TOP NEWS

On September 12, 2026, United States President Donald Trump stood in Dublin alongside Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin and said in a cool tone that the Houthis “called us, and they don’t want to fight us”, adding that the group was “allowing ships to pass” and that the situation would “work out very well”.

His remarks came just as Houthi forces had completed their takeover of the coastal town of Dhubab and Perim (Mayyun) Island, which divides the Bab al-Mandeb strait into two shipping channels, after seizing the strategic port of Mocha. This gave them a direct presence at the entrance to one of the world’s most important waterways.

Trump was speaking against the backdrop of a Houthi announcement that they would blockade Saudi oil supplies to Asia and Saudi commercial shipping, signalling the collapse of the traditional “security-for-oil” formula.

What is happening at Bab al-Mandeb is not an isolated event, but the latest in a long series of US retreats from security commitments that for decades underpinned the “security-for-oil” relationship between Washington and the Gulf states.

This is not a passing political position, but a profound shift in the regional security landscape: the United States is choosing not to intervene militarily against an armed group designated as terrorist that controls one of the world’s most important straits and whose actions go beyond the logic of conventional deterrence.

Trump’s remarks: Substance and strategic context

In Dublin, Trump said the Houthis had contacted the US administration seeking to avoid confrontation with Washington. He said they were “allowing most ships to pass” and that the problem was limited to “one country”, which he did not name – an apparent reference to Saudi Arabia – promising to “take care of fixing that”.

He also said the United States had “tight control” over the Strait of Hormuz and that about 25 ships were passing through it each day on average, despite maritime sources denying this.

On the ground, Trump’s remarks suggested that the Houthis remain wary of US military force and American deterrence, which has already put considerable pressure on their regional backer, Iran. They were therefore prepared to bargain, just as they accepted US conditions in 2025.

At the same time, Trump’s directives – as relayed by US military and civilian officials – revealed a clear hierarchy of priorities: Iran as the principal threat, securing the Strait of Hormuz as the vital artery for oil and gas flows, and avoiding another military front in Yemen.

This reflects a narrow strategic logic. From Washington’s perspective, Bab al-Mandeb is less vital to American oil interests than to flows towards China and other Asian markets that compete with the US economy. And because Trump believes the Houthis “are not targeting American ships”, direct intervention would, in his view, place an unjustified additional burden on US forces already exhausted by the Iranian front.

Trump’s position also cannot be separated from domestic politics. The US-Iran war has eroded his political support after he promised to keep the United States out of Middle Eastern wars.

According to The Los Angeles Times, Trump told Fox News that he “might not do it because of the elections”, referring to avoiding further military escalation before the congressional elections. Opening a new front in Yemen could further complicate matters for Republicans in closely contested House and Senate races.

Meanwhile, Saudi circles denied an Axios report claiming that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had called Trump twice on the eve of the Houthi takeover of the coast on September 10, urging him to strike the Houthis, and that Trump had refused.

The sources pointed to Axios’s own July 29 report on Saudi Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman’s visit to Washington, which said he had told the US vice president that the kingdom could manage the confrontation with the Houthis itself and did not need US military intervention. They regarded the two accounts as contradictions in the reporting of Axios’s Barak Ravid.

Observers in Riyadh see the restrained US position as part of a broader policy: the administration currently has no intention of taking direct military action against the Houthis. At the same time, Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of US Central Command, travelled to Riyadh for urgent coordination talks with Prince Mohammed, indicating that Washington is seeking to “intensify its support” for Saudi Arabia while avoiding direct military involvement – a formula well understood in Riyadh.

Trump sought to reassure Saudi concerns by describing the crown prince as a “good friend” and promising that “everything will work out very well”. But he offered no specific military commitment, and the White House announced no explicit guarantees to protect Saudi energy infrastructure or maritime routes.

This reluctance also follows a series of US decisions that have demonstrated a growing retreat from its security commitments in the Gulf. During his first term, Trump did not respond to the 2019 Aramco attack, for which the Houthis claimed responsibility but which was believed to have originated from Iraqi factions to the north. The attack temporarily knocked out half of Saudi oil supplies.

In February 2026, the United States joined Israel in attacking Iran without consulting its Gulf allies and has since faced growing difficulties defending them against Iranian attacks. US forces are now heavily preoccupied around the Strait of Hormuz, limiting their ability to respond to another front in Yemen.

Paradoxically, Washington, now bogged down in Hormuz, appears to need Saudi help in containing Iranian disruption at Bab al-Mandeb, rather than the other way round.

Since the war began on February 28, Riyadh has resisted all US pressure to become involved in a confrontation with Iran for two reasons. First, it believes such pressure carries an implicit aim of portraying the Saudi front as part of the Israeli front. Second, it was not consulted over the launch of the war and is not prepared to be worn down in a conflict serving Israeli objectives.

The erosion of the US umbrella and the fate of the ‘security-for-oil’ formula

Since the 1970s, the US-Gulf relationship has rested on a clear but implicit bargain: the United States provides a security umbrella protecting the Gulf states and energy routes, while the Gulf states ensure a steady flow of oil to the global economy at reasonable prices.

This was more than a bilateral understanding between Riyadh and Washington. Gulf security meant oil security, and oil security meant the security of the Western economy, making the bargain a pillar of the international energy system for decades.

Today, there are mounting signs that this formula is beginning to collapse.

First, strategic abandonment: Trump’s refusal to defend Bab al-Mandeb, and his response to the Houthis’ request that the US stay out of the conflict in return for allowing American ships to pass – effectively a political deal – marks a watershed. For the first time, the United States is clearly hesitating to defend energy security and a pivotal ally against a direct threat to global energy infrastructure. This is not temporary hesitation, but a redefinition of the US commitment.

Second, the redirection of priorities: Washington’s focus on the Strait of Hormuz and avoidance of a front in Yemen point to a new approach: not a comprehensive security umbrella, but selective protection of direct US interests. Hormuz matters because it carries Gulf oil to markets on which the US economy depends, while Bab al-Mandeb – from Trump’s perspective – primarily serves exports to China and Asia, interests Washington does not consider worth further military investment.

Third, military exhaustion: the US military is exhausted by the war with Iran and its stocks of advanced interceptor missiles have been depleted. This is structural rather than temporary, reflecting a growing inability to manage multiple fronts.

Fourth, domestic politics: the erosion of Trump’s political support because of the Iran war makes further military expansion politically costly. What was once a guarantee of Gulf security – US power – has become hostage to domestic electoral calculations.

Does this mean the end of the “security-for-oil” formula? Not necessarily. But it does point to a fundamental shift from a bilateral US-Gulf arrangement to a more complex, multilateral one.

The US umbrella has not disappeared, but it has contracted. The United States still maintains forces in the region and remains focused on the Strait of Hormuz, but its commitment is no longer comprehensive or unconditional.

Saudi strategic hedging

For years, Riyadh has been pursuing alternatives through strategic hedging. Its announcement of a 14-state multinational defensive maritime alliance – including Turkiye, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan and Djibouti – is an attempt to fill the US security vacuum, while US or European naval forces are also deployed around the strait as part of similar Western coalitions.

Saudi Arabia is also strengthening its air and missile defences, developing its naval capabilities and deepening defence ties with countries including Turkiye and Pakistan. These efforts have included the “Strategic Mutual Defence Alliance” with Pakistan and the Mecca alliance with Turkiye and Pakistan in August 2026.

What we are witnessing is not the end of the US umbrella, but its shift from a “comprehensive guarantee” to “conditional and limited support”, forcing Gulf states to rethink their collective security.

The Saudi position on industrialised countries’ disregard for supply security

Saudi Arabia now faces one of its most serious security challenges: the Houthis control Bab al-Mandeb, are choking Saudi trade and have already launched drone and missile attacks towards Saudi territory.

Saudi oil exports to Asia fell from around 3.4 million barrels a day in June to just 128,000 in August, before partially recovering to 700,000 this month. Oil prices have meanwhile exceeded $107 a barrel, while the price of a gallon of petrol in the United States has risen by 35 percent.

The real danger is the simultaneous disruption of two maritime chokepoints: Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of global oil and gas supplies pass, is almost closed because of the US-Iran war, while Bab al-Mandeb, which accounts for 10-12 percent of global oil, is under Houthi control. Closing both could block about a quarter of global supplies.

Even without complete closure, the continuing threat creates a permanent “risk premium” on prices, according to economic analysts. Although Saudi Arabia benefits in the short term from higher prices, it is strategically harmed by instability because Vision 2030 depends on foreign investment, tourism and stability, not temporary wartime oil revenues.

Riyadh has long played a leading role in stabilising oil markets, frequently using its position as a swing producer to limit volatility. But amid the indifference of industrialised countries to supply security and the threats facing energy sources and routes, Saudi Arabia cannot put aside the dangers to its own security, sovereignty and people for countries that disregard the geopolitics of energy.

For this reason, Saudi Arabia has previously declared that it “will not bear responsibility for any disruptions or shortages in global oil supplies” resulting from Houthi attacks on its oil facilities.

This is more than a warning. It redefines the implicit social contract with its allies: Saudi Arabia is no longer prepared to act as guarantor of last resort for global energy security without something in return.

Its message is that the international community – particularly the major industrialised countries that benefit from oil flows – must share responsibility for protecting maritime routes, rather than leaving Riyadh to bear the cost alone.

‘Collective responsibility’ as a new security doctrine

The Saudi Ministry of Defence reinforced this approach in its statement on the proposed maritime alliance, stressing that “the security of international maritime routes is a collective responsibility that requires effective and sustainable international partnership”.

This is more than a diplomatic appeal. It amounts to a reformulation of the regional security contract: Saudi Arabia is not asking industrialised countries to defend Saudi interests, but to help protect their own interest in the continued flow of oil on which their economies depend.

In July 2026, Saudi Arabia announced a “Multinational Defensive Maritime Alliance” of 14 founding states: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkiye, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Sudan, Djibouti and Somalia.

At least 43 countries and organisations attended the founding meeting in Riyadh. The alliance may mark an important turning point, reflecting an implicit Saudi acknowledgement that the US umbrella is no longer sufficient and that Riyadh must build its own security capabilities with regional allies.

US exposure: A deeper strategic reading

Trump’s statements downplaying the Houthi takeover of Bab al-Mandeb and his refusal to intervene reflect not only a political decision, but a structural weakness in US deterrence.

The United States is unable to manage multiple fronts. Its concentration around the Strait of Hormuz limits its ability to respond in Yemen; fighting has depleted stocks of advanced interceptor missiles; and the unpopularity of the war and approaching congressional elections constrain its freedom of action.

From the perspective of countries in the region, the US military presence in the Gulf is no longer an unconditional security guarantee. The question of whether allies could be abandoned again is pushing decision-makers from Riyadh to Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Doha to diversify their security and defence partnerships.

That means deeper defence ties with Turkiye and Pakistan, stronger air and missile defences and naval capabilities, maintaining open channels and seeking risk-reducing understandings with regional powers including Iran, and multinational maritime alliances to protect navigation.

But these alternatives have limits. Can any regional alliance fully compensate for the absence of a major power such as the United States when confronting threats on the scale of Iran and its proxies? US intelligence, logistical and interception capabilities have no regional equivalent, leaving a security gap that cannot quickly be filled.

The new regional order: Towards multipolarity

What we are witnessing is not merely a passing security crisis, but the emergence of a new regional order marked by the decline of unilateral US dominance. The United States is no longer the sole security power in the Gulf, as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkiye and Iran gain weight and Gulf states diversify their partnerships and seek more collective regional security arrangements.

Trump’s response to the Houthi takeover of Bab al-Mandeb is therefore not simply a political position, but a sign of a tectonic shift in the regional security order. The “security-for-oil” formula that governed US-Gulf relations for decades has not formally ended, but it no longer provides the guarantees on which it was built. The US security umbrella remains, but it has become selective, conditional and subject to domestic US calculations unrelated to the interests of the Gulf states.

Saudi Arabia, caught between the hammer of the Houthis at Bab al-Mandeb and the anvil of Iran at the Strait of Hormuz, is pursuing a different approach: insisting that protection of maritime routes become a “collective responsibility” and that it should no longer bear alone the cost of protecting the interests of industrialised countries dependent on its oil.

This position – backed by the announcement of a multinational maritime alliance – marks the beginning of a redefinition of the regional security contract, although significant questions remain over whether ambition can be translated into capability.

Oil prices above $107 a barrel may be only an early sign of what lies ahead. If US exposure continues and regional understandings guaranteeing freedom of navigation remain out of reach, the world could face an energy crisis comparable to those of the 1970s, but without a US security umbrella ready to contain it.

Bab al-Mandeb is therefore more than a maritime strait. It reflects the end of one era and the beginning of another, in which Gulf security is no longer an American gift but a collective responsibility still searching for new arrangements.

Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, appears to favour a combination of deterrence and avoiding all-out war. Rather than sliding into open-ended attrition, it seeks to support national allies on the ground, enable the Yemeni state to restore its sovereignty, contain the logic of the militia and build a national doctrine that limits external penetration.

Yemen’s stability is no longer a purely Yemeni matter, but a first line of defence for the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandeb and for the cohesion of the Arab sphere, with Riyadh and Cairo remaining central pillars in confronting projects of disintegration and fragmentation.

Within this emerging order, the Saudi-Egyptian partnership is becoming a cornerstone of regional security. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s expected visit to Cairo and summit with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi give practical expression to the principle of “collective responsibility”.

Riyadh and Cairo recognise that the security of the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandeb is not a local matter: it is vital to the Suez Canal and Egyptian economy, and forms strategic and security depth for Saudi Arabia.

By coordinating diplomatic and military action, supporting the full liberation of Yemen and containing the reach of the militias, the two countries are helping shape an autonomous regional security order intended to fill the vacuums left by retreating international powers, protect international navigation and confront shared threats from a position of parity and capacity.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Israeli prime minister pledges to advance two bills aimed at addressing the ‘immense damage’ done to Israeli soldiers.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pledged to pass a law that would revoke the citizenship of anyone who defames ⁠Israel’s soldiers, including the directors of NAZA, a documentary about Israeli soldiers’ killings of civilians in Gaza.

Directed by Israeli journalists Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, NAZA documents allegations that mass civilian deaths were built into Israel’s target decisions in its genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza – something Netanyahu and the army reject.

The film won the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival last week. During his acceptance speech, Abraham said “our country is doing these crimes” and highlighted that Israel is systematically and deliberately targeting Palestinians in Gaza.

“NAZA” takes its title from an Israeli ⁠military term for expected “collateral casualties” and is built around anonymous interviews with intelligence officers and soldiers.

It has been harshly criticised in Israel, with the military examining potential legal action against those involved in it.

But it has also played into the charged domestic political atmosphere before Israel’s October 27 election, as public opinion polls suggest Netanyahu’s ‌right-wing coalition could fall short of a majority in parliament.

On Tuesday, Netanyahu accused several of his election rivals of failing to take a tough stand against the documentary, claiming this made them unfit for office.

On Wednesday, he pledged to advance two bills that he said would address the “immense damage” done to Israeli soldiers in the film.

“The first [order]: To revoke the citizenship of anyone who defames [Israeli] soldiers, and the second: To hit them in their pockets and increase the statutory damages for defamation they can ⁠be sued for by 20 times,” Netanyahu said in a social media video. “We ⁠will hit them both in their pockets and in their citizenship, as their place is not with us.”

Netanyahu cited three examples in proposing the bills: “The recent film NAZA which portrayed [Israeli] officers and soldiers as war criminals”, 2025 remarks by left-wing ex-general-⁠turned-politician Yair Golan that “a sane country does not kill children as a hobby”, and a military legal officer’s 2024 leak of a video showing ⁠soldiers abusing a Gaza detainee.

In 2022, Israel’s Supreme Court passed a law that permits stripping citizenship from Israelis who carry out actions that constitute a breach of trust against the state. Any new legislation would likely face similar court challenges.

More than 73,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed in Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza since October 2023, according to health authorities.

New Delhi says it has ‘made clear’ its determination to ‘protect its trade and economic interests’.

India has warned the United States that new measures to levy tariffs over the purchase of Russian oil could impact ⁠bilateral ties, hours after the US Congress approved a bill that would give President Donald Trump new abilities to punish buyers of Russian oil.

The US House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a sweeping sanctions and tariff bill intended to increase economic pressure on Russia over its invasion of ⁠Ukraine.

The bill targets Russia’s energy and defence sectors, President Vladimir Putin and other senior officials, as well as Moscow’s so-called shadow fleet of tankers used to circumvent Western sanctions.

It also authorises President Donald Trump to impose stiff tariffs of up to 100 percent on countries, including India, to reduce their dependence on Russian oil and gas, and⁠ extend sanctions on Iran.

The bill has been sent to Trump to sign into law.

India’s foreign ministry said on Thursday that it “remains firmly committed to ensuring energy security for its 1.4 billion people”.

The Indian foreign ministry said that it had noted the bill’s passage, adding that New Delhi had raised the issue with various US interlocutors in recent months, and had “very clearly articulated” the potential implications for the bilateral relationship and the international energy market.

“The Indian side has also made clear its determination to take all necessary measures to protect its trade and economic interests,” it said in a statement.

The government would work closely with trade and industry bodies to deal with the legislation’s implications, it added.

India, the world’s third-biggest oil importer, is among the biggest buyers of Russian oil, which is seen as helping Moscow replenish its budget since it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and was hit with ⁠sweeping Western sanctions.

New Delhi has repeatedly sought to resist pressure to reduce its oil trade with Russia, saying its large population and economy need secure, affordable and reliable energy supplies.

The symbolic move comes as Argentina escalates its claim over the British-administered territory.

An Argentinian judge has ordered the suspension of a British-Israeli oil project near the Falkland Islands in a purely symbolic move as Argentina escalates its claim over the British-administered territory.

Wednesday’s interim ruling issued by a court in Argentina’s southernmost province, Tierra del Fuego, follows a lawsuit filed by 1982 war veterans and environmental lawyers earlier this month.

The plaintiffs sought to block Britain’s Rockhopper Exploration and Israel’s Navitas Petroleum from the Sea Lion oilfield, located about 220km (137 miles) from the islands.

The judge ordered the companies to “refrain from initiating, pursuing, carrying out or having carried out any material actions” that would involve drilling, installing infrastructure or extracting hydrocarbons, according to a ruling seen by the AFP news agency.

Additionally, the suspension applies “until such time as the environmental impact assessment procedure has been conducted before the national authority competent in environmental matters”.

The judge gave the parties 10 days to provide information, including details about the status of the project, its contractors and its financiers.

President Javier Milei’s administration has also taken legal action against the project, arguing it violates a United Nations resolution calling for both sides to desist from unilateral actions in the islands until their dispute is resolved.

The court order comes just a day after Argentina announced it would file further legal complaints against companies exploring for oil near the islands, intensifying its campaign against businesses operating in the British overseas territory.

Britain and Argentina fought a brief but bitter 10-week war in 1982 over the South Atlantic islands, known to Argentines as the Malvinas.

The 1982 war ended with an Argentinian surrender after 74 days of conflict that killed 649 Argentines and 255 British troops, as well as three Falkland Islanders.

Buenos Aires has doubled down on its claim over the Falkland Islands after US President Donald Trump said Washington was open to reviewing its historically neutral stance on the territory.

London maintains the islands are British and rejects the jurisdiction of Argentinian courts in the Falklands.

The islanders themselves voted overwhelmingly in 2013 to remain British.

But Argentina rejects that outcome, arguing that the principle of self-determination does not apply to a population it considers implanted by Britain after 1833.

WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump threatened on Wednesday to cut trade with the European Union after the bloc proposed to make Canada its first ever associate member.

EU chief Ursula von der Leyen raised the prospect a day before Canadian leader Mark Carney was due to address the European Parliament.

Her pitch comes as both Canada and the European Union seek to pivot away from an aggressive United States under Trump’s leadership.

“I think it’s laughable,” Trump told reporters when asked about the plan.

“If they do that, if I think it’s at all a hostile act, I will put very serious tariffs or stop trading with Europe, on many things.”

He added: “If it’s a good intention, that’s fine. If it’s a bad intention, we’ll put very heavy tariffs on Europe, which is a possibility.”

Von der Leyen pitched closer cooperation on tech, defense and energy to Carney, who became the first non-European head of government to attend the annual “State of the European Union” speech.

The German told the European Parliament in Strasbourg that, as democracies face a “fracture in the international rules-based system,” Brussels and Ottawa needed to pull closer together.

“I would like to work with you on opening the door for Canada to be the first associate member of the EU,” von der Leyen told the Canadian premier, drawing a standing ovation in the chamber.

A broader alliance

Carney has been pursuing closer ties with the European Union as Canada gets drawn ever deeper into a trade war with the United States.

He is set to address the parliament on Thursday, with his visit meant to act as a catalyst ahead of an EU-Canada summit in Montreal next month.

Von der Leyen said it was time to move from cooperation based on trade to a broader “alliance for the future” and “bring the relationship with Canada to the highest level possible.”

“We will work on intelligent manufacturing. We will create a tech alliance. We will integrate defense industrial bases. We will make the Arctic a flagship joint project,” she said.

She listed energy, critical minerals, batteries, AI, cyber and economic security as other fields of cooperation.

“This is a partnership not against anyone else, but for our common strength,” she said.

But both the EU and Canada have been buffeted by tariffs and territorial threats from the US and competition from China.

“In a more dangerous and divided world, Canada is forging stronger relationships with trusted partners,” Carney’s office said in a statement.

What’s in a name?

While EU treaties do not envision the possibility of becoming an “associate member,” the idea was first floated by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz this year for Ukraine.

Under that plan, which met a cold reception from a country pushing for full membership, Ukraine would have been allowed to attend the bloc’s summits and have a representative in the European Commission.

It would have also benefited from parts of the EU budget, but without full voting rights.

“We don’t really know yet what it means,” said Tobias Cremer, a center-left European lawmaker from Germany and the main sponsor of a resolution urging stronger EU-Canada cooperation, after von der Leyen’s “associate membership” pitch.

Under EU rules, member states have to approve any form of partnership with a third country and it was unclear how much support von der Leyen’s proposal would receive from capitals.

Brussels and Ottawa already enjoy a considerable level of cooperation.

The CETA free-trade agreement that abolished almost all tariffs has been credited with boosting trade in goods and services by more than 80 percent since 2016.

And this year Canada became the first non-EU country to join a flagship defense loan program.

Carney later flew to Britain for his first meeting with new UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

They attended a football match between Everton and Wolverhampton together before Carney’s return to Strasbourg for his Thursday speech.

They also agreed to expand air travel and reinstate direct flights between both countries.

Israel and Morocco have agreed to upgrade their diplomatic ties, including elevating their respective missions to embassies and appointing ambassadors to both countries.

A meeting between the two countries’ foreign ministers was hosted by the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, in New York on Wednesday.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar and Moroccan Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita also agreed to advance economic and trade relations, including completing two agreements by the end of this year on investment protection and preventing double taxation.

“[The] establishment of full diplomatic, peaceful and friendly relations between Morocco and Israel is in the common interest of both countries and will advance the cause of peace,” the US mission to the UN said in a joint statement on behalf of all three countries.

The two sides also agreed to expand air travel, including by reinstating direct flights operated by carriers from both nations, and confirmed plans for high-level bilateral visits in the coming months.

The announcement comes just a day after the sixth anniversary of the Abraham Accords, an initiative spearheaded by US President Donald Trump during his first term in office. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan and Kazakhstan have all joined the accords, which are aimed at normalising ties between Arab and Muslim-majority countries and Israel.

The rapper also challenged Robert Kraft to match the donation as fallout from his removal from Ed Sheeran’s tour grows.

Rapper Macklemore says he will donate the entire $1m he earned from singer Ed Sheeran’s Loop Tour to organisations supporting Palestinians, days after he was dropped from the tour over his support for Palestine.

Macklemore, whose real name is Ben Haggerty, announced the donation on Instagram on Wednesday, saying the money would go to six groups working directly to support Palestinians. He also called on pro-Israel billionaire Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots, to match it after Kraft confirmed on Tuesday that he had barred Macklemore from performing at Gillette Stadium in the US state of Massachusetts.

“Whatever we disagree about, perhaps we can agree on this: Palestinian lives are worth protecting,” Macklemore wrote. “A Palestinian life is no less valuable than any other life on this earth.”

In a statement on Wednesday evening, Kraft said that before Macklemore issued the challenge, Sheeran had called and asked him to commit $2m in humanitarian aid to the region. Kraft said Sheeran now planned to approach other venue owners in an effort to raise more money.

“I believe deeply that all lives are worth protecting,” Kraft said.

Macklemore’s announcement comes as the fallout over his removal from Sheeran’s tour continues to grow. Macklemore said on Monday that he was dropped from the remaining United States dates after using his performances at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey to speak in support of Palestinians.

All of the supporting acts for Sheeran’s upcoming US Loop Tour have now pulled out in solidarity with the rapper. Some of the artists are Irish and pointed to their own country’s history of occupation in explaining their decision to withdraw.

Sheeran has said the decision to remove Macklemore was ultimately made not by him but by the tour promoter.

Kraft later said he had opposed allowing the rapper to perform, citing what he described as Macklemore’s history of “antisemitic rhetoric and imagery”.

Kraft, in a statement to Al Jazeera, said the decision to ban Macklemore from his venue wasn’t about “diminishing the suffering of innocent Palestinians” but argued that “advocacy should not come at the expense of the Jewish community or obscure the responsibility of Hamas”.

In his latest statement on Wednesday, Macklemore said he wanted to pull the conversation away from himself and the controversy surrounding the tour.

“That is what this has always been about. Not me. Not a tour. Not the headlines or the controversy,” he wrote. “It is about Palestinians’ right to freedom, dignity and safety in their own homeland.”

He also acknowledged that donating money carried far less risk than the work being done by people in Gaza and those organising in support of Palestinians.

“Writing a check is one of the least costly forms of solidarity available to me,” he wrote. “I am doing it because I can, and because these organizations are doing the work while much of the world debates it.”

He ended with a call for people to keep paying attention.

“When the news cycle moves on, which it will, don’t move with it. Free Palestine.”

CALIFORNIA: Three people were charged by federal authorities in Los Angeles on Wednesday with stealing $12 million in federal and state homelessness aid to pay for real estate, luxury trips and vintage vehicles.

It was the second such arrest of people on federal fraud charges in Southern California this week, as President Donald Trump’s administration tries to emphasize a crackdown on fraud and waste in government and aid programs. On Tuesday, 12 people were charged with stealing more than $10 million in federal childcare aid.

The three defendants each worked for or ran Southern California-based nonprofit organizations, which often contracted with city, county, state or federal agencies to provide aid or money to find housing and social services for homeless people. Prosecutors allege that the defendants used funds from those contracts to pay personal expenses, accepted bribes, and billed for services that were never provided.

“Make no mistake, HUD and the Trump administration will not tolerate the theft and abuse of taxpayers in this country,” Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner said at a news conference.

Turner used the indictments to accuse the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, which approved grants to these defendants, of being negligent with taxpayer dollars.

Taxpayer aid spent on video games, nightclubs

Two defendants, Lakiya Malone, 48, and Michael Young, 46, were arrested early Wednesday in Los Angeles. A third defendant charged with wire fraud, Donye Mitchell, 55, is considered a fugitive.

Young is the founder of Home At Last, a nonprofit that took in more than $118 million in public funds since 2019 for its stated mission of providing housing and aid to homeless people.

Federal prosecutors say Young instead created shell companies that he claimed were independent contractors but were, in fact, controlled by him. This alleged self-dealing allowed Young to be paid both at Home At Last and overbill federal and local authorities, prosecutors said. They say Young misused an estimated $7.5 million in taxpayer funds through fake contractors and vendors.

Young used the proceeds to take luxury trips to Tahiti, and used funds to open a nightclub in Inglewood called the Six Seven Five Lounge and other commercial real estate projects, prosecutors allege.

Mitchell is the CEO of Big Blue Umbrella, which was awarded more than $1.2 million from a federally supported nonprofit for housing and mental health care aid. Prosecutors say Mitchell not only misstated his organization’s ability to provide such services, but also used money from the award to pay off his credit card debts, give funds to family members, buy video games and pay legal expenses for an unrelated case.

Malone was charged with accepting more than $180,000 in bribes from another homelessness-aid nonprofit. Malone allegedly not only accepted bribes but also placed people in homeless aid programs who weren’t homeless.

Separately, federal prosecutors announced that a fourth person pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering charges for stealing at least $2 million in homeless aid. Alexander Soofer, the executive director of Abundant Blessings, admitted to working with Malone to bill federal and state authorities for homelessness aid services when there were no participants in his programs.

Big money, little documentation

Some 72,000 to 75,000 people live in shelters or encampments in Los Angeles and Los Angeles County, making it one of the largest homeless populations in the country. It has been a significant issue in Southern California for years, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass made it a cornerstone of her 2022 election campaign.

City and county authorities spend roughly $1 billion a year trying to help the homeless population, often using LAHSA to coordinate aid. While significant funds are spent to address the issue, city and county reviews have repeatedly found that the programs lacked appropriate recordkeeping, audit trails and documentation.

Nathan Hochman, the district attorney for Los Angeles County, told reporters that the public should expect more investigations and indictments into the misuse of homeless aid funds. Hochman’s office’s investigation into Soofer and Abundant Blessings led to his indictment earlier this year.

“I can assure this is the beginning of these prosecutions and we are far, far from the end,” he said, adding that his office’s investigation had found that the only “abundant blessings” Soofer provided were to his friends and family.

Some of the Trump administration’s efforts to go after fraud and abuse of government benefit programs have faced criticism and legal challenges. In December, Vice President JD Vance, who chairs the administration’s task force on the subject, amplified a YouTube video of a popular right-wing influencer accusing childcare providers in Minnesota, many of them immigrants from Somalia, of running scams. State authorities visited the centers and found nearly all of them operating normally.

Nonetheless, the administration launched a massive immigration crackdown in Minnesota. Officials later attempted to freeze federal funds for childcare in five Democratic-led states but were halted by a lawsuit.

PARIS: France’s ex-culture minister Rachida Dati appeared in court Wednesday on corruption charges linked to dealings with the Renault-Nissan group, just months after her bruising defeat in the Paris mayoral race.

One of the most prominent figures on the French right, Dati, 60, stood in court dressed in black to hear the charges against her, all of which she denies.

Carlos Ghosn, the fugitive former Renault-Nissan chief now living in Lebanon, is being tried in absentia.

Dati has been dogged by controversies for much of her political career.

She resigned as culture minister in February to concentrate on the Paris mayoral race, but lost to Socialist rival Emmanuel Gregoire in March.

She stands charged with corruption and influence-peddling over alleged lobbying for Renault-Nissan between October 2009 and February 2013 while she was a member of the European Parliament.

She became an MEP after serving as justice minister between 2007 and 2009 under President Nicolas Sarkozy.

She has been accused of accepting 900,000 euros (around $1 million) in lawyers’ fees from a Netherlands-based subsidiary of Renault-Nissan.

Dati, who is still the mayor of the French capital’s wealthy seventh district, denies all the charges.

She faces up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to 450,000 euros, if convicted. She could also face a five-year ban on holding public office.

Her legal team said Dati worked “exclusively” as a lawyer for the Netherlands-based subsidiary.

“Unfounded allegations of influence-peddling in the European Parliament stem from an artificial intellectual construct devised by the prosecution,” her lawyers said.

– ‘Explain facts’ –

French prosecutors argue that a legal services contract signed in 2009 between Dati and Ghosn, under which the former minister was paid an annual fee of 300,000 euros, was used to disguise lobbying work.

Investigators obtained the contract in 2019 during a search of Renault’s headquarters following Ghosn’s arrest in Japan, in a separate case.

Ghosn, the 72-year-old former chairman and chief executive of the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance, was arrested in Japan in 2018 on suspicion of financial misconduct, before being sacked by Nissan’s board.

He made a dramatic escape from Japan hidden in an audio-equipment box, landing in Beirut, where he remains at large.

Ghosn faces a litany of charges, including abuse of power and bribery. He has denied any wrongdoing.

In a letter sent to the court in August and seen by AFP, Ghosn requested that the proceedings be postponed.

Denying any attempt to “delay the trial”, Ghosn said he was prepared to appear by video link to “explain facts” that he disputes.

Dati has repeatedly sought to have the charges against her quashed.

She has also been accused of accepting nearly 300,000 euros in undeclared payments from energy group GDF Suez, also while an MEP.

Prosecutors said last year they were looking into reports that Dati failed to declare jewelry and watches worth 420,000 euros upon taking ministerial office.

She has denied any wrongdoing.

Israel’s defence minister has pledged to remove Palestinians from the besieged Strip.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has rejected any plans for Palestinian displacement, following comments by Israel’s defence minister saying the army would “finish the job” in Gaza.

Speaking during a visit by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday, el-Sisi stressed “Egypt’s firm stance against the displacement of the Palestinian people or any attempt to annihilate the Palestinian cause”, the Wafa news agency reported.

Abbas praised Egypt’s steadfastness in defending Palestinian rights and reiterated that “Gaza is an integral part of our state.”

The Egyptian leader’s comments came hours after Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said the army would “finish the job” in Gaza, “so that we can also implement the migration plan.”

Katz said earlier this month that Israel was ready to remove Palestinians from Gaza by sea and land, but was waiting for the United States, which he said was discussing where the two million people would go.

US Ambassador Mike Huckabee has denied any plan to “displace people out of Gaza against their will”. In February, Huckabee explicitly said he “would be fine” if Israel took most of the Middle East in accordance with his interpretation of the Bible, but then suggested the remark was selectively edited.

Nearly all of Gaza’s population has been internally displaced, and most of the territory lies in rubble after three years of a war that has killed more than 73,700 Palestinians.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said earlier this month that the army would not withdraw from the Gaza Strip, despite a US-backed ceasefire plan that came into effect in October stipulating it as a condition.

Netanyahu claimed Israel controls 60 percent of the Palestinian enclave and promised not to pull back until Hezbollah is disarmed.

His government has been pushing for more Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory in the West Bank, including through a controversial settlement project dubbed E1 designed to construct thousands of housing units between Jerusalem and the Maale Adumim settlement.

Israeli human rights group B’Tselem warned this week that Israel is executing a systematic and accelerated campaign to dismantle “Palestinian collective life” and establish permanent Jewish-Israeli sovereignty across the occupied West Bank.

Saudi digital payments company barq announced the close of a series A funding round worth $329.5 million, at a valuation of $1.85 billion, marking a new milestone that reflects the growth the company has achieved since its launch. The funding round cements its position among the fastest-growing fintech companies in Saudi Arabia and the region.

The round saw participation from Noon Investments, Sohar International Bank, and M20 Fund, a step that reflects investor confidence in barq’s trajectory and future potential, and underscores the appeal of the investment opportunities emerging in the fintech sector across the Kingdom and the region.

The round follows a standout growth journey for barq, which has now surpassed 15 million users within two years, from more than 210 nationalities, alongside the expansion of its ecosystem of digital financial services and solutions — reflecting the growing demand for the company’s products and its ability to build a broad user base within a record period of time.

The value of funds processed has also surpassed SR440 billion ($117.2 billion), an indicator that reflects the scale of activity barq has achieved and the widening use of its digital financial services since launch.

Based on its valuation, barq has become one of the fastest companies in the region to reach unicorn status, and among the fastest globally within the fintech sector, reflecting the pace of growth the company has achieved within a short period since its launch.

The funding round will support barq’s next phase of growth, by strengthening operational efficiency, accelerating the development of products and services, investing in new financial and technology solutions, and expanding into new regional and international markets — contributing to delivering a more advanced and accessible digital financial experience for users.

This achievement comes at a time when Saudi Arabia’s fintech sector is undergoing exceptional development, driven by continued progress in financial and digital infrastructure, a supportive regulatory environment, the targets of Saudi Vision 2030, and the Saudi Central Bank’s efforts to advance digital payments and support innovation in financial services.

The close of the round marks a major milestone in barq’s journey, reflecting its ability to move within a short period from a phase of rapid growth to building a broad-scale digital financial platform, underpinned by a growing user base, an increasing volume of operations, and expansion ambitions aimed at strengthening its presence in the fintech sector at both the regional and international levels.

Are the brakes finally being slammed on the artificial intelligence race? Or are we simply witnessing a wake-up call that has come too late?

Developers are coming forward in numbers these days to say that the speed and direction of travel of AI, machine learning and the tech reaching the human level of intelligence is threatening human existence.

Jacob Coxon, the researcher who quit Anthropic last week, feared that those developing AI systems are “genuinely frightened” for the future of humanity. His words echo a growing anxiety in the field, as well as in government, about the challenges and dangers posed by AI. At this late stage, could there still be room for a U-turn that keeps the machine at the service of humanity, instead of human existence becoming a victim of the machines that have already been built?

Ask anyone on the street and — though they would be all for the progress and the positives the tech is offering in many fields touching human life — they would be quick to roll their eyes in despair when they reflect on AI, the uncertainties it brings and their future job security. Scratch the surface further and their anxiety surges about the impact unregulated tech companies are having on their children, potentially exposing them to unmoderated, manipulated content and often-damaging influence.

People are quick to despair when they reflect on AI, the uncertainties it brings and their future job security

Mohamed Chebaro

Their worries take a turn when they reflect that, even if they safely navigate their children’s youth, the job market may be permanently changing, hurting their prospects in the digitally automated and largely autonomous world of tomorrow.

It was troubling when I read recently that Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates had called, in a 6,000-word essay, for society to intentionally keep certain roles off-limits to the machine. His proposal of setting aside 40 percent of occupations as “human-reserved” is bizarre to say the least, as he better than anyone should be aware that markets, economies and competition do not work this way.

The words of Gates and the AI developers and researchers point to a grave lapse. It seems we have rushed into a race to make the machine supreme, giving artificial general intelligence agency over humans, who could ultimately be replaced by AI and advanced robots. The developers seem to have fallen into the trap of the machine becoming an end in itself and not a tool to serve and ensure the well-being of individuals.

It is not usual for companies and entire industries to plead with the world to make them work less and advance at a slower pace. And who and which institutions should heed their calls when we live in a highly fractured and geopolitically splintered world, in which superpowers and medium powers are vying for supremacy, with AI and its tools becoming their most potent vehicles?

The tech industry has clearly become too big to fail and too big to slow down. An AI slowdown — if there were suggestions its progress could be reversed or even stalled — would significantly affect the long-term direction and costs of the infrastructure boom.

It was surprising and unusual to hear key world leaders defend the sector. In the race for the vast supremacy and advantages it offers, their posture is understandable. The political imperative to press ahead was made clear by both Washington and Beijing. That appears to show that, whatever the private sector does, governments will want to ‌drive this capability precisely because of, not despite, the risks that are now being flagged.

Governments want to ‌drive this capability precisely because of, not despite, the risks that are now being flagged

Mohamed Chebaro

In this competitive world, there is no place for existential worries or fears for humanity and its survival. One country’s slowdown is another’s chance to catch up.

Calls for guardrails, rules and regulations are being constantly ignored or watered down. In a world where multilateralism is waning, technological restrictions like arms controls are useless unless solid conventions enforce them internationally.

The prospect of a multilateral agreement on hard-and-fast rules limiting the capacity of AI seems far-fetched. US President Donald Trump made that clear, saying on social media that “There is a SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China.” The reply from Beijing came through an editorial in China’s state-backed Global Times, which claimed that AI warnings were a “Cold War playbook” targeting Beijing.

A call by Anthropic CEO ‌Dario Amodei to slow the pace of AI development won ⁠rare backing from SpaceXAI’s Elon Musk and OpenAI’s Sam Altman, with all evoking AI “doomerism.” This should surely not be ignored.

The solution should be simple: more cooperation in order to regulate.

According to these tech supremos, reports that swarms of AI agents have been increasingly found to be collaborating with others and hacking outside systems, or that their power was being used to develop harmful biological agents, are just the beginning. The same AI tools might have the potential to take down the internet and everything that relies on it, such as power grids, transport infrastructure, water supplies and banking systems. All of which could be the first call for an act of aggression by any group or state.

AI has become a crucial tool of economic and military prowess. Calls for protocols and conventions to restrain the tech realm have long irked most companies. Yet, if we are to believe some in the tech community, the world has in its hands a calamity in the making that surpasses even the existential nuclear threat, which was ultimately constrained through global moratoriums and conventions. AI is a different beast and, since its onset, humans have been the victims in the name of reducing labor costs.

Over the past decade, labor has become a mere number on a cost sheet. The fear is that humanizing work once again would be a far more complex task — one that the tech giants, the financiers and the state are not ready to undertake, even if it could save humanity from eventual extinction. The world has long since departed from the mindset that the machine should serve humans and not the other way round.

• Mohamed Chebaro is a British-Lebanese journalist with more than 25 years of experience covering war, terrorism, defense, current affairs, and diplomacy.

Mohamed Chebaro is a British-Lebanese journalist with more than 25 years’ experience covering war, terrorism, defense, current affairs and diplomacy. He is also a media consultant and trainer.

More from Mohamed Chebaro

DUBAI: Film AlUla has signed a memorandum of understanding with international film financier Sherborne Media at the 2026 Toronto International Film Festival, establishing a financial framework designed to expand production support for Saudi, regional, and international filmmakers shooting in AlUla in the northwest of Saudi Arabia.

Qualifying productions filming in AlUla will be able to access debt financing solutions secured against available production rebates, grants, incentives, and soft money. The combined support packages will cover up to 50 percent of eligible production expenditure incurred in AlUla.

The partnership aims to address one of the filmmaking industry’s key barriers: upfront liquidity for producers against their contracted rebate and incentives receivables, ensuring sufficient cash flow to facilitate production.

By providing a standardized, transparent process for financial due diligence, the initiative supports established Saudi, MENA (Middle East and North Africa), and international storytellers in bringing their projects to life using AlUla’s production facilities, purpose-built soundstages, and historic landscapes.

The partnership will also integrate workforce development opportunities to support the sustainable growth of Saudi Arabia’s film industry. Film AlUla and Sherborne will collaborate on structured training programmes, crew upskilling, and local hiring initiatives to build long-term regional production capacity.

Zaid Shaker, acting executive director of Film AlUla, said: “Financing remains one of the most critical challenges facing creators today — particularly for emerging creators in Saudi Arabia and the region. Our partnership with Sherborne Media allows us to establish an efficient, transparent mechanism that bridges the gap between creative vision and financial execution. By pairing our state-of-the-art facilities and rebate structures with institutional debt solutions, we are providing a reliable platform for local and international artists to tell authentic, compelling stories – right here in AlUla.”

Alastair Burlingham, CO-CEO of Sherborne Media, said: “Saudi Arabia’s screen sector is expanding rapidly, supported by strategic leadership and infrastructure investment. After the successful financing and production of ‘Chasing Red’ earlier in 2026, and leveraging the services offered by Caravan — our Saudi joint venture company with Stampede — we are delighted to join forces with Film AlUla during TIFF 2026 to help facilitate its growth by introducing a structured financing model.

“Curated credit facilities against soft money and incentives receivables give producers the financial certainty required to execute high-quality feature and television projects efficiently in AlUla.”

DUBAI: Hezbollah must prioritize Lebanon’s interests over those of Iran for progress to be made on disarming the group and advancing negotiations with Israel, deputy speaker in the Lebanese Parliament, Elias Bou Saab, said on Wednesday, as negotiations remain frozen amid the wider US war on Iran.

Lebanon’s government cannot secure a lasting agreement with Israel without Hezbollah’s backing for the transfer of weapons to state control Bou Saab said at the Arab Media Summit in Dubai, in a session titled “Lebanon at a Crossroads.”

But a key aspect of moving negotiations further is getting on the same page with Hezbollah, said Bou Saab.

“If the Lebanese state does not have Hezbollah’s approval, it is negotiating over something that it cannot deliver.

“That’s why Hezbollah needs to be convinced that we need to reach a solution to the issue of handing over weapons and ensuring that weapons are exclusively in the hands of the Lebanese state,” he said.

Bou Saab emphasized the need to disarm Hezbollah and ensure that the Lebanese army is the only armed force in Lebanon.

But he said that disarmament was not enough.

“The issue is not simply about handing over weapons. There need to be guarantees, including the liberation of Lebanese territory and prisoners, and guarantees that Israel will not attack Lebanon,” he said.

“The negotiations are directly linked to what is happening between the US and Iran. We have to wait and see what happens between the US and Iran to know what will happen in Lebanon and when the war in Lebanon will end,” said Bou Saab.

The MP said Lebanon was, at this stage, trying to prevent trying a further escalation and expansion of the war.

The US has been sponsoring talks between Israel and Lebanon aimed at putting an end to hostilities, with Beirut seeking Israel’s phased withdrawal from the south.

In June, Israel and Lebanon agreed to a framework deal that involves the disarmament of Hezbollah, a gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon’s south and the deployment of the Lebanese army to the region, starting in test areas known as “pilot zones.”

But elections in Israel and the US are putting the negotiations on hold, explained Bou Saab.

“Perhaps after the Israeli and American elections, we will enter a new phase, and that is when the serious discussions about Lebanon’s future will begin.”

He added: “I expect that after the elections perhaps during the period before Christmas, or extending into the period after Christmas will be the most serious period for discussions about Lebanon’s future and where we are heading.”

Beijing: China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Beijing was willing to “safeguard” Iran’s rights during talks with his counterpart Abbas Araghchi on Wednesday, as Beijing seeks to mediate in Tehran’s war with the United States.

China is “willing to strengthen dialogue and cooperation with Iran, and safeguard Iran’s legitimate rights and interests”, Wang told Araghchi as they met in the Chinese capital.

“We encourage Iran and the US to stay rational and restrained,” he added.

The talks come one week before an expected trip by Chinese President Xi Jinping to Washington, where he will meet US President Donald Trump.

China, a top economic partner of Iran, has long sought a detente in the months-long conflict in the Middle East, which has at times spilled over into neighbouring countries.

“We do not wish to see regional tensions spilling over into Yemen and the Red Sea,” Wang said.

Recent fighting that flared up in Yemen between government forces and the Iran-backed Houthis has displaced more than 100,000 people inside the country while thousands have fled abroad, according to the United Nations.

The war in Iran will be a closely watched topic at Xi’s meeting with Trump, among other thorny issues ranging from trade to competition over artificial intelligence.

Beijing refuted this week US media reports that Chinese entities supplied Tehran with satellite images of a military base housing US troops in Jordan, before and after an Iranian strike killed three American soldiers.

Trump has warned Beijing not to sell weapons to Iran, and Washington sanctioned three China-based satellite companies in May for enabling Iran’s military operations.

Prosecutors said that the group worked on behalf of Russian intelligence services to carry out attacks and murders around the world.

Five people have been charged over alleged Russian intelligence-linked plots involving surveillance, recruitment and planned killings, according to an indictment unsealed by the United States Department of Justice.

Prosecutors said on Tuesday that the group worked on behalf of Russian intelligence services to carry out attacks and murders internationally, including within the US, and that all five remain at large.

The defendants were identified as Russian national Yuri Khrameev, 63, his son Kirill Khrameev, 27, Cubans Oemis Romagoza Durruthy and Yaidel Delgado Suarez, both 35, and 22-year-old Venezuelan Angel Eduardo Castro.

All five were charged with conspiring to finance terrorism, while Khrameev, Suarez and Castro face additional charges of conspiring to commit murder for hire.

At a news conference, Attorney General Todd Blanche said the plots included attempts to kill a Russian dissident believed to be living in the Washington, DC area.

Justice Department officials said the network had recruited several people in the US to carry out surveillance on Russian dissidents, targeting individuals both domestically and in Lithuania.

In one instance, a recruit was reportedly promised $40,000 to make a US-based target “disappear”. A separate recruit was allegedly offered $25,000 the previous year to kill someone in Lithuania.

Russia’s embassy in the US has not commented on the case. Moscow has consistently rejected accusations that it has orchestrated assassination operations on foreign soil, including in the US.

Howard Webb says the referees’ body is disappointed with the decision to allow Haaland’s goal against Manchester United.

Pro Ref chief Howard Webb said “tunnel vision” led video assistant referee (VAR) officials to wrongly award Erling Haaland’s goal in Sunday’s Manchester derby at Old Trafford.

Haaland’s second-half strike was initially ruled out for offside before being allowed to stand following a VAR review that concluded the Manchester City forward was onside.

Pro Ref, the body responsible for refereeing in English professional football, later acknowledged the goal should not have been awarded because VAR failed to properly assess the involvement of teammate Enzo Fernandez, who attempted to play the ball from an offside position.

“I was really disappointed with this outcome. We all are. None more so than the officials themselves,” Webb, Pro Ref’s chief refereeing officer, said on Match Officials Mic’d Up on Sky Sports and TNT Sports.

“They take a lot of personal pride in what they do, and they’re obviously hurting now having fallen short in this situation.”

VAR is a refereeing support tool designed to enable the checking, reviewing and correction of clear and obvious errors during a match, according to FIFA. It was intended to be a combination of human expertise and technological accuracy, but has instead become a sour topic in football circles.

Current and former United players, including club legend Wayne Rooney, labelled the use of VAR “horrendous”, while football experts told Al Jazeera the technology has become “far too dominant” in decision-making.

Webb confirmed that VAR officials Matt Donohue and assistant VAR Blake Antrobus would not officiate again until after the international break.

“We’ve reached out to Manchester United and acknowledged the error, as we do when these things happen,” Webb said.

Explaining the decision-making process, Webb said the semi-automated offside system quickly established that Haaland was onside, but the VAR became overly focused on the striker’s position and failed to fully consider Fernandez’s influence on the play.

“But of course, when he then runs it back through the full APP, he doesn’t truly evaluate the full impact of Fernandez’s position,” Webb said.

“He has a look to see if he touches the ball, because then that relates to potentially knocking it to Haaland, who goes on to score. He doesn’t touch the ball, but he doesn’t truly evaluate other elements of offside. In that moment, he gets tunnel vision.”

Manchester United manager Michael Carrick criticised the decision after his side’s 1-0 home defeat, their second loss in four Premier League matches this season.

United next host Brighton in the League Cup on Wednesday before travelling to Fulham in the Premier League on Sunday.

For a third time, the US House approved a war powers resolution, halting Trump’s ability to continue military action.

For a third time, the US House has voted to end the war in Iran, approving a war powers resolution that would halt President Donald Trump’s ability to continue military action without congressional approval.

The roll call late Tuesday, 220-204, was similar to earlier efforts this summer, with a few more Republicans joining all Democrats voting to bring an end to the conflict.

Seven House Republicans backed the resolution, including three voting in favour for the first time.

Iowa congressman Zach Nunn, a Republican, explained his vote saying that “with the negotiating window closed, sustained combat operations now require congressional authorization.”

“I will not support another open-ended war,” Nunn said.

None of the resolutions has made it to the president’s desk, where Trump would almost certainly veto the measure.

Republican Representative Brian Mast of Florida, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, questioned which military resources Democrats would want to remove from the region where he said Iran remains a threat.

Mast said Trump is against “forever wars, and that is what he is ending” – the decades of hostilities from Iran.

“They are a continuous ongoing threat to the United States,” Mast said. “Enough is enough.”

The run-up to the midterms

The action is likely to be the last House vote on the Iran war ahead of the midterm elections, where the conflict overseas is playing a substantial role in the political campaigns. The war that Trump launched on February 28 has dragged on, with on-again, off-again deadly missile strikes being exchanged and causing havoc in the region for nearly seven months.

Lawmakers are heading home at the end of the week to campaign nearly full-time, with fewer than 50 days to go before the elections that will determine control of Congress as Democrats try to wrest power from Republicans.

US war on Iran

The US war on Iran is worsening inflation and straining the country’s munitions stockpiles, a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found.

The report, released on Tuesday, found that the cost of the six-month war has reached $38bn and is expected to rise by $3bn per month. The war is projected to increase inflation by 0.5 percentage points in the first three months of 2027.

Trump himself had promised not to involve the US in foreign wars when he won a second term in the White House, and his actions against Iran are weighing on the Republican Party that controls the House and Senate.

Most Americans say the war in Iran has not been worth fighting, according to an AP-NORC poll in July.

Previous war resolutions

Congress has tried repeatedly to alter the trajectory of the war against Iran, but efforts to limit the Trump administration’s military action remain a long shot so long as the president can fend off or veto the measures.

The House first approved a war powers resolution in June, and followed up with another one in July, both seeking to halt US action in Iran. The Senate on its 10th try also approved a war powers resolution to end the conflict, but Republican senators quickly reversed course the next day after Trump berated them during a closed-door lunch.

While the Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, it also gives the president authority as the commander-in-chief to engage in some military actions. The War Powers Act, created after the Vietnam conflict, sought to impose a more specific time limit on the president’s power, requiring congressional approval for sustained military actions after 60 or 90 days.