conflict

Since Israel launched its latest war on Gaza, Palestinian activist Mohammad Hannoun has been a figurehead in demonstrations across Italy.

Wrapped in a keffiyeh and waving the national flag, as head of the Palestinian Association in Italy he delivered impassioned speeches condemning the Italian government’s military cooperation with Israel and demanding an end to the genocide in Gaza.

The 63-year-old Jordanian national, who lives in the port city of Genoa and is an architect by profession, was arrested in December, under the accusation of having raised around 7 million euros ($8.1m) through his non-profit Association of Solidarity with the Palestinian People (ABSPP) that allegedly ended up in Hamas’s coffers.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni expressed “appreciation and satisfaction” when the so-called “Operation Domino” led to the arrest of nine people, including Hannoun, described by investigators as the “head of the Italian cell of the Hamas organisation”.

But Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation last month demanded a “comprehensive re-evaluation” of the evidence, describing it as too “generic”, according to the ruling seen by Al Jazeera.

The material presented in court consisted of Israeli intelligence sent to Italian authorities, as well as open-source online information whose provenance and reliability had not been established.

Hannoun’s case is not an isolated one.

Last month, Amin Abu Rashid, a Dutch national of Palestinian origin, was acquitted in the Netherlands by the Rotterdam District Court of financing Hamas, after a years-long legal battle landed him in jail for a year. Similarly, the evidence had relied on Israeli government reports and unverified newspaper articles.

The UK-based advocacy organisation CAGE International described Abu Rashid’s acquittal as a “direct rebuke of the use of Israeli intelligence as the basis for prosecuting Palestinian humanitarian organisers in Europe”.

Anas Mustapha, head of public advocacy at CAGE, told Al Jazeera that relying on Israeli evidence to prosecute Palestinians was tantamount to relying on Chinese information to try Hong Kong dissidents.

This practice constitutes a “major threat to the rule of law in Europe”, he said.

“Israeli intelligence is being laundered through European legal systems to suppress Palestinian civil society,” said Mustapha. “The aim is to disrupt and restrict activism and action against the state of Israel.”

‘Battlefield evidence’

Nicola Canestrini, who is among the lawyers representing the nine defendants including Hannoun, liaised with Abu Rashid’s representatives over the course of several months to challenge the use of so-called “battlefield evidence” in both Italian and Dutch courts.

The term refers to evidence collected by military forces during active hostilities or combat operations. Just like a standard crime scene, the collection of this type of evidence under European requirements must be presented with a chain of custody – the chronological documentation of the seizure, transfer, analysis, and storage of the materials.

In Hannoun’s case, the files alleging cooperation between the ABSPP and Hamas’s military wing were not accompanied by a chain of custody, but sent by an Israeli official “whose personal details remain confidential”, according to court documents.

The only indication of their provenance was the word “Avi”, which Canestrini said was later found to mean Israeli intelligence official Avi Abramson.

The evidence purportedly originated from hard drives found in Gaza’s hospitals as they were taken over by Israeli forces, namely in al-Shifa, al-Rantisi and Jabalia, as well as the Maghazi refugee camp and other locations across the Gaza Strip.

United Nations experts and organisations, including Human Rights Watch, have found that Israeli military actions in Gaza, including the forcible displacement of patients from those hospitals, amount to war crimes.

Canestrini and his legal team argued in court that unverifiable evidence collected by a state undergoing trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was inadmissible.

“There’s a short-circuit in the legal system that is very troublesome for the rule of law,” the lawyer told Al Jazeera. “We’re seeing a foreign state under investigation for war crimes and crimes against humanity bringing evidence forward, and Italian authorities copying and pasting it in their reports.”

Additionally, rather than file an arrest warrant through established international cooperation channels, Israel sent the documents through a “spontaneous information exchange”. That measure bypasses oversight mechanisms established by the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) and the UN Military Evidence Guidelines.

“I believe this was done wilfully to avoid checks and balances that guarantee the respect of human rights,” the lawyer said.

Al Jazeera contacted Italian officials Riccardo Perisi, director of the Service for Combatting Extremism and External Terrorism, and District Attorney Marco Zocco, who declined to comment on Hannoun’s case due to ongoing legal proceedings. Avi Abramson, the Israeli intelligence official identified as the source of the evidence, did not respond to requests for comment.

Crackdown on dissent

Palestinian solidarity has been repressed across Europe since Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, with protest bans, police violence and a wave of legal prosecution.

According to the European Legal Support Center (ELSC), an independent organisation offering legal assistance to organisations and individuals advocating for Palestine, European states have systematically deployed “counterterrorism” and “public order” measures against Palestine solidarity efforts.

ELSC found a pattern of repression to “demobilise opposition to the Israeli genocide against Palestinians” in the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, and France, “advanced through alliances between state actors, Zionist lobby groups, and arms manufacturers”.

In Italy, activities around Palestinian solidarity are increasingly “equated with terrorism,” Italo Di Sabato, the national coordinator of Osservatorio Repressione (Observatory on Repression), an Italian organisation focused on tracking state control and defending the right to protest, told Al Jazeera.

The observatory documented cases in which pro-Palestinian activists were targeted by lawsuits, searches and administrative sanctions. “The objective is stifling any real form of solidarity with the Palestinian people,” Di Sabato said.

He argued that accepting opaque evidence to be used against Hannoun would have created a dangerous legal precedent.

“Israel’s aim was to have a free zone where everything is permitted,” Di Sabato said. “The political meaning of the Supreme Court of Cassation’s ruling is that the rule of law cannot be suspended when we deal with Palestine.

“What today constitutes the basis for the repression of Palestinian activism could tomorrow be the basis for the repression of any form of dissent.”

The United Kingdom’s Court of Appeal has ruled that the British government was right to proscribe the Palestine Action activist group as a “terrorist” organisation last year.

Palestine Action is a British protest group which was founded six years ago and describes itself as a movement “committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime”.

On Monday, police made more arrests of protesters demonstrating in support of Palestine Action outside the Court of Appeal in London.

Since the group’s proscription, which also bans support for proscribed groups, about 3,000 people have been arrested.

The Metropolitan Police welcomed the ruling and said it would continue to arrest those who protest in support of the group.

Here is what we know about the ruling:

What has the Court of Appeal ruled?

The judgement released on Monday states: “The proscription of an organisation like Palestine Action is highly controversial. But it is a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism”.

The ruling was made by a five-strong panel, including the two most senior judges in England and Wales.

Palestine Action, which was formally proscribed by the UK last July, is a British protest group founded six years ago. It says it uses “disruptive tactics” to target “corporate enablers” and companies involved in the manufacture of weapons for Israel, such as Israeli group Elbit Systems, Italian aerospace company Leonardo, French multinational Thales and Teledyne from the United States. The group has targeted British facilities linked to those companies.

In all, British police say action by the group has resulted in millions of pounds of criminal damage.

A court in London ruled on June 12 that four Palestine Action members convicted of criminal damage at a British facility owned by Israeli weapons group Elbit Systems near Bristol, west England, would be sentenced on the basis that their actions had a “terrorist connection”.

Why was this case brought?

Following the proscription of Palestine Action last year, the group’s co-founder, Huda Ammori, challenged the decision in the High Court. In February, the High Court ruled that the government’s “terror group” ban was unlawful and disproportionate.

The government immediately said it would appeal. “I am disappointed by ⁠the court’s decision ⁠and disagree with the notion that banning ⁠this terrorist organisation ⁠is disproportionate,” ⁠Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood ⁠said.

The judgement on Monday agreed with her. Its ruling states: “The Home Secretary had the institutional competence and the democratic accountability to make the decision. The Proscription Decision was consistent with the Home Secretary’s Proscription Policy and was proportionate. It was not unlawful.”

Why did the UK proscribe Palestine Action?

On June 20, 2025, Palestine Action activists broke into the Royal Air Force base at Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and sprayed two military aircraft with red paint.

Days after the Brize Norton attack, members of parliament voted in favour of proscribing the group. That classified Palestine Action as a “terrorist” organisation, bringing it into the same category as armed groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS).

Critics decried the vote, arguing that while members of the group have caused damage to property, they have not committed violent acts that amount to terrorism. More than 130 high-profile public figures have spoken out against the proscription.

Other previous actions the group has taken include:

• In 2021, members protested for six days on the roof of Elbit Systems’ subsidiary, UAV Tactical Systems in Leicester, until some were arrested by police.
• In 2022, the group broke into a Thales equipment factory in Glasgow, causing damage to weapons worth more than a million pounds ($1.3m).
• In 2024, 10 months into Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Palestine Action activists broke into an Elbit Systems UK facility near Bristol in southwest England, causing another million pounds of damage.

How has Palestine Action responded to the ruling?

In a statement read by a representative following the ruling, Palestine Action’s Ammori said the group will challenge the judgement in the UK’s Supreme Court.

“We will fight this all the way. We will seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and, if need be, take this to the European Court of Human Rights,” Ammori said.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), established by the Council of Europe, allows individuals to hold member states accountable for rights violations through a dedicated court. When the ECHR finds a violation, its judgements are legally binding on the state concerned under the European Convention on Human Rights.

“We will not stop fighting to overturn one of the most extreme attacks on free speech and the right to protest in modern British history,” Ammori added.

“This unprecedented abuse of power has devastated the lives of thousands of people while silencing dissent over Israel’s slaughter of the Palestinian people during the genocide, when that dissent could not be more urgent.”

How have others reacted to the ruling?

Anas Mustapha, Head of Public Advocacy at CAGE International, said: “This ruling tells us exactly what these powers are for. They are not safeguards against violence, they are authoritarian tools for crushing dissent.”

Mustapha added: “No ruling from any court is going to convince people that their conscience is wrong, and no amount of legislation will make support for Palestine disappear. The only sustainable outcome is the abolition of these laws in their entirety.”

Thomas Bell, acting UK Director of Human Rights Watch, said: “This disastrous decision further cements the UK’s place among countries that are backsliding on human rights by classifying acts of protest as terrorism.”

“When Palestine Action members have committed criminal damage, that should be dealt with under normal criminal laws, not by misusing overbroad and poorly defined terrorism powers. Defining a protest group as terrorists has created an absurd situation where thousands of people peacefully holding up signs have been arrested,” Bell added.

EXPLAINER

US President Donald Trump and Iranian leaders say a deal has been agreed to end more than 100 days of war that killed thousands.

United States President Donald Trump and Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said on Sunday that they had reached an initial deal to end the war and to resume traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump said the deal allows for toll-free shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which has been largely closed since the US and Israel launched an assault on Iran on February 28.

“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday.

The US and Iran will sign a memorandum of understanding in Switzerland on Friday, said the prime minister of Pakistan, whose country has served as a mediator.

Monday marks 108 days since the war began, with the US and Israel’s attacks on Iran. Here is what’s happening:

What we know about the deal

• The content of the agreement, which follows weeks of fraught negotiations and periodic threats from Trump of new hostilities unless Iran reaches a deal, remained unclear.
• Strait of Hormuz to reopen: Iran’s semi-official Mehr news agency said the draft deal called for reopening the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days under Iranian arrangements. Trump, who turned 80 on Sunday, said the deal allows for toll-free shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which has been largely closed since the US and Israel launched an assault on Iran on December 28.
• Frozen assets to be released: Iran’s Mehr news agency reported that the US would release $12bn in frozen assets to Iran before the start of negotiations.
• Iran’s enriched uranium: In an interview with The New York Times on Sunday, Trump said Washington was still negotiating whether Iran would suspend its enrichment for 20 years. Trump hinted that he might settle for a 15-year suspension, but said he did not want to negotiate via the press.
• Israel has not commented: There has been no official comment from Israel about the peace agreement.

In Iran

• The secretariat of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said on Monday that the deal with the US includes the immediate suspension of hostilities on all fronts. “Based on the agreements reached, the war and military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, will end immediately and permanently as of tonight, and in addition, the naval blockade against Iran will end immediately and completely,” it said in a statement.

In the US

• Democrats slam Trump over war: While Democratic lawmakers welcomed the deal, they criticised the Trump administration’s decisions pertaining to the war. Senator Chris Coons of Delaware said that while the deal moves the situation in the “right direction”, several questions remain. He warned that competing interpretations of what was agreed upon could pose risks. Senator Chris Murphy, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the deal is a “surrender to Iran” but that the US should be “glad about it because every day this insane, illegal war continues, we get weaker”.

In Lebanon

• Trump rebukes Israeli attack on Beirut: On Sunday, shortly before the deal was announced by Trump, Israel launched an air attack on Beirut. Trump angrily blamed Israel for delaying the deal’s signing after launching this attack. In an expletive-laden phone interview with US news outlet Axios, Trump fumed about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying: “I was so pissed off. I let him know.”

Global response

• Western leaders praise deal: UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he was ready to aid the further technical talks between the US and Iran, adding that he hopes the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz will stabilise energy markets.
• French President Emmanuel Macron also praised the deal and said Paris would support the Lebanese government.
• European Union chief Antonio Costa welcomed a deal between the US and Iran to end the Middle East war, adding that the bloc was ready to contribute to a strategy for “lasting peace”.
• UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said it was a “critical step” towards resolving the war in the Middle East.

Global economy

• Oil prices drop: Oil prices slipped to their lowest since March on Monday, with global benchmark Brent crude futures falling $4.08, or 4.7 percent, to $83.25 a barrel by 04:15 GMT. US West Texas Intermediate was at $80.53, down $4.35, or 5.1 percent. Both contracts fell to their lowest levels since March 10 on Monday after tumbling more than 3 percent on Friday.
• Asian markets soar: Markets in Japan soared, more than 5 percent up; in South Korea, they were up 5.3 percent; in Taiwan, they were up 2.4 percent. In Shanghai, they were up 1.3 percent; and in Hong Kong, they were up half a percent; while in Indonesia, they were up 2.07 percent; and in the Philippines, they were up 5.2 percent.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Sunday that the United States and Iran have reached a framework agreement to end the war in the Middle East, a breakthrough in months of negotiations aimed at ending the conflict.

The deal, described by diplomats as a memorandum of understanding, commits Tehran to forgo the development or acquisition of nuclear weapons in exchange for helping reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and the paced release of its assets frozen overseas, upon the signing of the deal Friday in Switzerland.

Trump said he has also authorized “the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade” on Iranian imports.

“Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!” Trump wrote in a social media post Sunday evening. It was the president’s 80th birthday.

The full details of the agreement have not been released. Many details — including how Tehran would give up, destroy or dilute its fissile material, or whether Iran would continue treating the international strait as its sovereign waters — will continue to be negotiated in the coming days.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said Sunday that mediators are planning to hold a series of meetings this week to “lay the foundation for the technical talks and the official signing ceremony.”

“We would like to thank the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran for their commitment to finding a diplomatic solution to the conflict,” Sharif wrote in a post on X.

The Associated Press reported that negotiations on outstanding issues like Iran’s nuclear program would continue over the next 60 days, according to two senior Pakistani officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Vice President JD Vance told Fox News that the White House is “still figuring out the logistics” on whether he or Trump will attend the signing ceremony.

“What we know is that we have a lot of work to do, but a very big win for the American people tonight,” Vance said.”We are just going to keep on working at it, keep on driving energy prices down, keep on ensuring that region of the world is less than a basket case and finally, and most importantly, celebrate, that we can say with confidence Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.”

Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, confirmed the agreement on state television but said Iran would not start implementing it until it was signed on Friday. He said the deal followed over 14 hours of talks in Tehran with a representative from Qatar, another mediator.

Iranian state TV showed a banner asserting: “US was forced to sign an agreement to end the war.”

Iran’s commitment to refrain from pursuing nuclear weapons would simply repeat a vow Iran has made several times before, including in its signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its nuclear deal brokered with international powers under the Obama administration over 10 years ago.

Iran has 972 pounds of uranium that is enriched up to 60% purity, a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels of 90%, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Under the 2015 international agreement with Iran abandoned by the first Trump administration, Iran’s uranium enrichment was capped at less than 4%, monitored by IAEA inspectors.

The vagueness of the new agreement, the demand for further negotiations to flesh out its details, and the pacing of sanctions relief for Iran are all likely to draw criticism of the president, who launched his political career in 2015 by attacking President Obama’s newly signed nuclear deal as a historically bad agreement.

That deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, followed two years of painstaking negotiations that were predicated on a similar, yet more detailed framework, called the JCPOA.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a Sunday morning interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that the the difference between the JCPOA and how the Trump administration is handling negotiations is the “threat of military force.”

“The huge difference is we did this from a position of strength,” Hegseth said. “That military might will stay as long as necessary.”

And, as in 2015, Israeli leadership across the political aisle remains deeply skeptical of the agreement, pronouncing they will not be bound by a deal to which they are not a party.

In a phone interview with the New York Times on Sunday afternoon, Trump called Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, a “very difficult guy.”

“To be honest with you, he should be very thankful to us for doing this. Because if Iran had a nuclear weapon, Israel wouldn’t be around for two hours,” Trump said.

Since the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran that started the war Feb. 28, there have been 3,468 confirmed deaths in Iran, according to independent monitors. In addition, 13 U.S. service members have been killed, and the Israeli war with Hezbollah has killed 2,679 in Lebanon as well as 23 Israelis, including eight civilians.

United States President Donald Trump has said an initial agreement to end the US-Israeli war with Iran is “scheduled to get signed tomorrow”.

But that announcement, made on Trump’s Truth Social account on Saturday, contradicts an earlier statement by Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei.

In remarks carried by Iran’s IRNA news agency, Baghaei said a memorandum of understanding would not be signed on Sunday and that negotiators are not planning to travel immediately to Geneva, Switzerland, in preparation for such an event.

According to Baghaei, a signing could happen “in the coming days”.

Hours later, Trump wrote, “The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow, and immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL.” Sunday marks Trump’s 80th birthday.

In recent days, Iran and the US have repeatedly contradicted each other when describing the details of the anticipated agreement, even as both sides have broadly signalled that a deal was closer than ever before.

Still, no terms have been officially released, with US and Iranian officials on Friday stressing that the agreement had not been finalised.

Beyond opening the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said in Saturday’s post that the agreement would be a “A WALL TO NO NUCLEAR WEAPON!” and that “no money would exchange hands”.

Trump also maintained that “at the appropriate time, when all is calm, we will go in and get the Nuclear Dust”, referring to Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium.

But speaking on Iran’s Press TV on Friday, Iranian ⁠⁠Foreign ⁠⁠Minister Abbas Araghchi said the initial memorandum of understanding would only be a launch point for negotiations about the future of Iran’s nuclear programme.

He added that the signing would result in an immediate pause in fighting, but that Iran and Oman would continue to administer the Strait of Hormuz.

The issue of lifting foreign sanctions against Iran and unfreezing the country’s assets would be discussed following the signing of the memorandum of understanding, Araghchi said.

From threats to diplomacy

The latest flurry of diplomacy came after the US and Iran traded strikes for two days this week, threatening to end a pause in fighting that has persisted since April 8.

The US and Israel launched the war on Iran on February 28, amid ongoing indirect talks on the future of Iran’s nuclear programme.

The US and Israel had also launched a 12-day war on Iran in 2025, during another round of nuclear talks.

Iranian officials have said that deep distrust towards the US has slowed the progress towards creating a lasting agreement to bring the current war to an end.

Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly pledged to reach a deal that would surpass the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), struck under his Democratic rival, former President Barack Obama.

That agreement, from which Trump unilaterally withdrew in 2018, saw Tehran agree to limit its nuclear programme and allow for international inspections in exchange for sanctions relief.

For years, Iran has maintained that it is building a nuclear programme for civilian use only and is not seeking a nuclear weapon.

In his post on Truth Social, Trump again pledged that any deal reached would be more stringent than the JCPOA.

“Our relationship with Iran is a much different and better one than previous Administrations have had,” he said.

“Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly,” he added.

“If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!” he wrote, without elaborating on what his threat meant.

Israeli attack reportedly kills one person in central Gaza’s Bureij camp, as a disabled Palestinian is shot in the West Bank.

Israeli forces have carried out a deadly attack in a refugee camp in central Gaza, according to Palestinian media reports, as casualties continue to mount in the enclave despite a “ceasefire” declared months ago.

The Israeli drone attack in the Bureij camp on Saturday killed one person and injured two others, reported the Wafa news agency.

The Palestinian Information Center identified the person killed as Muawiya al-Aydi, a local municipality worker.

Further north, a separate Israeli attack injured a person at a gathering in Gaza City’s Tuffah neighbourhood, according to Wafa.

Despite a ceasefire technically in effect since October, Israel’s military has regularly attacked Gaza, over half of which is under Israeli military control in defiance of the ceasefire’s terms.

According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, at least two Palestinians have been killed and 11 injured in Israeli attacks on the enclave in the past 48 hours.

The ministry said 983 people have been killed and 3,122 injured in Israeli attacks since the ceasefire was declared.

Hamas has accused Israel of repeatedly violating the agreement through its continued attacks and by shifting the so-called “Yellow Line” that demarcates Israeli-controlled areas in Gaza.

“Israeli actions reflect its unwillingness to implement the ceasefire agreement and aim to blow up the negotiation track and thwart the efforts being made, while continuing escalation to serve political and electoral considerations,” said Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem on Friday.

Disabled Palestinian shot, injured in West Bank

Israeli troops also carried out a series of violent raids in the occupied West Bank on Saturday, part of a pattern of near-daily operations since the Hamas-led attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023.

According to Wafa, Israeli forces deployed stun grenades and tear gas during two separate incidents near Bethlehem, causing numerous injuries: one during a raid on the Dheisheh refugee camp and the other while blocking access to the Solomon’s Pools reservoirs.

A disabled Palestinian man was also shot and injured in the town of Duma, near Hebron.

Wafa said Israeli forces shot the man, while Israeli media cited Israeli police as saying an Israeli settler was responsible. According to Israeli police, the settler felt threatened by the man who was carrying a rock.

Other Israeli settlers attacked Palestinians and vandalised property near Bethlehem, including assaulting Palestinian electrical workers and stealing water pipes, said Wafa.

Henry Ensher, a former US ambassador, says the US–Iran agreement is not a final settlement but only the start of a process, with many ways it could still go wrong.

A UK court has sentenced four pro-Palestine activists to jail for a raid on an Israeli arms factory near Bristol in 2024. Palestine Action says their aim was to ‘dismantle drones and weaponry’ they believed would be used to kill people in Gaza.

Three people have been killed in the border region between Russia and Ukraine, according to officials, as the two sides launched attacks on each other in the latest exchange of fire.

In Russia, two civilians were killed and two wounded in the region of Bryansk after Kyiv struck the settlement of Suzemka with artillery, Acting Governor Egor Kovalchuk said in a post on Telegram on Friday.

A ⁠drone ⁠also hit an apartment building in Russia’s ⁠central region of Tatarstan, ⁠injuring three people, while industrial facilities were ‌hit, regional head Rustam Minnikhanov said on the Telegram messaging app.

Production work was ⁠not suspended, ⁠however, he added, but did not identify ⁠any plants. ⁠The region ⁠is home to key oil processing and petrochemical ‌facilities, among others.

⁠Russia’s ⁠city of Togliatti, home to ⁠the country’s biggest ⁠carmaker Avtovaz, also came under a drone attack overnight, Samara ‌region Governor Vyacheslav Fedorishchev said on Telegram.

“Attention! Drone attack regime ⁠for Togliatti,” he ⁠wrote. Togliatti is a city ⁠on the ⁠Volga River some 800 km (500 miles) southeast ‌of Moscow.

These strikes are what Ukraine refers to as a “logistics lockdown”, said Al Jazeera’s Audrey MacAlpine, reported from Kyiv. She explained that they are mid-range strikes anywhere over 30 kilometres (17 miles) from the front line, using long-range drones and sometimes heavy weaponry to target things like oil refineries, bridges, logistics, and roads as a means of halting Russia’s front-line operations.

At the same time, she said, Ukraine also launches what it calls “long-range sanctions” against Russian targets – a “tongue-in-cheek term … that we’ve seen escalating over the past several months, where Ukraine is targeting Russia’s oil refineries and oil industry,” MacAlpine explained.

In Ukraine, a drone attack in the border region of Sumy caused casualties.

A 44-year-old woman working as a rail station operator died on her way to a shelter during the strike, according to the head of Ukrainian Railways, Oleksandr Pertsovkyi.

Another woman, a station attendant, was wounded in the attack, Pertsovkyi added.

Three people were wounded in separate attacks on Ukraine’s southern Mykolaiv region.

“We’ve seen continual threats by Russia before massive attacks, and we have certainly seen the results of those actions here in cities like Kyiv, where ballistics continue to be the Achilles heel for Ukraine”, MacAlpine said.

Russian fuel shortages after Ukrainian attacks

In recent months, Kyiv has carried out an increasing number of attacks on Russia and Russian-occupied territories.

On Thursday, fuel stations on the Russian-held Crimean Peninsula ran out of petrol after a Ukrainian campaign against the peninsula’s supply lines escalated.

A witness in Sevastopol, the peninsula’s largest city, told the Reuters news agency there was no fuel at most local petrol stations, with supplies struggling to keep up with a rationing regime imposed in recent weeks.

Another witness, in the resort town of Yevpatoriya, ⁠said there was a long queue outside the only petrol station open there.

Ukraine has been intensifying drone attacks on supply lines to the peninsula, which Russia seized from Kyiv in 2014. Local authorities have imposed fuel rationing regimes, with some foodstuffs also running short.

Besides Russian-held Crimea, only ‌two regions in Siberia have officially confirmed the shortages.

Most other regions have said the situation is under control, and that some disruptions were caused by panic buying. Moscow has denied there were any problems with fuel supplies.

Israel continues to expand settlements in the occupied territory, which are illegal under international law.

The Israeli government has allocated a first tranche of an expected $388m in new funds for the construction of settlements in the occupied West Bank.

The anti-settlement group Peace Now reported on Thursday that the government had allocated 152 million shekels ($51m) to prepare construction plans for 69 illegal settlements and outposts in the occupied West Bank.

The cabinet later reportedly postponed a decision about a 1-billion-shekel ($338m) allocation. That proposal, if passed, would mark one of the largest expansions of illegal Israeli settlements in decades.

“The government decided to postpone the decision [on the 1-billion-shekel allocation] and refer it to the Security Cabinet which is expected to convene on Sunday,” Peace Now wrote.

Under the yet-to-be-approved plan, construction for the settlements, including infrastructure and public buildings, would begin despite necessary planning protocols not having been carried out in accord with Israeli law.

Peace Now accused the government of intending to bypass planning and construction regulations.

“October 7 proved that the right-wing approach has failed: the conflict cannot be ‘managed,’ and the Palestinians cannot be ‘defeated’,” the group said in a statement.

“Israel must reach a political solution and diplomatic agreement, but instead the government is only sinking us deeper into the mire and condemning us to many more years of bloody conflict.”

Israel has come under growing condemnation for expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank, which are illegal under international law.

On Tuesday, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France and Norway imposed sanctions on networks involved in financing, enabling and carrying out settler violence against Palestinians.

According to Peace Now, the current Israeli government has approved 103 settlements since it took office in December 2022. From that figure, 51 are entirely new settlements.

On Wednesday, Amnesty International published a report accusing the Israeli government of playing a central role in what it describes as the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. The report described the government’s actions as “integral”.

At least 117 villages in the West Bank have been subject to either complete or partial displacement due to settler attacks, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

Amnesty also condemned the upcoming “Great Israeli Real Estate Event”, which is due to take place in London on Sunday.

The event, which has also been held in the United States and Canada, promotes the sale of properties in the occupied West Bank, which campaigners say is in violation of international law.

At a motion for a vote of no confidence against Arwa Elrayess, the first Palestinian president of the University of Oxford’s debating society, Oxford Union, she was accused by a 20-year-old student of contributing to “an atmosphere of hostility and harassment”.

In a video of the forum last week at the prestigious university, which was shared with Al Jazeera, Elrayess is seen replying to Ben Ashworth, “Not just in my career within the union but in my existence as a Palestinian, there seems to always be this post-mortem vilification of Palestinians.”

The room was full of onlookers as Elrayess, who became the head of the Oxford Union late last year, stood tall in a green sequinned dress.

“Palestinians, when they talk, are for some reason a danger. Our very existence is something that is scary,” she added.

The motion was filed after screenshots of text messages from Elrayess were quoted in outlets including The Telegraph and the BBC as saying that the Hamas-led incursion into southern Israel on October 7, 2023 was “proportional”.

The text also said groups branded as terrorists were often later “lauded as heroes”.

Ashworth cited the Sunday Telegraph directly in his accusation. The newspaper’s political editor, Camila Turner, whose father serves as chief executive of UK Lawyers for Israel, had carried the claim that Elrayess said Hamas would be “lauded as heroes”.

But Elrayess did not make any statement of support for Hamas.

Nine months ago – before Elrayess was president – she was in a group chat of students meant to discuss politics.

In the group chat, October 7 and Palestine – and broader conversations on resistance groups – were discussed.

“Analysing something is not giving it moral legitimacy,” she told Al Jazeera. “Even though I described explicitly in all the messages that I’m not describing this as legitimate or morally justified, I’m just providing analysis; all of this was stripped away when it was reported in The Telegraph or the Daily News.”

The full quote in question on the group chat read: “Any resistance group will inevitably be deemed a terrorist organisation by the West until they achieve their liberation, by which time they’ll be lauded as heroes as history has historically proven.”

‘Entirely misquoted’

The messages were not meant as commentary on Hamas specifically, she argued.

“It was entirely misquoted; I believe it was entirely intentional to frame as having said something that I simply did not say,” she told Al Jazeera.

To the Jewish Chronicle, though, Elrayess reiterated her position by saying, “I condemn Hamas’ targeting of innocent civilians, just as I condemn the targeting of innocent civilians by the [Israeli army] or any other actor.”

After refuting the allegation and misquotations, Ashworth is seen in the video yelling at Elrayess, asking whether she condemns Hamas again.

Ashworth, who is not Jewish, has faced criticism for recently visiting Israel with the Pinsker Centre, a think tank formerly known as the Pinsker Centre for Zionist Education.

The motion for a vote of no confidence overwhelmingly failed, receiving 126 votes, 116 of which were online signatures, far below the 150 needed to proceed to a poll.

This is not the first misinformation campaign against Elrayess.

In October 2025, just before her election as president of the debating society, falsified minutes were ratified by an unnamed member of the union, alleging that Elrayess “argues that alumni members shouldn’t be allowed to vote, reiterating her claims that they are incapable of making a rational judgement”.

Elrayess believes that the minutes were made up and spread to “paint me as someone who hates alumni of this institution”.

After an internal disciplinary process, the person who falsified the minutes was suspended from office and the minutes were de-ratified.

Shortly after her win, opposition within the Union brought forward a number of charges against Elrayess, ranging from misuse of social media to antisemitism. In January, it was found that the charges were un-evidenced. By this point, however, Elrayess had lost two months of her presidency.

Alongside this, an article was published in the Oxford Standard alleging that she was related to a leader of Hamas who happened to share the same surname as her, and that she had created and shared a cartoon of herself stepping on a lizard and a hook-nosed anti-Semitic caricature to celebrate her victory.

The claims, again, were false. The cartoon linked to an anonymous meme page that Elrayess had nothing to do with, and she had no family ties to Hamas. The article had no author attributed to it, and the Oxford Standard did not contact Elrayess or reply to her emails, fact-checking the article.

Within days, Elrayess had emails from journalists at The Jerusalem Post, Jewish Chronicle and The Telegraph, asking her to clarify her family affiliation with Hamas and her views of Jewish people, stemming from the stark untruths shared in the nameless Oxford Standard article.

The only cause for the allegations, some have observed, appeared to be Elrayess’s Palestinian identity.

A colleague and friend of Elrayess, who wished to remain unnamed, described to Al Jazeera a sense of distress among Elrayess and her friends.

“The level of attacks that Arwa and her friends received was astounding,” he said.

The Oxford Standard, which no longer exists, deleted both the article and their website altogether. But the rumours they began, with no facts to back them up, have snowballed into national news headlines of Oxford Union’s first Palestinian president being a supporter of Hamas and a proud anti-Semite.

Tweets by prominent Zionist influencers like Eylon Levy, former spokesperson for Israel, sharing the lie that Elrayess is a Hamas heiress, with now-broken Oxford Standard links and no factual corrections.

‘I’m a very proud Palestinian’

Elrayess’s dedication to debate and free speech has brought controversy to her tenure. She invited prominent Israel supporter Tommy Robinson to a debate, triggering widespread protest in Oxford, and has engaged with conservatives and Zionists in her union and her own appointed committee.

Oliver Jones-Lyons, director of finance of the Oxford Union, works alongside Elrayess and describes himself as a “pretty public Zionist”.

Still, despite their diametric positions, Lyons-Jones does not endorse the growing smear campaign against Elrayess.

“I have never felt oppressed, abused or discouraged from sharing my views openly, quite the opposite in fact,” said Jones-Lyons in a statement to Al Jazeera. “Me and Arwa obviously vehemently disagree on a lot of issues; however, our conversations about issues that are deeply personal to both of us have never once been aggressive and have always been productive, in fact I can certainly say Arwa has changed my mind on issues I never thought I would.”

Oxford Union member Oliver Goldstein said, “Personally, I like Arwa. I don’t agree with many of her comments, but do I feel unsafe as a Jewish student at the Oxford Union? No … I don’t think she’s an anti-Semite.”

Despite the inundation of misinformation, Elrayess remains determined.

“My father is from Gaza,” she said. “He would always tell me, ‘It doesn’t really matter what you say or do not say; people will always find a way to spin it in such a way that you become a target, because you’re already a target.”

She said she lives by her father’s words.

“I’m not resigning from my position. They can throw 1,000 different letters in 1,000 different articles. I’m very vocal, and I’m a very proud Palestinian.”

A US strike on an oil tanker accused of transporting Iranian oil has killed three Indian sailors. It was the second attack in three days on a ship carrying crew members from India.

Tehran remains defiant amid US attacks, orders complete closure of Strait of Hormuz to all vessels.

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has confirmed that the United States is launching strikes on “key facilities” in Iran, framing the attacks as part of the ongoing negotiations for a permanent ceasefire.

Hegseth spoke to reporters on Wednesday in Tampa, Florida, as he left the headquarters for the US Central Command (CENTCOM), the military apparatus that oversees operations in the Middle East and parts of Asia.

His remarks echoed the escalating rhetoric of Republican President Donald Trump, who warned earlier that Iran would “have to pay the price” for taking too long with the negotiations.

“ CENTCOM — Central Command — will be busy tonight because President Trump said we will be hitting Iran hard, and we will be,” Hegseth said.

He explained that he had just reviewed the plans for Wednesday night’s attack with Admiral Bradley Cooper, CENTCOM’s commander.

“ Those strikes that’ll happen tonight will be strong. They will be clear,” said Hegseth, who then suggested they may continue into a second day. “If they have to happen tomorrow night, they will be strong, and they will be clear.”

CENTCOM followed Hegseth’s comments with a social media post, announcing “additional self-defence strikes” at 5:15pm US Eastern time (21:00 GMT).

“The strikes are in response to Iran’s unwarranted and continued aggression,” it wrote.

Within minutes of those comments, Iran’s IRNA media outlet reported explosions in Bandar Abbas, Qeshm, Gorgan and Hengam.

Wednesday’s attack will mark the second straight day of US attacks against Iran, fracturing the fragile truce struck on April 8.

The US has been at war with Iran since February 28, when the Trump administration joined Israel in an unprovoked attack on the country.

Both Israel and the US have argued that the attack was necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, though Tehran has long denied seeking one.

But the Trump administration has offered contradicting rationales for the war in the months since it began.

At one point, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that the US acted “pre-emptively” because it “knew that there was going to be an Israeli action” and it wanted to head off retaliation. Rubio has since walked back those remarks.

Hegseth on Wednesday credited the upcoming strikes to frustration with Iran’s negotiating tactics.

“ As President Trump said, they’ve been tap-tap-tapping. You can see when someone’s trying to tap-tap-tap on a deal,” he said. “Instead, they’re going to have tap, tap, tap bombs dropping on key facilities in Iran from the United States of America.”

Since a temporary ceasefire was announced on April 8, much of the most intense fighting between the US and Iran has been paused.

But this week’s escalation began when an AH-64 Apache helicopter was downed near the Strait of Hormuz overnight on Monday.

Trump on Tuesday blamed Iran for the helicopter’s crash. Though no US service members were hurt, he said the US “must, of necessity, respond to this attack”.

In announcing a second round of attacks, Hegseth denied that the US sought to resume full-scale fighting. He instead framed the offensive as a means of kick-starting the stalled negotiations with Iran.

“That’s not because we want to restart anything we don’t have to restart,” Hegseth said of Wednesday night’s attack. “It’s because the War Department is prepared to set the terms to ensure that we get the kind of deal President Trump expects.”

The two sides have differed over issues like the fate of Iran’s nuclear programme and whether Iran would receive sanctions relief.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran’s bridges and energy infrastructure, at one point warning that “a whole civilization will die” as a result of US attacks.

Those comments have prompted human rights concerns. Intentionally targeting civilian infrastructure can be considered a war crime, and critics compared Trump’s threats against Iranian “civilisation” to genocidal remarks.

Reporters confronted Hegseth with those concerns on Wednesday.

“You just mentioned you’re going to plan to hit them and strike them hard tonight,” one reporter asked. “If the response is in hitting bridges, electrical infrastructure, how would that not be a war crime, potentially targeting civilian infrastructure?”

Hegseth dismissed the question as “disingenuous” and accused the reporter of “impugning the motives” of the US military. But he did not rule out that civilian infrastructure would be struck as part of Wednesday’s attacks.

The United States and Iran engaged in some of the most intense fighting overnight since all-out hostilities in the ongoing US‑Israeli war on Iran were halted with a Pakistan‑mediated temporary ceasefire on April 8.

A comprehensive peace agreement remains elusive as Iran and the US have exchanged a series of proposals and counterproposals in the weeks since that pause. After a string of smaller escalations, however, the US struck targets in Iran following the downing of a US Apache helicopter close to the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday, and Iran retaliated by hitting US military bases in the Gulf.

The US military said it targeted communications and radar facilities. Iranian officials, however, said civilian infrastructure was also damaged, including two water reservoirs.

If correct, this is the first reported strike on civilian infrastructure in Iran in several weeks, but it comes at a time when Iran is facing a severe water shortage.

Which targets have been hit in Iran?

The US launched waves of attacks starting late on Tuesday following the downing of the helicopter in the Strait of Hormuz. The US described the attacks as “self-defence strikes” and a “proportional response to unjustified Iranian aggression”.

While an official US inquiry into what caused the helicopter to crash has yet to conclude, US President Donald Trump quickly blamed Iran, which he said had deliberately shot it down.

“I have just been informed by our Great Military that last night the Iranians shot down one of our highly sophisticated Apache Helicopters while patrolling over the Strait of Hormuz. There were two pilots involved, both are safe and uninjured,” Trump wrote on social media.

“Nevertheless, the United States must, of necessity, respond to this attack.”

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said US strikes, which hit targets including Sirik, Jask, Minab, Qeshm Island and the port of Bandar Abbas, had caused major damage to a telecommunications tower in the town of Sirik and destroyed two water reservoirs there.

Iran’s West Asia News Agency (WANA) news outlet reported on Wednesday, citing “available reports”, that two concrete water storage reservoirs in the Bamani district in the Sirik County of Hormozgan Province, in southern Iran, 1,012km (629 miles) from the capital, Tehran, had been hit in the US attacks.

The IRGC claimed attacks on US military bases in Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan in retaliation.

Has the US hit Iran’s water infrastructure before?

Yes. On March 7, while missiles were flying across the region in an all-out war between Iran and the US-Israel, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the US of striking a desalination plant on Qeshm Island off the coast of Iran in the Strait of Hormuz. The strike reportedly cut off the water supply to 30 villages.

“Water supply in 30 villages has been impacted. Attacking Iran’s infrastructure is a dangerous move with grave consequences. The US set this precedent, not Iran,” Araghchi wrote in an X post.

A desalination plant converts seawater into water suitable for drinking, irrigation and industrial use. These facilities are particularly critical in areas such as the Gulf, where freshwater is scarce.

Why is this significant?

The reservoirs that were struck provide drinking water to more than 20,000 residents in the city of Kouhestak and 10 surrounding villages. WANA reported initial estimates for damages amounting to $780,000 to $830,000.

Iran was already facing a multiyear drought and decline in precipitation before the US-Israeli war on Iran started. After years of poor agricultural practices and mismanagement, Iran’s main water supplies, including its reservoirs, rivers and groundwater reserves, continued to run dry.

According to Aqueduct data from the World Resources Institute, which tracks global water risk, Iran’s baseline water stress is classified as “extremely high” – meaning the country uses more than 80 percent of its renewable water resources in a typical year.

Last year marked Iran’s fifth consecutive year of drought. In November 2025, the water crisis was so dire that Tehran’s Amir Kabir Dam only held 8 percent of its capacity, while across the country, 19 major dams had run dry.

Is this a war crime?

Isa Bozorgzadeh, spokesman for Iran’s water industry, claimed the US strike on the water reservoirs is a war crime, WANA reported.

International humanitarian law classifies water infrastructure, including drinking water installations, treatment plants and pipelines, as civilian property which is not deemed a legitimate target during war.

The Berlin Rules on Water Resources, drafted by the International Law Association (ILA) and adopted in 2004, are a set of non‑binding international legal principles about how countries should use, share and protect water.

The Berlin Rules prohibit countries at war from destroying water installations “if such actions would cause disproportionate suffering to civilians”.

It’s called the Joint Awami Action Committee, and it’s being accused of fuelling protests in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

The group has been demonstrating against a rule that sets aside legislative seats for refugees from India-administered Kashmir who live in Pakistan. They say it gives them disproportionate influence in the divided region.

But the government says any change would require constitutional reform.

The issue has long been a subject of political debate in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. But how will its government deal with tensions rising once again?

Presenter: Imran Khan

Guests:
Maria Iqbal Tarana – Senior leader of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz

Sahar Khan – Nonresident fellow at the Institute for Global Affairs

Imtiaz Gul – Executive director at the Center for Research and Security Studies

At a campaign rally in Armenia’s capital, Yerevan, on Saturday, one day before Armenia’s election, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, outfitted in a white button-up shirt and a red-brimmed baseball cap, held a look of determination.

Flanked by supporters waving their arms and flashing his campaign’s signature heart-shaped hand gesture, Pashinyan was perched centre stage, pounding away on a drum kit for the crowds – literally drumming up support.

By election day, his governing Civil Contract party appeared to have drummed up something more consequential: public backing for his vision of Armenia’s future following the loss of the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh to a crushing military defeat by Azerbaijan in 2023. 

Pashinyan, who formed a band earlier this year and campaigned with a series of concerts around the country, secured 49.8 percent of the vote in Sunday’s ballot, enough to retain a parliamentary majority.

His victory is seen as a test of his handling of the loss of the Nagorno-Karabakh region and his ability to steer the country away from Russian influence.

He has ultimately prevailed despite Russian meddling in Armenian politics, and the country now looks set to reorient itself away from its former ruler – signalling Armenians’ willingness to embrace a new direction, analysts say.

“Many Armenians are prepared to give his new vision a chance: an Armenia less defined by conflict, more open to normalising relations with Azerbaijan and Turkiye, and increasingly focused on building its future within its internationally recognised borders,” Zaur Shiriyev, an analyst at the Carnegie ⁠Russia Eurasia Center, told Al Jazeera.

‘Tired of conflict and war’

The loss of Nagorno-Karabakh could have spelled political doom for Pashinyan. By handing him a second term, Armenians have signalled that they are ready to put the conflict that has intermittently reared its head for decades behind them, analysts say.

“Nationalism no longer resonates among the public, which is demonstrably tired of conflict and war,” Richard Giragosian, director of the Yerevan-based Regional Studies Center, told Al Jazeera, even if the loss of the region remains an “open wound”, he said.

Nagorno-Karabakh, meanwhile, no longer features at all in the Armenian government’s defence reform, nor in its national security strategy, “a final confirmation of the new strategy of diversification”, Giragosian explained.

Peace efforts instead took centre stage in Pashinyan’s campaign, including the agreement he signed at the White House last August with Azerbaijan, finally ending the on-again-off-again war that had raged since the late 1980s.

Unlike in 2021, when Pashinyan’s campaign was shaped by the immediate aftermath of war and questions of political survival, Sunday’s vote became a clearer test of public support for his peace agenda, Shiriyev said.

Peace over nationalism

The result also demonstrates that the nationalist mantras peddled by opposition leaders have not been able to sway the majority of Armenians, said Svante Cornell, director of the Institute for Security and Development Policy and its Central Asia-Caucasus programme.

“The opposition represented a return to oligarchy, nationalism and forever conflict,” Cornell told Al Jazeera.

“While the Pashinyan government has its flaws, it represents something different than the past.”

The election saw the two main opposition forces – Strong Armenia and Armenia Alliance – win 41 seats combined in the new parliament, against the 64 seats the government holds, out of a total 105.

But Giragosian cautioned against overstating the opposition’s strength as, he said, the two opposition parties are unlikely to cooperate given the friction between their leaders – Russian-Armenian oligarch Samvel Karapetyan, whose Strong Armenia took 29 seats, and former President Robert Kocharian, whose Armenia Alliance won just 12.

“The division and dissent within the opposition will present a profound obstacle,” he said.

Although united in their shared pro-Russian leanings, Karapetyan is seen by Kocharian as an “interfering interloper”, with Kocharian himself resenting his third-place position behind Karapetyan, the analyst said.

“This is further exacerbated by Kocharian’s sense of entitlement, and his frustration of being rebuffed by Moscow in his prior attempts to gain direct Russian backing and support,” Giragosian added.

Still, Cornell said, the persistence of pro-Russian, nationalist sentiment in Armenia generally should not be taken lightly.

Until 2020, Armenia was governed by successive administrations that spent three decades pushing a nationalist identity, he said.

“To expect such views, such sentiments would just disappear – would be unrealistic,” Cornell noted.

Russian influence weakened – but not gone

In the lead-up to Sunday’s election, international observers had accused Russia of attempting to interfere – but its inability to change the result reflects Moscow’s limited reach in the country today, analysts say.

“Moscow still has tools in Armenia, but it no longer has the authority it once had,” Shiriyev said.

“In today’s Armenia, being seen as Russia’s preferred candidate can mobilise voters against you as much as for you.”

As Armenia strives to resist what Shiriyev refers to as the “gravitational pull” of the “Russian orbit”, a window of opportunity has been created by Moscow’s preoccupation with its invasion of Ukraine and a new openness from Western partners.

“The larger risk is from not altering strategy, and the benefits of a pivot to the West are both demonstrable and popular in Armenia today,” Giragosian said.

Russia, he added, is now increasingly viewed in Armenia as a “dangerously undependable so-called partner”.

Benyamin Poghosyan, an Armenia analyst at the Italian Institute for International Political Studies, argues that the primary foreign policy drivers of the election, however, were regional actors – not Russia or the West.

“The reality on the ground is far more nuanced,” Poghosyan told Al Jazeera. Armenia’s future relations with Azerbaijan and Turkiye, as well as the regional fallout from the conflict in Iran, are far greater influences, he said.

There are good reasons not to count Moscow out completely, however. While pro-Russian forces did not prevail this time, they will continue to assert their influence, Cornell said. He referred to the cautionary tale of another Caucasus country.

“In Georgia, the work of undermining a reformist and pro-Western government and turning the country around to a more pro-Russian line took over 15 years,” he said.

At the same time, Moscow still holds massive economic leverage over Yerevan, said the analysts.

Russia remains the primary export destination for Armenian agriculture and wine, is the main source of critical imports like wheat, and supplies the country with heavily discounted gas, Poghosyan noted.

“Because Russia has the capacity to inflict severe economic pain, Yerevan must tread carefully to protect its core interests without completely rupturing its relationship with Moscow,” he said.

Shiriyev added that many Armenians work in Russia, with families depending on remittances, and business ties running deep.

“By contrast, Western integration can still feel abstract and uncertain to many voters. That is why pro-Russian forces can still gain traction, even as Russia’s political image in Armenia has weakened,” he said.

A constitutional hurdle

But while Pashinyan’s re-election has strengthened his hand in the country’s peace process, it has not resolved one key sticking point for constitutional change to ensure it, said Shiriyev.

Azerbaijan has demanded a change to Yerevan’s constitution as a means of guaranteeing that no future Armenian government might revive claims related to Nagorno-Karabakh or Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.

“But Pashinyan lacks the two-thirds majority needed to move easily toward a referendum, and even a referendum would be politically uncertain,” said Shiriyev.

This election, Cornell said, was “a necessary but not sufficient condition for the peace process to advance”.

Poghosyan warned that if Baku refuses to drop these preconditions, “the peace agreement will remain stalled, leaving both nations trapped in a volatile state of ‘no war, no peace’”.

On the question of regional normalisation, however, the outlook has shifted.

Since the bilateral peace treaty was signed at the White House last August, Azerbaijan has lifted restrictions on trade and transit with Armenia and restarted talks on border demarcation – moves that Giragosian said have also accelerated the opening for Armenia-Turkiye normalisation.

“For Armenia,” said Shiriyev, “the West may offer the road, Russia increasingly acts as the roadblock, and normalisation with Azerbaijan and Turkiye is the real prize.”

More than 100 days into the Iran conflict, 20 percent of the world’s energy flows remain disrupted, with the scenario described as the biggest supply shock in history.

For now, the nightmare scenario has been avoided. Oil prices are still at approximately $100 a barrel.

Many analysts have warned that a prolonged disruption to the Strait of Hormuz could send oil above $200 a barrel, triggering a global economic crisis.

Various countries have released their strategic reserves, exporters have found alternative routes and weaker demand has helped contain prices. But the buffers are thinning.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) warns the economic impact could linger well into 2027, even if the conflict ends tomorrow.

A UN spokesman says forced evacuation orders issued across southern and eastern Lebanon are nearly impossible to follow safely, and calls into question whether Israel is complying with international humanitarian law.

IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said Iran-US nuclear talks were in a ‘complicated phase’ and dialogue with Iran ‘broken’ as Iran and Israel traded fire on Monday, the worst escalation since a ceasefire was reached in April.