Explainer

Joint attacks by the United States and Israel have severely reduced Iran’s capacity to fire missiles and drones, experts say, but Iran retains enough capabilities to inflict significant damage.

“Iran’s ballistic missile capacity is functionally destroyed. Their navy assessed combat ineffective. Complete and total aerial dominance over Iran,” the White House said on Saturday. “Operation Epic Fury is yielding massive results,” it said in reference to the war launched by Israel and the US on February 28.

On Sunday, President Donald Trump said US forces had decimated Iran’s drone manufacturing capacity.

Still, on Monday afternoon, Qatar announced it had intercepted the latest in a series of missiles fired from Iran towards the country. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain also issued alerts. A missile landed on a car in Abu Dhabi, killing a person.

So are Iran’s missile capabilities severely reduced? And how is it still firing projectiles at its neighbours and Israel?

Is Iran firing fewer missiles now?

Indeed, the number of retaliatory missiles and drones that Iran has fired towards Gulf countries, Israel and other nations in the region has seen a steep decline since the start of the war.

In the first 24 hours of the conflict, Iran had fired 167 missiles (ballistic and cruise) and 541 drones at the United Arab Emirates, for instance. By contrast, on day 15 of the conflict, it had shot four missiles and six drones, according to a tally compiled by Al Jazeera based on the emirate’s Defence Ministry statements.

The barrage against Israel has also decreased, from nearly 100 projectiles over the first two days to a single-digit number in the past few days, according to Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies.

Last week, the Pentagon said missile launches were down 90 percent from the first day of fighting and drone attacks were down by 86 percent.

How big is Iran’s missile arsenal – and how much has it been hit?

Iran has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the region, the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence assessed in 2022. While there are no official accounts on how many missiles it has, Israeli intelligence reports suggest it counted around 3,000 missiles, a figure that dropped to 2,500 following the 12-day war last June.

Key to the US-Israel strategy has been hunting down Iran’s launchers. Each missile launch generates a signature, such as a large explosion, that can be picked up by a satellite and radar systems.

According to a senior Israeli military official cited by the Institute for the Study of the War, Israel has put up to 290 launchers out of service, out of an estimated 410 to 440 launchers.

But Iran is a vast country, and without boots on the ground, it will be hard to completely eliminate Iran’s capacity to shoot despite the US and Israel having nearly full control of the country’s airspace, said David Des Roches, an associate professor at the National Defense University in Washington, DC.

“It is not obvious to identify launchers,” Des Roches told Al Jazeera. “What we see are missiles that were put in hidden places or places not associated with the military before the war, when there was less observation”.

According to Des Roches, the slowdown in launches is due to Iranian forces having lost the capacity to launch volleys. As a result, Iran has been firing one or two missiles at a time towards civilian and commercial infrastructure, especially in Gulf countries, instead of aiming volleys at military targets. Iran insists that it is targeting only US interests in the region.

“Militarily speaking [Iran’s action] is not significant – this is what is called harassment fire to exhaust alert systems in nearby countries and scare people off,” Des Roches said.

What’s Iran’s strategy?

According to Hamidreza Azizi, an expert on Iran and visiting fellow with the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWB), Tehran’s central calculation is that the Gulf and Israel may run out of their defensive capabilities before Iran runs out of missiles.

“There might be some interest in making this a war of attrition,” he said, pointing at the lower, yet constant, number of weapons launched from Iran each day.

“Although the US and Israel have been successful in taking out some of the launchers and major missile bases, the Iranians have decentralised the missile bases and missile command and they have been increasingly relying on mobile launchers which makes it more difficult for the other side to detect and target,” Azizi said. “This is a race about time.”

And in that race, Iran believes it has a chance, say experts.

“It does not matter how many you launch as long as you maintain a credible threat,” Muhanad Seloom, an assistant professor in critical security studies at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, told Al Jazeera. “It takes one successful drone to shatter a sense of security.”

Iran has long experience in producing cheap yet effective drones. The Shahed 136 can be made quickly and in large numbers in relatively simple factories, and several of them can be fired at once, overwhelming defences. It also doesn’t need complex launchers that can be targeted in air strikes. With a speed of just 185km/h (115mph), Shaheds can be shot down by helicopters. Still, many have managed to get through US and Gulf air defence systems.

Just on Monday, a fire broke out near the UAE’s Dubai International Airport in a drone-related incident that temporarily disrupted flights; another drone attack caused a fire at the Fujairah industrial area, also in the UAE; air sirens sounded in central Israel due to a missile fired from Iran; and in the Strait of Hormuz – a key waterway through which 20 percent of global energy supplies are shipped – hundreds of vessels remain paralysed over fear of being struck despite few attacks on ships. Since the start of the war, a maritime tracker has reported 20 incidents related to vessels.

This, say experts, is part of Iran’s defensive doctrine of asymmetric warfare against militarily superior powers, such as the US and Israel. The weaker party, Iran in this case, turns to unconventional methods of warfare, wearing down the enemy by targeting key infrastructure to inflict economic pain.

Tehran has already pushed oil prices to higher than $100 a barrel and sent global markets into panic mode. The second-biggest exporter of natural gas, Qatar, continues to keep shut its production; Bahrain’s state oil company has declared force majeure on its shipments, and oil production from Iraq’s main southern ⁠oilfields has plunged 70 percent.

If Iran can keep raising global oil prices, “it will inflict equal or more damage to the US than American bombs in Iran,” said Vali Nasr, a professor of international affairs and Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University.

United States President Donald Trump has called for a naval coalition to deploy warships to secure the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of world oil shipments transit, as oil markets reel from supply disruptions caused by the US-Israeli war with Iran.

What is essentially the closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran in response to the attacks by the US and Israel has sent oil prices soaring to more than $100 per barrel.

Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has promised to keep the maritime artery closed while another top official in Tehran warned that oil prices could shoot up beyond $200 per barrel.

Trump said he hoped a naval coalition could secure the vital waterway, which connects the Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Iran has struck more than a dozen ships trying to sail through the narrow waterway since the hostilities started two weeks ago.

But will Trump’s solution work?

What has Trump said?

The US president has been facing domestic pressure over starting the war alongside Israel with no endgame or off-ramps in sight.

“On the strait of Hormuz, they had NO PLAN,” US Democratic Senator Chris Murphy wrote in a post on X. “I can’t go into more detail about how Iran gums up the Strait, but suffice it [to] say, right now, they don’t know how to get it safely back open.”

After threatening to bomb Iran more, Trump called on China, France, Japan, South Korea and the United Kingdom to send warships to secure the strait.

Trump claimed “100% of Iran’s military capability” had already been destroyed but added that Tehran could still “send a drone or two, drop a mine, or deliver a close-range missile somewhere along, or in, this waterway”.

“Hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint will send ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a nation that has been totally decapitated,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform.

“In the meantime, the United States will be bombing the hell out of the shoreline, and continually shooting Iranian Boats and Ships out of the water. One way or the other, we will soon get the Hormuz Strait OPEN, SAFE, and FREE!”

Not long after, Trump returned to the keyboard, extending the invitation to all “the Countries of the World that receive Oil through the Hormuz Strait” to send warships, adding that the US would provide “a lot” of support to those who participated.

What has Iran said?

Alireza Tangsiri, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, said in a statement that claims by the US about destroying Iran’s navy or providing safe escort for oil tankers were false.

“The Strait of Hormuz has not been militarily blocked and is merely under control,” he said in a statement.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi later doubled down on this, saying the strait remained open to international shipping except for vessels belonging to the US and its allies.

“The Strait of Hormuz is open. It is only closed to the tankers and ships belonging to our enemies, to those who are attacking us and their allies. Others are free to pass,” Araghchi said.

Khamenei – son of the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who was killed on the first day of the US-Israeli strikes – suggested in his first statement since taking power that the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed to provide leverage for Iran during the conflict.

What are the challenges in the Strait of Hormuz?

The strait, which is just 21 nautical miles (39km) wide at its narrowest point, is the only maritime passage into the Arabian Gulf (known as the Persian Gulf in Iran). Shipping lanes in the waterway are even narrower and more vulnerable to attacks.

It separates Iran on one side from Oman and the United Arab Emirates on the other.

In brief, there is no way in or out by sea when the Strait of Hormuz is closed.

Alexandru Hudisteanu, a maritime security expert who served 13 years in the Romanian navy, told Al Jazeera that in the type of coalition that Trump is hinting at, “interoperability is the biggest hurdle.”

“That’s the ability of cruises to work together or with different units and different doctrine when basic communication would be an issue,” he said.

Then, there is the geography of the Strait of Hormuz: “a very unforgiving environment to sail with this type of wartime threats”, Hudisteanu said. “Especially difficult under missile threats and these asymmetric potential mines or unmanned systems that could damage or destroy ships.”

Providing escorts to ships would be a costly option, and it would pose risks to participating foreign warships from possible Iranian attacks, which would likely further drag more countries into the ongoing war.

From Iran’s point of view, “the fact that the shoreline is so close and the actual maritime passage is highly congested and confined is an advantage by default,” Hudisteanu added. Geographically, Iran keeps it as a gauntlet, with no way out for the ships unless Tehran allows it.

Another major challenge for any naval coalition trying to secure the passage would be the timeline of any operation.
”The security of the strait could be achieved. It’s just a matter of how much time you need and how many assets you need,” the analyst said. Rushing through it “could have negative implications for the security of the mission and the region”.

How have countries responded?

No country has so far publicly agreed to Trump’s call to send warships to secure the Strait of Hormuz.

London said it is “intensively looking” at what it can do to help reopen the maritime passage. British Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said: “We are intensively looking with our allies at what can be done because it’s so important that we get the strait reopened.”

Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials said Beijing is calling for hostilities to stop and “all parties have the responsibility to ensure stable and unimpeded energy supply.”

Japan said the threshold is “extremely high” to send its warships on such a mission. “Legally speaking, we do not rule out the possibility, but given the current situation in which this conflict is ongoing, I believe this is something that must be considered with great caution,” said Takayuki Kobayashi, policy chief of Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party.

France also confirmed that it will not send ships. The Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs said in a statement on Saturday: “Posture has not changed: defensive it is,” in reference to President Emanuel Macron’s assertion that France will not join the war against Iran.

South Korea, which imports 70 percent of its oil from the Gulf, said it was “closely monitoring” Trump’s statements and “comprehensively considering and exploring various measures … to ensure the safety of energy transport routes”.

Are countries negotiating with Iran?

Some countries have been negotiating with Iran to secure passage for their petroleum shipments.

Two Indian-flagged tankers carrying liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) have sailed through the Strait of Hormuz. New Delhi depends on this passage for 80 percent of its LPG imports.

The war on Iran has caused a critical shortage of cooking gas for India’s 333 million households. New Delhi has long had ties with Iran, but the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not condemned the killing of Ali Khamenei. It has condemned Iran’s retaliatory attacks on Gulf countries, where millions of Indian citizens work and send $51bn in remittances home every year.

Iran’s ambassador to India, Mohammad ⁠Fathali, said Tehran had allowed some Indian vessels to pass through the Strait of Hormuz in a rare exception to the blockade but did not confirm the number of vessels.

A Turkish-owned vessel was similarly granted permission last week after Ankara negotiated passage directly with Tehran. Fourteen more Turkish vessels are awaiting clearance.

France and Italy also reportedly opened talks with Iranian officials to negotiate a deal to allow their vessels through the strait, but there has been no official confirmation yet.

“Iran is affecting maritime supply,” Hudisteanu said. “It’s affecting the maritime security of the region and the entire ecosystem and bringing the entire world to the table as the global price for oil and gas increases.”

Heavy Israeli strikes have hit Tehran, Iran, as its allies launch attacks across Gulf states, and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has been severely disrupted, sending global oil prices soaring.

Meanwhile, political pressure is mounting in Washington as the conflict spreads across the region.

Here is what we know about what has been happening in the past 24 hours:

In Iran

Supreme leader speaks: Appointed last week following the assassination of his father, Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has issued his first statement, warning that attacks on Israel and US military assets and infrastructure in the Middle East will continue unless bases hosting US forces in the region are closed.

Heavy strikes on Tehran: The Israeli military has launched a new “extensive wave” of air attacks on Iran’s capital, Tehran, leaving the city covered in thick smoke on Friday morning.

Strait of Hormuz closure and surging oil prices: The Strait of Hormuz, which connects the Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, is closed, causing Brent crude oil prices to surge past $100 per barrel. The strait, which falls into the territorial waters of Iran and Oman, is the only waterway to the open sea available to oil and gas producers in the Gulf. Iran has stated that the strait is under Iranian control and US-and Israel-linked ships are banned. Other vessels must receive Iranian permission to pass.

Civilian casualties: Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, said at least 1,348 civilians have been killed, with victims ranging in age from eight months to 88 years old.

In Gulf countries

Regional retaliation and attacks: Iran has launched waves of drones and missiles towards Gulf countries that host US military assets and troops, and has targeted oil tankers and facilities.

Bahrain: The nation has reported intercepting 114 missiles and 190 drones since the war began on February 28.

Saudi Arabia: The country intercepted 10 drones over its eastern region and later destroyed an additional 28 drones that breached its airspace.

Attacks on the UAE: The country has strongly condemned Iranian strikes on the region, and said they have hit Dubai International Airport and some hotels.

Evacuations: Australia has ordered all “non-essential” officials to leave the United Arab Emirates and Israel, and urged its citizens to evacuate the Middle East while it is still safe to do so

Qatar’s response: Qatar’s airspace is officially closed, but Qatar Airways has scheduled more than 140 special flights to help repatriate stranded residents and citizens.

Qatar has strongly rejected Israeli media claims that it intentionally paused liquefied natural gas (LNG) production to manipulate US energy prices; officials clarified that the suspension was actually forced by an Iranian drone attack.

In the US

Trump claims war moving ‘rapidly’: US President Donald Trump told reporters the war against Iran was moving “very rapidly”.

“It’s doing very well, our military is unsurpassed,” he said at the White House, not directly responding to the latest comments from Iran’s new supreme leader.

Domestic opposition: More than 250 US organisations have signed a letter calling on Congress to halt funding for the war. They argue the $11.3bn spent in the first six days of the conflict is diverting crucial funds from urgent domestic needs, such as food benefits.

No ‘need’ for ground troops in Iran: US Senator Lindsey Graham has played down the possibility of US troops being deployed to Iran, but suggested the war could continue for some time. “I don’t see this conflict ending today,” the Republican senator told reporters in Washington, DC.

In Israel

New missile wave launched at Israel: The Israeli military said early on Friday that Iran had fired a new barrage of missiles towards Israel, and instructed people in affected areas to head to shelters.

Israel strikes Basij force: Israel’s military said it had struck checkpoints set up in Tehran by the Basij force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as part of efforts to undermine control by the authorities.

Regime change: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel can create conditions for regime change, but it is up to Iran’s people to take to the streets. He also said Israel is aiming to stop Iran from moving nuclear and ballistic projects underground.

In Lebanon, Iraq

Downed US aircraft: A US KC-135 refuelling aircraft crashed in western Iraq. While the Islamic Resistance in Iraq claimed it shot the aircraft down using air defence systems, US Central Command (CENTCOM) stated the aircraft went down in “friendly airspace” and was not the result of hostile fire.

Iraqi port closures: Iraq has shut its port operations after an Indian crew member was killed during an attack on a US-owned oil tanker in Iraqi waters.

Six French soldiers hurt: A drone attack wounded six French soldiers in Erbil, in Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region, President Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday.

Deadly attacks in southern Lebanon: Israeli bombardments continue on southern towns and villages. A strike on the village of Arki, near Sidon, killed nine people, including five children.

Mounting death toll and mass displacement: Lebanese officials have reported that at least 687 people have been killed in Israeli attacks on Lebanon since last Monday, including 98 children. The intense bombardments have displaced an estimated 700,000 to 750,000 people from their homes.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has laid out terms for ending the war with the United States and Israel in what analysts say is a possible sign of de-escalation from Tehran as the US-Israel war on Iran entered its 13th day on Thursday.

In a post on Wednesday on social site X, Pezeshkian said he had spoken to his counterparts in Russia and Pakistan, and that he had confirmed “Iran’s commitment to peace”.

“The only way to end this war – ignited by the Zionist regime & US – is recognizing Iran’s legitimate rights, payment of reparations, and firm int’l guarantees against future aggression,” Pezeshkian wrote.

This is a rare posture from Tehran, which has maintained a defiant stance and initially rejected any possibility of negotiations or a ceasefire when war broke out nearly two weeks ago.

Pezeshkian’s statement comes as pressure mounts on the US to halt what has become a very costly mission. Analysts say speculation from Washington that Iran would quickly submit after the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were misguided.

Tehran is likely going to determine the end of this war, not the US or Israel, because of its ability to inflict economic pain broadly, they say.

Amid a military pummelling by the US and Israel, Iran has launched heavy retaliatory strikes at US assets and other critical infrastructure in Gulf countries, upsetting global supplies. It has also adopted what analysts call “asymmetric” tactics – such as disrupting the critical Strait of Hormuz and threatening US banking-linked entities – to inflict as much economic pain on the region and wider world as it can.

This is what we know about Pezeshkian’s stance and what the pressures are on both sides to draw the conflict to a close, quickly.

What has the war cost so far?

Economically, both sides have weaponised energy. Israel first targeted Iran’s oil facilities in Tehran on March 8, prompting an outcry from global health experts over the potential risk of air and water pollution.

Iran has, meanwhile, tightened its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz shipping route – the only route to open sea for oil producers in the Gulf – with its military promising on Wednesday that it has the capabilities to wage a long war that could “destroy” the world economy.

Attacks on ships in the strait, through which about 20 percent of global oil and gas traffic normally passes, have effectively closed the route.

Oil prices rocketed above $100 per barrel late last week, up from around $65 before the war, with ordinary buyers feeling the increases at pumps in the US, Europe and parts of Africa.

On Wednesday, Iran upped the ante, saying it would not allow “a litre of oil” to pass through the strait and warned the world to expect a $200-per-barrel price tag.

“We don’t know how quickly it’ll revert back,” Freya Beamish, chief economist at GlobalData TS Lombard, told Al Jazeera. “We do think it’ll revert back to $80 in due course, but the ball is to some degree in Iran’s court,” she said, adding that because Iran needs oil revenue, the price hikes are expected to be time-limited.

The International Energy Agency agreed on Wednesday to release 400 million barrels from the emergency reserves of several member states but it is not yet clear what impact that will have, nor how quickly this quantity of oil can be released.

Tehran has also been accused of directly attacking oil facilities in neighbouring countries this week. Iraq shut all its oil port operations on Thursday after explosive-laden Iranian “drone” boats appeared to have attacked two fuel tankers in Iraqi waters, setting them ablaze and killing one crew member.

A drone was filmed striking Oman’s Salalah oil port on Wednesday, although Tehran has denied involvement.

What are Iranian officials saying about ending the war?

There has been conflicting messaging from the Iranian leadership.

Iran’s elite army unit and parallel armed force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), continues to show defiance, issuing threats and launching attacks on Israel and US military assets and infrastructure in neighbouring Gulf countries.

However, the political leadership has appeared more inclined towards diplomacy, analysts say. On Wednesday, President Pezeshkian said that ending the war would take the US and Israel recognising Iran’s rights, paying Iran reparations – although it’s unclear how much is being asked for – and providing strong guarantees that a future war will not be waged.

In a video recording last week, he also apologised to neighbouring countries for the strikes and promised that Iran would stop hitting its neighbours as long as they do not allow the US to launch attacks from their territory.

“I personally apologise to the neighbouring countries that were affected by Iran’s actions,” the president said, adding that Tehran was not looking for confrontations with its neighbours.

However, it is not known how much sway the political leadership has over the IRGC. Hours after the president’s apology last week, air defence sirens went off in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain, as strikes continued on the Gulf.

So, what is Iran’s actual position?

“Iran wants to go to the end to make sure that the United States and Israel never attack Iran again … so this has to be the final battle,” Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas explained.

Indeed, the IRGC sees this as an existential war, but the timing of Pezeshkian’s statement about ending the conflict also shows Tehran is pressured economically, politically and militarily, Zeidon Alkinani of Qatar’s Georgetown University told Al Jazeera.

“These differences and divisions [between IRGC and political leaders] always existed even prior to this war but we may notice it now more, given the fact that the IRGC believes that it has the right to take the front seat in leading this regional war, which is why a lot of the statements and positions are contradicting with the official ones from Pezeshkian,” he said.

The IRGC reports directly to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and not to the country’s political leadership. That council is led by Ali Larijani, a top politician and close aide to the late supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who analysts describe as a “hardliner”.

In a post on X on Tuesday, Larijani responded to threats from Trump about attacks on the Strait of Hormuz, saying: “Iranian people do not fear your hollow threats; for those greater than you have failed to erase it … So beware lest you be the ones to vanish.”

The newly elected supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, was once in the IRGC and was put forward by the unit as the next ayatollah after his father was killed on the first day of the war, analysts say. He is thus not expected to follow the reformist, diplomatic ideals of President Pezeshkian and other political leaders which his father managed to marry with the IRGC militarised stance, they say.

What do the US and Israel say about ending the war?

There have also been conflicting messages from the Trump administration and Israel regarding when the war mission on Iran, codenamed Operation Epic Fury, is likely to end.

Trump told US publication Axios on Wednesday that the war on Iran would end “soon” because there’s “practically nothing left to target”.

“Anytime I want it to end, it will end,” he added. He had said earlier on Monday that “we’re way ahead of our schedule” and that the US had achieved its goals, even as speculation mounts about a possible US ground mission.

On the other hand, Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Wednesday that the war would go on “without any time limit, for as long as necessary, until we achieve all the objectives and decisively win the campaign”.

Analysts say Trump’s stance that the conflict will be quick reflects increasing pressure on his administration ahead of upcoming mid-term elections in November.

Trump’s advisers privately told him this week to find a quick end to the war and avoid political backlash, according to reporting by The Wall Street Journal. That came as polls from Quinnipiac University and The Washington Post suggested that most Americans are opposed to the war in Iran.

In his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised to lower prices, and inflation had stabilised at 2.4 percent ahead of the war, according to government data released on Wednesday. Analysts speculate the conflict will likely push it back up.

The US spent more than $11.3bn in the first six days of the war, Pentagon officials told lawmakers in a classified briefing on Tuesday, Reuters reported this week – nearly $2bn a day.

The Washington-based think tank, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), estimated that the war cost Washington $3.7bn in its first 100 hours alone, or nearly $900m a day, largely due to its expenditure on costly munitions.

“It’s quite ironic that [Trump] chose a war that would make affordability worse, not better,” Rebecca Christie, a senior fellow at the Bruegel think tank, told Al Jazeera’s Counting the Cost.

“Every time the US loses even one object, air defence or a plane or something like that, that represents an awful lot of money that could have been used on some of these issues that have an impact on people’s day-to-day lives in the United States.”

Motorists around the globe are already feeling the impact of the United States and Israel’s war on Iran, with fuel prices sharply rising since the war began.

In the US, a gallon of regular petrol that averaged $2.94 in February now costs $3.58, marking a 20 percent increase, according to data from AAA Fuel Prices, a retail fuel price tracker from the American Automobile Association (AAA).

While each US state sets its own petrol prices, several states have surpassed $4 per gallon, with California exceeding $5 per gallon, the highest level it has been in more than two years.

Which countries have the sharpest petrol price increases?

According to data analysed from Global Petrol Prices, a data platform that tracks and publishes retail energy prices across approximately 150 countries, at least 85 countries have reported increases in petrol prices following the initial attacks on Iran by the US and Israel on February 28. Some nations announce price changes only at the end of each month, so higher prices are expected for many others in April.

Vietnam recorded the highest petrol price increase of nearly 50 percent, rising from $0.75 per litre of 95-octane on February 23 to $1.13 on March 9. Laos follows with a 33 percent increase, then Cambodia at 19 percent, Australia at 18 percent, and the US at 17 percent.

The table below shows the countries that have increased petrol prices at the pumps.

Asian countries pay the biggest price

Asia is disproportionately dependent on the Strait of Hormuz for the delivery of its oil and gas, which has been effectively closed since the start of the war. The strait joins the Gulf – also referred to as the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Gulf – to the Gulf of Oman and is the only passage for the region’s oil producers to the open ocean.

Japan and South Korea are among the most vulnerable, importing 95 percent and 70 percent of their oil from the Gulf, respectively.

Both East Asian nations have enacted emergency measures to stabilise their energy markets. On March 8, Japan instructed its oil reserve sites to prepare for a potential release of strategic reserves. The next day, South Korea introduced a maximum price cap on petrol and diesel for the first time in 30 years.

In South Asia, the impact of the war is more severe than in East Asia because countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh have much thinner financial buffers and smaller strategic reserves.

In an attempt to conserve energy, Bangladesh‘s government has ordered all public and private universities to close immediately. In Pakistan, government offices will now operate a four-day workweek, while schools have closed, and a 50 percent work-from-home policy has been enacted to save fuel.

In Europe, the Group of Seven finance ministers convened an emergency meeting to discuss rising prices, with French President Emmanuel Macron raising the possibility of releasing 20-30 percent of emergency strategic reserves to ease the pressure on consumers.

How high oil costs drive up the price of food

Oil prices and food prices move in lockstep, with energy prices affecting every stage of the food supply chain, from the fertilisers used in the fields to the trucks that carry food from field to supermarket shelf.

Rising oil prices also directly affect shipping and the cost of transport.

“The lifeblood of the global economy is transport,” economist David McWilliams told Al Jazeera. “It’s getting stuff from A to B – it’s a logistics problem, a supply chain problem, and ultimately transportation is the energy of the global economy.”

Fears of stagflation – increasing inflation and rising unemployment, which major oil shocks have historically summoned – are rising. Economists point to the crises of 1973, 1978 and 2008 as evidence that every significant spike in oil prices has been followed, in some form, by global recession.

In lower-income countries, where populations spend a far greater share of their income on food and import large quantities of grain and fertiliser, rising oil prices could rapidly translate into food shortages.

What products are made from oil and gas?

Oil and gas are used for far more than just fuel. They are raw materials for thousands of everyday products.

Plastics, including water bottles, food packaging, phone casings and medical syringes, are all derived from crude oil.

Crude oil is also the hidden ingredient in synthetic fabrics such as polyester, nylon and acrylic, which are used to make everything from sportswear to carpets. It also underpins the cosmetics industry, as it is used to make products such as petroleum jelly (Vaseline), lipsticks and concealers.

Household items also rely on oil-based ingredients, with laundry detergents, dishwashing liquids, and paints all derived from petroleum products.

The global food supply is essentially built on natural gas in the form of fertilisers, used to enhance crop yields and ensure that food production can meet demand.

A group of Democrats in the United States Senate is demanding public hearings on the country’s war against Iran after receiving a series of classified briefings from officials in President Donald Trump’s administration.

Lawmakers say the White House has not clearly explained why the US entered the conflict, what its goals are, or how long it may last.

Republicans currently hold a narrow, 53-47 Senate majority, which gives them the power to control what legislation comes to the floor for debate.

Some Democrats have expressed frustration after the latest closed-door briefing. Trump has not ruled out sending US ground ⁠troops into Iran.

“I just came from a two-hour classified briefing on the war,” Senator Chris Murphy from the state of Connecticut said on Tuesday. “It confirmed to me that the strategy is totally incoherent.

“I think this is pretty simple: if the president did what the Constitution requires and came to Congress to seek authorisation for this war, he wouldn’t get it – because the American people would demand that their members of Congress vote no,” he added.

Here is what we know:

What has happened so far?

Since the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran on February 28, senior officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have held several closed-door meetings to brief Congress members on the military campaign and its progress.

Because the meetings are classified, lawmakers are restricted in what they can publicly disclose about the information they received.

What are Democrats saying?

Several Democratic senators have said they left the briefings frustrated, arguing that the administration had not provided clear answers about the war’s objectives, timeline or the long-term strategy guiding their approach to the conflict.

Earlier this week, six Democratic senators also called for an investigation into a strike on a girls’ school in Minab, in southern Iran. Reports indicate the attack, which investigators say involved US forces, killed at least 170 people, most of them children.

“There seems to be no endgame,” Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said. “The president, almost in a single breath, says it’s almost done, and at the same time, it’s just begun. So this is kind of contradictory.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts raised concerns about the cost of war.

“The one part that seems clear is that while there is no money for 15 million Americans who lost their health care, there’s a billion dollars a day to spend on bombing Iran,” Warren said on Tuesday.

“The one thing Congress has the power to do is to stop actions like this through the power of the purse,” she added.

Others seem worried that a ground deployment could take place.

“We seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran to accomplish any of the potential objectives here,” Blumenthal, of Connecticut, told reporters after Tuesday’s classified briefing.

“The American people deserve to know much more than this administration has told them about the cost of the war, the danger to our sons and daughters in uniform and the potential for ⁠further escalation and widening of this war,” he added.

What are Republicans saying?

Republicans, who have slim majorities in both houses of Congress, have almost unanimously backed Trump’s campaign against Iran, with only a handful expressing doubt about the war.

Some Republican leaders say the strikes are necessary to curb Iran’s military capabilities, missile programme and regional influence.

They have also argued that the operation is limited in scope and designed to weaken Iran’s ability to threaten US forces and allies in the region.

Republican Representative Brian Mast of Florida, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, last week publicly thanked Trump for taking action against Iran, saying the president is using his constitutional authority to defend the US against the “imminent threat” posed by Tehran.

But some Republican members of Congress have voiced concerns.

Representative Nancy Mace from South Carolina said she did “not want to send South Carolina’s sons and daughters into war with Iran”, in a post on X.

Rand Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky, accused the Trump administration of changing its narrative and rationale for the war on a daily basis.

“We keep hearing new reasons for war with Iran—none convincing,” he wrote on X. “‘Free the oppressed’ sounds noble, but where does it end? We’ve been told for decades Iran is weeks from a nuke. War should be a last resort, not our first move. A war of choice is not my choice.”

Why does the debate matter?

The dispute has revived a long-running debate in Washington, DC, about the limits of presidential war powers.

Under the US Constitution, Congress has the authority to declare war, but modern presidents have frequently launched military operations without formal congressional approval, often citing national security or emergency threats.

The law allows the president to deploy US forces for up to 60 days without congressional authorisation, followed by a 30-day withdrawal period if Congress does not approve the action.

Some lawmakers and legal experts say the war on Iran highlights the need for stronger congressional oversight of military action.

“In the 1970s, we adopted something called the War Powers Resolution that gives the president limited ability to do this,” said David Schultz, a professor in the political science and legal departments at Hamline University.

“And so, either you could argue that what the president is doing violates the Constitution by… not [being] a formally declared war; or b, it exceeds his authority, either as commander-in-chief or under the War Powers Act,” he added.

“And therefore, you could argue that domestically, his actions are illegal and unconstitutional,” Schutlz said.

The Trump administration has argued that the February 28 strikes were justified as a response to an “imminent threat”, a rationale often used by presidents to justify military action without prior congressional approval.

However, US intelligence agencies had themselves said before the start of the war that they had no evidence of an imminent Iranian threat to the US or its facilities across the Middle East.

EXPLAINER

More than half of the 62 million people in the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are foreign workers.

Nearly 62 million people living in the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries have been caught in the crossfire of the latest US-Israel war on Iran.

Known for their economic opportunities, these countries, including Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), collectively host nearly 35 million foreign workers from around the world, predominantly from South Asia.

With the exception of Saudi Arabia and Oman, foreign workers make up the bulk of the populations of people living in the remaining four GCC countries.

The map below illustrates the national and non-national populations in each of the GCC countries.

Where do GCC foreign workers come from?

Generations of foreign workers in the GCC countries have significantly contributed to the workforce, including labourers, construction workers, household staff, security personnel, and cleaners, all vital to building the modern infrastructures that Gulf nations are known for.

Millions consider the Gulf their home, despite holding nationalities from other countries.

Additionally, highly skilled foreign workers have a long history in industries such as banking, finance, technology, engineering, aviation, medicine and the media.

According to Global Media Insight, a digital marketing agency based out of the UAE,  the 10 largest groups of non-nationals living across the six GCC countries are from:

• India: 9.1 million
• Bangladesh: 5 million
• Pakistan: 4.9 million
• Egypt: 3.3 million
• Philippines: 2.2 million
• Yemen: 2.2 million
• Sudan: 1.1 million
• Nepal: 1.2 million
• Syria: 694,000
• Sri Lanka: 650,000

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is the largest of the six GCC countries, with a population of nearly 37 million.

The oil-rich country has a local population of about 20.5 million and an additional 16.4 million foreign residents.

The five largest groups of non-nationals living in Saudi Arabia are people from:

• Bangladesh: 2,590,000
• India: 2,310,000
• Pakistan: 2,230,000
• Yemen: 2,210,000
• Egypt: 1,800,000
• Sudan: 1,000,000

The UAE

The United Arab Emirates has the second-largest population in the GCC, totaling some 11.3 million people.

It consists of seven emirates, including the capital Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm Al Quwain, Ras Al Khaimah, and Fujairah.

Emiratis make up nearly 12 percent of the population, with foreigners at almost 88 percent.

The five largest groups of non-nationals living in the UAE are from:

• India: 4,360,000
• Pakistan: 1,900,000
• Bangladesh: 840,000
• Philippines: 780,000
• Iran: 540,000
• Egypt: 480,000

Kuwait

With a population of 4.8 million, Kuwait has the third-largest population in the GCC.

Approximately 1.56 million are Kuwaiti citizens, and 2.16 million are foreign workers.

The five largest groups of non-nationals living in Kuwait are from:

• India: 1,000,000
• Egypt: 700,000
• Bangladesh: 350,000
• Philippines: 250,000
• Pakistan: 200,000
• Nepal: 120,000

Oman

Oman’s population stands at approximately 4.7 million people. Oman’s 2.5 million citizens account for nearly 59 percent of the population, while the remaining 2.05 million (or 41 percent) are foreign workers.

The five largest groups of non-nationals living in Oman are from:

• India: 766,735
• Bangladesh: 718,856
• Pakistan: 268,868
• Egypt: 46,970
• Philippines: 45,213
• Uganda: 20,886

Qatar

Qatar has a population of some 3.2 million people, with 2.87 million foreign workers accounting for about 88 percent of them. Qatari citizens number around 330,000, making up 12 percent.

The five largest groups of non-nationals living in Qatar are from:

• India: 700,000
• Bangladesh: 400,000
• Nepal: 400,000
• Egypt: 300,000
• Philippines: 236,000
• Pakistan: 180,000

Bahrain

With a total population of 1.58 million, Bahrain has the smallest population in the GCC. Bahraini citizens make up just under half of the population.

The five largest groups of non-nationals living in Bahrain are from:

• India: 350,000
• Bangladesh: 150,000
• Pakistan: 120,000
• Philippines: 80,000
• Egypt: 60,000
• Nepal: 35,000

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said that Kyiv could provide defensive systems as well as assistance to civilians and American soldiers “deployed in certain countries” in the Middle East as the war in Iran continues.

He has reportedly proposed an exchange of Ukrainian defensive technology to combat Iranian drones in return for advanced US defensive systems to use in the war against Russia.

The US-Israel-Iran conflict, which started 10 days ago when the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran and killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has continued to escalate. Iran has responded with strikes on Israel and US military assets and other infrastructure in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

As Gulf and other Middle Eastern states continue to attempt to intercept incoming drones and missiles with US-supplied air defences, the US has asked Ukraine to contribute some of its own air-defence systems.

Here is what we know.

What has the US requested from Ukraine and why?

The US has asked for Ukraine’s help in defending Washington’s allies in the Middle East against Iranian missile attacks on infrastructure and US military assets, Ukraine’s president confirmed last week.

At the moment, the US is using air defence systems such as the Patriot, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries and Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, to intercept Iranian drones and missiles targeting its military assets in the region. The Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2) and PAC-3 are advanced surface-to-air missile defence systems.

However, these types of systems are extremely expensive, costing millions of dollars for each interceptor missile fired, and there are concerns that supplies of US interceptor missiles could run low.

“We received a request from the United States for specific support in protection against ‘shaheds’ in the Middle East region,” Zelenskyy wrote in an X post on March 5.

Shahed drones, particularly the Shahed-136, are Iranian-designed “kamikaze” or loitering munitions which are very low cost compared to the interceptors being used by the US. Costing roughly $20,000-$35,000 each, these GPS-guided drones are about 3.5m (11.5 feet) long and fly autonomously to pre-programmed coordinates to strike fixed targets with explosive payloads. They blow up as they hit their targets.

Over the course of the Iran war, Shahed-136 drones have targeted Middle Eastern countries including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE where US military assets and troops are hosted. Experts estimate that Iran has thousands of these drones.

Iran has also been supplying Moscow with many thousands of Shahed drones during Russia’s war on Ukraine.

During the course of Russia’s four-year war on Ukraine, Ukraine’s domestic arms industry has been forced to innovate, building low-cost interceptor drones priced at roughly $1,000 to $2,000 to counter Russian attacks with imported Iranian Shahed-136s.

Kyiv is now mass-producing these low-cost interceptor drones.

“The role of Shahed-type drones in long-range attacks has become more prominent in Ukraine after Russia took Iranian technology, improved it, and built it in previously unimaginable numbers,” Keir Giles, a Eurasia expert for the UK-based think tank Chatham House, told Al Jazeera.

What has Zelenskyy said?

Zelenskyy has posted several statements on social media confirming that he is ready to help Middle Eastern countries defend their territories by providing technical expertise.

“Ukrainians have been fighting against ‘shahed’ drones for years now, and everyone recognises that no other country in the world has this kind of experience. We are ready to help,” he wrote on X on March 5.

“I gave instructions to provide the necessary means and ensure the presence of Ukrainian specialists who can guarantee the required security.

“Ukraine helps partners who help ensure our security and protect the lives of our people.”

It is understood that Ukraine is in talks with several Middle Eastern countries about this.

On Monday, Zelenskyy said Ukraine has deployed interceptor drones and a team of specialists to help protect US military bases in Jordan.

Zelenskyy wrote on X that he has also spoken directly to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) about “countering threats from the Iranian regime”.

He also said he had spoken with the leaders of Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE.

Zelenskyy has repeatedly stressed that Ukraine must not weaken its own air defences. However, it is mass-producing this equipment now, and may well be able to afford to share.

“The fact that there are surplus capabilities ready to be sent to the US and the Middle East is unsurprising because Ukraine has led this innovation,” Giles said.

Zelenskyy has therefore proposed an exchange of air defence systems with the US ones being used in the Middle East.

“We ourselves are at war. And I said, completely frankly, that we have a shortage of what they have. They have missiles for the Patriots, but hundreds or thousands of ‘shaheds’ cannot be intercepted with Patriot missiles – it is too costly,” Zelenskyy said.

“Meanwhile, we have a shortage of PAC-2 and PAC-3 missiles. So, when it comes to technology or weapons exchange, I believe our country will be open to it.”

Zelenskyy may also have good political reasons for extending help, analysts say.

“The US has declined support for Ukraine on the ground that it had insufficient supply of air defence munitions, and now more of those Patriots have been fired in the Middle East in a few days, than have been supplied to Ukraine in four years,” Giles said.

“Zelenskyy will be aware that in providing this assistance, he is not only shaming the US, but also directly supporting potential friends and partners in the Middle East, who before now have been ambivalent to the situation in Ukraine,” Giles said.

Who else has sent defensive backup to the Gulf?

European countries including the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy have pledged to provide defensive backup to Gulf nations over the past week. Additionally, Australia said it was deploying military assets to the region.

Wary of becoming directly involved in the US-Israeli war on Iran, European countries have nevertheless been drawn into the conflict by attacks on a British base on Cyprus in the Mediterranean and Iranian strikes on Western allies in Gulf countries that host US troops in military bases.

What will happen next?

Just as Ukraine is getting involved in the war, Russia might too, say experts.

“We should not be surprised if before long, as well as Russian technology in Iranian drones, we see Iran launching Shaheds manufactured in Russia,” Giles said.

He described Russia as a “primary beneficiary of current US actions,” pointing to how the surge in oil prices, the relaxation in US curbs on Russian energy exports to keep crude and gas prices under control, and the diversion of air defence munitions from Europe to the Middle East all helped Moscow. These, he said, “are all lifelines for Russia”.

The United States used Precision Strike Missiles (PrSMs) for the first time during its ongoing war with Iran, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said on Wednesday.

The war entered its seventh day on Friday, with attacks continuing across Iran and other countries in the Middle East.

CENTCOM stated in an X post that PrSMs provide an “unrivaled deep strike capability”.

“I just could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform leveraging innovation to create dilemmas for the enemy,” the post quoted Admiral Brad Cooper, head of CENTCOM.

It is unclear where these PrSMs were launched from, or which specific targets they hit in Iran.

So what is the PrSM, and why is it significant that it has been used by the US for the first time?

What are Precision Strike Missiles?

PrSMs are described as long-range precision strike missiles by their developer, the Maryland, US-headquartered defence firm Lockheed Martin, which delivered the first PrSMs to the US Army in December 2023.

PrSMs can hit targets ranging from 60km (37 miles) to more than 499km (310 miles) away, according to Lockheed Martin.

The company’s website adds that PrSMs are compatible with the MLRS M270 and HIMARS family of launchers, both also developed by Lockheed and used by both the United Kingdom and US armies.

MLRS stands for multiple-launch rocket systems, used to launch missiles. The UK sent a number to Ukraine in 2022. HIMARS stands for High Mobility Artillery Rocket System. In 2022, the US sent a number to Ukraine, as well.

M-142 HIMARS is a high-tech, lightweight rocket launcher that is wheel-mounted, giving it more agility and manoeuvrability on the battlefield. Each unit can carry six GPS-guided rockets, or larger missiles like Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMs) and PrSMs, which can be reloaded in about a minute with only a small crew.

Lockheed Martin adds that PrSMs can be rapidly developed. “We are ready to produce and deliver to meet the US Army’s accelerated timeline for this long-range precision fires priority,” the website says.

PrSMs feature “open systems architecture”, which means that it is easier to plug in new components, upgrade parts, or work with equipment from other companies. Similarly, they are “modular and easily adaptable”, enabling components to be switched around.

They also feature “IM energetic payload”, or Insensitive Munitions energetic payload, which makes explosions safer, the producer says. This means the warhead is made from explosives that are less likely to blow up accidentally if hit by fire, shrapnel or by accident, but still explode properly when triggered as intended.

What is different about the PrSMs?

PrSMs will ultimately replace the ATACMs currently being fired from the HIMARS launchers, significantly increasing their range from 300km (186 miles) to more than 499km (310 miles), without changing the vehicle carrying the missile.

PrSMs also offer double the “missile load” of ATACMs. While a HIMARS launcher is able to carry one ATACMS missile in its pod, it can carry two PrSMs per pod.

Does the PrSM give the US a strategic advantage?

CENTCOM confirmed that PrSMs have been used in the US and Israel’s attacks on Iran, codenamed Operation Epic Fury and launched on February 28.

CENTCOM posted a video of the PrSMs being launched from M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems in an open desert terrain.

PrSMs do give the US military a boost for its pre-existing long-range capabilities.

Gulf countries such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, specifically the Musandam Peninsula, which have military bases hosting US assets and troops, have at least some territory within 400km (250 miles) of Iran.

The US is using PrSMs in conjunction with other long-range missiles such as Low-Cost Unmanned Combat Attack System (LUCAS) one-way drones, MQ-9 Reaper drones, ATACMs and Tomahawk Cruise Missiles.

The range for LUCAS one-way drones is about 800km (500 miles), while the range for ATACMs is about 300km (186 miles) and the range for Tomahawk cruise missiles is about 1,600km (1,000 miles).

Why is the introduction of the PrSM significant?

The range of this missile is significant as it is likely that it would not have been permitted under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia, which the Trump administration withdrew the US from in 2019. This is because it can exceed the maximum 500km (310-mile) range the treaty imposed on certain land-launched missiles.

The treaty was signed in 1987 by US and Soviet Union leaders Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. It sought to eliminate the presence of land-based nuclear missiles and medium-range arsenals between 500km and 5,500km (310 and 3500 miles) from Europe.

The US suspension of the treaty allowed Washington to resume development of its own medium-range, land-based arsenal.

Following the US suspension, Russia invited the US to reciprocate in a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of ground-launched intermediate-range missiles instead. While Washington initially rejected the offer, in 2022, it said it would be willing to discuss this.

In August last year, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced Russia’s withdrawal from this moratorium, however, saying the US had “made significant progress” and “openly declared plans to deploy US ground-launched INF-range missiles in various regions”. INF stands for intermediate-range nuclear forces.

The statement added that such actions by Western countries posed a “direct threat” to Moscow’s security.

QatarEnergy has suspended liquefied natural gas (LNG) production following a drone attack, straining the global LNG market.

On Monday, Iranian drones struck two sites, according to Qatar’s Ministry of Defence: a water tank at a power plant in Mesaieed Industrial City and an energy facility in Ras Laffan belonging to QatarEnergy, the world’s largest LNG producer.

While no casualties were reported, QatarEnergy suspended the production of LNG and other products at the impacted sites for security reasons.

Why did QatarEnergy suspend operations?

The drone attacks hit the Ras Laffan complex, which is home to processing units for liquefied natural gas set to be exported.

The state-owned energy company was forced to declare what is known as force majeure, when a company is freed from contractual obligations in the event of extraordinary circumstances, such as a drone attack, according to Reuters and Bloomberg News, citing people familiar with the matter.

This comes at a time when intensifying sea battles between Iran and the United States, coupled with missiles flying over the region, have effectively choked the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic trade route. At least 150 vessels have dropped anchor, including those carrying LNG, in the strait and surrounding areas, according to Reuters.

Traffic in the strait for both LNG and oil has declined by 86 percent, with roughly 700 ships sitting idle on either side of the passage, according to the Anadolu news agency.

How will this impact the broader global LNG market?

Qatar’s LNG exports represent 20 percent of the global market. With fewer products reaching the market, LNG supply is down, causing prices to surge.

“Definitely an escalation overnight with pressure on energy infra in the Gulf,” said Rachel Ziemba, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a think tank.

The countries hit the most directly are Asian markets, particularly Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan.

China is the world’s largest importer of natural gas, but it gets the majority of its imports from Australia, accounting for 34 percent of its imports, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

Maksim Sonin, an energy expert at Stanford University’s Center for Fuels of the Future, however, said that while QatarEnergy’s decision would bring “volatility” to energy markets, he wouldn’t describe the situation as a “crisis” just yet.

“We will see near-term volatility in the LNG market, especially if infrastructure in Qatar and other hubs is damaged,” Sonin told Al Jazeera. However, he added, “I do not expect the 2022 gas crisis to repeat in Europe,” referring to the period following Russia’s full-fledged invasion of Ukraine, when many European nations tried to dramatically scale back their dependence on Russian oil and gas.

Which are the world’s largest LNG exporters?

Until 2022, Russia was the world’s biggest exporter of LNG, but its sales have plummeted since its war on Ukraine began.

Now, the US is the world’s largest exporter of LNG, followed by Qatar and Australia.

Will this add pressure on Europe?

While 82 percent of QatarEnergy’s sales are to Asian countries, the halt puts increased pressure on other markets across the globe, too, particularly in Europe.

In effect, a smaller supply of gas will need to meet the same global demand. As a result, gas prices have already started soaring: Benchmark Dutch and British wholesale gas prices soared by almost 50 percent, while benchmark Asian LNG prices jumped almost 39 percent, on Monday after the QatarEnergy announcement.

“Not good if Qatar stays offline for long, of course,” said Ziemba. The only silver lining for Europe: “At least the worst of the winter in Europe may be behind,” Ziemba pointed out.

The European Union’s gas coordination group will meet on Wednesday to assess the impact of the widening conflict in the Middle East, a European Commission spokesperson told Reuters on Monday. The group includes representatives from member state governments. It monitors gas storage and security of supply in the EU, and coordinates response measures during crises.

EXPLAINER

Until Khamenei’s successor is picked, the three-member leadership council, including Ayatollah Alireza Arafi, will lead Iran.

Iranian authorities have announced a three-member interim leadership council to run the government after the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in Israeli-United States strikes.

Iran’s government pledged to avenge the killing on Saturday of Khamenei, who had been in power for nearly four decades. Tehran has since targeted Israeli and US assets located across Gulf countries in retaliatory strikes.

While US President Donald Trump has said he wants a change in Iran’s government, the religious leaders of Iran moved on Sunday to start the process of choosing Khamenei’s successor.

What is the interim leadership council?

Article 111 of Iran’s Constitution authorises a temporary leadership council to assume the supreme leader’s duties until a successor is elected.

That council will consist of President Masoud Pezeshkian; the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei; and a member of the Guardian Council, Ayatollah Alireza Arafi.

So who are these three figures who will temporarily run Iran as it reels from war?

Ayatollah Alireza Arafi

Arafi has been a member of the Guardian Council since 2019. Its members are appointed by the supreme leader. It is an Islamic legal authority that vets Iran’s laws and policies to make sure they conform to Islamic principles. It approves election candidates, has veto power over legislation passed by parliament and supervises elections.

Arafi also serves as the deputy chairman of the Assembly of Experts, the body responsible for overseeing the selection of the supreme leader. He leads Friday prayers in Qom, Iran’s most important religious centre, and heads the seminary system, overseeing education for religious leaders nationwide.

Masoud Pezeshkian

Pezeshkian, 71, is a reformist politician and heart surgeon who served in the army during the Iran-Iraq War. He was elected president in the 2024 elections.

He previously served as health minister under President Mohammad Khatami and, after 2005, as a member of parliament representing the northwestern city of Tabriz.

Pezeshkian ran unsuccessfully for president earlier but in 2024 won on a reform-oriented platform and has since navigated economic pressures and regional tensions.

He earlier campaigned on economic stabilisation, easing social restrictions and pursuing constructive engagement abroad while affirming loyalty to the Islamic Republic’s constitutional framework.

Reacting to Khamenei’s assassination, Pezeshkian said in a statement that Iran now considers “it its legitimate duty and right to avenge the perpetrators and masterminds of this historic crime”.

Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei

Mohseni-Ejei is a senior religious leader and has headed the judiciary since Khamenei appointed him to the post in July 2021.

He previously served as intelligence minister from 2005 to 2009 and later as prosecutor-general and first deputy chief justice. He is regarded as a hardline figure aligned with the conservative wing of the government.

In January, when the collapsing rial triggered protests across Iran, Mohseni-Ejei promised “no leniency” towards what he called “rioters”.

Mohseni-Ejei said the US and Israel “openly and explicitly supported the unrest” in the country after Trump called on Iranians to take to the streets.

After Khamenei’s killing, Trump again addressed the Iranian public on Saturday, calling for them to topple the government. “This will probably be your only chance for generations,” he said on Saturday after the US and Israeli attacks on Iran began.

Iranian state media confirmed that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader since 1989, was killed in a joint US-Israeli air strike. Here’s what we know about him and the key moments that defined his rule.

The assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 86, in the US-Israeli air attacks has thrust Tehran to a pivotal crossroads as the clergy looks to pick the late ayatollah’s successor.

With Iran on a war footing, several senior leaders close to Khamenei were killed in the attack as well, including his top security adviser Ali Shamkani and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander-in-chief Mohammad Pakpour.

Tehran has vowed to avenge the killing of Khamenei. The US President Donald Trump warned against the retaliatory attacks and suggested that the strikes on Iran would continue.

The US-Israeli attacks hit Iran on Saturday, when Tehran’s top diplomats were waiting for the next round of talks on upcoming Monday to lock a deal with Trump, including laying down nuclear ambitions, and avoiding an armed conflict.

After 36 years in power, the late ayatollah’s killing has left Iran’s top clerics to prepare for the transfer of power to the next Supreme Leader. That’s something that they have only done once before, four decades ago.

So, who will be the next Supreme Leader of Iran? And how will he be chosen?

How is the Supreme Leader selected?

Iran’s Supreme Leader is selected by the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member clerical body elected by the public every eight years.

Candidates who run for the Assembly must first be vetted and approved by the Guardian Council, a powerful oversight body whose members are partly appointed by the Supreme Leader himself.

When the position becomes vacant, due to death or resignation, the Assembly of Experts convenes to choose a successor. A simple majority is sufficient to appoint the new Supreme Leader.

As per Iran’s constitution, the candidate must be a senior jurist with deep knowledge of Shi’a jurisprudence, as well as qualities such as political judgment, courage, and administrative capability.

Earlier, there had been only one other transfer of power in the office of the Supreme Leader of Iran, when Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic Revolution, died at age 86 in 1989.

What happens in Iran during a leadership vacuum?

Article 111 of Iran’s constitution mandates that a temporary council handle duties until a new supreme leader is elected.

That council will have: President Masoud Pezeshkian, Supreme Court Chief Justice Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei, and a cleric from the Guardian Council, according to Iranian media.

They will lead the country until the assembly formally picks the new supreme leader.

Iran’s security chief and a close confidante of the late Khamenei, Ali Larijani, said on Sunday that the transition process is underway.

Luciano Zaccara, a research associate professor in Gulf Politics at Qatar University, told Al Jazeera that Iran’s political system has been prepared for the current situation, knowing that Khamenei’s assassination was a real possibility.

“Trump wants to get the best deal possible, but the method he’s using to get that deal is to annihilate or destroy as much as he can,” Zaccara said. “This is the way to impose conditions, not to negotiate anything. Trump wants a surrender of the regime, not a change.”

The late Ayatollah made sure to put in a structure, he added, to avoid a vacuum of power and kept replacements for all the officials eliminated in the last few months ready. “The structures remain, the line of power [and] the line of command remain in place,” Zaccara told Al Jazeera.

What is the Supreme Leader of Iran?

The Supreme Leader is the top position in the Islamic Republic’s political and religious hierarchy.

He is essentially the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and the final word in the country – and appoints key judicial, military, and media officials.

He also leads the mighty Revolutionary Guard, a paramilitary force that leads the so-called Axis of Resistance.

Here are the contenders for the top job in Tehran

Mojtaba Khamenei

Khamenei’s second son, Mojtaba Khamenei, is among the top contenders to succeed his father in Iran.

He is known to wield significant influence among the administrators and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the most powerful military body.

However, Khamenei’s lineage is also among the biggest barriers he faces.

Khamenei was reportedly opposed to the father-to-son succession. It is frowned upon in Iran, particularly after the US-backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi monarchy was toppled in 1979.

Alireza Arafi

Arafi, a 67-year-old cleric, is an influential figure in the Islamic Republic’s religious establishment, but not a widely accepted political actor.

He serves as the deputy chairman of the Assembly of Experts, the body responsible for overseeing the selection of the Supreme Leader, and has been a member of the Guardian Council, which vets election candidates and laws passed by parliament.

Arafi was appointed as ⁠the jurist member of ⁠Iran’s Leadership Council, the body tasked with fulfilling the ‌Supreme Leader’s role until the Assembly of Experts elects a new leader, Iran’s state media reported on Sunday.

Arafi is also the Friday prayer leader of Qom — Iran’s most important religious center — and heads the country’s seminary system, overseeing clerical education nationwide.

Mohammad Mehdi Mirbagheri

Mirbagheri is an ultra-hardline clerical voice in the establishment and a member of the Assembly of Experts.

He is widely known for his unrelenting anti-Western worldview — and currently heads the Islamic Sciences Academy in the northern city of Qom.

Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei

Mohseni-Ejei is a senior Iranian cleric and currently heads the judiciary of the Islamic Republic, appointed to the role in July 2021 by the late Khamenei.

He previously served as Minister of Intelligence from 2005 to 2009 and later as Prosecutor-General and First Deputy Chief Justice. He is regarded as a hardline figure aligned with the conservative wing of the regime.

Hassan Khomeini

Khomeini, 54, is among the most discussed names in succession talks for the next Supreme Leader.

He is the grandson of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, and also the custodian of his grandfather’s mausoleum in Tehran.

While he has not held a public office, Khomeini is a reformist figure known for his rather moderate views on public life and policy. He attempted to run for the Assembly of Experts in 2016, but the vetting council disqualified him.

EXPLAINER

The former defence minister and secretary of Iran’s Defence Council was involved in US-Iran nuclear negotiations.

Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of Iran’s Defence Council and close adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has reportedly been killed in Israeli and US strikes on Iran.

An Israeli military spokesperson said he was among several top Iranian officials killed on Saturday.

There was no immediate comment from Tehran on his fate.

The 70-year-old was overseeing the negotiations between the US and Iran over the Iranian nuclear programme, the latest round of which concluded on Friday.

“If the main issue of the negotiations is not making nuclear weapons by Iran, this is in compliance with a religious decree issued by Iran’s leader and the country’s defence doctrine, and an immediate agreement is within reach,” Shamkhani said on Thursday.

Shamkhani had also been targeted in an Israeli strike in June 2025, during the 12-day war between Iran and Israel. There were reports that he had been killed in the attack, but he was later confirmed to have survived. He was pulled from the rubble of his home, and had sustained severe injuries.

He was recently appointed the secretary of Iran’s Defence Council, which was created after the war and coordinates Iran’s defence and national security policies, while mobilising resources to address threats.

In January, he warned that Iran’s response to any US military action would be “immediate, all out, and unprecedented, targeting the heart of Tel Aviv and all those supporting the aggressor”.

He led the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) for a decade until 2023, making him the second-longest-serving security chief since 1979 after former President Hassan Rouhani, who was SNSC secretary for nearly 16 years.

Born in Ahvaz in Iran’s Khuzestan, Shamkhani and his family moved to Los Angeles in the United States when he finished school. He later returned to Iran, where he studied engineering.

During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, Shamkhani was a commander in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and went on to be a commander of both of Iran’s navies, the IRGC Navy and the Iranian Navy.

He was the minister of defence between 1997 and 2005, and was the first Iranian defence official to visit Saudi Arabia since the revolution. He also came third in the 2001 presidential elections before returning to his role as defence minister.

The United States and Israel have launched strikes on Iran despite ongoing talks between Washington and Tehran over Iran’s nuclear programme.

Iran responded to Saturday’s attacks with missile and air strikes across the region, including in Israel, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq.

Israeli officials said their strikes targeted Iran’s military and nuclear-related infrastructure, while airspace across Israel was closed and emergency measures imposed. Several other countries in the region also announced the closure of their airspace.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump said Washington has begun a “major combat operation” in Iran, aimed at “eliminating threats from the Iranian regime”.

“This regime will soon learn that no one should challenge the strength and might of the United States Armed Forces,” he said.

The strikes came just two days after high-stakes US–Iran nuclear negotiations in Geneva, mediated by Oman, ended without a breakthrough. The US-Israel attack marks the most serious escalation since the brief but intense June 2025 war.

Here is a timeline of the events, including attacks and diplomatic overtures leading up to Saturday’s strikes by the US and Israel, and Iran’s fierce response.

June 13, 2025 — Israel launches major air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military facilities, amid ongoing talks between the US and Tehran. Iran responds within hours with large-scale missile and drone attacks on Israeli cities.

June 22 – The US strikes Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan, with Trump claiming the attacks degraded Tehran’s nuclear programme. Iranian officials said their programme was set back but not destroyed.

June 23 – In retaliation, Iran fires missiles towards Al Udeid airbase in Qatar, housing US soldiers. The missiles are intercepted, and no casualties are reported.

June 24 – After 12 days of fighting, a US-brokered ceasefire takes effect between Iran and Israel, ending all hostilities. Iran says at least 610 of its citizens were killed in the war, while Israel claimed 28 were killed on its side.

July 2 – Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signs legislation halting cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), barring its inspectors from accessing Iran’s nuclear facilities unless specifically authorised by the country’s Supreme National Security Council.

July 22 – Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, says Tehran will not give up its uranium enrichment programme, despite a temporary halt due to “serious and severe” damages.

August 12 – Iranian police arrest as many as 21,000 people related to the 12-day war with Israel, according to state media.

August 22 – Iran agrees to resume nuclear talks later in the month with the United Kingdom, France and Germany, despite the threat of revived sanctions.

August 28 – The three European countries trigger a mechanism reinstating the United Nations’ sanctions on the Islamic republic for the first time in a decade.

November 1 – Oman urges both the US and Iran to go back to the negotiating table as Iran reiterates it will not stop enriching uranium.

November 7 – Trump says Iran has requested that Washington remove its crippling sanctions on Tehran, and that he is willing to talk about the issue.

December 28 – Protests break out in major cities, including Tehran, over soaring prices after the rial plunges against the US dollar.

January 8, 2026 – The internet is shut down across Iran following the outbreak of antigovernment protests, which have now spread beyond cities. The blackout lasts for more than two weeks.

January 13 – Trump tells Iranians to “keep protesting” , claiming that “help is on the way”, and that the US may be preparing for military intervention against Tehran. The US begins to bolster its military presence off Iran.

February 6 – Iran and the US begin indirect nuclear negotiations in Geneva, mediated by Oman, with the aim of reaching a deal to curb Tehran’s nuclear programme.

February 17 – High-level US–Iran nuclear talks resume in Geneva, again with Omani mediation.

February 22 – Oman confirms another round of discussions in Geneva, describing a “positive push” but admits that significant differences remain.

February 26 – A third round of nuclear talks concludes in Geneva, with mediator Oman saying “significant progress” was made and more discussions would be held the following week in Vienna.

February 27 – Oman’s foreign minister says Iran has agreed to degrade its current stockpiles of nuclear material to “the lowest level possible” — effectively to unrefined levels. US President Donald Trump says he prefers diplomacy but warns that “all options” remain available if diplomacy fails.

February 28 – Israel launches coordinated strikes on Iranian targets, including sites in and around Tehran. Iran retaliates by launching air and missile strikes across the region, including Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will begin a two-day visit to Israel on Wednesday. Modi’s first trip to Israel was in 2017, when he was the first Indian leader to ever visit the country.

India was among the countries that opposed the creation of Israel in 1948, and for decades was one of the most forceful non-Arab critics of Israel’s policies towards Palestinians. It only established diplomatic ties with Israel in 1992, but since 2014, when Modi came to power, relations between the two countries have flourished.

Here is more about what is on the agenda for Modi’s visit, and why it is significant.

Who will Modi meet, and what will they talk about?

Modi is expected to land at the Ben Gurion international airport outside Tel Aviv at 12:45pm local time (10:45 GMT).

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to welcome Modi at the airport, as he did during the Indian premier’s 2017 visit. The two leaders are scheduled to hold talks shortly after.

Then, at 4:30pm (14:30 GMT), Modi is scheduled to address the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, in Jerusalem. He then returns to Tel Aviv for the night.

On the morning of February 26, Modi is scheduled to visit the Yad Vashem museum, a memorial to Holocaust victims, before meeting Israeli President Isaac Herzog. Modi and Netanyahu will then meet again and oversee the signing of agreements between the two countries, before Modi departs Israel in the afternoon.

Overall, Modi and Netanyahu aim to use this visit to bolster strategic economic and defence agreements between India and Israel, officials from both sides have said.

“We don’t compete, we rather complement each other,” JP Singh, India’s ambassador to Israel, told state broadcaster All India Radio on Monday, speaking of relations with Israel. “Israel is really good at innovation, science and technology. Therefore, there will be a lot of discussion on AI, cybersecurity and quantum.”

The two countries signed a new Bilateral Investment Treaty in September last year, replacing the 1996 investment treaty, to provide “certainty and protection” to investors from both countries. They are also aiming to upgrade existing bilateral security agreements at this meeting.

In a video posted on the Israeli Embassy’s social media channels on Monday, Israel’s ambassador to India, Reuven Azar, said: “Our economic partnership is gaining real momentum. We signed a bilateral investment treaty, and we are moving forward to sign a free trade agreement, hopefully this year.”

Azar said that Israel wants to encourage Indian infrastructure companies to come to Israel to build and invest in the country.

He added: “We will deepen our defence relationship by updating our security agreements.”

In an X post of his own on Sunday, Netanyahu wrote that he is looking forward to greeting Modi in Jerusalem.

“We are partners in innovation, security, and a shared strategic vision. Together, we are building an axis of nations committed to stability and progress,” he wrote.

“From AI to regional cooperation, our partnership continues to reach new heights,” Netanyahu added.

How are India-Israel relations?

Relations between India and Israel have improved exponentially over the years. While still under British rule in the 1920s and 1930s, India strongly identified with the Palestinian struggle for independence.

In 1917, the United Kingdom signed the Balfour Declaration, promising Jews who had been displaced from Europe due to Adolf Hitler’s oppression a homeland in the British Mandate in Palestine. This was opposed by many nations, including India, which was fighting British colonialism at the time.

“Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English, or France to the French,” Mahatma Gandhi, India’s most prominent freedom fighter who is revered as the father of the nation, wrote in an article in his weekly newspaper Harijan on November 26, 1938.

India was among the nations opposed to the creation of Israel in 1948. In 1949, India also voted against Israel’s UN membership. While it recognised Israel as a state in 1950, it was not until 1992 that the two formalised diplomatic relations, and economic relations gradually grew over the following two decades.

Since Modi became India’s leader in 2014, there has been a major shift in the relationship between India and Israel. Nine years ago, Modi was the first Indian prime minister ever to visit Israel.

India is currently Israel’s second-largest trading partner in Asia, after China. According to India’s Ministry of External Affairs, trade jumped from $200m in 1992 to $6.5bn in 2024.

India’s main exports to Israel include pearls, precious stones, automotive diesel, chemicals, machinery, and electrical equipment; imports include petroleum, chemical machinery and transport equipment.

Azad Essa, a senior reporter at Middle East Eye and author of the 2023 book Hostile Homelands: The New Alliance Between India and Israel, told Al Jazeera that Modi’s visit to Israel shows how far India’s relations with Israel have evolved over the past decade.

“Whereas a partnership existed, it was a lot more limited prior to Modi. [New] Delhi has now emerged as Israel’s strongest non-Western ally, so much so that it is now considered a ‘special relationship’, rooted in strategic cooperation and ideological convergence,” Essa said.

“This visit will be Netanyahu’s opportunity to offer appreciation to Modi, and will be used by him to show Israelis that he is a well-respected and popular leader in the Global South.”

Under Modi, India has become Israel’s top arms customer. And in 2024, during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Indian arms firms supplied Israel with rockets and explosives, according to an Al Jazeera investigation.

Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) envisions India as a Hindu homeland, echoing Israel’s self-image as a Jewish state. Both India and Israel frame “Islamic terrorism” as a key threat, a label critics say is used to justify wider anti-Muslim policies.

“The alliance between India and Israel is not just about weapon sales or trade. It is about India’s open embrace of authoritarianism and militarism in building a supremacist state in Israel’s image,” Essa said.

“It is also a story about how security, nationalism and democratic language can be used to justify and normalise increasingly illiberal policies, and this has implications for democracies everywhere.”

Why is this visit significant?

Modi’s visit comes at a time of rising and complex geopolitical tensions in and around the Middle East.

Despite the warm relations between the two countries in recent decades, Modi’s trip comes just a week after India joined more than 100 countries in condemning Israel’s de facto expansion in the occupied West Bank. New Delhi signed the statement on February 18 – a day later than most – after initially appearing hesitant.

This week, Netanyahu claimed that he plans to form a new regional bloc of countries, which he termed a “hexagon” alliance, to stand against “radical” Sunni and Shia-majority nations.

On Sunday, Netanyahu said this alliance would include Israel, India, Greece and Cyprus, along with other unnamed Arab, African and Asian states. None of these governments has officially endorsed this plan, including India.

Analysts said Modi’s visit will be viewed by many as an endorsement of Israeli policies, however.

“The timing of the visit is notable because it comes at a time when Netanyahu has lost immense credibility around the world, and to have the leader of the world’s so-called largest democracy visiting Israel and showing affection to Netanyahu, who has a warrant in his name from the International Criminal Court, is a ringing endorsement of him and Israel’s policies,” Essa said.

Modi’s visit also comes at a time of heightened tensions between Iran and the United States.

India and Iran have long had a cooperative relationship. After Modi visited Iran in 2016, the two countries signed a major deal, allowing India to develop the strategically located port of Chabahar on Iran’s southeastern coast. However, after the US imposed additional sanctions on Iran last year and threatened to penalise all countries that do business with Tehran, India has reportedly started moving out of Chabahar.

In June 2025, India did not join the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s (SCO’s) condemnation of Israel’s attacks on Iran during the 12-day war between Iran and Israel. However, it did join a later condemnation by the BRICS grouping of major emerging economies of the Israeli and US attacks on Iran.

The US, which has been applying its own pressure on India over the past year in retaliation for its purchase of Russian oil, is building up a vast array of military assets in the Arabian Sea, close to Iran, as President Donald Trump increases pressure on Iran to agree to a deal over its nuclear programme and stock of ballistic missiles.

Trump said last Friday that he was considering a limited strike on Iran if Tehran does not reach a deal with the US. “I guess I can say I am considering that,” he told reporters.

Iran has said it is seeking a diplomatic solution, but will defend itself if Washington resorts to military action.

Israel will likely be a front-line participant in any escalation that might follow from US strikes or Iranian retaliation, analysts say.

United States Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has faced condemnation from Arab and Muslim countries after suggesting Israel has a biblical right to much of the Middle East.

In an interview with prominent right-wing American commentator Tucker Carlson, Huckabee suggested that Israel has a God-given right to land stretching from the Euphrates River to the Nile, which would encompass Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and parts of Saudi Arabia.

“It would be fine if they took it all,” he said, arguing that the geographical borders of Israel are rooted in the Bible, a belief shared by Christian Zionists.

The US diplomat, a self-professed Christian Zionist and staunch supporter of Israel, later walked back his comments, calling them “somewhat hyperbolic” and adding that Israel is not seeking expansion but has a right to security within its current borders.

But were his comments indeed hyperbolic in the Christian Zionist worldview? Or is that precisely what he and his fellow proponents of the ideology believe?

How did Christian Zionism begin, and what are its tenets?

In 1878, William Blackstone, a student of the prominent American evangelist Dwight Moody and a believer in the biblical restoration of Israel, published a book titled Jesus Is Coming. The best-selling work popularised among Americans a belief held by some Christian leaders: that God had given the land of Israel to the Jewish people.

This conviction, often taken from a Protestant evangelical perspective, draws on the ancient biblical idea that, nearly four millennia ago, God promised the land to the Jews, who would rule it until the return of Jesus to Jerusalem for the rapture. According to this theology, Christians will be saved upon Christ’s return while non-Christians who do not convert will face damnation.

The most commonly quoted Bible verse relating to this covenant is Genesis 12:3, in which God tells Abraham: “I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed,” according to the Religion Media Centre.

According to ChristianZionism.org, a website run by professors, pastors and leaders of church-related organisations, four themes can be found in Christian Zionist thought: One, the founding of today’s nation-state of Israel in 1948 marked the final human era and signals an end of times. Two, the ongoing conflict in the Middle East is a part of God’s plan with a great and final war preceding the second coming of Christ. Three, God’s covenant with Israel is eternal and unconditional. And four, failing to support Israel’s political dominance today will incur divine judgement.

Writer and historian David Swift said that although many Christians – evangelical or otherwise – supported the creation of Israel before 1948, they cannot be called Christian Zionists in the modern parlance.

“This is because Christian Zionism essentially fuses religious belief with a military, strategic and even economic programme,” Swift told Al Jazeera.

“Specifically, Christian Zionism is not just the belief that the biblical land of Israel is the ordained country of the Jewish people but that it is in America’s strategic, military and economic interest to support the expansion of Israel.”

Fathi Nimer, a policy fellow at Al-Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network, described the movement as one that “translates into absolute unquestioning support for the Israeli regime”.

He described hearing a podcast about a Christian Zionist woman visiting Bethlehem who, after seeing the separation wall, Israeli soldiers and the harsh conditions in Palestinian refugee camps, remarked: “I feel bad for them, but scripture is scripture.”

“‘Scripture is scripture’ – that overrides everything,” Nimer told Al Jazeera.

“That’s why it’s such a powerful tool for brainwashing.”

How many American Christian Zionists are there?

According to author and academic Tristan Sturm, the largest population of Christian Zionists is in the US, and it numbers more than 30 million. Most are affiliated with evangelical churches in the southeast and south-central regions, often referred to as the “Bible Belt”.

The biggest organisation is Christians United for Israel, which itself boasts 10 million members, Nimer said.

“They are overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, found mostly in the Bible Belt, but also other places in the United States, and they form one of the most formidable voting blocs in the Republican Party,” he said.

Swift stated that only a few million from this group, however, are “fully signed up to the political, military and religious aspects of Christian Zionism”.

What impact do Christian Zionists have on US policy?

Nimer argued that Christian Zionists are “deeply intertwined” with American politics. “A lot of the major donors to the Republican Party and also the Democratic Party are Christian Zionists,” Nimer said.

According to the analyst, Christian Zionists are a cornerstone of Israeli lobbying groups, ranging from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to the Anti-Defamation League, “that work to spread the Israeli narrative” in American society.

Meanwhile, a lot of members of the US Congress are “openly” Christian Zionist, Nimer said.

“[Politicians like] Mike Huckabee, … they reached the highest echelons of the state. And they bring these beliefs into their politics, into their policies,” the analyst said.

US foreign policy on Israel is, therefore, heavily influenced and shaped around the underlying biblical premise that the Jewish people are divinely destined to be restored to Palestine, he argued.

“When it comes to Palestine and the region in general, as you see right now with the [potential] war in Iran, they’re saying that the ballistic missile programme is now on the table,” Nimer said.

“It has nothing to do with the nuclear deal, … but the idea is that Israel must be able to maintain its superiority over every country in the region, and that’s a decree by God because if Israel prospers, then that’s another step towards the end of the world.”

Christian Zionist groups have also backed Israel’s illegal settlement project in the occupied West Bank and other measures that they see as reinforcing Israeli Jewish sovereignty.

Furthermore, for two decades, organisations such as HaYovel have been bringing in hundreds of American Christian volunteers to work in Israeli settlement agricultural projects, especially during the genocidal war on Gaza, when Jewish Israelis were called for military duty. Many also strongly endorsed US President Donald Trump’s moving of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2017.

Swift, however, said Christian Zionists have played only a minor role in shaping US support for Israel and their influence is waning.

He argued that while Christian Zionism is integrated with a “broader neoconservative foreign policy agenda” also tied to the “US defence industry and broader military-industrial complex”, the group does not have much influence in American politics, and, in fact, it is declining.

Traditionally, US government support for Israel was driven by Cold War considerations and by pressure from the Jewish community within the US and lobbying groups like AIPAC. What played less of a role was support for Israel from evangelical Christians and the smaller community of Christian Zionists, Swift said.

“The US president is finally de facto abandoning the previous theoretical support for a two-state solution – although not for Christian Zionist reasons. When Trump talks of ethnically cleansing Gaza and turning it into a beach resort, he uses the language of real estate, not the Old Testament,” the historian said.

According to the analysts, very representative.

“It is pretty representative: Christian Zionists derive their understanding of the proper borders of Israel from the same place as people like [Israeli National Security Minister] Itamar Ben-Gvir and [Israeli Finance Minister] Bezalel Smotrich: the Old Testament. Therefore, they think Israel should expand to include all of the territory of ‘biblical Israel’,” Swift said, referring to the far-right Israeli cabinet members who have worked to expand and protect Israeli settlements and outposts in the occupied West Bank, which are illegal under international law.

Nimer said Huckabee’s statement is also not something that can be criticised within the Christian Zionist community.

“You’re not allowed to criticise that because it’s like you’re criticising prophecy and you’re criticising God and the return of Jesus,” he said.

Huckabee’s comments, therefore, come as no surprise despite infringing upon the sovereignty of US allies in the Middle East, Nimer said.

On Monday, Smotrich said Israel would eventually occupy the Gaza Strip and establish a Jewish settlement there despite a “ceasefire” that went into effect in October.

“We are giving US President Donald Trump the opportunity to do it in his own way. If he does not succeed in eliminating Hamas, the Israeli army will get international legitimacy and American support to do it,” he said in statements to Israeli radio.

How do Jewish Israelis view Christian Zionists?

Mimi Kirk, the director of the Institute for the Study of Christian Zionism and the associate director of Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, writes that “despite the matter of their supposed end-of-times demise according to this view, Jewish Israeli leaders have embraced the money and influence on US foreign policy that Christian Zionists offer,” especially as its adherents include top officials from the first Trump administration, including former Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Nimer said it’s a rather “cynical relationship”, given that the Christian Zionist worldview, which sees all non-Christians going to hell, is “anti-Semitic to the bone”.

“But they support Israel, so it’s fine,” the policy analyst said.

“They care about what they can get out of them right now as the biggest support base in the West currently.”

Israel is further banking on this support because it is quickly losing its “progressive facade” of a “liberal democracy” with “all these progressive rights”, Nimer added.

“This has completely faded over the last few decades, and especially since the genocide in Gaza, this has become completely unacceptable.”

How do Christians in Palestine view Christian Zionists?

Palestinian Christians have long voiced concern that the Christian Zionist position threatens their existence, further entrenching Israel’s occupation while marginalising their community and undermining the historic churches of the Holy Land.

Just last month, the Patriarchs and Heads of the Churches in Jerusalem said activities by local individuals advancing “damaging ideologies, such as Christian Zionism” “mislead the public, sow confusion, and harm the unity of our flock”.

The Christian leaders warned that these efforts could undermine the Christian presence not only in the Holy Land but across the wider Middle East.

The statement came amid growing concern among Palestinian Christians that Israel’s policies – including land confiscation, settlement expansion and pressure on church property – are accelerating the erosion of one of the world’s oldest Christian communities.

Are there critiques of Christian Zionism among other Christians?

Criticism of Christian Zionists from within Christianity is abundant.

In the US, the Institute for the Study of Christian Zionism was created to critique and combat the movement through liberation theology, seeking justice for Palestinians and a resolution to the ongoing conflict.

Swift pointed out that many of the world’s most Catholic countries, from Ireland to those in South America and Southern Europe, “tend to be quite pro-Palestinian”.

Meanwhile, Palestinian Christian scholars “have written very detailed theological critiques of Christian Zionism”, Nimer said, as have pastors from other parts of the Global South.

A prize awarded by the Nelson Mandela Foundation last year was explicitly aimed at initiatives working against Christian Zionism, and a conference next month in Turkiye is being organised to combat the ideology, Nimer said.

“The world is waking up to how insidious this ideology is and how it creeps into societies and makes it impossible to have any kind of solidarity with Palestinians as long as they believe it,” he said.

More than 7,000 languages are spoken around the world today and at least 3,000 of them, or 40 percent, are endangered.

English is the most widely spoken language, with approximately 1.5 billion speakers in 186 countries. Two out of every 10 English speakers are native, while the remaining 80 percent speak English as their second, third or higher language, according to Ethnologue, a database which catalogues the world’s languages.

Mandarin Chinese is the second most spoken language with almost 1.2 billion speakers. However, when accounting for native speakers, it is the largest language in the world, owing to China’s large population.

Hindi comes in third at 609 million speakers, followed by Spanish (559 million), and Standard Arabic (335 million).

Scripts in the world’s most popular languages

There are 293 known scripts – sets of graphic characters used to write a language – according to The World’s Writing Systems, a reference book about global scripts.

More than 156 scripts are still in use today, while more than 137 historical scripts, including Egyptian Hieroglyphs and Aztec pictograms, are no longer in use.

The Latin script, which is used to write English, French, Spanish, German and more, is used in at least 305 of the world’s 7,139 known living human languages. More than 70 percent of the world’s population use it.

Which are the most endangered languages?

Of the 7,159 languages spoken worldwide, 3,193 (44 percent) are endangered, 3,479 (49 percent) are stable, and 487 (7 percent) are institutional, meaning they are used by governments, schools and the media.

A language becomes endangered when its users begin to pass on a more dominant language to the children in the community. Many are used as second languages.

According to Ethnologue, some 337 languages are said to be dormant while 454 are extinct.

Dormant languages are those that no longer have proficient speakers, but the language still has social uses and the language is part of the identity of an ethnic community. Extinct languages are those that have no speakers and no social uses or groups that claim it as part of their heritage or identity.

According to Ethnologue, 88.1 million people speak an endangered language as their mother tongue. There are:

• 1,431 languages with fewer than 1,000 first-language speakers
• 463 with fewer than 100 speakers
• 110 with fewer than 10 speakers

Just 25 countries are home to some 80 percent of the world’s endangered languages. Oceania has the most endangered languages, followed by Asia, Africa and the Americas.

Some endangered languages include:

Oceania 

In Australia, Yugambeh, an endangered Aboriginal language, is spoken by the Yugambeh people, primarily across the Gold Coast, Scenic Rim and Logan in eastern Australia.

In recent years, a strong community-led revitalisation programme and the use of learning apps have made the language more accessible to younger generations.

Asia 

Japan’s Ainu (Ainu Itak) is a critically endangered language. According to UNESCO, it can’t be linked with certainty to any family of languages. The exact number of Ainu speakers is unknown, however a 2006 survey showed that out of 23,782 Ainu, 304 know the language.

Africa

In Ethiopia, Ongota is a critically endangered language.

It was spoken by a community on the west bank of the Weito River in southwest Ethiopia. There are only about 400 members of the community left, with a handful of elders speaking the language.

Americas

In North and Central America, almost all Indigenous languages are endangered. Louisiana Creole, a French-based creole with African and Indigenous influences, is a seriously endangered language in the United States, with it mostly spoken by elders.

Leco is an endangered Indigenous language spoken in Bolivia and is considered an isolated language – one that has no genetic relationship to other languages. The language is only now spoken by elders with a Leco ethnic population of only about 13,500.

Europe

Cornish (Kernewek), spoken in southwest England, was marked as an extinct language by UNESCO, until it was revived and in 2010 changed to an endangered language. It is spoken as a first language by 563 people according to the 2021 England and Wales census.

The United States administration is intensifying its build-up of a vast array of military assets in the Middle East, as President Donald Trump says Iran has “10 to 15 days at most” to agree a deal over its nuclear programme and stock of ballistic missiles.

As well as the world’s largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R Ford, which is reportedly joining the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group in the Arabian Sea, key force multipliers such as E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft have been deployed.

In a letter to the United Nations Security Council, Iran said that while the country does not seek “tension or war and will not initiate a war”, any US aggression will be responded to “decisively and proportionately”.

“The United States would bear full and direct responsibility for any unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences,” it said.

Here is what we know about the recent US deployment of military assets in the Middle East – which has also led to a dispute with the United Kingdom over the use of its joint military base in Diego Garcia.

What air power assets has the US deployed to the Middle East?

According to open-source intelligence analysts and military flight-tracking data, the US appears to have deployed more than 120 aircraft to the region within the past few days – the largest surge in US airpower in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq war.

The reported deployments include E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, F-35 stealth strike fighters and F-22 air superiority jets, alongside F-15s and F-16s. Flight-tracking data shows many departing bases in the US and Europe, supported by cargo aircraft and aerial refuelling tankers, a sign of sustained operational planning rather than routine rotations.

F-22s and F-35s previously escorted B-2 stealth bombers during Operation Midnight Hammer, the US military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites Trump ordered in June 2025 during the 12-day conflict between Iran and Israel.

“Watch any movement by B-2s. That would indicate a possible replay of ‘Midnight Hammer’,” Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel and senior adviser with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, told Al Jazeera.

This latest wave was preceded several weeks ago by the arrival of Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles. US Central Command said on social media at the time that the fighter jet “enhances combat readiness and promotes regional security and stability”.

What role could Diego Garcia and the UK play?

Attention has also focused on Diego Garcia, the joint UK-US military base in the Indian Ocean’s Chagos Islands, which is capable of hosting long-range US strategic bombers, including B-2 aircraft.

The remote base has historically served as a launch point for major US air campaigns in the region.

However, Diego Garcia is a British sovereign territory leased to Washington, meaning London must approve its use for offensive operations. According to reports in UK media, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has indicated to Trump that the US cannot use British airbases – including Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford in the UK, which is home to the US’s heavy bomber fleet in Europe – for strikes on Iran, as this would be in breach of international law.

Trump retaliated by withdrawing US support for the UK’s decision to transfer the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, announced last year.

On Wednesday, the US president said Starmer was “making a big mistake” in the agreement to transfer sovereignty of the archipelago.

“DO NOT GIVE AWAY DIEGO GARCIA!” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, saying the base could be called upon in any future military operation to counter a potential attack from Iran.

What do we know about US warships in the Arabian Sea?

The USS Gerald R Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, is currently being redeployed from the Caribbean to the Middle East.

The carrier and its accompanying strike group are expected to arrive in the region in the coming weeks.

On Wednesday, it briefly transmitted its location off the coast of Morocco, suggesting it is transiting the Atlantic towards the Strait of Gibraltar and will then go into the Mediterranean.

This is the same vessel that previously supported US military operations in Venezuela, including missions conducted under Operation Southern Spear.

The USS Gerald R Ford will join the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group, which recent satellite imagery shows is operating in the Arabian Sea off the coast of Oman, positioning US naval power within striking distance of Iran.

The US Navy also has multiple guided-missile destroyers in the region equipped with advanced air defence and ballistic missile interception systems. These multi-role vessels can carry and launch Tomahawk cruise missiles capable of striking land targets deep inside Iran, alongside their anti-submarine and fleet defence missions.

How is Iran responding?

Iran has publicly warned that it will view any military strike by the US as a serious provocation.

Tehran has also moved ahead with its own planned military activities. It announced and began joint naval exercises with Russia in the Sea of Oman and northern Indian Ocean on Thursday. These are intended to enhance maritime cooperation and signal deterrence amid rising US pressure.

As part of these manoeuvres, Iranian authorities issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) for rocket launches over southern Iran on Thursday from 03:30 to 13:30 GMT and temporarily closed parts of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategically vital shipping route, during live-fire drills.

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also warned that a US strike on Iran would have serious repercussions, underscoring the risk of escalation if hostilities spread.

Satellite images published by the Reuters news agency on Thursday showed that Iran has recently built a concrete shield over a new facility at a sensitive military site and covered it in soil, experts say, advancing work at a location reportedly bombed by Israel in 2024.

Images also show that Iran has buried tunnel entrances at a nuclear site bombed by the US during Israel’s 12-day war with Iran last year, fortified tunnel entrances near another, and has repaired missile bases struck in the conflict.

Analytical reports also suggest that Iran has built a multilayered defence centred on mines, missiles, submarines and drones with the intent of slowing down the US forces.

Some analysts say Iran may seek to avoid an immediate full-scale confrontation, but this may be difficult.

“The Iranians have, over the past six months, quietly taken additional steps to move critical assets further underground,” Vali Nasr, a professor of international affairs and Middle East Studies at Johns Hopkins University, said during a roundtable discussion hosted by the CSIS Middle East Program this week

“They are going to be unpredictable,” he said. “But I think they could go big at the beginning, or they might want to drag the United States into a protracted situation.

“You hit a tanker, or you hit an oil facility, or you hit an American ship, and then it’s up to President Trump to decide whether to escalate further. And it can go beyond that.

“We are in a scenario where this might get out of control very quickly,” Nasr added.

Is the US likely to attack Iran?

According to experts, it is a very real possibility.

“The United States is doing all the things that it would do if it were going to conduct some sort of attack,” Cancian told Al Jazeera. “It has moved aircraft into the area, two aircraft carriers, plus enablers like AWACS.”

Barbara Slavi, distinguished fellow at Stimson Center, agreed with this assessment. “It seems that the Trump administration has decided that it is going to attack Iran again, and I presume in conjunction with the Israelis,” she said.

“What the objectives are, we have yet to see. Can it be contained? Will others be drawn in? These are all really important questions, and we don’t have answers.”

Is this a similar situation to what we saw earlier this year in Venezuela?

A build-up of US military assets in the Caribbean, close to Venezuela, which began in September 2025, led to multiple strikes on Venezuelan boats that the US claimed – without proof – were carrying drugs. It culminated in the dramatic January 3 raid on Caracas by US forces and the abduction of then-President Nicolas Maduro, who now faces trial on guns and drugs charges in New York.

“The build-up [in the Arabian Sea] has similarities, but one key difference is the strategic context,” Cancian said.

“Unlike the Venezuela raid, there hasn’t been a large deployment of Special Operations Forces, and Iran’s geography, far inland and heavily defended, makes a quick ground raid unlikely.

“If there are strikes, I would expect long-range missile attacks against security forces such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Strikes against nuclear facilities are also possible, but missiles like Tomahawk can only damage above-ground facilities,” he added.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is reportedly planning to travel to Israel on February 28 to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a State Department official said.

Last summer, the US carried out air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities even as senior American diplomats were scheduled to meet with their Iranian counterparts in ongoing talks.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates has cancelled his keynote speech at India’s flagship AI summit just hours before he was due to take the stage on Thursday.

Gates, who has faced renewed scrutiny over his past ties to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, withdrew to “ensure the focus remains on the AI Summit’s key priorities”, the Gates Foundation said in a statement.

The five-day India AI Impact Summit 2026 was meant to showcase India’s ambitions in the booming sector, with the country expecting to attract more than $200bn in investment over the next two years.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi had billed the summit as an opportunity for India to shape the future of AI, drawing high-profile attendees, including French President Emmanuel Macron and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

Instead, it has been dogged by controversy, from Gates’s abrupt exit to an incident in which an Indian university tried to pass off a Chinese-made robotic dog as its own innovation.

So, what exactly went wrong at India’s flagship AI gathering and why has it drawn such intense scrutiny?

Why Gates’s appearance became an issue

Bill Gates was due to deliver a short but high-profile speech highlighting the opportunities and risks posed by artificial intelligence.

However, in recent weeks, several opposition figures and commentators in Indian media weighed in after emails featuring his name were released in the Epstein files in late January, questioning whether his presence was appropriate.

Despite the discussion, all appeared to be proceeding as planned earlier in the week. On Tuesday, the Gates Foundation’s India office posted on X that Gates would attend the summit and “deliver his keynote as scheduled”.

Then, on Thursday, hours before the scheduled speech, it released a statement saying that “After careful consideration, and to ensure the focus remains on the AI Summit’s key priorities, Mr Gates will not be delivering his keynote address.”

It added that Ankur Vora, president of the Gates Foundation’s Africa and India offices, would deliver the speech instead.

What are the alleged links between Epstein and Gates?

Bill Gates was named in documents related to Epstein released in January by the US Department of Justice.

In a draft email included among the documents, Epstein alleged Gates had engaged in extramarital affairs and sought his help in procuring drugs “to deal with consequences of sex with Russian girls”.

It was unclear whether Epstein actually sent the email, and Gates denies any wrongdoing.

The Gates Foundation, in a statement to The New York Times, called the allegations “absolutely absurd and completely false”.

What has India’s government said?

Very little.

Despite criticism and calls from opposition figures to explain the invitation to Gates, the Indian government has not directly addressed the controversy that culminated in Gates’s withdrawal.

While unnamed government sources told local media he would not attend the summit, officials stopped short of explaining why.

Asked about Gates’s participation, Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw declined to give a clear answer to reporters, while Modi made no reference to the issue in his public remarks.

Why are the Epstein files a sensitive subject for India?

The controversy surrounding Gates’s planned participation comes close on the heels of a series of disclosures in the Epstein files that have forced the Modi government on the backfoot.

In one email to an unidentified individual he referred to only as “Jabor Y”, Epstein referred to Modi’s historic visit – the first by an Indian prime minister – to Israel in July 2017.

Epstein wrote: “The Indian Prime minister modi took advice. and danced and sang in israel for the benefit of the US president. they had met a few weeks ago.. IT WORKED. !”

Modi’s visit to Israel – and his subsequent embrace of the Benjamin Netanyahu government, with military, intelligence and other ties strengthened over the past decade – had already drawn criticism from the opposition Congress party and others, who have accused him of reversing decades of Indian support for the Palestinian cause. India was the first non-Arab nation to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1974, and did not establish full diplomatic relations with Israel until 1992.

But the Epstein email turbocharged the opposition criticism of Modi’s Israel policy – with questions now also asked about whether it was influenced by Washington.

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs dismissed the Epstein email in an unusually sharply worded statement.

“Beyond the fact of the prime minister’s official visit to Israel in July 2017, the rest of the allusions in the email are little more than trashy ruminations by a convicted criminal, which deserve to be dismissed with the utmost contempt,” spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said.

But the Epstein cloud continues to hover over India.

The files also show that India’s current oil minister, Hardeep Singh Puri, exchanged dozens of emails with Epstein after he joined Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party in 2014.

In many of them, Puti appears to be taking Epstein’s help in getting US investors, such as LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman, to visit India. In others, he appears to suggest that he had a fairly comfortable personal relationship with Epstein.

“Please let me know when you are back from your exotic island,” Puri wrote in December 2014, for instance, asking to set up a meeting in which Puri could give Epstein some books to “excite an interest in India”.

Puri, in a new conference, has claimed that he only met Epstein “three or four times”, but the Congress party has argued that the emails suggest a much closer relationship.

Gates’s work in India

The Gates Foundation has long been a key partner in India’s public health and development sectors, backing major vaccination drives, disease prevention campaigns and sanitation programmes.

At the same time, he has had vocal critics, including environmental activist Vandana Shiva, who has argued that Gates’s brand of “philanthro-imperialism” uses wealth to control global food systems.

Gates also faced heavy criticism after a 2024 podcast in which he said India was “a kind of laboratory to try things … that then, when you prove them out in India, you can take to other places” when discussing development programmes and the foundation’s work there.

‘Orion’ the robodog and other controversies

Beyond the fallout over Bill Gates’s cancelled keynote, the AI Impact Summit has faced several controversies.

One incident involved a robotic dog named “Orion”, which Galgotias University, based in the New Delhi suburban town of Greater Noida, presented as its own innovation.

Online users quickly identified the machine as a commercially available Chinese-made model, prompting organisers to ask the institution to vacate its stall.

The event also drew criticism on its opening day after facing logistical issues, including long queues and confusion over entry procedures, according to local media.

On Wednesday, large crowds were seen walking for miles after police cordoned off roads for VIP access.

Dhananjay Yadav, the CEO of a company exhibiting high-tech wearables, made headlines after he reported on social media that devices had been stolen from the company’s stand.

The Times of India later reported that two maintenance workers at the event had been arrested for allegedly stealing the wearables.

BY THE NUMBERS

Spending on AI is forecast to skyrocket to $2.5 trillion in 2026, dwarfing even the largest scientific and infrastructure projects.

World leaders and tech executives are convening in New Delhi for the India-AI Impact Summit 2026, focusing on the role of artificial intelligence in governance, job disruption and global collaboration.

However, behind these discussions lies the financial reality. Over the past decade, AI has drawn one of the largest waves of private investment in modern history, totalling trillions of dollars.

According to Gartner, a United States-based business and technology insights company, worldwide spending on AI is forecast to total $2.5 trillion in 2026, a 44 percent increase over 2025.

To understand the magnitude of these investments, Al Jazeera visualises the staggering amounts by comparing them with some of the largest projects ever created by humanity. We also highlight which countries are spending the most on AI and provide insights into expenditures on data centres, models, services, and security.

What does $1bn look like?

To help understand a trillion dollars, it is useful to first visualise what millions and billions of dollars look like by using a stack of US dollar bills.

If you break these amounts down using $100 bills, here is how they stack up:

• $1,000 would form a stack about 1cm (0.393-inch) high.
• $10,000 would form a stack approximately 10cm (3.93-inch) high.
• $1m would fit inside a briefcase.
• $10m would fit inside a very large suitcase.
• $100m would fit on an industrial pallet stacked waist-high.
• $1bn would create a building approximately 5.2 metres (17 feet) high, with a width and a length of about 2 metres (6.6 feet) each.

Another way to think of it is if you spent $1 every second, it would take:

• 11.5 days to spend $1m
• 31 years to spend $1bn
• 31,000 years to spend $1 trillion

In more tangible terms, $1bn is roughly equivalent to:

• The estimated cost of the Grand Egyptian Museum in Giza, one of the largest archaeological museums in the world
• The cost of constructing two to three modern football stadiums, depending on size and design
• Buying 10 luxury private jets (at $100m each)
• Buying 6.3 tonnes of gold (at $5,000 per ounce)
• Buying 1 million high-end iPhones at retail price

$1.6 trillion already spent on AI

Over the past decade, AI-related investments have surged nearly 13-fold.

According to the 2025 AI Index Report by Stanford University, between 2013 and 2024, total global corporate investment in AI reached $1.6 trillion. This substantial expenditure dwarfs even the largest scientific and infrastructure projects of the 20th and 21st centuries.

To put the scale of AI investment into perspective, consider how it compares with some of the most ambitious and expensive projects in modern history. All figures are adjusted to 2024 US dollars:

• The Manhattan Project (1942-46): $36bn
• The International Space Station (1984-2011): $150bn
• The Apollo Program (1960-73): $250bn
• The US Interstate Highway System (1956-92): $620bn

In just over a decade, investment in AI has surpassed the cost of developing the first atomic bomb, landing humans on the moon and the decades-long effort to build the 75,440km (46,876-mile) US interstate highway network.

Unlike these landmark projects, AI funding has not been driven by a single government or wartime urgency. It has flowed through private markets, venture capital, corporate research and development, and global investors, making it one of the largest privately financed technological waves in history.

Global corporate investments in AI cover a vast array of operations, including mergers and acquisitions, minority stakes, private investments, and public offerings. These monumental expenditures highlight the extensive financial commitment to advance AI.

Which countries are spending the most on AI?

The AI investment surge is concentrated in just a few countries, where private capital has fuelled thousands of startups and shaped global innovation hubs.

The US has dominated AI spending, accounting for roughly 62 percent of total private AI funding since 2013. Between 2013 and 2024, US companies spent $471bn on AI. Chinese companies are the second-largest spenders at $119bn, followed by the United Kingdom at $28bn.

These figures exclude government spending, such as the US CHIPS Act or European national AI subsidies.

Global private investment in AI by country, 2013-24:

• US: $471bn, supporting 6,956 newly funded AI companies
• China: $119bn, 1,605 startups
• UK: $28bn, 885 startups
• Canada: $15bn, 481 startups
• Israel: $15bn, 492 startups
• Germany: $13bn, 394 startups
• India: $11bn, 434 startups
• France: $11bn, 468 startups
• South Korea: $9bn, 270 startups
• Singapore: $7bn, 239 startups
• Others: $58bn

AI spending to total $2.5 trillion in 2026

AI spending is forecast to skyrocket to $2.5 trillion in 2026, driven by a massive global build-out of data centres and services, according to Gartner.

The bulk of the spending is expected to go towards:

• AI infrastructure: $1.37 trillion
• AI services: $589bn
• AI software: $452bn
• AI cybersecurity: $51bn
• AI platforms for data science and machine learning: $31bn
• AI models: $26bn
• AI application development platforms: $8.4bn
• AI data: $3bn

By 2027, Gartner is forecasting that AI spending will surpass $3.3 trillion.

Guatemala announced last week that it will begin phasing out its three-decade-old programme, under which Cuban doctors work in its country to fill the gap in the country’s healthcare system.

Communist-ruled Cuba, under heavy United States sanctions, has been earning billions of dollars each year by leasing thousands of members of its “white coat army” to countries around the world, especially in Latin America. Havana has used its medical missions worldwide as a tool for international diplomacy.

So why are some countries withdrawing from the programme that helps the host countries?

Why is Guatemala phasing out Cuban doctors?

Guatemala’s health ministry said in a statement that it would begin a “gradual termination” over this year.

“The phased withdrawal of the Cuban Medical Brigade stems from an analysis of the mission’s completion of its cycles,” the statement, originally in Spanish, said on February 13.

The statement added that the Cuban medical mission was meant to support Guatemala through the 1998 Hurricane Mitch, which devastated parts of Central America, overwhelmed local hospitals and left rural communities with almost no access to medical care.

“The Ministry of Health is developing a phased strategic replacement plan that includes hiring national personnel, strengthening incentives for hard-to-reach positions, strategic redistribution of human resources, and specialized technical support,” the statement said.

The Cuban mission in Guatemala comprises 412 medical workers, including 333 doctors.

The Central American country’s decision comes amid growing pressure from the United States, which wants to stop Cuban doctors from serving abroad.

The move aims to starve Cuba of much-needed revenue as a major share of the incomes earned by doctors goes to government coffers. Cuba has been facing severe power, food and medical shortages amid an oil blockade imposed by the Trump administration since January.

Guatemala is just one country which benefits from Cuban medical missions.

Over the past decades, Cuba has sent medical missions around the world, from Latin America to Africa and beyond. It began sending these missions shortly after the 1959 Cuban revolution brought Fidel Castro to power.

Castro’s communist government reversed many of the pro-business policies of Fulgencio Batista, the dictator backed by the US. The revolution ruptured ties between the two countries, with the US spy agency CIA trying several times unsuccessfully to topple Castro’s government.

Guatemala has moved closer to the US since the election of Bernardo Arevalo as the president in January 2024. He has cooperated with US President Donald Trump’s administration. Last year, Guatemala agreed to ramp up the number of deportation flights it receives from the US. The US has deported thousands of immigrants without following due process to third countries such as Guatemala and El Salvador, which are headed by pro-Trump leaders.

In November 2018, shortly after Brazil elected Jair Bolsonaro as president, Cuba announced its withdrawal from the country’s Cuba “Mais Medicos” (More Doctors) programme. Bolsonaro, who is known as Brazil’s Trump, had criticised the medical mission, deeming it “slave labour”. Bolsonaro is serving a 27-year prison sentence after he was convicted in September 2025 of plotting to stage a coup in order to retain power after his defeat in the 2022 presidential election.

Why is the US targeting Cuba’s global medical missions?

The US has deemed Cuba’s foreign medical missions a form of “forced labour” and human trafficking, without any evidence, and has a goal of restricting the Cuban government’s access to its largest source of foreign income.

US efforts to curb Cuba’s medical missions are not new. Just last year, Washington imposed visa restrictions aimed at discouraging foreign governments from entering into medical cooperation agreements with Cuba.

In February last year, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the US would restrict visas targeting “forced labor linked to the Cuban labor export program”.

“This expanded policy applies to current or former Cuban government officials, and other individuals, including foreign government officials, who are believed to be responsible for, or involved in, the Cuban labor export program, particularly Cuba’s overseas medical missions,” a statement on the US State Department’s website said.

Rubio, who is of Cuban origin, has been a vocal critic of Havana, and has pushed US policies in Latin America, including the military operation to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 3. Under Trump, Washington has pushed its focus on Latin America as part of its Western Hemisphere pivot, which seeks to restore Washington’s preeminence in the region.

Since Maduro’s abduction, the US focus has turned towards Cuba. Senior US officials, particularly Rubio, hinted that Havana could be the next target of Washington’s pressure campaign.

The US, in effect, cut off Venezuelan oil shipments to Cuba as part of a new oil blockade. Havana has faced sweeping US sanctions for decades, and Cuba has since 2000 increasingly relied on Venezuelan oil provided as part of a deal struck with Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez.

The blockade has caused a fuel shortage and, in turn, a severe energy crisis in Cuba. President Miguel Diaz-Canel has imposed harsh emergency restrictions as a response.

This has renewed US pressure on countries to phase out Cuban medical missions.

How many Cuban doctors are on missions abroad?

More than 24,000 Cuban doctors are working in 56 countries worldwide. This includes Latin American countries such as Venezuela, Nicaragua and Mexico; Africa, including Angola, Mozambique, Algeria; and the Middle East, including Qatar.

There have been occasional deployments in other countries. For instance, Italy received Cuban doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic to help overwhelmed hospitals in some of its hardest-hit regions.

Cuban doctors are crucial for Caribbean countries. They fill a significant gap in medical care amid a lack of trained medical professionals.

Have countries resisted US pressure in the past?

Caribbean countries hit back in March 2025 against the US threats to restrict visas. “We could not get through the pandemic without the Cuban nurses and the Cuban doctors,” Barbados’s Prime Minister Mia Mottley said in a speech to the parliament.

“Out of the blue now, we have been called human traffickers because we hire technical people who we pay top dollar,” Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Keith Rowley said back then, adding that he was prepared to lose his US visa.

“If the Cubans are not there, we may not be able to run the service,” Saint Vincent and the Grenadines then-Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves said. “I will prefer to lose my visa than to have 60 poor and working people die.”

In August 2025, the US announced that it was revoking the visas of Brazilian, African and Caribbean officials over their ties to Cuba’s programme that sends doctors abroad.

It named Brazilian Ministry of Health officials, Mozart Julio Tabosa Sales and Alberto Kleiman, who had their visas revoked for working on Brazil’s Mais Medicos, or “More Doctors” programme, which was created in 2013.

Some countries are now finding ways around the pressure from Washington. For instance, this month Guyana announced that it would start paying doctors directly, rather than through the Cuban government.