Explainer

Sixty-nine years ago this day, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1, the first satellite to orbit Earth, opening the Space Age and setting off a race with the United States.

Ten years later, on October 10, 1967, the Outer Space Treaty came into force.

In 1999, the United Nations started observing World Space Week – from October 4 to 10 – to celebrate the contribution of space technology for the benefit of humanity. Schools, space agencies, museums and astronomy clubs around the world hold stargazing nights, science classes, exhibitions and talks by astronauts and scientists.

Today, more than 80 countries have put satellites into orbit, and people from over 50 of those have travelled to space.

In this visual explainer, Al Jazeera looks at which countries have done so, how many space travellers have been women, and what comes next for human spaceflight.

The first man in space – Yuri Gagarin

On April 12, 1961, Soviet astronaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space.

On board the Vostok 1 spacecraft, he completed one orbit of Earth at about 27,400km/h (17,025mph) during a 108-minute flight. He later ejected from the spacecraft and landed by parachute.

The mission demonstrated that humans could survive launch, weightlessness and re-entry, giving the Soviet Union a major early victory in the Cold War Space Race.

Six years later, on October 10, 1967, the Outer Space Treaty entered into force. Signed by the US, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, it established that space should be explored and used peacefully and that no country could claim it as territory.

Less than two years later, NASA’s Apollo 11 mission landed the first humans on the moon. On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong became the first person to walk on its surface.

Where does space begin?

There is no single agreed boundary for where space begins: most international bodies use the Karman line, 100km (62 miles) above Earth, while the US military, NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration count anyone who flies above 80km (50 miles).

Either way, it is closer than it sounds: if Earth were the size of an apple, space would begin about as far from the surface as the thickness of its skin.

Which countries have sent people to space?

By the Karman line measure, at least 746 people from 52 countries have travelled to space, including professional astronauts and paying tourists.

Some hold dual nationality, and some flew for countries that no longer exist, such as the Soviet Union.

The graphic below breaks down space travellers by country.

Two countries still dominate the list. The US has sent 369 people to space, and the Soviet Union and Russia have sent 138 combined. China, the third country to launch people on its own rockets, has sent 29.

One in seven space travellers is a woman

Space remains a male-dominated frontier. Science fiction may be full of women commanding starships, but of the 746 people who have travelled to space, only 112, or 15 percent, have been women, about one in seven.

Soviet astronaut Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman to travel to space in June 1963. The US did not follow for another 20 years, until Sally Ride flew in June 1983.

The share of women is rising, though, largely because of commercial flights. More than half of the women who have flown since 2020 went up as paying passengers or guests on Blue Origin’s suborbital rocket.

The typical space traveller is 40

Most people who have flown to space were in their 30s or 40s on their first flight, which together account for 85 percent. The median age is 40. Commercial flights have widened that range.

The youngest traveller, Oliver Daemen, was 18 when he flew in 2021. The oldest, Ed Dwight, was 90 years and eight months old when he flew in 2024, about two months older than William Shatner had been on his flight three years earlier.

What comes next for human spaceflight?

In April 2026, the Artemis II crew flew around the moon and reached about 406,771km (252,756 miles) from Earth, breaking the distance record set by Apollo 13 in 1970.

Next is Artemis III in 2027, a rehearsal in Earth orbit to test docking with lunar landers built by SpaceX and Blue Origin. NASA is targeting 2028 for Artemis IV, which aims to land astronauts near the moon’s south pole, the first crewed landing since 1972.

India plans its first crewed Gaganyaan flight in 2027, making it the fourth country to launch people on its own rocket. China aims to land astronauts on the moon around 2030.

Teenage athletes have headlined some of the biggest Asian Games triumphs, leading their countries to historic gold medals, breaking records and cementing their legacy as formidable forces in the field.

Far from being intimidated by competitors double or triple their age, these schoolchildren remained cool and unfazed as they cruised to gold at their Asian Games debut.

Many are already familiar with the pressure and expectations of the world stage and have dominated their sport all season.

Al Jazeera Sport looks at some of the stars who left their mark in Japan:

Yu Zidi, 13

China: Swimming 

At just 13, Yu was named female Most Valuable Player (MVP), as she bagged three gold medals and broke as many Asian Games records in a fairytale debut.

The schoolgirl stormed to victory in the women’s 200m butterfly, 200m and 400m individual medley (IM) and had a comfortable lead over her competitors.

Her time of two minutes and 6.10 seconds (2:06.10) in the 200m IM stands as a world junior record and second-fastest time ever.

“I don’t think I am what people describe as a prodigy,” she said after being crowned MVP. “I will continue to train hard, push myself and work alongside young athletes across Asia to inspire more young people to love and take part in sports, especially swimming.”

Zhang Zhanshuo, 19

China: Swimming

Zhang held up seven fingers after his 400m freestyle win to count out his gold medals at the Games – the most at this edition, and more than what 27 of the 45 participating nations had in their medal tally at the conclusion of the event.

He set Games records in the 400m and 800m freestyle, an Asian record in the 200m, and helped power China to gold and Asian records in the men’s 4x100m and 4x200m freestyle relays.

But the 19-year-old has bigger victories in sight.

“The Asian Games is not the goal. I’m still aiming for the Olympics and competing with the best,” he said.

The teenager’s haul helped China sign off from swimming with 30 golds out of 41 medal events in the pool, with chief rival Japan a distant second with seven titles.

Shin Ohashi, 17

Japan: Swimming 

Ohashi broke the world record in the men’s 200m breaststroke (2:04.83) in front of a home crowd to become the first swimmer under the 2:05 mark.

The gold added to his title in the 100m breaststroke shared with China’s Dong Zhihao, bronze in the 50m breaststroke, and silver in the mixed and men’s 4x100m medley relays.

The teenager said he was surprised and honoured that Olympic champion Leon Marchand knew who he was, after the Frenchman described the 17-year-old as a “scary” prospect ahead of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.

“I respect him because I know just how strong he is. But if I want to win, he’s someone I know I’ll have to beat.”

Ohashi’s world record performance came just a week after the teenager recovered from COVID-19.

Yan Ziyi, 18

China: Athletics 

Yan was already javelin world number one and Asian record holder when she stepped onto the field for her Games debut – her first and only throw of 70.46 metres was enough for gold and a Games record.

It was the sixth-best of all time and well ahead of Olympic champion and home hero Haruka Kitaguchi’s 62.70m.

Yan is closing in on the world record of 72.28m set by Barbora Spotakova in 2008. In May, she hurled a world-leading, record-breaking 71.74m to open an unprecedented season.

Chen Yujie, 17

China: Athletics

Chen stormed to a new Games record in the women’s 100m en route to her first gold as she announced herself as the new sprint queen in Asia.

“I have no limits,” was her response when asked how much faster she hopes to run.

She followed up her podium finish with a silver in the 200m and gold in the women’s and mixed 4x100m relays.

Taiju Goto, 17

Japan: Athletics

Goto narrowly missed gold in the men’s 400m hurdles, but his 47.93s was enough for a world under-18 best time, Asian under-20 best time, and a new personal best.

The teen star has run sub-50 seconds eight times this season alone, an impressive feat for a 17-year-old. His Asian Games silver added to the World Under-20 one he bagged in August.

Kumkum Mohod, 17

India: Archery

Mohod scripted history for India when she became the first Indian to win an individual recurve archery gold at the Games. The 17-year-old helped India to gold in the women’s team recurve, and partnered with Dhiraj Bommadevara for mixed team silver.

Mohod’s gold was no stroke of luck; she defeated South Korea’s reigning world champion and Olympic medallist Kang Chaeyoung in the quarterfinals before dominating China’s Zhu Jingyi in the semifinals.

“Ever since I’ve made it to the national team, I’ve been visualising this moment. I had visualised shooting an X, and that is exactly what happened,” she told reporters after the match, according to Indian media.

Anahat Singh, 18

India: Squash

World junior champion Anahat Singh has been India’s finest in the sport for several years now. Despite only being 18, Aichi-Nagoya was Singh’s second Asian Games outing after competing at Hangzhou 2023, where she won two bronze medals in the mixed doubles and women’s team events.

This time round, she won a silver in the women’s singles against world number five Sivasangari Subramaniam of Malaysia. However, her semifinal match against Japan’s Satomi Watanabe was what she called the “best win” of her career after producing a stellar comeback to defeat the world number six.

Yuki Kurihara, 11

Japan: e-sports

At just 11 years of age, e-sports prodigy Kurihara became the youngest gold medallist in Asian Games history when he won Puyo Puyo Champions.

“I’m really happy. The gold medal is really beautiful, shiny and heavy,” Kurihara said after his final, where he barely broke a sweat.

Kurihara started playing Puyo Puyo in his first year of primary school – where he still studies – and soon started competing and winning in tournaments. He obtained his pro licence in April this year and regularly beats adults, often triple his age.

Ku Yong-yan, 12

Taipei: Skateboarding

Ku took silver in the men’s skateboarding park with 87.33 points, and was just one of several teenagers – in his case, a pre-teen – who medalled in skateboarding at the Games.

Japan’s Izuru Nagahara, 15, took gold in the event. China’s Zhu Yuanling, also 15, won gold in the women’s street skateboarding competition.

China’s Cao Shiqi finished fourth in women’s skateboarding park and was the youngest athlete in China’s delegation at the Games.

An attack by the copilot on the pilot during a Flydubai flight has raised many questions regarding aviation security, and some of the official versions of the incident have come under scrutiny from online commentators and aviation enthusiasts.

About two and a half hours after Flight FZ1073 departed from Dubai International Airport on Wednesday, it went into a sharp descent before eventually making an emergency landing in Saudi Arabia.

Media reports said the copilot attacked Captain Smit Machchhar. Passengers were able to overpower the copilot, identified by media as Hamam al-Hammami, after Machchhar managed to open the cockpit door during the attack, which the prosecutor general of the United Arab Emirates said was carried out with the cockpit’s crash axe.

While investigators continue working to establish a motive for the attack, several questions have arisen about the incident more generally across social media.

Here are five questions that are being asked:

Why was al-Hammami allowed to fly despite being flagged over security concerns?

Al-Hammami has been identified as an Omani national, according to media reports.

On Friday, The Wall Street Journal quoted unnamed sources as saying that Omani authorities previously blocked the suspect from flying in the country due to concerns over his ideological views.

On Saturday, CNN reported, quoting a regional diplomatic source, that the copilot had also been removed from flight training over similar concerns and was later reassigned to another position.

It added, quoting two sources familiar with the matter, that the pilot was removed from a job at Oman’s national airline last year over concerns about his views.

It remains unclear how al-Hammami managed to get the Flydubai route despite these security concerns.

The possibility of a plumber stabilising plane before reserve pilots stepped in

Reports have emerged that Machchhar managed to open the cockpit door while covered in blood, allowing passengers to subdue the copilot.

One of those who subdued al-Hammami was Yaniv Hayoun, whom Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described as a plumber.

In a video with Netanyahu, who met him at the airport, Hayoun, 50, was asked how he knew what to do at the plane’s controls before another pilot took control. He said: “I watch Air Crash Investigation, Mr Prime Minister.”

“I jumped back, grabbed the controls and started pulling back the handles” the way he had seen in the Canadian investigation show, in which experts analyse plane crashes.

People on social media have questioned how a plumber could have handled an aircraft in the air.

No report of mass injuries despite fall of 5,180 metres

According to the flight-tracking website Flightradar24, the Flydubai flight rapidly descended about two and a half hours after takeoff, dropping more than 5,180 metres (17,000ft) in less than two minutes.

While the midair drop caused mass panic among passengers, no one was reportedly harmed, according to the publicly available information about the incident. An Air India flight that dropped 90 metres (300ft) during turbulence in August injured at least 17 passengers.

A flight instructor, who recreated the Flydubai jet’s near-vertical dive in a simulator, said the plane would have exceeded its maximum structural speed and anything unsecured would have flown all over the cabin during the recovery’s negative G-forces.

Why was the copilot allowed to fly despite being an Omani national?

Israel does not have official diplomatic relations with Oman, and Netanyahu has previously said such countries were not generally allowed to operate flights to Israel.

On Friday, Netanyahu said Israel was looking into whether the copilot had acted under anyone’s direction, warning that anyone involved would pay a “heavy price”.

On Saturday, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that government officials had received in advance the list of crew members and passengers who were on the flight, including the Omani copilot.

Security sources told Haaretz that the government bodies responsible for monitoring and checking foreign flight crews landing in Israel are the Ministry of Transport and Road Safety’s Security Department and the security agency Mossad.

Copilot prayed before attack

According to The Times of Israel, Machchhar spoke to Netanyahu on Saturday. He told the prime minister that al-Hammami had asked to pray before the attack. Four or five minutes later, Machchhar was hit with “a big blow” to the back of his head, he said.

The flight departed from the UAE at 7:05am (03:05 GMT). The attack reportedly took place about two and a half hours later (05:35 GMT).

The predawn prayer time in the Emirates on Wednesday was 04:51am (12:51 GMT), which would mean al-Hammami’s prayer did not align with Islamic prayer times.

However, al-Hammami could also have been performing a different personal prayer before the attack.

Bosnians are heading to the polls to choose the next government at all three of the state, entity and canton levels. It may seem complicated, but for a country divided into two entities – the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska, along with Brcko District – this is nothing new.

When do Bosnia’s elections take place?

The general elections are scheduled for Sunday, October 4. More than 3.4 million people are eligible to vote.

What’s different about this election?

This year, new election technology will be used. Voters will be identified using biometric devices, while ballot papers will be scanned rather than simply placed in ballot boxes.

The use of scanners, however, does not mean voting will be fully electronic. Votes will still be cast and recorded on paper, but verification and counting should be faster and more transparent, while voter identification should be more accurate.

Who is running for the Presidency?

Candidates for the Bosniak representative include current Presidency member Denis Becirovic of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), Bakir Izetbegovic of the Party of Democratic Action (SDA), Semir Efendic of the Party for Bosnia and Herzegovina (Stranka za BiH), and Fahrudin Radoncic of the Union for a Better Future of BiH (SBB).

Izetbegovic, the president of the centre-right SDA, the biggest Bosniak party in the country, is running for his third term after being defeated by Becirovic in 2022.

Three candidates will run for the Croat seat in the Presidency: Darijana Filipovic of the Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina (HDZ BiH), Slaven Kovacevic of the Democratic Front (DF), and Zdenko Lucic, a candidate supported by a coalition of five Croat parties.

The current Serb member of the Presidency, Zeljka Cvijanovic from the right-wing Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD), is running for a second term. During her term on the country’s top state body, which began in November 2022, just a few months after Russia’s war in Ukraine started, she maintained close and continuous cooperation with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.

SNSD is led by Milorad Dodik, the former president of Republika Srpska, best known for his separatist moves and for challenging the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the decisions of former High Representative Christian Schmidt.

Cvijanovic will face Marinko Bozovic of the Serb Democratic Party (SDS) and Nebojsa Vukanovic of the List for Justice and Order.

Who else is on the ballot?

Voters will be choosing representatives for 14 governments, as well as members of the country’s three-member Presidency.

Each entity has its own president, assembly, prime minister and ministers. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is further divided into 10 cantons, each with its own government.

For all this to happen, the Central Election Commission (CIK), the main body responsible for overseeing the voting process, earlier said that 75 political parties and four independent candidates were registered and eligible to participate.

How are Presidency members chosen?

When registered voters go to the polls, they do not elect one president, but choose one of three members of the country’s collective head of state. They are the representatives of the three constituent peoples – Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs.

The Bosniak and Croat members are elected from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while the Serb member is elected from Republika Srpska.

This is because the majority of Bosniaks and Croats live in the Federation, while most Serbs live in Republika Srpska.

The election of the Croat member has weighed on Bosniak-Croat relations for years and has often been used as a reason for political blockades.

Parties gathered around the centre-right Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina (HDZ BiH) are demanding changes to the Election Law, saying they want to prevent Bosniak voters from influencing the election of the Croat member of the Presidency.

But that would also require changes to the Constitution, which allows all citizens in the Federation to choose whether they want to vote for the Bosniak or the Croat member.

What about citizens who live outside their constituent group’s voting area?

A Serb living in the Federation, or a Bosniak or Croat living in Republika Srpska, who wants to run would not be able to do so, nor can they vote for those they consider to be their own representatives.

That is one of the many paradoxes of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s electoral system.

How is the state-level government chosen?

Citizens elect representatives to the Parliamentary Assembly, which consists of two houses.

Forty-two representatives will be elected to the House of Representatives.

Two-thirds are directly elected from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and one-third from Republika Srpska.

A quorum consists of a majority of all members elected to the House of Representatives.

The second chamber – the House of Peoples – has 15 delegates and is elected indirectly through the institutions. It consists of Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs – five from each group.

What happens with the entities?

The election of entity-level authorities works somewhat differently.

In Republika Srpska, citizens directly elect the National Assembly, as well as the entity president and vice presidents.

They do not directly elect the government – it is confirmed by the National Assembly.

In the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, citizens directly elect the House of Representatives of the Federation Parliament and the cantonal assemblies.

Those cantonal assemblies then elect delegates to the Federation’s House of Peoples.

The president of the Federation, the entity government and the cantonal governments are formed after the elections, through parliamentary majorities and political agreements.

Why is it a challenge to form the government?

It is difficult not only because the electoral system is complex, but also because of the lack of agreement among representatives of the three different ethnic communities.

Frequent blockades and obstruction make decision-making difficult at all levels, even though many politicians invoke the politics of compromise.

Elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina, therefore, are not only about who wins, but about whether a system designed to represent everyone can serve its citizens.

Why are the elections important?

New election technologies might reduce potential fraud, but much more will be needed for the country’s path towards the European Union.

The outcome of the election could unblock, or further slow down, the adoption of key laws needed for the country’s progress towards EU membership.

The EU granted Bosnia and Herzegovina candidate status in December 2022 and opened accession negotiations in 2024.

However, the country’s progress has since been assessed as very limited and slowed by political blockades.

These elections will also be a test for the ruling coalition, which promised to focus on social and economic issues amid the rising cost of living.

When are the results?

The first preliminary results are traditionally published by CIK late on election night, on October 4, and are updated every few hours.

In the days after the elections, CIK gradually enters votes from the remaining polling stations, mobile voting teams, as well as ballots received by mail and from diplomatic and consular missions.

The official results will be known no later than November 20.

EXPLAINER

Real Madrid accuse Barcelona of paying former refereeing official Jose Maria Enriquez Negreira between 2001 and 2018.

Real Madrid have urged UEFA to conclude its ongoing investigation into the Negreira case with “utmost urgency” after European football’s governing body confirmed receiving a dossier from them on Thursday.

The case pertains to Barcelona football club allegedly paying millions of dollars to the company of Jose Maria Enriquez Negreira, the former vice president of Spanish football’s refereeing committee, between 2001 and 2018, to try to influence referee decisions.

Barcelona have denied any wrongdoing or conflict of interest and said they paid him for reports and advice related to refereeing.

Thursday’s statement by UEFA was the latest update in its investigation into the payments opened in 2023, while there is an ongoing Spanish criminal case as well.

Here’s everything you need to know about the case:

What is the Real Madrid vs Barcelona Negreira case?

Barcelona allegedly paid more than 7.3 million euros ($7.95m) between 2001 and 2018 to firms owned by Negreira, who was vice president of the refereeing committee of the Spanish football association from 1993-2018.

In March 2023, Spanish prosecutors formally charged Barcelona as well as two of the club’s former presidents, Josep Maria Bartomeu and Sandro Rosell, and Negreira and his son, Javier Enriquez Negreira, with corruption over the affair.

Barcelona was accused of corruption in sports, fraudulent management and the falsification of mercantile documentation; it denies any wrongdoing and says the payments were made for technical refereeing reports.

In June 2023, UEFA’s investigators decided that Barcelona would not face any punishment, and the club has continued to play in European competition since then.

What are Real Madrid’s accusations against Barcelona?

Real Madrid have primarily accused Barcelona of sports corruption and influencing refereeing decisions through payments to Negreira.

The club joined the complaint filed by Spanish prosecutors against Barcelona and expressed their “deep concern about the seriousness of the facts”.

According to reports in Spanish media, Real Madrid have requested that Barcelona be stripped of the nine titles they won between 2001 and 2018, the years in which the Catalan club paid Negreira.

What have UEFA, Real Madrid, and Barcelona said?

All three entities issued separate statements on Thursday night.

• UEFA: The governing body confirmed receiving a “substantial amount of documents” — reportedly worth 50,000 pages — from Real Madrid pertaining to the investigation. “The UEFA Ethics and Disciplinary Inspectors have also received these latest documents which they will assess as part of their ongoing review,” it said in a statement.
• Real Madrid: The club issued its statement following UEFA’s announcement and confirmed that it had provided “extensive documentation and evidence regarding events of extraordinary seriousness, which directly affect the integrity of the competition and confidence in the refereeing system.” It urged that UEFA’s investigation proceed with “utmost urgency until its full conclusion” now that the dossier has been handed over.
• Barcelona: Accused party Barcelona issued a statement clarifying that the latest development pertains to the same ongoing investigation, and that “proceedings have not been reopened because they have never been closed.” “As of today, they have not made any new requests to FC Barcelona nor have they forwarded Real Madrid’s complaint to the Club. Should they do so, the Club will respond accordingly, as it has done up to now.”

What else is going on between Real Madrid and Barcelona?

Some reports in Spain claim that Real Madrid president Florentino Perez and FC Barcelona have been summoned to appear before a Madrid court on November 25 for a conciliation hearing ahead of possible criminal proceedings for defamation against Perez.

The hearing follows legal action launched by Barcelona on June 12 over comments made by Perez in May in the Negreira case.

Barcelona said the action was intended to force Perez to retract statements it described as knowingly false, defamatory and damaging to the club’s image and reputation.

The club warned that if the conciliation process failed, it would file a criminal complaint.

The dispute centres on comments Perez made at a May 12 news conference concerning the so-called Negreira case.

Perez described the affair as “the most serious case of corruption in football”, adding: “We could never have imagined Barcelona giving money to the head of the referees.”

He also claimed Real Madrid had been denied league titles, saying: “I’ve won seven leagues. I could have won twice as many. The others were stolen from me.”

Neither entity has issued any statement since UEFA acknowledged receiving Real Madrid’s dossier on Thursday.

Will the case have an impact on El Clasico?

The Spanish football giants will meet in the first leg of El Clasico on October 25 in La Liga. The case will have no bearing on the scheduling of the match but could provide an added touch of drama to what is known as one of the most bitter football rivalries in club football.

A Flydubai co-pilot accused of attacking the captain of a flight bound for Israel has been identified as an Omani national previously barred from flying in his home country over concerns about alleged extremist views, according to media reports.

There has been no official confirmation of the pilot’s identity or his beliefs.

The United Arab Emirates on Saturday described Wednesday’s incident on board Flight FZ1073 as an attempted “terrorist operation”, saying the co-pilot attacked Captain Smit Machchhar, an Indian national, with an emergency axe and attempted to take control of the aircraft.

But investigators are still working to establish the motive and whether anyone else was connected to the attack, which has raised concerns about pilot vetting and aviation security.

Here is what we know:

What do we know about the accused pilot?

The co-pilot suspected of attacking the captain of the Dubai-Tel Aviv flight carrying 174 people has been identified as Hamam al-Hammami, an Omani national, three people with knowledge of the situation, including a Gulf diplomat and a Western diplomat, told AP news agency.

All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to the media. The Gulf diplomat said investigations are under way to establish whether he acted as a “lone wolf or had any connection with any extremist groups”.

US media outlet CNN, quoting a source and an Israeli official, reported that al-Hammami is an Omani citizen who was born in the UAE to a Syrian mother and spent several years in the Emirates.

Questions have emerged about his previous aviation career and whether warning signs had been raised before he joined the Dubai-based low-cost carrier.

The Wall Street Journal, quoting unnamed sources, reported on Friday that Omani authorities had previously barred the accused co-pilot from flying in the country because of concerns that he had held extremist views.

Nevertheless, it remains unclear what those alleged views were or whether Oman informed other countries or airlines about its concerns.

CNN separately quoted a regional diplomatic source as saying that al-Hammami had been removed from flight training over similar concerns and was subsequently reassigned to another position.

The US-based network also reported that a LinkedIn profile bearing al-Hammami’s name said he had spent seven years at Oman Air before leaving in February 2025. The profile said he joined Royal Air Maroc in June 2025 and left in January 2026.

What happened on flight FZ1073?

At 7:05am (03:05 GMT) on Wednesday, Flight FZ1073 departed Dubai for Tel Aviv, climbing to 34,000ft (more than 10,000 metres), according to Flightradar24. A little more than two hours later, it suddenly began to descend, plunging before rising and then descending again.

Flight-tracking data showed the plane plunging more than 17,000 feet in about two minutes, before climbing and descending again.

Meanwhile, a fight had begun in the cockpit between the two pilots. The co-pilot had attacked the Indian captain of the plane, Smit Machchhar, by stabbing him.

Machchhar later described finding himself seriously wounded on the cockpit floor as the aircraft descended.

“When I was down, I could feel that the aircraft was plummeting, and I knew this is the last chance to do something,” he told Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi from a hospital in Abu Dhabi.

“I knew that the aircraft was going down … I had fallen to the ground. I told myself that the door is right there, just open it. I managed to do it and people entered,” he said.

Passengers and crew members entered the cabin and overpowered the co-pilot. The aircraft eventually levelled out at about 15,000 feet. Its transponder was subsequently switched to code 7500, signalling unlawful interference.

Two reserve pilots who were on board took control of the jet and landed it in Tabuk, northwestern Saudi Arabia. The plane landed safely at 9:45am (06:45 GMT) local time. Saudi authorities said both pilots were taken to hospital. They were later transferred to Abu Dhabi after being medically cleared.

What has the UAE said about the attack?

UAE Attorney General Hamad Saif al-Shamsi said on Saturday that investigators had determined that the co-pilot had begun carrying out what he described as a “terrorist act”.

According to al-Shamsi, the co-pilot attacked the captain inside the cockpit using the aircraft’s emergency crash axe and “attempted to take control of the aircraft’s controls”.

A crash axe is a tool kept in a cockpit to help pilots cut through the plane in emergencies.

On Thursday, al-Shamsi had ordered investigators to determine whether the incident was connected to “terrorist activity or intent” or involved prior planning or direction.

The UAE has not yet publicly established a motive or announced whether investigators believe al-Hammami acted alone.

UAE presidential adviser Anwar Gargash on Saturday said that the latest ‘terrorist’ attack is new warning that region’s fight against extremism is not over.

“This underscores the importance of the UAE’s early and firm stance: no tolerance for extremism and no leniency towards its rhetoric. Security begins with confronting hatred and drying up the sources of extremism,” he posted on X

What is the latest in the investigation?

Abu Dhabi is now leading the investigation, with prosecutors examining the circumstances of the attack, its motive and any possible connections to others.

Previously, al-Shamsi said UAE judicial authorities have jurisdiction over the incident because the aircraft is registered in the UAE and flies under its flag, adding that UAE law applies to crimes committed on board “even if they occur outside the country’s territory”.

On Saturday, al-Shamsi said investigators are working “to uncover all the circumstances of the incident, its motives, and related connections, in addition to completing technical examinations and examining physical and digital evidence”.

The final results will be announced as soon as the necessary procedures are completed, he said.

Meanwhile, Flydubai flights to Israel remain ⁠suspended amid the investigations.

Eritrea has cut off diplomatic relations with neighbouring Ethiopia, escalating a long-simmering conflict between the two states rooted in territorial disputes and mutual accusations of interference.

The move comes as fighting flares in northern Ethiopia between Ethiopian federal troops and an opposition alliance that Addis Ababa accuses Eritrea of backing.

The clashes are the most severe in Ethiopia since its 2020-2022 civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of people.

But this time, the ripple effects could go further, potentially fuelling broader unrest in a region already plagued by numerous interrelated conflicts, analysts warn.

Here’s what we know about the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict, the latest fighting in northern Ethiopia and what it could mean for the region at large:

Why did Eritrea break off ties with Ethiopia?

Eritrea announced it was severing ties with Ethiopia on Thursday, after Addis Ababa announced it would close its embassy in Asmara and expel 10 Eritrean diplomats.

In a statement, Eritrea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Ethiopia’s actions had left it with “no option but to reciprocate in kind and sever all diplomatic ties with Ethiopia”.

The Eritrean ministry accused Ethiopia of pursuing a years-long “agenda of incessant hostility”, including by infringing on its coastal areas and arming fighters opposed to Ethiopia’s government.

Ethiopia has likewise accused Eritrea of backing armed groups opposed to its government. Both sides have rejected the other’s accusations.

The diplomatic breakdown follows months of worsening relations, driven largely by disputes over landlocked Ethiopia’s push for access to the Red Sea and allegations that Eritrea is backing the rebel Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), which leads the Ethiopian Peoples’ Forces Alliance for Survival, a rebel alliance fighting for control of parts of northern Ethiopia.

Have Ethiopia’s ties with Egypt and Sudan been hit, too?

Yes. Ethiopia accuses Egypt and Sudan of joining Eritrea in backing Tigrayan rebel forces, worsening already strained ties with both countries.

Ethiopia has long been at odds with Egypt over the status of Ethiopia’s Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) project, which Cairo views as a risk to its water security and share of the Nile.

Ethiopia and Egypt have also expelled diplomats. Cairo ordered an Ethiopian diplomat to leave the country on Thursday, after Addis Ababa earlier kicked out an Egyptian diplomat, Egyptian state-linked media reported.

Egyptian state-linked broadcaster Al-Qahera News quoted an Egyptian official as calling Ethiopia’s move to expel the Egyptian diplomat as “regrettable and unjustified” and saying that Cairo responded in line with “the principle of reciprocity”.

The latest conflict also has implications for Sudan, whose military-backed government accuses Ethiopia of backing rebel forces it is fighting in its own civil conflict. Ethiopia rejects those allegations.

“The conflicts in Ethiopia and Sudan have become more interconnected, with the Ethiopian government and Sudanese Armed Forces accusing each other of harbouring and equipping respective opposition forces from inside their own borders,” Ahmed Soliman, senior research fellow at the Chatham House think tank’s Africa programme, told Al Jazeera.  “Egypt has also been drawn into the escalation with its long-running enmity with Ethiopia over the Nile.”

What is happening in northern Ethiopia?

Tigrayan-led rebel forces have engaged in clashes with Ethiopian government-backed forces in the country’s north since last week. Fighting is concentrated in three regions: Tigray, Amhara and Afar.

Al Jazeera’s bureau chief in Ethiopia, Mohammed Taha Tawakel, reported that forces loyal to the federal government have made significant gains in the Tigray region, taking control of several towns and closing in on the regional capital, Mekelle.

Further east in Afar, a pro-government armed group claimed on Thursday to have recaptured the town of Erebti, which rebel forces had taken control of earlier in the week. The pro-government group thanked the Ethiopian military for its “magnificent air support” and said it would pursue further advances.

Despite the pro-government advances, Tawakel reported that rebel forces still maintain what he described as a “strong rear link with Eritrea” along the countries’ border.

He also reported growing fears that fighting could move into major urban centres of Tigray, such as Adwa, Axum, Shire and Mekelle. Some people have already begun fleeing to Amhara and Afar, he added.

Outside northern Ethiopia, the conflict appeared to spill into the capital, Addis Ababa, for the first time early on Thursday, as an explosion was reported at the Ministry of Defence.

AFP quoted a diplomatic source as saying small drones were the most probable cause of the blast.

While Ethiopia’s army has a much larger arsenal of drones, rebel forces have previously used them to target airbases and airports in various parts of the country, reported conflict monitor ACLED.

What are the roots of the Ethiopia-Eritrea dispute?

Ties between the neighbours have been historically fragile. In 1962, Ethiopia annexed Eritrea. An armed independence struggle, led by Eritrea’s current President Isaias Afwerki, secured independence in 1993. The countries fought another border war from 1998 to 2000.

When Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed came to power in 2018, he moved to end the tensions and normalise diplomatic relations with Eritrea. During Ethiopia’s last civil war in 2020-2022, Eritrea even backed Ethiopia’s government against the TPLF.

But Abiy’s ambitions to seek direct sea access for landlocked Ethiopia have contributed to recent tensions, say analysts. Abiy has repeated that Ethiopia has a right to sea access, words that officials in Asmara take as a declaration of territorial conflict with Eritrea.

Could the current conflict spread in the region?

Many analysts fear it could.

Laura Hammond, professor in development studies at SOAS University of London, told Al Jazeera this scenario is already under way.

“The risks that conflict will spread to other countries, or that neighbours in the region will be brought into the present conflict are already playing out in terms of Eritrea’s support for the TPLF and the Alliance for Survival,” said Hammond.

“There is a strong possibility that Eritrea will become more involved in the conflict on the ground inside Tigray if it continues much longer,” she continued. “There is also a risk that the conflict could inflame relations with and inside Sudan.”

Martin Plaut, an analyst specialising in the Horn of Africa, also said there was a “real danger” of the conflict spreading.

“The situation is extremely tense and it would only require a spark to ignite a conflagration that could engulf [Ethiopia and Eritrea], as well as neighbouring Sudan,” he told Al Jazeera.

United Kingdom police have arrested a 25-year-old British-Iranian man in relation to a security incident at a Royal Air Force (RAF) station near Fairford, England, this week

The man, described by police as a “dual UK/Iranian national” and detained on suspicion of preparing “terrorist” acts, is the sixth person to be arrested in what British authorities said was potentially an Iran-backed plot. The five other people arrested earlier were released on bail on Monday.

The investigation began when British authorities were alerted early on Sunday about unusual activity near the airbase, including oddly parked vans and a group of masked men. After searching the vans, authorities found no weapons or explosives but did recover a “quantity of petrol”.

The RAF station has been used by the United States for military operations, including by bombers during the US-Israel war on Iran.

Here’s what we know about the latest development in the case:

What’s happened?

British counterterrorism police announced the arrest of a 25-year-old British-Iranian dual national in Westminster, London, on Thursday. Iran, however, does not recognise dual citizenship, and treats Iranians with a second passport solely as Iranian.

The man was detained on “suspicion of preparation of terrorist acts under Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006”, the same offence cited in the arrests of the five other suspects. In line with standard police practice, none of the suspects has been named ahead of any charges being made.

Police said they also conducted searches of two properties in the London area. They appealed to the public for any information that could assist the investigation.

What do we know about the suspect in custody?

The Times newspaper reported that the British-Iranian suspect is being investigated as a possible “recruiter” in the still-opaque plot or as someone otherwise believed to have played a significant role.

The media reported that the man was placed under surveillance after the arrest of the first five men. He has not been named.

What evidence is there that this was an Iran-linked plot?

The UK has pointed to an Iranian connection but has so far kept the reason for that assessment under wraps.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Andy Burnham said there are “strong indications” of Iran’s involvement in the incident and an “ongoing, complex and serious police investigation” is continuing.

He did not give information on what the suspects may have been planning or what intelligence has led the UK to suspect the involvement of Iran, saying only that he would “update people more in due course”.

In the US, President Donald Trump said the case “might be” Iran-linked and the US had been keeping tabs on the suspects “for a long time”. Trump criticised the UK’s decision to release the first five suspects on bail.

In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his government had forewarned the UK about a potential “Iranian-sponsored attack” but did not specify if that was related to the same RAF base incident.

Iranian officials have firmly denied any connection to the incident. Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Majid Takht-Ravanch called the claims “false and ridiculous”.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned British Ambassador Hugo Shorter on Thursday to protest against the allegations.

What happened at RAF Fairford?

Authorities received two early-morning calls on Sunday alerting them to suspicious activity near the Fairford airbase, including three vans parked strangely and a group of hooded, masked men.

Unusually, the first call to the UK’s emergency line was made by one of the suspects who would later be arrested.

Police responded and arrested five British men in their early 20s in the nearby Whelford area, saying they were suspected of explosives offences. Counterterrorism police later took over the investigation and said the men were suspected of preparing “a terrorist act”.

The suspects were released on bail on Monday but remained subject to “stringent conditions on their movement and contact with others”, according to the UK’s head of counterterrorism policing, Laurence Taylor.

After searching the vans located near the airbase, police said they found no explosives but did retrieve a “quantity of petrol”.

Why were the men arrested at the scene given bail if this is a major incident?

That’s one of the big unanswered questions.

Under British “counterterrorism” law, police may hold suspects for up to two weeks before charging them. However, if authorities find little evidence to support their initial suspicion of “terrorism”, they have far less time – usually 24 to 36 hours, Chris Phillips, a former head of the UK’s National Counter Terrorism Security Office, told Al Jazeera.

Other security experts told Al Jazeera that police likely released the first five suspects because they did not deem them to be an imminent security risk or found that their potential involvement in any plot was unwitting.

“In cases involving terrorism, suspects can still be released on bail when the authorities feel relatively confident that these individuals do not pose an imminent danger of either carrying out or organising a terrorist attack,” Andrew Silke, professor of criminology at Royal Holloway, University of London, told Al Jazeera.

“Individuals may have been involved unknowingly or in a peripheral manner to potential terrorist activity. This seems possible in the current case,” he added.

Afzal Ashraf, a visiting fellow in international relations and security at Loughborough University and a former senior RAF officer, agreed that police likely have assessed that the five released suspects do not pose “any immediate danger”.

“We can reasonably assume that police judged that these individuals did not present any immediate danger nor did they have any credible means or intention of creating further danger to the public or to government installations,” Ashraf told Al Jazeera.

However, he said their release on bail should not necessarily be taken to mean the incident in question “was minor or that the Iranian-involvement hypothesis has been rejected”.

What happens next?

British authorities said they are continuing to investigate all aspects of the case, including the possibility of it being a foreign-backed “plot”.

Silke said authorities will likely be thoroughly analysing all suspects’ communications and interactions, looking for information on contacts who may have organised their involvement and for any payment the suspects may have received.

“The authorities can investigate all of these links to establish if they lead back to foreign government sources or agencies,” he said.

Silke added that authorities will also look into any links between the RAF airbase incident and previous plots carried out on British soil.

Phillips said he believes the suspects could have been recruited online by foreign actors to carry out some type of malicious activity, such as “setting fire to something”.

He said both Russia and Iran have allegedly paid “stooges” to carry out such acts in recent years. “At first glance now, it seems that that may be the case, but time will tell,” Phillips added.

Iran and Russia have also previously been accused of orchestrating plots in the UK. Those plots have involved “surveillance, sabotage, arson or physical violence”, MI5 Director General Ken McCallum said last year.

Indirect talks between the United States and Iran aimed at ending the seven-month-long war continue – most recently via Qatar as mediator on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York – but the two sides still disagree about the agenda.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi left New York on Tuesday after telling state-run Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) that he expects an official response to Tehran’s proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by the end of the day. The proposal, which Iran said would see the strait reopened within seven days, was first passed to the US via Qatari mediators last week.

United States President Donald Trump was reported to have rejected that offer, under which Tehran would reopen the strait in return for Washington lifting its naval blockade, waiving sanctions, releasing an estimated $12bn in frozen Iranian assets and enforcing a wider regional ceasefire that includes Lebanon.

Under Iran’s proposal, wider peace talks, including discussions of its nuclear programme, would begin only then

Despite Trump’s public rejection, Araghchi says he has not yet received a formal response from Washington. Meanwhile, US media reports that Trump may well be willing to relax sanctions and unfreeze Iranian assets have been strongly denied by the US president.

Instead, US officials say, the US wants a deal that resolves all outstanding issues, particularly Tehran’s nuclear programme, in one go, rather than pursuing a gradual, step-by-step approach.

Here’s what we know about the talks:

Qatari mediators met Araghchi in New York on Monday to discuss how to advance Tehran’s proposal for reopening the Strait of Hormuz and then progressing to wider peace talks.

In a post on Telegram, Araghchi insisted that the talks focused solely on the Strait of Hormuz. He denied that the US had formally rejected the Iranian proposal.

“Despite what the US president said, I said that we were waiting for the official US response through the mediators … They [Qatar] had ideas, and we discussed them. They are going to raise this issue with the American side again, and then the final response from the American side will be conveyed to us through the Qatari mediator,” Araghchi said late on Monday.

Araghchi also said negotiations had become more “serious”, but cautioned that Tehran’s position has not changed.

“I state firmly that there has been no change in Iran’s position. Our conditions for opening the strait are clear. Our position on other issues is also clear. At present, there has been no discussion at all about flexibility,” he added.

Tehran’s proposal includes elements of the Islamabad memorandum of understanding (MoU), which was signed by both the US and Iran on June 17.

Is Trump willing to accept some Iranian demands?

A US official told The Associated Press news agency last week that Trump is not willing to make a final peace deal with Iran until the issue of its nuclear programme is addressed. According to the official, who has not been named, the US president would be willing, however, to grant Iran sanctions relief and release some frozen funds if progress is made on the nuclear file.

Then, on Monday, US-based news outlet Axios also reported that Trump had offered Iran sanctions relief in return for concessions on its nuclear programme. The report also cited US officials, one of whom told Axios that the indirect talks had been “positive and constructive”, adding that Tehran had indicated it was “flexible” on nuclear issues.

Trump, however, angrily denounced the story as a “hoax” in a post on Truth Social, the social media platform he owns. He said the story was “not true” and demanded Axios remove the article.

Iran has been heavily sanctioned for decades. The restrictions have severely affected Iranians’ quality of life, including their access to essential medicines and healthcare.

In August, the US announced yet more sweeping economic sanctions on Iran and countries that trade with it as it sought to apply more economic pressure to isolate the country from the global economy during the diplomatic deadlock in their war.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described the campaign as the “economic asphyxiation” of Iran.

It is difficult to quantify exactly how many Iranians have been killed by what Tehran views as “economic warfare”. However, a study published last year by the highly regarded medical journal The Lancet Global Health concluded that more than 564,250 people worldwide die annually as a result of US sanctions.

What does the US want?

In late February, just before the US launched its first strikes on Iran, the two sides were already holding talks hosted by Oman, which included the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme.

But before those talks could conclude, the US and Israel launched strikes, triggering the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas is shipped in peacetime, by Iran. The closure of the strait has since become the primary point of contention between the two sides, when it had not been an issue before the war began. The strait is currently subject to blockades by both sides.

Throughout the war, Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire to strike a deal with Tehran. However, serious differences between the two sides will need to be resolved first, including the order in which issues are addressed for the purpose of peace talks.

Iran wants to establish its control of the Strait of Hormuz, have sanctions lifted and assets unfrozen, as well as ensure an end to US-Israeli strikes before it will go back to negotiating other issues, such as its nuclear programme. This was the order of events laid out in the MoU agreed between Iran and the US in June, but which quickly fell apart.

The US, however, wants everything to be on the table at the same time – it does not want to agree to anything relating to these Iranian demands before it addresses the other issues.

Scott Lucas, professor of US politics and international relations at University College Dublin, told Al Jazeera that Washington effectively wants Iran to surrender.

“The Strait of Hormuz has become a fundamental issue. The question here is, will both sides give? The memorandum of understanding clearly gave Iran a role in the management of the strait,” Lucas said.

“When the Trump administration pulled away from negotiating on the basis of the memorandum, they effectively went back to the idea of Iran having to completely allow passage through the Strait of Hormuz with no guarantees over it, in terms of not only what it means for Iran financially, but [also] in terms of Iranian security. The Iranian government is not going to agree to that, so we’re stuck in this limbo right now,” he added.

“Are the Trump folks going to come back to the talks on the basis of the memorandum of understanding or something that is a revised version of it, or are they going to try and break the government with economic warfare until at least after the US elections in November? That’s where we are right now.”

What does Iran want?

After half a century of bitter enmity with Washington, Iran wants to consolidate what it sees as the strategic gains it has made during a war it did not start. This specifically includes its newly established ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, sending global energy markets into a tailspin and placing additional pressure on the Trump administration.

Since US-Israeli strikes on Iran began on February 28, Hormuz has dominated talks aimed at ending the war and emerged as Tehran’s greatest point of leverage. Prior to the conflict, Iran did not exert control over the waterway and all commercial shipping passed through freely.

For this reason, Iran will not move on to wider peace talks until it has leveraged its control of the strait to get its demands met. “Our discussion is clear. Right now, it is only about the Strait of Hormuz,” Araghchi said late on Monday.

“The opening of the Strait of Hormuz is also subject to the fulfilment of a series of conditions that we announced to the other side.”

Ali Salehian, director of the Center for Intellectual Diplomacy at the Governance and Policy Think Tank in Iran, told Al Jazeera that Tehran does not believe Washington will honour any future deal as it did not honour what was agreed under the Pakistan-brokered June MoU.

“For Iran, the bottom line of every negotiation with Trump, considering all of his misbehaving and [military] targeting of Iran during negotiations, is the Islamabad MoU,” Salehian said.

“Tehran thinks that if the US doesn’t fulfil its commitments based on the MoU, there is no guarantee that any kind of future deal would be sustainable.”

What is likely to happen next?

It does not look likely that the diplomatic standoff will be eased anytime soon, analysts say.

Both the US and Iran have indicated throughout the war that they would prefer a diplomatic settlement to a continuation of the war. However, Trump has continued to threaten Iran with more strikes if it does not agree to a deal, and Araghchi told US news outlet NBC on Sunday that Tehran is also prepared to resume fighting, even though it has not abandoned diplomacy.

“We are fully prepared for the time for the war to be resumed, and I repeat, we stand firm in the face of any new aggression, even if it comes to a doomsday war,” he said.

Trump said last week that he expects a deal will be reached, but not until after the US midterms on November 3.

“For the moment, the Trump administration is going to try to make the Iranian government capitulate through economic warfare,” Lucas said.

However, a deep sense of distrust remains between the two sides. Senior Iranian officials believe Trump will restart the war after the midterms on a far greater scale and that Israel would also participate.

If that theory proves true, Tehran may well prefer the fighting to resume before November’s elections, as it would allow Iran to impose a greater cost on Trump.

“The reaction of the Iranians to that might be to actually trigger the war themselves, early, right before the midterm elections in order to maximise the pain that [it] will impose on the US president,” Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the US-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Al Jazeera earlier this month.

As US President Donald Trump announced a $15bn steel megaplant while seated at his Oval Office desk on Monday, he had a lineup of mostly US politicians standing behind him – from cabinet members to elected representatives from Iowa, where the mill is to be built. There was one exception: an Indian man with a receding hairline and a lilac pocket handkerchief, standing behind the US president’s right shoulder.

Ravi Ruia is a cofounder of the Essar Group, which owns Mesabi Metallics, the Minnesota-based firm that’s building the steel mill, which is expected to be the United States’s largest once it is complete. A decade earlier, in October 2016, his brother Shashi was in the photo frame with a different president during the signing of another major deal: Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Steel and metallics aren’t Essar’s only association with minerals and natural resources. The conglomerate had been involved for years with oil, before it sold one of India’s largest private oil refineries to a Russian-led consortium in 2016 for nearly $13bn. Essar Oil was rebranded as Nayara Energy.

Today, Nayara Energy is half-owned by Russian gas major Rosneft, which is under heavy US and European sanctions over Moscow’s war on Ukraine. Nayara has also emerged as a supplier of petroleum products to Russia at a time when the country is facing a fuel crisis following multiple Ukrainian attacks on its oil and gas depots.

And as part of a 99-year deal, Nayara is continuing to use Essar’s branding in India, where the company runs thousands of petrol stations. Nayara is under European Union sanctions.

The White House is touting the Iowa steel project, unveiled just before the US midterm elections, as a major economic win for Americans, promising hundreds of jobs and billions of dollars in revenue. And there is no evidence that the steel project is in violation of any Russia-specific US sanctions.

But Trump’s announcement of a mega project with an Indian firm closely tied to Russian investments under Western sanctions underscores how the US has struggled to isolate Moscow economically despite an unprecedented economic pressure campaign.

And the timing of the steel mill announcement raises questions, because it comes days after Trump signed a law that empowers him to punish countries that buy Russian oil with up to 100 percent tariffs. India is Russia’s second-largest oil buyer. But the legacy Indian conglomerate that best epitomises the country’s links to Russian energy is now also behind the US’s biggest steel factory.

What’s the steel factory project about?

The new project would integrate its iron ore mining operations in Minnesota’s Mesabi Iron Range with the upcoming steel complex in Iowa.

The White House and the company’s announcements said that the Iowa steel plant is expected to create at least 1,750 permanent jobs – “while continuing to work with suppliers and businesses throughout Iowa and the Midwest” – and support up to 6,000 construction jobs.

Washington also noted that the mill will produce 7.5 million tonnes of steel per year in its first phase, expected to rise to 10 million tonnes. First steel production is expected in 2030.

The first phase of the project is expected to generate $95bn in total economic impact during construction and its first 10 years of operation, according to the White House.

Trump’s commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, told the reporters that “these are your 232 tariffs, the steel tariffs at work.” He added: “Without those tariffs, this mine and steel plant doesn’t get built.”

Trump chipped in, too. “Soon after my inauguration, I imposed powerful 50 percent tariffs on all foreign steel, and now our steel industry is roaring back to life,” Trump said. “Everyone’s building their plant here because they don’t want to pay tariffs.”

But the steel project is also evidence of how countries and companies have skirted US economic pressure – and how it gives them leverage to continue to do so.

What are Essar’s ties to Russia?

Essar Oil, the group’s energy arm, began refining crude in 2008 at its refinery in Vadinar on the coast of the western Indian state of Gujarat.

But by 2016, the company was in deep debt, listed as a defaulter by the Reserve Bank of India, the country’s central bank, and desperately looking for a buyer who would take over its oil operations. The timing was opportune. President Putin in Russia was at the time trying to get Rosneft, his country’s energy giant, to offload some stakes in exchange for foreign capital.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi played matchmaker, helping stitch together a series of deals between 2014 and 2016 that helped Rosneft and Essar. First, Indian public sector oil majors bought stakes in Rosneft, giving it the cash it needed. Rosneft, in turn, joined hands with other investors to buy the Vadinar refinery, freeing Essar from its debts.

Essar Oil became Nayara Energy – a company in which Rosneft owns a 49 percent stake, and United Capital Partners, a Russian asset management company, owns another 49 percent. The buyers paid Essar $12.9bn for the deal. As part of the agreement, Nayara got to use Essar’s branding – including on thousands of petrol stations across India – for 99 years.

Is Nayara under Western sanctions?

Yes. The European Union imposed sanctions on Nayara in July last year as part of the broader 18th package of sanctions against Russian oil.

The sanctions banned the import of petroleum products processed using Russian crude oil and restricted the refinery’s access to EU shipping insurance, as well as financial and other services.

Nayara’s Vadinar refinery in western India has been processing only Russian oil since other suppliers backed out following the sanctions. Since then, Nayara has relied on international traders to import crude and export refined fuels.

In July this year, Nayara Energy sold petroleum to Russia as Ukrainian attacks targeted oil refineries across the country, triggering a fuel crisis.

In recent months, Ukrainian forces have targeted Russian oil facilities, setting them ablaze and causing long lines for fuel across the country, including in the capital, Moscow. The fuel crisis, unprecedented for Russia, a country that is one of the world’s biggest energy producers, has led to rationing in many regions.

These Russian links have brought Nayara Energy under wider scrutiny, prompting companies, including SAP, to suspend services to the refiner, citing sanctions and obligations under EU law.

Nayara challenged the move in the Delhi High Court, which ordered SAP India to restore its services earlier this month.

Are Essar or the steel plant violating any sanctions?

While Nayara is under EU sanctions, Essar does not face any US or EU sanctions.

In October 2016, after Essar struck its deal with Rosneft and United Capital Partners to sell the Vadinar refinery, the US – at the time under the Barack Obama administration – said that the agreement was not in violation of any sanctions.

“I don’t think we see any violation of any US-EU sanctions stemming from this deal,” State Department spokesperson Mark Toner said at the time. Essar also said that the deal was compliant with US sanctions.

There is no evidence of any sanctions breach in Essar’s investment in Mesabi, or in the planned investment to set up the steel factory in Iowa.

But Essar’s relations with Russia have nevertheless attracted scrutiny, including in the United Kingdom, where the Ruia brothers have long had major investments.

At the time of the sale of the Vadinar refinery to Russian buyers, the Russian bank VTB also gave Essar a $3.9bn loan for debt reconstruction.

The bank was hit by major US and EU sanctions in February 2022, right after Russia’s full-fledged invasion of Ukraine. Essar, reporting published in April 2026 by The Guardian and investigative journalism platform SourceMaterial, showed, moved the VTB loan to Mauritius, a tax haven, allegedly to avoid the sanctions. Essar owns the Stanlow oil refinery in the UK.

Why is the timing of the steel plant announcement significant?

Trump’s Republican Party is heading for crucial midterm congressional elections in November, while his approval rating has been plumbing all-time lows in the face of voter concerns about inflation, the cost of living, and the war on Iran.

In his second term, Trump has made tariffs and a revival of US manufacturing a cornerstone of his economic vision, claiming that higher barriers to imports will drive investment back to the US.

Moreover, Washington introduced legislation that would allow the president to impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on imports from countries that continue economic engagement with Russia or Iran, aiming to put pressure on countries that continue buying Russian energy.

New Delhi is particularly exposed since it became one of the largest buyers of discounted Russian crude after the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Trump imposed an additional 25 percent tariff on Indian imports in 2025 over the issue, before removing it in February 2026 after India committed to stop buying Russian crude.

Russia has remained India’s largest source of crude, although purchases have declined as the threat of US penalties has grown. The news agency Reuters reported that India imported approximately 2.1 million barrels per day of Russian crude in August.

There is also a recent parallel to underscore the incentives for investment in Trump’s US. In May this year, Washington moved to dismiss the criminal fraud and bribery charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, while his lawyers had told the Justice Department that Adani was prepared to invest $10bn in the United States. A federal judge subsequently dismissed the criminal case in August.

The 81st United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) concluded on Monday with artificial intelligence (AI), the Israel-Palestine conflict and the US-Israel war on Iran dominating world leaders’ addresses during the general debate.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, in his final address before his term ends, warned that the future of the world would be shaped by four tests: AI, climate change, wars and inequality.

“Across all four tests, the decisive issue is power. Power over force, money, energy, technology, rules and the future. That is why the UN Charter – and the work of the United Nations – matter more than ever,” Guterres said.

Speeches ranged from calls to reform the UN to appeals for upholding international law, as the global body has been undermined by the unilateral foreign policy pushed by United States President Donald Trump.

Here are the biggest takeaways from this year’s summit:

Palestine

The situation in Palestine was a key issue among members amid Israel’s ongoing genocidal war on Gaza despite the so-called “ceasefire” and escalating settler pogroms in the occupied West Bank.

France, Canada, Iraq, the United Kingdom and others called for Palestinian sovereignty during their speeches.

“What credibility do we have if we continue to remain inactive in the face of Gaza,” French President Emmanuel Macron said in his address.

“Some boast of a supposed peace, but this peace hasn’t reopened humanitarian routes for a single second,” he said, adding: “Must we stand by and watch this spectacle that shames us all?”

Macron, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham, his Canadian counterpart Mark Carney and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud chaired a meeting at the UNGA on Palestinian statehood, which is being actively undermined by Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has accelerated construction of illegal settlements and provided impunity to settlers in the occupied territory.

At the same time, the US-led Board of Peace unveiled a 66-project reconstruction blueprint with proposed funding of $2.4bn for the Gaza Strip on the sidelines of the UNGA.

However, the board’s plan excludes the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), saying it has no role in the future of Gaza. The decision was described by Palestinian political analyst and playwright Ahmed Najar to Al Jazeera as aligned with Israeli efforts to “marginalise and ultimately dismantle the agency, removing it not only from Gaza’s present but from its future”.

Dozens of delegates left the hall in protest as Netanyahu delivered his speech, in which he declared that Israeli forces would continue fighting against Hamas and Iran.

Trump defends military action on Venezuela, Iran

In his address, Trump emphasised that while others spoke of peace, he “made peace”.

Trump defended his actions in abducting the then-Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January and said, since his military operation, hundreds of political prisoners had been freed in the South American country and that Caracas had signed the largest oil deal in history last month, covering “65 billion barrels of oil, which will benefit both Venezuela and the United States enormously and help drive down the cost of energy all over the world”.

“It was perhaps the biggest deal ever made. To the victor belong the spoils – you’ve all heard that,” Trump boasted.

Trump reiterated that he would never allow Tehran to have nuclear weapons and that the 12-day war in July 2025 had “obliterated their nuclear programme beneath mountains of rubble” as the ongoing US-Israel war on Iran had sunk “159 ships of their navy” to the bottom of the sea.

“I have a big decision to make – will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before … or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again,” he said, adding: “I believe we make a deal right after the elections.”

Popular Iranian officials

During sideline talks and one-on-one meetings, Iranian officials were in demand.

In his speech to delegates, President Masoud Pezeshkian emphasised that Iran had only “defended ourselves” amid attacks on his country and killings of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, scientists and children.

“We are not terrorists, our innocent people have been the targets of cowardly attacks and aggressions imposed upon our country,” he said.

Pezeshkian added Iran would not accept that peaceful nuclear technology is held exclusively in the hands of a few countries.

“We will not bow our head and give up the right that is inherently ours,” he said.

Meanwhile, on the sidelines of the summit, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met his counterparts from India, Qatar, Turkiye, Pakistan, Ukraine and other countries.

He also met US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner in a four-hour meeting mediated by Qatar.

AI dominance

World leaders used their time at the podium to call for a global approach to using AI as interest in the technology grows, but fears that it could escalate if unchecked are also growing.

In his address, Finnish President Alexander Stubb said AI was the “most consequential technology in the history of mankind”.

“It will impact science, the economy, politics, security, and the very essence of our humanity. Humans can and should be in the driver’s seat. We have a choice: we can compete, cooperate or slow down. For me, cooperation is the best way forward,” he said.

While discussions are moving away from a good-versus-bad dichotomy, officials disagreed on approaches.

While Guterres and the European Union called for safety standards and international rules, Trump said AI innovation should not be constrained by international regulation, adding that the US should control its AI sector.

Xi skips the UNGA

Chinese President Xi Jinping skipped the UNGA despite being in the US for a summit with Trump. He sent Vice President Han Zheng to attend.

Xi rarely attends the UNGA. He had sent Premier Li Qiang in his place last year. In 2024, Foreign Minister Wang Yi attended the annual gathering.

Without mentioning Iran in his address, Han reiterated Beijing’s position that “sovereignty and security of countries in the Middle East, including the Gulf, should be respected”.

“China calls for advancing the governance of the West Bank and the post-conflict reconstruction of Gaza in accordance with the principle of the Palestinians governing Palestine. It also calls for bringing the Palestinian question back onto the right track of the two-state solution at an early date,” he said.

Han also called for a “people-centred approach and develop AI for the positive and for good, narrow the digital divide, and promote development that is universally beneficial”.

Beef prices are soaring in China. Across the Pacific Ocean in the United States, cattle farmers are complaining that their businesses are becoming increasingly unsustainable. And in India, poultry rearers are slashing their production targets because they cannot afford feed.

More than 90 percent of the world’s population eats meat in one form or another — and a looming meat crisis threatens to affect what they buy at the market, what they cook at home, and what’s served on the table.

At the heart of this is a chain of decisions and uncertainties that consumers rarely see. A cow has to be raised for years before it can become beef. Chickens need feed, much of it tied to global grain and soya bean markets. Farmers need land, water and weather conditions that allow them to keep animals alive and productive.

When any link in this chain is disrupted, a spiralling crisis ensues.

So what is putting the pressure on meat production, and what does it mean for billions of people around the world?

Declining cattle stocks in Brazil, US and China

Brazil, the US and China are the world’s three biggest beef producers, together supplying more than half of the world’s beef. But their cattle herds are shrinking at the same time.

According to a March estimate by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Brazil’s total herd this year is estimated at 177.4 million cattle — a nearly 8 percent drop from 192.5 million in 2024.

Over in the US, cattle numbers are at a historic low.

The USDA counted 86.2 million cattle and calves on farms on January 1, 2026. The number of beef cows — the females needed to produce future calves — was 27.6 million, down 1 percent from a year earlier. The 2025 calf crop was also down 2 percent.

In China, the USDA estimated a cattle head count of 94 million in January 2026, down 14 percent from 105 million in January 2024.

In all three cases, beef production is also projected to be down in 2026.

The USDA predicts a 2 percent decline in Brazil’s beef production and a 5 percent fall in exports. As for the US, beef production in 2026 is likely to be 4 percent lower than last year. China’s total beef supply this year is projected to be 12 percent lower than 2024.

The decline in domestic production, coupled with shrinking supplies that can be imported, has sent prices soaring in China — the world’s largest beef consumer and importer.

What’s driving down cattle herds and beef production?

The reasons are many, and they vary from country to country.

Brazil counts China and the European Union as two major markets for its beef exports. But both have imposed import restrictions that have disincentivised Brazilian beef manufacturers. That is partly responsible for the country’s decreased cattle head count, according to an analysis by Augusto Neto at S&P Global, the market intelligence firm.

Additionally, Brazil is currently in what is known as a cattle reversion cycle — when rearers reduce the slaughter of animals and instead try to preserve their female stock to help rebuild their herd — according to the USDA.

In the US, droughts have hit 60 percent of the country’s cattle-rearing area, according to a report by Sampad Nandy of S&P Global. With grazing areas decreasing, feed costs have risen.

Three major organisations, representing breeders in the states of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, issued a joint statement this week arguing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids were disrupting their already strained operations. The meat industry depends heavily on immigrant workers.

If beef prices are rising, shouldn’t rearers want to produce more beef?

In theory, yes. But in practice, high prices do not automatically mean that more cattle can be produced quickly.

Cattle production is constrained by biological supply cycles, Kenneth Foster, professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University, told Al Jazeera. It can take a couple of years for a producer who receives a signal from the market to expand production and actually see the resulting animals enter the beef supply. The quickest way to rebuild a herd is to keep female cattle that might otherwise have been sold and use them for breeding. That is what Brazil is now doing.

But that creates a difficult economic calculation. A producer can sell an animal today at a high price, or keep it for breeding and wait for the next generation. That means carrying the costs and risks of keeping the animal while waiting for it to reproduce.

The result is a market in which strong demand and limited supply can persist even when prices are already high.

The USDA expects the cattle herd to begin rebuilding in the US, but the process is gradual.

The US and Brazil cases illustrate one of the central problems facing meat production: sometimes the constraint is not technology, land or money.

It is time.

Europe’s move from beef to poultry

Meanwhile, Europe presents a different picture. The continent is witnessing a structural change in what consumers are eating.

The EU produced about 42.7 million tonnes of meat in 2025. But EU meat production is projected to decline by about 3 percent between 2025 and 2035, with beef production projected to fall by 10 percent and pork by 7 percent. Poultry is the exception: production is projected to rise by 5 percent.

This shift is also visible in consumption.

Consumption of EU beef and pigmeat is projected to decline through 2035, while poultry consumption is expected to increase by 9 percent.

Beef and pork require longer production cycles and face different economic and environmental pressures. Poultry, by contrast, can respond much more quickly to changes in demand because chickens reach market weight within weeks rather than years.

That difference is becoming increasingly important. The OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook expects poultry to be the fastest-growing major meat category globally over the next decade, helped by its relatively low cost and short production cycle.

Europe is therefore becoming an example of how a meat system can adapt without simply producing more of everything. Some forms of meat become harder or more expensive to produce, while others expand to fill part of the space.

Poultry has problems too — as India shows

Yet the poultry industry faces its own challenges, with India offering an example.

In June, a large section of India’s poultry industry announced plans to cut production by 25 percent after soya meal prices rose by more than 40 percent in a month.

The decision was announced by the All India Poultry Breeders’ Association after producers faced sharply higher feed costs and a seasonal decline in demand. Producers also began culling parent breeder stocks — birds needed to produce future generations of poultry.

Soya meal is an important protein source in animal feed. When its price rises sharply, poultry producers face a choice: absorb higher costs, raise prices, or reduce the number of birds they produce.

In India’s case, producers chose to cut production.

The consequences extended beyond individual farms. The Reuters news agency reported in May that Indian soya meal prices had risen 41 percent in one month to a four-year high of 66,000 rupees ($687.5) per tonne. India subsequently cancelled 25,000 tonnes of soya meal export contracts and began turning to soya bean imports from African countries.

The takeaway: a shock in one part of the agricultural system can move quickly through the meat supply chain globally.

As farmers try to protect their livelihoods and families try to keep food on the table, changing climates, rising prices, shifting dietary preferences and growing trade barriers are together reshaping the future of meat — and what we eat.

Donald Trump has rejected Iran’s latest proposal to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz as experts say the United States president believes Washington has more to gain by waiting than by accepting Tehran’s terms at this moment.

“I reject their proposal,” Trump told reporters on Saturday, arguing that Iran wants an agreement because it is “losing so badly”.

“They want to make a deal, and I think that’s fine,” Trump said. “I’d like to make a deal too. But that deal would not be acceptable.”

On Sunday, Iranian ⁠⁠Foreign ⁠⁠Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran had ⁠⁠seen the initial reaction from ‌‌Trump to its proposal but had yet to receive a response through ⁠⁠mediators. In the latest diplomatic efforts, Qatar has played a role in mediating talks between Iran and the US on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York.

Iran’s seven-day proposal included Washington lifting its naval blockade of Iranian ports, waiving sanctions on Iranian oil sales, releasing an estimated $12bn in frozen Iranian assets and observing a wider regional ceasefire, including in Lebanon and Yemen.

Iran would then reopen the Strait of Hormuz and begin negotiations with Washington on a final agreement.

The latest proposals are similar to the June memorandum of understanding (MoU) the two countries signed. But the MoU collapsed last month due to differences on the terms of the deal, which resulted in an escalation in attacks, particularly in and around the Strait of Hormuz, which essentially remains under Iranian blockade.

According to experts, Trump’s rejection suggested that while both sides continue to publicly leave the door open for diplomacy, they remain far apart over who should make the first concessions.

“Trump’s calculation looks fairly straightforward. He believes the combination of the naval blockade and economic isolation is finally squeezing Iran hard enough that Tehran’s latest proposal is evidence of weakness rather than an offer Washington needs to seize,” Andreas Krieg, associate professor at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera.

His public argument that Iran is “losing badly” is important because it suggests he thinks time is improving the US bargaining position, Krieg said.

Why does Trump think he can wait?

A key part of Trump’s calculation appears to be a belief that the economic pressure on Iran has not yet run its course.

The Trump administration has escalated economic pressure on Tehran, tightening its naval blockade while imposing sanctions targeting Iranian oil revenues and threatening secondary sanctions against countries doing business with Tehran.

Last week, the US imposed aviation sanctions on Iran, disrupting flights. This came weeks after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced an economic pressure campaign against Iran, promising to target Tehran’s financial interests across the world.

Richard Weitz, a senior nonresident associate fellow at the NATO Defence College, told Al Jazeera that the White House may believe it can “wait a bit and get better terms”.

There is also concern in Washington about Iran’s proposed sequencing, he said.

Therefore, Weitz said Washington may be calculating that “economic pressure over time will induce the Iranian government to make more concessions”.

“This is what occurred arguably a decade ago, leading to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal as the Iranian government decided it [the US] needed to end the economic sanctions in return for making concessions on its nuclear programme,” he added.

It is, therefore, possible that “we could see the same kind of trade-off in the coming months”.

Iran could make Trump ‘pay’

However, waiting for a deal also carries considerable political risk for the US president, experts said, because his Republican Party could lose November’s midterm elections.

A late August Reuters/Ipsos poll suggested 63 percent of Americans opposed the US-Israel war on Iran while 31 percent supported it. Rising fuel and transportation costs could also feed into broader cost-of-living concerns before the elections.

The problem for Trump is that time does not only increase pressure on Iran, Krieg said. “The gamble is that time cuts both ways,” he noted.

With the midterms approaching, Trump does not want to appear to lift the blockade, waive oil sanctions and release Iranian assets simply to regain access to a waterway that Iran itself disrupted, Krieg said.

“But every additional week also means elevated energy prices, continued military exposure and mounting pressure on Gulf partners.”

The essential closure of the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted oil and gas flows from the Gulf nations, which depend on energy exports to finance their budgets.

Mohamad Elmasry, a professor at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, told Al Jazeera that Iran’s proposal could be viewed as “kind of throwing a bone to Trump” by offering a potential route towards lower oil and gas prices before the vote.

However, Iran may decide “to make Trump pay for declining the proposal and the increased economic pressure the country is under”, he told Al Jazeera.

“They may decide that this is the time to escalate … just as the midterms are approaching.”

The Republican Party is not doing well in the polls, and a number of its candidates are “distancing themselves” from Trump, he noted. Polls indicated that Republicans could lose their slim majorities in the US Congress.

It’s not just the Iranians under severe economic pressure because of the US naval blockade and ongoing sanctions, “it’s also the Trump administration,” Elmasry said.

Trump’s wait for more Iranian concessions could ‘backfire’

Trump “wants Tehran to reopen Hormuz without Washington paying the full economic and political price Iran is currently demanding”, Krieg said.

“The danger is that he is confusing Iranian pain with Iranian willingness to capitulate. Those are not the same thing.”

Iran is undoubtedly under pressure. Krieg said the sanctions and blockade are “biting”, which is precisely why Tehran needs an agreement.

But additional pressure does not necessarily produce additional concessions.

Iran could instead increase the costs of the conflict for its adversaries, Krieg said, including through the Strait of Hormuz, regional infrastructure and potentially Bab al-Mandeb, another strait between Yemen and the Horn of Africa.

In recent weeks, the strategic weight of Bab al-Mandeb has increased dramatically after the Iran-aligned Houthis expanded their control of Yemen’s Red Sea coastline.

This advance in effect has handed the Houthis unrestricted access to the narrow waterway, a worrying development for global shipping given the group’s track record of targeting vessels, including Israeli-linked ships, in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza.

The Houthis have already declared a naval blockade on Saudi ships in the Red Sea, which Riyadh began to use as an alternative shipping route to Hormuz for its oil exports.

“So this can backfire,” Krieg warned. “Trump thinks Iran’s clock is running faster than America’s. Tehran thinks the opposite: that Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, global energy markets and ultimately Trump himself have a lower tolerance for prolonged disruption than Iran has for economic punishment.”

Ross Harrison, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, similarly told Al Jazeera that Tehran may now be “less worried about overplaying their hand than they are underplaying their hand”.

According to Harrison, Tehran now sees the risk of escalation as less costly than agreeing to something prematurely or appearing willing to compromise, particularly after Washington’s response to the proposal.

In an interview with Al Jazeera that aired on Saturday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said his country no longer trusts negotiations with Washington after attacks occurred during previous rounds of talks and were followed by sanctions.

“We have no trust in the American side and do not know on what basis an understanding can be reached with it,” Pezeshkian said.

Tehran betting ‘heavily’ on time

US-based analyst Harrison noted that Tehran was probably “not surprised at all” by Trump’s rejection and viewed the offer partly as a way to demonstrate to Iranians and the American public that it remained willing to negotiate.

Experts said Tehran understands the US president wants an exit he can present as a victory.

“Iran is betting heavily on time. … Its strategy is to keep the pressure high enough that he eventually comes back to negotiations while making that exit progressively more expensive,” Krieg said.

“The Iranian calculation is essentially: Do not give Trump the deal cheaply when he may need it more badly several weeks or months from now.”

Harrison said the Iranian offer was a “show of goodwill” intended to demonstrate Iran’s willingness to negotiate to both its domestic audience and the American public.

According to Krieg, “protraction” of the conflict was the “most likely outcome”.

“Both sides need a deal, but both currently think waiting will improve the deal they eventually get,” he added.

The United States-led Board of Peace (BoP) has said the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) will have no role in Gaza – echoing a longstanding Israeli demand to sideline the organisation considered a lifeline for millions of Palestinians.

The board, which has been tasked with overseeing the “ceasefire” and Gaza’s reconstruction, said on Friday it would work only with partners it deems reliable and who it believes can meet the needs of Gaza’s population – a standard it says UNRWA does not meet.

The move comes as the BoP unveiled a multibillion-dollar plan on Wednesday aimed at beginning Gaza’s reconstruction, nearly a year after a so-called “ceasefire” came into effect in the devastated Palestinian territory.

The plan, presented on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly (UNGA), comes as key elements of the “ceasefire” remain stalled, including the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the disarmament of Hamas.

UNRWA was established in 1949 to cater to tens of thousands of Palestinians displaced from their homes by Jewish militias from areas that currently form part of Israel.

BoP’s stance on UNRWA comes as Israel’s genocide in the coastal enclave continues, with Palestinians facing nonstop attacks, severe restrictions on humanitarian aid and stalled reconstruction plans.

So what has BoP said about UNRWA, and does it keep toeing the Israeli line on the future of Gaza?

What did the Board of Peace say?

The BoP unveiled a 66-project reconstruction blueprint on the sidelines of the UNGA, with $2.4bn proposed for projects aimed at beginning Gaza’s recovery.

UNRWA was left off the list of UN agencies the board identified as partners.

“The Board of Peace’s policy as it relates to UNRWA’s involvement in Gaza is unchanged,” the BoP said in a post on X on Friday.

“We will only work with trusted partners who will deliver for the people of Gaza and contribute to a deradicalised Strip. UNRWA fails on those litmus tests.”

However, a BoP official, speaking to The Associated Press news agency on condition of anonymity, confirmed that board members had met UNRWA officials several times.

The official said the agency’s programmes could continue if they served Gaza’s residents well, but maintained that “UNRWA’s days are over”.

The BoP, which US President Donald Trump launched earlier this year, was conceived to oversee the rebuilding of Gaza after nearly three years of Israel’s genocidal war on the Strip.

What has UNRWA said?

In an indirect response, UNRWA acting Commissioner-General Christian Saunders said on Friday in Gaza, “UNRWA remains an institution of considerable humanitarian and strategic value, with capabilities and expertise that are difficult to replicate today.”

“To disregard these capabilities at a moment of such profound need is neither logical nor responsible,” Saunders said in a statement.

Former UNRWA chief Philippe Lazzarini on Thursday warned that removing the agency would have a “devastating” effect on Palestinians.

“They want to get rid of the agency, but on the other hand they know that if you get completely rid of the agency today, it might have a further … devastating impact on the population,” Lazzarini told AP on Friday.

In a separate statement on X, Lazzarini said, “grandiose plans are what the Board of Peace does best”, noting widespread suffering across Gaza amid Israel’s ongoing genocide.

The agency has about 11,000 Palestinian employees in Gaza and remains heavily involved in healthcare, education, water and sanitation services. Its exclusion is particularly significant given the scale of displacement and the continuing restrictions on aid entering Gaza.

UNRWA has for decades provided aid and education services to Palestinians in Gaza, occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank as well as Jordan, Syria and Lebanon – the neighbouring countries where the Palestinian refugees have been living.

Palestinians see the agency as safeguarding their right of return to their homeland, while Israel wants it dismantled.

What has been Hamas’ response?

Hamas accused the BoP of adopting Israel’s position.

Spokesperson Hazem Qassem on Saturday called the decision to exclude UNRWA “a complete alignment with the Zionist [Israeli] position”, saying it was aimed at ending the agency’s operations, preventing it from delivering aid and undermining Palestinian refugees’ right of return.

Qassem said it was “strange for the peace council to adopt this hostile stance towards UNRWA while simultaneously failing to provide aid to Gaza or compel the occupation to abide by the ceasefire agreement and halt the daily killings of Palestinians in the Strip”.

Does the Board of Peace toe the Israeli line?

Experts say the workings and demands of the BoP align closely with Israel’s vision of the Gaza Strip and the Palestinians.

UNRWA

Israel has for years sought to remove UNRWA from Gaza, accusing the agency of being infiltrated by Hamas.

The International Court of Justice, in an advisory opinion in October, said allegations that “a significant part of UNRWA’s employees are ‘members of Hamas … or other terrorist factions’” had not been substantiated.

The BoP’s position strengthens the Israeli efforts to dismantle the UN agency.

Hamas disarmament

Hamas and other Palestinian factions agreed in July to a roadmap under which weapons would be surrendered in stages as Israeli forces gradually withdrew. The two processes were explicitly linked.

But following an August meeting between Nickolay Mladenov, the BoP’s director-general, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the board said Israeli forces would not withdraw beyond the “Yellow Line” until Hamas’s decommissioning was complete, including “light weapons, heavy weapons, and the tunnels alike”.

Hamas maintains that it will not implement its obligations unless Israel fulfils its own.

Israel currently occupies more than 60 percent of Gaza while most of the territory’s 2.3 million people remain displaced.

Reconstruction

Article 17 of the BoP plan calls for “temporary reconstruction” beginning in areas designated free of Hamas control, including humanitarian compounds for unarmed civilians.

The proposed system would direct reconstruction, aid and shelter towards areas outside Hamas’s control while Israeli forces remain behind the so-called “Yellow Line”.

However, Israel has refused to allow the Palestinian technocratic committee into Gaza, open crossings or begin reconstruction until Hamas is completely disarmed.

After unveiling the reconstruction plan on the sidelines of the UNGA, BoP high representative Mladenov said once again the proposed plan depends on Hamas’s disarmament.

What is the situation in Gaza?

Almost a year after the October 2025 ceasefire, reconstruction has yet to begin on any meaningful scale and Israeli forces continue to occupy large parts of the Strip.

At least 1,451 Palestinians have been killed and 4,953 wounded in Israeli attacks since the “ceasefire” began in October 2025, according to Gaza’s Ministry of Health.

The healthcare system is on the verge of “total collapse”, the ministry said last week, while shortages of fuel, medical supplies and spare parts have disrupted hospitals, water and sanitation services.

The scale of destruction is also immense. More than half of Gaza’s hospitals and clinics remain nonfunctional, less than 1.5 percent of cropland is accessible and undamaged, and reconstruction needs have reached an estimated $71.5bn.

Nearly 84 percent of Gaza’s population – more than 1.76 million people – are living in displacement sites or damaged and inadequate shelters, the UN has said.

New Delhi, India – Indian democracy has been shaken by new revelations showing divisions within the body that is in charge of conducting its elections over controversial policies that critics say have disenfranchised tens of millions of people.

India’s Election Commission, a supposedly autonomous constitutional body, is tasked with administering elections in the world’s largest democracy, and in recent decades, had won admirers across the globe for its success in conducting a voting process unmatched in scale and complexity.

But an investigation by The Indian Express newspaper reported that the current chief of the commission frequently overruled concerns raised by his two other equally ranked commissioners about the integrity of ongoing changes in the voter database.

These revelations come after a months-long struggle by India’s opposition parties to bring what they have described as the “sabotaging” conduct of the election commission to the fore, which they say is dictated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s party for its electoral benefit.

For decades, India has grappled with deep inequality; divisions along caste, religious and ethnic lines; and the growing role of money in its elections. Yet through it all, the actual conduct of its elections was largely viewed as “free” domestically and by global monitors.

But leading opposition leaders have, in recent months and years, for the first time, questioned whether elections can be trusted and whether votes are counted accurately, as well as whether rights decide who gets to be a voter or if those in authority take the decision arbitrarily. Those concerns, say analysts, are likely to only be amplified by the latest revelations.

“Today, that faith [in the election process] has shaken. It is very shocking for the nation,” SY Quraishi, who headed India’s election commission between 2010 and 2012, told Al Jazeera. “The Election Commission used to be a very reputed institution. Now, it is totally dysfunctional – and that’s an understatement.”

So, what does this mean for India and its democracy?

What are the latest revelations about India’s Election Commission?

Earlier this week, the Indian Express newspaper published a series of stories, based on internal documents and interviews, laying bare divisions within the poll panel – consisting of three commissioners, Gyanesh Kumar, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, and Vivek Joshi. Kumar is the commission’s chief.

Indian law requires the commission to decide by a majority. Reports revealed that Sandhu and Joshi resisted and questioned the legality of measures Kumar took unilaterally.

Since June last year, the commission has been revising and updating the voters list state-wise. It has struck off more than 13 million names during the exercise since then, which the critics say targeted economically weaker sections, minorities, and other vulnerable groups of Indian society disproportionately.

Opposition parties took the matter to the country’s top court, which largely signed off on the process to decide on who gets to vote in India. For India’s more than 1.4 billion population, a voting right does not end merely on ballots – rather, several government welfare schemes are tied to voting rights.

Now, reports reveal that some of the strongest resistance to the three-member commission’s decisions was coming from within. In fact, Sandhu and Joshi formally objected on record at least 14 times over the last 10 months to measures issued by circumventing them. Sandhu called it “unauthorised and illegal”.

Those objections related to the new voter registration mandate; deletion and restoration of voters in the rolls; appeals by people against deletions; and the security of the list. In short, everything the commission undertook.

The opposition has alleged that the additions and deletions of the voters are undertaken as an exercise to disenfranchise a section of voters to benefit Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

The commission maintained that access to the voters’ list is highly secured and decentralised, meaning that even in the remotest parts of the country, a local officer made the judgement and decision.

But the latest revelations show that the commission relied on ECINet, a digital platform that logs nearly a billion voters, which was increasingly centralised, giving more control to New Delhi over editing calls.

In one instance, the newspaper reported that officials in the coastal state of Goa flagged nearly a hundred voters who were mistakenly taken out. Editing access was limited to New Delhi.

So, Goa’s chief electoral officer wrote eight emails to officials in New Delhi in a week before the deadline passed, but got no response and voters were knocked off the list.

Why is revision of voters’ list controversial?

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR), as the process of revising the list is called, has become controversial mainly because it places an unusually heavy burden on existing voters to prove their eligibility.

Such a drive requires people to produce old records, like birth, land, and education certificates – and puts poorer, migrant, and marginalised Indians at a disadvantage, essentially drawing lines on who gets to vote in India. A minor mismatch, such as a spelling, in decades-old records could result in being struck from the voters list in India.

Opposition parties and civil society groups have argued that mass deletions could significantly alter the electorate before elections.

In some places, the exercise has been reported to disenfranchise minorities, including Muslims. In the eastern state of West Bengal, Al Jazeera earlier reported that the exercise removed 9 million residents from the electoral rolls just days before the state elections that were held in April and May.

Nearly 34 percent of the deleted voters were Muslims in the state, where they only make up 27 percent of the population. Then, Prime Minister Modi’s Hindu majoritarian BJP came to power for the first time in the politically critical state.

The BJP and supporters of the SIR process have argued that it is fundamentally aimed at removing illegal migrants, the deceased or fraudulent voters from the rolls – and have tried to portray many Muslims eliminated from the lists in border states as “illegal Bangladeshi migrants,” despite hard evidence that Indian nationals have been victims of the process.

But as the exercise has been expanded to other parts of the country, those claims have increasingly returned to embarrass even proponents of the exercise: In New Delhi, notices were served to India’s Foreign Minister S Jaishankar and his wife, alongside other high-profile politicians, judges and senior bureaucrats. Several former Indian ambassadors to countries across the world have received notices to prove that they are Indian – even though they have served as India’s sovereign representatives abroad for years.

All of this has turned what was political opposition to the SIR process into much more broad-based, nationwide scepticism about the lack of transparency in the Election Commission’s software, the process of matching voters against decades-old electoral rolls, and the criteria being used to flag voters as having “logical discrepancies”.

“The [revision of voters’ list] fundamentally inverts India’s model of electoral democracy,” said Milan Vaishnav, a senior fellow and director of the South Asia programme at the Washington, DC-based nonpartisan think tank The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“Since the adoption of the Constitution, India has assumed the burden of ensuring that the last man or woman is registered to vote,” he said. Vaishnav added that unlike other democracies, notably the United States, which has repeatedly thrown up barriers to the franchise, “India historically adopted an unusually activist approach to voter registration.”

“Specifically, the way in which [the revision] has been carried out threatens to turn that principle on its head,” he told Al Jazeera. “It is now the voter who must prove his or her entitlement to remain on the electoral rolls.”

Quraishi, the former election commissioner of India, told Al Jazeera that he has been against the policies taken up under the revision.

“I hope [these revelations] are a wake-up call and serious action will be undertaken, including at the Supreme Court, the central government, and the Parliament,” Quraishi told Al Jazeera.

“Because the reputation of the Election Commission has gone into the dumps. And it is very difficult to restore it now,” he said. “We need efforts to rebuild faith in the system.”

What is the opposition demanding?

Leader of the opposition Rahul Gandhi has accused the Election Commission of “treason” against the nation, and promised that its leaders will be tried for it, if his Congress Party returns to power.

India’s popular Gen-Z pressure group, the Cockroach Janta Party, whose protest movement led to the ouster of India’s education minister in July, has threatened to hit the streets again if Kumar, the commission’s sitting chief, does not resign by Saturday.

The Cockroach group has also called for an overhaul in the selection process of the next election commissioner.

For its part, the election commission has said in a statement that the investigation report drew on “differing views and deliberations” between the three commissioners rather than official statements of protest. Sambit Patra, a spokesman for Modi’s party, told reporters that any deliberation or divisions in the commission were rather “a sign of a healthy democracy”.

But none of that appears to be cutting ice in a nation where far too many people have now faced the threat of losing their vote through an opaque process.

“Our elections are fundamentally broken,” said Gandhi at a news conference in New Delhi on Thursday. “The sacred belief in elections,” he added, was evaporating.

Aiming at Modi, Gandhi argued that the popularity of a leader could be understood, but not “how anti-incumbency disappears”.

“It doesn’t exist in North Korea. There is no democracy where anti-incumbency doesn’t work. We are looking for answers to where it went here,” Gandhi said, in effect questioning Modi’s re-election first in 2019 and then again in 2024, with a much-reduced mandate – even though there is no firm evidence of widespread voter manipulation helping Modi win those elections. “And we have found answers.”

What does it mean for Indian polity?

Asim Ali, a political analyst in New Delhi, said that the Indian republic is standing at a “dangerous moment, where we could see a breakdown of the republic.”

“We have reached a situation where every opposition party feels that the democratic guardrails have been destroyed,” Ali told Al Jazeera, adding that the allegations are about the worry that “independent institutions like the Election Commission and Supreme Court have become co-opted.”

The political cleavage has created an extreme polarisation of politics in India. “Politics has assumed a kind of existential stakes, where we have unrestrained politics of friend vs enemy,” he added.

Rasheed Kidwai, a political analyst and senior journalist who has covered the Indian government for several decades, told Al Jazeera that “impartiality is paramount” for the Election Commission.

“The fact is that Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion,” he said. “In India, we have seen difficult times, including a state emergency, but never was the role of the Election Commission compromised at this level.”

Kidwai noted that Modi’s party has ridiculed opposition parties’ concerns about free-and-fair elections, calling them sore losers. “The outcomes of a match are inconsequential, but at least the umpire should play fair,” he told Al Jazeera.

The major criticisms of Indian democracy in recent years have principally related to what happens in between elections, said Vaishnav of the Carnegie Endowment think tank.

While critics “pointed to the erosion of basic freedoms, an uneven rule of law, and the concentration of power in the hands of the executive,” Vaishnav said, “most observers have argued that when the electoral spotlight is on, India’s democracy remains remarkably robust and competitive.”

The conduct of the Election Commission is “now calling this distinction into question”, he added.

Diesel prices have hit record highs as the tensions between the United States and Iran, along with the war between Russia and Ukraine, disrupt key oil and fuel trade routes.

On Friday, the average price for a gallon (3.79 litres) of diesel was $6.50, up from $5.61 a month earlier, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which tracks fuel prices daily.

The spike has prompted the administration of US President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers to consider restricting US diesel exports ahead of upcoming midterm elections.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in August found that 47 percent of voters said the cost of living was the single most important factor in deciding how they would vote in the midterms — more than twice the share who cited the next-most important issue, “democratic values and norms”.

A new Marist poll also found that Americans have more confidence in Democrats than Republicans to handle the economy, with 42 percent choosing Democrats compared with 34 percent for Republicans.

Amid that voter sentiment, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Thursday that he was in touch with major oil refiners to gauge interest in a potential voluntary restriction on diesel exports, according to the Reuters news agency.

That followed remarks by Trump on Tuesday that he supported restricting diesel exports from the US, the world’s largest diesel exporter.

Energy analysts and industry groups have warned that an export ban could have unintended consequences, potentially pushing up fuel prices in the US and abroad.

Why are diesel prices so high?

Even though the US is the world’s largest diesel exporter, diesel is traded on a global market.

Disruptions to refineries in Russia and the Middle East have reduced the amount of fuel available worldwide, putting more pressure on US producers to fill the gap. In Russia, for example, drone attacks have damaged major refineries, forcing a cutback or halt in production.

“While US refineries are running at full tilt and higher than normal, the global gaps remain,” Rachel Ziemba, senior adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Al Jazeera.

It comes as US diesel supplies are also shrinking. As of September 11, inventories had fallen to 107.9 million barrels, the lowest in more than four decades, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

With global supplies tightening, diesel prices have risen around the world — including in the US. Because American producers can sell their fuel into the global market, they are drawn to the soaring global prices rather than simply setting a lower price for domestic consumers.

Why is the US considering an export ban?

In Washington, DC, leaders have flirted with the idea of pushing US companies to stop or slow exporting diesel.

Republicans have been pushing for a slowdown or outright ban of exports in an effort to lower costs for consumers ahead of the pivotal midterm elections, where cost of living is becoming a critical issue.

Such a move, they hope, would reduce local diesel prices, which is significant as diesel is used in trucks to haul food and most products, Ziemba said, adding that US diesel exports are equivalent to about 40 percent of domestic consumption.

On Tuesday, Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, called on the president to put in place a temporary halt on exports.

“I encourage President Trump to put a temporary embargo on diesel exports through executive action,” Grassley said.

Republican Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska made a similar call: “The cost of diesel is just too damn high. I’m calling for a temporary pause of American diesel exports so that we can rebuild our reserves ahead of winter,” Sullivan said in a statement on Tuesday.

In the House of Representatives, Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee introduced two bills that would restrict US diesel exports: One would impose a ban through January 2027, while the other would restrict exports if the national average price reaches $5 a gallon.

The administration has not made any official policy announcements, and the White House told Al Jazeera that the president is evaluating all options.

Oil and gas industry experts say that a ban could drive up prices rather than bringing them down.

“Diesel trades on a world market, just like corn. farmers don’t sell cheaper to Americans, and refiners can’t either since they buy crude at global prices. force a lower price and they’ll make less diesel. less supply means higher prices, not lower,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said in a post on X.

How would an export ban work?

A ban would prevent or restrict US refiners from selling diesel to buyers overseas, theoretically leaving more fuel available in the domestic market.

Analysts at Wood Mackenzie, a research and consulting firm, say that keeping more diesel stateside would ultimately fill up US storage tanks but also force refineries to cut production. That could affect other markets that rely heavily on US fuel, including Latin America and Europe, forcing them to compete with other global buyers for supplies and driving up prices for the global market.

Wood Mackenzie says China is the only major producer with enough spare refining capacity to potentially make up much of the shortfall.

“China is currently the only country with material spare refining capacity that could cover the loss of US refinery throughputs. However, China may well decide it is not in its interest to intercede,” analysts said.

Wood Mackenzie has warned that a ban could quickly fill US diesel inventories, forcing refiners to cut crude runs and potentially increasing US petrol imports.

That was also the view of an S&P Global analysis, which found that a complete ban could also mean that production would be reduced as storage capacity is filled up with unsold diesel. According to the analysis, that could lead to production cuts of as much as 750,000 barrels a day, which could put the US into being a net importer of petrol in the fourth quarter of this year.

Who would an export ban affect?

An export ban would affect US refiners and consumers, as well as countries that rely on US diesel.

“They [export bans] may provide temporary relief, but diesel is a global commodity. Treat one part of the system, and the effects travel elsewhere. Trade-offs are inevitable. Refiners are unlikely to cheer a blanket ban. Voluntary, controlled export reductions would generally be less disruptive in the short term,” Maksim Sonin, visiting scholar at Stanford University’s Precourt Institute for Energy, told Al Jazeera.

Disruptions to US exports could reduce the amount of fuel available on the global market. Wood Mackenzie analysts say countries in Europe and Latin America that rely heavily on US fuel could be forced to compete with other producers for supplies.

“If implemented, it would lead to European and Asian product prices increasing as the buyers of US fuel, mostly in Latin America, scramble to find new supplies, bidding up supplies. European crack spreads could widen, and overall we might see more disruptions,” Ziemba added.

“Given these issues, the US may opt for a mixture of carrots and sticks aiming to incentivise refineries to keep producing, perhaps including penalties if they cut production. There may be voluntary export quotas rather than a formal ban, and there may be exemptions for countries that provide crude oil to the US, like Mexico,” Ziemba said.

That could put pressure on consumers not only at the petrol pump but in the skies as well.

Airlines for America, an airline industry trade group, has also warned that an export ban could lead to higher prices for airlines and travellers, according to the Reuters news agency. The trade group did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

The broader concern from analysts is that restricting exports could reduce US refinery production rather than simply redirecting diesel to US consumers, potentially putting upward pressure on fuel prices both domestically and internationally.

“It’s unlikely to help US consumers much given how it fails to solve underlying problems and could backfire if refineries hold on to production. The best way to address this is to end the conflicts prompting the shortages,” Ziemba said.

Acting United States Navy Secretary Hung Cao has confirmed that there have been “eight suicide attempts” by personnel assigned to the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group posted in the Middle East – at least two by jumping overboard – during their deployment there.

In a letter to US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on Tuesday, Cao wrote about quality of life on the fleet and morale among personnel. He was responding on behalf of US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to her questions about reports of crew members attempting to harm themselves.

While Cao said no service members had died by suicide during the deployment, there had been attempts to jump overboard.

“This includes the Lincoln crew and sailors from the carrier airwing, strike group and destroyer squadron staff, escorting destroyers and all embarked aviation squadrons,” the letter read.

Here’s what we know:

What is the USS Abraham Lincoln?

It is a nuclear-powered Nimitz-class aircraft carrier that the Navy has referred to as one of the “largest warships in the world”. Nimitz-class vessels include 10 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in the US arsenal.

The carrier, which set off from California in November 2025 for a routine deployment to the South China Sea, was rerouted in January to the US Central Command (CENTCOM) region in the Middle East because of escalating tensions with Iran.

Since the US-Israel war on Iran broke out at the end of February, the USS Abraham Lincoln has engaged in combat efforts and helped enforce the US naval blockade on Iranian ports.

The roughly 5,000-strong crew on board the Lincoln were at sea for 286 days before finally disembarking in Thailand on September 1, setting a record for the longest deployment. Besides one short port stop last December, the crew had no land breaks in that time.

US media reports have tied ship supply shortages to Iranian attacks on US military sites in the Middle East, notably the heavy damage inflicted on the naval base in Bahrain in the early days of the war. The navy was reportedly forced to use the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia instead as its main supply hub, some 3,540km (2,200 miles) from where the USS Lincoln was operating in the Gulf.

According to its website, Naval Support Activity Bahrain provided “services and support to ships at sea, remote sites throughout the region, and military and civilian personnel living in Bahrain”.

Last month, experts told Al Jazeera that the lack of port stops during the ongoing conflict was a major issue for the carrier.

“Ships need maintenance, particularly ships that are extremely complicated with very advanced weapon systems such as nuclear-powered carriers with very advanced systems, and there are things that you cannot do in terms of maintenance under way,” Harlan Ullman, a retired senior naval officer and chairman of the strategic advisory firm Killowen Group, said.

Extended deployments “erode the readiness and capability of that ship the longer it’s at sea, and it lacks the ability to repair and extend maintenance”, he added.

Following media reports of poor levels of morale on board, the USS George Washington was diverted from the Pacific to replace the carrier last month.

What does Cao’s letter say?

“Since the beginning of Lincoln’s deployment, there have been a total of eight suicide attempts across the strike group,” Cao wrote.

In particular, he said one sailor assigned to the air wing jumped overboard in early August but was “quickly recovered”, treated by the medical department and “transferred off ship for follow-on care”.

“Additionally, one sailor attempted to go overboard in March and was stopped by his shipmates. That sailor was also provided with immediate medical care and subsequently returned to homeport,” the letter added.

Cao said the carrier had been deployed with various mental health resources, including one psychologist, three behavioural health technicians, one clinical social worker, one embedded integrated prevention counsellor, one facility dog, and five chaplains.

Cao also acknowledged resupply limitations, however, as the vessel was participating in “major combat operations”, which meant that the number of main course options served during meal times was reduced from two to one.

He said the Navy prioritised the delivery of “hygiene products, fresh provisions and critical repair parts”, adding that while the ship experienced plumbing issues earlier in its deployment, the shipboard engineering team had completed repairs and “portable water supply remains safe and tested daily”.

The Navy chief added that a biparitsan Congressional Delegation was in the “planning stages” of an on-board visit to the carrier once it returns to the US.

Have there been previous reports on the conditions on board the carrier?

Yes.

Before Cao’s letter, a crew member on board the carrier told CNN that morale on the vessel was very low, with suicidal ideation repeatedly heard among crew members.

Last month, the Navy Times, which covers US military news, spoke to the wife of a sailor who, she said, had attempted to jump off the vessel, saying he was “burnt out”.

According to the US news outlet, MSNOW, families of sailors had also attended a meeting with Cao the same month to express their concerns over the sailors’ mental health, exhaustion, and safety on board.

It also reported separately that families told it, on condition of anonymity, that their relatives and spouses on board had described mouldy showers and no hot water for showering for weeks.

Stars and Stripes, a US military news organisation, also reported last month that a spouse told the meeting with Cao that she had received a message from her husband saying “he hopes he doesn’t wake up tomorrow.”

The same month – and following that reporting – the Pentagon fired the Stars and Stripes editor-in-chief and its Middle East reporter.

Since beginning his second term in January 2025, US President Donald Trump has accused news outlets of publishing and broadcasting “fake news”.

Last week, he announced that CNN, Politico and MSNOW would be banned from reporting from the White House.

On Thursday, US federal judge Timothy Kelly ordered the Trump administration to reinstate press passes after finding that the revocation was done without “constitutionally adequate due process”.

What has been the response to reports on the situation of sailors on board?

Following reports of burnout and struggling mental health on the USS Abraham Lincoln, CENTCOM chief Brad Cooper visited the sailors on the ship last month.

Cooper said in a statement afterwards that the team were “standing tall with immense, justified pride”, adding that “history will record this deployment as one of the most operationally intense and consequential of the modern era.”

Last month, Hegseth said reports about low morale and poor conditions on the ship had been “completely misrepresented”.

“We make sure every ship, every crew, every captain has everything we can provide them at every single moment. Some deployments are longer than others, and ⁠I have more respect and gratitude for those sailors than anybody,” Hegseth told reporters during a visit to Panama.

Trump also dismissed reports and said last month that the ship was “beautifully maintained”, saying reports of poor conditions were a “CNN fake news report”.

In a statement on Wednesday to CNN following the letter from Cao, Gillibrand said that what Trump and Hegseth had dismissed as “fake news” was in fact “serious and deteriorating conditions for our service members”.

“Our troops and their families make immense sacrifices every single day, yet the president dismissed them with open disrespect. That this administration can find endless taxpayer dollars for bombs, ballrooms, and billionaires, but cannot take care of our service members, is completely unacceptable.”

Australian authorities have raised the alarm after OpenAI-powered models hacked into a government health data system in June, slipping past its digital defences and accessing files without authorisation.

This is the first publicly known case of artificial intelligence (AI) “agents” – AI-powered software systems that can carry out tasks autonomously – breaking into a government website, and the latest of several AI breaches of external systems.

The disclosure comes as top AI firms warn of the risk of humans losing control of AI, calling for its development to slow to a pace that allows it to be safely regulated. Global powers must cooperate to ensure this, they have said.

A research scientist at AI firm Anthropic, Evan Hubinger, went so far as to say he believes there is a greater than 10 percent chance AI could “kill all humans” within a decade.

Addressing the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said there is a risk of AI moving “so fast that people can no longer follow what’s happening or intervene when needed”.

“This would obviously be terrible,” he said. “And we should not train models that we cannot make an extremely strong case that we will be able to keep under human control.”

What do we know about the AI breach in Australia?

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese revealed the breach on Wednesday, saying an OpenAI agent had made its way into the public-facing medical statistics portal of Medicare, the country’s universal health insurance system, on July 18.

When OpenAI accessed the government portal while conducting research on public medical spending, Albanese said the AI agent circumvented “blocks” that should have prevented it from breaking into the portal.

“The AI agent found a way around those blocks – didn’t accept no for an answer,” said Albanese.

Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said the information the OpenAI agent accessed was “not particularly sensitive” and was later publicly released.

Still, Albanese called the situation “obviously unacceptable” and said Australia had relayed its “extreme concern” to OpenAI, which had failed to notify the government of the breach until September 10.

Albanese also said several other government websites may have been affected by rogue OpenAI agents, though he did not confirm any other breaches.

He added that an inquiry into the breach would look at how Australian security agencies missed it initially and whether criminal charges could be brought against OpenAI.

How has OpenAI responded?

In a statement, OpenAI said it had “identified activity involving several Australian government websites and services as our models attempted to look up answers” and “took actions we did not intend”.

The company said the incident occurred as its models searched for statistics on medical spending, and that they are not believed to have obtained personal medical records.

OpenAI learned of the incident in August only as it conducted a review of “misaligned model activity”, it added.

Last week, OpenAI said it had put in place a new system to monitor, probe and disclose cases of “misalignment”. That includes instances of AI models that operate “without authorisation, coordinate with other models, or evade oversight”, it said.

Have there been previous AI breaches?

Yes. The Australia data breach is the latest of several instances in which AI agents belonging to OpenAI, Google or Anthropic have accessed external systems without authorisation.

In July, OpenAI reported that two of its most advanced AI models had broken out of a controlled test and hacked another AI company, Hugging Face. OpenAI later said it had detected its AI models communicating with each other and gaining internet access without authorisation months before that hack occurred.

In August, rival Meta AI said its AI model had hacked another company during cybersecurity testing. It said the model made changes to the internal systems of the hacked company, which it did not name, after accessing the public internet because of an error in the setup of its testing environment.

What does this mean for AI safety?

Maurice Chiodo, an Australian mathematician who works at Cambridge University’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, told the Reuters news agency the breach appeared to be “a significant escalation in seriousness from similar incidents we have ‌seen ‌in recent months”.

Experts say the Australia data breach highlights the growing dangers AI poses to cybersecurity as well as possible gaps in monitoring and disclosure capabilities.

“The important matter here is not what OpenAI says its agent can do, it is what the agent actually does when it hits a barrier,” Niusha Shafiabady, a professor of computational intelligence and head of the IT discipline at the Australian Catholic University, said in comments published by science news portal Scimex.

“The deeper technical risk is that autonomous AI does not always know when it is wrong, and humans may not be able to see why it made a decision,” added Shafiabady. “Without strong verification and hard boundaries, probabilistic errors can quietly become operational failures.”

Raffaele Fabio Ciriello, a senior lecturer in business information systems at the University of Sydney Business School, said OpenAI’s delay in reporting the breach was “concerning”.

“The incident occurred in June and only came to light months later,” said Ciriello. “Even if OpenAI did not detect the activity immediately, that still points to weaknesses in detection, escalation, and external notification.”

On Tuesday, nearly 130 heads of state and government are expected to begin taking the podium at the annual United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York as the high-level general debate opens.

The debate is the key event of the UNGA’s annual session, which began on September 8, when Khalilur Rahman of Bangladesh took office as president.

In this visual explainer, Al Jazeera looks at what happens at the UNGA, who will speak, and the key moments to watch.

When is UNGA 2026?

The debate opens on Tuesday, September 22, runs through Saturday, September 26, and resumes on Monday, September 28, as no sessions are held on Sunday.

It runs in two daily sessions: from 9am to 2:45pm local time (13:00 GMT to 18:45 GMT) and from 3pm to 9pm (19:00 GMT to 01:00 GMT the next day).

Statements are expected to observe a voluntary 15-minute limit, though many run longer, and meetings continue until all scheduled speakers have spoken.

Who is speaking at UNGA 2026, and when?

The session opens with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who introduces his annual report and is expected to give his final address, followed by UNGA President Khalilur Rahman, who formally opens the debate.

By tradition, Brazil is always the first country to speak, a practice that began in 1955 when it volunteered to open the debate, when no other country would. The United States, as the host country, usually speaks second, and President Donald Trump is expected to take the podium after Brazil on Tuesday morning, likely around 9:45am local time (13:45 GMT).

For all other member states, the speaking order is determined by the level of representation (head of state, head of government, or minister), expressed preferences, and geographic balance.

The Holy See (Vatican City), the State of Palestine, and the European Union are also invited to participate, with their speaking slots set according to their representation.

Speakers for day one are shown in the graphic below. The speaking schedule for the remaining days will be published in the coming days.

Where is the UNGA held?

The UNGA is held at the UN headquarters, which is located along the East River in Manhattan, New York.

The complex, built between 1949 and 1952, is owned by the UN and is considered international territory. It serves as the main hub for international diplomacy.

The UNGA has not always been held in New York. The first six UNGA sessions took place in different cities, beginning in London and later including Paris. Since 1952, however, nearly all sessions have been held at the UN headquarters in New York.

Some notable exceptions include 1988, when the UNGA met in Geneva, Switzerland, after the US denied a visa to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

This time, for the second year running, the US has denied visas to Palestinian officials, so President Mahmoud Abbas will address the UNGA by prerecorded video after member states voted to allow it.

The Trump administration’s decision has drawn widespread criticism, with the UN asserting that it violates the Host Country Agreement, which obligates the US to allow heads of state and government to travel to New York for annual meetings and other diplomatic business, with full diplomatic immunity.

What is on the UNGA 2026 agenda?

The 81st UNGA has the theme “Restoring trust, managing transformation: a United Nations that delivers for all”, which is set out in the UN’s information note on the arrangements for the high-level week.

Alongside the speeches, the UN has scheduled high-level meetings on climate action and a just transition and on the 40th anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development (September 23), on sea level rise (September 24), on pandemic preparedness (September 25), on the 25th anniversary of the Durban Declaration against racism (September 28), and on eliminating nuclear weapons (September 29).

Many speeches are also expected to focus on the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, artificial intelligence and the UN’s funding squeeze, while diplomats watch the race to succeed Guterres, whose term ends on December 31.

Who will be the next UN chief?

The UNGA formally appoints the secretary-general, but the choice is not expected to be made this week. The UN Security Council (UNSC) is still holding straw polls and must recommend a candidate first.

Guterres’s second and final term ends on December 31, and the race to succeed him is under way. There have been nine secretaries-general since the UN was founded in 1945, all of them men. Several UNSC members have said they want a woman to lead the organisation for the first time.

Seven candidates remain in the running, four women and three men, but more could still enter the race:

• Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rica): Secretary-general of UNCTAD and former vice president of Costa Rica
• Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett (Guyana): Guyana’s permanent representative to the UN and former foreign minister
• Ivonne Baki (Ecuador): Diplomat and former minister of foreign trade
• Maria Fernanda Espinosa (Ecuador): Former president of the UNGA and former foreign minister
• Rafael Grossi (Argentina): Director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency
• Macky Sall (Senegal): Former president of Senegal
• Olara Otunnu (Uganda): Former foreign minister and ex-UN undersecretary-general

Former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet withdrew on Saturday after winning support from only one of the 15 UNSC members in the latest informal vote. The same vote put Costa Rica’s Grynspan narrowly ahead, with nine of the 15 members encouraging her candidacy, five discouraging it, and one with no opinion. Guyana’s Rodrigues-Birkett came second, with eight votes to encourage, six to discourage and one with no opinion, diplomats and sources close to the process said.

The UNSC must settle on one candidate with no veto from its five permanent members before recommending them to the UNGA.

When did each nation join the UN?

The UN was established after World War II, growing from 51 members in 1945 to 193 today, with two non-member observer states: Palestine and the Holy See (Vatican City).

The aim of the UN was to prevent future conflicts, promote international peace and security, foster cooperation among nations, protect human rights and support social and economic development worldwide – goals that many critics say it is increasingly failing to deliver on.

Each member has one vote in the UNGA, whose resolutions are generally nonbinding recommendations. That sets it apart from the 15-member UNSC, where five permanent members hold a veto and decisions can be legally binding.

Use the table below to find out when each country joined the UN.

The United States wants a new “notification mechanism” with China to warn each other when an artificial intelligence incident becomes serious enough to threaten national security.

The proposal, effectively an “AI hotline”, was discussed on Sunday during talks in New York between US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng, ahead of a summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Washington this week.

The two leaders are expected to consider establishing a broader US-China dialogue on AI, including the proposed notification system, around which details remain limited.

The initiative comes amid an intensifying contest for AI supremacy between the world’s top two economies, together with increasing warnings from tech giants that guardrails are necessary around the ever-growing technology.

So, what do we know about this so-called hotline, and where is the AI battle between the US and China headed?

What did the US say about this mechanism?

US Treasury Secretary Bessent said Washington had proposed creating a US-China AI dialogue, with particular focus on national security and a notification system covering “common goals and common threats”.

“We think that, just like with any cross-border activity, that moving from opaque to more transparency between the number one and the number two AI powers in the world is very important,” Bessent told reporters after Sunday’s discussions.

Trump’s science and technology adviser Michael Kratsios told Fox News on Sunday that the “key thing” Washington wants to discuss is “avoiding shared risks”.

Exactly what would trigger a notification has not been publicly revealed.

“The US and China absolutely need to be able to share information with each other as threats evolve. This seems like an obvious win for both sides,” Scott Singer, co-director of the China AI Initiative at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Al Jazeera.

“The relationship needs guardrails to keep citizens of both countries safe, and this is a productive first step.”

How did China respond?

Beijing has so far said very little.

China’s official Xinhua news agency acknowledged that He and Bessent discussed issues related to AI, but did not say whether Beijing had accepted Washington’s proposed notification mechanism.

Xinhua said the officials held “frank, in-depth and constructive exchanges” on economic and trade issues.

He and China’s chief trade negotiator Li Chenggang left Sunday’s talks without speaking to reporters.

What other ‘hotlines’ do the US and China have?

The proposed AI mechanism would not be the first time a special crisis channel was established between Washington and Beijing.

In 1997, former US President Bill Clinton and his then Chinese counterpart Jiang Zemin agreed to create a “direct secure telephone link” between their respective countries.

The two countries have had a military hotline since 2008, designed to allow senior defence officials to communicate during potentially dangerous incidents. It gives both sides 48 hours to respond, though US officials have complained that sometimes no one picks up.

After the US shot down a suspected Chinese surveillance balloon in 2023, then-US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin sought a call with his Chinese counterpart, but Beijing declined the request.

Why now, and what concerns are there around AI?

Earlier this month, Anthropic’s CEO Dario Amodei warned in an essay that AI capabilities have been advancing rapidly, and he proposed pacing the development of frontier models to give governments and researchers more time to manage their risks.

“Given the accelerating rate of AI capability development, it’s my worry that in 6–12 months such a swarm could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet (potentially causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage), and that the scale of damage would continue to increase from there if AI becomes more powerful without the necessary guardrails,” he wrote.

His assertions were endorsed by his rivals – OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and SpaceX founder and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

Meanwhile, Trump has repeatedly argued that the US must maintain its advantage over China and has resisted calls from technology executives for a slowdown in AI development. He has said that “whoever wins AI, wins”.

Carnegie Endowment’s Singer does not expect the “fierce competition for AI to slow down”.

“It has the potential to confer tremendous economic and strategic advantage to both countries. But even competitors can find space to cooperate,” he noted.

“Competition and cooperation can coexist. The key for right now is for both sides to act in their own self-interest. Finding some basic areas for cooperation flows very naturally from that.”

Where is the US-China AI war headed?

The US remains ahead in several of the most important features of the AI race, but China has been closing the gap.

American companies continue to dominate private investment and production of leading AI models. According to Stanford University’s 2026 AI Index Report, US companies invested $285.9bn in AI in 2025, compared with $12.4bn in China.

The US also has an advantage in the most advanced semiconductors needed to train cutting-edge models.

However, Chinese companies have demonstrated that they can produce resilient AI models despite US restrictions on their access to the most advanced AI chips.

In January, the release of Chinese AI startup DeepSeek made headlines after it was built using only a fraction of the money its competitors had spent on their own AI programmes. Share prices of US tech companies plummeted.

China possesses advantages in other areas of the AI supply chain, most notably in the production of critical rare earth minerals used in advanced technology and in generating more than twice as much electricity as the US, giving it access to the huge amounts of relatively cheap power needed to operate AI data centres.

What is the Xi-Trump summit about?

Xi’s state visit to the US will take place from Wednesday to Friday, with Trump expected to welcome him at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland.

Trump has said he expects to discuss “almost everything” with the Chinese leader.

Trade remains a central issue, with Beijing and Washington having yet to reach a lasting settlement on tariffs, which have dominated Trump’s relationship with China in his second term as president.

Last month, Trump’s White House accused dozens of countries of helping China to illegally bypass US tariffs.

Meanwhile, the US Congress last week passed a bill that gives Trump sweeping powers to impose sanctions on Russia’s crude exports as well as steep tariffs on buyers of Russian energy, a measure that will impact Moscow’s biggest customers, China and India.

Trump’s war with Iran is also expected to feature. Beijing ranks among Iran’s key economic allies, purchasing a large share of Tehran’s oil exports and attempting to broker an end to the near seven-month-old US-Israel war on Iran.

Other long-standing disputes hang over the summit, including China’s dominance of rare-earth supplies and Taiwan.

The US AI proposal could represent a rare area where the two rivals may find a way to hammer out a deal, experts say.

“I think establishing a permanent channel exclusively focused on AI would genuinely be a major victory. AI has been caught up in the broader ebbs and flows of the US-China relationship, and the 2024 dialogue failed because frontier AI risks got mixed in with other issues,” Singer said.

“This time looks like it might be different, and having an AI risk channel is a necessary precondition to mutually beneficial cooperation.”

Amid the US-Israel war on Iran, the country’s economy has suffered a sharp contraction, with its crucial oil and gas sector taking the biggest hit as the United States tightens its economic and military pressure on Tehran.

Data released by the government-administered Statistical Center of Iran showed gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 10.1 percent year-on-year between March 21 and June 20, the first quarter of the Persian calendar.

The period covers the opening months of the US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28.

The economic downturn has come as Iran struggles to export its oil, one of its most important sources of foreign currency, while also contending with high inflation, a weakening rial, and disruptions to trade and industry.

Here is what you need to know:

What does the economic data say?

The headline GDP number masks an even steeper decline in Iran’s energy industry. Crude oil and natural gas activity contracted by 26.4 percent compared with the same period a year earlier. GDP excluding oil, by comparison, fell by 4.6 percent.

The damage has spread beyond the energy sector. Industry and mining contracted by 14.7 percent, services declined by 4.8 percent, and manufacturing contracted by 2.5 percent. Agriculture was the exception, growing at 2.3 percent.

Those figures come amid an already difficult economic situation in the country. Earlier this month, Iran’s 12-month average inflation reached 69.9 percent, while food, beverage, and tobacco prices rose at nearly twice that rate. Official unemployment climbed to 9.1 percent in the spring.

The rial, meanwhile, fell from about one million to the US dollar a year earlier to more than 2.2 million in early September.

What is the latest with Iran’s oil exports?

Iran’s ability to sell crude has been dramatically curtailed by the US naval blockade, imposed for most of the war.

Iranian crude and condensate loadings collapsed from about two million barrels per day in March to roughly 740,000bpd in July and just 220,000-255,000bpd in August, according to estimates from Kpler and Vortexa.

TankerTrackers.com told the Reuters news agency that 29 tankers, carrying 36.11 million barrels of crude, were trapped in the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Vortexa estimated total Iranian crude afloat had fallen from 135 million barrels at the end of July to 107 million barrels by late August.

Is Trump winning the economic war on Iran?

By several economic measures, Washington’s pressure campaign is inflicting damage on Iran’s economy.

On September 6, total trade had fallen by 25 to 35 percent, President Masoud Pezeshkian said, with imports hit harder than exports. The US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has made it hard for ships carrying imports to reach Iranian ports.

Tehran has also explicitly linked the end of the war to economic relief. Iran’s security chief Mohsen Rezaei told Al Jazeera on Saturday that its conditions include “the release of our frozen funds and an end to the naval blockade”.

In addition to the naval blockade, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last month announced an economic pressure campaign against Iran, pledging to target its financial interests across the world. He said the US would target all of Iran’s sources of revenue, including oil, to prevent other countries and companies from doing business with Tehran.

The US-Israeli attacks and Iran’s retaliations have disrupted Tehran’s trade with one of its main economic partners, the United Arab Emirates.

The UAE last month announced an indefinite trade embargo on Iran after accusing its forces of carrying out several ballistic missile attacks, which Tehran denied, calling it a “false flag operation” by Israel and the US.

Chris Beauchamp, market analyst at IG Group, said, “Most wars are contests of stamina more than anything else.”

“The 10 percent drop in Iranian GDP is a sign that the US is succeeding in putting pressure on its foe. But the question rests, as it has done since March, on whether Iran can weather the fall in economic activity better than the US can stand the surge in energy costs,” he told Al Jazeera.

“For a regime prepared to do anything to stay in power, this news will make little difference, so long as the security forces remain loyal,” he added.

What is the latest with diplomatic efforts to end the war?

While Iran has taken a defiant stance against US economic and military pressure, it has indicated repeatedly that it remains open to diplomatic means to end the nearly seven-month-old war.

On Saturday, Rezaei told Al Jazeera that Iran conveyed a formal set of conditions to Washington through Qatari mediators for ending the war.

Iranian state media outlet IRNA reported on Monday that Pakistani Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi was set to visit Tehran, without specifying the agenda or other details.

Mediators Qatar and Pakistan have been working to re-establish negotiations between the two sides since their memorandum of understanding (MoU) expired last month.

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will stop briefly in Qatar before going to New York for the UN General Assembly, IRNA reported.

Iran has repeatedly said it remains ready for any new strikes by Washington.

Rezaei said on Saturday Tehran did not rule out a new US strike against Iran, calling the possibility “very much on the cards” based on his country’s military assessments.

Mark Pfeifle, a Republican strategist and former White House and national security official, said Iran and the US are still willing to strike a deal.

“Sometimes in diplomacy it’s what’s taken off the table,” he told Al Jazeera.

Pfeifle said when Rezaei reiterated his demands for talks with the US, he spoke of “ending the blockade, releasing the frozen funds [and] stopping the attacks”.

“But he left off reparations and reconstruction money, which tells me that there’s a concrete sign that amongst all the rhetoric, which is still very strident, that the pressure campaign that the US is putting on Iran is having some effect,” he said.

“And it tells me that both sides are still looking for room to negotiate in the coming weeks.”

Chinese technology giant Huawei is facing a landmark criminal trial in the United States amid Washington’s long-running tech rivalry with Beijing.

The trial began in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, on September 9, with US prosecutors portraying Huawei as a criminal enterprise that spent two decades stealing technology from US companies, deceiving banks and circumventing sanctions on Iran.

Huawei has pleaded not guilty and says the US government is attempting to turn ordinary business disputes and the actions of individual employees into evidence of a company-wide conspiracy.

The trial is expected to last about three months and overlaps with Chinese President Xi Jinping’s September 23-25 visit to Washington, where trade, artificial intelligence, tariffs and access to critical technologies are likely to be on the agenda.

Here is what you need to know:

What are the allegations against Huawei?

US prosecutors have accused the company of racketeering, money laundering, bank and wire fraud, sanctions violations, obstruction and conspiring to steal trade secrets from five US technology companies.

Prosecutors say the alleged wrongdoing stretched from about 1999 to 2020.

“Theft, lies, cover-up,” Justice Department lawyer Taylor Stout said in his opening remarks.

Prosecutors allege Huawei stole technology, including internet-router source code from Cisco and a robotic arm used by T-Mobile to test phones.

They also accuse Huawei of concealing the nature of its operations in Iran to move US dollars through the financial system despite US sanctions.

The government also alleges that Huawei supplied equipment that could help Iranian authorities monitor protesters during demonstrations in 2009.

How has Huawei responded?

Huawei, a major manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, denies any wrongdoing.

The tech giant’s lawyer Brian Heberlig told jurors the case was about “competition, not conspiracy. Innovation, not theft. Ordinary business dealings, not criminal conduct.”

Heberlig accused prosecutors of “cherry-picking isolated events” to construct a conspiracy that did not exist. Huawei’s defence says some incidents involved individual employees whose actions were dealt with internally, rather than reflecting company policy.

He told jurors that prosecutors will describe routine activities by global tech companies “but will twist those ordinary activities to try to make them look criminal”.

Huawei separately described the broader prosecution as an attempt to undermine its competitiveness, saying the US government’s “overarching narrative is demonstrably false” and that it had “the utmost respect for intellectual property”.

The case originated during Donald Trump’s first presidency. His administration placed Huawei on a US trade blacklist in 2019 and pushed allies to exclude the company from 5G networks, arguing its equipment could present national security and espionage risks.

Huawei has repeatedly denied that its technology is used for spying.

What has China’s response been?

Beijing has strongly criticised the prosecution, which has come weeks ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to the US.

On Thursday, a Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson said “the Chinese government firmly opposes the US side’s suppression and containment of Chinese enterprises”, when asked about the case and the American prosecutor’s “criminal enterprise” description.

China “firmly supports Chinese enterprises in safeguarding their legitimate rights and interests”, the spokesperson said at a regular news conference.

What is Huawei, and has the tech giant faced investigations before?

Huawei is one of the world’s largest telecommunications equipment manufacturers. It also produces smartphones and has become increasingly important to China’s semiconductor and AI industries.

Its activities have drawn scrutiny well beyond the current US trial.

Belgian prosecutors launched an investigation in 2025 into suspected bribery involving the European Parliament allegedly for Huawei’s benefit.

The European Parliament subsequently suspended access for Huawei lobbyists. Huawei said it had “zero-tolerance” for corruption and would cooperate with authorities.

Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou made worldwide headlines in 2018 when she was arrested on a US warrant after landing in Vancouver, straining both US-China and China-Canada relations.

The warrant was filed after a sealed indictment accused her and the company of bank fraud for misleading HSBC and other banks about Huawei’s business in Iran.

She returned to China in 2021 under a deferred prosecution agreement, and the charges against her were later dismissed.

Admissions Meng made as part of that agreement can, however, be presented as evidence in Huawei’s current trial after a US judge ruled them admissible in June.

They are legally separate but form part of a much wider economic and technological competition between Washington and Beijing.

Huawei became one of the most prominent targets of US restrictions during Trump’s first term.

Since then, the rivalry has expanded from telecommunications and 5G into semiconductors and AI, with Washington restricting China’s access to advanced US chips and chipmaking technology.

Last week, Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, warned that a “Chinese lead in AI would pose grave danger for the US and the world” and urged Washington to maintain restrictions on cutting-edge AI tech. He also called for action against alleged “distillation” of US models by Chinese AI laboratories.

China’s Foreign Ministry on September 14 accused the US tech giant of “fearmongering”.

“Fomenting various threats, engaging in confrontation and malicious competition will only disrupt the process of global governance of artificial intelligence and is not in the interests of any party,” said ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun.

The state-backed Global Times newspaper went further, describing Amodei’s proposal as a “Cold War playbook” whose real purpose was to curb Chinese AI development and preserve US technological dominance.

China and the US were engaged in a tit-for-tat tariff war at the beginning of Trump’s presidency in 2025. The trade war ended in a truce, but the world’s two largest economies have failed to strike a trade deal.

Beijing, meanwhile, has used its dominance of critical minerals as leverage and accelerated efforts to build domestic alternatives to American technology.

Currently, China controls most of the world’s rare earth minerals, including metals that are necessary for the manufacture of many technological items, from smartphones to fighter jets. The world’s second-largest economy has 60 percent of these minerals and processes 90 percent of the world’s supply.

In October, Beijing announced plans to require foreign companies to obtain permission to export Chinese rare earth equipment or material.

This meant companies anywhere in the world would need a licence to export rare earth magnets and certain semiconductor materials that contain even trace amounts of minerals sourced from China or produced using Chinese technology.

China’s Ministry of Commerce said its export controls on rare earths, which Trump had labelled “surprising” and “very hostile”, were introduced in response to a series of US measures.