Explainer

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.

Iran’s missiles and drones have downed dozens of US aircraft, damaged or destroyed hundreds of the United States’ buildings at its bases in the Middle East, and drained its inventories of military equipment worth billions of dollars, the Pentagon conceded earlier this week.

On Wednesday, Tehran unleashed another unlikely weapon in its war against the US: a maths equation.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who has also been a lead negotiator during talks between Tehran and Washington at different stages during the past six months, typed out a version of the Taylor equation, a formula used by central banks to determine interest rates, in a post on X loaded with a wartime message.

“Let’s see if a hike could open SOH or produce a single barrel,” he wrote, referring to interest rate hikes and the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway Iran has effectively blocked for global shipping.

“You can’t 25bp [basis points] a chokepoint,” he added, seemingly again referring to the strait. “It’s SOH risk premium, and We set it.”

Hours after Ghalibaf’s post, the US Federal Reserve did raise the benchmark interest rate by 25 basis points.

Early in the war, which was launched by the US and Israel against Iran on February 28, Ghalibaf frequently used financial arguments to mock how the conflict was being conducted by the administration of US President Donald Trump, to point to Iran’s ability to hurt Washington economically unless it changed its approach.

Now he’s turned to maths.

“This is a spectacular bit of agitprop from Iran, a country which, if nothing else in 2026, has demonstrated an impressive ability to needle its US opponent,” Chris Beauchamp, chief market analyst at IG Group, told Al Jazeera.

But what exactly is Ghalibaf trying to say? What is the Taylor equation, has the Iran war influenced the US interest rate, and does Tehran “set it”, as the parliament speaker has suggested?

What is the Taylor equation that Ghalibaf cited?

The rule is a formula economists use to estimate where a central bank should set interest rates based on inflation and the strength of the economy.

Developed by economist John Taylor in the early 1990s, the rule links the US federal funds rate to inflation and the “output gap” – the difference between actual economic output and its potential.

In its simplest form, the formula is:

Interest rate = inflation + 0.5(output gap) + 0.5(inflation − 2%) + 2%.

This means the recommended interest rate rises when inflation moves above the 2 percent target or when economic output exceeds its potential. It falls when inflation weakens or the economy operates below potential.

However, the equation is a benchmark, not a set rule that is strictly followed. Policymakers at the US Federal Reserve weigh other economic factors when setting interest rates.

Is the Iran war a factor in the US interest rate hike?

Trump’s tariffs, the energy shock following the US-Israeli war with Iran, and heavy investment associated with the artificial intelligence boom, taken together, have kept inflationary pressures strong, experts say.

On Wednesday, when the US Federal Reserve raised interest rates by 25bp, it was the first increase in three years.

Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh, in his speech following the rate hike, said renewed fighting between the US and Iran, which has pushed up petrol prices, helped convince Fed officials to support higher rates.

“There’s no hiding from hot spots around the world,” Warsh said.

IG Group’s Beauchamp said, “The Iran war, indirectly, is a huge driver of last night’s hike, though no one wants to admit it.”

“The energy spike has combined with the rise in yields to drive the Fed into a corner with no way out,” he said.

Susannah Streeter, chief investment strategist at the Wealth Club, said there is “no denying” that Iran’s retaliatory action against the US and its allies across the Gulf region has “intensified concerns about energy supplies and led to hotter inflation forecasts”.

“The ongoing geopolitical turmoil and elevated crude prices certainly were key issues behind the Fed’s decision to hike rates,” she said.

Is Iran ‘setting’ the US interest rate?

In short, no.

Wealth Club’s Streeter cautioned that while the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices were certainly an element in the Fed’s decision, they weren’t the “only factors at play”.

“The spending might of AI hyperscalers has also pulsed through the veins of the economy, with strong capital investment and resilient domestic demand adding to inflationary pressures, so policymakers will have been looking at the whole picture,” she noted.

“So, while Tehran has arguably had an influence on some of the forces feeding into US monetary policy, particularly through the impact of the conflict on oil supplies and prices, it is not ‘setting’ US interest rates.”

Streeter said the US Federal Reserve was responding to a much broader set of economic conditions.

“Iran’s actions have affected the inflation outlook, but the decision on where to set interest rates ultimately rests with the Federal Reserve, and there are plenty of other data points policymakers use,” she noted.

What’s behind Ghalibaf’s maths mocking?

In March, Iran’s parliamentary speaker had repeatedly used social media to comment on markets and energy prices, including mocking efforts by the Trump administration to influence oil futures and arguing that financial manoeuvring could not create “actual fuel” at petrol stations.

Last month, Ghalibaf posted a graphic bearing the phrase “Make America Hungry Again” – a play on Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” – together with statistics on food insecurity and hunger in the US.

“You can’t cover up defeats with false claims,” he said.

President Donald Trump says the United States is “hopefully toward the end” of its war with Iran, claiming that he has directly spoken to officials in Tehran, raising the prospect of renewed diplomacy even as fighting has erupted in Yemen.

However, there is still no confirmation from Tehran that direct negotiations with Washington have resumed. Just a day earlier, a senior Iranian official publicly rejected talks unless Iran’s conditions were met. Tehran, which has, in effect, closed the Strait of Hormuz, has been demanding that the US honour the terms of the deal signed in June.

Trump’s comments come as the conflict has expanded into Yemen, putting increasing pressure on global energy supplies amid an Iran-imposed blockade of the strait through which a fifth of global oil and gas passes. Oil prices crossed $100 per barrel last week and continue to rise as Iran-linked Houthis have damaged Saudi oil installations amid renewed fighting.

So, what is the latest on the diplomatic front, and will the war end soon?

What is Trump saying?

“Well, hopefully we are toward the end of the war,” he told reporters on Wednesday. “They want to make a deal. We’ll see how that works out.”

When asked by a reporter whether he had recently heard from the Iranian side, Trump said he had spoken with them “directly”.

The comments come after Trump on Monday said he was open to talks, and added that Iran “wants to make a deal, quickly and badly” and that he would decide whether Washington would engage with Tehran.

However, Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, accused Trump of sending “mixed signals” and said “no talks until Iran’s conditions are met”.

Trump’s claim that he has heard from Iran “directly” is significant because negotiations between Washington and Tehran have repeatedly depended on intermediaries, including Qatar, Pakistan and Oman. This is not the first time that Trump has claimed direct communication with Iran.

Former Iranian diplomat Abbas Khameyar dismissed Trump’s claims. “I don’t think there has been any additional effort beyond what was already under way in recent weeks,” he told Al Jazeera.

There is a US narrative, he stated, “with tweets and statements by President Trump claiming that the Iranians are calling, pleading and asking for a meeting. But nobody believes this, and matters have not unfolded in that way.”

He added that Iran’s diplomatic activity has not moved beyond the framework already in place in recent weeks, centred on securing enforcement of the existing Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) rather than opening new negotiations.

What is the latest on the US-Iran diplomacy front?

On Thursday, Iran’s semiofficial Tasnim news agency reported that Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held a telephone call with Pakistani army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir, who has been leading the high-stakes diplomatic and mediation efforts between Washington and Tehran.

Araghchi held the phone call while still in Beijing, during which they discussed and consulted on the latest regional developments and issues of mutual interest, according to Tasnim.

A day earlier, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called on the US and Iran to exercise restraint and “reopen the Strait of Hormuz at an early date”, following his meeting with Araghchi in Beijing.

Araghchi, in a statement after the meeting, said that Tehran seeks “the restoration of calm to the region and friendly and peaceful relations with our neighbours”.

“In this regard we have begun dialogue with the countries of the region,” he added.

In a post on X, Araghchi described consultations with Chinese officials as “successful”, saying Tehran values the strategic partnership it has built with Beijing.

“Today’s decisions will decide the future strategic balance in the region, with immeasurable knock-on effects,” Araghchi said on Thursday.

China has avoided direct involvement in the war, but President Xi Jinping, at the BRICS summit in New Delhi over the weekend, offered Beijing’s willingness to play a role in peace efforts. He called on BRICS nations to advance peace in the Middle East.

Huiyao Wang, president of the Center For China and Globalization think tank in Beijing, says China’s role in international affairs is increasing in importance during the current geopolitical turmoil.

“China has an enormous role to exercise if needed. So the mere fact that the two fighting parties have no end in sight shows the need for a big guarantor to come in … I think the US wants to end this war and they also need China’s help,” Wang told Al Jazeera.

Meanwhile, US media outlet Axios is reporting that Trump is expected to meet Gulf leaders on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly next week to discuss the conflict, which has hugely affected oil exports from the Middle Eastern countries.

Diplomatic efforts have repeatedly stalled since a Pakistan-brokered MoU signed by Washington and Tehran collapsed last month, as the two sides accused each other of violating their commitments.

The MoU was supposed to kick-start a 60-day period for peace talks between the warring sides and included provisions for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which has become a major flashpoint in the war.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said earlier this month that Tehran would return to the agreement if Washington did the same.

What do we know about the Houthi meeting with US officials?

US officials met representatives of Yemen’s Houthi movement at the US embassy in Muscat over the weekend, five sources told Reuters news agency. Oman helped organise the meeting.

The Houthis told US officials they did not intend to attack American vessels and remained committed to their 2025 ceasefire with Washington, according to two sources.

One source said they also pledged not to target Israeli or other commercial vessels, with the exception of Saudi ships.

The conflict had largely subsided in recent years after a 2022 ceasefire between the Saudi-backed government and the Iran-aligned Houthis, but reignited in July.

In recent weeks, the Houthis have seized Yemen’s entire Red Sea coastline to cement their grip on the key Bab al-Mandeb strait – a vital maritime route connecting Asia with Europe – while declaring a blockade on Saudi shipping.

The strategic waterway is a critical maritime corridor linking the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and has become an alternative shipping route as the US war against Iran choked the Strait of Hormuz.

The United States has acknowledged deploying space weapons in orbit of the Earth.

US Air Force Secretary Troy Meink confirmed on Monday that the so-called “space control weapons” would be used to defend US forces on the planet, marking a significant new chapter in the militarisation of space – or at least the transparency of it.

The announcement, which Meink framed as a message to US rivals China and Russia, could turn Earth’s orbit into an increasingly contested military domain, experts warn. Warfare could include countries targeting each other’s satellites, which provide critical services such as GPS, communications and intelligence to military forces on the ground, as well as civilian infrastructure.

“Space Force doctrine describes ‘space control’ as having the outcome of space superiority, which they define as the ability to operate at the time and place of their choosing, while denying the same to an adversary,” Victoria Samson, chief director of Space Security and Stability for Secure World Foundation, a private non-profit focused on military space and security issues, told Al Jazeera.

So, what do we know about the US-deployed weapons in space? And do some countries already have them?

What do we know about these space weapons?

Not a lot. Air Force Secretary Meink said the US has stationed “weapons” in Earth’s orbit, but did not specify when they were placed there, how many there are, or what they are designed to do.

“Today, we continue to ensure we remain ready to meet the challenges of evolving threats wherever they exist,” Meink said at the Air, Space and Cyber Conference. “This is why the United States now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the Joint Force against hostile adversary action.”

However, he did not give any details about what sort of weapons these may be, where they are positioned or what they are designed to do.

Samson said the keyword from Meink’s announcement is “weapons” in the context of “space control”. “Space control encapsulates the mission areas required to contest and control the space domain – employing kinetic and non-kinetic means to affect adversary capabilities,” Meink said, adding that “these capabilities can be employed for offensive and defensive purposes”.

“That’s the first time any official has acknowledged an actually designed weapon has been placed in space,” Samson told Al Jazeera. “It’s always been ‘systems with capabilities’ prior.”

Experts say these weapons are likely to be space-based communications jammers rather than kinetic ones that launch strikes. Kinetic weapons – for instance, a suicide satellite designed to ram into an adversary’s satellite – would likely cause fast-moving debris to be launched dangerously into space.

Bleddyn Bowen, an associate professor in astropolitics at Durham University in the United Kingdom, told the BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme: “We don’t know exactly what the mechanism of the weapon is. I would expect there to be some kind of electronic warfare or radio-jamming platform. This would be a non-destructive kind of anti-satellite weapon, and these variants already exist on Earth.

“Less likely would be a kinetic kill vehicle of some sort, so a vehicle that would release a projectile of some sort that would ram into a satellite and destroy it.”

What is the US Space Force?

The US Space Force is the newest branch of the US military, created in December 2019 under President Donald Trump’s first term, responsible for organising and conducting US military operations in and through space.

Unlike NASA, which focuses on civilian space exploration, Space Force is part of the US Air Force and comes under US Space Command, which is headquartered at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia.

Its responsibilities include operating and protecting military satellites, providing satellite communications and positioning services, monitoring objects and potential threats in space, and supporting US forces on Earth.

“China and Russia are developing new space systems to enhance military effectiveness and end any reliance on US space services,” the Space Force’s website says. “China and Russia are also testing and fielding sophisticated counterspace capabilities with the intent to disrupt and degrade US space-enabled capabilities.”

Aren’t there treaties limiting weapons deployments in space?

Yes, but they do not amount to a blanket ban on weapons in space.

The key agreement is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits countries from placing nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or stationing them in outer space. It also bans military bases and weapons testing on the moon and other celestial bodies.

However, the treaty does not expressly prohibit conventional weapons from being placed in Earth’s orbit. That means systems such as conventional anti-satellite weapons, electronic-warfare systems, or other counterspace capabilities are not automatically prohibited.

Such gaps leave room for interpretation and are at the heart of current international efforts to enhance military activities in space.

How have Russia and China reacted to the US announcement?

China’s Foreign Ministry opposed the move, warning against the “weaponisation of outer space, turning it into a battlefield, as well as an arms race there”.

“We urge the US side to stop expanding its military capabilities and preparing for war in outer space,” ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun told a news briefing.

Russia called for space to be kept “free of any weapons”.

“We are counting on broad international consolidation to continue working towards the complete demilitarisation of space,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

Are Russia and China developing space weapons too?

Independent reports from research groups and think tanks note that both China and Russia are developing a broad range of counterspace capabilities designed to interfere with, disable, or potentially destroy satellites and other space systems.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a foreign policy think tank based in Washington, DC, identified both countries as possessing or developing kinetic and non-kinetic counterspace weapons.

A 2025 CSIS report notes that both Moscow and Beijing have direct-ascent anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, as well as capabilities involving jamming, spoofing, and cyber operations.

Samson of the Secure World Foundation (SWF) told Al Jazeera that her team has highlighted in their reports that “China and Russia have space-based jammers”. Therefore, she told Al Jazeera, “I always thought it would be strange that the US didn’t have them too.”

Bowen told the BBC: “In the last 10 years, Russia and China have been doing a lot more manoeuvres in space – rendezvous and proximity operations, as we call them – so, flying up really close to Western satellites, inspecting them, taking pictures. And on another occasion, the Chinese have demonstrated a ‘space tug’ capability. So, a vehicle that goes up to a satellite can grapple it and then move it into a different orbit.”

China has executed such a manoeuvre only with one of its own old satellites, which needed to be moved away from its location, he added.

What about other countries?

The emerging space-weapons race is not limited to the US, Russia and China: India has also demonstrated an ASAT capability and is developing technologies that could allow spacecraft to operate alongside other satellites.

France is also reported to be developing co-orbital capabilities, while the UK has conducted on-orbit cooperative operations with the US.

A 2026 report by SWF also notes how Iran, for instance, illustrates the less visible side of space warfare, relying increasingly on jamming and spoofing satellite-based services. Israel, meanwhile, has developed significant military space and electronic-warfare capabilities, although there is no public record of it conducting a debris-generating ASAT test.

Countries like North Korea and South Korea are also racing to develop more sophisticated space-based tech.

Is space the next frontier of war?

Samson told Al Jazeera that the US announcement of deploying weapons in Earth’s orbit is not essentially disruptive in the context of space technology. “What this does is normalise weaponising space,” she said.

“Space has always been a domain with the potential of being a flashpoint for conflict; this just turns up the heat there,” Samson added.

A US Space Force spokesperson told ABC News that the US “capabilities can be employed for offensive and defensive purposes at the direction of combatant commands”. The spokesperson noted that Washington “has warned about Russian and Chinese weapons testing and operationalisation since 2007”.

“Due to their actions, it is no longer a question that space is a warfighting domain,” the spokesperson said. “Open communication strengthens deterrence, prevents adversary miscalculation, and normalises space operations alongside the other services.”

Samson further noted that Meink’s statement “crosses a line”, and would “either encourage China and Russia to also declare weapons in space, or will make US allies and partners want to also place weapons in space”.

“Counterspace capabilities have been proliferating already – this speeds up that trend,” she said, adding that this “is incredibly destabilising and will work against US national security goals”.

“By opening the door to weaponising space, the US loses the most,” Samson noted. “Every person on this planet uses space-based data and services in some way. Any interference with access to or use of space will affect everyone, not just space powers.”

In a historic move last week, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to encourage the use of new world maps which more accurately depict continents with their true sizes.

The move followed months of lobbying by the African Union, which itself adopted a new map earlier in February. A total of 164 countries voted in favour while six abstained.

The United States was the only member to oppose it. US representative Yaryna Ferencevych said before the vote that the resolution was “the reason this institution is losing its credibility”.

“Instead of focusing on genuine problems … this body is debating map projects from the 16th century,” she said.

But since the resolution was approved, at least three other countries have voiced concerns about the changes: India, Ukraine and Japan.

None are explicitly opposed to adopting a new projection. However, they are raising concerns about how certain disputed territories should be depicted.

Here’s what we know:

Why is there a new world map?

The UN endorsed a resolution promoting the Equal Earth projection of the world map, rather than the Mercator projection, which is currently widely used.

The resolution does not ban Mercator or impose a particular replacement – it merely encourages nations to adopt the Equal Earth version, which was created by three researchers in 2018.

The Mercator projection, which was produced by Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569 when the West was busy “conquering” new territories, attempts to show a three-dimensional globe on a two-dimensional surface. That is why countries closer to the poles appear much larger than countries at the equator.

For decades, map experts have pointed out that Mercator’s projection disproportionately shrinks the true size of the African continent and that of other developing regions, while making Europe and the US seem much larger by comparison.

For example, Greenland is shown as roughly the same size as Africa, but, in reality, it could fit into the continent 14 times over. Europe, which is portrayed as bigger than South America, is actually half its size.

Advocates from African countries pointed out that the map is problematic because of the size issues. Importantly, they argued, it reinforces negative perceptions of Africa.

Several cartographers have attempted to develop equal area maps. However, African activists specifically pushed for the Equal Earth projection map, which significantly expands Africa and shrinks Europe and the US.

Experts say while maps are inherently inaccurate because of the constraints of depicting a spherical world on a flat plane, the Equal Earth projection is as close as it gets.

Why is Ukraine worried about the new map?

Ukraine was one of six countries which abstained from the vote at the UNGA, along with Estonia, Georgia, Moldova, Serbia and Lithuania, who voted in solidarity with Ukraine.

Kyiv has complained that the Equal Earth projection depicts the Russian-occupied Crimean peninsula in a distinctly lighter shade than mainland Ukraine.

Russia illegally occupied and annexed Crimea in February 2014, a move the UN has denounced.

Although the peninsula is also shaded differently from mainland Russia on the new map, its yellowish tint appears closer to the Russian shade than Ukraine’s.

“Ukraine does not in principle oppose the core issue addressed in this draft resolution,” Andrii Melnyk, the country’s permanent representative to the UN, said in an address to the assembly.

Melnyk said Kyiv had asked for corrections before the vote but had not received positive responses. The new map, he said, could be tantamount to opening a Pandora’s box, enabling the “abuse and distortion” of the world map.

“It would be a truly fatal mistake for all of us, and for this General Assembly, to seek to correct a historical injustice in the geographical depiction of countries and continents by simultaneously allowing a deeply troubling interpretation of the text of this draft resolution,” he added.

What is Japan demanding?

Meanwhile, on Thursday, Tokyo, which voted in favour of the new map, said it had also asked for corrections to the Equal Earth projection because the map uses the same colours and shades for Russian territory as it does for the disputed Kuril Islands.

Russia and Japan have long fought over control of the four islands, known in Russia as the Southern Kurils and in Japan as the Northern Territories. In 1945, during World War II, the Soviet Union invaded and annexed the islands as part of a pact with Western Allies that stipulated the Soviets would take the disputed territory. The islands’ Japanese inhabitants were removed.

Subsequently, Japan and the US have claimed that the islands were not part of the original pact. The islands, however, remain under Russian administration.

In August this year, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin paid his first-ever visit to the islands, drawing condemnation from Japan. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi called the visit “absolutely unacceptable”, saying it “offends the sentiments of the Japanese people”.

This week, Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara said the Japanese embassy in the US has asked Equal Earth’s creators to change the map.

“Displays that contradict the Japanese government’s position are seen [on the map],” Kihara said at a news conference. “We need to prevent incorrect perceptions regarding our country’s territories and geographical names from spreading.”

Why is India uneasy about the map?

India also voted in favour of the Equal Earth projection, but on Sunday, the Ministry of External Affairs published a caveat regarding depictions of the disputed border territory of Kashmir.

Following the Indian partition of 1947, both Pakistan and India lay claim to the former state of Jammu and Kashmir, which had been controlled by the British through indirect rule. The region has subsequently been a flashpoint for tensions between the two rivals and has led to several wars.

Parts of Kashmir are administered by Pakistan, while other parts are administered by India. China, which also disputes some Kashmir territory with India, administers its northeastern portion.

In his statement, spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal noted that the UN vote was in favour of encouraging the use of equal area projections and that it had not made the use of any one map mandatory.

“India’s sovereign territory, including the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, must be depicted in accordance with India’s official map,” he said. “Any inaccurate or misleading depiction is unacceptable.”

Yemen’s more than a decade-long civil war has flared up once again after the Houthi rebel group launched an offensive in several locations against Saudi Arabian-backed government forces. The conflict has already spilled over beyond the country’s borders with the Houthis launching an attack on southern Saudi Arabia, targeting oil facilities and wounding dozens of people this week.

The renewed hostilities are the most serious since a United Nations-brokered truce halted large-scale fighting in 2022, after eight years of a full-blown conflict that killed tens of thousands of people in one of the world’s poorest countries.

So who is involved in this conflict? Here’s a look at the main actors:

The Houthis

The Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah (supporters of God), are an armed group controlling most parts of Yemen, including the capital, Sanaa, and some of the western and northern areas close to Saudi Arabia.

The Houthis emerged in the 1990s but rose to international prominence in 2014, when the group rebelled against Yemen’s government, forcing it to step down and causing a crippling humanitarian crisis.

The group then spent years, with Iran’s backing, fighting a military coalition led by Saudi Arabia. The two warring sides have also repeatedly tried to hold peace talks.

Seen as part of a regional alliance known as the “axis of resistance” backed by Iran, the Shia Zaidi group nevertheless has its own base, its own interests – and its own ambitions.

The Houthis have demonstrated their missile and drone capabilities during the Yemen war in attacks on Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, targeting oil installations and vital infrastructure. They have also proven resilient, defying more than 10 years of bombing by the Saudi-led coalition, as well as US and British strikes in recent years.

The group has gained international prominence for its attacks on Israel and shipping in the Red Sea since the start of Israel’s genocide in Gaza in October 2023.

Saudi Arabia

Riyadh entered the Yemen war when it led a military coalition against the Houthis in March 2015, seeking to restore the government of then-President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi. Back then, Saudi Arabia and Iran were at the peak of a regional competition, both deeply distrusting each other. An Iran-supported group expanding control at the kingdom’s southern border was unacceptable, hence the military action.

This was before a China-brokered rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023 marked the beginning of a more practical and less confrontational relationship.

Presidential Leadership Council

The PLC was established in 2022 when the former president, Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, formally transferred his powers to the new eight-member body.

It represents the internationally recognised government of Yemen, with a mandate to manage the country’s political, security and military affairs, and to steer negotiations towards a permanent ceasefire. It is chaired by Rashad al-Alimi, an adviser to Hadi and former interior minister with the government of the late president, Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Its membership is drawn from a mix of northern and southern politicians and military-linked leaders in a bid to unite major anti-Houthi forces under one roof.

The PLC is backed by Saudi Arabia and the alliance that Riyadh leads.

Islah party

The Yemeni Congregation for Reform, better known as Islah, is a Sunni Islamist movement with historic ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a faction within the recognised PLC-led government but has long had an independent identity. Its major stronghold has long been Marib, the country’s sole gas-producing region with one of its largest oilfields.

National Resistance Forces

The National Resistance Forces is a government-aligned military faction led by Tareq Saleh, nephew of the late former President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

The force has maintained ties to Saudi Arabia and, like the Islah party, is part of the PLC. It aims for a unified Yemen, positioning itself as a counterweight to both the Houthis and southern secessionists.

The United Kingdom has announced a ban on the import of all goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband said in Parliament on Tuesday.

It comes in response to an intensifying wave of Israeli settler pogroms and settlement expansions in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The ban, set to come into effect within six to nine months, would target settlement exports such as dates, olive oil and agricultural products, with Miliband saying he did not believe “the British people want us supporting the occupation by accepting products from settlements in our shops”.

The International Court of Justice in July 2024 called Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory “unlawful”. Months later, the United Nations passed a resolution calling for an end to the Israeli occupation within a year.

Israel’s response was furious, as it announced four “counter-measures”, including banning 12 British MPs from entering Israel and closing the British consulate in Jerusalem.

After Miliband’s speech, 11 more countries: Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden, shared a joint statement supporting the so-called two-state solution and announcing their own intentions to impose restrictions on trade with illegal Israeli settlements.

Spain and Ireland had already announced their own national bans earlier this year, alongside the Netherlands and Belgium.

How much do these countries trade with Israel?

Aside from Canada and the UK, the rest of the countries considering or already banning settlement goods are European Union members.

The EU is Israel’s largest trading partner, accounting for 31.7 percent of Israel’s total trade in goods in 2025 (43.3 billion euros, or $50.4bn), according to the European Commission. The EU supplied 33.1 percent of Israel’s imports (28 billion euros, or $32.6bn) and received 29.4 percent of Israel’s exports (15.3 billion euros or $17.8bn).

Israel is the EU’s 27th largest trade partner, with Ireland, the Netherlands and Germany being its biggest individual trade partners.

According to a 2026 report by Global Echo Litigation Center, a Palestinian rights legal advocacy group, roughly 5,900 shipments from Israel were headed to Europe, with more than 17 percent containing products originating from settlements.

While no specific figures for settlement trade alone are known, it is understood to be a tiny fraction of total EU-Israel trade, meaning the ban’s impact is much more symbolic than economic.

The table below shows each country’s total trade with Israel for the European countries that have banned, or are introducing bans on, illegal Israeli settlement goods.

The top five European trading partners with Israel either enforcing or set to introduce settlement bans are Ireland, the Netherlands, the UK, France and Spain.

Ireland

Ireland-Israel bilateral trade totalled $5.36bn in 2025. Ireland is Israel’s second-largest export market for goods after the United States, driven largely by tech, particularly semiconductors and integrated circuits.

The Netherlands

Netherlands-Israel bilateral trade totalled roughly $4.8bn in 2025. The Netherlands is also Israel’s largest single foreign investor, accounting for roughly two-thirds of all EU investment in the country.

United Kingdom

According to UN Comtrade, UK-Israel bilateral trade totalled $3.73bn in 2025. An Al Jazeera investigation found at least 17 companies linked to illegal Israeli settlements hold more than 2.1 billion pounds ($2.85bn) in UK public-sector contracts.

France

France-Israel bilateral trade totalled $3.62bn in 2025. A large part of France’s trade with Israel constitutes export licences for surveillance and military technologies.

Spain

Spain-Israel bilateral trade totalled $2.79bn in 2025. In September that year, Spain banned the import of goods from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, as well as the trade of arms.

What are Israeli settlements?

Israeli settlements are Jewish-only communities built illegally on Palestinian land.

Settlements are illegal under international law as they violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, which bans an occupying power from transferring its population to the area it occupies.

Illegal Israeli settlements continue to grow, decades after the 1993 Oslo Accords, which established limited Palestinian self-rule and were meant to lead to a permanent peace settlement.

At the time, about 270,000 settlers lived across the occupied territory. Today, that figure has more than doubled to between 600,000 and 750,000 people, about 10 percent of Israel’s Jewish population, living across some 250 illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The Eiffel Tower was temporarily closed on Monday after workers went on strike to protest the sidelining of female staff during a private visit by a Hindu religious group.

The tower, which has since reopened, shut after members of Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS), a global socio‑spiritual Hindu denomination, visited the site. Female staff were reportedly asked to give way to male staff for the group’s tour, prompting protests from the workers’ union, outrage from French politicians and an apology from the Hindu group.

Here is more about BAPS and how the controversy unfolded.

What’s the controversy about?

The Eiffel Tower closed after staff walked out over the removal of women staff during a weekend visit by BAPS.

The Societe d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel, or SETE, which runs the Paris landmark, acknowledged that the group had requested the Saturday visit be organised in a way that limited “interactions with women”, and said “these conditions should not have been accepted”.

The BAPS monks, or sadhus, practise strict celibacy, which requires them to avoid physical contact with women and being alone in their company, and to minimise personal interaction or attention towards the opposite sex.

Wider community members of BAPS are not bound by these celibacy rules. According to news reports, the BAPS delegation visiting the Eiffel Tower comprised both monks and community members.

Eiffel Tower staff said in a statement that they condemned “professional instructions that led to female employees being sidelined, replaced and made invisible because of their sex” during the visit by the delegation.

“Some were asked to leave their posts and withdraw to other areas. In some posts they were replaced by men. And all female employees were instructed not to go through or cross certain areas while the delegation was present,” the staff union said, adding they were shocked to have been put in such a situation.

Paris Mayor Emmanuel Gregoire said an investigation would be launched “as soon as possible”. In a post on social media, he said he was aware of the employees’ anger and agreed their dissatisfaction was legitimate.

What is BAPS and how have they responded?

BAPS was founded in India in 1907 and began expanding internationally from the 1960s. It is a spiritual organisation which works on community building, constructing temples, helping with disaster relief and running medical camps, environmental drives and educational programmes.

It now also runs an extensive network of temples and cultural centres across the world, including more than 100 in the United States and more than 1,000 worldwide, including across Europe, Africa and Asia. BAPS also runs a temple in Paris.

On Tuesday, the BAPS Paris account posted a statement on X responding to the controversy.

“To our knowledge, at no time was access to the Eiffel Tower denied to anyone,” the account wrote, originally in French.

“Nevertheless, we wish to offer our sincere apologies to anyone who may have been hurt or inconvenienced by this situation,” it added.

How has the response in France been?

Leaders within France expressed outrage over reports of women being removed from the premises.

Aurore Berge, the minister delegate for gender equality and fight against discrimination in France, wrote in an X post on Monday: “In France, we do not ask women to step aside. No dogma, no religion is superior to the laws of the Republic.”

Yael Braun-Pivet, president of the National Assembly, wrote in a post on social media: “Welcoming others never means giving up our values. In France, women are fully present in public life. No one tells them to become invisible.”

Former French President Francois Hollande, now an MP, wrote on X on Tuesday: “We do not ask women to step aside to satisfy religious demands.”

He expressed support for the Eiffel Tower staff who walked out.

“Equality between women and men is a fundamental achievement of our Republic. It applies everywhere, to all women and all men, without exception,” Hollande wrote.

Parliamentarian and former PM Michel Barnier wrote on X: “It is therefore utterly unacceptable that an order aimed at making women disappear from this space could have been issued.”

Barnier added that “women are not hidden. They are not erased. They are respected, and their freedom is defended”, demanding an explanation from the SETE.

Jordan Bardella, the president of the far-right National Rally, wrote on X on Tuesday: “This degrading demand should never have been met. In a free country like France, gender equality is respected, and no religious reason can override women’s dignity.”

Prominent far-right MP and leader of the National Rally (RN), Marine Le Pen wrote in an X post: “In France, we will never accept that the presence of women be ‘limited.’”

Is BAPS linked to the Modi government?

BAPS is not officially part of a political party in India, and has long insisted that it is apolitical.

But researchers have long pointed to a close, cooperative relationship with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government.

In fact, the Eiffel Tower closure came just a day after Modi virtually inaugurated the BAPS temple in Paris.

Modi also attended the physical inauguration of the BAPS temple in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2024.

Has BAPS faced other controversies in the past?

BAPS has faced a series of high-profile controversies in the past.

During a landmark legal battle in 1966, BAPS leaders argued in court that their sect was not part of Hinduism but a distinct religion. They did so in an attempt to avoid the Bombay Harijan Temple Entry Act, which required Hindu temples to open their doors to Dalits, a historically marginalised caste group. The Indian Supreme Court rejected the appeal made by BAPS.

In 2013, two former BAPS monks filed a complaint accusing senior BAPS leaders of sexual assault dating back to the 1970s. BAPS leaders denied the allegations. The complaint did not result in any publicly reported criminal charges.

In 2021, a US federal class‑action lawsuit accused BAPS of exploiting low‑caste labourers from India to work on its temples. The case, brought on behalf of about 200 Indian workers, alleged they were lured from India, coerced into employment agreements, and forced to work more than 12 hours a day with only five days off a year at a temple in Robbinsville Township, New Jersey.

The suit says they were paid as little as $1.20 an hour, far below the US federal minimum wage of $7.25 and New Jersey’s $12 statewide minimum.

A US federal investigation into labour trafficking at the Robbinsville temple has since been closed without criminal charges, but the civil class‑action lawsuit brought by the workers continues.

One year ago, thousands of young people took to the streets in multiple Nepali cities to protest against corruption. Following the resulting curfews, arrests and the killing of protesters in a crackdown on the demonstrations, the Gen Z‑led movement forced the government from power, ushering in an interim administration and opening the way for new elections.

Now, as Nepal grapples with the aftermath of devastating floods along its border with Tibet, we examine what has changed over the past year – and whether the demands of the Gen Z protesters have been met.

What happened in Nepal last year?

On September 8, 2025, youth-led “Gen Z” protests began in Kathmandu and other cities of Nepal.

Demonstrators who took to the streets were protesting a series of corruption scandals in the country and were also angered by the rising trend of the children of Nepali government officials – dubbed “Nepo kids” – documenting their lavish lifestyles online.

The protests broke out just days after the country blocked 26 social media sites including Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and TikTok for not complying with government rules about “harmful” content. This ban was lifted when the protests began.

Some young demonstrators defied curfews imposed by the authorities after demonstrations began, leading to arrests and the police firing live rounds at protesters, killing about 76 people. Hundreds of protesters were injured and hundreds more arrested. Protesters also set fire to several government buildings, including parliament, and the army was deployed.

Then, on September 9, Prime Minister KP Oli, 74, resigned from his position. Within a week, Nepal’s former Chief Justice Sushila Karki had been appointed as the country’s new interim prime minister.

Ultimately, the protests culminated in the current government being formed in March this year when 35-year-old rapper-turned-politician Balendra Shah was sworn in as the country’s youngest-ever prime minister.

Shah leads the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), also known as the National Independent Party, a new anti‑establishment party which emerged after the youth-led protests and won more than two‑thirds of the 165 directly elected seats in parliament in March. Traditional parties such as the Nepali Congress and the CPN‑UML have a much smaller representation than ever before.

Although he was not a street organiser of the protests, Shah became one of the most prominent political figures, channelling Gen Z’s anger into his electoral campaign.

What were the key demands of the Gen Z protesters?

They included:

• An end to corruption: Protesters demanded greater transparency and accountability from political elites they view as corrupt, as well as an end to nepotism, whereby the children of those elites live in luxury while many young Nepalis struggle financially.
• Mass resignations and suspensions: Protesters called for the resignation of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and the mass resignation of parliamentarians. They also called for an immediate suspension of officials who issued the order to fire on protesters.
• Political overhaul: The protesters called for the dissolution of parliament, establishment of an interim government and holding new general elections.

Have these demands been met?

The demands have been met to some extent.

For instance, Oli resigned in the wake of the Gen Z‑led protests, and several senior members of his government also stepped down. Parliament was dissolved, an interim government was established, and new general elections were held in March this year.

“Despite the loss of life and property during the movement, the interim government successfully conducted peaceful elections, leading to the emergence of a new political force in government,” Yog Raj Lamichhane, an assistant professor at Nepal’s Pokhara University, told Al Jazeera.

“The result reflected public disenchantment with the old political establishment.”

In March this year, Nepal police arrested Oli and former Home Affairs Minister Ramesh Lekhak for their alleged involvement in the deadly crackdown on the protesters last year.

However, both men were released in April after a Supreme Court order asked the police not to indefinitely extend the detention. They remain under investigation in connection with last year’s deadly Gen Z protests, but have not been formally charged.

Furthermore, the issue of corruption among political elites has barely been addressed, observers say.

Dinesh Paudel, professor at the Appalachain State University in the US, told Al Jazeera: “The fundamental concerns and issues raised by the young protestor last year are still the same, and there are no governance style changes even after the new elected government, other than some populist rhetorics on small and cosmetic topics.”

Has the leadership change made any difference?

Some of the young leaders have entered parliament and government, while others remain in activist groups. The divisions between these two groups of people are becoming more apparent as they often clash over how much to compromise with the old political establishment.

Those who were elected to parliament in March mostly belong to the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), or National Independent Party.

“One of the most exciting and progressive parts is the emergence of youth in politics as most of the parliamentarians are young, educated and have much aspiration to change,” Bishnu Raj Upreti, a public policy analyst and research director at Nepal Centre for Contemporary Research (NCCR), told Al Jazeera.

“The leadership change appears to have brought some positive differences, particularly in the working style of the current prime minister,” Lamichhane said.

However, experts say the younger generation of MPs – those elected under the NIP/RSP banner as well as those in older parties – remains constrained by party hierarchies and Nepal’s entrenched political system.

“They are inexperienced and are still heavily controlled by party structures,” Upreti said. He added that wider generational distrust between young politicians and the older establishment also complicated reform efforts.

“Leadership change has started. It is good, but not enough.”

This has resulted in an apparent divide between those in government positions and those in activist groups.

In May this year, the new government invited Gen Z activists – mostly civil society leaders and youth activists – to give their input for constitutional amendments. However, 25 of the 29 invited boycotted the meeting, saying deeper systemic problems and earlier agreements with the previous administration were being ignored, according to Gen Z activist Aayush Basyal.

Basyal, who was present at the protests last year, said it was “really tricky” for young activists to adjust to working inside the system alongside the new Gen‑Z politicians now in office. “They are trying to cooperate with the authorities they previously challenged, while still pushing for the radical changes they demanded on the streets,” she explained.

“Now the Gen Z protesters of that time are divided into different factions, and some of the factions are vehemently opposing some work of government,” Upreti explained.

“So those who oppose the government are not in positive booking of the government,” Upreti added.

Where are the protesters now?

On Tuesday, families of protesters who were killed in last year’s crackdown organised a formal commemoration at what used to be Nepal’s parliament building.

After functioning as the parliament building for almost two decades, it shut down last year when Gen Z protesters trespassed and set fire to it.

Basyal said the authorities provided tight security amid rumours that some groups might try to incite violence, noting that Nepal’s “media economy” often amplifies sensational incidents even when only a few people are involved.

In the meantime, however, the divide within the Gen Z movement is becoming more stark, particularly what some see as a failure by the new leaders to advocate for protesters.

“The injured protesters have generally received medical treatment and certain monetary compensation,” Lamicchane said.

“However, the concept of compensation remains broader than financial support alone. In my view, the true compensation would be the fulfilment of the promises and objectives that inspired the Gen Z movement and the subsequent formation of a new government.”

Basyal said that while some of the people involved in the movement are now MPs or cabinet ministers, others, from poor, minority backgrounds, who lack money and influence, are still in jail and cannot speak up for themselves.

“There are people still in jail, officially more than 900 and unofficially, maybe like 1,600 plus, who are in jail for arson,” Basyal said.

He said it was troubling that these protesters remain in jail, suggesting this risks becoming “institutionalised” and raising questions over whether the government is effectively celebrating impunity.

Activists, he added, hope the new administration will treat these detainees better, but “that is yet to be seen.”

What still needs to change?

Analysts say structural changes are necessary.

“Although the government has promised reforms, particularly through changes in laws and policies, these commitments have not yet been substantially realised,” Lamichhane said.

Upreti noted that the new government has not begun any structural changes at all.

“Structural changes have to start with changing existing laws and bringing in new laws and policies,” he said.

“From what we’ve seen so far, the new leaders don’t appear to be prioritising that. Massive reform of the bureaucracy is a precondition to achieving the aims of the Gen Z movement, but the government has not yet done meaningful work in this line.”

He added that another important element is to develop better relations and deeper trust with Nepal’s two giant neighbours, India and China, since Nepal’s economic progress and geopolitical balance depend on them.

Experts also say Nepal’s highly centralised system of government is a major obstacle to deeper structural reform.

“Strong collaboration of the federal movement with provincial and local government is the necessary condition for advancing economic progress, but they ignore provincial and local government as they have no provincial and local government. It is not a good approach,” Upreti said.

“Structural changes are necessary and they come from internal power dynamics such as urban-rural divide, inherent conflict between educated elites and peasant farmers and economic and bureaucratically institutionalised corruption,” Patel said. “It is hard to imagine that there will be any structural changes, aiming to making people’s lives better, at this stage and under current circumstances.

“In short, Nepal has missed yet another opportunity from a popular uprising that would fundamentally address Nepali peoples desire for change.”

What’s next?

“This new government seems to be deeply under its own weight of expectation,” Basyal said.

He explained that historically in Nepal, there’s been an “expectation gap”: people expect a lot, governments deliver little, and that gap fuels frustration.

He said that this government has “not been transparent”.

“The prime minister, he doesn’t speak a lot in the parliament. And when he did address the parliament a few times, that was pretty chaotic, as well,” Basyal added.

“If this issue remains unaddressed, it may lead to a second wave of public disenchantment.”

Lamichhane said, however, it will take time to see if the government can address the challenges it faces.

“Let’s hope and wait for changes. Now, it’s not the appropriate time to criticise the government, as Nepal has faced an apocalypse in the form of a massive flood.”

Meanwhile, flags in Nepal flew at half-mast on Monday as the country mourned the more-than-1,300 people who are known to have died in catastrophic floods which ravaged the border region with Tibet late last month. Thousands more people are still missing.

Basyal noted that Nepal’s current constitution was finalised and promulgated in September 2015, only after the devastating April and May earthquakes created urgent political pressure to end nearly a decade of deadlock.

“It feels like the nation comes together only during national disasters. So we’re really hopeful that this sense of unity that is right now will help.”

Yemen’s Houthi group has carried out attacks in southern Saudi Arabia, with Riyadh saying that dozens of people have been wounded, as fighting between the Iran-aligned group and pro-Saudi forces in Yemen sharply escalates.

The Houthis on Tuesday said they targeted Saudi energy sites belonging to oil giant Aramco in southern areas, with the group’s military spokesperson calling it “a broad operation”.

Saudi authorities confirmed attacks on several facilities and installations related to the energy sector in the south of the country, vowing a firm response. Riyadh also accused the Houthis of wounding at least 73 people in the attacks.

The conflict between the Yemeni armed group and Saudi Arabia is unfolding as the Houthis are currently fighting Yemen’s Riyadh-backed internationally recognised government, which announced that it was launching counteroffensives against Houthi-held positions across several provinces on Monday.

The renewed hostilities are the most serious since a UN-brokered truce halted large-scale fighting in 2022, after eight years of a full-blown conflict that killed tens of thousands of people in one of the world’s poorest countries.

The escalation also comes as the strategic importance of Yemen’s Bab al-Mandeb Strait grows amid Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a key passageway for global oil and gas supplies.

The Houthis have sought to advance towards the vital Red Sea shipping route, while government forces say their campaign ultimately aims to retake the Houthi-held capital, Sanaa.

So what do we know about the latest fighting, and what comes next?

How did the fighting between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis unfold?

The Houthis on Monday said Saudi Arabia launched multiple attacks on Houthi-held areas.

The group said Saudi attacks using aircraft and cruise missiles struck al-Jawf, al-Bayda, Marib and Taiz provinces.

Moreover, the Houthis accused Saudi Arabia of carrying out an air strike on a prison in al-Hazm, the capital of al-Jawf, killing seven people and injuring seven others. Riyadh did not immediately comment on the attacks.

At the same time, the Houthis claimed to have shot down Saudi reconnaissance drones over al-Jawf and al-Bayda.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Major-General Turki al-Malki, the Saudi spokesman for the Riyadh-led coalition in Yemen, said the Houthis carried out attacks on the Saudi cities of Abha, Khamis Mushait, Jazan and Najran, injuring at least 73 people, among them women and children.

According to a statement from Saudi Arabia’s Energy Ministry, the strikes also triggered fires at multiple oil installations and utility sites across the kingdom’s southern provinces.

Southern Saudi Arabia is home to key oil infrastructure, including the Jazan refinery, one of the kingdom’s largest, with the capacity to process 400,000 barrels of crude per day.

Shortly after, the Houthis announced that they had targeted Saudi energy infrastructure operated by oil giant Aramco in the south using drones and ballistic missiles.

The group’s military spokesman, Yahya Saree, said the attacks were retaliation for recent Saudi attacks on Houthi-controlled areas across Yemen.

Why is this escalation taking place now?

A key focus of the fighting is the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, the narrow waterway connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden.

The Houthis declared a blockade against Saudi shipping in July. The Houthis have also pushed towards government-held areas near al-Makha (Mocha) and territory bordering the Bab al-Mandeb Strait amid reinforcements and counteroffensives from government forces.

The strait’s strategic importance has increased dramatically because Iran’s restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz have forced Saudi Arabia to rely more heavily on its Red Sea export route. Between March and mid-July, Saudi seaborne crude exports through Bab al-Mandeb were eight times higher than during the same period in 2025.

In 2024, about 4.1 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products passed through the strait daily on average – about 5 percent of the global total.

Ahmed Nagi, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, said the strait holds importance “when we look at the Houthis’ broader strategy”.

“The move towards the western coast is not only about gaining territory on the ground. It also has a maritime dimension,” he told Al Jazeera.

“The Houthis have already linked their military campaign to the Red Sea and the shipping routes around Bab al-Mandeb. So gaining more control over the … western coast could give them greater depth and allow them to sustain pressure on maritime traffic in the Red Sea. In that sense, the ground offensive and their maritime campaign are closely connected.”

The latest escalation also follows fighting that resumed in July after an Iranian aircraft attempted to land in Sanaa without Saudi authorisation, followed by strikes on Sanaa airport and Houthi retaliation.

What is happening between government forces and the Houthis?

On Sunday, Yemen’s internationally recognised government said its warplanes had struck Houthi positions in Hodeidah, Marib and al-Jawf, as fighting spread across several fronts.

On Monday, government-aligned forces stepped up their counteroffensive. They announced a ground push towards the al-Labanat mountains in al-Jawf, while also reporting rocket attacks on Yatma and “intensive battles” with Houthi fighters in the province. Government forces also claimed advances towards Dhi Na’im district in al-Bayda.

The Houthis said they had repelled the advance towards al-Labanat and inflicted casualties on government-aligned forces. Houthi official Mohammed al-Farah also claimed the group fired ballistic missiles at reinforcements in al-Jawf.

By late Monday, government-aligned forces reported carrying out further air attacks against Houthi positions west of Taiz.

Al Jazeera could not independently verify the battlefield claims by the Houthis or the Yemeni government.

Rashad al-Alimi, who heads Yemen’s Saudi-backed Presidential Leadership Council, meanwhile said on Monday that government forces had made significant gains against the Houthis, pointing to advances in al-Jawf, al-Bayda, Taiz and Hodeidah.

“Our armed forces will continue to carry out their constitutional duty until state institutions are restored and their authority extends over the entire territory of Yemen,” al-Alimi said in a statement.

Yemen’s deputy defence minister, Major-General Samir al-Sabri, said in comments aired on state television that the government had resolved to “retake Sanaa”.

Majid al-Nuzaili, a spokesperson for government-aligned forces, said the goal of the offensive was to “liberate Yemen from the grip” of the Houthis “and restore Sanaa as a capital for all Yemenis”.

What is the humanitarian situation on the ground?

The World Health Organization said on Monday that at least 728 people have been killed or wounded in Yemen since August 23, with the majority in Taiz and along the western coast.

It said an estimated 21,000 people, roughly 3,000 families, have been displaced from Taiz alone since Thursday.

Al Jazeera’s Yousef Mawry, reporting from Sanaa, said the casualty count is expected to rise.

“These casualties are said to be in the hundreds from both sides, especially as we have reports of air strikes being conducted in the governorate of al-Jawf,” he said.

The Crisis Group’s Nagi said the world was witnessing “significant deterioration in what is already a catastrophic situation”.

“We saw in the past few days a lot of displacement from areas where there has been fighting between the two sides, especially in Taiz,” he noted.

“Those are the direct impacts, but there are also indirect ones. The economic situation is likely to get worse, which will put even more pressure on the humanitarian situation. Ultimately, I think it will depend on how long this round of fighting lasts. The longer the conflict continues, the greater the humanitarian impact will be.”

What’s next?

Analyst Hisham al-Omeisy said the fighting in the war-torn country was no longer simply a domestic one.

“We are way beyond the concept [of it] being domestic. It all started with the Houthis pushing to control Bab al-Mandeb and the western coast, to control the chokehold on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula, with the Iranians controlling the Strait of Hormuz,” al-Omeisy, a senior Yemen adviser at the European Institute of Peace, told Al Jazeera.

“This is definitely not domestic, especially when the Houthis have started attacking Saudi Arabia as well for the better part of the last month, and now escalating since today [Tuesday].”

Domestically, the Crisis Group’s Nagi said it was “unclear” what the outcome of this round of fighting will be, describing the situation on the ground as “very fluid”.

“But what we are seeing is that the government seems to be in a stronger position than at any time before, and it sees this round of fighting as an opportunity to consolidate its position and gain more territory from the Houthis,” he added, while warning that this did not mean the Houthis were weak.

“It’s true that the Houthis are fighting in Taiz, and they were the ones who launched the offensive against government forces there and made some gains. But on other fronts, in al-Jawf, al-Bayda, Marib and elsewhere, government forces have advanced and gained several key areas, while the Houthis have been on the defensive.”

On whether there will be a winner in this conflict, al-Omeisy said that in the long term, he expects a negotiated settlement.

“Look at the history of Yemen … we always inevitably reach some sort of a deal, so it’s not going to be a winner-takes-all,” he said.

“I don’t imagine there’s going to be a push to regain the capital [Sanaa], for instance. It’s going to be a bloodbath if they [government-aligned forces] do that.”

“There’s going to be a humbling of the Houthi forces. There’s going to be losses. But eventually, you will need a political deal,” al-Omeisy added.

According to Saudi political analyst Khaled Batarfi, the Houthi strikes will trigger a response but not a prolonged war.

“This is an escalation, of course,” Batarfi told Al Jazeera. In past attacks, Saudi Arabia tried “to not get engaged in a civil war, keep its distance and not to respond to attacks. But now this is too much [of an escalation],” he said.

“The coalition will have a say on that. This is a civil war inside Yemen, and it affects us as one of the parties. And so any response … in the same way [will be] an eye for an eye. But I don’t see a prolonged war – not with Iran and not with the Houthis.”

Tehran has threatened “serious consequences” for South Korea if it interferes in the US-Israel war on Iran.

The warning comes amid reports that Seoul is mulling contributing to the US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz passage, which has hampered Iran’s oil exports.

In a statement posted on X on Monday, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Iran and South Korea had more than 64 years of diplomatic relations based on mutual respect and that Tehran values that friendship.

However, if South Korea joins the United States in its military actions against Iran at a time when the country is defending itself from what he called US aggression and “war crimes against women and children”, then there will be consequences, he warned.

Baghaei threatened that Iran would regard any military presence or participation in operations by another country in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz “would inevitably be regarded as direct support for the aggressor and would have serious consequences”.

“No sovereign and responsible country should succumb to US pressure and intimidation and become complicit in acts of aggression and horrific crimes against the great Iranian nation,” he added.

Seoul did not respond directly, but a Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement on Monday said it is communicating with the international community over the situation in the passageway.

Here’s what we know about how South Korea is getting roped in:

Why is South Korea involved?

Seoul, a close ally of Washington, has been under pressure from US President Donald Trump.

The issues began in mid-August, when Trump revealed in an interview, and later online, that he had spoken to South Korean President Lee Jae Myung and asked that Seoul give “a little hand” in the war on Iran.

According to media reports, the two leaders had spoken over the phone on May 17.

Seoul said, “No, thanks!”, according to Trump’s message on social media.

However, as South Korea now knows, saying no to Trump has repercussions.

On August 16, Trump announced that the US would significantly scale back joint military drills it holds annually with South Korea – the evening before they were scheduled to begin.

The Ulchi Freedom Shield (UFS) exercises are meant to sharpen Seoul’s readiness in case of a North Korean attack. They usually last for more than 11 days but were reduced to five.

In a post on his Truth Social site, Trump claimed the drills were “costly” and that they send a “hostile” signal to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, with whom he is trying to build a relationship. South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Hyun said in parliament there was no warning from the US.

Trump also questioned why South Korea would refuse his request when thousands of US soldiers are stationed on the Korean Peninsula.

The US also cancelled another military exercise scheduled for September, although South Korea’s military revealed it received a notification much earlier in June, with Washington citing constraints due to the war on Iran.

How has South Korea responded?

President Lee, a liberal who pushes for a dialled-down defence posture, has opted to negotiate. His office earlier released statements saying it hopes for “meaningful dialogue” with Trump.

South Korea’s Yonhap news agency reported on Monday that Washington has, however, “ratcheted up pressure” on Seoul.

On Friday, a South Korean presidential official told Yonhap that Seoul could consider a military contribution to international measures seeking to free up navigation in the passageway as long as it does not affect the country’s defence readiness.

South Korea is looking at various options, the official said, including possible cooperation with France, the United Kingdom and other allies on sending noncombat and search-and-rescue forces.

The South Korean military has also started reviewing assets and troops that could be deployed, including maritime patrol aircraft, explosive ordnance disposal teams and unmanned mine detection and clearing systems, he added.

Such a move would be unpopular. The opposition has spoken out against a possible deployment, as have some within Lee’s ruling Democratic Party. Many South Koreans have also protested against the US-Israel war on Iran.

What is the history of US-South Korea relations?

South Korea became one of the US’s closest allies after Washington backed Seoul against Pyongyang in the Korean War of 1950.

The US supported Seoul’s economic and military growth in the years after. Under a treaty, some 29,000 US soldiers have been stationed permanently on the Korean Peninsula since the end of the war. Seoul has also relied on US defence might to deter nuclear-armed North Korea.

In return, South Korea supported several US wars, including the Iraq War, and is designated an important non-NATO ally.

In 2025, however, Washington imposed a 25 percent tariff on the country, testing relations. Seoul opted to negotiate rather than retaliate, leading the US to lower tariffs to 15 percent.

Many South Koreans were also alarmed after hundreds of South Koreans were arrested in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids on a Hyundai plant in Georgia in September 2025.

Last October, Trump travelled to Seoul in a historic state visit, and earlier this year, President Lee visited the US. Lee is also trying to resume dialogue between Washington and Pyongyang.

How is South Korea being affected by the US-Israel war on Iran?

South Korea is facing an economic crisis. The country relies on the Gulf supplies via the Strait of Hormuz for 60 to 70 percent of crude imports, meaning supply is being severely hit. The war has led to soaring inflation, causing the Korean won to fall to a 17-year low.

Seoul therefore has an interest in freeing up the strait. However, under Korean law, the government will require parliament’s approval before a military deployment, although some governing party members could oppose it.

For the first time since World War II, a far-right party is within reach of power at state level in Germany, after coming first in Saxony-Anhalt on Sunday.

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) won 44 percent of the vote, stopping short of an overall majority but making clear its wide political significance.

On election night, AfD’s leader in the state called on other political groups to cooperate. “As a democrat, I will reach out to all those who wish to work with us to bring about a fundamental political turnaround,” Ulrich Siegmund said.

Yet, forming a government will prove difficult. The AfD has been classified as “far-right extremist” by the domestic intelligence agency and other political groups remain wary of striking an alliance.

The AfD has dismissed accusations of extremism and mainstream parties have been unable to halt its surge in the polls over recent months. Latest polling indicates the party, which stands for strong restrictions on immigration, restoring ties with Russia, cutting support to Ukraine and quitting the euro, is Germany’s most popular at national level.

The Saxony-Anhalt election could be a harbinger of a historic return of the far-right in the 2029 national election, when forecasts say the AfD stands a realistic chance of finishing first.

What happened in Saxony-Anhalt?

Siegmund, the charismatic 35-year-old who attracted thousands to his campaign rallies, said AfD “made history”.

“The people have made it absolutely clear that they finally want political change and, above all, they have shown that they want it with ⁠us,” he told supporters.

The AfD achieved its best-ever election result in Saxony-Anhalt with 44 percent of the vote, leaving all other parties far behind. The incumbent centre-right Christian Democrats (CDU), led by Chancellor Friedrich Merz, scored less than half of that share with 17 percent.

The AfD is projected to gain 39 of the 83 seats in the state parliament in Magdeburg, leaving it three short of the 42 needed for an absolute majority.

That means the party must find allies, but all other mainstream parties refuse to work with the far-right, a strategy of non-cooperation known as the “firewall”. The AfD has so far never participated in a governing coalition in Germany’s 16 states nor in its federal government.

While he now appears willing to strike deals with other parties to come to power, previously Siegmund signalled unwillingness to find middle ground with other political groups. Leading up to the vote, he stated that he was only interested in governing alone to bring about fundamental political change in Germany.

How did AfD fare in recent elections?

The election takes the AfD one step closer to advancing its agenda, while also reflecting the growing unpopularity of Germany’s ruling coalition.

In Saxony-Anhalt, the party more than doubled its vote share — from 21 percent in the last election. By contrast, the CDU’s vote halved from 37 percent to 17 percent, its worst result ever in the east-central German state.

Federal elections last year similarly resulted in a landmark performance by the AfD, which emerged as the largest opposition faction in the Bundestag, the German federal parliament in Berlin. The party came second with 21 percent of the vote, securing its highest-ever showing.

In state elections in Baden-Wurttemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate earlier this year too, the AfD more than doubled its seats — though it still finished third. In 2024, the AfD emerged victorious in the Thuringia state election and second in the Brandenburg state election — both were firsts for the party.

The AfD’s electoral gains in Saxony-Anhalt mirror growing dissatisfaction among voters — especially in the former East Germany — about the stagnant economy, high unemployment and domestic security, which the party largely pins on immigration.

What challenges lie ahead for AfD?

Since its formation in 2013, the AfD has been embroiled in various scandals and has faced major controversies, including alleged foreign espionage links, secret deportation plans and internal nepotism.

The party went from a fringe Eurosceptic group to the country’s most powerful opposition force in little more than a decade, becoming too extreme even for the European Parliament’s far-right Identity & Democracy group. It kicked the party out in May 2024 after lead AfD candidate Maximilian Krah stated that not everyone in the SS – Adolf Hitler’s infamous Nazi paramilitary organisation – was a criminal.

Krah has also been under investigation by German prosecutors for alleged illegal payments, bribery and money laundering linked to China and Russia. The German parliament last year decided to lift the far-right legislator’s immunity to help investigators.

AfD politicians have also come under fire for employing family members, including in Saxony-Anhalt, where several parliamentarians are reported to have employed relatives.

Bundestag President, Julia Klockner, banned seven AfD employees from entering the German parliament over security concerns, after they failed internal background reliability checks due to their ties to right-wing extremist networks and past criminal convictions.

Senior AfD figures also faced a backlash for attending a secretive meeting to discuss mass deportation plans for people with a migration background.

What are the AfD’s prospects for the national election in 2029?

Pollsters are unanimous in forecasting the AfD as the largest party in Germany in the next national election in 2029, with around 28 percent of the vote.

That would mark a major transformation in the German political landscape from 2025, when the CDU and its ally the Christian Social Union together won 28.5 percent of the vote.

Yet even that outcome would not necessarily give AfD the ability to govern. If other parties maintain a “firewall” policy, that could prevent the far-right party from forming a coalition government.

Still, the Saxony-Anhalt election has been received by some politicians as a call for change. “Politics begins with considering reality,” Cem Ozdemir, head of government in the southwestern state of Baden-Wurttemberg and a member of the Green Party, wrote on X.

“That means the AfD is the election winner in Saxony-Anhalt. And that must mean for all democratic forces that nothing can remain as it is, and we must fundamentally reconsider our politics and our political style.”

EXPLAINER

Pick which country is bigger, then watch it morph from Mercator to Equal Earth projection to see how close you were.

The map of Africa is much larger than most people think. However, most classroom maps and atlases still understate it – a distortion embedded in the Mercator projection that has shaped world maps for more than four centuries.

The distortion in question is not subtle. On a Mercator map, which was designed for European colonial exploration and maritime trade in the 16th century, Greenland appears roughly the size of Africa, which is actually about 14 times larger.

The exaggeration increases the farther you travel from the equator, so it falls almost entirely on one half of the world, inflating Europe, including Russia, and North America while shrinking Africa, Latin America and South Asia.

To address this, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted 164 to 1 on Friday to adopt a resolution promoting the Equal Earth projection, which shows continents in their true proportions, as an alternative to Mercator.

Led by Togo on behalf of the African Group and backed by the African Union, it encourages schools, institutions and tech companies to switch, correcting the shrinking of Africa and other equatorial regions. The African Group is the largest regional voting and dialogue bloc at the UN, consisting of 54 African Union member states.

Map quiz: Pick the bigger country

See it for yourself: pick which country is bigger, then watch it morph from Mercator to Equal Earth to see how close you were.

How did countries vote?

The United States was the only country to vote against the resolution calling the measure a “radical ideological project”. Serbia, Estonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Moldova and Ukraine abstained.

US representative Yaryna Ferencevych said before the vote that the resolution is “the reason this institution is losing its credibility”. “Instead of focusing on genuine problems … this body is debating map projects from the 16th century,” she said.

Friday’s resolution is nonbinding, intended only to encourage the world’s default maps to change. The UN said it does not ban Mercator or impose a replacement, but simply encourages wider use of the Equal Earth projection.

Togo’s Foreign Minister Robert Dussey told the UNGA that maps shape education, imagination and collective perception, and that the resolution affirms African reality.

The African Union adopted Equal Earth in March. Togo is planning a meeting in Lome early next year, with UNESCO, the African Union and technology companies including Google, to work out what implementation looks like in practice.

Why flat maps lie

Every flat map lies because the Earth is a sphere and no projection can flatten it without distorting something: shape, area, distance or direction.

Gerardus Mercator, a cartographer and geographer who published the world map in 1569, chose to preserve angles and straight bearings, a trade-off that made sense for 16th-century ships but has kept shaping perceptions of the world for nearly 500 years since. Equal Earth makes the opposite trade-off, preserving true area so continents can be compared honestly, at the cost of slightly bending their outlines.

Yemen’s internationally recognised government has launched a series of air attacks against Houthi positions in the country, marking a significant escalation in the conflict, with some of the country’s heaviest fighting since a fragile truce in 2022.

Government warplanes carried out at least 15 strikes on Friday against Houthi positions, gatherings and vehicles in the western provinces of Taiz and Hodeidah, according to the Yemeni military.

The air assault against Houthi positions provided support to government forces fighting a major Houthi offensive towards the Red Sea coast and the strategic Bab al-Mandeb Strait, one of the world’s most important shipping routes.

These are not the first air attacks by government aircraft since Yemen’s fragile truce began to unravel in July. On July 25, government aircraft struck Houthi missile and drone launch sites and weapons depots in Marib and al-Jawf, according to Yemeni military officials cited by the Reuters news agency.

And less than two weeks earlier, on July 13, Yemen’s internationally recognised government said its forces had struck the runway at the Houthi-held Sanaa International Airport to prevent an Iranian aircraft from landing.

However, the latest attacks mark a significant step up in the government’s use of its own air power against the Houthis, after Saudi-led coalition aircraft provided much of the aerial firepower supporting anti-Houthi forces during the most intense years of Yemen’s war.

Friday’s air campaign comes as the Iran-backed Houthis, who have been vying for control of Yemen for years, attempt to advance through western Taiz and southern Hodeidah towards al-Makha (Mocha), and territory overlooking the critical Bab al-Mandeb Strait at the opening to the Red Sea.

Control of the area could strengthen the Houthis’ position along the Red Sea, where the group has previously attacked commercial and military vessels, while threatening a key government supply route.

The fighting unfolds against a backdrop of the wider regional conflict, with the Houthis recently declaring a Red Sea maritime blockade against Saudi Arabia, while disruption to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz during the US-Israel war with Iran has raised the strategic importance of alternative routes through the Red Sea. This means any expansion of Houthi influence around Bab al-Mandeb could have consequences for shipping far beyond Yemen.

Here’s what we know.

What has happened?

Fighting erupted on Thursday as Houthi forces launched a major offensive along front lines in western Taiz and southern Hodeidah, using ballistic missiles, drones and artillery as ground forces attempted to advance towards government-held territory along the Red Sea coast.

The fighting has centred on areas west of Taiz and around al-Makha, a government-held port near the Bab al-Mandeb Strait.

A Yemeni official in Aden told the AFP news agency that the Houthis were seeking to capture hills overlooking Bab al-Mandeb and al-Makha before pushing towards the coast.

Al Jazeera’s Yousef Mawry, reporting from Sanaa, said Houthi forces had made gains in western Taiz.

“According to military officials from the internationally recognised government, the Houthis have been able to take some of those territories,” Mawry said. “In western Taiz, they’ve managed to take over a strategic military base, which is settled on top of a strategic mountain and gives the Houthis an overview of the entire area.”

Mawry said there had been particularly heavy fighting around al-Barah and Maqbanah, where a main road is used to resupply government forces stationed in Taiz and al-Makha.

More than 120 fighters have been killed since the Houthi offensive began, according to an AFP tally, making the clashes among Yemen’s deadliest in years.

Several civilians were also reported killed and others injured after a ballistic missile hit a restaurant in the al-Makha area, according to government-run Saba TV.

On Saturday, at least four civilians were killed and nine others injured in a Houthi missile strike on a crowded road in southwestern Yemen, according to Saba news agency.

The attack by the Iran-backed group on Saturday targeted a gathering of civilians along the strategic Heijah al-Abd Road, south of Taiz city, Saba said, citing local and medical sources.

What is behind the latest tensions?

The Houthis seized Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, in September 2014 and subsequently took control of much of northern and western Yemen, prompting a Saudi-led coalition of Arab countries to intervene in support of the internationally recognised government in March 2015.

A United Nations-brokered truce in April 2022 sharply reduced fighting. Although the agreement formally expired six months later, large-scale hostilities between the Houthis and Saudi-backed government forces remained relatively limited and Saudi Arabia pursued negotiations with the group.

No comprehensive peace agreement followed, however, leaving front lines largely frozen rather than ending the conflict.

That fragile status quo came under increasing pressure after the United States and Israel launched their war against Iran on February 28, but tensions escalated further in July with the government air force strike on the Houthi-held Sanaa International Airport, preventing an Iranian aircraft from landing.

What do we know about Yemen’s air force?

The modern Yemeni Air Force was created after North and South Yemen unified in 1990, bringing together two militaries equipped with both Soviet and Western aircraft.

Its fleet subsequently included MiG-21 and MiG-29 fighters, Su-22 fighter-bombers, US-made F-5 fighters and a range of helicopters and transport aircraft.

But Yemen’s armed forces fractured when the Houthis seized Sanaa and the political crisis descended into war in 2014 and 2015.

When Saudi Arabia intervened soon after, its coalition targeted airbases, air-defence systems and combat aircraft in a bid to prevent the Houthis from making use of Yemen’s air force.

That left the Saudi-led coalition – rather than the Yemeni government’s own depleted air force – providing much of the air power supporting government forces during the subsequent war.

Saudi-led coalition aircraft conducted tens of thousands of air raids between March 2015 and the 2022 truce, striking Houthi military positions and providing air support during major government ground offensives. The campaign also caused extensive civilian casualties and became one of the most controversial aspects of the war.

Between 2014 and 2022, Human Rights Watch documented dozens of apparently unlawful coalition air attacks on homes, markets, hospitals, schools, detention centres and other civilian sites.

In 2024, the US and the United Kingdom launched a new round of air attacks against Houthi positions in Yemen following strikes on Israel-linked shipping in the Red Sea. Earlier this year, the US Pentagon disclosed that US military attacks against Yemen’s Houthis killed 153 civilians in 2025 and wounded another 243. The US had previously denied its attacks had caused civilian deaths.

The conflict in Yemen has caused a huge humanitarian crisis. In 2021, the UN estimated that 377,000 people had died in Yemen since 2014, with 60 percent the result of food shortages and lack of accessible health services.

Why is the Yemeni government using its own air power now?

Previously relying on Saudi-led coalition air force power, the government’s decision to deploy its own warplanes now comes as it tries to blunt a Houthi offensive that initially made gains across several fronts in western Taiz and threatened the main road linking Taiz with the Red Sea port of al-Makha.

Mohammed al-Basha, a Yemeni American analyst and former spokesperson for Yemen’s embassy in Washington, told Al Jazeera that the Houthis had achieved “some initial gains during a surprise, multi-axis offensive across western Taiz” this week, temporarily capturing positions and threatening areas overlooking the Taiz-al-Makha corridor.

But those advances did not produce the wider breakthrough the group appears to have sought, he said.

“The front did not collapse, the Taiz-al-Makha corridor was not severed, and attempts to expand the offensive towards other strategically important positions were stopped,” al-Basha added.

Government and allied forces recovered much of the territory lost during the first day of fighting, according to al-Basha, while Houthi advances on several other axes were contained or repelled.

The government has since sent reinforcements, and the use of aircraft gives those forces another means of attacking Houthi positions and concentrations as they try to retake high ground and prevent the group from cutting the Taiz-al-Makha road.

Why have the Houthis launched this offensive now – and what happens next?

Al-Basha said Jabal Numan, overlooking the Taiz-al-Makha road, is one of the most important remaining contested areas, while a Houthi attempt to capture Jabal Dhu Ba’s, north of Hays, was repelled by National Resistance forces.

Taking such high ground could allow the Houthis to observe and threaten government supply routes, while losing it could make further advances towards al-Makha substantially more difficult.

“The first day therefore ended with a mixed battlefield picture,” he said. “The Houthis gained ground through the initial surprise and speed of their multi-axis assault, but much of that ground was subsequently recovered.”

The arrival of new government-aligned forces, coupled with air support, could make it harder for the Houthis to repeat their initial breakthrough.

“The next phase is likely to be more difficult,” al-Basha said. “Both sides are reinforcing, several positions remain contested, and control of Jabal Numan remains a key immediate objective.

“The coming hours will likely centre on attempts by anti-Houthi forces to recover the mountain, consolidate their lines and prevent another Houthi push towards the Taiz-al-Macha corridor.”

As the United States and Iran exchanged attacks this week, one date was increasingly looming over the conflict.

The US midterm elections on November 3 could prove a pivotal moment in the war, as senior advisers to President Donald Trump seek to prevent the conflict from returning to all-out war before the polls when Republicans will be defending narrow majorities in both houses of Congress.

The push for restraint comes as Washington turns to economic pressure on Iran instead of military force. In August, the Trump administration announced its so-called “Economic D-Day”, imposing sanctions on 60 entities that it says facilitate oil revenues for trade with Iran and threatening other countries doing business with Tehran with secondary sanctions.

At the same time, the US naval blockade of Iranian ports in and around the Strait of Hormuz continues to exert pressure on Tehran’s oil exports.

Vice President JD Vance has meanwhile sought to downplay the war, which the US and Israel launched with attacks on Iran on February 28, as rising fuel prices and public opposition in the US threaten to become political liabilities for Republicans before the vote.

But there are clear limits to the restraint the Trump administration can show, with US forces continuing to strike Iran in recent days, and US leaders insist that further military action remains an option. Vance said this week that “everything that could happen is on the table,” including economic, military, diplomatic and covert pressure.

That leaves the coming two months as a particularly tricky period to navigate. Washington will want to avoid an all-out war while ratcheting up economic pressure, but Iran has its own calculations and could respond militarily anyway, potentially forcing the US into an escalation it would rather avoid before Americans go to the polls.

Here’s what we know.

Why do the midterms matter for Trump?

The midterms will determine whether the Republican Party can retain its narrow control of Congress. If the war escalates again before then, that could persuade more people to vote against the Trump administration.

Containing the fighting until November, therefore, may help prevent an already deeply unpopular war from dominating the political agenda.

A late-August Reuters/Ipsos poll suggested that just 31 percent of Americans support the war, compared with 63 percent who oppose it. Trump’s approval rating has also fallen since the outbreak of hostilities, from 40 percent to 33 percent, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling.

Observers say the Trump administration did not expect things to get to this point.

In early March, Trump insisted the war would last for “four or five weeks”. Instead, the conflict has dragged on, and unexpected consequences – including Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz causing energy prices to spike – have made it even more unpopular with US households.

US diesel prices hit a record high on Thursday, surpassing the previous peak recorded in 2022, as higher crude oil prices and refining bottlenecks drove up the cost of a fuel that underpins much of the US economy.

That is particularly damaging for a president who campaigned partly on a promise to dramatically reduce energy costs – as well as not to get involved in “unnecessary” wars.

The fallout from the war has not stopped at the petrol pump. Sustained increases in fuel and transport costs feed into the price of groceries, manufactured goods and other everyday purchases – potentially worsening inflation when Democrats are making the cost of living a defining issue for the midterm campaign.

A Politico poll conducted in August suggested that 61 percent of Americans believe the Iran war had made life more expensive for their families, four percentage points higher than a month earlier.

Can Trump keep the war contained until November?

There are signs that his administration is trying to do exactly that.

In recent weeks, Washington has intensified its campaign to economically isolate Iran, threatening severe sanctions against countries that continue trading with it while maintaining military pressure around the Strait of Hormuz.

With strikes on Iran earlier this week, Trump has also indicated he is willing to engage in sporadic attacks, while trying to keep the war from escalating back to all-out conflict.

Senior administration officials have simultaneously sought to play down the scale of the military confrontation. Asked at a White House briefing whether the Iran war would be resolved before the midterm elections, Vice President JD Vance said he “wouldn’t call it a war” and claimed there was “no active shooting right now”.

Asked when Iran would stop attacking commercial shipping, Vance said: “You would have to ask the Iranians.” He also said the conflict was having “less effect day by day” on global energy markets. The US claims it is escorting about 30 ships per night through the Strait of Hormuz – and officials claimed some 18 million barrels of oil were transported through on Tuesday this week. However, shipping data does not appear to fully support this claim.

Trying to maintain a strategy of “no war, no peace” with sporadic attacks is high-risk, analysts have warned. Negar Mortazavi, senior fellow at the Washington, DC-based Center for International Policy, told Al Jazeera this week: “Tehran will not capitulate under [economic] pressure. Both sides may believe they can control the escalation, but every new exchange increases the risk of a wider regional conflict.”

One of the US attacks this week is also believed to have hit a civilian home where a wedding was taking place in Kuhestak, southern Iran, killing at least four people, including children, and wounding dozens.

Furthermore, The Washington Post reported on Sunday that senior Army, Navy and Air Force leaders have warned Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth in a written assessment that continuing the war at its current pace is unsustainable and risks undermining US military readiness in other parts of the world.

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the US-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Al Jazeera that this week’s attacks point to a US strategy that remains deeply unsettled.

“I think it’s quite likely that what we’re seeing right now is just complete military, strategic disarray on the American position in which the positions, the actions, the tactics, the strategies keep on getting changed,” Parsi said.

Washington had imposed sweeping economic sanctions on Iran in an apparent attempt to make further military intervention unnecessary, he noted. “Seven days later, the US is back into bombing Iran.”

The US appears to be “jumping from one position to the other”, he added.

What are Iran’s calculations?

While the most recent attacks between the US and Iran have been less intense than the heavy exchanges seen in the early weeks of the war and during the two flare-ups in July, the risk of escalation is high. And it may be in Iran’s interests for that to happen sooner rather than later.

Iran has excelled at the use of asymmetric warfare against an enemy with considerable military might – using cheap, mass-produced drones to exhaust US supplies of very expensive defensive systems, and launching attacks on US allies around the Gulf, sowing disharmony.

In particular, Tehran has demonstrated that it can severely disrupt maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, causing global economic consequences.

Continued Iranian attacks on US or regional military assets, shipping or energy infrastructure would place pressure on Washington to retaliate more strongly than via the few attacks it has carried out this week, creating the possibility of an escalatory cycle that could return the two countries to a much wider war regardless of the White House’s electoral calculations.

Furthermore, Washington’s economic strategy to isolate Tehran – an attempt to move away from open warfare – may in fact create a greater Iranian incentive to retaliate.

Parsi told Al Jazeera that Iranian officials appear to believe Trump ultimately intends to restart the war on a larger scale but is just waiting until after the midterms.

That creates a potentially dangerous calculation for Tehran, where it is better to escalate now – while Trump is at his most politically vulnerable. “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 will impose on the US president,” Parsi said.

What happens after November?

Reuters reported on Wednesday that senior White House officials are already considering whether to intensify military operations against Iran after the November 3 vote, although no decision has been made on returning to full-scale conflict, it reported.

A Republican victory in the midterms could give Trump greater political room for this option, particularly if the administration interprets the result as approval – or at least lack of enough disapproval – for the war despite the economic consequences for voters.

A Republican defeat presents a more complicated picture, however. On the one hand, losing one or both chambers of Congress will constrain the administration, as Congress controls government funding. Democratic control of the House or Senate would also give Trump’s opponents greater scope to hold hearings, investigate the US conduct of the war and challenge requests for additional military spending.

Conversely, with Trump no longer facing a congressional election, he may feel less pressure to contain the war, experts fear.

Parsi warned that an electoral defeat could therefore have the opposite effect to what Tehran might expect.

“I’m not so sure that it’s going to pay off necessarily for the Iranians because a Trump that is humiliated at the elections, who is faced with a Democratic [majority] House [of Representatives] and potentially a Democratic Senate, may also become a much more desperate and reckless president,” he said.

As many as 20 million children in 21 countries have experienced online sexual abuse or exploitation each year, according to new findings from the United Nations children’s agency, UNICEF.

More than one in five children aged 12 to 17 in countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Eastern Europe have been targeted on digital platforms, according to the UNICEF report released on Thursday.

Researchers surveyed 21,000 children aged 12 to 17 who used the internet across 21 countries between 2020 and 2021, and then again between 2024 and 2025. They also conducted in-depth interviews with 100 young people who have experienced childhood abuse.

Social media facilitated more than half of the abuse cases, according to UNICEF, which cautioned that figures could be inaccurate due to underreporting by children. Less than 1 per cent of all abusive incidents were reported to authorities, the researchers found.

Last week, US social media giant Meta agreed to a landmark $18bn settlement in a major US federal case accusing the company of endangering children. Meta has faced an avalanche of legal cases this year, most arguing that it has deliberately designed its platforms to be addictive and that they have harmed children. The company has now agreed to make major changes to the features of its social media platforms.

What are the key findings of the UNICEF report?

The report estimated that in the periods studied, more than 15 million children were exposed to unwanted sexual content, nine million were asked to engage in sexual conversations or share sexual images against their will, and four million children had sexual images of themselves shared without their consent.

UNICEF said the issue is compounded by the fact that children often don’t recognise abuse or know who to report it to, and fear repercussions if they do. Formal systems can feel distant, complex or intimidating, the report noted.

“The report reveals a painful reality. More than 20 million children across the countries studied were subjected to unwanted explicit sexual content or exploitation online, often in the digital spaces where they learn, play, and connect with friends,” said UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell. “These experiences cause profound emotional and mental distress. Many children suffer in silence, unsure where to turn for help. We cannot look away.”

Where was data collected?

Information for the report was based on nationally representative survey data collected between 2020 and 2025 from approximately 21,000 internet-using children from the following countries:

• Eastern and South Africa: Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania and Uganda 
• Southeast Asia: Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam
• Latin America and the Caribbean: Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Mexico 
• Eastern Europe: Armenia, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia
• South Asia: Pakistan

Where are children being abused?

Abuse often begins in public spaces, such as in schools or local neighbourhoods, before moving to digital spaces which can further facilitate harm.

Social media and messaging platforms enable different stages of abuse, “including initial contact, relationship-building, sexual solicitation, image-sharing, coercion, blackmail and the continued circulation of sexual content”, the report said.

Sometimes abuse takes place solely online.

According to the report’s findings, more than 60 percent of cases occurred on social media platforms, with the majority on Facebook (50 percent), WhatsApp (29 percent), Instagram (24 percent), SnapChat (13 percent) and TikTok (12 percent).

Do children report abuse?

Most children do not seek help if they are being abused. Less than one percent of cases are reported to the police, a social worker or a helpline, while more than four in 10 cases not being disclosed to anyone at all.

“Children are not failing to report; they have correctly worked out that there is nowhere to report to,” Nighat Dad, executive director of the Pakistan-based Digital Rights Foundation, told Al Jazeera.

Dad, whose NGO works to provide safe online spaces in Pakistan, noted that incidents repeatedly occur online because of a “design problem – the message request, the move to a private chat, the reshare, the ability to return after being blocked”.

Many children minimise their experiences or do not recognise when they’ve been abused, she said.

Even when children do speak out, to a close friend, sibling, or parent, doing so may not necessarily stop the abuse or bring perpetrators to account.

UNICEF emphasised that its research interviews were the first time many of the children it interviewed had spoken to someone about the abuse they were subjected to.

Dad also cautioned that Pakistan, for example, is a “low-disclosure country” where notions of family “honour” and other cultural barriers prevent children from disclosing the harm they’ve experienced.

“A girl who speaks risks her phone, her schooling and sometimes her safety, and a boy is expected to cope in silence,” Dad said.

How does gender factor into online abuse?

Perpetrators often play on gender norms when exploiting children. Stigma and blame are used against girls to keep them silent, while boys are expected to cope alone, or threatened by perpetrators.

“Peer cultures and harmful norms around gender or masculinity can further normalise behaviours that cause significant harm, making abuse harder to recognise and address,” UNICEF noted.

What kind of impact does online sexual abuse have on children?

The repercussions are severe, UNICEF said: Children exposed to technology-facilitated sexual abuse and exploitation are four times more likely to have suicidal thoughts and to self-harm, along with higher levels of anxiety.

In Mexico or North Macedonia, for example, the risk of suicidal thoughts or behaviours was more than eight times higher among children who experienced abuse, while in Pakistan the risk of self-harm was more than seven times higher than average, the report found.

Abuse extends well beyond the digital sphere, seeping into children’s everyday lives, schooling and relationships.

What should be done about this?

UNICEF said the onus to protect children online must be placed on governments and technology companies, which must change how online spaces are designed and regulated.

It also highlighted that while children often take steps to protect each other, societies, schools and families must work to shift the burden of protection away from children.

Citing Meta’s recent settlement, Dad acknowledged that design changes, such as better age verification and parental controls, can and should happen.

“For years those of us working outside the US were told these defaults would break the product. Meta has now shown the product can change.”

A spokesperson for Meta told Al Jazeera, “This report is based on surveys from as far back as 2020, before we introduced the protections UNICEF recommends, like automatically defaulting teens into private accounts and preventing adults from messaging teens they’re not connected to.

“While the report doesn’t provide any specific evidence of abuse, we’ll continue to fight child exploitation aggressively across our apps and support law enforcement in prosecuting the criminals behind it.”

The spokesperson also pointed out that Meta-owned WhatsApp is a private messaging service rather than a social media platform. “We don’t have algorithms that make a piece of content more or less likely to be viewed, and you need someone’s phone number or exact username to connect with them for the first time.”

Snapchat and TikTok have not responded to requests for comment for Al Jazeera.

The United States and Iran continue to make competing claims about who has greater control of the critical Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf.

Washington claims the strait is open and that dozens of ships, carrying millions of barrels of oil, are passing through each day. US President Donald Trump claimed last month that the US was in “total control” of the waterway, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas is shipped during peacetime, but which has been closed since the US-Israel war on Iran began six months ago.

Iran, however, says the strait remains under its control and is closed except to pre-approved vessels using its designated channels. It has warned that other ships attempting to transit risk being targeted.

So what is really going on in the strait – and what explains the divergent accounts?

What are the latest US claims about the Strait of Hormuz?

The US says shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has significantly increased in recent weeks.

Two US officials told CNN that 40 commercial ships carrying some 18 million barrels of oil passed through the strait under US military escort on Tuesday, in what would be a new wartime record.

Trump gave a similar figure on Monday, saying the US Navy was helping some 30 ships pass through Hormuz every night. He later said the waterway was “under USA control”.

In terms of oil, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that “at least 10 million barrels” were getting through the strait each day, with between 15 million and 17 million on Tuesday.

The assessment comes after US CENTCOM commander Brad Cooper claimed last week that the US military had cleared Hormuz’s transit lanes of sea mines.

Before the war began, an average of around 100 ships and 20 million barrels of oil are estimated to have passed through the waterway each day.

According to figures from PortWatch, this has fallen to an overall average of seven vessels since March.

What does Iran claim about the strait?

Iran has acknowledged that some vessels are getting through the strait, but insists it remains in control of the waterway.

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on Tuesday said “the enemy managed to get some ships” through Hormuz, but stressed that Iranian forces remain “in complete control of the strait and will not allow it to be opened”.

Ghalibaf accused the US of giving ships “false guarantees” about their ability to cross a southern route in Hormuz, warning that ships that try to do so would be targeted.

The following day, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed two oil tankers had hit mines and were disabled while trying to cross an “illegal route” in the strait. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, claimed an Iranian attack hit a Saudi oil tanker, killing two Filipino sailors.

What does shipping data show?

The latest ship-tracking data paints a different picture than the US claims, with far fewer vessels recorded as transiting the strait.

According to marine analytics firm Kpler, just six vessels crossed the strait on Wednesday, 11 on Tuesday and five on Monday. It put the 10-day average at 13 vessels per day.

Other ship-trafficking services show a similar pattern. Maritime data firm Lloyd’s List Intelligence recorded an average of around 12 transits per day from August 26 to September 1, though the latest data may be incomplete “due to a lag in identifying dark transits”, said the firm’s maritime intelligence and research director, Bridget Diakun. This means that some ships are switching off their tracking beacons.

From August 17-23, Lloyd’s List Intelligence recorded “about 14 non-Iranian-linked ships each day”, Diakun told Al Jazeera.

All these figures are far lower than the US claim that 40 ships transited the strait on Tuesday.

The Joint Maritime Information Center (JMIC), which monitors threats to shipping in the region, said in a September 1 advisory that commercial traffic through Hormuz was “far below baseline”, despite a “modest uptick from recent lows”.

The advisory put the risk level for Hormuz at “severe”, citing a “continued risk of drifting or uncharted mines”, despite US claims to have cleared the strait of mines.

What explains the discrepancy?

Diakun told Al Jazeera that it is difficult to explain the gap between US-claimed transit figures and those recorded by ship trackers without insight into how the US tallies its own figures.

She said it’s possible the US includes smaller or non-cargo-carrying ships in its total, unlike Lloyd’s, which only counts “cargo-carrying vessels over 10,000 dwt [deadweight tonnage]”.

Eirik Hooper, a senior associate covering the ports and terminals sector for maritime research consultancy Drewry, also pointed to possible differences in how the US counts vessel transits.

“A US operational count plausibly includes everything that moved under or near naval protection: naval auxiliaries, offshore support and tugs, coastal and small craft [and] dhows,” said Hooper, noting that ship-tracking firm Kpler filters out such vessels “on size or cargo grounds”.

Hooper also said the US has access to “satellite, airborne and other sensor coverage plus its own convoy manifests”, which enables it to see vessels not immediately picked up by the normal automatic identification system (AIS) tracking system.

“By late August, the majority of Hormuz crossings were classified ‘dark’ or unknown by route, and AIS data counts often need to be revised to include vessels that switch off their transponders, with confirmed movements backdated,” said Hooper.

More generally, both the US and Iran have an incentive to play up their influence in the strait, the status of which has become a major sticking point in their six-month conflict.

Former US Ambassador Henry Ensher recently told Al Jazeera that he believes the latest cycle of US-Iran confrontation was likely triggered by CENTCOM’s claims to have de-mined that strait, and said “both sides would be well served to stop talking quite so much”.