Explainer

Iran has offered to facilitate talks between Saudi Arabia and Yemen’s Houthi group after a series of deadly attacks on the kingdom, raising questions about Tehran’s diplomatic calculations as fighting intensifies across the region.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi spoke with his Saudi counterpart, Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, on Sunday, in their first publicly reported contact since the Iran-aligned Houthis stepped up attacks on Saudi Arabia.

The diplomatic outreach comes after strikes on Riyadh’s international airport over the weekend killed 14 people and wounded hundreds, while Saudi-backed forces continued their offensive against the Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah, in Yemen.

The talks also come against the backdrop of the wider US-Israel war on Iran, with Tehran potentially seeking to avoid being dragged into another confrontation.

“Tehran is an ally of Ansar Allah and has influence with the movement, although it does not control its decisions,” Negar Mortazavi, senior fellow at the Washington, DC-based Center for International Policy, told Al Jazeera.

“By offering to facilitate talks with Riyadh, Iran is positioning itself as an indispensable party to a broader regional settlement.”

So what discussions are happening between Riyadh and Tehran, and why is Iran offering to facilitate talks?

What did Iran and Saudi Arabia talk about?

According to the Saudi state news agency, the two foreign ministers discussed the recent escalation in the region and efforts to reduce tensions. Iran’s Foreign Ministry also confirmed the development.

Following the discussions, Araghchi on Sunday warned against pursuing a military solution to the conflict and offered Tehran’s assistance in facilitating dialogue between Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

“Insisting on a military approach and disregarding a political solution would only further complicate the situation,” Araghchi said, according to Iran’s Foreign Ministry.

On Monday, ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei reiterated Tehran’s willingness to mediate, saying Iran was deeply concerned about developments in the Arabian Peninsula.

“We absolutely do not want hostilities and war to continue between two Islamic countries,” Baghaei said, urging dialogue to resolve the conflict.

What is Iran’s stance on the war in Yemen?

Iran has repeatedly called for a diplomatic settlement to Yemen’s conflict and says it supports a political solution rather than continued military action.

Tehran backs the Houthis, who control Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, and other parts of the country.

The armed group forms part of the Iran-aligned “axis of resistance”, which also includes Lebanon’s Hezbollah and armed groups in Iraq.

Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has led a military coalition supporting Yemen’s internationally recognised government since 2015.

Baghaei said on Monday that the conflict served Israeli interests, framing a negotiated settlement as preferable to further fighting.

What is the latest in the Yemen fighting?

Fighting has intensified in Yemen, after the internationally recognised government’s forces announced Operation Dawn of Yemen on October 4 to reverse recent Houthi territorial gains, including the capital, Sanaa.

Government forces, backed by Riyadh, have reported advances near the strategic Bab al-Mandeb strait, a vital international shipping route. However, competing battlefield claims remain difficult to independently verify.

The Houthis have responded with missile and drone attacks on Saudi airports, energy infrastructure and other targets.

Two strikes on Riyadh’s King Khalid International Airport on Saturday and Sunday killed 14 people and wounded more than 300. The casualties included foreign nationals from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Palestine.

The escalating violence has also disrupted commercial flights, businesses and schools in Riyadh, underlining the growing economic and civilian consequences of the conflict.

UN Special Envoy for Yemen Hans Grundberg warned on Friday that Yemen had returned to “full-scale war”, with civilians bearing the brunt of the attacks.

Why is Iran willing to facilitate talks between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis?

Iran’s offer to facilitate talks between Riyadh and the Houthis could be an attempt to strengthen Tehran’s diplomatic position and secure a wider regional agreement that extends beyond Yemen.

“I think Iran is trying to turn Yemen from a military liability into a diplomatic asset,” Andreas Krieg, a Middle East security analyst at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera.

He said Tehran recognises that Saudi Arabia is struggling to reverse Houthi territorial gains, particularly around Taiz and Bab al-Mandeb, despite intensifying its military campaign.

“Araghchi’s offer is an attempt to position Iran as part of the solution to a crisis in which it has also helped sustain the problem,” Krieg said.

Analyst Mortazavi, meanwhile, said Iran’s diplomatic outreach is part of a broader effort to link the conflicts unfolding across the region.

“The larger political objective is an informal non-aggression arrangement between Iran and its allies on one side and the United States and its regional partners on the other,” she said.

Such an agreement, she argued, would require an end to hostilities across multiple fronts, including Yemen and Lebanon, rather than a settlement confined to the US-Iran conflict.

Moreover, academic Krieg said there was also an important “Saudi dimension” to the discussions.

“Riyadh is increasingly uncomfortable with its dependence on Washington, frustrated by the limited American willingness to intervene in Yemen and reluctant to become dependent on the UAE again,” he said.

“Iran sees an opportunity to demonstrate that engagement with Tehran can deliver something Saudi Arabia’s traditional security partnerships have struggled to provide.”

There are also economic considerations, the analysts noted. Iran is under significant pressure from the US blockade, while Gulf countries are gradually recovering their energy exports to pre-war levels despite Iranian disruptions.

“Offering Riyadh a way out of Yemen potentially gives Iran leverage well beyond the Yemeni theatre, particularly in negotiations over Hormuz, sanctions relief and the wider regional security architecture,” Krieg said.

However, Krieg cautioned against overstating Iran’s influence over the Houthis, who have their own political ambitions and demands.

“Ansar Allah is not simply an Iranian proxy awaiting instructions,” Krieg said. “Its leadership has its own political ambitions, increasingly sees itself as a regional military actor and believes its recent territorial gains have strengthened its negotiating position. Iran can facilitate talks and potentially influence the intensity of escalation, but it cannot simply order the Houthis to surrender their gains around Mocha or Bab al-Mandeb.”

For Mortazavi, the broader message is that regional security cannot be addressed in isolation.

“Ultimately, Tehran’s message is that regional security cannot be divided,” she said. “Saudi Arabia cannot obtain security from attacks, while Iran and its allies remain under military and economic pressure.”

EXPLAINER

Atletico vs Man United and Man City vs PSG headline the Champions League match day two action as the competition returns.

The UEFA Champions League (UCL) 2026-27 enters its second round of matches this week, with 36 teams in action across Europe as clubs return to the elite football competition.

After the first set of league fixtures, two-time title holders Paris Saint-Germain lead the points table with three points, followed by six-time champions Bayern Munich and five-time winners Barcelona, who also won their opening matches.

The competition’s league phase format, now in its third year, started in September and runs until January 2027. It will be followed by the knockout rounds, with the champions crowned in early June.

Here’s all you need to know about this year’s competition:

What is the Champions League?

The Champions League is an annual club competition that features the best teams from across Europe.

This season marks the third time that 36 teams will participate in the main round, an increase from 32 under the old format.

What is the 2026-27 Champions League format?

Since 2003, the UCL has featured 32 clubs split into eight groups of four, with the top two from each section advancing to the last 16.

That has changed radically in recent years.

From the 2024-25 season, the 36 clubs are pooled into a single league in a “Swiss system” more commonly associated with chess.

Earlier, participating teams played six games in the group stage, facing each opponent home and away. Now, each club plays eight games, one each against eight different opponents.

How does the Champions League knockout format work?

At the end of the league phase, the top eight qualify directly for the knockouts, while those between the ninth and 24th places have to compete in two-legged knockout-phase playoffs.

Teams ranked 25th and below are eliminated.

The UCL knockout format is straightforward – it begins with the round of 16, followed by the quarterfinals, semifinals and the final.

When are the league phase and knockout matches?

The league phase matches are scheduled for:

• Match day 1: September 8-10
• Match day 2: October 13 and 14
• Match day 3: October 20 and 21
• Match day 4: November 3 and 4
• Match day 5: November 24 and 25
• Match day 6: December 8 and 9
• Match day 7: January 19 and 20
• Match day 8: January 27

The knockout phase matches are scheduled for (all dates in 2027):

• Playoffs: February 16, 17 and 23, 24
• Round of 16: March 9, 10 and 16, 17
• Quarterfinals: April 6, 7 and 13, 14
• Semifinals: April 27, 28 and May 4, 5
• Final: June 5

Which are the best Champions League matches to watch?

The key matches to follow on matchdays two and three are as follows:

Top five UCL matches to watch this week

• Arsenal vs Lille, Tuesday 19:00 GMT
• Atletico vs Manchester United, Tuesday 19:00 GMT
• Galatasaray vs Barcelona, Tuesday 19:00 GMT
• Manchester City vs PSG, Wednesday 19:00 GMT
• AS Roma vs Real Madrid, Wednesday 19:00 GMT

Top five Champions League matches to watch next week:

• PSG vs Barcelona, October 20, 19:00 GMT
• Liverpool vs Villarreal, October 20, 19:00 GMT
• Como vs Manchester United, October 21, 16:45 GMT
• Bayern Munich vs Arsenal, October 21, 19:00 GMT
• Real Madrid vs RB Leipzig, October 21, 19:00 GMT

What are the key UCL storylines to follow?

Man City’s home clash with PSG headlines the upcoming round of matches, marking the troubled Etihad club’s first Champions League match since an independent commission found them guilty of breaking more than 100 Premier League financial rules.

Elsewhere, City’s crosstown rivals, under-fire Man United, are also in action this week. They head to Madrid to face an in-form Atletico, hoping to register just their third win this season.

Meanwhile, manager Jose Mourinho will face his former club AS Roma when Real travel to the Italian capital.

Who are the top players to watch in the Champions League?

PSG’s Ferran Torres, who scored a hat-trick in the first UCL match, is a joint top scorer in this year’s UCL alongside Ermedin Demirovic of Stuttgart.

Also watch out for Man City’s Erling Haaland, Bayern Munich’s talented Michael Olise and PSG forward Ousmane Dembele, all of whom scored two goals in their respective UCL openers.

US President Donald Trump has announced an immediate “energy ceasefire” between Russia and Ukraine, days after easing sanctions on Russian fuel to tackle soaring domestic and global fuel prices.

The energy truce, announced on Sunday, marks another shift in Washington’s approach to Russian energy, as the Iran-US war and recent Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy facilities disrupted global oil supplies and pushed up fuel prices. Trump has even asked Ukraine not to attack Russian oil facilities, as Moscow remains a major exporter of diesel.

The spike in diesel prices in recent weeks has particularly put pressure on Trump’s Republican Party ahead of November’s midterm elections. Surveys show Americans hold the Trump administration responsible for the soaring fuel prices amid the unpopular US war on Iran.

“Attacks on refineries and energy facilities have taken capacity out of an already stretched global fuel market, pushing up costs for transport, agriculture and businesses, with the pain ultimately passed on to consumers,” Susannah Streeter, chief investment strategist at Wealth Club, told Al Jazeera, referring to the mutual attacks on energy sites by Ukraine and Russia.

“A genuine ceasefire could help protect supplies and ease some of that pressure, particularly as winter approaches.”

However, she warned it was too early to call it a “diplomatic breakthrough”, citing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s statement that the energy truce came as a surprise to him.

Trump’s decisions have drawn criticism from US politicians and European allies, who warn that allowing Russian fuel back into global markets could provide Moscow with new revenue to finance its war in Ukraine. In March, the Trump administration gave a sanctions waiver to Russian seaborne oil.

So, why has Trump repeatedly changed his position on Russian energy, and what is behind his latest decisions?

What is the ‘energy ceasefire’ Trump announced?

On Sunday, Trump said Russia and Ukraine had agreed to immediately stop attacking each other’s energy infrastructure.

“Both parties have agreed. Do not break it!” he wrote on Truth Social, without providing further details.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he was not aware of the energy truce, saying the deal was “news to me” but welcomed the announcement nonetheless.

However, he said Russian drones continued targeting Ukrainian energy facilities, including a power plant in Kharkiv, after Trump’s statement.

“We are waiting for the details of the conditions between the Americans and Russians, ⁠⁠⁠⁠and we are waiting ⁠⁠⁠⁠to see one specific step the Americans are ready to take,” Zelenskyy said on Monday during a video address to a security conference in Warsaw.

“This ⁠⁠⁠⁠energy ceasefire, it can work, and it can become a major step towards ending ‌‌‌‌the war if the Americans truly step in now and make ‌‌‌‌sure ‌‌‌‌Russians respect it.”

Ukraine has repeatedly targeted Russian oil refineries, arguing that energy revenues help fund Moscow’s war. Russia, meanwhile, has attacked Ukraine’s electricity and heating infrastructure throughout the four-year conflict.

Academic Alexey Muriaev has urged caution over Trump’s announcement, questioning whether an agreement has actually been reached, and if so, what it entails.

“Is it about suspending attacks on oil refineries? And if that’s the case, then the situation would be inadequate, because Ukraine’s oil refineries have already been taken out by Russia’s strikes beforehand,” Muraviev, senior research fellow in Defence and Strategic Studies at Edith Cowan University, told Al Jazeera.

“So, in this sense, it would mean effectively Ukraine suspending unilateral action against Russia’s oil refinery facilities.”

Muriaev also linked the announcement to Trump’s diesel agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin, suggesting it may be a signal to Zelenskyy.

“Attacking Russian oil refinery capability would probably be interpreted by Washington as an attack on US economic interests,” he said, referring to the agreement on diesel exports through April 2027.

What’s the state of global oil prices?

The ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine have continued to keep global oil markets under pressure.

On Monday, Brent crude, the international benchmark, fell to about $103.04 a barrel following Trump’s ceasefire announcement and Russian diesel deal, while US West Texas Intermediate crude traded at about $90.96.

However, prices remain elevated because of the US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28, and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway through which one-fifth of the world’s oil supplies flow.

Recent attacks on Saudi oil installations and airports by Yemen’s Houthis and the fighting around the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandeb Strait have put further pressure on oil prices.

Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries have compounded diesel shortages, affecting a fuel essential for the agriculture and trucking industries.

The crisis prompted the Group of Seven nations last week to agree to release 100 million barrels of emergency oil and diesel reserves. The G7 decision came after pressure from Trump.

How has the Trump administration zig-zagged between punishing and embracing Russian energy?

Washington’s approach to Russian energy has shifted repeatedly since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Under President Joe Biden, the US banned Russian oil and energy imports in March 2022, seeking to cut off revenue used to finance Moscow’s war.

But Washington simultaneously supported a G7 price cap on Russian oil, designed to restrict Moscow’s earnings without removing too much supply from global markets.

Moreover, the Biden administration also accepted India’s continued purchases of Russian crude to prevent global prices from rising.

After returning to power last year, Trump initially intensified pressure on Moscow. In August 2025, his administration imposed additional tariffs on Indian goods over New Delhi’s purchases of Russian oil.

Two months later, Washington sanctioned Russian energy giants Rosneft and Lukoil, accusing Moscow of failing to seriously pursue peace negotiations to end the war in Ukraine.

However, Washington’s approach took a dramatic turn this year. On March 5, Washington issued a 30-day waiver allowing India to buy Russian oil stranded at sea, as disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz amid US attacks on Iran threatened global supplies.

A week later, the Trump administration expanded the exemption, allowing countries worldwide to buy sanctioned Russian oil and petroleum products already loaded onto tankers, with the waiver lasting until April 11.

In September, Trump urged Ukraine to stop attacking Russian refineries, blaming the strikes for global diesel shortages.

On October 9, he announced an agreement with Russian President Putin for Moscow to release more than 300,000 tonnes of diesel immediately, with another 1.5 million tonnes to follow.

Why has Trump changed his position on Russian oil frequently?

Trump’s shifting public position on Russian energy reflects ongoing, and often competing, political and economic pressures.

“Trump is caught between his geopolitical ambitions and the domestic political consequences of expensive energy,” Susannah Streeter of Wealth Club, told Al Jazeera.

She said Washington was trying to pressure Moscow over its war in Ukraine while simultaneously allowing Russian fuel sales that could generate additional revenue for the Kremlin.

“The shift may deliver a short-term political gain if supplies increase and prices ease, but it could come at a longer-term diplomatic cost,” she said, adding that the benefits appeared limited while the Middle East war continued.

US diesel prices reached a record $6.52 per gallon in September, placing Trump under pressure ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.

However, according to academic Muriev, the US president’s public rhetoric should be distinguished from his administration’s actions.

“I don’t really see inconsistency in Trump’s approach because, apart from his public rhetoric, apart from his frequent media posting, there’s been a more steady approach on behalf of his administration,” he told Al Jazeera.

He pointed to discussions between Russian and American officials in August and September, suggesting that negotiations over the latest diesel agreement may have begun well before Trump’s announcement last Friday.

Muriev suggested the timing of the announcement could be politically motivated, allowing Trump to claim a victory on energy prices before the midterms.

Moreover, Moscow also has an interest in helping Trump retain political influence because his administration appears more willing to negotiate with Russia than former President Biden was. Trump has  been relatively more accepting of the Russian position on the Ukraine war and has even blamed Zelenskyy for failing to end the war.

“For Putin, it’s not just about scoring immediate economic benefit, but also achieving longer-term political and strategic goals,” Muriev said, referring to other issues such as Iran, cybersecurity, space cooperation and nuclear arms control.

The energy crisis has also created contrasting consequences for American businesses.

While higher oil prices can boost revenues for US energy producers, they increase operating costs for businesses dependent on fuel.

Susannah Streeter said cheaper diesel could provide relief to trucking companies, farmers and manufacturers, although the additional Russian supplies were unlikely to make a significant difference while disruptions in the Middle East continued.

She also warned that frequent changes to sanctions could create uncertainty for companies making long-term investment and supply-chain decisions.

“If sanctions are relaxed, reimposed or changed at short notice, companies face greater uncertainty over sourcing, compliance and the risk of being caught on the wrong side of a policy reversal,” she said.

Israel has expanded its military occupation in the Gaza Strip in violation of a United States-brokered ‘ceasefire’, forcing Palestinians into an ever-smaller share of the besieged territory, devastated by Israel’s ongoing genocidal war.

Nearly two-thirds of Gaza is now under Israeli military control or subject to access restrictions.

The original ‘Yellow Line’, established under US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan to end the war, marked the area to which Israeli forces initially withdrew. They were expected to make further withdrawals gradually, but instead, they have seized more territory.

On Sunday, Israeli forces moved yellow concrete blocks dozens of metres west in Shujayea, a neighbourhood in southeastern Gaza City, forcing Palestinian families to flee and bringing more of the neighbourhood under Israeli military control.

“It’s not simply about where the ‘Yellow Line’ is today but where it can move next,” Al Jazeera’s Ibrahim al-Khalili said, reporting from Gaza City. “For families who have been repeatedly displaced in the past three years, the situation remains dire, and they have to make the impossible decision of where they can go.”

More than 90 percent of Gaza’s 2.1 million population has been forcibly displaced by Israel’s war, launched on October 7, 2023, after Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel.

Using maps, Al Jazeera shows how much of Gaza Israel has grabbed since the ‘ceasefire’.

Gaza before the war

Before the war, Palestinians were spread across the Gaza Strip, a 365sq km (141sq-mile) territory roughly 41km (25 miles) long and from 6km to 12km (4 to 7 miles) wide.

That made it one of the most densely populated places on Earth with about 6,000 people per square kilometre, similar to Nairobi or London. Each person had, on average, about 160sq metres (1,722sq ft) of land.

Even then, not all of Gaza’s land was accessible. Israel enforced a buffer zone along the fence with Israel, and Palestinians who approached it risked being shot. In 2010, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) estimated that the restricted area covered 17 percent of Gaza’s land and 35 percent of its farmland.

Gaza has been under an Israeli land, air and sea blockade since 2007.

Gaza at the ‘ceasefire’

Under the first phase of the “ceasefire”, Israeli forces were to withdraw to the “Yellow Line” within 24 hours, after which a 72-hour period began for the handover of Israeli captives held in Gaza. Trump first published a map of the line on his Truth Social platform.

The line left Israel in control of 53 percent of the Strip, mostly farmland and border areas in the east, and confined Palestinians to the remaining 47 percent, about 172sq km (66sq miles).

By October 2025, two years of war had killed more than 67,000 Palestinians, and tens of thousands more had left the territory, reducing Gaza’s population to about 2.1 million.

Pushed into less than half of Gaza’s territory under the “ceasefire”, its density doubled to about 12,000 people per square kilometre, comparable to New York City. Each person was left with about 82sq metres (883sq ft).

Gaza today

Since the “ceasefire”, Israeli forces have repeatedly moved the yellow concrete blocks marking the “Yellow Line” farther west, sometimes overnight, expanding the areas under their control. Satellite imagery has also documented continued demolitions in areas held by Israeli forces.

The research group Forensic Architecture estimated that Israel controlled 58 percent of Gaza by December. In March, the Israeli military sent aid agencies maps of a new “orange line”, a restricted zone beyond the “Yellow Line” where humanitarian movements must be coordinated with the army.

According to OCHA, restrictions now cover 65 percent of Gaza. Israel itself said it controls about 70 percent of the territory, a UN official told the Security Council in June.

That leaves 2.1 million people in about 35 percent of the Strip, roughly 128sq km (49sq miles). The population density has nearly tripled since before the war to about 16,000 people per square kilometre, close to central Tokyo.

Each person now has about 61sq metres (657sq ft) of land for everything: shelter, roads, schools, hospitals and farmland.

Unlike Tokyo, Gaza has little space left to house its people. The UN Satellite Centre, UNOSAT, found 82 percent of structures in the Strip are damaged or destroyed. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization says only 3 percent of Gaza’s cropland is both undamaged and accessible.

OCHA says the remaining 35 percent of Gaza is “already overcrowded” and access restrictions are a key obstacle as aid groups try to relocate families before the rainy season. More than 950,000 people live in displacement sites at risk of flooding, according to the UN, most of them in tents and makeshift shelters, as seen in the satellite image below.

Approaching the ‘Yellow Line” can be deadly. Israel treats areas beyond it as a free-fire zone, and Palestinians who come near it have been shot. Nearly 1,500 people have been killed across Gaza since the ceasefire was announced.

Ethiopia and Eritrea have exchanged accusations of aggression at the United Nations, raising fears of a new conflict in the Horn of Africa region as fighting intensifies in Ethiopia’s northern Tigray region.

The diplomatic spat comes as Ethiopian troops and allied armed groups advanced across Tigray, where forces from Asmara have allegedly crossed the border to support rebels fighting the government forces.

The two neighbours, which fought a deadly border war between 1998 and 2000, were allies during Ethiopia’s devastating 2020-2022 Tigray war.

However, they have since been at loggerheads over the 2022 peace agreement that ended a two-year civil war between the government in Addis Ababa and Tigray rebels, and over Ethiopia’s demands for access to the Red Sea.

So, what did Eritrea and Ethiopia accuse each other of, and are they inching towards war?

What did Eritrea and Ethiopia say at the UN?

Eritrean troops had advanced as far as 60km (37 miles) into Tigray, Ethiopia told the UN Security Council on Friday, accusing its neighbour of violating its sovereignty.

In a letter, Ethiopian Foreign Minister Gedion Timothewos described the alleged incursion as “a blatant act of aggression that engages Ethiopia’s inherent right to self-defence”.

He invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter, which recognises a country’s right to self-defence, but did not specify what measures Ethiopia was taking.

Eritrea, which won independence from Ethiopia in 1993, rejected the accusations of incursions into Ethiopia, calling them a pretext for an Addis Ababa offensive.

Eritrean Foreign Minister Osman Saleh, in his own letter to the UN Security Council on Saturday, urged the body to condemn Ethiopia’s “deplorable declaration of war” and take “deterrent measures”.

He warned that an Ethiopian offensive would cause “huge devastation to the peoples of both countries and destabilise the whole region”.

The accusations come amid a broader dispute over access to the Red Sea.

Landlocked Ethiopia has repeatedly argued that securing direct sea access is essential, while Eritrea fears Addis Ababa intends to seize its port of Assab.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed reiterated on Monday that Ethiopia must have access to the Red Sea.

Hossamaldeen Ibrahim, an analyst at Bloomsbury Intelligence and Security Institute (BISI), said the narratives of both countries contain “verifiable elements”.

“The danger lies in the fact that each side now treats the other’s narrative as existential,” he told Al Jazeera.

Eritrea and Ethiopia fought a deadly border war from 1998 to 2000. Relations improved after Abiy came to power in 2018, but have soured again in recent years.

Professor Matthias Rompel from the Institute of Sociology at the Justus-Liebig-University Giessen in Germany, said that both sides have legitimate security concerns, but their accusations need to be distinguished from independently verified facts.

“Ethiopia’s allegations of Eritrean military incursions into Tigray… and …the scale of Eritrean involvement, and particularly allegations that Asmara is orchestrating the rebellion against Addis Ababa, remain difficult to substantiate independently,” he told Al Jazeera.

He added that the latest developments suggest that the confrontation is no longer merely about Tigray. “Ethiopia’s quest for Red Sea access, Eritrea’s concerns about sovereignty, and Egypt’s strategic rivalry with Ethiopia over the Nile are interconnected,” he said.

“The conflict, therefore, has the potential to destabilise the wider Horn of Africa, with repercussions for Sudan, Somalia and Red Sea security.”

What is the latest fighting about, and how is Eritrea allegedly involved?

Fighting escalated on September 23 when a rebel alliance, including the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), launched attacks against Ethiopian government forces across Tigray, Amhara and Afar regions.

The rebels captured Tigray’s capital, Mekelle, and its airport before announcing their withdrawal on October 3. Government-allied forces subsequently entered the city.

In the latest on the battlefront, government and allied forces took Idaga Hamus early Friday and Abiy-Adi, in the Tembien area, on Thursday afternoon, according to Ermiyas Ababu, a commander of the government-allied Tigray Peace Force.

Residents, according to Reuters news agency, also reported the takeover of Idaga Hamus. Gebremedhin Kihishen, a business owner in Tembien, said government-allied forces controlled Abiy-Adi.

It was unclear from those accounts who held the towns immediately before the reported government advance or whether Eritrean troops were involved in the fighting.

Ermiyas previously reported Eritrean personnel entering Adigrat on Tuesday and Idaga Hamus on Wednesday, citing reports from his personnel. Al Jazeera was unable to independently verify the claims.

The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), a United States-based conflict monitor, reported that Eritrean troops crossed into Ethiopia near Zalambessa and came under Ethiopian drone attack while advancing towards Idaga Hamus. Eritrea has yet to comment on the development.

Addis Ababa accuses Asmara of financing, arming and directing armed groups, as well as deploying troops inside Tigray. Eritrea denies the allegations, which have not been independently verified.

The renewed fighting threatens to unravel the 2022 peace agreement.

That conflict began in November 2020 after months of tensions between Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s government and the TPLF, which had dominated Ethiopian politics for nearly three decades before Abiy took office in 2018.

Eritrea fought alongside Ethiopian federal forces against the TPLF, its longtime adversary. The war killed hundreds of thousands of people and was marked by allegations of massacres, sexual violence and widespread hunger.

The November 2022 Pretoria agreement ended major hostilities, but Eritrea was not a party to the deal. Relations between Addis Ababa and Asmara subsequently deteriorated.

Has Ethiopia sent troops north towards Eritrea?

Multiple media reports say Ethiopian government troops and allied militias entered Adigrat, a strategic city roughly 30km (19 miles) from the Eritrean border, on Saturday.

Three residents confirmed their presence to Reuters, while verified footage showed government-allied militia members walking through the city.

Associated Press news agency footage also showed Ethiopian military vehicles entering Adigrat as some residents welcomed the troops.

Government-allied forces have reported capturing Idaga Hamus and Abiy-Adi, while explosions and alleged drone strikes have been reported near Adigrat.

Are Ethiopia and Eritrea inching towards war?

Analysts warn that Ethiopia and Eritrea may already have moved beyond threats and into a dangerous phase of possible military confrontation.

BISI’s Ibrahim said the two countries have moved beyond “inching” towards war, noting that “The situation has entered a high-risk phase of limited but direct military confrontation with a real possibility of rapid escalation into interstate war.”

He warned that the severing of diplomatic ties removed the “last formal mechanism for crisis management”, while Ethiopian military advances towards the Eritrean border increased the risk of “miscalculation”.

Tom Gardner, a correspondent for The Economist, said the current tensions should be understood in the context of decades of hostility between the neighbours.

Their brief alliance during the 2020-2022 Tigray war was an exception and was driven by a shared hostility towards the TPLF, Gardner told Al Jazeera.

“The Ethiopian government’s strategic goal number one is access to the Red Sea, but also removing Eritrea’s government from the picture,” he noted.

“It’s very much looking like the most dangerous moment for the region since that 1998 to 2000 war.”

Rompel from Justus-Liebig-University Giessen said that the current situation is evolving. “The danger of a wider interstate conflict is real, and the situation has already moved beyond a purely diplomatic confrontation,” he said.

“The central danger is not necessarily that either government has decided to launch a full-scale war, but that military miscalculations, mutual distrust and domestic political pressures could trigger a further escalation neither side can easily control.

“A wider conflict is not inevitable, but the space for diplomatic de-escalation is rapidly narrowing,” he said.

India’s capital is bracing for a second day of protests after thousands of people, including the leaders of the “cockroach” youth movement and opposition politicians, were detained amid a major crackdown on demonstrators.

Abhijeet Dipke, the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leader, called Prime Minister Narendra Modi a “bully” shortly after he was released on Sunday. Thousands of other protesters, some of whom are members of left-wing student groups, were released on Sunday after the Supreme Court called their detention “illegal”.

“Modi, as PM, is an embarrassment to India. Never has this country seen a bigger coward and bully,” Dipke said in a post on X.

The protesters are demanding that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar resign over a revision of voter lists that they say disproportionately benefits Prime Minister Modi’s governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Millions of voters, including Muslims, have been deleted from the rolls in a process marred by technical errors and a perceived lack of transparency.

The protests erupted across several Indian cities after an investigation by the Indian Express newspaper found that two election commissioners objected to many of Kumar’s decisions. India’s Election Commission is a constitutional body with three members, and decisions are taken by majority.

What was the scale of the government crackdown?

Ahead of Saturday’s protests, the capital, New Delhi, was turned into a fortress with tens of thousands of police and paramilitary forces deployed, trains and metros suspended, and markets and major roads blocked, to prevent protesters from reaching Jantar Mantar – a designated protest site close to India’s parliament. Jantar Mantar was sealed off.

Jantar Mantar was the site of the July protest that led to the resignation of Education Minister Dharmesh Pradhan. That protest, also led by the CJP, was triggered by a string of exam paper leaks.

Security forces also set ⁠up checkpoints on major roads and entry points across the city of 20 million people, checked buses and inspected vehicles searching for protesters.

Barricades and concrete blocks disrupted traffic, while anti-riot vehicles equipped with tear-gas launchers guarded key routes.

More than 30,000 police and paramilitary personnel were deployed across the ⁠city, according to local media, and mobile internet services were suspended across several areas of the capital to stop people from online mobilisation efforts by the CJP and other youth groups.

Police detained CJP founder Dipke, as well as his associates, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, from an airplane upon arrival in New Delhi from Mumbai.

Dipke shared a video on his Instagram channel, showing a team of police officers entering the Air India plane after it landed. As they came closer, he said: “I have come to get arrested. I am not afraid of you guys.”

In another video shared by Ranka, Dipke said: “This is dictatorship”.

Delhi police also detained YouTuber Dhruv Rathee and Neha Bora, the national president of the All India Students’ Association (AISA), a leftist group affiliated with the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist).

Some opposition politicians, as well as former chief ministers – Mamata Banerjee of West Bengal, Arvind Kejriwal of Delhi, and Pinarayi Vijayan of Kerala – were also detained, television channels showed.

Despite the unprecedented crackdown, small protests took place elsewhere in the city, including at the popular crafts market “Dilli Haat”. But police also ended up quashing these protests and detaining journalists trying to cover the demonstrations.

Besides New Delhi, some 600 people were also arrested in Mumbai, India’s financial hub, over the protests, according to the ANI news agency.

Have protesters been released?

On Sunday, police officials said all detainees had been released.

The CJP leaders were released on the condition that there would be ‘no breach of peace’ for a year.

Speaking to reporters at a press conference in New Delhi on Sunday afternoon after their release, Saurav Das, the group’s co-convenor, slammed the police for “arriving like mafia dons” and “abducting” them on their plane.

After his release, Rathee said he was “KIDNAPPED.”

Several journalists from news outlets, including Scroll.in, Newslaundry and others were detained. They have all since been released, but Newslaundry said some of their reporters’ media equipment was seized during the detention.

The Committee to Protect Journalists told Al Jazeera on Saturday that it was deeply concerned by reports of journalists being temporarily detained.

“Just as police personnel are doing their jobs, journalists are also doing theirs. A free and independent press is essential to democracy,” Kunal Majumder, the CPJ’s Asia Pacific programme coordinator, said.

How were detainees treated?

Aban Raza, a 37-year old visual artist based in New Delhi who was detained on Saturday, said the “entire experience has left her shocked and angry”.

“We are protesting for the right to vote. It affects all of us. So why is the police suspicious of us and treating us with so much aggression? This makes me angry,” she told Al Jazeera.

Together with three other protesters, including economist Jean Dreze, Raza managed to get close to Jantar Mantar on Saturday morning.

“As soon as we reached close enough to the protest site, we started unfurling our banners which called for the resignation of Election Commission chief Gyanesh Kumar and for free and fair elections. But within minutes, police officials approached us, began tearing our banners and dragging us towards a bus to detain us,” she told Al Jazeera.

“We tried to resist as the police dragged us inside the bus. Both my arms feel very sore today,” she said.

Raza says that some of those detained were not even protesters.

“They were people who had just been picked up whilst they were going about their day. One person was going to the Gurudwara, another was going to meet his wife and they got detained. Most of these people were working class people,” she said.

Raza, who was released on Saturday night, said she is going back to protest on Sunday.

Will the protests continue?

Youth leaders have struck a defiant note, pledging to keep up protests in New Delhi. Some members were detained on Sunday.

The group’s co-convenor Saurav Das, who was released from detention on Sunday, said in a post on X: “After Modi-Shah [Amit Shah, India’s home minister] turned Delhi into a fortress and unleashed what can only be described as a war against their own citizens, one thing has become abundantly clear: Gyanesh Kumar is at the very heart of this government’s survival.”

“But we the young generation will continue to demand accountability. We shall neither be intimidated nor silenced. We are not backing down. We are returning with full strength!” he added.

The CJP has also announced protests in other Indian cities including Mumbai for Sunday evening.

Meanwhile, Neha Bora, the national president of the All India Students’ Association, began a protest on Sunday afternoon in central Delhi.

“Our peaceful protest has started at RK Ashram. Join us here and stand with us!” she said on X.

But shortly afterwards, Bora and several others were detained.

Are India’s opposition parties backing the protests?

The INDIA Bloc – India’s opposition alliance led by the Indian National Congress – has participated in protests alongside the youth-led groups, demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Kumar.

The Bloc is expected to hold a protest on Monday in the capital.

“Yesterday, we held a comprehensive meeting with various leaders to prepare for this march,” Congress general secretary K C Venugopal told reporters on Saturday.

“Gyanesh must go. There will be no backing down,” he added.

Congress party leader and the leader of the opposition in parliament, Rahul Gandhi, has been spearheading a campaign against the election commissioner for months. He was briefly arrested last week over the election protest in New Delhi.

“Modi government has turned the ‘Mother of Democracy’ into a ‘Muzzled Democracy’!” Congress party president Mallikarjun Kharge posted on X.

“Detentions, arrests, jails, lathis [batons] and pellets cannot deter the people of India. Since the days of our freedom struggle, the youth have been at the forefront of shaping the nation’s destiny.”

Why is India’s government refusing to talk to the protesters?

The protests intensified after the Indian Express reported last month that two election commissioners had ⁠questioned Kumar’s revisions that removed roughly 130 million names from voter lists.

The BJP says that of the 130 million names deleted from voter lists, 28 million are dead, 63 million have relocated, 10 million are duplicates and 30 million could not be traced by officials.

The ruling party has also said its electoral success reflects Modi’s popularity and India’s economic growth, and accuses opposition parties of spreading misinformation.

But these protests have become a larger question of democracy and the right to dissent under the Modi government.

While the government had briefly engaged in talks with the youth groups during the July 2026 protests, it has taken a much more hardline stance against demands targeting constitutional and electoral authorities.

The BJP’s officials have also characterised the protests and online opposition as a concerted political effort to destabilise the government rather than highlight legitimate public grievances.

On Saturday, BJP spokesman Sambit Patra dismissed the demonstrators as “anarchic elements” and said that “their flop show has been completely demolished”.

“What is happening at Jantar Mantar, what you can see on TV and a few social media handles, is not India’s story. India is calm and going ahead under good governance,” he told reporters.

Critics and analysts interviewed by Al Jazeera argue that conceding to demands for the election chief’s resignation would validate opposition accusations of vote theft and project weakness for a prime minister sensitive to his political aura.

But Sanjay Kapoor, editor of Hard News Magazine and a political analyst, told Al Jazeera on Saturday that most people coming to the protests do not want Modi’s BJP to continue to govern.

“Modi’s government has begun to lose a lot of credibility at the moment,” he said.

“BJP is afraid that the ground has shifted dramatically against them and they would find it very difficult to come back to power.”

What has been the global reactions to the protests?

On Saturday, the United Nations Human Rights Office expressed concerns over mass detentions before and during the protests.

“We call on the authorities to ensure that the right to peaceful assembly is fully respected and fulfilled,” UN Human Rights spokesperson Thameen Al-Kheetan said in a statement.

He also urged authorities to engage in “meaningful dialogue” to address the “broadly ‌held” concerns expressed.

Amnesty International told Al Jazeera that the detentions signal the Indian government’s desperate attempts to “suppress critical voices”, while Human Rights Watch said that “instead of addressing legitimate citizen concerns, institutions expected to uphold rights appear to be under the stranglehold of rising authoritarianism.”

The Indian mission to the UN in Geneva, however, called the global concerns “misplaced” and said they constitute “an unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of India”.

It stressed that the right to peaceful assembly was guaranteed by India’s Constitution.

“As in every democracy, Indian citizens exercise this right subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order.”

United States President Donald Trump has said that he does not intend to bomb Iran again until the November midterm elections, even though several US media outlets have reported that the Pentagon has drawn up plans to relaunch attacks before that vote.

Trump has been accused of misdirection on the issue in the past. The US launched its initial attacks on Iran on February 28, as talks with Iran were ongoing and despite Trump saying just the day before that he had not made any decision. One year previously, the US struck Iran towards the end of Israel’s June 2025 12-day war, despite Trump saying he would announce a decision about attacks “in two weeks”.

Still, striking Iran ahead of the midterm elections would be risky for the administration as the war remains deeply unpopular with Americans.

Resuming the war afterwards may have less of a negative impact on Trump, who is not eligible to run for another term as US president anyway.

Here’s what we know about Trump’s plans.

In the past two days, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and other publications have reported claims by unnamed officials that the Pentagon has drawn up plans to attack Iran before the midterms, if authorised to do so.

On Wednesday, US publication Axios cited US and Israeli officials saying the Pentagon has instructed US Central Command (CENTCOM) to prepare for imminent major combat operations. The Atlantic also reported along similar lines.

What has Trump said?

On Thursday, Trump posted on his Truth Social media platform that he will not order a resumption of strikes on Iran before November 3, when the US midterm elections will be held.

“I want to make it clear to everybody that, while Iran is in very bad condition…we will not be attacking Iran at any time prior to the Midterm Elections to be held in the United States on November 3rd,” he said.

The president added that the US is presently “having productive discussions” with the Iranian side. However, that was also the case on February 28, the day the US and Israel first struck Iran, triggering the war.

Trump did not make any reference to preparing for potential military operations, nor did he provide more details on the state of talks.

Why might Trump be hesitant about resuming bombing before the midterms?

Trump and Republicans are worried about a voter backlash against the war at the polls. The US war on Iran is intensely unpopular domestically as Americans have had to grapple with surging prices of gas, food and other basic commodities because of the crisis in the Middle East.

Since the start of the war, surveys have shown that large numbers of Americans did not approve of striking Iran.

Now, about 65 percent of Americans say they “disapprove” of the way in which Trump has handled the Iran war overall, according to a Pew Research Center poll released on Thursday. Trump stated at the start of the war that it would go on for just a few weeks, however, it is now into its eighth month.

According to Pew, most Americans now believe the war will continue for at least another year. Even Republican or more conservative-leaning voters are growing more negative about the war, its poll found.

The conflict has also severely affected Trump’s personal ratings and eroded support for Republicans. A Reuters/Ipsos poll on Thursday found that only 30 percent of his supporters were enthusiastic about voting in the midterms, compared with 48 percent of Democratic voters.

About 13 percent of those who voted for Trump in 2024 say they are not sure who to vote for in the congressional elections.

Delaying attacks until after the elections could potentially shield Republican candidates from voter backlash, analysts say.

While analysts say Trump will see a good performance at the polls as approval for renewed strikes, a Republican defeat at the polls could equally further incentivise him to hit Iran again as he will calculate that he has little to lose at that point.

While that could further affect Trump’s ratings, the president is not eligible to run in the next presidential election in any case.

Will the US restart the war after the midterms?

In recent weeks, the US president has threatened to “end” the war with force after the elections as talks with Iran have dragged on.

At a Republican convention in September, he accused Iran of trying to affect the outcome of the midterms and said that conflict “is going to end immediately after the elections”.

In an interview with Time magazine two weeks ago, he also said it would be “possible” to ramp up bombing in Iran after the elections, but declined to elaborate. Analysts say his comments were designed to calm voters, while at the same time warning Iran of potential aggression after the vote.

Last week, the US military dispatched about 7,000 sailors and 2,000 Marines aboard several ships now sailing to the Middle East amid threats of new attacks from Trump. The vessel formation included the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group.

The deployment increases the number of US troops in the region to 20,000, alongside hundreds of aircraft and at least three carrier strike groups.

In the past, US troop build-up in the Middle East and the Caribbean has subsequently resulted in military action.

In June, Washington and Iran signed a ceasefire agreement that quickly broke down over control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump has repeatedly said that the US has the upper hand in the strait, citing more oil exports and Iran’s weakened economy. He has also voiced aversion to a deal with Tehran over management of Hormuz, but said he might consider it because “they’re willing to offer us anything to stop”.

Washington rejected a recent proposal from Iran to reopen the strait based on certain conditions it wants the US to meet, including the lifting of sanctions, unfreezing Iranian assets and guaranteeing an end to attacks. Last week, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran was considering a counterproposal from the US.

One of Israel’s top ultra-Orthodox rabbis, Dov Lando, has become the centre of controversy in Israel after comments emerged in which he denigrated Zionism.

In a recently released video recording, the 96-year-old rabbi is heard saying the ideology of Zionism caused the Jewish people to suffer “disasters”, and that Jewish Israelis may have been better off without a state.

The remarks have drawn rebukes from Israeli politicians weeks before landmark legislative elections, in which the role of the country’s growing ultra-Orthodox community – particularly over military service – is a major issue. The political alignment of ultra-Orthodox parties could also prove crucial to the formation of the next government.

So, who is Lando and why are his comments significant?

Who is Dov Lando?

Dov Lando is a 96-year-old rabbi regarded as the leader of Israel’s Lithuanian ultra-Orthodox community. Born in Poland and raised in the Lithuanian-style ultra-Orthodox tradition, Lando heads a yeshiva – a traditional Jewish academy – in the Israeli city of Bnei Brak.

He is a member of Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, a council of senior ultra-Orthodox rabbis that offer religious guidance to the community, as well as the spiritual leader of Israel’s Degel HaTorah party. That party is part of the United Torah Judaism (UTJ) alliance, which is a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition.

What has Lando said about Zionism?

Earlier this week, Israeli media released a video of Lando making year-old comments that harshly criticise Zionism, military service and secular Israelis.

Lando, who has made similarly critical remarks before, is heard in the video saying that Zionism “caused the Arabs to hate us” and brought physical as well as spiritual “disasters” on the Jewish people.

“It is possible to live well with the Arabs without a state,” Lando said, adding that international or Palestinian rule would have been “the best situation” for Jews.

Lando went on to castigate soldiers who adhere to Religious Zionism – a strand of Orthodox Judaism that upholds Zionism – saying “they are killed because their rabbis teach them a distorted Torah.” Many military operations, he said, are carried out “not for saving lives, but for the honour of the state”.

The veteran rabbi also had harsh words for secular Israelis, who he said have “no connection to Judaism at all”. He described them as having built “a state of apostasy and heresy”.

What has been the reaction in Israel?

Lando’s remarks have drawn fierce criticism from numerous Israeli politicians, including all major figures that have joined an opposition alliance challenging Netanyahu.

Gadi Eisenkot, head of the Yashar party who is viewed as the opposition bloc’s most likely candidate for prime minister, said Lando’s “outrageous statements” were “the embodiment of anti-Zionism”.

Yair Lapid, the head of Israel’s opposition in the Knesset, called the comments “a disgrace to every Jew”.

Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who leads the Together alliance co-founded with Lapid, said Lando’s remarks are “anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist” and against the Israeli military.

Netanyahu has not commented on Lando’s latest reported remarks, but he publicly condemned earlier statements by the rabbi in July, when Lando accused the Religious Zionism movement of “incitement to murder” for its support for drafting religious seminary students into the military.

Could the controversy impact Israel’s upcoming elections?

Potentially.

Members of the anti-Netanyahu opposition bloc have called for the UTJ, which Lando’s party is part of, to be cast out of any future government, and criticised Netanyahu for staying aligned with the group.

Yair Golan, head of the Democrats party, said Netanyahu is “silent because without Rabbi Lando and his emissaries, he has no government”.

Netanyahu’s “political survival is more important to him than Zionism, more than equality in service, and more than the blood of our soldiers”, Golan said.

But breaking with the UTJ would come at a huge political cost to Netanyahu, whose coalition is already in for a tough election battle on October 27 and is polling well below the 61-seat threshold needed for a majority.

UTJ is projected to win 8 seats in parliament, according to an October 5 poll by Israel’s Channel 12.

“If Netanyahu attacks Lando forcefully, he pays a price with the Haredim (ultra-Orthodox) he needs to form a government,” said Ehab Jabareen, a researcher on Israeli affairs. “If he stays silent, he hands his rivals material to tell right-wing voters that the man who speaks of Zionism and security depends on a religious leadership that doubts Zionism itself.”

Italy’s parliament is voting on Thursday on a new electoral law that would make it easier for election winners to form a majority government.

The law, proposed by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, would award extra seats to any party or coalition that obtains more than 42 percent of seats in both parliamentary chambers, ensuring it holds a majority.

Meloni has framed the legislation as a route to greater stability in Italy’s political system, which has often been run by fragile coalition governments. Her critics, however, say the move is actually aimed at boosting her own chances in elections next year.

Here’s what we know about the electoral law and what it means for Italian politics:

What is Italy’s current electoral system?

Italy currently has a mixed electoral system for its 600-seat parliament, with about 36 percent of members of parliament elected directly in constituencies where the candidate with the most votes wins, and the rest decided through proportional representation.

The system, called “Rosatellum”, has been in place since 2017. It encourages coalition-building but can produce fractured results that make a governing majority hard to forge.

What would the new law change?

The new legislation would replace the mixed electoral system with a fully proportional one, as well as awarding extra seats to the party or coalition that wins the most seats if it secures at least 42 percent in both chambers.

The bonus would be as many as 70 seats in the 400-member Chamber of Deputies, the lower house, and up to 35 seats in the Senate, which has 200 elected members.

That means if a party or coalition meets the 42 percent share threshold in both chambers, it would have stronger power to govern. If no party or coalition meets the threshold, representation would be decided proportionally.

The new law would also force coalitions to announce their candidates for prime minister before the elections. Rado Fonda, head of research at Italian pollster SWG, told the Reuters news agency this provision could “prove problematic for the centre-left, potentially forcing an early leadership contest and exposing divisions that could weaken the bloc”.

Meloni, who currently leads the country’s longest-serving government since World War II, has said the reform will help stabilise the country rather than serve any one political group. “Whoever wins the elections will have the numbers to govern,” she said.

What stage is the legislation at?

The proposed law has already been approved by the Senate and must now undergo a final secret-ballot vote in the Chamber of Deputies.

Giovanni Orsina, a political scientist at Rome’s Luiss Guido Carli University, predicted that the law is “extremely likely” to pass.

If it fails, Meloni has said she will resign.

Why is the legislation controversial?

Opponents say the law is undemocratic because it could potentially grant a winning coalition a disproportionate level of power in parliament.

They also say that the legislation is intended to favour Meloni, whose Brothers of Italy party (Fdl) is bracing for a tough election battle next year.

Riccardo Magi, head of the liberal More Europe party, who is on a hunger strike to protest the proposed reform, has called it an “anti-democratic law” that risks giving a minority bloc a huge majority in parliament.

Senator Matteo Renzi, who leads the Italia Viva party, has accused Italy’s governing coalition of pushing the electoral reform due to a fear of losing power.

Other critics have pointed out that the law would do little to stabilise the political system if no party or coalition reaches the 42 percent threshold in both chambers – a relatively high bar.

“This could produce a hung parliament, making post-electoral negotiations necessary to form a government,” Vincenzo Emanuele, a political science professor at Luiss Guido Carli University in Rome and a member of the Italian Center for Electoral Studies (CISE), told Al Jazeera. “Even relatively small changes in coalition composition could make the difference between a clear parliamentary majority and a situation of political deadlock.”

When are Italy’s next elections, and what do the polls show?

Italy’s next general election must be held by December 22, 2027, although the government can call elections earlier if it wishes.

Currently, Meloni’s Fdl is polling ahead of all other parties, with 27 percent support, according to Politico’s polling aggregator. Her coalition partners, Lega and Forza Italia, have a combined 12 percent support, according to Politico, bringing the coalition share to 39 percent.

Fdl’s polling has been dented by support for a new far-right group, Futuro Nazionale (National Future), Reuters reported. It currently has 7.8 percent support, according to Italian polling institute SWG.

In opposition, the Democratic Party (PD) has 21 percent support, the Five Star Movement (M5S) has 12 percent and the Alliance of Greens and Left (AVS) has 6 percent, according to Politico. The Italy Viva (IV) and More Europe parties have 2 percent support each.

Emanuele said the current landscape means the proposed electoral law would not necessarily favour Meloni and could even benefit the opposition.

He said recent simulations by the CISE have shown that a centre-left coalition including the PD and M5S could potentially reach 44 percent of the vote, securing a “comfortable parliamentary majority”, though that could change if Meloni allies with National Future.

“The reform does not inherently favour the incumbent government: Its effects will depend crucially on how the competing coalitions are formed,” said Emanuele.

French high school students have been protesting for more than two weeks over conditions in schools, including overcrowded classrooms and staff shortages, and they show no sign of stopping.

The unrest began on September 21 when pupils blockaded a school in the Paris suburb of Creteil, and within a week, their protest had spread across the country with students and police clashing violently.

On September 29, the demonstrations coincided with a nationwide public sector strike, in which teachers joined other state workers against a proposed pay freeze. More than 6,100 people have since been arrested.

With the government under pressure to rein in spending as its debt rises, Al Jazeera looks at how much France invests in education, how it compares with the rest of Europe and how it measures up against what the country spends on healthcare and defence.

How much does France spend on schooling?

According to the latest data from Eurostat, the European Union’s statistics agency, France’s public spending on education amounts to 5.1 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP). That figure does not include private spending, such as school fees paid by families.

The French Ministry of National Education uses a broader measure, known as domestic expenditure on education, which counts all the money that goes into education, whether from the state, local authorities, businesses or households. As well as teaching, it covers adult and continuing training and related costs such as school meals, boarding and transport.

By this measure, France spent 199.2 billion euros ($223bn) on education in 2025, equivalent to 6.7 percent of its GDP and 2.4 billion euros more than in 2024, according to provisional ministry figures.

Spending has more than doubled since 1980, even after accounting for inflation. But the economy has grown too, so education spending’s share of GDP is lower today than it was in the mid-1990s.

Secondary education accounted for the largest share of spending at 73.7 billion euros (37 percent), followed by primary education at 60 billion euros (30 percent), higher education at 45.6 billion euros (23 percent) and adult and continuing education at 19.7 billion euros (10 percent), according to the National Education Ministry.

How much do other European countries spend on education?

Among European countries, Sweden spends the largest share of its GDP on education at 7.3 percent in 2024, followed by Iceland (7 percent) and Belgium, Estonia and Finland (6.3 percent each), according to Eurostat.

The lowest spenders are Ireland (2.7 percent), Greece (3.9 percent), Romania and Italy (4 percent each), and the United Kingdom and Spain (4.1 percent each).

At 5.1 percent, France is joint 13th, level with the Netherlands and Slovakia, and above the EU average of 4.8 percent.

But above-average spending has not shielded France from a problem affecting much of the developed world. Teacher shortages are growing across countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, according to the OECD’s latest Education at a Glance report.

Rather than leaving posts empty, many countries are filling them with teachers who lack full qualifications. In the 2024-2025 school year, 9 percent of primary and secondary teachers across the OECD were not fully qualified.

In France, the strain is most visible in secondary schools. About 11 percent of secondary teachers are not fully qualified, compared with less than 3 percent in primary schools. Furthermore, lower secondary classes average 26 pupils, compared with 23 across the OECD.

That echoes what pupils have been saying during the latest protests: Classes are large, and absent teachers are not being replaced. Some also described dilapidated buildings, a shortage of tables and chairs and, in some schools, rodent infestations. The intense heatwaves that hit France this year exacerbated existing problems in neglected buildings, many of which have no air conditioning, students said.

Teachers also feel undervalued. Only 4 percent said their profession is valued in society, the lowest share of any country surveyed and far below the OECD average of 22 percent.

How much has spending changed?

Historical UNESCO data showed France’s education spending slipped from 5.5 percent of GDP in 2017 to 5.3 percent in 2022 although it remained the ninth-highest among 29 European countries with data. A brief rise to 5.7 percent in 2020 reflected the pandemic shrinking the economy, not extra spending.

France was one of 14 countries where the share fell. Norway and Denmark saw the steepest drops while Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania and the Czech Republic recorded the biggest rises.

What else are these nations spending on?

The protests have coincided with nationwide public sector strikes over the government’s proposed 2027 budget, which seeks 54 billion euros ($61.3bn) in savings as French President Emmanuel Macron’s government tries to rein in a large public deficit.

Unions and public sector workers object in particular to a plan to freeze state employees’ salaries, which is expected to save about 2 billion euros ($2.27bn).

Across Europe, most governments spend more on education than on defence, but healthcare takes the largest share of national income of the three, according to 2022 data from the World Bank and UNESCO.

France spent 11.9 percent of its GDP on healthcare in 2022, one of the highest shares in Europe.

Paramount Skydance has completed its takeover of Warner Bros Discovery, bringing CNN and CBS News under the same corporate ownership, in a deal that has raised concerns about editorial independence and freedom of speech.

The acquisition, worth about $110bn including debt, combines two of Hollywood’s biggest studios after months of legal challenges lodged by state attorneys general and unions.

The new company, Skydance Corporation, brings together HBO, CBS, Nickelodeon, Showtime, Comedy Central, DC Studios and Food Network, alongside streaming services Paramount plus and HBO Max.

But its control of two major US news organisations has drawn particular scrutiny. David Ellison, Skydance’s chairman and chief executive, has promised to preserve their editorial independence, but his father, Oracle cofounder Larry Ellison is a major financial backer of the deal, and has previously donated funds to US President Donald Trump and Israel.

Asked about the takeover on Tuesday, Trump welcomed it. “They’re terrific people, and it’s going to be a great company,” he said.

Why was the merger challenged?

The takeover faced initial opposition from Hollywood workers, politicians and state prosecutors concerned about the mounting concentration of power in an industry already dominated by a handful of companies.

Netflix initially reached an agreement to buy part of Warner Bros Discovery. Paramount then launched a competing bid, prompting a bidding war before Netflix walked away.

A California-led coalition of 12 state attorneys general sued to block the deal, saying that it would reduce competition and raise prices. The Writers Guild of America brought a separate challenge.

Both cases were settled in September when Paramount agreed to commitments relating to film production, support for displaced workers and protections for the news networks, including the creation of a new editorial independence board.

But the settlement did not end opposition to the deal. “This merger will stifle creativity, weaken free speech and cost people their jobs,” actor and activist Mark Ruffalo has said.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren linked the takeover to Trump’s efforts to restrict media access. “As Trump tries to ban CNN from the White House, it would be a massive mistake to cave on the Paramount merger,” she said, referring to the US president’s so-far thwarted attempt last month to bar reporters from several news organisations, including CNN, from accessing the White House.

Can an editorial independence board protect CNN and CBS?

One condition of the settlement requires Skydance to establish a “News Editorial Independence Board” within 180 days of completing the takeover.

The five-member body is to include active or retired journalists with at least 10 years of experience. It is intended to establish editorial principles and address disputes involving the news networks and corporate management.

However, its members will be appointed by, and will report to, Skydance’s board of directors, which Ellison chairs. Two members can belong to the same political party, and there is no requirement to publish its findings.

The condition has left critics with a multitude of questions, including: How can a member of an independent editorial board be a member of a political party? How can there be scrutiny if its findings are not public? How can it be independent if it is appointed by a board of directors, themselves appointed by the CEO of the company?

Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said, “A Paramount-appointed editorial independence board for CNN and CBS is worthless. The fish rots from the head, and this particular fish is headed by a compromised oligarch with a history of throwing journalists under the bus to advance his business interests.”

Stern also questioned whether government enforcement of the settlement could itself threaten press freedom. “The editorial board creates the same First Amendment problems it’s supposed to solve – the government meddling in the news.”

The First Amendment provides constitutional protection for freedom of speech and the press.

Ellison argues that the two networks will continue to operate independently. “We’re going to make sure that CNN and CBS News are completely editorially independent,” he said on Tuesday.

On Monday, Skydance announced that Mark Thompson would remain CNN’s chairman and editor-in-chief, while Bari Weiss will continue as CBS News’s editor-in-chief, easing previous fears that Weiss would immediately take charge of both networks.

Why are there fears for editorial independence?

The takeover gives the Ellison family control of CNN less than a month before the November 3 US midterm elections, and follows Trump’s repeated attacks on the network as it seeks to hold the US president to account.

Shortly after Paramount launched its bid in December, Trump accused CNN of spreading “poison and lies” and said it was “imperative” that it be sold, while the Trump administration has moved to bar CNN from reporting in certain areas of the White House.

Ellison donated roughly $45m to a political nonprofit group supporting Trump’s election efforts in 2024, while he donated $16.6m to Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, a charity supporting Israeli soldiers – its largest single donation at the time.

Earlier this year, the White House criticised CNN’s coverage of the US-Israeli war on Iran, while Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters that “the sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better.”

Sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates also hold indirect financial interests in the combined company. They have no voting stakes, although their involvement adds another layer of scrutiny over its funding.

Concerns about the future for editorial integrity, however, intensified after Skydance acquired Paramount in 2025, and layoffs followed, alongside the closure of CBS News Radio and changes to CBS News flagship investigative programme 60 Minutes.

High-profile firings enacted under CBS News Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss and Skydance Media CEO David Ellison included correspondents Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega, as well as 60 Minutes executive producer Tanya Simon.

The programme’s September season premiere attracted about 21 percent fewer viewers than a year earlier.

In 2025, Paramount also agreed to pay Trump $16m to settle a lawsuit over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

In a June 2 letter, nine advocacy groups, including Reporters Without Borders, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and the Committee for the First Amendment, warned that CNN could face similar upheaval and firings.

“Bari Weiss’ shameless actions fulfil the Ellisons’ commitment to President Trump to remake CBS to his liking,” they alleged, referring to the firings and changes at 60 Minutes.

“Larry Ellison has reportedly promised to do the same at CNN if allowed to take control through the pending Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger. Not because it makes any business sense, but because they seek to control the public discourse.”

The groups described the proposed takeover as an “existential threat to the free press, independent media, and free speech in this country and beyond”.

Countries in Central Asia have begun buying oil from Iran as the Russian fuel supplies they have long depended on run dry amid Ukraine’s mounting attacks on Russian energy infrastructure to degrade Moscow’s war effort.

In August, Tajikistan announced it was receiving oil and petroleum products from Iran as Dushanbe faces uncertainty over its fuel supply from Russia. Tehran also agreed to establish a joint refinery in Kyrgyzstan in August, and supply the country with crude oil.

Moscow has been facing fuel shortages due to Ukrainian drone strikes on its refineries as Russia’s war on its neighbour continues to rage.

Can the Russian fuel crisis give Iran a new oil opening in Central Asia?

Here’s what we know:

Which Central Asian countries have been affected by Russia’s fuel crisis?

Ukraine’s offensive against Russian energy infrastructure has caused panic across Central Asian countries like Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, which are dependent on Moscow for oil and petroleum products.

Tajikistan has traditionally sourced up to 80 percent of its petroleum products from Russia. Kyrgyzstan also relies on petroleum product imports, sourcing more than 90 percent of its petrol from Russia.

“They’ve been hurt the most,” Galiya Ibragimova, a Moldova-based expert on Central Asia with Carnegie Politika, which has its headquarters in Berlin, told Al Jazeera in an interview in August.

Kyrgyzstan is a member of the Eurasian Economic Union, the free trade bloc of five former Soviet nations dominated by Russia and the Kremlin’s political decisions.

Tajikistan is not a member of the group, but it bought discounted Russian fuel as “payment for political loyalty, not because [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is so kind”, Ibragimova added.

Kazakhstan, meanwhile, boasts three giant, Soviet-era oil refineries. Still, fuel prices in the country have increased by 15.6 percent this year, the UlusMedia website reported on July 10.

Uzbekistan, on the other hand, is less dependent on Russian energy, with domestic production capable of reaching 100,000 tonnes of petroleum products per month, satisfying most of the country’s needs. But due to the increase in oil demand from its regional neighbours, Uzbekistan has also been forced to diversify its imports and has begun striking deals with countries like Georgia and Iraq.

Why is there a fuel crisis in Russia?

Russia has been facing a severe fuel deficit as Kyiv’s drone strikes – launched in an effort to degrade Moscow’s ability to maintain its ongoing invasion of Ukraine – have knocked out an estimated quarter to half of its total oil refining capacity.

To tackle the problem, Russia has imposed fuel rationing. Sales are often limited to about 20-30 litres (about 5-8 US gallons) per vehicle, and drivers must pump fuel strictly into vehicle tanks. Filling jerry cans is largely prohibited.

Earlier, the government banned petrol and jet fuel exports. Officials are now weighing a ban on diesel exports, too. Authorities have loosened fuel-quality regulations, temporarily allowing lower-grade fuel for the domestic market.

A state of emergency has also been declared in Russian-occupied Crimea, which Moscow annexed from Ukraine in 2014. A Russian-owned oil firm in India, Nayara Energy, has reportedly sold petroleum to Russia.

While Russian President Putin acknowledges the crisis, he appears reluctant to end the war on Ukraine and insists the situation is under control.

“These attacks on our facilities certainly create problems – that is obvious. We are currently seeing a certain shortage, though I would say it is not critical,” he said earlier this year.

“First and foremost, we have to rapidly and significantly increase production of air defence systems that are most in demand. We must also continue to improve them… Repairs at refineries must be completed more quickly.”

So, how is Iran helping Central Asia?

Amid Russian fuel shortages, Central Asian countries like Tajikistan have begun striking deals with Iran.

In August, Tajikistan’s Energy and Water Resources Ministry told the Asia-Plus news agency that the country is receiving oil and petroleum products from Iran. The ministry has not disclosed the route used to transport the products, but Tajikistan expects to receive 2.55 million tonnes of oil and petroleum products from Iran.

Besides Tajikistan, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian welcomed a proposal from Kyrgyzstan in August to establish a joint refinery in the Central Asian country, according to a report by Iran’s Tasnim news agency,

Under the agreement, Pezeshkian said, “The crude oil needed by the refinery can be supplied by Iran, and the products can be divided between the two sides.”

Will exporting oil to Central Asian countries help Iran?

The United States and Israel’s war on Iran has affected Tehran’s oil revenues. Data released by the government-administered Statistical Center of Iran in September showed that 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.

Tehran’s ability to sell crude has also been dramatically curtailed by the US naval blockade of Iran’s ports, imposed for most of the war, which began in late February.

Iranian crude and condensate loadings collapsed from about two million barrels per day (bpd) 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 in September that 29 tankers, carrying 36.11 million barrels of crude, were trapped in the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Vortexa estimated that total Iranian crude afloat had fallen from 135 million barrels at the end of July to 107 million barrels by late August.

Amid these challenges, Iran has been scrambling to find new countries to trade oil with. Russian fuel shortages have opened up new opportunities for Iran in Central Asia, at least in the short term, according to analysts.

How does Iranian oil reach Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan?

Iran does not share a border with either country.

To get to Tajikistan, Iranian “oil and refined products have to cross Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan by rail”, said Frederic Schneider, a nonresident senior fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs.

To get to Kyrgyzstan, Iranian oil would also need to pass through Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

Is trading oil with Iran logistically sustainable for Central Asia?

It is unlikely, Schneider said.

“This opportunity [for Iran] depends on Ukraine continuing to hit Russian refineries, which seems unlikely, both given the waning of Ukraine’s strike capability and the US government’s demand to stop the attacks as they put too much strain on global oil markets,” he told Al Jazeera.

He noted that US President Donald Trump has pressed his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, repeatedly in September for an “energy truce” with Russia, since diesel prices have become a political problem for Trump ahead of the November midterm elections in the US.

“Those truces have so far collapsed within hours, but the direction is clear. Once the strikes stop, or once Russia repairs its plants, Russian fuel will come back to Central Asia duty-free under Eurasian Economic Union arrangements, and Iran will struggle to compete on price,” he said.

Logistics also favour Russia with respect to importing oil to countries like Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, he said.

Unlike Iran, Russia shares a border with both.

“Tajikistan’s own request [for oil] would need around 51,000 rail tank cars, and its main refinery at Dangara has never operated commercially at scale. Russia, by contrast, has decades’ worth of logistics infrastructure, pipelines, rail links, and supply contracts into the region,” Schneider said.

Is Central Asia a big enough market to compensate for Iran’s Hormuz losses?

No, according to Schneider.

Tajikistan’s total demand, Schneider said, was about 50,000bpd.

That is a drop in the ocean compared with the 1.7 million bpd Iran exported by sea a year ago. China reported $9.96bn in two-way trade with Iran in 2025, a figure that does not include some $31.2bn in Iranian oil shipments, according to the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

“This suggests that Central Asia can be a useful outlet for Iranian diesel and gasoline, but it cannot replace the Chinese market,” Schneider said.

For Tehran, Central Asia’s importance depends on how the US-Israel war on Iran develops, he said, adding that Tehran also needs to stay on good terms with Russia, with which it has a deep strategic partnership.

“Iran cannot afford to be seen as poaching Russian customers too aggressively, so it will present itself as a stopgap supplier, which, again, limits how much it can earn there,” he said.

What other risks does Central Asia face in buying Iranian oil?

Schneider warned that Central Asian nations could be hit with Washington’s secondary sanctions on Iran.

“Legally, US secondary sanctions apply to any foreign company or bank that conducts a significant transaction in Iranian petroleum, wherever it is based, and the Treasury expanded the list of sanctionable conduct in August. A Treasury official has already warned publicly that anyone in this trade ‘incurs that risk themselves’,” he noted.

But Schneider said that, politically, the US sanctioning Central Asian governments is unlikely.

“Central Asia is the arena of a new ‘Great Game’ between Russia, China and the United States, and Washington is courting the region harder than at any point since the 1990s, chiefly for its critical minerals. Kazakhstan alone holds about half of the minerals the US classifies as critical, including uranium and tungsten,” he said.

“Sanctioning a Central Asian government for buying fuel from Iran would push them straight back into closer ties to Russia and China,” he noted.

“What I would expect instead are targeted designations of individual traders, rail and logistics operators and smaller banks, combined with quiet pressure on the region’s correspondent banks. That alone is enough to raise the cost and slow the trade, but will come at the price of these countries redoubling their efforts to decouple economically and financially from the US.”

Protests have continued across France for a third week as tens of thousands of school pupils and trade unionists have taken to the streets across many cities.

Students initially began boycotting classes in deprived areas of Paris on September 21 over teacher shortages and poor conditions, but protests have quickly morphed into a nationwide movement, with some of the largest demonstrations taking place on Tuesday.

School blockades have turned violent, with protesters accused of hurling items at police and officers allegedly responding forcefully using batons, tear gas and rubber bullets. In one case, a teenager lost his hand in a grenade explosion.

The mass demonstrations, which also coincided with a public sector strike over government budget plans last week, have presented another challenge for President Emmanuel Macron’s cash-strapped government ahead of next year’s elections, amid an ongoing fiscal crisis as government debt has rocketed in recent years.

Here’s what we know:

What do protesters want?

Students have been protesting over what they say are poor conditions in France’s high schools – or lycees – especially in poorer areas. Protests have been held in Strasbourg, Bordeaux, Nantes, Marseille, Lyon and other towns and cities.

Students say absent teachers are not replaced, dilapidated school buildings are sometimes rodent-infested, there are inadequate tables and chairs, large class sizes and long classroom hours.

The intense heatwave which hit France in the summer exacerbated existing problems in neglected school buildings, which also suffer from a lack of air conditioning, school pupils say.

The protests have coincided with ongoing nationwide public sector strikes over a proposed 2027 cost-cutting budget that aims to achieve 54 billion euros ($61.3bn) in savings as Macron’s government races to bring a large public deficit under control.

Public sector staff and unions object in particular to a government plan to freeze salaries to save about two billion euros ($2.27bn).

Parents are also increasingly present at protests amid widespread anger about the police response to demonstrating minors.

But the protests are happening amid wider discontent over soaring fuel and commodity prices and reduced public spending under Macron.

Government officials have meanwhile accused political opposition groups and unionists of taking advantage of the student movement. Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu accused political opponents last week of encouraging escalation.

What has happened so far?

At least 6,100 people had been arrested by early Tuesday, many of them under the age of 18, as police tactics come under intense scrutiny.

Serious injuries have also been reported.

A 15-year-old lost a hand in the northern city of Lens on Monday after he reportedly came into contact with a police stun grenade, which then exploded. Public prosecutors say investigations are ongoing into whether the youth actively picked up the grenade or if it landed on him.

Overall, at least 190 high school students have been injured, Education Minister Edouard Geffray said on Monday. On Sunday, he said 78 teaching staff had been injured, and 24 schools had been burned or ransacked.

Some 715 police officers have been injured, according to Interior Minister Laurent Nunez on Tuesday.

Officials said as many as 589 schools have been disrupted this week, down from 735 on Friday last week.

Rights groups, including Amnesty International, have criticised the use of force against minors amid media reports of students being hit with batons and rubber bullets, as well as sprayed with tear gas.

What happened on Tuesday?

Protesters again blockaded schools on Tuesday as thousands demonstrated over their demands.

Placard-waving crowds were reported in southern Marseille, eastern Strasbourg and other major cities.

In Paris’s 20th district, protesters outside the shut Helene Boucher lycee tipped over rubbish bins and bicycles and created a makeshift barricade, The Associated Press news agency reported. Parents, meanwhile, positioned themselves between the demonstrators and police to protect their children.

“They are our children. Teachers, parents, federations, we all share the same goal: the protection of children’s rights, and it is a legitimate right to demonstrate and to make demands,” said Emilia Sichili Suriam, one member of a parents’ association.

Interior Minister Nunez rejected criticism of the police on Tuesday, saying the response has been proportionate in “almost all cases”. He claimed that the protests were transforming into “riots”.

What does this mean for the French government?

These are only the latest in a series of high-profile protests that have marked Macron’s presidency and undermined his government’s reform efforts ahead of elections in April and May.

Macron will not run in next year’s elections, but his image and that of his government have no doubt been tainted by photos of police chasing students in the streets, France expert Jacob Ross, from the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), told Al Jazeera.

“He is not taken seriously any more because many think of him as already out of government,” Ross said of Macron. “But this is still very significant for his government because it has become clear that they don’t have the capacity to calm things down. There’s clearly little fiscal room to manoeuvre.”

Macron’s terms have long been beset by political and financial instability. Successive prime ministers have faced difficulties in pushing through policies in the highly polarised National Assembly where Macron’s centrist Renaissance party and allied blocs lack a majority.

Critics have taken aim at Macron’s deeply unpopular austerity measures, which have seen drastically reduced government spending taking a toll on pensions and healthcare. Officials, however, have defended these policies amid rising debt following COVID-19-era spending.

On Sunday, Lecornu said the government had kickstarted initiatives to address the protesters’ demands and that a report was expected by the end of the month. He, however, added that Paris would not “yield an inch” to violence.

Meanwhile, frontrunner and opposition leader Marine Le Pen of the far-right National Rally party submitted a shadow budget on Tuesday promising 140 billion euros ($157.6bn) in cost savings by 2032 if elected next year.

Over the course of Sunday, a dozen B-1B bombers took off from Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford in western England and flew home to the United States. Their departure abruptly ended the base’s role as a launchpad for US strikes on Iran, which began on February 28.

The base, roughly 160km (100 miles) west of London, is the US Air Force’s only European airfield for heavy bombers and a key forward operating location for deployed bombers.

Over the past two weeks, six people were arrested on suspicion of “terrorism”. They were all released on bail.

US President Donald Trump said on Monday the bombers were moved because “there were some threats”, which he believed were linked to Iran. “So we moved them around a little bit, not very far,” he told reporters at the White House.

Hours earlier, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio played down any link to the alleged plot, saying it was “not unusual to see rotations happen” and that he had confidence in the security of US bases.

What happened at RAF Fairford?

On September 27, police arrested five men on suspicion of plotting to plant explosives near Fairford in the United Kingdom. They were released on bail a day later.

Investigators found petrol but no explosive devices in their vans, though UK officials say the men remain under investigation. On Thursday, police arrested a 25-year-old UK-Iranian dual national in London on suspicion of plotting an attack on the airbase. He was also released on bail on October 3.

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham suggested that “Iran played a part” in the alleged plot but declined to give details. Iran has denied any such scheme and summoned the UK ambassador in Tehran in protest at the arrests.

What bombers does the US have?

The US Air Force flies three types of bombers, with a fourth on the way.

The B-52 Stratofortress is the oldest. The B-52H model currently in service was built in the early 1960s. With a wingspan of 56 metres (185 feet), it is the largest US bomber and can carry about 31 tonnes of weapons, including nuclear bombs and cruise missiles.

The B-1B Lancer, which entered service in the mid-1980s, is the fastest of the three. It can reach 1.2 times the speed of sound and has a swing-wing that sweeps back for high-speed flight. It carries the largest conventional payload, about 34 tonnes, but no longer carries nuclear weapons. These were the aircraft that left Fairford.

The B-2 Spirit is a flying-wing stealth bomber designed to slip past air defences. Only 20 were built, of which 19 remain in service. It can carry both nuclear and conventional weapons, including the 13,600kg (30,000lb) “bunker buster” bomb used in US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites in June 2025.

The B-21 Raider, a smaller stealth bomber, is still in flight testing, and it remains on track for delivery in 2027. Over the next decade and a half, the air force plans to replace the B-1B and B-2, leaving a future fleet of B-21s and upgraded B-52s.

Where do these bombers fly from?

All US bombers are permanently based in the US, at five main airbases:

• B-52H: Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana and Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota
• B-1B: Dyess Air Force Base in Texas and Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota
• B-2: Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri
• B-21: Due to arrive at Ellsworth in South Dakota in 2027

All of these bases have long, wide runways, typically exceeding 10,000 feet (3,048 metres).

That makes bomber runways about as long as those at a big international airport. What limits where bombers can operate is not tarmac but security, weapons storage and support.

For missions abroad, the US rotates bombers through a handful of forward bases. Other important overseas operating locations include Andersen Air Force Base in Guam and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

Beyond these, the air force sends small groups of bombers to allied airbases for a few weeks at a time, in what it calls Bomber Task Force deployments. Recent rotations have included B-52s at Moron in Spain, B-1Bs at Orland in Norway and Misawa in Japan, and B-52s at Tindal in northern Australia, which arrived in September.

The bombers can also go on a strike mission from the US with the help of aerial refuelling. Bomber missions during the US-Israel war on Iran lasted more than 30 hours there and back. Each group of three bombers needed six to nine tanker aircraft to refuel them along the way.

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

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

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

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

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

The first man in space – Yuri Gagarin

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

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

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

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

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

Where does space begin?

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

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

Which countries have sent people to space?

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

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

The graphic below breaks down space travellers by country.

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

One in seven space travellers is a woman

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

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

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

The typical space traveller is 40

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

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

What comes next for human spaceflight?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yu Zidi, 13

China: Swimming 

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

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

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

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

Zhang Zhanshuo, 19

China: Swimming

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

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

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

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

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

Shin Ohashi, 17

Japan: Swimming 

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

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

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

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

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

Yan Ziyi, 18

China: Athletics 

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

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

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

Chen Yujie, 17

China: Athletics

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

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

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

Taiju Goto, 17

Japan: Athletics

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

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

Kumkum Mohod, 17

India: Archery

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

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

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

Anahat Singh, 18

India: Squash

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

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

Yuki Kurihara, 11

Japan: e-sports

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

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

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

Ku Yong-yan, 12

Taipei: Skateboarding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are five questions that are being asked:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copilot prayed before attack

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

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

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

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

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

When do Bosnia’s elections take place?

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

What’s different about this election?

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

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

Who is running for the Presidency?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who else is on the ballot?

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

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

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

How are Presidency members chosen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is the state-level government chosen?

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

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

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

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

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

What happens with the entities?

The election of entity-level authorities works somewhat differently.

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

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

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

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

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

Why is it a challenge to form the government?

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

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

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

Why are the elections important?

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

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

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

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

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

When are the results?

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

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

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

EXPLAINER

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the Real Madrid vs Barcelona Negreira case?

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

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

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

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

What are Real Madrid’s accusations against Barcelona?

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

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

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

What have UEFA, Real Madrid, and Barcelona said?

All three entities issued separate statements on Thursday night.

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

What else is going on between Real Madrid and Barcelona?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the case have an impact on El Clasico?

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what we know:

What do we know about the accused pilot?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened on flight FZ1073?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What has the UAE said about the attack?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the latest in the investigation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why did Eritrea break off ties with Ethiopia?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is happening in northern Ethiopia?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the roots of the Ethiopia-Eritrea dispute?

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

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

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

Could the current conflict spread in the region?

Many analysts fear it could.

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

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

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

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

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