East

Reporting from ORANGE CITY, Iowa — They met decades ago, when they were first married, and the three sisters-in-law still gather each week at the Dutch Bakery to catch up amid the sweet smell of flour and sugar floating through the air.

Despite the cozy setting here on the state’s western edge, they can feel the country beneath their feet slipping away, eroding under the threats of immorality and terrorism.

“I never thought we would live in so much fear,” said Joanne Niezen, as her coffee sat cooling before her in a Styrofoam cup.

There’s fear on the other side of the state as well, though for different reasons.

In the college town of Iowa City, with its hip music scene and pita restaurant advertising “fresh thinking and healthy eating,” Veronica Tessler worries about the harsh rhetoric directed at immigrants and the economic inequality that lingers years after the Great Recession.

“I really fear for our country,” said Tessler, who left her job at a foreign policy foundation to open a frozen yogurt shop near the University of Iowa campus.

A sense of dread is about the only thing that unites Orange City, a bastion of religious conservatism, and Iowa City, known for its blue-sky liberalism. Together they bookend not only the state’s geography but its political spectrum as Iowa prepares to kick off the presidential selection process Monday night with its closely watched caucuses.

The two communities, located in the most lopsidedly partisan counties in the state, reflect the vast political chasm here and across the country, a divide that President Obama was unable to heal and which may prove insurmountable for whomever takes his place.

“Republicans see an America where the government is too big at home and too feeble abroad. Democrats see an America where the economy is out of whack,” said David Nagle, a Democratic attorney who used to represent Iowa City and surrounding Johnson County in Congress. “It’s like two trains in the night, passing in opposite directions.”

But the division goes far beyond a profound disagreement on issues. While partisan tensions are nothing new, they have deepened and intensified during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama as the parties have splintered along the lines of age, race and culture. The result is a separation of America into mutually estranged and suspicious tribes.

Today, as conversations at opposite poles of Iowa show, voters on each side often get their news from different sources, worry about different problems and view political adversaries with mistrust and even contempt. One voter’s vision for America is nothing less than another’s nightmare; it’s common to hear candidates of the opposing party described as “concerning” or “scary” or “crazy.”

In 2014, a major study released by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that more than one-third of Republicans and just over a quarter of Democrats — especially those most engaged in politics — go as far seeing the other party as a “threat to the nation’s well-being.”

In Johnson County, known both affectionately and derisively as the “People’s Republic,” life in Iowa City revolves around the university, with young people constantly hustling between classes or hunkered down in coffee shops with headphones and homework.

Obama is largely viewed with gratitude or, at worst, disappointment for failing to deliver an even more liberal agenda.

The city’s leanings are evident at the Hamburg Inn, where jars labeled with the names of presidential candidates are lined up in the window. Diners drop in coffee beans to show their preferences; some of the Republican jars are nearly empty, while a second container was added for Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist, because the first overflowed.

Tessler, 30, is volunteering with the Sanders campaign, and she’s been alarmed by what she hears coming from the mouths of Republican contenders.

In response to Donald Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., she helped make T-shirts to protest his Iowa City visit last Wednesday. “I stand with my Muslim neighbors,” they read.

She doesn’t dismiss the threat of terrorism — in fact, she was visiting family near San Bernardino on the day of the attack there that killed 14 people in December. But she’s also the daughter of a Soviet Jew who escaped to Los Angeles in 1973, and she thinks Republicans are scapegoating immigrants and refugees.

“They are not American ideals,” she said.

For many in Iowa City, issues like economic inequality and student debt feel most urgent, not fears of terrorist attack.

“ISIS could do something terrible anywhere,” said Chuck Michaelson, 61, a piano instructor who lives in nearby Coralville, using an acronym for the militant group Islamic State. He paused while flipping through a biography of writer Joan Didion at a bookstore near campus. “But the likelihood of it being personally affecting is slim. It’s like being struck by lightning.”

About 300 miles away in Orange City, across a vast expanse of fertile farmland, the fears of terrorism seem more immediate despite the area’s isolation and outward serenity.

“The whole thing of ISIS scares me,” said Bob Hulstein, 64, who publishes the Orange City newspaper and owns a printing business with his brother-in-law, Dave Pluim, 51.

After attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Hulstein said, “I’m afraid we’re going to see that closer and closer. I guess I want that stopped before it comes to my front door.”

Pluim agreed. “In fact, it would be real easy to do something horrible in Orange City,” he said. “Come to a high school basketball game.”

Settled largely by Dutch immigrants, this region proudly promotes its heritage; Orange City, the seat of Sioux County, was named after a Dutch prince, and decorative windmills, wooden shoes and tulip-themed businesses abound.

The area was hardly touched by the Great Recession — strong commodity prices and a boom in farm values helped see to that — and now there is something close to full employment. “Help wanted” signs are everywhere: at the florist, the bakery, restaurants, the post office.

So it is not economics that drives the anxiety here so much as concerns about the country’s place in the world.

“Are we willing to back our allies?” said Tony Vande Brake, 25, a financial advisor and newly elected member of the Orange City Council. “Are we willing to stand behind our military prowess, show strength if we had to?”

Back at the Dutch Bakery, Niezen and her sisters-in-law describe the election as a chance to reclaim the moral authority and military strength that, in their opinion, has withered under Obama and fueled a rise in Islamic extremism.

“He’s taken our military way down,” said Niezen, who is in her 70s. “When they were cutting our people’s heads off, he should have gotten in there right then.”

Leona Noteboom, an 83-year-old retiree, agreed. “I don’t trust him for taking care of my country,” she said.

“We’re just losing all our Christian values,” piped in Carol Noteboom, 74, who lives on a nearby farm.

Amid all the anxieties, there were glimmers of optimism.

Morgan Brittain, a political science student, crosses the ideological fault line every time he travels from his family’s home in Winterset, a small town outside Des Moines, to school in Iowa City. When he last got his hair cut back home, the woman holding the shears confided she planned to support Trump.

“I was like, ‘Oh my gosh, Heidi, you’re killing me,’” Brittain said.

At the barbershop close to campus, everyone seems bewildered by Trump’s popularity.

Asked if any candidate could bridge the divide, Brittain laughed and said, “I’m going to say absolutely, anybody can unify us.”

But he’s just 22, Brittain said, and still an idealist.

Twitter: @ChrisMegerian

Twitter: @markzbarabak

Megerian reported from Iowa City and Barabak from Orange City.

Hoy: Léa esta historia en español

For more, go to latimes.com/politics.

ALSO:

Everything you need to know about the Iowa caucus and why it matters

How Martin O’Malley could decide who wins the Democratic caucuses in Iowa

Republican rivals take advantage of Trump’s absence in Iowa presidential debate

Trump makes a big show of skipping GOP debate and staging benefit for veterans

The upcoming official visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Egypt, scheduled for August 30 to September 3, 2026, coincides with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit. The visit will address economic and technological cooperation, as well as regional and international issues, and marks the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Egypt and China. The visit aims to strengthen the comprehensive strategic partnership between the two countries and expand Beijing’s economic and political influence in the Middle East amidst escalating regional and international tensions, while also bolstering China’s role in the Global South.

As an Egyptian academic specializing in Chinese politics and the policies of the ruling Communist Party of China, I can analyze and summarize the significance of President Xi Jinping’s visit to Cairo and his meeting with his Egyptian counterpart, President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, and its importance to China’s influence in the Middle East and the Global South through the following points:

– First: What does China hope to achieve with Xi Jinping’s visit to Egypt at this particular time?

This visit of President Xi Jinping to Cairo (the first by a Chinese president to Cairo in nearly a decade) coincides with the 70th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. It carries several key objectives, including political and international dimensions related to Chinese coordination with Egypt on Middle Eastern issues. The visit comes at a sensitive time, as the region is experiencing tensions linked to the conflict between Iran and the United States and its repercussions on maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz and global energy markets. Beijing also seeks to strengthen its strategic balance and reaffirm its diplomatic presence as an international power that supports diplomatic solutions and cooperates with pivotal countries like Egypt to achieve stability. This follows President Xi Jinping’s participation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit.  President Xi Jinping’s visit to Cairo also carries several economic and trade dimensions, such as expanding the economic partnership and capitalizing on the significant increase in trade between the two countries to deepen cooperation. Furthermore, China will support infrastructure and energy projects in Egypt by boosting Chinese investments in Cairo, including renewable energy sectors such as wind turbine manufacturing plants, transportation deals, and electric trains, in addition to extending currency swap agreements between the two central banks.

The visit also aims to discuss the technological and artificial intelligence file in China’s relations with Cairo, particularly major technological offers, most notably the offer from the Chinese company Huawei to build data and artificial intelligence centers in Egypt. This project is viewed with apprehension by intelligence, military, political, and strategic circles in Washington, which are attempting to offer Cairo alternatives from major American technology companies such as Microsoft, Nvidia, and AMD.

– Second: Does the visit carry political messages that extend beyond bilateral relations, especially regarding the Middle East and Africa?

Yes, Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit carries major strategic political messages that transcend the framework of bilateral cooperation. It aims to reshape the international order and build a multipolar world, starting with the Global South. The visit also carries messages that go beyond bilateral relations, pushing for a Global South leadership role. Beijing seeks to garner African and Arab support to assert its position as a major power, offering an alternative to Western and American competition and influence. China also aims to promote multilateralism by urging countries in the region to adopt common positions that support international stability and security, moving away from the unilateral polarization of the United States. Furthermore, President Xi Jinping’s visit signals China’s desire to secure its economic interests. Chinese actions are focused on ensuring the security of maritime routes and the stability of energy and trade markets within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. Here, President Xi’s visit to Cairo coincides with the launch of the second iteration of the massive joint air exercises, Eagles of Civilization, in August 2026 at Egyptian air bases. These exercises, which follow the first iteration in May 2025, will involve advanced fighter jets from both sides. This sends political and strategic messages to Washington and Tel Aviv about the new military partnership between Egypt and China, the diversification of arms sources, and the independence of Egyptian military and political decision-making in diversifying its partnerships.

Furthermore, the Chinese president’s visit to Cairo carries support for Egypt’s regional role in the Middle East and Africa, reaffirming the pivotal role of Egypt. Choosing Egypt as a starting point reflects Beijing’s understanding of its geopolitical importance as a key link between the Arab world and the African continent and its commitment to addressing regional repercussions. China is also demonstrating its readiness to cooperate with its African and Arab partners to contain the economic crises resulting from conflicts in the Middle East.  In addition to China’s anticipated plan to expand alliances by strengthening the integration of Chinese development projects with major economic blocs such as BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, this visit also aims to coordinate common positions on de-escalation and maintaining peace and security in the Middle East and to discuss regional conflicts, particularly in the wake of the Gaza and Iran wars.

– Third: What economic files could witness new agreements or steps between Cairo and Beijing?

Economic relations between Cairo and Beijing are increasingly moving towards signing new agreements and taking new steps focused on strengthening joint investments and supporting financial stability. The most prominent joint economic and investment files between Egypt and China are based on supporting financial partnership and currency diversification. This involves renewing and strengthening local currency swap agreements between the Central Bank of Egypt and its Chinese counterpart to facilitate trade and support monetary stability, independent of international currencies. Economic cooperation and currency swaps will be among the top economic priorities of the visit through monitoring the surge in trade and extending the local currency swap agreement to enhance economic partnership within the BRICS framework.

Furthermore, there is a shared Chinese-Egyptian desire to localize industry and technology in Cairo by attracting substantial Chinese investments in electric vehicle manufacturing, new and renewable energy sectors, and advanced technology industries. With the expansion of Chinese projects in the Suez Canal Economic Zone, through the expansion of Chinese industrial and logistical projects within the Suez Canal Corridor, a major value-added production base is being established. China is also supporting Egypt in achieving food security and agricultural development by preparing joint Egyptian-Chinese alliances targeting large-scale agricultural land reclamation projects to enhance food security. This is happening concurrently with Chinese support for infrastructure and smart cities in Egypt through cooperation in urban development projects and modern smart cities.

– Fourth: Can China strengthen Egypt’s role as a key hub for its projects in the Middle East and Africa?

Yes, China is already strengthening Egypt’s role as a key and central hub for its strategic projects in the Middle East and Africa. The pillars of Chinese strategic cooperation with Egypt are based on China’s projects and investments within the Belt and Road Initiative. China considers Egypt a strategic gateway and a vital corridor for the maritime and land Silk Road, given the Suez Canal’s role as a global trade artery.  With the diversification of Chinese partnerships and investments in the Suez Canal Economic Zone, given the concentration of major industrial projects by Chinese companies in the zone, such as the China-Egypt Economic and Trade Cooperation Zone (TEDA). China aims to access African markets through Egypt. Chinese companies utilize Egyptian land and ports as a joint manufacturing base and a launchpad for exporting products and services to markets across Africa and the Middle East. China also seeks to achieve developmental and security integration with Egypt, aligning its five-year development plans with Egypt’s Vision 2030. This is further evidenced by the development of joint military cooperation and air exercises between Egypt and China, such as the Eagles of Civilization exercises between the Egyptian and Chinese air forces, the first iteration of which took place in May 2025 and the second in August 2026.

Beijing also seeks to disseminate artificial intelligence and innovation technologies through Egypt to the African continent, the Middle East, and the Global South.  Especially since Egypt hosts a number of Chinese companies across various sectors, particularly technology, such as Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo, ZTE, Midea, and Haier. Furthermore, a $300 million investment fund has been established with Tsinghua University in China, focusing on artificial intelligence and semiconductor design.

– Fifth: To what extent can the Egyptian-Chinese partnership affect the balance of American influence in the region?

The Egyptian-Chinese partnership significantly impacts American influence in the Middle East by diversifying China’s economic and political alliances in the region. However, it does not eliminate the strategic alliances between the United States and several countries in the region, particularly the Gulf states. The partnership between Egypt and China is based on the economic and financial dimension, including major Chinese investments in Egypt. China is pouring billions of dollars into infrastructure projects and the Suez Canal region. China also supports Egypt’s bid to join the BRICS group, led by China and Russia, to reduce its dependence on the dollar and the Western and American financial system. Furthermore, China is keen to closely integrate its Belt and Road Initiative projects with the Egyptian economy. The partnership between Egypt and China also rests on the diplomatic and strategic dimension as well as the diversification of alliances. Egypt pursues a balanced foreign policy that is not limited to a single ally.  Here, the partnership with China grants Egypt greater freedom of movement and a wider margin to maneuver, free from American political conditions and pressures, particularly in the areas of armament and military deals. This creates a delicate balance for Egypt, as it refuses to fully align itself with one power against another, maintaining its security partnership with Washington alongside its relationship with Beijing.

In this context, Beijing does not view Egypt merely as an economic partner, but rather as a strategic gateway and a pivotal pillar of its geopolitical influence in the Middle East and Africa, countering American penetration. This approach stems from China’s desire to fill the political and military vacuums resulting from the decline or fluctuation of the Western and American presence in the region. To this end, China leverages Cairo’s historical and political weight as a platform to expand its diplomatic influence and build partnerships with other countries in Africa and the Arab world. China’s support for Egypt’s membership in the BRICS bloc has provided Beijing with a strong regional ally, bolstering its vision for reshaping the global financial system into a multipolar order in the face of the United States’ unilateral hegemony in the region. This is especially significant given that Egypt represents a crucial land and sea crossroads for China’s Belt and Road Initiative via the Maritime Silk Road, considering the strategic and vital importance of the Suez Canal.

– Sixth: Does Beijing want Egypt merely as an economic partner, or does it see it as a strategic gateway for its influence in the Middle East and Africa?

Beijing views Egypt as a major strategic gateway for its influence, not just an ordinary economic partner. The relationship combines commercial interests with broad geopolitical ties. The economic dimension is based on the importance of the Suez Canal. China considers the Suez Canal a key artery for its trade with Europe and the rest of the world, and it is investing heavily to connect Egyptian ports and roads to its major commercial projects related to its Belt and Road Initiative. In addition to China’s role as a major logistics hub in the Suez Canal Economic Zone, numerous Chinese companies have established factories there to export goods. This is further compounded by Egypt’s strategic and political importance, as well as its sensitive geographical location, which is crucial to China’s interests. Egypt’s position at the crossroads of Africa, Asia, and Europe serves China’s regional influence. This coincided with China’s support for Egypt’s formal accession to the BRICS group, a move fully backed by China to bolster both countries’ political and economic weight globally.

Beijing also focuses on the growing security and military dimension of its relationship with Cairo to secure investments and international maritime routes. Chinese ambitions extend beyond simply selling goods; it seeks a greater role in protecting its interests and citizens by strengthening military cooperation with Cairo and diversifying defense partnerships with countries in the Middle East, Africa, and the Global South through Egypt. Beijing sees the growing military cooperation and arms sales to Egypt and the region as an opportunity to undermine Western and American military influence and to forge closer ties with the Egyptian army, one of the largest armies on the African continent. This is the true objective of China in transforming Egypt into a political and military hub that guarantees Beijing’s vital interests in the Middle East, Africa, and the Global South.

Accordingly, Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Cairo comes at a time when Beijing seeks to strengthen its engagement in the Middle East and expand its relations with developing countries and the Global South, coinciding with escalating competition with the United States for economic and technological influence. Xi’s visit to Cairo also carries significance that transcends bilateral relations, given the ongoing repercussions of a potential US war with Iran and the instability in global energy markets. Therefore, China seeks to leverage Egypt’s pivotal role in achieving regional stability, mitigating crises, and protecting its interests in the Middle East and Africa.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Saturday urged US President Donald Trump to avoid creating turmoil, saying problems could be resolved through dialogue and implementation of a memorandum of understanding, Anadolu reports.

“If we proceed through dialogue and on the basis of the memorandum of understanding, we will resolve the problems and secure our rights,” Pezeshkian said in a ceremony in Tehran, as cited by Mehr News Agency.

“It is in the interest of the country, the region and the world that Trump does not create turmoil and that Israel does not cause insecurity and aggression,” he added.

Pezeshkian said Iran does not favor war but would respond firmly to any assaults.

“We do not like war, but we will stand with strength against aggression and defend ourselves,” he said, adding that no power could force a united nation determined to defend its territory to surrender.

He said Tehran was seeking to resolve problems through dialogue, but stressed that the Iranian people, officials and military commanders would “never surrender” in the face of threats and aggression.

The president also accused Israel of seeking to sow divisions among Muslim countries, saying greater unity among Islamic nations could thwart such efforts.

READ: Iran says it agreed with Oman on Hormuz passage route, links reopening to US commitments

Turning to domestic issues, Pezeshkian said maintaining industrial production during the coming winter was a “red line,” stressing that supplies of gas, electricity and water to production facilities should not be interrupted.

He said the government would manage consumption of water, electricity, gas and fuel and, if restrictions became necessary, would first impose them on government offices and public buildings rather than shift the burden onto the public.

Pezeshkian called on the public to cooperate with the government to maintain stability, saying Iran’s adversaries should not believe that pressure would force the country to surrender.

The US-Israeli war against Iran began on Feb. 28, with attacks targeting military, nuclear and infrastructure sites across the country. Iran responded with missile and drone strikes against Israel and US military facilities across the region.

Iran and the US reached a 14-point memorandum of understanding in June, mediated by Pakistan and Qatar, aimed at ending hostilities and opening a 60-day window for negotiations toward a broader agreement.

The memorandum also addressed the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and lifting of the US naval blockade, as well as sanctions and Iran’s frozen assets.

​​​​​​​Tehran has maintained that further progress in talks depends on Washington fulfilling its commitments under the memorandum, while Iranian officials have said the Strait of Hormuz will not fully reopen until those obligations are implemented.

READ: Dialogue ‘only viable way out’ of US-Iran conflict, China says amid sanctions threats

The administration of former US President, Joe Biden, knowingly allowed Israel’s genocide in Gaza to continue long after it had lost any clear military objective, with senior officials in Washington privately admitting it amounted to “killing and destroying for the sake of killing and destroying”. This damning assessment, along with revelations of political manipulation, diplomatic cover-ups and sabotaged peace efforts, comes from a bombshell investigation aired by Israel’s Channel 13. Details of the investigation have been translated by Drop Site News and shared on X.

The Biden administration allowed Israel unprecedented leeway to carry out its military offensive, despite the enormous death and devastation it inflicted on Gaza. Former Israeli ambassador, Michael Herzog, made a startling admission about Biden’s support: “God did the State of Israel a favour that Biden was the president during this period. We fought [in Gaza] for over a year and the administration never came to us and said, ‘ceasefire now.’ It never did. And that’s not to be taken for granted.” His remarks encapsulated a broader sentiment that the White House gave Benjamin Netanyahu all the political space he needed to execute the military offensive, which has claimed the lives of more than 52,000 Palestinians, mainly women and children.

READ: ICC judges order prosecutor to keep arrest warrant requests confidential in Gaza probes

The investigation, which included interviews with nine current and former US officials, reveals a deeply troubling portrait of US complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Former national security aide, Ilan Goldenberg, stated that the war amounted to “killing and destroying for the sake of killing and destroying”, with no viable political alternative ever established. Despite the White House’s public messaging about restraining Israel, the internal consensus appeared to be that the administration had no intention of exerting real pressure on the Occupation state.

The Biden administration also shielded Israel from allegations of war crimes, prompting a major backlash from staffers in the State Department. Lawyer Stacy Gilbert, for example, resigned in protest after being excluded from a key report that falsely claimed Israel had not violated US arms laws. Gilbert described the report as “shocking in its mendacity”, pointing out that aid obstruction and settler attacks were well documented, yet ignored. Meanwhile, Washington continued to certify Israeli compliance with US law, ensuring the uninterrupted flow of weapons.

The investigation also revealed that Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, deliberately sabotaged hostage negotiations in order to prevent a ceasefire. US officials confirmed that Netanyahu tanked talks out of fear that a deal would compel him to halt the war.

Despite public backlash, Biden’s private approach remained deferential. Even after reportedly telling Netanyahu he was “full of shit” and hanging up mid-call, Biden ultimately maintained support. After briefly halting a shipment of 2,000-lb bombs due to concerns about their use in densely populated areas of Gaza, Netanyahu publicly accused Washington of broader arms delays. Biden, rather than escalating pressure, resumed the shipment process shortly thereafter.

The Channel 13 exposé further confirms that Biden’s reluctance to push Israel was deeply tied to a failed diplomatic initiative with Saudi Arabia. A landmark normalisation deal was in sight, but it required Israeli recognition of Palestinian statehood. These were flatly rejected by Netanyahu’s far-right coalition. Former US ambassador, Jack Lew, said he found Israel’s refusal “shocking”, while Amos Hochstein expressed disbelief that such a strategic opportunity was squandered. Sources confirmed that Netanyahu deliberately stalled negotiations in hopes that President Trump would return to office and claim the diplomatic win for himself.

These revelations lend significant weight to long-standing accusations that the Biden administration has not only provided diplomatic cover for Israel’s propaganda by repeating lies, but also actively enabled what many view as a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Critics note that Biden himself amplified false Israeli claims, such as the widely discredited allegations of Hamas beheading babies, rhetoric that helped to dehumanise a population in order to carry out genocide.

OPINION: Advisory opinions will not stop genocide

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

The head of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) has condemned an Israeli seizure of its East Jerusalem training centre, calling the raid part of a campaign designed to weaken the agency and, in turn, eliminate Palestinian rights.

In comments to Al Jazeera, acting Commissioner-General Christian Saunders on Wednesday accused Israel of violating UN premises, but insisted that “might doesn’t win out” in resolving the conflict and that the agency is “not going anywhere”.

Israeli forces raided and seized the Qalandiya Training Centre in the Kafr Aqab neighbourhood on Tuesday, expelling UNRWA employees and ordering them not to return.

Five Palestinians were injured by Israeli gunfire near the site, according to the Jerusalem governorate.

Far-right Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir took part in the raid and said there was “no place for the agency in Jerusalem and Israel”. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the evacuation was lawful and carried out under legislation passed by Israel.

The takeover of the facility deprives hundreds of young Palestinians of education and violates the protections afforded to UN premises under international law, Saunders said.

“Three hundred and forty young people are not going to get the education, not going to get the training they need,” he remarked. He lamented that the students – mostly from disadvantaged families – will now miss out on learning the skills to give them the “opportunity to lead a full and dignified life”.

The Qalandiya centre is part of UNRWA’s wider network of services for Palestinian refugees. It serves about 16,000 refugees from Qalandiya refugee camp and other parts of the occupied West Bank.

The raid followed the closure of the nearby Qalandiya checkpoint and a heavy Israeli military deployment in the area.

Israeli authorities said the property was owned by the Jewish National Fund and has now been allocated to the Jerusalem Municipality for a planned educational and community complex. They also cited Israeli legislation, passed in October 2024, restricting UNRWA’s activities.

UNRWA rejected the claims and maintained that the centre is a United Nations facility protected under international law.

Wider campaign

UNRWA has come under severe pressure amid Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and abuse in the occupied West Bank, with several workers having been killed.

Saunders said the wider campaign against UNRWA is intended to weaken the agency and cut its funding, and links these efforts to the broader question of Palestinian refugee rights.

“If UNRWA is defunded and UNRWA is eliminated then they are hoping that the issue of the refugees, the Palestine refugees, will go away,” Saunders said. “Which means that the right of return, reparations, and compensation would go away, as well.”

The aid group chief pointed out that its mandate comes directly from the United Nations General Assembly and its role is to provide humanitarian and public services while the wider political dispute between Israel and Palestinians remains unresolved.

“We’re a humanitarian organisation; we’re a development organisation. We are given our mandate by the United Nations General Assembly to provide critical services,” Saunders said.

UNRWA will continue doing so “until the General Assembly decides otherwise, or there is a durable solution to the Palestine question,” he declared.

However, Saunders also acknowledged the limits of the UN’s ability to prevent further incursions without collective action from member states.

“I don’t think the United Nations has the power to say: ‘You know, this is not going to continue to happen,’” he said.

“The United Nations is the sum of its member states, and its member states need to have the collective determination to address this issue. And for over seven decades, this has not happened.”

TWO huge British actors were seen singing and dancing along in a festival crowd this weekend as they cheered on a musical act on-stage.

The stars attempted to go incognito in baseball caps and shades at All Points East festival, with one of them there to support his pop-star wife.

Rose Gray belted out songs I Don’t Speak French and Club To Your Arms on the East Stage at the festival held in London’s Victoria Park.

And cheering her on from the crowd was none other than actor husband Harris Dickinson, joined by Irish heartthrob Paul Mescal.

The pair – who are both starring in the upcoming Beatles biopics – were unsuspectingly captured on camera by a fan, dancing and jumping up and down to the music.

Mescal, sported a white and green Gaelic football shirt with a black cap, while Harris donned a black t-shirt and a maroon hat.

GET BACK (HOME TO IRELAND)

Beatles film star Barry Keoghan’s brother booted from set

ABBEY RD RETURN

The Beatles’ famous Abbey Road crossing recreated for new biopic

The two appear to have formed a bond since filming on the four Beatles movies and enjoyed some downtime together in East London during the sunny weather.

Paul Mescal plays Paul McCartney in the Sam Mendes-directed films, with Harris Dickinson portraying John Lennon.

They’re joined by Oscar-nominated Barry Keoghan who plays drummer Ringo Starr, with Stranger Things star Joseph Quinn rounding out the quartet as George Harrison.

Harris and Rose quietly tied the knot this May, after the BabyGirl actor popped the question last spring.

The two, who are childhood sweethearts and met at school, wed at Islington Town Hall in London.

A source told The Sun at the time: “Harris and Rose’s ceremony was very Harris and Rose: cool, calm, low-key and full of love.

“They’re not at all showy despite being one of the hottest couples in town who get invited to all the best parties in town. This was for them and no-one else.”

Senior Hamas officials, including the movement’s political bureau chief Khalil al-Hayya, held talks with US envoy Jared Kushner in Egypt to discuss disarmament and the future administration of the Gaza Strip, according to Hamas sources cited by Asharq on Sunday.

The sources said the meeting took place in El Alamein with the participation of senior officials from Egypt, Qatar and Turkey, which have been involved in mediation efforts over Gaza.

According to the report, the Hamas delegation discussed its position on a proposed roadmap for Gaza and expressed its commitment to provisions concerning the inventory and storage of weapons and the transfer of governing authority in the Strip.

The sources also said Hamas expressed readiness to participate in Palestinian elections and operate as a political party within the Palestinian political system.

READ: Kushner accuses Netanyahu of obstructing US Gaza plan

Kushner reportedly stressed that eliminating security threats originating from Gaza and ensuring that the territory is free of weapons were fundamental requirements for advancing the proposed political process.

Hamas, in turn, sought guarantees regarding implementation of the agreement, including a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, a comprehensive ceasefire, and assurances that the implementation process would not be delayed or obstructed.

The Hamas delegation also called for the rapid transfer of administrative responsibilities in Gaza to a Palestinian national committee or technocratic government, alongside the start of recovery and reconstruction efforts.

According to the report, mediators had informed Hamas beforehand that Kushner wanted to meet the movement’s leadership before traveling to Israel for talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Hamas reportedly viewed the meeting as an opportunity to present its position directly and address outstanding disagreements over implementation of the proposed Gaza roadmap.

READ: El Sisi stresses need to resolve regional crises to preserve stability in meeting with Kushner

A United States aircraft carrier, the USS George Washington, has begun to depart the western Pacific Ocean, leaving its port in Da Nang, Vietnam, for an anticipated deployment to the Middle East.

The ship is expected to replace the USS Abraham Lincoln, which is currently participating in the US-Israeli war against Iran.

The vessel’s movement on Saturday comes amid mounting concerns about the conditions on board the USS Lincoln, sparked by reports of sailors attempting to jump overboard.

The USS Lincoln has been deployed without a port stop for more than 266 days, a record duration for the Navy. It houses about 5,000 sailors and Marines.

In the wake of reports about supply shortages and mental health strain on the ship, US President Donald Trump and acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao indicated that the vessel would be rotated. The Pentagon has not confirmed, however, that the USS Lincoln will be replaced by the USS Washington.

The department historically has not commented on movements of key military assets, citing security concerns.

Analysts note that the USS Washington’s departure from the Pacific leaves no US aircraft carrier in the strategically significant region, where the US has long acted as a bulwark against China’s might.

Back-and-forth over conditions

Members of the Trump administration have spent much of this week batting away reports about deteriorating conditions on the USS Lincoln.

US media outlets have carried reports not only of sailors attempting to leap from the vessel, but also of diminishing hygiene supplies and paltry food, as well as issues with plumbing and waste disposal.

Several US senators have called for more information about the conditions on board and the reason for its record-setting deployment.

Since leaving San Diego, California, last November, the USS Lincoln has been sent to support military operations in Venezuela, before leaving for the Middle East shortly thereafter.

Its deployment was supposed to end in May. But after the US and Israel launched a war against Iran in February, its mission was extended indefinitely.

The war with Iran has shown no signs so far of ending, though fighting has remained largely subdued in recent days. Talks have stalled over issues including control of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway for global trade.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, Trump downplayed concerns about the ship, saying instead the length of the aircraft carrier’s deployment was “not nearly enough”.

A day earlier, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said conditions on board had been “completely misrepresented”.

In a separate statement on Friday, Cao maintained the issues on board the ship were not dire, but he acknowledged “a small number of mental health cases were treated with no loss of life”.

He added that meal plans had been adjusted “when fresh resupply was unavailable”, but not a single meal had been missed.

“There is no question our young men and women have been pushed to their limits  — but they have never broken,” he said.

Still, some analysts say Iranian attacks have taken a toll on US military assets across the region, particularly a US Navy base in Bahrain. That has likely complicated typical resupply and maintenance procedures for aircraft carriers like the USS Lincoln.

Concerns about China

News of the USS Washington’s shift from the Pacific has spurred concern that its departure may further harm US deterrence against China. It was not clear if or when another carrier would be deployed to the region.

Bryan Clark, a former Navy submariner and defence analyst at the Hudson Institute, a think tank, told The Associated Press that Beijing may try to project strength in the aircraft carrier’s absence to unnerve US allies in the region.

“They’re using this as part of the narrative to demonstrate to the Philippines, to Japan, to Indonesia and others that the US is not the big dog in the western Pacific any more,” Clark said.

“They would just prefer that countries in the region decide that China is the bigger power and the US is not able to guarantee their security any more.”

Clark added he did not believe the change would in and of itself embolden China to launch an attack on Taiwan, the self-governing island it claims as its own.

Still, the shift comes as the US contends with a reported depletion in both its offensive and defensive weapon supplies as a result of the war with Iran.

Those shortages have already piqued concerns of a declining US ability to serve as deterrence against military aggression. Critics point out that a country like China, unlike Iran, has advanced military technology and a sprawling air force, which could pose a challenge to the US military.

Like the USS Lincoln, the USS Washington is a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. It has the capability to carry more than 6,000 passengers and about 90 aircraft.

Switzerland has selected a documentary featuring testimonies from survivors in the Gaza Strip as its entry for the 2027 Academy Awards, media reports said Thursday, Anadolu reports.

“Who Is Still Alive,” directed by Geneva-based filmmaker Nicolas Wadimoff, will compete for a nomination in the Best International Feature Film category at the 99th Academy Awards, Swissinfo reported.

The documentary places Gaza survivors in an abstract setting where they recount their experiences.

READ: Gaza’s children suffer as they fetch water amid soaring summer temperatures

The jury said the film directly addresses feelings of loss, uprooting and belonging, according to a statement by Switzerland’s Federal Office of Culture.

“Who Is Still Alive” won the Prix de Soleure, Switzerland’s most prestigious film award, at the Solothurn Film Festival earlier this year.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is expected to announce a shortlist of international submissions in December. The five final nominees will be revealed Jan. 21, ahead of the Academy Awards ceremony on March 14.

READ: Iran says Switzerland talks with US focus on ending war, easing sanctions, releasing frozen assets

With one-way attack drones playing an ever larger role in American military operations, U.S. Central Command announced it is creating what it calls “the first multinational attack drone task force.” The move comes as combat between the U.S. and Iran has paused, but tensions in the region remain high, including ongoing attacks on shipping by the Iranian-aligned Houthi rebels of Yemen. The task force is also being launched amid growing concerns about the U.S. magazine depth of high-end standoff weapons — a class of weapon one-way-attack drones aim to take pressure off of.

Dubbed Task Force Falcon Strike (TFFS), the command said it will “employ one-way attack drones consisting of unmanned systems from above, on, and below the sea operated by military support staff from the United States and regional partners.”

The CENTCOM announcement offered no further information about which nations will participate, what systems will be used, and whether those joining Task Force Falcon Strike will bring their own equipment. The command declined to provide further details when we asked.

The war against Iran saw the command follow global trends in warfare by deploying air and sea drones in combat for the first time. Other militaries in the Middle East have or are working on acquiring similar capabilities. Israel largely wrote the book on one-way attack munitions, for instance.

The establishment of TFFS follows the creation in December of Task Force Scorpion Strike (TFSS). As we were one of the first to report, this was the U.S. military’s first dedicated one-way attack drone squadron and the first operational unit armed with Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS) kamikaze drones, a design reverse-engineered from the Iranian-designed Shahed-136, in the Middle East.

Initially, TFSS was created to send a warning to Iran, a U.S. official told us at the time. As we noted earlier in this story, after the launch of Epic Fury on Feb. 28, TFSS marked several operational firsts for America’s use of drones in war.

The first major milestone came on the opening day of the war, when LUCAS drones were used for the first time. The second came in June, when a Saronic Corsair uncrewed surface vessel (USV) rescued the crew of a U.S. Army AH-64 Apache that crashed in the Gulf of Oman after it was downed by Iran. That was the first known instance of a drone boat being used to recover personnel as part of a search and rescue mission.

The third large step forward for U.S. drone warfare came in July, when three Corsairs “hit the port at Bandar Abbas Naval Base” and “successfully struck a submarine and ship maintenance facility in Iran,” the command stated on X that day. It was the first U.S. use of a USV as an attack weapon.

You can see those attacks in the following video produced by CENTCOM.

As we have frequently reported, Ukraine has used USVs to devastating effect on the Russian Black Sea Fleet. The Magura line of drones, among others, has played a key role in this campaign.

Notably, the command also said the new task force will also use uncrewed underwater vehicles (UUVs) as attack weapons. If they have been used in combat by the U.S., that has not been publicly acknowledged. The command did announce in April that it was using UUVs to assist in demining the Strait of Hormuz.

In December, Ukraine’s state security service (SBU) said it carried out the first-ever UUV attack on a Russian vessel. The strike was on a Project 636 Varshavyanka class, or Improved Kilo class diesel-electric submarine, in the Black Sea naval stronghold of Novorossiysk.

That attack can be seen in the video below.

Shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz fell to its lowest level in a week on Tuesday as vessel operators continued to avoid the strategically vital waterway amid ongoing hostilities in the Middle East.

Kpler data showed that only eight vessels were tracked in the strait on Tuesday, below the 10-day average of around 12 and the lowest daily total since August 5. Of those vessels, only one, a coal carrier, had exited the strait, while the remaining ships were still making their way through.Seven vessels entered the waterway, all using the Iranian route, highlighting the limited movement through the strait as uncertainty over its security continues to weigh on shipping activity.

Separate data from LSEG recorded 11 vessel transits on Tuesday, down from 14 the previous day, also pointing to a slowdown in traffic through the crucial maritime passage.

The decline comes as the United States and Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis reported separate attacks, while prospects for an end to the Iran war appeared to weaken. Tehran has said the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed unless Washington accepts its conditions.

Hormuz Traffic Plummets

The scale of the disruption is stark compared with normal shipping activity. Around 130 to 140 vessels typically passed through the Strait of Hormuz before Iran closed the waterway following the start of U.S.-Israeli attacks on February 28.

The sharp reduction in traffic underscores the growing risks facing international shipping and energy markets as vessels avoid one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints.

The strait is particularly important for global energy supplies, meaning prolonged restrictions could increase pressure on oil markets and raise transportation and insurance costs for vessels operating in the region.

Red Sea Traffic Holds Up

Shipping activity through the Bab al-Mandab Strait at the southern end of the Red Sea showed a different trend.

Kpler data recorded 30 vessels crossing the waterway on Tuesday, above its 10-day average of 25.

The contrasting figures suggest that while some shipping activity continues through alternative routes, the Strait of Hormuz remains heavily affected by the ongoing hostilities and uncertainty surrounding its reopening.

With information from Reuters.

Death sentences will be replaced with life imprisonment with aggravated hard labour.

Lebanon’s parliament has passed a law to abolish capital punishment, making it the first country in the Middle East to do so.

The Lebanese parliament’s speaker’s office said lawmakers signed off on the legislation Tuesday after making several amendments.

A majority of the 128-member assembly voted in favour of ending the death penalty, with the exception of the parliamentary bloc of Hezbollah.

Justice Minister Adel Nassar, who was in parliament, called it a “historic step” for the country.

The new system replaces the death sentence with life imprisonment with aggravated hard labour.

While Lebanon has observed an unofficial moratorium on executions since January 2004, courts have continued to issue dozens of death sentences.

At the end of 2025, 85 people were facing death sentences, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Justice’s Directorate of Prisons.

‘Lasting legal protection’

Rights group Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa director, Heba Morayef, praised Lebanon’s move to end capital punishment as “a major milestone and a victory for human rights in the country”.

“After more than two decades without executions, today’s step transforms a precarious hiatus in executions into lasting legal protection upholding the right to life and bringing Lebanon in line with the global trend towards abolition,” Morayef said.

It is unclear how aggravated hard labour would be enforced, with some legislators saying the terms of the new punishment are not yet clear. Lebanon does have the punishment of hard labour written into law and court decisions, but even those have been rarely enforced in recent years due to cash-strapped Lebanon’s lack of resources and capacity within its overcrowded prisons.

Lebanon’s abolition of the death penalty comes as parliament also debates a controversial general amnesty law, the largest since the end of its 15-year civil war in 1990, that could reduce sentences or even release some people convicted of violence offences.

Family members of Lebanese soldiers and servicemen killed in attacks have repeatedly protested against the law, some saying they had hoped to see the perpetrators who killed their family members executed rather than be issued reduced prison sentences.

Kuwait has since the beginning of the Iran War in February been targeted by Iranian drones and missiles 1,400 times. Why has this state—smaller than the US state of New Jersey—been targeted more than any of its larger neighbors including Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates?

A military node

This question takes us all the way back to 1991 when the US intervenes when Iraq under Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. In return, Kuwait has since hosted one of the the largest US armies in the Middle East of 13,000 troops, and has the fourth biggest deployment of the US military globally. Furthermore, Kuwait is one of five U.S. Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS) sites across the world— a cornerstone of the US’ global military strategy as it allows for rapid deployment and display of influence. And not only does Kuwait not charge the US for its land use, or restrict US troop movements on its territory—unlike most other host countries—but indeed pays the US for its troop presence, and subsidies energy and water costs for the military bases.

A geostrategic asset  

In exchange, Kuwait’s geostrategic location on the Arabian peninsula and along the air corridor between Asia and Europe makes the country an important location for the US to secure its interests and exert influence in the region and beyond. Indeed, the US has designated Kuwait as a Major Non-Nato Ally since 2004, and has located its biggest air logistics facility in the Middle East in conjunction with Kuwait international airport. Thus, Kuwait has proven a key logistical hub for US military operations in the region including against the Islamic State and during the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021.

Furthermore, Kuwait holds 7% of the world’s oil reserves, reinforcing its importance for the US and other oil consuming countries, while also making it strategically vulnerable to Iranian attacks on energy plants in late July, as this adds to the ongoing energy insecurity created by the closure of the key oil trade route through the Strait of Hormuz.

The end of diplomatic balancing?

Despite these far-reaching strategic links with the US, Kuwait has long maintained a diplomatic balancing act, refusing to normalise relations with Israel while simultaneously refraining from condemning the Iranian regime. Moreover, Kuwait has often assumed the role of neutral mediator in the Middle East. For example, Kuwait mediated the 2021 rapprochement between Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, and has contributed to peace efforts in Yemen. In addition, Kuwait has been much more cautious in its statements concerning the Iranian regime, unlike its vocally critical, yet less targeted neighbors such as the United Arab Emirates, and has even refused to allow the US to use military bases in Kuwait for launching attacks on Iran.

Geographic liabilities

Even so, Kuwait has fallen prey to its geography. For one, its geographical proximity to Iran makes Kuwait a comparatively cheap and easy target for Iranian missiles, while its lack of naturally occurring fresh water and consequent reliance on desalination provides Teheran an additional pressure point, as illustrated by Iranian attacks on desalination plants in late July. Furthermore, its proximity to Iraq has exposed it to attacks by Iraqi Shia militias, allied with Teheran.

And the risk of further attacks in the future is high. On 1 August, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declared that it would react ”decisively” against any US strikes, and warned Gulf states against permitting the US and Israel to use bases on their territories to launch attacks against Iran. Similarly, Iraq announced that its military forces stood ready to ‘thwart any attempts at targeting neighbouring countries within our regional sphere.’ Thus, recent developments suggest that Kuwait might no longer be able to remain an independent diplomatically oriented actor that can stay out of the conflicts in the Middle East.

Ideology

While Iran’s official rationale for the attacks has been to target US military targets and assets, the attacks on energy and desalination plants are neither; these are civilian infrastructures. Hence it is Kuwaiti civilians—not the US military capacity—that bear the brunt of the attacks. This suggests that Iranian attacks have not only immediate military objectives in context of the current war, but also underlying psychological and ideological motives, as these attacks can be seen as a way of scaring countries that go against Iran’s exhortations—reiterated since 1979–to its Gulf neighbors to cut ties with the US. In addition, the attacks expose the limitations of US security guarantee, and undermine the credibility of the US promises of stability and protection to its allies.

A change of strategy

Consequently, Kuwait may pivot toward building up more national military defence capabilities, as the deterrence guarantee that the well-accommodated US presence was supposed to provide has ostensibly failed, while Kuwait’s lack of domestic military resources to retaliate further enticed Iranian attacks.

Hence, it appears that the security order in the Middle East is set to become even more fragile, with the US increasingly proving incapable or unwilling to ensure what has long been considered a stabilising presence, and with regional actors increasingly divided and polarized, making neutral mediation harder.

A new mutual defence pact between Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan has raised questions about the shifting geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, where fallout from the US-Israel war on Iran has prompted some countries to seek new arrangements to safeguard their security.

The pact, termed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, was signed in the Saudi city of Mecca on Friday.

“The agreement is intended to strengthen collective deterrence against any act of aggression, and stipulates that any armed attack against any one of the three states shall be regarded as an attack against them all,” a statement from the meeting reads.

“It further provides for the enhancement of all aspects of defence cooperation among the three states.”

While it is not yet clear what such an agreement might look like in practice, analysts say the pact points to growing questions about the durability of US security guarantees.

“Regional states have harbored growing doubts about the reliability of the US security partnership for more than a decade,” Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a Middle East fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, told Al Jazeera over email.

“Both the decision to begin military operations against Iran and the subsequent conduct of the war and the on-off attempts to resolve it have only intensified those concerns and accelerated efforts to diversify security and defence relations.”

But, Ulrichsen added, building new defence pacts is likely not intended “to replace or supplant the US, but to provide additional strategic and policy options”.

Uncertainty over US role

While the administration of US President Donald Trump has yet to weigh in on the pact, analysts say the agreement is an effort by the three countries to reorient themselves after the turmoil of the Iran war.

“This is one of the first major geopolitical signs that the regional order is being reshaped by the US-Israeli war on Iran,” Sina Toossi, an analyst at the Center for International Policy, told Al Jazeera.

“The significance is less about a formal military alliance than about what it says regarding how regional states are reassessing security.”

Toossi pointed to the long-running alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia. For decades, the two countries have enjoyed a strong relationship, hinged on shared security interests. But the pact could be a sign that Saudi Arabia is looking to expand its security alliances.

“Rather than relying primarily on Washington, Saudi Arabia appears to be broadening its security partnerships and laying the groundwork for more intra-regional security arrangements,” Toossi explained. “That is arguably the most important takeaway.”

Media reports have also indicated that US partners in the Middle East were frustrated that the Trump administration had launched February’s war against Iran with little apparent thought to the impact on allies in the region.

Iranian forces have launched waves of missile and drone strikes against US military facilities in the Middle East, causing bystander casualties. Iran has also targeted civilian infrastructure, including energy and desalination plants.

Tehran’s decision to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key conduit for the region’s energy exports, has also imposed a steep cost on local economies.

Despite heavy strikes by the US and Israel, Iran has largely maintained its ability to restrict traffic through the strait, and Washington has struggled to provide partners with sufficient air defence munitions, many of which went to Israel.

‘Normative deterrence’

Under the circumstances created by the war, the longstanding reliance on Washington for security in the region has become more strained.

“It’s a fluid, tabula rasa era in the Middle East,” Brett McGurk, a key architect of Middle East policy under former US President Joe Biden, wrote in a social media post.

But analysts note that Friday’s security pact is best understood as an effort to supplement regional security cooperation with other countries and deter Iran.

“These countries are all US partners, and they recognise that there is no framework that can replace the United States,” Yasmine Farouk, an analyst at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera.

Farouk added that it would also be a mistake to see the pact as a step towards greater confrontation with Iran.

She noted that all three countries involved have generally called for mediation and de-escalation since the US and Israel first launched their attacks on Iran in late February.

“What these countries have in common is that they are not seeking regional escalation,” she said, underscoring that the importance of the agreement might be something closer to “normative deterrence”.

Iran, she explained, has emerged from the war hardened and more confident in its ability to use force to advance its goals.

“There is a long-term perspective here on strategic cooperation, not just a deterrent effect.”

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has suffered a major electoral defeat after Dr Abdul El-Sayed won Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, crushing pro-Israel congresswoman Haley Stevens despite an unprecedented spending campaign on her behalf.

AIPAC’s super political action committee, the United Democracy Project, spent more than $30 million promoting Stevens and attacking El-Sayed, according to Federal Election Commission filings analysed by the New York Times. NBC News projected El-Sayed as the winner on Wednesday, dealing a major blow to the pro-Israel lobby’s efforts to determine the outcome of one of the most closely watched Democratic contests in the country.

El-Sayed campaigned against US military assistance to Israel and repeatedly highlighted AIPAC’s intervention in the race. Stevens, by contrast, received the backing of AIPAC and the Democratic Party establishment.

The result is seen as providing some of the clearest evidence yet that association with Israel and its powerful lobby groups is becoming a political liability among Democratic voters as opposition grows to Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the unconditional support it receives from Washington.

A New York Times investigation published before the primary result was announced revealed the scale of AIPAC’s transformation from a traditional lobbying organisation into one of the largest spenders in US elections.

Spending by AIPAC-affiliated political action committees on campaign advertising and voter outreach has more than doubled in less than five years, rising from $29.3 million to $67.2 million. Much of the money has been directed towards Democratic primaries, where the lobby has sought to defeat candidates who criticise Israel or question US military assistance to the occupation state.

However, the investigation uncovered a striking feature of AIPAC’s campaign strategy: it rarely reveals its connection to Israel.

Between April 2022 and the end of July, AIPAC-funded groups produced 109 television and digital adverts. Only six mentioned Israel. Instead, the adverts focused on issues such as abortion rights, the economy and the cost of living, despite being financed specifically to elect politicians who support Israel.

AIPAC’s reluctance to mention Israel is seen as a reflection of a deeper political problem: open association with the Israeli government has become increasingly toxic following the mass killing, displacement and starvation of Palestinians in Gaza.

The lobby is effectively asking voters to support Israel’s preferred candidates without making Israel itself part of the public argument.

AIPAC has also channelled approximately $22 million into five smaller super PACs with innocuous names that make no reference to Israel. These include Elect Chicago Women, Affordable Chicago Now!, Voters for Responsive Government and Blue Wave Action.

Read: Pro-Israel cash goes undercover as US voters turn against Israel

The Michigan contest became the lobby’s largest gamble. United Democracy Project spent more than $10 million promoting Stevens and over $20 million attacking El-Sayed through advertising and voter outreach.

Nevertheless, El-Sayed prevailed.

El-Sayed’s victory is thought to be particularly significant because Michigan is home to one of the largest Arab-American populations in the US and became the centre of the “Uncommitted” movement, which challenged former President Joe Biden’s support for Israel’s assault on Gaza.

Signs of the political backlash were already visible in April when Stevens and another AIPAC-backed politician were booed during the Michigan Democratic Party Convention. El-Sayed and his former primary rival, Mallory McMorrow, had both pledged to reject AIPAC funding.

AIPAC has previously succeeded in removing several prominent critics of Israel, spending millions of dollars to defeat former Democratic representatives Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush. It has also targeted Republicans who questioned US military support for Israel.

However, the lobby has faced a growing number of defeats. Summer Lee survived repeated AIPAC-funded attempts to remove her, while candidates in Illinois and New Jersey successfully used their opponents’ links to the lobby against them.

Polls have also documented a rapid decline in support for Israel. A majority of Americans now oppose providing economic and military assistance to Israel, while Democratic voters have become increasingly critical of both Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the influence of pro-Israel lobbying organisations.

The price for a barrel of Brent crude oil for October delivery lost 5.16% to $83.39 a barrel, while US crude, or WTI, futures for September delivery declined nearly 6% to $79.66 per barrel.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Crude declined after US President Donald Trump said fresh talks with Iran would begin later in the day, easing concerns over potential supply disruptions. Additional downward pressure came after Saudi Arabia, Russia and five other key members of OPEC+ agreed in an online meeting on Sunday to boost oil production by 188,000 barrels a day from September, against a backdrop of disruption caused by the Middle East conflict.

“The seven participating countries decided to implement a production adjustment of 188 thousand barrels per day,” they said in a joint statement.

The increase, decided by the key countries in the enlarged Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, was widely expected by analysts.

“OPEC+ has finished unwinding its voluntary cuts. The next challenge is managing the surplus that could emerge as export flows normalise,” Jorge Leon, analyst at Rystad Energy, said.

He warned, however, that the decision “changes little in the near term because (the Strait of) Hormuz remains constrained. The real market impact will come when normal export flows resume.”

The Gulf countries have struggled to increase exports due to the near-paralysis of the Strait of Hormuz orchestrated by Iran during the war in the Middle East – despite a brief upswing in shipping traffic after a US-Iran memorandum of understanding was signed in June.

Many OPEC+ members cannot produce as much oil as their official targets allow due to a “decline in production capacity”, so increasing targets has become less meaningful, Giovanni Staunovo, an analyst at UBS, said.

Future pause foreseen

The September increase, agreed by OPEC+ countries Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, and Oman, completes the unwinding of the second of the three production-cut packages introduced by organisation.

“Having completed the restoration campaign, OPEC+ has little incentive to rush into further supply changes. Our base case is a fourth-quarter pause while the group prepares for the 2027 quota negotiations,” Rystad Energy’s Leon said.

“For now, geopolitics is masking the scale of the supply increase. That will become much clearer once export flows normalise,” he added.

It remains unclear when the group will actually be able to increase its oil volumes. Some member countries, such as Iraq, have expressed a desire to significantly boost production.

Russia, though, is confronted with repeated Ukrainian drone attacks on its oil infrastructure that have crimped production, currently hovering around nine million barrels per day – compared with a target of 9.8 million barrels per day.

OPEC+ “faces potentially difficult talks over new production quotas” starting next year following the September increase, according to analysts at DNB Carnegie.

Between late 2022 and 2023, OPEC+ became concerned that oil prices were falling, and agreed to cut oil production in three separate rounds, reducing total output by nearly six million barrels per day.

But Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, Oman and the United Arab Emirates – before the latter’s exit from the group on May 1 – then changed their strategy by gradually upping production starting in 2025.

“I don’t think cohesion is at risk at this very moment,” Leon said, warning, however, that the UAE’s withdrawal from the group in May has highlighted a weakness in this area.

The United States military says it intercepted ballistic missiles fired by Iran across the Middle East.

In a statement on X on Wednesday, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched multiple ballistic missiles in an “attempted surprise attack on US forces based in the Middle East”.

All the missiles were intercepted, and “US forces remain vigilant and at a high state of readiness”, the statement added.

Five missile interceptions were reported over Jordan, according to the Jordan News Agency.

The IRGC said its air force targeted a US airbase and Central Command centre in Jordan, “with several ballistic missiles”.

“As long as threats against the Islamic Republic of Iran continue and illegal and vicious actions by American forces against our interests continue, the resistance will continue,” the IRGC said in a statement carried by Iran’s IRIB broadcaster.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar said the latest escalation seemed like a “pre-emptive attack, not a reactionary measure”, from the Iranians.

US President Donald Trump had called off a two-week US bombing campaign on Iran on July 24, claiming after that “good talks” were under way with Iran.

“After 13 consecutive days of constant bombing, in the tit-for-tat US-Iran bombings, these latest attacks will most definitely have an impact on the mediation efforts”, Al Jazeera’s Serdar said.

Trump has threatened to ⁠restart strikes if negotiations stagnate, while Iran has denied seeking to resume talks with Washington.

‘Sending a message’

The Iranian attacks targeting US bases came as Trump was meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been pushing for war on Iran, in the White House.

“This is Iran sending a message to Trump that they need to be involved in all discussions,” Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher said from Washington, DC.

“It was reported in Israel that Netanyahu was very keen to raise the question of Pickaxe Mountain. The Israelis said there has been building work going ahead there; they believe the Iranians are putting together another nuclear facility”, he said.

Jason Campbell, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told Al Jazeera that Tehran is “trying to retake the initiative and the momentum with these latest attacks”.

“Iran has expressed scepticism that the US engages in these pauses between attacks to prepare for another phase of violence, so Tehran likely thinks the US is doing just that with this latest pause”, he said.

US oil futures jumped more than 4 percent to more than $82 a barrel, while Brent crude futures went to more than $88 a barrel after the US military confirmed the Iranian attack.

Oil prices were dropping earlier on Tuesday as Washington’s suspension of strikes on Iran continued, with traders closely monitoring reports of renewed talks.

Hormuz tensions continue

The Strait of Hormuz and its shipping traffic have been major talking points for Trump, who has decried Iran’s blocking of some vessels.

Iran asserts that it is within its rights to control shipping through the strait.

On Wednesday, the IRGC said it “struck and stopped” three oil tankers in Hormuz, according to Tasnim news agency.

It said the tankers “continued to move along an unsafe and illegal route, ignoring our warnings”,

Oman has presented Iran with a proposal to jointly manage traffic in the strait, but Iran has rejected it.

Deputy Iranian Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi told state television that Tehran rejected splitting transit routes equally.

Instead, he said, Tehran proposed managing shipping on its side of the strait, while Muscat would manage part but not all of the opposite lane.