ceasefire

Al Jazeera’s Manuel Rapalo reports from Washington, where the first of two days of US-mediated ambassador-level talks between Israel and Lebanon concluded on Thursday. A ceasefire between them expires on Sunday, though Israel has killed 512 Lebanese since its implementation on April 17.

JERUSALEM — Nickolay Mladenov, the top diplomat overseeing the U.S.-brokered ceasefire in Gaza, said Wednesday the truce hinged on Hamas’ disarmament, a sticking point that has stalled progress on other fronts, including rebuilding the mostly destroyed enclave.

The high representative for President Trump’s International Board of Peace in Gaza, Mladenov, said months without progress implementing the deal benefited neither Israel nor Palestinians. He said the phased deal was paralyzed over Hamas not yet disarming, calling it “not negotiable.”

International mediators have long said disarmament is core to the ceasefire, to which Hamas has agreed, but no significant progress has been made toward it. The Palestinian militant group has sought to link any demilitarization to Israeli troop pullbacks. Israel’s military remains in control of more than half of Gaza.

“The only way that we believe that we can ensure that Israeli withdrawal takes place to the perimeter is if we have the full element of the plan unfolding in Gaza,” Mladenov said at a rare press conference in Jerusalem.

Mladenov stated plainly that the plan envisioned in the ceasefire was off to a rocky start. He also said conditions remain dire and miserable for the more than 2 million people in Gaza. He accused both sides of violating the ceasefire but said it had mostly held and staved off the return of full-scale war.

Disarmament is among the most challenging elements of the ceasefire. Hamas, whose founding charter calls for armed resistance against Israel, has been reluctant to give up its arsenal, including rockets, anti-tank missiles, and explosives.

Mladenov did not answer questions about what could lie ahead for Gaza in the absence of disarmament. He criticized Hamas for consolidating power in parts of Gaza under its control, saying it hoped “to squeeze better terms of a negotiation.”

He also said that he could envision a role for Hamas in postwar Gaza if it disarms.

“We are not asking Hamas to disappear as a political movement,” Mladenov told reporters.

Israeli leaders have said they want to destroy the militant group that has governed Gaza for two decades and orchestrated the attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing some 1,200 people and taking 251 as hostages.

Israel’s ensuing offensive has killed over 72,724 Palestinians, including at least 846 since a ceasefire took hold last October.

Mladenov’s remarks came as the Board of Peace faces scrutiny, with efforts to advance the phased ceasefire stalled.

The truce envisioned Hamas handing over its weapons, Israeli forces withdrawing and rebuilding destroyed swaths of the coastal enclave after more than two years of war.

Instead, the seven months since the ceasefire have seen Israel and Hamas trade accusations of violations. Aid groups say Israel has not allowed the promised amount of aid in. Hamas has not disarmed and remains in control of roughly half the strip.

Trump’s 20-point plan says that all of Hamas’ “military, terror and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities” in Gaza must be destroyed. It also says that weapons must be placed “permanently beyond use.”

Israel and the U.S. say this language is clear and that Hamas must surrender all of its weapons.

Hamas has sought to differentiate between “heavy” weapons, such as rockets, and “light” weapons like rifles and pistols, Hamas officials and mediators say, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the negotiations.

Israel has stepped up its attacks in Gaza in recent days, since the U.S.-Iran ceasefire, and many Palestinians fear a return of more airstrikes and full-scale war may be imminent.

Frankel and Metz write for the Associated Press.

Iran’s parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf says US has ‘no alternative but to accept’ Tehran’s 14-point proposal to end war.

The continued clashes and drone strikes reported by Ukraine despite a United States brokered ceasefire reveal the deep structural difficulties facing diplomatic efforts to end the Russia Ukraine war. Although both Moscow and Kyiv formally agreed to a temporary ceasefire between May 9 and May 11, reports of ongoing battlefield engagements, drone operations, and civilian casualties demonstrate how fragile and limited such agreements have become in the context of prolonged modern warfare.

The ceasefire emerged as part of a broader diplomatic push led by United States President Donald Trump to reduce hostilities and create momentum toward wider peace negotiations. However, within days both Russia and Ukraine accused each other of violations, exposing the absence of trust, verification mechanisms, and shared strategic objectives between the two sides.

The developments illustrate a broader reality increasingly visible in contemporary conflicts. Ceasefires no longer necessarily represent steps toward peace. Instead, they often function as temporary tactical pauses within wars that continue politically, militarily, and psychologically even during formal periods of de escalation.

The Structural Fragility of Modern Ceasefires

The Ukraine conflict demonstrates why ceasefires in modern interstate wars are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Unlike traditional wars where front lines were relatively static and centralized military command structures exercised greater control, contemporary conflicts involve decentralized operations, drone warfare, rapid communication systems, and continuous battlefield surveillance.

In such environments, even limited military activity can quickly trigger accusations of violations and retaliation. The reported drone attacks, artillery clashes, and combat engagements along the front line reflect how difficult it is to fully halt military operations across an extensive and heavily militarized battlefield.

Furthermore, both Russia and Ukraine continue to pursue strategic objectives incompatible with lasting compromise. Russia seeks to consolidate territorial gains and maintain pressure on Ukrainian forces, while Ukraine aims to resist occupation and preserve sovereignty. Without broader political agreement regarding the war’s fundamental issues, temporary ceasefires remain highly vulnerable to collapse.

The result is a situation where ceasefires may reduce the intensity of conflict in some areas while violence continues in others, creating ambiguity regarding whether peace efforts are genuinely progressing.

Drone Warfare and the Transformation of the Battlefield

One of the most significant features of the current conflict is the central role of drones in sustaining military operations even during ceasefire periods. Ukraine’s military reported thousands of so called kamikaze drone deployments, while Russia simultaneously accused Ukraine of launching drone attacks into Russian territory.

Drone warfare fundamentally alters the nature of ceasefires because unmanned systems allow states to maintain pressure without large scale troop offensives. Drones can conduct reconnaissance, target infrastructure, disrupt logistics, and inflict psychological pressure while remaining below the threshold of full conventional escalation.

This creates a strategic grey zone where both sides can continue military activity while formally claiming commitment to ceasefire agreements. The low cost, flexibility, and deniability associated with drone operations make them especially attractive during periods of limited diplomatic engagement.

The widespread use of drones also reflects the broader transformation of modern warfare into a technologically driven conflict characterized by constant surveillance and persistent low intensity attacks. In this environment, the distinction between war and ceasefire becomes increasingly blurred.

The apparent breakdown of the ceasefire also highlights the growing limitations facing United States led diplomatic efforts. Although Washington remains deeply influential in shaping international negotiations surrounding the conflict, its ability to enforce compliance remains constrained.

Temporary ceasefires require more than political announcements. They depend on verification systems, mutual trust, enforcement mechanisms, and shared incentives for de escalation. None of these conditions currently exist at sufficient levels between Russia and Ukraine.

Moreover, both sides appear to view military pressure as essential to strengthening their negotiating positions. This creates a paradox where diplomacy and warfare occur simultaneously rather than sequentially. Ceasefires therefore become instruments for tactical adjustment rather than genuine pathways toward peace.

The involvement of the United States also introduces additional geopolitical dimensions. Russia continues to frame the conflict as part of a broader confrontation with Western influence, while Ukraine depends heavily on Western military and diplomatic support. These dynamics complicate efforts to establish neutral or mutually accepted mediation frameworks.

Humanitarian Consequences and Civilian Vulnerability

Despite diplomatic initiatives, civilians continue to bear the costs of ongoing violence. Reports of deaths and injuries across regions including Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Mykolaiv demonstrate how even limited ceasefire violations can produce severe humanitarian consequences.

Modern conflicts increasingly expose civilian populations to continuous insecurity because fighting extends beyond conventional front lines. Drone strikes, missile attacks, and artillery exchanges create environments where daily life remains unstable regardless of official diplomatic announcements.

This persistent insecurity also produces long term social and psychological effects. Populations living under repeated cycles of ceasefire and renewed violence may gradually lose confidence in diplomatic processes altogether. Such conditions weaken public trust in negotiations and reinforce perceptions that military outcomes remain more decisive than political agreements.

The humanitarian dimension therefore remains central to understanding the broader implications of the war. Beyond territorial disputes and geopolitical competition, the conflict continues to reshape civilian life, displacement patterns, and regional stability across Eastern Europe.

The Strategic Logic Behind Continued Fighting

The continuation of battlefield clashes despite the ceasefire reflects rational strategic calculations by both parties. Neither Russia nor Ukraine wishes to allow the other side opportunities to regroup, reinforce positions, or gain battlefield advantage during temporary pauses.

For Russia, maintaining pressure along advancing sectors preserves momentum and signals military resolve. For Ukraine, continued resistance demonstrates operational resilience and prevents normalization of Russian territorial control.

This strategic logic makes limited violations almost inevitable in prolonged wars where military outcomes remain uncertain. Ceasefires become fragile because both sides fear that restraint could weaken their broader position in future negotiations or battlefield developments.

The situation also reflects how wars of attrition generate incentives for constant pressure rather than stable pauses. Each side seeks to exhaust the opponent economically, militarily, and psychologically over time.

Analysis

The reported ceasefire violations in Ukraine demonstrate the growing difficulty of achieving meaningful de escalation in modern high intensity conflicts. Temporary agreements may reduce some forms of violence, but they rarely address the deeper strategic, political, and technological dynamics sustaining prolonged warfare.

The Ukraine conflict illustrates several important realities shaping contemporary international security. First, ceasefires without comprehensive political frameworks remain highly unstable. Second, drone warfare and decentralized military technologies blur the distinction between peace and conflict. Third, diplomatic efforts increasingly coexist with ongoing military operations rather than replacing them.

The events also reveal the limits of external mediation in wars where core strategic objectives remain fundamentally incompatible. As long as both Russia and Ukraine continue viewing military pressure as essential to their long term goals, ceasefires are likely to function more as tactical interruptions than genuine transitions toward peace.

Ultimately, the fragility of the current ceasefire reflects a broader transformation in warfare itself. Modern conflicts are no longer defined solely by formal declarations of war or peace, but by continuous cycles of negotiation, limited escalation, technological warfare, and strategic uncertainty.

With information from Reuters.

Published on 11/05/2026 – 7:59 GMT+2•Updated
8:11

Oil prices surged in early trade as investors digested the latest developments in the Middle East, with both Brent and US crude climbing over 4%.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

It comes after Trump’s rejection of Tehran’s response to the latest US proposition on bringing the conflict in Iran, and subsequent impact on trade passing through the Strait of Hormuz, to an end.

In other trading, US futures edged lower, while Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 fell 0.4% to 62,486.84 after briefly reaching another record high in intraday trading at above 63,300.

South Korea’s Kospi gained 4.1% to 7,804.71. It also hit an all-time intraday high, led by gains from tech-related stocks including Samsung Electronics and memory chip maker SK Hynix.

Technology-related stocks and growing artificial intelligence-related interest have supported markets in Japan and South Korea despite the Iran war, with the Nikkei 225 and Kospi rising more than 10% and 30%, respectively, over the past month.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump will head to China this week for talks with his counterpart, Xi Jinping. The two leaders are expected to discuss a wide range of topics, including trade concerns.

A fragile ceasefire in the US-Israel war on Iran is coming under growing strain as several Gulf countries have reported drone attacks.

Qatar said on Sunday that a drone struck a cargo ship in Qatari waters, sparking a fire, while Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates said they repelled drone attacks.

Though no Gulf country reported casualties in the latest attacks, they have put pressure on the fragile ceasefire, which took effect on April 8.

Qatar’s Ministry of Defence said the freighter had been arriving in the country’s waters from the UAE capital, Abu Dhabi, and was hit by a drone northeast of the port of Mesaieed.

“The vessel continued its journey toward Mesaieed Port after the fire was brought under control,” the ministry said.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) said a bulk carrier reported being struck by an “unknown projectile”, and a small fire had been extinguished, but there were no casualties from the incident. “There is no reported environmental impact,” it said.

Kuwait’s Defence Ministry said a “number of hostile drones” were detected in the country’s airspace at dawn. In a post on X, a spokesperson said the drones were dealt with “in accordance with established procedures”, but did not specify where the drones were launched from.

The UAE Defence Ministry said two Iranian drones were intercepted.

“UAE air defence systems successfully engaged two UAVs launched from Iran,” the ministry said in a statement on X.

Ceasefire tested

The Trump administration has said the truce is still in effect, but a naval battle has been taking place in the Gulf region, with Iran restricting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which a fifth of traded oil transited before the war, and the United States imposing a blockade of Iranian ports.

Several attacks have been reported on ships in the Gulf and the countries in the region over the past week.

On Friday, the US struck two Iranian oil tankers, saying they were trying to breach its blockade of Iran’s ports.

On Tuesday, the UAE said it came under attack from Iranian missiles and drones for the second day in a row. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), however, denied the claim.

The IRGC Navy on Sunday reiterated its warning that any attack on Iranian oil tankers or commercial vessels would be met with a “heavy assault” on one of the bases in the region used by US forces and enemy ships.

The spokesperson for the Iranian parliament’s foreign policy and security committee, Ebrahim Rezaei, said Tehran’s “restraint is over”.

“Any aggression against our vessels will be met with a heavy and decisive Iranian response against American vessels and bases,” Rezaei wrote on X.

“The clock is ticking against the Americans’ interests; it is to their benefit not to act foolishly and sink themselves deeper into the quagmire they have fallen into. The best course is to surrender and concede concessions. You must get used to the new regional order,” he added.

Talks to end the war

While the truce remains in effect, President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to resume the US bombardment if Iran does not accept a deal which includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz and rolling back its nuclear programme.

Iran is still mulling its response to a 14-point proposal by Washington, with Iranian frozen assets and war reparations among other main sticking points.

In a meeting with US Secretary of State Marc Rubio on Saturday, Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani pushed for all parties to respond to the ongoing mediation efforts and to reach an agreement for lasting peace.

Qatar’s prime minister also held a phone call with Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, the Qatari foreign ministry reported on Sunday.

Sheikh Mohammed told Araghchi that Iran’s use of the Strait of Hormuz as a “pressure card” would only deepen the crisis in the Gulf, and said all parties in the conflict should respond to mediation efforts to end the war.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Tohid Assadi said when it comes to diplomatic engagement, it seems that the US and Iran want the content of any negotiations to remain private.

Meanwhile, there is a mixture of different sentiments among Iranian citizens, he noted.

“Since the early days of the war, people have gathered to show their sense of nationalism and support for the political establishment,” he said.

“But we also know that there is a sense of frustration, especially when it comes to soaring prices and economic difficulties,” he added.

At a meeting on the reconstruction after damage caused by the war, President Masoud Pezeshkian said negotiations with the US on ending the war do not mean Iran is surrendering.

“The goal is to realise the rights of the Iranian people and defend national interests with authority,” he said.

May 8 (UPI) — Russia and Ukraine on Friday confirmed a three-day cease-fire and prisoner swap, which they said was agreed to after their leaders spoke with U.S. President Donald Trump.

Trump announced in a post on Truth Social that the countries agreed to pause the conflict Saturday through Monday, and for both country to swap 1,000 prisoners each that have been captured during the four-year war.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed the agreement in a post on X, and said that he has instructed his team to “promptly prepare everything necessary for the exchange.”

Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov also confirmed the deal, saying that Russian President Vladimir Putin found it acceptable and that Russia “welcomes” it, Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency reported.

The deal comes less than a day before Russia celebrates Victory Day, its annual commemoration of the allied powers victory over Nazi Germany in World War II.

“This request was made directly by me, and I very much appreciate its agreement by President Vladimir Putin and President Volodymir Zelenskyy,” Trump said in the post, referring to calls he placed to both leaders and which they confirmed.

“Hopefully, [the cease-fire] is the beginning of the end of a very long, deadly, hard fought War,” Trump said. “Talks are continuing on ending this Major Conflict, the biggest since World War II, and we are getting closer and closer every day.”

The cease-fire in the biggest land war in Europe since World War II will include “a suspension of all kinetic activity,” as well as countries returning 1,000 prisoners each to one another.

Zelensky said there had been appeals and signals about a potential cease-fire to start on Saturday because of Victory Day, which motivated it to negotiate the pause and pursue the return of Ukrainians held during the war.

“An additional argument for Ukraine in determining our position has always been the resolution of one of the key humanitarian issues of this war — namely, the release of prisoners of war,” he said. “Red Square is less important to us than the lives of Ukrainian prisoners who can be brought home.”

Ushakov said that Trump, during the call with Putin, emphasized that Russia and the United States were allies during World War II, pointing to Victory Day as a potential date to start a cease-fire.

“An agreement on this matter was reached during our telephone contacts with the U.S. administration,” Ushakov said. “In turn, U.S. representatives were in contact with Kyiv.”

Preah Vihear/Siem Reap provinces – When asked how she spends her day, 11-year-old Sokna rattled off a list of chores.

She first fetches water, then washes dishes and sweeps the leaves and dust from around the blue tarpaulin tent her family now calls home, in the grounds of a Buddhist pagoda in northwestern Cambodia.

Sokna and her sister have stopped attending school, their mother Puth Reen said, since moving to this camp for people displaced by the recent rounds of fighting between Thailand and Cambodia.

The two sisters are among more than 34,440 people who remain in displacement camps in Cambodia – 11,355 of whom are children – as of this month, according to the country’s Ministry of Interior.

“I tried to tell them to go to school, but they don’t go,” Puth Reen told Al Jazeera, explaining how precarious life had become since returning to live in Cambodia after fleeing neighbouring Thailand, where she had worked for many years, as the fighting started.

Like Puth Reen and her family, the future looks murky for the tens of thousands of Cambodians – including many schoolchildren – who are still in displacement camps, and their lives remain disrupted months after the last outbreak of fighting between Thailand and Cambodia.

Forced to flee their homes in areas where local troops are now stationed and on high alert, or in areas occupied by opposing Thai forces, Cambodia’s internally displaced say they are surviving off aid donations, while those more fortunate are transitioning from emergency tents into wooden stilted houses provided by the Cambodian government.

But with tension still evident between the leadership in Bangkok and Phnom Penh, the tenuous ceasefire along the Thai-Cambodia border means life cannot yet return to normality.

Some areas on the Cambodian border, such as the villages of Chouk Chey and Prey Chan in Banteay Meanchey province, have become rallying points for nationalists who post on social media about the Thai occupation of Cambodian territory. Their anger is directed at the large shipping containers and barbed wire that Thai forces have used to block access to villages once inhabited by Cambodians and occupied during fighting.

The Thai military-installed containers now form a sort of new frontier between the two countries.

The Cambodian military has also prevented people, such as local farmer Sun Reth, 67, from returning to their homes in front-line areas, which are still highly militarised zones, with troops ready at any moment for a new round of fighting.

“Now the Cambodian military base is just next to [my house],” Sun Reth said, adding that she was not allowed by authorities to sleep in her modest home or pick cashew nuts from her farm to sell for a little income.

Cambodian children more focused on ‘rumours’ of war

The long-held border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia erupted into two rounds of conflict last year, over five days in July and almost three weeks in December.

Dozens were reported killed on both sides, and hundreds of thousands of civilians fled their homes as both countries’ armed forces fired artillery, rockets, and, in the case of Thailand, conducted air strikes deep into Cambodian territory. Thailand has a modern air force, a military capability not possessed by its smaller neighbour.

Cambodian and Thai officials reached a ceasefire on December 27, but the situation remains tense five months on.

For families who fled the fighting, school continues for most children in the displacement camps, but parents say education is fragmented while their lives are still so unsettled.

Mothers at the Wat Bak Kam camp for the displaced in Preah Vihear province told Al Jazeera that primary school students can join classes at a local school, but high school students need to travel daily to the provincial capital, about 15km (9 miles) away.

Now the rising cost of petrol, due to the US-Israel war on Iran, has made it even harder for teenaged students, who have access to motorcycles, to make the journey to school.

Kinmai Phum, technical lead for WorldVision’s education programme, which is providing support to the camps, said school dropout rates and children skipping classes have increased substantially among students from the displaced border regions.

Kinmai Phum said the situation is a perfect storm of problems: Displaced families have been forced to move around for shelters, schools and temporary learning spaces lack facilities, and some students have psychological trauma due to the conflict.

“Local authorities [are] concerned that many children may not return to school at all if displacement and economic hardship persist,” Kinmai Phum said.

Yuon Phally, a mother of two, said she had noticed the impact of the war on her daughter and son, who are in their first and third years in primary school.

When they return from school, Yuon Phally said, they tell her about rumours they had heard about Cambodia and Thailand resuming fighting.

“Their feeling is not fully focused on school; they focus more on these rumours,” she said.

Her children’s world was more impacted by the conflict because their father is a soldier stationed in the Mom Bei area of the border.

During the fighting in December, Yuon Phally said she could not convince her children to go to school because they all waited to see if their father would call on a mobile phone from the front line.

“I couldn’t hold back my tears, and that added more pressure onto my kids,” she said.

“They would ask about their dad and how he is doing now. Then they told me to eat rice. They understood my feelings.”

She said her children’s focus on their studies only improved after their father returned from fighting to the camp where they are staying, to rest and recover from sickness and injuries sustained in battle.

‘Who doesn’t want to have peace?’

Soeum Sokhem, a deputy village chief, told Al Jazeera how his home is located in the militarised “danger zone” along the border, but he feels compelled to return every few days to check on his house, tend crops, sleep an occasional night, and check in with other neighbours doing the same.

“I can’t just stay here”, he said of camp life.

“I have to go back.”

When asked how he felt about the border war, Soeum Sokhem said he had experienced so much war in Cambodia that he did not know how to describe his “inner feeling like I really want to”.

He then listed off all the conflicts he had lived through in Cambodia since the 1960s: The spill over into Cambodia from the US war in neighbouring Vietnam; the US bombing campaign in Cambodia; the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime, and the civil war that followed after Vietnam’s intervention to topple the regime’s leader Pol Pot in 1979, and which lasted until the mid-1990s.

Then in the 2000s, sporadic border fights with Thailand began, he said.

Cambodia’s contemporary history has been anything but peaceful, a fact which might explain why the current Cambodian government so often speaks of peace. Government buildings and billboards proclaim the government’s unofficial motto: “Thanks for peace.”

“But who doesn’t want to have peace?” Soeum Sokhem said, after charting his life and the many conflicts he had lived through.

Now the 67-year-old said he once again hears gunfire occasionally when he returns to check on his home on the front line.

“Before, when I walked there, it was normal,” he said.

“But nowadays, I walk with fear when going back there.”

BREAKINGBREAKING,

Truce will also include swap of 1,000 prisoners of war from each country, US president says.

⁠United States ⁠President Donald Trump ⁠says ‌there will be a three-day ceasefire in ⁠the war between ⁠Russia and ⁠Ukraine.

Posting on Truth Social on Friday, the US leader said the truce would last from ⁠Saturday to Monday.

“I am pleased to announce that there will be a THREE DAY CEASEFIRE (May 9th, 10th, and 11th) in the War between Russia and Ukraine,” Trump posted.

“The Celebration in Russia is for Victory Day but, likewise, in Ukraine, because they were also a big part and factor of World War II. This Ceasefire will include a suspension of all kinetic activity, and also a prison swap of 1,000 prisoners from each Country,” he added.

Russia had previously announced a two-day unilateral ceasefire to mark its May 9 World War II Victory Day on Saturday.

Ukraine previously stated that it too had offered a truce but that this had been ignored by Moscow.

“This request was made directly by me,” Trump said on Friday, thanking his Russian and Ukrainian counterparts Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy for agreeing to it.

“Talks are continuing” on ending the war, Trump said, adding that “we are getting closer and closer every day”.

“Hopefully, it is the beginning of the end of a very long, deadly, and hard fought War.”

More to come…

Warring sides accuse each other of violations as attacks continue across front lines.

Russia and Ukraine have accused each other of breaching a short ceasefire announced by Moscow to coincide with Victory Day commemorations marking the Soviet Union’s defeat of Nazi Germany.

The Kremlin said its forces downed 264 Ukrainian drones early on Friday, with officials in Moscow reporting attempted attacks on the capital and in the Perm region in the Ural Mountains.

The truce, declared from May 8 to May 10, was intended to cover annual celebrations that include a military parade in Moscow.

Russia had warned that any disruption would trigger a large-scale missile response against Kyiv, urging foreign diplomats to leave the Ukrainian capital before potential escalation.

In a separate announcement, the Russian transport ministry said on Friday that 13 airports in Russia’s south halted operations due to drone attacks.

“Operations at the regional centre in Rostov-on-Don, which manages air traffic in southern Russia, have been temporarily suspended after Ukrainian drone struck the administrative building of the ‘Southern Russia Air Navigation’ branch,” the ministry said.

There were no casualties, it added.

Victory Day commemorations mark the Soviet Union’s loss of 27 million people in World War II, as it drove Nazi forces back to Berlin, where Adolf Hitler died, and the Red Army’s Soviet Victory Banner was raised over the Reichstag in May 1945.

‘We will defend our people’s lives’

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Russian forces continued to attack positions overnight, dismissing the ceasefire as ineffective.

He said Russia had carried out more than 140 attacks on front-line positions by early morning, alongside 10 assaults and more than 850 drone attacks.

“As we did over the past 24 hours, Ukraine will respond in kind today as well. We will defend our positions and people’s lives,” Zelenskyy said.

Ukraine also reported striking a Russian oil facility in Yaroslavl, deep inside Russian territory, in what Kyiv described as retaliation for attacks on its cities.

“Ukraine’s long-range sanctions continued in response to Russian strikes on our cities and villages,” Zelenskyy said.

Kyiv had proposed an open-ended ceasefire beginning on May 6, which it said Russia ignored. Moscow did not adopt that proposal, and neither side accepted the other’s terms.

In remarks before the truce, Zelenskyy criticised Russia’s approach to the commemorations, saying Moscow sought a pause “to hold their parade, to go out onto the square safely for an hour once a year, and then continue killing, killing our people and waging war”.

“The Russians are already talking about strikes after May 9. Strange and certainly inappropriate of the Russian leadership,” he added.

“Just as 81 years ago, so now America can help peace with a just and strong stance against the aggressor,” Zelenskyy said. “And it is important that the American people now view Russia precisely in this way – as an aggressor.”

US President Donald Trump says the ceasefire with Iran is still in effect, despite American and Iranian forces trading fire in the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday. Trump threatened pain for Tehran unless it signs a truce quickly.

The ceasefire between the US and Iran has been in place for nearly four weeks. The Strait of Hormuz has not been at peace for a single day.

This week pushed that contradiction to its most dangerous point yet. The United States launched Project Freedom, a naval escort operation designed to guide roughly 2,000 ships stranded on either side of the Strait through to open water. Iran said any ship attempting passage without IRGC permission would be fired on. Within hours, both sides were claiming to have hit the other, the UAE was scrambling missile alerts for the first time since the ceasefire began, an oil refinery in Fujairah was on fire, and commercial aircraft bound for Dubai were turning around mid-air.

As of Tuesday evening, Trump announced Project Freedom would be paused “for a short period of time” to see if an agreement with Iran could be reached. Secretary of State Rubio told reporters the US was now in a “defensive” posture. Twenty-four hours earlier, both sides had been shooting and denying it simultaneously.

Here is what we know, what is contested, and what it means.

What Is Project Freedom and Why Did the US Launch It?

Trump announced the operation on Sunday, framing it in humanitarian terms, an effort to free the seafarers and cargo companies that had done nothing wrong and were caught between two governments fighting a war neither had formally ended. About 2,000 ships have been stranded on either side of the Strait since late February, unable to move without IRGC permission, which Iran began requiring and charging for after the ceasefire took effect.

The US had already begun a naval blockade of Iranian ports on April 13. Project Freedom was the next escalation — a direct challenge to Iran’s assertion that the Strait was now under its operational control. Trump described it as a “humanitarian gesture.” Iran described it as a violation of the ceasefire and an act of military aggression in a sensitive oil region that affects the economies of countries around the world.

Two American-flagged merchant ships successfully transited the Strait on Monday with US Navy escort. A Danish shipping company confirmed one of its vessels crossed with US military protection. But the transit did not go smoothly.

Did Iran Attack a US Warship? What the Claims Say

By Monday afternoon, the competing narratives had become almost impossible to untangle, which is itself part of the story.

Iran’s Fars News Agency reported a US warship had been hit by two Iranian drones after refusing to turn back from the Strait. CENTCOM denied any warship had been hit. US Admiral Brad Cooper said CENTCOM forces had sunk six IRGC vessels that tried to interfere with Project Freedom. Trump later said seven. Iran’s state broadcaster then reported that Tehran had launched an investigation and its preliminary conclusion was that the vessels the US claimed to have sunk were not IRGC boats at all, they were two small civilian craft carrying passengers from Oman to the Iranian coast, and five civilian passengers had been killed. The US has not commented on that claim and it has not been independently verified.

Why Iran Attacked the UAE in 2026: The Fujairah Strike Explained

The UAE’s Ministry of Defense said its air defenses engaged 15 ballistic missiles, three cruise missiles, and four drones launched from Iran on Monday, the first Iranian attacks on the UAE since the ceasefire took effect on April 8. One drone struck an oil refinery in Fujairah, wounding three Indian nationals and setting the facility ablaze. Four missile alerts were issued across the country, sending residents to shelter. Commercial aircraft bound for Dubai and Abu Dhabi turned around in mid-flight.

Iran’s position was that the Fujairah attack was not a premeditated strike on the UAE but a consequence of what it called US military adventurism in the Strait. An Iranian military official said the Islamic Republic had no preplanned programme to attack UAE facilities, and that what happened resulted from the US attempt to create an illegal passage through restricted waters. The UAE’s Foreign Ministry rejected that framing entirely, condemning what it called renewed terrorist and unprovoked Iranian attacks on civilian sites, and warning it reserves the full right to respond.

Why the Attack Claims Cannot Be Independently Verified

One detail worth noting is the shifting count of Iranian vessels supposedly sunk. Admiral Cooper said six. Trump said seven. No independent observer has confirmed either figure, and Iran has denied any IRGC boats were hit at all. This pattern: each side claiming damage inflicted while denying damage received, with no neutral verification , has run throughout the conflict and is not unique to this week’s exchange. What is different now is that the Strait is supposed to be under a ceasefire, and the exchanges are happening in a waterway where 2,000 civilian ships are anchored and waiting to see who wins the argument.

How the Hormuz Escalation Is Threatening Iran Ceasefire Talks in 2026

Trump’s decision to pause Project Freedom on Tuesday is significant precisely because of how quickly it followed the launch. The operation began Sunday. By Tuesday, with the UAE under attack, Iranian drones targeting ships in the Strait, and competing claims circulating with no resolution, the White House stepped back. Rubio reframed the entire mission as defensive rather than offensive, and a new UN Security Council resolution on freedom of navigation was announced, co-authored by Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar. A previous similar resolution was vetoed by China and Russia, and the outlook for this one is no clearer.

The pause does not resolve the underlying problem. The Strait remains contested. Iran still insists ships must seek IRGC permission and pay for transit. The US still insists the Strait is international water under international law. Two thousand ships are still stranded. And the ceasefire that is supposed to govern all of this is being tested in ways its text was never designed to handle.

The attacks this week did not happen in isolation from the negotiations still technically underway. Pakistan has been trying to bring the US and Iran back to a second round of talks after the Islamabad discussions collapsed on the nuclear question in April. Every exchange of fire, every competing claim, every missile alert in Abu Dhabi makes that second round harder to convene and harder to trust once convened.

As Shahram Akbarzadeh, a professor in Middle East and Central Asian politics at Deakin University, told Al Jazeera: “We see escalation after escalation against the backdrop of shuttle diplomacy. Such attacks, even if they are aimed to be contained, risk exploding into another major combat.” Neither the Americans nor the Iranians want a return to full-scale war, Akbarzadeh said, but neither is prepared to show weakness. “This dynamic has locked them in a perpetual conflict and in desperate need of a circuit breaker.”

The circuit breaker Pakistan offered in April produced a ceasefire. That ceasefire is now generating its own escalation cycle, in twenty-one miles of water, over a question neither side has answered: who controls the Strait of Hormuz, and on what terms does the world’s most important waterway reopen.

Two thousand ships are waiting for the answer.

Iran has said it will only accept a fair and comprehensive agreement in ongoing negotiations with the United States, as talks continue alongside a fragile ceasefire in the Middle East conflict. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi made the remarks following discussions with Wang Yi in Beijing.

At the same time, Donald Trump has pointed to what he described as significant progress, announcing a temporary pause in US naval operations linked to the Strait of Hormuz to support negotiations. The strait remains largely restricted, disrupting global oil flows and contributing to an ongoing energy crisis.

What does Iran mean by a comprehensive agreement
The key question is what Iran is asking for. A comprehensive agreement suggests Tehran wants more than a temporary ceasefire. It likely includes guarantees on sovereignty, relief from military pressure, and recognition of its rights under international agreements such as nuclear development for peaceful purposes.

This position indicates Iran is negotiating for long term security and political legitimacy rather than short term concessions.

What is the United States offering in response
The United States appears to be using a mix of pressure and incentives. Military actions and blockades continue, but the pause in naval escort operations signals willingness to de escalate if progress is made.

Statements from US officials show a firm stance on preventing Iran from controlling key shipping routes, while still leaving room for diplomacy. This creates a dual track approach of negotiation backed by force.

Why is the Strait of Hormuz central to the talks
The Strait of Hormuz is critical because it carries a significant share of global oil supply. Its disruption has already triggered sharp movements in energy markets and raised concerns about global economic stability.

Control over this route gives Iran strategic leverage, while reopening it safely is a priority for the United States and global markets. This makes the strait a core bargaining point in negotiations.

Implications for global markets and politics
The negotiations are directly influencing oil prices, currency markets, and investor sentiment. Even signals of progress have led to falling oil prices and improved market confidence.

Politically, the situation affects domestic dynamics in the United States, where rising energy costs are a concern ahead of elections. It also shapes regional power balances across the Middle East.

Analysis what are the possible outcomes
There are three main paths forward. First, a comprehensive agreement could stabilise the region, reopen energy routes, and reduce global economic pressure. Second, prolonged negotiations without resolution could keep markets volatile and maintain the current fragile ceasefire. Third, a breakdown in talks could lead to renewed escalation, further disrupting oil supply and increasing geopolitical risk.

The most realistic short term outcome appears to be continued negotiations with limited de escalation steps. A full agreement will likely require compromises on both security concerns and economic demands.

With information from Reuters.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Tuesday said it came under attack from Iranian missiles and drones. The strikes come a day after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched attacks on the UAE as well as U.S. Navy vessels and the commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The extent of the damage is unclear at the moment, as is whether U.S. assets came under fire today, though no indications have emerged that they have. We have reached out to CENTCOM for more details.

“The UAE’s air defenses are currently dealing with missile and drone attacks originating from Iran,” the UAE Defense Ministry stated on X. “The Ministry of Defense confirms that the sounds heard in scattered areas of the country are the result of the UAE’s air defense systems intercepting ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones.”

Meanwhile, the IRGC issued a new threat against shipping in the Strait of Hormuz today.

“We warn all vessels intending to pass through the strait; the only safe route for crossing the Strait of Hormuz is the corridor previously announced by Iran and any deviation of vessels to other routes is unsafe and will face decisive action from the IRGC Navy.” the IRGC announced.

Yesterday, we reported that the U.S. Navy is urging strait transits to travel south of the Iranian corridor, along the cost of Oman.

The Navy’s suggested route “appears deep enough to accommodate the largest oil supertankers, but it’s very narrow, with several obstacles both north and south [of] the route (including shallow reefs),” Bloomberg News energy and commodities columnist Javier Blas noted on X.

Before this latest attack and new IRGC threat, U.S. War Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine both stated that Iran’s attacks on Monday, as well as other incidents during the ceasefire, still fall below the threshold of violating the agreement. Caine even went as far to say that “thus far, today is quieter” in the region.

As we reported yesterday, U.S. Army AH-64 Apache and U.S. Navy MH-60 Seahawk helicopters destroyed six small Iranian boats that were threatening commercial ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz and that Iran launched new attacks aimed at American warships, as well as merchant vessels on the first day of Project Freedom, the new operation to enable commercial ships to safely transit the Strait. 

“Since the ceasefire was announced, Iran has fired at commercial vessels nine times and seized two container ships, and they’ve attacked U.S. forces more than 10 times, all below the threshold of restarting major combat operations,” Caine told reporters, including from TWZ, at the Tuesday morning briefing. 

He added that “22,500 mariners embarked on more than 1,550 commercial vessels trapped in the Arabian Gulf, unable to transit.”

Caine was vague on the details of the attacks on U.S. forces.

“The threshold of restarting [the war] is a political decision above my pay grade,” he told reporters. “What I’ll say is it’s low harassing fire right now. It feels like Iran is grasping at straws to try to do something across the southern flank.”

The chairman did not elaborate further on the attacks on U.S. forces. We reached out to his office for more details. U.S. Central Command referred us to the Joint Chiefs.

“No, the ceasefire is not over,” Hegseth also posited. “Ultimately, [Project Freedom] is a separate and distinct project, and we expected there would be some churn at the beginning, which happened, and we said we would defend and defend aggressively, and we absolutely have.”

“Iran knows that, and ultimately, the president is going to make a decision whether anything were to escalate into a violation of a ceasefire,” the secretary added. “But certainly, we would urge Iran to be prudent in the actions that they take, to keep that underneath this threshold. This is about the straits. This is about freedom of navigation. This is about international waterways. This is about free flow of commerce, all the things that happened before and only Iran is contesting. So right now, the ceasefire certainly holds, but we’re going to be watching very, very closely.”’

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump offered scant details when asked what Iran has to do to violate the ceasefire.

“You’ll find out,” the president said.

Hegseth also addressed reports that the IRGC carried out yesterday’s attacks without permission from Iran’s civilian government officials.

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian “has expressed strong anger at actions by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, led by Ahmad Vahidi,” according to the Iran International media outlet. Pezeshkian described the missile and drone strikes on the UAE as “completely irresponsible” and carried out without the government’s knowledge or coordination,” the publication reported.

“There are some actions the IRGC takes sometimes that are outside the bounds of what maybe Iranian negotiators would like,” Hegseth explained. “That’s their job to rein that in and ultimately create a condition for a deal, right?

Hegseth also noted that Project Freedom was a temporary operation that the U.S. wants to soon hand over to others, saying foreign nations depend on the Strait more than the U.S.

After one of its ships was attacked yesterday by the IRGC, South Korea is reportedly mulling over joining Project Freedom.

“We are reviewing the US proposal about the Strait of Hormuz based on the principle, the military readiness posture on the Korean Peninsula and domestic laws,” South Korean officials said in a statement, according to CNN. “About Project Freedom, South Korea and the US have been closely communicating for safe use of key waterways including the Hormuz Strait.”

UPDATE: 7:04 PM EDT –

Tuesday evening, Trump announced Project Freedom will be placed on hold pending negotiations with Iran.

“Based on the request of Pakistan and other Countries, the tremendous Military Success that we have had during the Campaign against the Country of Iran and, additionally, the fact that Great Progress has been made toward a Complete and Final Agreement with Representatives of Iran, we have mutually agreed that, while the Blockade will remain in full force and effect, Project Freedom (The Movement of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz) will be paused for a short period of time to see whether or not the Agreement can be finalized and signed,” the president announced on Truth Social. 

WASHINGTON — The United States has launched a new military operation to ensure commercial shipping vessels can safely pass through the Strait of Hormuz, deploying scores of warships, fighter jets and drones to counter Iranian efforts that have threatened the narrow waterway that carries a fifth of the world’s oil.

At a news conference Tuesday at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the new initiative — dubbed “Project Freedom” — is a temporary and defensive operation meant to resume the flow of traffic through the international waterway as hostilities have continued in the region.

“We are not looking for a fight, but Iran cannot be allowed to block innocent countries and their goods from an international waterway,” Hegseth said, while calling Iran’s tactics “international extortion.”

The operation comes nearly a month after the United States reached a fragile ceasefire deal with Iran, a truce that Hegseth said remains in effect even though Tehran has continued to attack U.S. forces and commercial vessels.

“The ceasefire is not over,” Hegseth said.

Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that since the ceasefire took effect, Iran has fired at commercial vessels nine times, seized two container ships and attacked U.S. forces more than 10 times. All of these instances, he said, are “below the threshold of restarting major combat operations at this point.”

Those attacks have left more than 1,550 vessels trapped in the Arabian Gulf, unable to transit, disrupting global trade and pushing energy markets toward crisis, with fuel prices climbing and shipping costs surging.

The new U.S. mission was cast as separate from the broader military campaign over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. As negotiations to denuclearize Iran continue, Caine said commercial vessels wanting to cross the strait will now “see, hear and frankly feel the U.S. combat power around them, on the sea, in the skies and on the radio.”

Two U.S. commercial vessels, escorted by Navy destroyers, have already moved through the Strait, Hegseth said.

“We know the Iranians are embarrassed by this fact,” Hegseth said. “They said they control the strait, they do not.”

Hegseth called the operation a “direct gift from the United States to the world,” aimed at resuming traffic through one of the world’s most vital waterways.

“To what remains of Iran’s forces: if you attack American troops or innocent commercial shipping, you will face overwhelming and devastating American firepower,” Hegseth said. “The president has been very clear about this.”

On Tuesday evening local time, the UAE’s defense ministry said in a statement on X that the country’s defensive systems “are actively engaging with missiles and UAV threats and that “sounds heard across the across the country are the result of ongoing engaging operations.”

Tuesday’s barrage marks the second consecutive day of attacks targeting the UAE since the U.S.-Iran ceasefire took hold on April 8. On Monday, the UAE said it engaged a total of 12 ballistic missiles, three cruise missiles and four drones launched from Iran.

Times staff writer Nabih Bulos, in Beirut, contributed to this report.

The 60-day clock for President Trump to seek congressional approval for further military actions against Iran was stopped by the April 7 ceasefire, a senior White House official claimed to The War Zone Friday morning. As we previously noted, the president faced a deadline today under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to obtain permission from Congress to continue fighting.

The White House decision comes as the now-paused war is at a stalemate, with both sides believing they can outlast the other. Meanwhile, Trump is considering options for a new round of strikes while Iranians say they have presented new plans for working toward a peace deal.

“For War Powers Resolution purposes, the hostilities that began on Saturday, February 28 have terminated,” the official told us, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the matter. “Both parties agreed to a two-week ceasefire on Tuesday, April 7 that has since been extended. There has been no exchange of fire between U.S. Armed Forces and Iran since Tuesday, April 7.”

The administration’s statement today follows War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Congressional testimony yesterday that “the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire.”

Under the War Powers Resolution, the use of armed forces should be terminated within 60 days unless Congress has declared war or voted to approve a 30-day extension. Since Trump formally notified Congress about the Iran war on March 2, that deadline fell today. Even though several other presidents have simply ignored the War Powers Resolution, the Trump administration is now arguing that the measure doesn’t really apply to their operation just yet.

It remains unclear how or if Congress will react. It adjourned yesterday for a week-long recess. On Thursday, the Senate rejected the latest of many resolutions intended to halt the war, The Washington Post noted. 

Republican lawmakers appear to be deferring to Trump on the issue of the War Powers Resolution. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told The Associated Press on Thursday that he doesn’t plan on a vote to authorize force in Iran or otherwise weigh in.

“I’m listening carefully to what the members of our conference are saying, and at this point I don’t see that,” Thune said.

Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said he’d vote for an authorization of war if Trump asked for it. But he questioned if the War Powers Act, passed during the Vietnam War era as a way for Congress to claw back its power, is even constitutional.

“Our founders created a really strong executive, like it or not like it,” Cramer said.

Iran protests as Trump announces ‘Project Freedom’ to escort stranded ships out of the Strait of Hormuz.

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi has been seeing more flights take off at the main airport in Iran’s capital, where operations resumed on Saturday as the ceasefire with the US and Israel continues.

Oil markets face renewed instability following the United Arab Emirates’ formal exit from the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its wider alliance (OPEC+), announced on Tuesday and taking effect on Friday.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The move, which ends decades of membership, comes as the global economy continues to reel from the ongoing war with Iran and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz remains in place.

Investors are currently weighing the potential for higher future output from the UAE against the immediate and acute risks posed to global supply routes, as well as the increased chances that more countries drop out of OPEC and OPEC+.

Following the announcement, markets reacted swiftly as the potential for oversupply from the UAE was priced in. Oil prices fell by between 2% and 3%, particularly in futures contracts a couple of months ahead.

However, the move was just as quickly offset by the risk premium associated with the Middle East conflict and the current halt to US-Iran negotiations.

At the time of writing, US benchmark crude, WTI, is trading above $105 a barrel, while Brent crude, the international standard, is over $112. Both prices are around 4% higher on Wednesday from the UAE announcement low.

The UAE’s decision follows years of simmering tension between Abu Dhabi and Riyadh over production quotas. The UAE has invested over $150 billion (€128bn) in the state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) to expand its capacity to five million barrels per day.

However, under OPEC’s restrictive framework, much of this capacity remained underutilised, now prompting the government to prioritise its national interest.

The departure of the group’s third-largest producer is a significant blow to the cohesion of the 60-year-old organisation. Maurizio Carulli, global energy analyst at Quilter Cheviot, noted the limitations this exit places on the remaining members.

“Until tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is safe again, OPEC’s ability to stabilise prices is sharply constrained, while US producers have gained outsized influence,” Carulli explained.

While the UAE has pledged to bring additional production to the market in a “gradual and measured” manner, the sudden lack of coordination within OPEC has introduced a new layer of uncertainty.

For the UAE, the blockade served as a final catalyst for its exit. With its primary export route under threat, Abu Dhabi has sought the diplomatic flexibility to forge independent security and trade partnerships outside the traditional cartel structure.

Despite the geopolitical turmoil, energy equities have remained resilient.

According to Carulli, “integrated majors such as BP, Shell, TotalEnergies, ENI, Chevron and ExxonMobil are benefitting from a price uplift that could add 5-10% to operating cash flow for every $10 increase in oil prices.”

Standoff over the Strait of Hormuz

In a separate but related development, the security situation in the Middle East remains precarious despite a fragile ceasefire. Iran has recently offered a ten-point proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

In exchange for restoring maritime traffic, Tehran is demanding a full withdrawal of the US naval blockade and an end to the current hostilities.

US President Donald Trump, who recently extended the two-week ceasefire mediated by Pakistan, described the latest Iranian offer as “much better” than previous iterations but still did not accept the terms.

Shortly after, Trump posted on social media claiming that Iran is in a dire and desperate condition with no leverage to negotiate.

Washington continues to insist on a permanent settlement regarding Iran’s nuclear programme and an “unconditional” reopening of the waterway before sanctions are lifted.

The impact of this blockade on global energy security cannot be overstated.

“The prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz has removed roughly 12% of global oil supply from the market, according to the IEA, a bigger disruption than the Yom Kippur war, the Iran‑Iraq conflict, the invasion of Kuwait or even the fallout from Ukraine,” Carulli highlighted.

Israel has violated the so-called Gaza “ceasefire” more than 2,400 times in the more than six months since the agreement was reached. Al Jazeera’s Hala Al Shami gives an overview of the deteriorating situation.