through the strait. As in peacetime, warships of belligerent states in transit must proceed without delay in accordance with designated sea lanes and traffic separation schemes. Belligerent warships and military aircraft transiting a neutral international strait may take all necessary measures to defend themselves.

In neutral international straits, the right of transit passage does not apply if the straits do not coincide entirely with the coastal state’s territorial waters. In these cases, vessels and aircraft of all nations enjoy freedom of navigation and overflight in the remaining corridor, even if an exclusive economic zone has been declared. In parts of the strait that are part of a coastal state’s territorial waters, ships and aircraft only have a suspensible right of innocent passage.

E

xchanges between US President Donald Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz are becoming increasingly heated. Merz was initially one of the European leaders with whom Trump got on best. While leaders of major European nations, such as France and Spain, found themselves embroiled in disputes with Trump following his inauguration for a second term in early 2025, Merz’s first meeting with Trump at the White House in June 2025 ended without incident. Trump’s warm welcome and words of praise were also well received in the German media.

Merz’s praise for Trump, his avoidance of raising issues between the two countries, and his assertion that the US was an indispensable partner for Germany all played a key role in ensuring the meeting’s positive outcome. Furthermore, Merz brought a copy of his German grandfather’s birth certificate as a gift and did his utmost to win over the American president.

Despite Trump’s threats regarding Greenland and the economic toll of his tariffs on European industry, the positive start to the Trump-Merz relationship proved resilient for a long duration. This was because Merz was one of the European leaders who was most vocal in advocating a cautious and conciliatory approach in response to Trump’s aggressive policies. Unlike France, Spain and the UK, Germany continued to unconditionally support Israel’s actions in the Middle East during Merz’s tenure. While the aforementioned countries recognized the State of Palestine in response to Israel’s actions, Germany’s refusal to recognize Palestine also contributed to Trump’s satisfaction with Merz.

Finally, Merz’s statements supporting the war initiated by the U.S. and Israel against Iran—which was in violation of international law—had also greatly pleased Trump. The German Chancellor, who supported Israel during last year’s 12-Day War by stating, ‘This is the dirty work Israel is doing for all of us,’ entered into a heated dispute with Iranian leaders by demanding regime change prior to the Israel/U.S. offensive that began on February 28 of this year, earning the appreciation of the Trump-Netanyahu duo.

Regarding the US and Israel’s stance on attacking Iran with the aim of changing its regime, Merz argued that this was in accordance with international law. Shortly after the war began, the German chancellor visited Trump at the White House. While he expressed his support for the US and Israel, he remained silent in the face of Trump’s harsh criticism of the Spanish and British prime ministers, who had announced during the meeting that they would not allow their countries’ bases to be used for the war. Clearly, Merz’s stance also pleased the American president.

Angering Trump

It was clear that the German chancellor would anger Trump by changing his stance on Iran and making critical statements as events took a turn for the worse, given that he had pursued an Iran policy aligned with the US and Israel. The deterioration in the relationship between Trump and Merz became apparent when the US and Israel realized that effecting a regime change in Iran would be more difficult than they had anticipated. They had not even managed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which had been closed by Tehran. Merz’s rejection of Trump’s request for assistance against Iran in reopening the Strait of Hormuz infuriated the American president.

Merz’s rejection of this request, accompanied by the question, ‘Did they ask us when they started the war?’, led to an intense response from Trump, given that the German chancellor had previously adopted a stance in his pre-war statements along the lines of ‘Yes, the regime in Iran must change’ and ‘Go on, do our dirty work for us’. Now that the process was not going as planned and the global cost of the war was rising daily, Merz’s reluctance to offer support was causing Trump distress.

It should be noted that both parties believed they were justified in their actions. Merz feels vindicated in his stance, arguing: ‘Our support was purely rhetorical; you entered this war confidently without the need to consult us, so do not ask us to join now. We are already occupied with a war against Russia in Ukraine, and our military strength is insufficient. Trump, on the other hand, believed he was in the right, reasoning, ‘You said the regime in Iran must change. You said our attack was in accordance with international law, so why aren’t you supporting us?’

Damaging a relationship

These differences in position and perspective appear to have damaged the relationship between the two leaders, as well as US–German relations, to an extent that will be difficult to repair. The German chancellor’s remarks in a speech on 27 April further enraged Trump. In the speech, she stated that ‘the US would not be able to end the war against Iran in the short term because the Iranians are stronger than anticipated and the Americans lack a truly persuasive negotiating strategy’, and that ‘the entire American nation has been humiliated by the Iranian regime’. Trump, who has threatened to withdraw American troops from Germany, said that ‘it is hardly surprising that Germany is in such a dire state, both economically and in other respects, under the leadership of Merz, who has no idea what he is talking about’.

Unable to contain his anger, Trump took his criticism of the German chancellor a step further, accusing Merz of being ‘completely ineffective’ in the war in Ukraine thus far and stating that ‘instead of meddling in other matters, he should be trying to put his “ruined country” back in order’. Trump’s remarks that the German chancellor should devote more time to ending the war between Russia and Ukraine, followed by his instruction to the defense minister to withdraw 5,000 troops from Germany, may prevent Merz from further escalating this dispute. This is because, while US interest in and support for Ukraine has diminished significantly under Trump, an escalation of tensions between Washington and Berlin could leave Germany and other European countries in an even more difficult position with regard to Russia.

The failure of the US and Israel to achieve their objectives in the unjust war they launched against Iran, coupled with Iranian resistance, is causing a rift among even Trump’s most loyal supporters. The US could face serious problems with its allies and Israel if the Strait of Hormuz were to close for an extended period.

(This article was originally published in Turkish by the Middle East Africa website)

C

hinese President Xi Jinping is set to welcome Russian President Vladimir Putin to Beijing just days after hosting U.S. President Donald Trump, highlighting China’s effort to position itself at the center of global diplomacy amid escalating international conflicts.

Putin’s arrival for a state visit underscores the increasingly close relationship between China and Russia, as both countries seek to challenge U.S. global influence while navigating growing instability caused by the wars in Iran and Ukraine.

The Kremlin said Putin and Xi are expected to discuss energy cooperation, the Middle East conflict, the war in Ukraine and their shared vision of a “multipolar world” less dominated by Washington and Western alliances.

The visit will be Putin’s 25th trip to China during his presidency and reflects the deepening partnership between the two powers, built around expanding trade ties, military coordination and shared opposition to U.S. policies.

China projects itself as alternative global power

The back-to-back visits by Trump and Putin are being portrayed by Chinese state media as evidence that Beijing has become a central player in world affairs.

Chinese outlets described the China-Russia relationship as “unshakeable” despite growing geopolitical tensions, while emphasizing Beijing’s role as what officials call a more stable and responsible global actor.

Analysts say Xi is carefully balancing relations with both Washington and Moscow at a time when the United States is deeply involved in the Iran conflict and Russia remains isolated by Western sanctions over the Ukraine war.

Trump’s visit last week focused heavily on the war with Iran and efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The White House said Trump and Xi agreed that Iran should not obtain nuclear weapons and supported restoring maritime traffic through the strait.

But Beijing has also maintained strong ties with Tehran and Moscow, complicating its position.

China remains Iran’s largest oil customer and has resisted U.S. pressure to cut economic ties with Tehran. Meanwhile, Russia has reportedly provided intelligence support to Iran during the conflict, according to CNN.

Energy cooperation central to Beijing-Moscow ties

Energy is expected to be one of the key issues discussed during the Xi-Putin meeting.

China has become Russia’s largest energy customer since Western sanctions were imposed after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. Chinese companies have increased purchases of discounted Russian oil, helping support Russia’s economy and war effort.

The leaders are also expected to discuss the proposed Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline, a long-delayed project that would significantly expand Russian natural gas exports to China.

Analysts say instability in the Middle East and uncertainty around Iranian oil supplies may increase Beijing’s interest in securing more long-term Russian energy imports.

The growing economic relationship, however, has also made Russia increasingly dependent on China, particularly in technology, trade and access to international markets.

Iran conflict creates new diplomatic calculations

The ongoing war involving Iran is likely to feature heavily in the talks.

Both China and Russia maintain close relations with Tehran and have helped shield Iran from Western sanctions over recent years. China purchases large amounts of sanctioned Iranian crude oil, while Moscow and Beijing have both criticized U.S. military actions against Iran.

At the same time, analysts say Beijing and Moscow are cautious about becoming too deeply involved in efforts to negotiate peace between Washington and Tehran.

Iran has reportedly expressed interest in China and Russia acting as security guarantors in a future agreement, but both countries appear focused primarily on protecting their own strategic interests.

For Xi, the simultaneous engagement with Trump and Putin reflects an effort to strengthen China’s image as a global power capable of speaking to all sides while advancing its own geopolitical ambitions.

For Putin, the visit comes at a difficult moment as Russia faces continued military pressure in Ukraine and growing dependence on Chinese economic support.

The summit is expected to reinforce the message that despite U.S. efforts to isolate Moscow and pressure Beijing, the strategic partnership between China and Russia remains strong.

(Source: CNN)

U

nited Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia reported new drone-related security incidents on Sunday, highlighting rising regional tensions as diplomatic efforts to end the war involving Iran remain deadlocked.

Emirati officials said a drone strike caused a fire at the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant, while Saudi Arabia announced it had intercepted three drones entering from Iraqi airspace.

The incidents came as U.S. President Donald Trump intensified pressure on Iran, warning that Tehran must move quickly toward a deal with Washington.

“For Iran, the Clock is Ticking,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “They better get moving, FAST.”

UAE investigates strike near nuclear facility

According to Emirati authorities, the drone that penetrated air defenses struck an electrical generator outside the inner perimeter of the Barakah nuclear facility. Officials said there were no injuries and no release of radioactive material.

The UAE defense ministry stated that two additional drones were intercepted successfully after approaching from the country’s “western border,” though officials did not specify who launched them.

The UAE’s Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation later confirmed that the plant remained safe and fully secure.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said emergency diesel generators were supplying power to one reactor unit and called for “maximum military restraint” around nuclear sites.

Emirati officials condemned the attack as a dangerous escalation and warned the country reserved the right to respond against those responsible, whether directly or through proxy groups.

Saudi Arabia intercepts drones from Iraq

Saudi Arabia separately announced that its air defenses intercepted three drones entering from Iraqi territory.

Riyadh warned it would take all necessary operational measures to defend its sovereignty and national security.

Since the April ceasefire in the broader Iran conflict, several drones have reportedly been launched from Iraq toward Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

The incidents underscore how regional tensions continue despite the reduction in large-scale hostilities after the ceasefire took effect more than five weeks ago.

The United States is demanding that Iran dismantle its nuclear program and loosen its control over the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy corridors.

Iran, meanwhile, is seeking compensation for war-related damage, an end to the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports and a halt to fighting across multiple fronts, including clashes involving Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Reuters reported that Trump is expected to meet national security advisers this week to discuss possible military options if diplomacy continues to stall.

Iranian military spokesperson Abolfazl Shekarchi warned that any renewed U.S. military action would trigger “new, aggressive, and surprise scenarios.”

Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei accused the United States and Israel of destabilizing global energy markets through what he described as “unprovoked military aggression.”

Strait of Hormuz remains central to conflict

The continuing disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has contributed to major instability in global oil markets.

Iran has maintained restrictions on shipping traffic through the waterway since the conflict began following U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran in February. In response, Washington imposed a blockade on Iranian ports and said it had redirected dozens of commercial vessels to enforce sanctions measures.

Iranian officials said Tehran is preparing a new mechanism to regulate shipping through designated routes in the strait, though details have not yet been released.

Despite ongoing tensions, some diplomatic efforts elsewhere in the region have continued. Israel and Lebanon agreed Friday to extend their ceasefire for another 45 days, although clashes along the border have not fully stopped.

The broader regional conflict has already caused thousands of deaths in Iran and Lebanon and continues to threaten international energy supplies and maritime security across the Gulf.

(Source: Reuters)

P

akistan’s desire to mediate stems from a need for peace and a perception of a vital threat. The war in Iran could lead to a direct security crisis for Pakistan. While the Iranian Ministry of Defense’s latest statement suggests that the U.S. is seeking to “save face,” Pakistan has feared from the beginning that the conflict would spread.

Defense Minister Hoca Muhammad Asif’s warning encapsulates Pakistan’s strategic concerns: This war could result in an Israel-aligned “encirclement” encompassing Afghanistan, Iran, and India. In such a scenario, Pakistan would be caught between a threat triangle comprising India to the east, Iran to the west, and Afghanistan/Taliban-aligned forces to the northwest. Although Islamabad dismisses the risk of a direct attack, citing the country’s integration into the international system and its robust defense capabilities, the instability that a proxy war would generate would be unacceptable for Pakistan.

In addition to external security concerns, Pakistan’s status as home to the world’s second-largest Shia population after Iran increases Islamabad’s internal security risks in the event of a potential escalation. In the early days of the war, for example, dissatisfied Shias in Karachi stormed the US Consulate. Meanwhile, the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz for eight weeks constitutes a direct threat to the Pakistani economy. Pakistan is experiencing direct inflationary impacts caused by rising oil prices and global supply chain disruptions. Consequently, Munir’s mediation is viewed as a vital national security and economic imperative, not merely a foreign policy move.

The Rise of the Marshal as a diplomatic actor

As Islamabad-led diplomacy seeks to end the conflict, one name stands out in this critical role: Marshal Asim Munir. Munir’s exceptional performance can be attributed to his unique profile and the extraordinary consolidation of power that has taken place over the past year.

Munir is a new-generation military leader who embodies Pakistan’s institutional memory and pragmatism. Munir is one of the few figures to have previously led both Military Intelligence and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). This experience makes him privy to all of the regime’s secrets. However, what sets him apart from his predecessors is his ability to maneuver on the international stage. While US President Donald Trump called him “my favorite marshal,” Iranian officials have also repeatedly expressed their trust in him. This mutual trust has placed Münir in a unique position.

Last year’s brief war with India marked a turning point in his rise. His measured response during that period earned him respect in Washington and enabled him to establish a direct line of communication with the Trump administration. Moreover, his position in Pakistan, where the military has the final say in domestic and foreign policy, has been further consolidated through constitutional amendments. Promoted to Marshal and granted lifelong judicial immunity, he is now the Chief of Defense Forces (CDF). This title encompasses air, naval, and strategic nuclear command, making him the country’s absolute authority. While Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif is on diplomatic tours, Munir is seen as the true decision-maker and the “strongman.”

The benefits Pakistan hopes to gain from mediation

Pakistan’s mediation initiative is primarily aimed at securing vital economic gains. Sanctions against Iran due to the war and risks in the Strait of Hormuz have sent Pakistan’s energy prices soaring and plunged the country into a serious economic crisis. Pakistan has been forced to implement austerity measures, such as a four-day workweek for public sector employees and school closures. Through this mediation, Pakistan aims to revive the long-delayed Iran-Pakistan natural gas pipeline project. A successful agreement would provide Pakistan with a steady supply of low-cost natural gas, reducing industrial production costs and establishing long-term energy security.

Furthermore, this process has opened the door for Pakistan to form partnerships with the U.S. in cutting-edge strategic sectors, such as rare earth elements and cryptocurrency. The critical mining agreements signed under Marshal Munir’s personal supervision and the agreements reached with a cryptocurrency company linked to the Trump family demonstrate that the war-induced chaos has transformed into an economic opportunity for Pakistan.

In terms of foreign policy, Pakistan aims to achieve a “revision of its reputation” and strategic autonomy on a global scale through this initiative. Often labeled a “destabilizing force” due to its history in Afghanistan and disputes with neighbors, Pakistan seeks to elevate itself to the role of peacemaker. This process is believed to demonstrate Pakistan’s unique ability to conduct simultaneous diplomacy with Washington, Ankara, Tehran, Riyadh, and Beijing.

With the support of a broad international coalition ranging from the UN Secretary-General to China and Turkey to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan aims to position itself not just as a regional crisis manager but as an “indispensable interlocutor” in the eyes of global powers. This situation provides Pakistan

Backed by a broad international coalition ranging from the UN Secretary-General to China and Turkey to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan is positioning itself not just as a regional crisis manager, but as an “indispensable interlocutor” in the eyes of global powers. This provides Pakistan with the maneuvering space to advance the CPEC project with China and establish a strategic partnership with the U.S., alleviating the traditional pressure on the country to “pick sides” in the U.S.-China rivalry to some extent.

In domestic politics, the greatest gain relates to consolidating the army’s institutional legitimacy and political dominance under Marshal Asim Munir’s leadership. Mounting criticism of internal security, fueled by the economic crisis, protests by Imran Khan’s supporters, and the actions of terrorist organizations such as the Pakistani Taliban and the Baluchistan Liberation Army, had fueled debates about the erosion of trust in the army under Munir’s leadership. Despite these criticisms, the 2025 constitutional amendment elevated Munir to become the head of the army and the country’s most powerful leader since Pervez Musharraf. Consequently, this mediation process served as a demonstration of how Munir could project the profile of a “crisis manager” on the international stage using his new powers and secured his legitimacy.

Can Pakistan end the war?

So far, Pakistan has undertaken a functional mission, acting as a party capable of overcoming communication issues and conveying critical information that could end the war. However, as Pakistan lacks the capacity of a third-party Great Power to force concessions or exert pressure on the parties, which would be necessary to end the war completely, its options are limited.

Prior to the second round of talks, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Arakchi met with Marshal Munir and Prime Minister Sharif in Islamabad. He praised Pakistan’s efforts, particularly Marshal Munir’s, toward a ceasefire and the end of the war and conveyed Iran’s demands to Pakistani officials. Just as everything was ready for the American delegation to arrive in Islamabad and begin the second round of talks, Trump announced that he had canceled his team’s trip to Pakistan.

This sudden cancellation cast uncertainty over the future of the negotiations but did not bring the mediation process to a complete end. In a telephone conversation with the Iranian president, Prime Minister Sharif reiterated that Pakistan would continue to play the role of an “honest and sincere facilitator.” Trump’s refusal to negotiate appears to be a bargaining tactic that draws attention to the “chaos and internal conflicts” under Iranian leadership. Meanwhile, the U.S. has stated that it obtained this information from Pakistani officials.

Consequently, with the Strait of Hormuz still closed and the parties observing a ceasefire, it cannot be said that Pakistan’s mediation efforts have come to an end. In this context, the world will continue to watch and see if Islamabad can turn this chaos into a diplomatic victory.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

U

.S. President Donald Trump said his patience with Iran is “running out” after talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, as tensions in the Gulf escalated with new attacks on commercial shipping near the Strait of Hormuz.

Speaking in an interview on Fox News’ “Hannity” program, Trump urged Tehran to agree to a deal with Washington after negotiations stalled over Iran’s nuclear program and its stockpile of enriched uranium.

“I am not going to be much more patient,” Trump said. “They should make a deal.”

The White House said Trump and Xi agreed during their meetings that the Strait of Hormuz must remain open to international shipping and that Iran should never obtain nuclear weapons.

According to the White House readout, Xi also opposed militarization of the strait and rejected any effort to impose tolls on ships passing through the waterway, which carries a significant share of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies.

Trump further claimed Xi promised China would not provide military equipment to Iran.

“He said he’s not going to give military equipment, that’s a big statement,” Trump said during the interview.

Shipping incidents raise tensions in Gulf waters

The comments came as maritime security concerns intensified in the Gulf region.

An Indian cargo vessel transporting livestock from Africa to the United Arab Emirates sank off the coast of Oman on Wednesday after what security officials believe was a missile or drone strike. India said all 14 crew members were rescued by the Omani coast guard.

Separately, British maritime security authorities reported that unidentified personnel boarded a ship anchored near the UAE port of Fujairah and redirected it toward Iran. Security consultancy Vanguard said the vessel was believed to have been seized by Iranian personnel.

Fujairah is strategically important because it allows some oil exports to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has partially restricted since the conflict began following U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran in February.

Iran appears to be selectively allowing some vessels through the strait under negotiated arrangements with certain countries. Iranian media reported agreements enabling some Chinese ships to pass, while a Japanese tanker also crossed after diplomatic contacts between Tokyo and Tehran.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said 30 vessels had passed through the strait since Wednesday evening, although shipping volumes remain far below pre-war levels.

Diplomacy remains stalled

Despite the Trump-Xi talks, negotiations between Washington and Tehran remain frozen.

The United States is demanding that Iran surrender its enriched uranium stockpile and permanently halt uranium enrichment activities. Tehran, meanwhile, is seeking sanctions relief, compensation for war damage and international recognition of its authority over the Strait of Hormuz.

Analysts say Trump is eager to secure diplomatic progress as the war increasingly affects domestic politics ahead of U.S. midterm elections later this year.

However, experts remain skeptical that China will pressure Iran aggressively. Beijing relies heavily on Iranian oil and views Tehran as an important strategic partner against U.S. influence in the Middle East and Asia.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in Beijing that China would likely support efforts to reopen shipping routes because stability in the strait is “very much in their interest.”

U.S. says Iran’s military capabilities weakened

Trump defended the military campaign against Iran, saying its goals were to damage Iran’s nuclear program, reduce its ability to threaten neighboring states and weaken the country’s leadership.

A senior U.S. military commander told a Senate committee on Thursday that Iran’s capacity to threaten regional partners had been “significantly degraded.”

Admiral Brad Cooper said Iran no longer posed the same level of threat across multiple military domains, though he declined to comment directly on reports that Tehran still retains substantial missile and drone capabilities.

Despite the prolonged conflict and thousands of casualties from U.S. and Israeli strikes, Iran’s leadership has remained in control domestically. Analysts say Tehran’s continued influence over the Strait of Hormuz has given it additional leverage in negotiations with Washington.

(Source: Reuters)

S

ince the war began on February 28, the US administration has suffered from profound strategic blindness in assessing the crisis between Washington and Tehran. This is particularly evident in its misjudgement of Iran’s strategic resilience and decision-making mechanisms. Washington continues to formulate strategy based on a flawed analogy with Venezuela, one entirely detached from on-the-ground realities, just as with its decapitation strategy aimed at regime change in Iran.

The idea that President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance see Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf as similar to Venezuela’s pragmatic politician Delcy Rodríguez and believe he could be pressured to negotiate is wishful thinking. In reality, however, the final decision-making authority in Iran does not lie with civilians or individual politicians. Rather, it is the exclusive preserve of a rigid military-security core consolidated around the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

This new hegemonic elite, which includes Kalibaf, is firmly committed to the fundamental ideological tenets of the Islamic Republic. The idea that individuals like Kalibaf could transcend military tutelage, alter Iran’s strategic trajectory, and become negotiating partners is a delusion on Washington’s part. This notion disregards the regime’s decision-making structure.

At the heart of the current impasse between Washington and Tehran is the asymmetry between the U.S.’s coercive approach to diplomacy and Iran’s survival priorities. The Trump administration’s classic “carrot-and-stick” approach, based on the assumption that every actor will yield at a certain cost, is ineffective against Tehran. The issues that the US brings to the negotiating table—the right to enrich uranium in its nuclear program, ballistic missile capabilities, regional proxy forces, and freedom of movement in the Strait of Hormuz—are not negotiable for Tehran.

The Iranian leadership interprets American demands that would undermine these existential pillars as a call for surrender. Tehran is prepared to bear enormous economic and military costs rather than yield to these demands because simply surviving American pressure is a victory in itself. As long as both sides persist in their mutual illusion of self-confidence—believing that their gains on the ground have forced the other side to make concessions and that the other side has suffered more damage from this crisis than they have—the formation of a credible basis for diplomatic agreement seems highly unlikely.

The ‘neither war nor peace’ dilemma and the naval blockade

The Trump administration’s decision to extend the ceasefire was not a quest for peace but a strategy of attrition aimed at altering the nature of the conflict in the US’s favor. Tehran perceives the indefinite extension of the ceasefire while the de facto naval blockade against Iran continues as the worst-case scenario, which is intended to gradually erode its strategic capabilities. Iran rejects this state of suspension — this “neither war nor peace” limbo. A report in The Wall Street Journal on April 28 detailed Donald Trump’s directive for an expanded naval blockade aimed at choking off Iran’s oil exports. This indicates that the crisis has not subsided, but rather been tactically recalibrated. However, according to Iran’s strategic community, this move is a psychological delaying tactic designed to create the illusion that active hostilities have ended. This would weaken the country’s security mechanisms and pave the way for a surprise US-Israeli attack.

Conversely, the belief that Washington could force Iran to submit through a naval blockade is as misguided as expecting regime change. Iran has developed asymmetric resistance against economic sanctions for decades, so a naval blockade is not just another routine embargo for them; it is a declaration of war waged through other means. Therefore, from Iran’s perspective, the current situation is not a de-escalation, but rather the beginning of an escalation phase that will, sooner or later, trigger a more intense wave of asymmetric conflict. Iran will not confine its response to its own waters but will spread the cost across the global system.

Although its conventional navy has largely been destroyed, the DMO has built a massive, asymmetric “mosquito fleet” in the Strait of Hormuz. This fleet comprises hundreds of low-cost speedboats, unmanned systems, and advanced sea mines, such as the Maham series. Rather than focusing on controlling the strait, this structure enables Iran to block rivals’ access and retain the leverage to provoke a crisis in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, as well as the Strait of Hormuz, should the blockade intensify.

The nuclear paradox and the new security architecture

Military action is also far from resolving the structural issues between the US and Iran. Attacks by the U.S. and Israel targeting missile or unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) facilities in the region only temporarily reduce capacity. This tactic, known in military literature as “mowing the grass,” does not permanently eliminate the threat. Iran’s military infrastructure is deeply integrated into the geography and relies largely on domestic production, so it can be rapidly replenished.

Furthermore, the maximum military and economic pressure being applied has created an extremely dangerous paradox regarding the nuclear program. Rather than deterring Iran from its nuclear objectives, the growing existential threat and successive conflicts are reinforcing the belief in nuclear armament within the DMO. In the eyes of Iranian decision-makers, achieving nuclear capability is no longer merely desirable; it is now viewed as an indispensable guarantee of the regime’s survival.

Looking back at the recent past, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei presented a pragmatic profile despite being an ideological leader. He possessed the flexibility to reach a nuclear agreement with the Obama administration and was cautious enough to avoid risks while responding to the period following October 7, 2023, and the direct Israeli attacks in 2024. However, with his death, this delicate balance vanished, giving rise to an Iran that is far more unpredictable and dangerous to regional security. Terminating the 2015 Nuclear Agreement (JCPOA) without a concrete alternative was a major political blunder rather than a strategic move. This move removed international restrictions and monitoring mechanisms on Iran, creating an opportunity for the regime to expand its nuclear capabilities.

As a result, Iran has increased its uranium enrichment level from 3.67 percent to 60 percent, shortened the time needed to acquire a nuclear weapon from one year to a few weeks, and effectively become a “nuclear threshold state.” For Iran, 90 percent enrichment is now a matter of choice, not capability. Since crossing the technological critical threshold, Iran has the ability to process its existing stockpile of 440 kilograms of enriched uranium to the final stage in small-scale facilities. Completely halting the nuclear program by military means would require a ground operation that is virtually impossible in the current situation.

Inevitable escalation

The gap between Iran’s unwavering stance and the US’s minimum acceptable limits is so wide that diplomatic efforts have devolved into mutual accusations rather than compromise. There is no credible way out, nor any room for flexibility, to defuse the tension. Washington’s reliance on sanctions and temporary military interventions, dubbed “mowing the lawn,” is insufficient to resolve this strategic impasse.

Consequently, unless Washington scales back its maximalist objectives or Iran fundamentally alters its security approach, this spiral of coercive pressure will yield neither compromise nor capitulation. This scenario, in which no sustainable diplomatic solution exists, is more likely to usher in a far more destructive phase of conflict. In this phase, costs would be spread across the global system through asymmetric means, transcending borders and rendering predictability entirely lost. This phase would be far worse than simply plunging the parties into a conventional war of attrition.

(Originally published in Turkish by Middle East Africa)

U

.S. President Donald Trump is expected to press Chinese leader Xi Jinping for assistance in ending the war with Iranduring high-level talks in Beijing this week, but analysts say China is unlikely to offer the decisive support Washington wants.

According to Reuters, Trump’s administration sees Beijing as one of the few governments with enough economic and political influence over Tehran to encourage Iranian leaders back toward negotiations. China remains Iran’s largest oil customer and an important economic lifeline amid Western sanctions.

However, experts say Beijing’s broader strategic interests make it reluctant to pressure Tehran too aggressively.

While China wants stability in the Middle East and an open Strait of Hormuz — through which much of its imported oil passes — Iran also serves as a key regional partner and a geopolitical counterweight to the United States.

Analysts note that the conflict has already benefited Beijing in some ways by shifting U.S. military and diplomatic attention away from the Indo-Pacific region, where China is focused on expanding its influence.

Henrietta Levin of the Council for Strategic and International Relations said Xi is approaching the summit with growing confidence, particularly after Trump eased back from last year’s aggressive tariff campaign against China.

China balances economic interests with strategic alliances

Beijing faces competing priorities as the Iran war continues.

On one side, China depends heavily on energy imports passing through the Strait of Hormuz and has suffered economically from rising oil prices and disruptions caused by the conflict. Iranian military actions in the waterway have threatened a route carrying roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies.

On the other hand, China values its long-term relationship with Iran. Analysts say Beijing is unlikely to cut economic support or halt the supply of dual-use goods that Tehran’s military can use for both civilian and defense purposes.

Chinese officials have publicly rejected U.S. pressure tactics. Liu Pengyu, spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, criticized what he described as “illicit unilateral sanctions” and called instead for preventing a renewed escalation in fighting.

Trump has insisted publicly that the United States does not depend on China to force Iranian concessions, arguing that the U.S. naval blockade around Iran already gives Washington leverage. Still, people briefed on the summit preparations told Reuters that U.S. officials privately hope Beijing can help stabilize the situation.

The report highlights the limited options available to the Trump administration in trying to force Chinese cooperation.

The United States has already sanctioned some Chinese firms accused of helping Iran evade restrictions or support military activities. However, experts say Washington has avoided taking action against the major Chinese banks facilitating trade with Iran because of fears of severe economic retaliation.

Brett Erickson of Obsidian Risk Advisors said existing sanctions have had little effect because the U.S. Treasury has avoided targeting the most important financial institutions involved.

Analysts warn that sanctions against major Chinese state-owned banks could trigger a wider economic confrontation between the world’s two largest economies, potentially reviving the tariff war that both sides paused last year.

Edward Fishman of the Council on Foreign Relations said even penalties against a smaller Chinese bank could spark a cycle of retaliatory measures damaging to both economies.

Such escalation could also worsen inflation inside the United States at a politically sensitive moment for Trump, whose approval ratings have already been hurt by the Iran conflict.

Rare earths remain a powerful Chinese leverage tool

Another major concern for Washington is China’s dominance in rare earth processing.

China controls much of the global refining capacity for rare earth minerals used in advanced electronics, electric vehicles and military technologies. During last year’s trade tensions, Beijing signaled it could restrict exports of those materials, alarming Western governments and industries.

Analysts say the threat of renewed Chinese export restrictions continues to limit how aggressively Washington is willing to confront Beijing economically.

Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said China has likely learned from watching previous American interventions in the Middle East and will avoid becoming deeply entangled in the conflict.

“They will want to be careful because they can see political quicksand,” Campbell told Reuters.

As Trump and Xi meet in Beijing, the summit is expected to reveal not only the limits of U.S.-China cooperation over Iran, but also the growing complexity of a relationship shaped simultaneously by rivalry, economic interdependence and competing global ambitions.

(Source: Reuters)

S

audi Arabia secretly launched a series of military strikes against Iran earlier this year in retaliation for attacks on Saudi territory, according to Western and Iranian officials cited by Reuters, revealing a previously undisclosed escalation in the Middle East war.

The strikes, reportedly carried out by the Saudi Air Force in late March, mark the first known direct Saudi military action on Iranian soil. Reuters said two Western officials and two Iranian officials confirmed the operations, though the exact targets inside Iran remain unclear.

The covert attacks came amid a rapidly expanding regional war triggered after U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran on February 28. Since then, Iran has launched missiles and drones at Gulf states, targeting military installations, airports, civilian infrastructure and energy facilities across the region.

According to Reuters, the Saudi strikes were followed by a sharp decline in Iranian attacks on the kingdom. A Reuters tally based on Saudi defense ministry statements showed more than 105 missile and drone attacks during the week of March 25-31, compared with just over 25 attacks during April 1-6.

Saudi Arabia shifts toward a more assertive posture

For years, Saudi Arabia relied heavily on the United States for regional protection, particularly against Iranian threats. However, the ongoing war has exposed vulnerabilities in the Gulf security system, with Iranian missiles and drones reportedly penetrating regional defenses.

The reported strikes suggest Riyadh is adopting a more assertive military posture in response to direct attacks on its territory.

While Saudi officials did not confirm the operations publicly, a senior Saudi foreign ministry official reiterated Riyadh’s support for de-escalation and regional stability. Iranian authorities also declined official comment.

Reuters reported that Saudi Arabia informed Iran through diplomatic channels about the strikes while simultaneously warning Tehran against further escalation. Intensive diplomacy followed, eventually producing an informal understanding between the two rivals to reduce hostilities.

Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group said the sequence reflected a “pragmatic recognition” by both sides that unchecked escalation could spiral into a much broader regional conflict.

Gulf states increasingly drawn into conflict

The report also highlights how Gulf Arab states have become more directly involved in the war than previously acknowledged publicly.

According to Reuters and earlier reporting by The Wall Street Journal, the United Arab Emirates also conducted military strikes against Iran during the conflict. Unlike Saudi Arabia, however, the UAE reportedly adopted a more hawkish approach and engaged less frequently in public diplomacy with Tehran.

Despite the covert military exchanges, Saudi Arabia maintained communication channels with Iran, including contacts through Tehran’s ambassador in Riyadh. Analysts say this dual-track strategy — combining military deterrence with diplomacy — reflects Riyadh’s effort to avoid a full-scale regional war while protecting its security interests.

The de-escalation efforts appeared to take effect shortly before Washington and Tehran agreed to a broader ceasefire on April 7.

Tensions remain despite ceasefire efforts

Although direct Iranian attacks on Saudi territory reportedly declined, regional tensions continued.

Western officials cited by Reuters assessed that later attacks targeting Saudi Arabia originated primarily from armed groups in Iraq rather than directly from Iran itself, suggesting Tehran may have scaled back overt military operations while allied militias continued limited attacks.

Saudi Arabia later summoned Iraq’s ambassador to protest projectiles launched from Iraqi territory.

The kingdom also considered retaliatory measures against both Iran and Iraq after another spike in missile and drone attacks on April 7-8, according to Reuters. During that period, Pakistan reportedly deployed fighter jets to reassure Saudi Arabia and urged regional restraint as diplomatic efforts intensified.

The conflict has tested the fragile détente established between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023 under a China-brokered agreement that restored diplomatic relations after years of hostility and proxy conflicts across the Middle East.

Despite the ongoing tensions, Saudi Arabia has managed to avoid severe disruptions to oil exports, partly because Red Sea shipping routes remained operational throughout much of the conflict.

(Source: Reuters)

G

eopolitical tensions centered around the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most critical chokepoints for the global energy supply, amid the US/Israel-Iran conflict, are having multifaceted effects on the world economy. The intermittent opening and closing of the strait intensifies these effects, creating additional uncertainty. The war-related crisis is putting upward pressure on energy prices by increasing the risk to oil and natural gas supplies, while also carrying the potential to disrupt global inflation dynamics.

Rising energy costs increase production costs, particularly in energy-importing countries, while negatively affecting industrial production and trade balances. Ultimately, the war is leading to downward revisions in global growth expectations. Consequently, a sustained rise in energy prices would constrain not only production costs, but also household disposable income, thereby tightening demand.

The crisis is spreading not only through energy prices, but also via trade routes, supply chains (particularly for food), and financial markets. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz could increase logistics costs across a wide geographical area, particularly in Asia, while potentially slowing global trade volumes. Rising geopolitical uncertainty is dampening investment appetite and increasing volatility in financial markets. The strengthening of risk-aversion trends, in particular, is causing fluctuations in capital flows to emerging economies. This creates additional vulnerability through exchange rates and financing costs. In this context, should the crisis persist, the risk of “stagflation”, where both inflationary pressures and growth losses are observed simultaneously, could intensify.

A massive, historic shock to the global oil supply

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz due to the US-Israel/Iran conflict has already caused a massive, historic shock to the global oil supply. According to analyses based on research by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, this closure is equivalent to removing approximately 20 percent of the global oil supply from the market. This is three to five times greater than previous supply shocks, such as the 1973 oil crisis, the Iranian revolution of 1979, and the Gulf War of 1990. The resulting supply crunch is prompting oil-importing nations to seek alternative sources while exerting strong upward pressure on global oil prices. It is also bringing debates about energy security back to the forefront of the global agenda.

According to these analyses, oil prices are expected to rise to approximately $98 per barrel in the quarter in which the lockdown takes place, and global real GDP growth is projected to contract by 2.9 percentage points on an annualized basis. If the financial and geopolitical shock caused by the war persists and the lockdown is extended, oil prices could rise to the $115–$132 range, and the negative impact on growth could spread across the entire year. If the lockdown is short-lived, a decline in oil prices and a partial recovery in growth may be observed. However, the main scenario suggests that global income levels will remain below their initial trend due to the lasting effects of production losses. This situation shows that supply shocks can disrupt medium-term growth dynamics beyond temporary fluctuations.

Furthermore, it is evident that actual supply disruptions and expectations of geopolitical risks strongly influence prices and economic activity. Increased stockpiling behavior driven by these expectations heightens price volatility. Meanwhile, the rapid depletion of stocks in the event of a disruption further exacerbates supply pressures. In this context, uncertainty in energy markets is a significant accelerator of economic contraction.

Türkiye’s role as an alternative to Hormuz: The middle corridor and the development route

Due to the depth of Türkiye’s economic presence in the region, it is inevitable that the country will be affected by the conflict. Considering the $65 oil price assumption in the Medium-Term Program, a permanent shift to the $100 range could cause significant deviations in macroeconomic balances. In this scenario, Türkiye’s annual energy import costs are estimated to rise by $10–15 billion, and the current account deficit-to-GDP ratio could increase by one percentage point.

Furthermore, an increase in the budget deficit and a slowdown in growth are anticipated. At this juncture, Türkiye’s reserve position emerges as the most critical buffer for the economy. The recent rise in gross reserves to the $170 billion range has increased the capacity to withstand external shocks. However, should the war persist, a sustained rise in energy prices will continue to put upward pressure on Türkiye’s current account balance and inflation trajectory, even with a strong reserve buffer

New initiatives to mitigate the effects of the war are also on the agenda. Mitigating the impact of the supply shock on the global economy largely depends on deploying alternative logistics and energy routes. Options include Saudi Arabia redirecting trade via Yanbu Port to the Red Sea, the United Arab Emirates bypassing the Strait of Hormuz via Fujairah Port, and securing limited transit through bilateral agreements, which could partially reduce the supply shortfall. However, due to security risks and capacity constraints, these alternatives do not appear feasible in the short term to fully compensate for the global supply shortfall.

This highlights the critical importance of geographical diversification for energy supply security. In this context, the Türkiye-centered “Middle Corridor” has been highlighted in the international press as one of the leading alternatives. In this context, the Türkiye-centered “Middle Corridor” has been highlighted in the international press as one of the leading options. Stretching from Asia to Europe via the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus, this corridor is attracting attention because it offers shorter transit times and lower geopolitical fragility than sea routes.

Türkiye and the Middle Corridor

As the Middle Corridor grows stronger, Türkiye is establishing itself not only as a transit hub, but also as a strategic center directing trade and energy flows. According to analyses by the Financial Times, when combined with existing energy pipelines and logistics infrastructure, this route could form a realistic alternative capable of reducing dependence on the Strait of Hormuz. Increasing the corridor’s transport capacity, streamlining customs and logistics processes, and deepening regional integration could significantly enhance Türkiye’s role in global supply chains. Within this framework, the Development Corridor project is also gaining prominence in the economic equation.

Spanning approximately 1,200 kilometers from the Persian Gulf through Iraq to Türkiye and on to Europe, this new corridor could offer time and cost advantages in global trade by serving as an alternative to the Suez Canal. Asia–Europe shipments that currently take one and a half months by sea could be reduced to under 25 days via this route, transforming Türkiye’s position as a transit country into a structural advantage. With an estimated total investment of between 15 and 20 billion dollars and a multimodal structure including rail and road transport, the Development Corridor is one of two main axes—alongside the Middle Corridor—strengthening Türkiye’s geo-economic backbone.

Consequently, while a potential crisis centered on the Strait of Hormuz could severely disrupt global energy and trade flows, the resulting uncertainty is accelerating Türkiye’s search for alternative logistics routes and corridors. Nearly 20 percent of global energy trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz, so any disruption would trigger price shocks and necessitate route diversification. In this context, projects such as the Development Corridor and the Middle Corridor enhance Türkiye’s ability to convert its geographical advantage into economic gains. Although risks remain high in the short term, Türkiye’s ability to implement this new logistics architecture in the medium and long term provides flexibility during this period of global trade reshaping.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)

W

hile nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran were ongoing, the U.S.-Israel-Iran War began with Israel’s attack on Iran, which received a green light from Trump. This attack occurred just as it had on June 13, 2025, and continued with U.S. participation. For the time being, the war has come to an end with the 15-day ceasefire declared on April 8. This ceasefire occurred because Iran administration survived despite the human casualties and damage to its infrastructure in the war. Iran simultaneously struck Israel with ballistic missiles, spreading the war to Gulf states and closing the Strait of Hormuz. Iran achieved a relative balance of power. One of the reasons for the ceasefire on the US side is Trump’s unwillingness to bear further costs.

Shortly after the ceasefire was declared on April 8, the U.S. and Iranian negotiation delegations met in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital. They left Islamabad without reaching an agreement due to failing to find common ground on the conditions put forward by both sides. However, they did agree to maintain the ceasefire. However, both sides declared their resolve to return to war should no agreement be reached.

While both the US and Iran appear to agree on not prolonging the 40-day war, Israel—which initiated the war and drew the US into it—does not want to end the war or see an agreement between the US and Iran. This is because Israel has yet to achieve its objectives against Iran. Although Israel has stated that it will comply with the ceasefire, its approach to the process has unfortunately rendered the ceasefire exceedingly fragile. Israel’s stance complicates any potential agreement requiring the US to act contrary to Israel’s interests and concerns.

Just as Israel has pitted the US against Iran through its sustained campaign over the years, it does not wish for this war to end without securing maximum benefit from the situation. In other words, it wants to bring about internal turmoil or regime change that would lead to Iran’s fragmentation. To this end, Israel is attempting to poison the negotiations and render any potential agreement impossible by utilizing all its influence and power over the US administration.

Israel’s negative stance toward ceasefires is not limited to those between the U.S. and Iran. In fact, even the ceasefire with Lebanon, secured under US pressure, holds no significance for Israel. While appearing to have reached an agreement with Lebanon, Israel continues its attacks under the pretext of Hezbollah. Consequently, it is evident that Israel cannot accept ceasefires in Iran and Lebanon and is therefore trying to break them and return to war.

This study will examine Israel’s attempts to undermine ceasefires in the region separately for the Iranian and Lebanese fronts. In the conclusion, an attempt will be made to explain what Israel aims to achieve through these moves.

Israel’s approach to the ceasefire between the US and Iran

The justifications Israel cited for initiating the war against Iran are the same as those it is now citing to violate the ceasefire and, if possible, prevent an agreement from being reached. Yet, over the course of the 40-day war, it has become clear that nearly all of the claims Israel made regarding the Iranian regime were false.

Most notably, the claims that Iran was on the verge of possessing a nuclear weapon were baseless. This reinforces the argument that Israel made this claim solely to initiate the conflict. Claims that the Iranian people would not support the regime and that the regime would collapse if the religious leader were killed have also been proven false. It has also come to light that Israel deceived Trump on this matter.

However, despite all these facts, Israel continues to demonize Iran by claiming that it has the potential to acquire nuclear weapons and plans to eliminate first Israel, then the United States, and rest of West; in doing so, it seeks to prevent the establishment of mutual trust and to block any agreement with what it portrays as such an “enemy of civilization.”

Israel has done more than circulate these narratives to undermine the ceasefire. It has also pressured Trump and his administration through the Jewish lobby in the U.S. While doing so, Israel has enlisted the support of Jewish senators and members of the House of Representatives in the U.S. Congress, including senators like Lindsey Graham, who is funded by the Jewish lobby. Israel has used these tactics to persuade Trump to break the ceasefire and return to war.

Israel’s most significant assets in sabotaging negotiations with Iran have been Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, both of whom were part of the U.S. negotiating delegation. Both of these Jewish figures have close ties to the Israeli government and Netanyahu. As with the process of securing the ceasefire in Gaza, this pair relayed all discussions to Netanyahu and took no steps without his approval. Following the February 26 negotiations, Witkoff stated that “everything was on track and we could now move on to technical matters.” However, after the outbreak of war on February 28, he attempted to exonerate Israel, which initiated the war, by spreading the lie that “the Iranian delegation threatened them by claiming to possess 400 kilograms of enriched uranium and the ability to produce at least 11 nuclear bombs during the final negotiations,” thereby seeking to legitimize the war.

For this reason, the Iranian side announced that they would not accept Witkoff as head of the U.S. negotiating delegation and preferred Vice President J.D. Vance instead. Consequently, Vance chaired the negotiations in Islamabad. However, Israel did not remain idle during this process. According to media reports, Vance spoke with Netanyahu by telephone during the negotiations to convey Iran’s proposals. The negotiations stalled due to Netanyahu’s negative stance.

As can be seen, while Israel seeks to both undermine the ceasefire and prevent a potential agreement by portraying Iran as an unreliable actor, on the other hand, through its mouthpieces in the U.S. media, it has published analyses claiming that the ceasefire was a mistake, that an agreement with Iran would strengthen Iran and damage U.S. prestige, and that the best option is for the U.S. to bring Iran to heel through the use of force. Not content with this, Israel has sought to influence the U.S. public and exert pressure on the Trump administration’s decisions by mobilizing all institutions of the Jewish lobby.

The impossible ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon

Although the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, which began on November 27, 2024, is technically still in place, it is highly unlikely to be upheld due to Hezbollah’s involvement in the conflict on Iran’s behalf since March 2. Israel had also frequently violated the ceasefire, carrying out attacks—particularly in Beirut’s Dahiye district and southern regions beyond the Litani River—under the pretext of targeting Hezbollah. However, with Hezbollah’s intervention in the war, the ceasefire has officially ceased to exist.

From March 2 until the 10-day ceasefire was announced on April 17 following talks held on April 14 under U.S. facilitation and hosting, Israel used Hezbollah as usual and, following the ground operation that began on March 16, established an 8–10-kilometer buffer zone in southern Lebanon. Consequently, by the time the ceasefire took effect, Israel had occupied approximately % 6 of Lebanese territory and refused to allow the return of Lebanese civilians forcibly evacuated from the area.

One of the preconditions for the ceasefire between the US and Iran was that Israel cease its attacks on Lebanon. However, due to Israel’s continued attacks, the Lebanon issue was deemed outside the scope of the US-Iran ceasefire. Nevertheless, at Trump’s insistence, the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors were brought together in Washington to declare a ceasefire. Trump then prohibited Israel from attacking Lebanon. Although Israel did not take this ban seriously, Iran’s demand was ultimately met.

However, since the Lebanese government and army were unable to disarm Hezbollah as assigned under the ceasefire, Israel continues its attacks on the pretext that the necessary conditions have not been met.

Despite these setbacks, on April 24, before the ceasefire period expired, the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors met again in Washington under the leadership of U.S. Secretary of State Rubio. At a ceremony attended by Trump and Vance, they announced that the ceasefire had been extended for an additional three weeks more.

While the continuation of the ceasefire is positive, Israel’s occupation of Lebanese territory persists, and Hezbollah has stated that it will continue to fight Israel. Thus, the ceasefire appears likely to remain on paper only. Indeed, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has stated that Lebanon will not agree to a final settlement unless Israel ends its occupation of Lebanese territory. Meanwhile, it has been leaked to the media that Trump plans to sign a peace agreement in Washington within approximately a month, with Netanyahu and Lebanese President Aoun in attendance. However, as long as Israel continues to attack Lebanon and attempt to provoke a civil war by pitting Hezbollah against other ethnic and sectarian groups, this seems unlikely to materialize.

Consequently, since Israel has not yet achieved its objectives regarding Iran, it is trying to undermine the ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran to keep the war going. Although Israel appears to have agreed to a ceasefire in Lebanon on paper, it is continuing its attacks under the pretext of Hezbollah. Israel is also attempting to establish a permanent presence in the territories it has occupied. As long as Israel maintains its current policy, neither a ceasefire nor lasting peace in the region will be possible.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)