Iran

US President Donald Trump expects the conflict with Iran to end “pretty soon”, while Tehran reports that an agreement with Oman to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is “on the verge of being finalised” following a route agreement between both nations.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – facing a crucial election later this year – has hinted that he may be considering taking unilateral action to prolong a costly war with Iran, even as Washington and Tehran appear to be close to an interim deal to open the Strait of Hormuz.

“We heard today the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ahmad Vahidi, declare that Iran intends to continue developing a nuclear weapon,” Netanyahu claimed in an assertion, even though no official statement from Vahidi on the matter has been released by the Iranian government or official media.

Still, Netanyahu saw the opportunity to once again frame Iran’s nuclear threat as existential.

“As Israel’s prime minister, I am determined to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Netanyahu told attendees at a state ceremony in West Jerusalem.

Describing the United States as “Israel’s greatest ally”, Netanyahu nevertheless added that he was prepared to do “whatever is necessary” to guarantee Israel’s security.

Israel has officially struck Iran only once since April’s initial ceasefire between the US and Iran took effect, even after it later broke down and the two sides resumed hostilities in the US-Israel war on Iran.

But observers – including US President Donald Trump – believe that Netanyahu wants to keep the US engaged in the fight against Iran, which began in late February with a joint US-Israeli attack that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Addressing reports that Netanyahu planned to bring fresh intelligence to Washington alleging that Iran was stockpiling uranium at its Pickaxe Mountain facility near Natanz in central Iran, Trump told reporters: “I don’t need Bibi to tell me that. Bibi is telling me that because he wants me to stay involved.”

He then sharpened his criticism of the Israeli prime minister, adding: “Why don’t you just tell it to me? Why do you have to announce it to the world?”

Fight alone

With the US and Israel unable so far to topple the Iranian state or force concessions on the Strait of Hormuz, many analysts believe that the war has been unsuccessful.

Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz – formerly a free waterway – has paralysed much of the world’s economy.

Global oil prices have increased, with shortages in the supplies of liquified gas, fertiliser exports, sulphur supplies, and petrochemical feedstocks all threatening to ripple through international supply lines.

“The war against Iran is a strategic catastrophe,” said Ahron Bregman, an Israeli security analyst and senior teaching fellow in the Department for War Studies at King’s College London. “None of the original aims has been achieved… Trump is desperate for an exit. Almost at any price. He only cares about opening the [strait].”

But in Israel, the focus is less on the world’s economy, and more on the perceived danger posed by Iran and its allied groups across the region.

Netanyahu has consistently pursued a hawkish line on Iran, a power he has repeatedly claimed is on the brink of crossing the threshold to nuclear weapons capability.

He is also thought to have been among the loudest voices that pushed for Trump to withdraw in 2018 from a nuclear deal agreed to by previous US President Barack Obama.

“Israel’s strategy is clear,” said Kobi Michael, a senior researcher at Israel’s Misgav Institute for National Security. “Iran remains close to achieving nuclear capacity and has shown it’s able to continue producing ballistic missiles and supplying its proxy forces in the region.”

The war on Iran was currently a fiasco from Israel’s perspective, Michael added, with both the US and Iran insisting that they had won.

Michael, however, framed the current negotiations as “useless”, and unlikely to produce lasting security in the region, reflecting the sentiment in the Israeli security establishment.

Israel, Michael said, was prepared to fight alone if necessary.

“Israel can only have one strategy,” Michael said, “to strike directly at the head of the octopus that threatens global civilisation and to do that alone, if necessary.”

That might inflame tensions with the US, Michael added, concluding, “I can’t see any other option.”

Inconceivable

However, while some in Israel were confident of the country’s ability to strike unilaterally at Iran in defiance of US wishes, others expressed caution, suggesting that Netanyahu’s talk of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon might simply be little more than rhetoric ahead of an election that could conceivably jeopardise both his legacy and, as a result of his long-running corruption trial, his personal freedom.

The US relationship is important to the Israeli electorate, but relations between Netanyahu and Trump appear to be frostier than normal.

Beyond friction over Israel’s reluctance to accept terms apparently imposed on it in Gaza by the Trump-sponsored Board of Peace, there have also been widespread reports of tensions over Israeli strikes in Lebanon that have repeatedly threatened to derail US negotiations with Iran. Those attacks, however, have stopped far short of the unilateral strikes on Iran hinted at by Netanyahu on Wednesday.

“Israel launching unilateral action against Iran is inconceivable,” the US author and former diplomat Aaron David Miller said. “Something like that might be possible if Iran or Hezbollah struck Israel directly, but talk of Israel striking Iran now, when US negotiations are so close to a conclusion, is impossible.”

Relations between the two allies were entering a unique phase, he said. While the US had never cooperated so closely with an ally militarily since its relationship with the United Kingdom during World War II, diplomatic ties had rarely been so fraught.

“Trump’s leaked, expletive-laden criticism of Netanyahu; his direct negotiations with Hamas over Gaza; his lifting of sanctions on Syria despite Israel’s objections; and his negotiations with Iran without Israel’s involvement all point to a changing relationship,” Miller said. “What that might mean for future US military assistance to Israel – including defence cooperation, intelligence sharing, research and development, and diplomatic support in international forums – remains to be seen.”

However, he added: “Let me be clear. Netanyahu had a hell of a role in how this war started. He’s not going to have a role in how it shifts to its next phase.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly pushed back on reports of shortages of both offensive and defensive weapons.

United States President Donald Trump has vowed to hunt down “leakers” after several news reports detailing a dangerous depletion of munitions stockpiles amid the US-Israeli war on Iran.

While several reports had previously documented munitions depletions since the war began on February 28, the latest reports painted a more dire picture.

Reuters news agency and CBS News reported that the military had burned through nearly all of its offensive Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMSs) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSMs), which experts said could require relying on more perilous close-range and aerial attacks in the event of a renewed escalation.

A CNN report showing low levels of Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors has caused greater concern, with experts noting there is no viable short-term alternative to the air defence missiles. Replenishments of pre-war stockpiles are expected to take years.

Still, Trump on Thursday again denied that the US faced any strategic disadvantage when it came to weapons stores after five months of war.

“The US has massive amounts of ‘munitions,’ especially of certain types,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social account.

He added that “large amounts are being manufactured and shipped to the U.S. as needed” and that defence contractors are “building the largest number of plants and factories in our country’s history”.

“The ‘leakers’ of these treasonous statements are being hunted down. Long-term jail sentences will be sought!”

The US president did not provide further details on the claims, although experts have warned that even with an influx of funding, it will likely take at least three years to restore Patriot and THAAD interceptors to pre-war levels.

Only Japan and Germany currently have licences to produce Patriot interceptors. No other country produces THAAD interceptors.

CNN’s report, released on Tuesday, said that the US military had depleted 80 percent of the THAAD interceptors it had prior to the war and about half of its Patriot interceptors. Sources described the levels as “dangerously low”.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth described the information as “not true”.

Separately, the Washington, DC-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on July 27 calculated that, as of that date, the military had just more than a third of its Patriot interceptors left and about half of its THAAD interceptors.

Speaking to Al Jazeera on Wednesday, one of the authors of that analysis, retired US Marine Corps colonel Mark Cancian, said current levels of interceptors are already hurting US deterrence capabilities against military powers like China.

A shortage of interceptors has also reportedly led to the military taking a more judicious approach to missile interceptions, increasing the likelihood of miscalculations, he noted. The killing of three US soldiers in an Iranian strike on a military base in Jordan on July 17 has further underscored those concerns.

“We don’t have that many left, and there are no good substitutes,” Cancian said of the interceptors. “If we run out of Patriots, then the missiles get through.”

Despite the latest rhetoric, the Washington Post on Thursday reported that Trump confronted Hegseth during a cabinet meeting at Camp David last week, accusing the Pentagon chief of misleading him on munitions shortages.

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt dismissed the report as “100 percent fake news”.

Aug. 5 (UPI) — Iran and Oman are in the final stages of a joint agreement to manage commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, agreeing on a route for ships Wednesday, the Iranian foreign ministry said.

However, Iran will not open the strait to traffic until the United States ends its blockade, the ministry said, CBS reported.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi told state-run media that there is agreement between Iran and Oman on proposed inbound and outbound shipping routes in the strait, CNN reported.

Iran and Oman are on opposite sides of the strait, a major commercial waterway used for much of the world’s oil and gas supplies. They’ve been in negotiations over it for about three weeks. Before the United States and Israel attacked Iran in February, the strait was an open international waterway, but Iran closed it in response to the attacks.

“The geographic coordinates of the route envisioned by both sides have been agreed upon,” said Esmail Baghaei, spokesman for the Iran Foreign Ministry, told the country’s state news agency, as reported by The New York Times. “If certain third parties do not obstruct the process, a joint statement by the two countries,containing the principal considerations and points of agreement, is currently in the final stages of review and drafting.”

U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters there has been a lot of progress on reopening the strait and that it will reopen “soon,” perhaps even as soon as Wednesday or Thursday. However, Gharibabadi denied again that Iran is negotiating in any way over the waterway with the United States, CNN said.

A deal between the US and Iran could be signed within 48 hours, according to US officials. The agreement would reportedly focus on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and could mark a first step towards broader negotiations.

Al Jazeera’s Marah Ryan has the latest.

Iran says talks with Oman are proceeding ‘positively’ as US officials say a deal could be possible soon.

A funeral was held for the victims of last week’s US strike on Iran’s Qeshm Island, where a couple and their two-year-old child were killed. Iran’s chief negotiator and parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, vowed the US would “pay the price” for their deaths.

Iran and Oman are reportedly closing in on a deal that would give the Islamic Republic full control over ships entering the Strait of Hormuz. This comes as a tenuous pause in fighting between the U.S. and Iran enters a sixth day and a day after U.S. President Donald Trump insisted that Iran would fully open the vital chokepoint today or face new and more intense attacks that would include powerplants, other civilian infrastructure and even strikes on leadership. Iran largely closed the Strait after it was hit by the U.S. and Israel on Feb. 28. The American leader is pushing a rekindled effort to find a diplomatic off-ramp to a conflict that has killed 18 American troops, wounded hundreds more, drained U.S. weapons stocks and roiled international relations and global financial markets.

Highlighting the precarious nature of vessel transits through this narrow passage between Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), another ship was struck by Iran overnight as it was leaving the Strait, a maritime security official told TWZ.

The Gulf of Oman, which is the eastern approach to the Strait and the Persian Gulf, is largely controlled by Iran to the north and Oman to the south. Under the emerging agreement between those countries, “vessels heading into the Persian Gulf will transit a channel controlled by Iran, and close to its coast. Ships leaving the Gulf will travel on a channel near Oman,” The New York Times reported.

Both Iran and the U.S. are already following this general traffic pattern, with the U.S. Navy recommending transits close to the Omani coastline and Iran pushing shipping toward its shores. The middle of the Strait has been deemed too hazardous because of the threat primarily from mines. The new plan being pushed by Iran and Oman would expand the use of these traffic patterns. Unless there is some special cutout made in the deal, it could require the U.S. Navy to seek permission to enter the Persian Gulf and then have to make the transit deep in Iranian waters, giving American warships degraded defensive options and putting them in the heart of Iran’s weapons engagement envelope.

While Iranian officials say that they won’t impose tolls, the accord does include a charge for service fees to cover the environmental impact of the shipping, security for the cargo ships and tankers, and staffing, the publication added. Revenues would be divided equally between Iran and Oman, two Iranian officials told the Times.

Reuters reported on Tuesday that “Tehran ​is unlikely to change its position,” because it has already shown flexibility by moving from its initial position of seeking full control over ​traffic in both directions in the strait.

But a U.S. official familiar with the negotiations told the Times on Monday that the Iranian account was “not accurate,” and said that any “temporary” routes established through the strait would not involve approvals or permissions by Iran, and would involve no tolls.

Aug. 4 (UPI) — British oil giant BP posted second-quarter profit on Tuesday of $5.7 billion, more than double the $2.35 billion it made in the April to June period in 2025, amid sharply higher oil and gas prices caused by the U.S.-Iran conflict.

Profit was $2.5 billion more than what the company made in the first quarter, the first two months of which were before the United States and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 28, and easily beat the $5 billion expected by analysts.

BP’s results, the latest of the oil giants to report bumper profits in recent days following on from Shell, Exxon Mobil and Chevron, came a day after U.S. President Donald Trump accused energy firms of exploiting the current shortage of supply.

“Based on a shortage, they’re making too much money,” he said Monday after Exxon Mobil and Chevron last week reported a combined $26.5 billion profit for the second quarter.

Trump demanded the companies return some of their windfall to the public by cutting their retail prices, saying profits that had jumped as much as 12-fold were not acceptable and that he was not happy about it.

On Friday, Shell, the other British supermajor, also posted results showing it more than doubled its earnings, reporting a $9.84 billion profit for the April to June period, up from $4.26 billion in the same period last year.

Environmental groups criticized the profit made by BP as unseemly.

“Clearly not everyone is feeling the pain of the energy crisis. While BP banks another round of enormous profits, millions of households are paying the price through sky-high energy bills and a climate crisis accelerating rapidly out of control with increasingly severe heatwaves, wildfires and droughts,” said Friends of the Earth campaigns head Rosie Downes.

BP CEO Meg O’Neill told CNBC on Tuesday that while she understood the pressure ordinary consumers felt when they were confronted by the prices at the pump, the company had little control over the cost.

“The reality is we produce a global commodity and the prices for the product we sell hangs off that global commodity price, said O’Neill, who stressed that the sterling financial results were due to strong performances across all its businesses,” she said.

She added that the company had tweaked the firm’s refining runs to ensure the products consumers needed most at any given point in time were available in sufficient quantities but insisted BP was “there was more to do.”

“We are not making the most of our potential. Our performance over the past few years has not met our own expectations, let alone those of our shareholders. We have not delivered consistently; we have written off too much value; and our costs and liabilities are not resilient enough in a low price environment,” said O’Neill.

BP’s results came four days after it put its North Sea oil business on the market amid uncertainty over whether the British government will forge ahead with phasing out North Sea oil and gas, in line with its Net Zero by 2050 target, or issue some new drilling licences to meet U.K. demand in the interim.

O’Neill said Tuesday that in a conversation with Prime Minister Andy Burnham he had assured her that he would take a “pragmatic” approach to the issue.

“The U.K. is still using a huge amount of oil and natural gas every single day, and we ought to be using our domestic resources first instead of buying those resources from a third party,” O’Neill added.

Analysts estimate BP’s 24 fields, about half of which are still producing, should fetch around $2.6 billion.

There are estimated to be at least 12 billion barrels of oil left under the North Sea, although developed reserves awaiting to be pumped are much lower.

Just over one month into the war on Iran, US President Donald Trump made an apocalyptic threat that raised the alarm in Washington and Middle Eastern capitals alike, attached to a tight deadline.

If Iran didn’t immediately reopen the critical Strait of Hormuz, Trump warned on April 7, “a whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again”.

Tehran didn’t blink. And with two hours to the deadline, Trump walked back the threat and instead announced a two-week ceasefire, brokered by Islamabad.

Since then, the US president has repeated this pattern multiple times. It goes like this: Trump ups the ante, shaking up the markets, and then dials it back down at the 11th hour, apparently hoping this strategy will influence negotiations.

On Monday, Trump again insisted that negotiations were close to ending the war – and, yet again, gave “duplicitous” Iran “one last chance” to make a deal or suffer catastrophic strikes.

For its part, Tehran denies any ongoing talks with the US, saying it is only talking to Oman about how to manage the Hormuz strait, the closure of which has caused oil prices to soar amid havoc in energy markets around the world.

The war is now in its 23rd week, with no end to hostilities in sight, and both Washington and Tehran are more entangled than before, with additional variables in the conflict that could determine its direction.

So, how many times has Trump given Iran “one last chance” to make a deal or suffer the consequences, before walking his threat back? And how many times have we heard from the US president that a deal is just around the corner?

The times Trump threatened heavy attacks – before backing down

There have been several times since February 28, when the US and Israel launched their first joint attacks on Iran, that Trump has threatened an attack but did not follow through.

March

Less than a month into the war, Trump threatened Tehran over its closure of the Strait of Hormuz, saying the US would strike Iran’s power plants if the critical waterway was not reopened. Two days later, he postponed the strikes for five days, citing “progress” in talks.

As the delayed deadline neared on March 26, Trump delayed the strikes again, this time for 10 days, claiming that Tehran requested it.

April

Then came the April 7 threat that a whole “civilisation will die”, before Trump called off those strikes and announced a two-week ceasefire, to give Iran a chance to reach a peace deal.

No deal emerged. And then, after threatening to strike Iran “harder”, and in the final hours of the ceasefire, on April 21, Trump announced an indefinite ceasefire, saying Pakistani mediators had asked him to do so.

May

With those talks making no progress, Trump returned to his threats to strike Iran on May 17, saying “nothing will be left” of Iran if Tehran did not make a deal with the US.

But the next day, Trump again told reporters that he had decided to “put it off for a little while, hopefully maybe forever, but possibly for a little while, because we’ve had very big discussions with Iran”.

By May 27, US strikes were back on after negotiations faltered, once again.

June

On June 11, after two days of back-and-forth strikes, Trump threatened the US would take “total control” of Iran’s oil and gas industries. But then, a few hours later, he posted on social media, claiming there had been a breakthrough in negotiations and called off the attacks.

On June 17, the US and Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), announcing a ceasefire and a 60-day period to complete negotiations for a lasting peace. Within days, that had fallen apart over the glaring gaps in the two sides’ positions over the contents of the MoU, triggered mainly by who had control of the Strait of Hormuz – and both sides returned to tit-for-tat, widening strikes.

July-August

On July 27, Trump halted the strikes, claiming the “perimeters of a deal” had been agreed to, but noting that Washington “is locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran, at levels of Military Terror, Strength, and Power not seen since World War II”.

On Monday this week, Trump told reporters again that negotiations were close to ending the war and that this was Iran’s “last chance before decapitation”. The US has not followed up on this latest threat yet.

Iran denies it is talking to the US, although it may be holding indirect talks via mediators, analysts say.

The times Trump said Iran peace deal was imminent

Trump has insisted that Iran is “desperate” to cut a deal, or that a deal is imminent, multiple times since the start of the war.

March

Two days after launching the first attacks on Tehran on February 28, which the US initially appeared to believe would be a quick operation, Trump seemingly conceded it might take a bit longer when he said at the White House: “We projected four to five weeks [to end Iran war], but we can go far longer than that.”

The US president changed tack again on March 9, when he told CBS that “the war is very complete, pretty much”, and that the US military operation was “way ahead of schedule”.

Later the same day, he shifted his stance again, saying the war is “both complete and just beginning”. And later that day again, he said: “We’ve already won in many ways, but we haven’t won enough.”

On March 23, Trump told reporters outside Air Force One that “major points of agreement, I would say – almost all points of agreement” had been reached with Iran. Tehran was denying that it was party to negotiations at this point.

Two days after that, Trump repeated that Iran wanted to “make a deal so badly”. The next day, he also told a cabinet meeting that Iran was “begging to make a deal”.

April

On April 7, Trump said, again, that Washington was “very close to a deal” with Iran, before threatening to blow up a “whole civilisation”, but then walked back on that to announce a ceasefire the next day.

Over the following days, throughout April, Trump reiterated that the war was, in fact, pretty much over. But it continued.

Trump repeatedly claimed on separate occasions that Iran had “agreed to everything”, that “I think we will get a deal in the next day or two”, and that “I don’t think there’s too many significant differences” between the US and Iranian positions.

May

On May 23, Trump said the administration was “getting a lot closer” to a deal, which was “largely negotiated, [and] subject to finalisation”.

June

On June 8, Trump called for “total victory” in the next two weeks and claimed Iran was “willing to give us everything”. Still, no peace deal has materialised and the conflict began again in July.

August

On Monday this week, Trump again told reporters that Iran was “desperate” for a deal and warned Tehran it had “one last chance” before “decapitation” to make an agreement. Iran denies it is even holding talks with the US, saying that it is only speaking with Oman about management of the Strait of Hormuz.

Despite the big rise in profits, BP chief executive Meg O’Neill said the company was not reaching its full potential.

BP, which employs nearly 14,000 people in the UK, confirmed plans to move further away from clean energy, revealing plans to sell off its US renewable natural gas business Archaea.

O’Neill said this was part of her plan to prioritise “value, not sentiment or history”.

“We have to focus on the assets with the strongest potential to deliver competitive returns and long-term value,” she said.

Last week, BP announced it was putting its North Sea business up for sale in a move that would end 60 years of production in the region by the company.

Russ Mould, investment director at AJ Bell, said the sell-offs intended to make the business more streamlined.

“O’Neill will be aware she cannot rely on oil and gas prices remaining this high indefinitely,” he said.

“She needs to make sure it can prosper even when the backdrop is less helpful.”

The bumper profits reported by oil companies have led to an angry response from campaign groups.

Angharad Hopkinson, from environmental group Greenpeace, said BP’s results showed that “corporate gains have become entirely divorced from the public good”.

She said “the one point on which we agree with BP” is its decision to sell off its North Sea operations.

“Prolonging this parasitic relationship by trying to squeeze the last few drops of expensive oil out of the North Sea is sheer folly,” Hopkinson said.

Simon Francis, co-ordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, said oil firms “have banked more billions from a crisis that has created real hardship for millions of households”.

“The lesson is not to hand yet more tax breaks to an industry posting billions in profit every quarter, but to use Windfall Tax receipts to clear the record energy debt households built up during the crisis,” he said.

Energy firms operating in the UK are subject to a windfall tax – called the Energy Profits Levy – that was introduced in 2022.

However, the tax only applies to profits made from extracting oil and gas in the UK.

Iran on Monday denied that any negotiations were taking place with the United States, directly contradicting U.S. President Donald Trump’s claim that talks were scheduled later in the day and exposing fresh uncertainty over Washington’s strategy after months of military confrontation.

The conflicting statements came after Trump once again backed away from threatened military action against Iran, saying he preferred diplomacy over escalation. Tehran, however, insisted that no negotiations were planned and that no meetings with American officials had been arranged.

Iran Rejects Trump’s Claims

Speaking aboard Air Force One on Sunday, Trump said the United States would begin negotiations with Iran on Monday afternoon, describing diplomacy as preferable to launching another round of attacks.

Iran swiftly dismissed the claim.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said there were no negotiations under way with Washington and no plans to host American officials or dispatch Iranian negotiators abroad. He added that, apart from Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, who is currently on a religious pilgrimage in Iraq, all Iranian negotiators remain inside the country.

A senior Iranian source also told Reuters that no talks had been scheduled and that Araqchi would remain unavailable until at least the end of the week.

According to Tehran, the only ongoing discussions involve Oman and focus exclusively on managing shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

A Familiar Cycle of Escalation and Retreat

The latest episode mirrors a pattern that has defined the five month conflict between Washington and Tehran.

Since launching Operation Epic Fury alongside Israel, Trump has repeatedly threatened major military action before stepping back at the last moment, often citing diplomatic efforts as justification.

Iran has consistently rejected direct negotiations since the collapse of a U.S. backed memorandum of understanding in early July, arguing that Washington has failed to uphold previous commitments while continuing military pressure.

The repeated cycle of escalation followed by de escalation has left uncertainty hanging over regional security and global energy markets.

Hormuz Remains the Central Dispute

At the heart of the dispute remains the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most strategically important oil shipping route.

Washington argues that the failed June agreement required Iran to reopen the waterway to unrestricted international shipping. Tehran maintains that the document explicitly preserved its authority over traffic through the strait, allowing it to retain significant leverage.

The inability of the United States to secure unrestricted access has become one of the most significant unresolved issues of the conflict.

For the Trump administration, failure to reduce Iran’s influence over Hormuz would represent a strategic setback after months of military operations aimed at weakening Tehran’s regional position.

Strategic Goals Remain Unfulfilled

Five months into the conflict, many of Washington’s stated objectives remain largely unmet.

The United States has sought to dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme, reduce its capacity to strike regional rivals, protect commercial shipping, and increase pressure on Iran’s leadership.

Instead, Iran has continued to demonstrate its ability to disrupt regional energy infrastructure and maritime trade while maintaining leverage over one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints.

Each round of military escalation has been followed by Iranian retaliatory actions targeting shipping, Gulf energy infrastructure, or U.S. interests in the region, complicating Washington’s efforts to establish deterrence.

Despite the diplomatic confusion, financial markets welcomed Trump’s decision not to proceed with further attacks.

Brent crude prices fell more than 4 percent to around 84 dollars per barrel as traders anticipated a reduced immediate risk of supply disruptions in the Gulf.

Nevertheless, tensions remain elevated.

The British maritime security organisation UKMTO reported that a commercial vessel in the Strait of Hormuz detected an explosion in nearby waters overnight, although no injuries or damage were reported.

Diplomatic Uncertainty Persists

The contradictory messages from Washington and Tehran highlight the absence of a clear diplomatic pathway toward ending the crisis.

While Trump continues to present negotiations as an alternative to military action, Iran’s categorical denial suggests that no formal channel currently exists between the two governments.

With the Strait of Hormuz still contested and military incidents continuing across the Gulf, the conflict remains caught between diplomacy and confrontation, leaving regional stability and global energy markets vulnerable to further shocks.

With information from Reuters.

The US president says Gulf allies and Tehran urged him to delay planned strikes.

United States President Donald Trump has said that negotiations with Tehran are set to begin on Monday after he decided to hold off on new strikes on Iran in pursuit of a deal.

Trump said on Sunday that a plan was in place for the US to launch “the biggest attack since World War II” against Iran but that he halted it to give diplomacy a chance.

“Obviously, they don’t want to be attacked. They knew the extent of the attack because they saw it forming,” Trump told reporters on board Air Force One on Sunday.

“Now what we’re doing is talking to them in the form of a negotiation. It begins tomorrow afternoon.”

He gave no details about the venue or participants in the talks.

Trump pulled back from threats of an attack on Saturday after saying the “perimeter” of a deal was in place.

In his latest comments, Trump said Iran and US partners Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar had urged him to hold off on the strikes.

“When the allies asked to call it off, you’ve got to sort of say, ‘Well, let’s see.’ And the reason they ask is they think there’s a deal,” he said.

“There’s a deal on [the Strait of] Hormuz, and then there will be a deal on the nuclear, or you might call it the denuclearisation of Iran.”

He said Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had also urged against the strikes, warning of possible unintended consequences.

“I mean, will they be flooded with people pouring into their country and disaster? A lot of bad things can happen,” Trump said.

Regional diplomacy intensifies

Trump’s announcement came hours after Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi held a second phone call with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, joined by Pakistani Army Commander Asim Munir, to discuss recent diplomatic efforts.

The officials exchanged views on the current situation and on “initiatives aimed at maintaining and strengthening security and stability” in West Asia, Araghchi said in a Telegram post. They also stressed the need to use regional cooperation and political solutions, he added.

Earlier on Sunday, Iran’s official news agency IRNA reported that negotiations between Tehran and Oman over the Strait of Hormuz were in their final stages, citing Araghchi.

Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said the negotiations focused on agreeing to a new route through the strait, adding that this had “no link to the Strait of Hormuz being opened or closed. That is a separate discussion”.

The war began on February 28, when the US and Israel launched surprise strikes against Iran, although months of on-and-off diplomacy have led to periods of relative calm.

A previous ceasefire deal, which included the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital conduit for global energy supplies, fell through. Iran has since tightened its control over the waterway as the two countries resumed attacks against each other in recent weeks.

Oil prices fall as escalation fears ease

Oil prices dropped sharply in early trading after Trump abandoned plans for a new military operation against Iran, easing fears of further disruption to Gulf energy supplies.

Brent futures were down $4.08, or 4.64 percent, at $83.85 a barrel on Sunday. West Texas Intermediate lost $4.01, or 4.74 percent, to trade at $80.66, according to the Reuters news agency.

The decline reversed part of last month’s surge, when both benchmarks gained more than 20 percent as renewed US-Iran fighting and attacks on commercial vessels near Oman intensified concerns over shipping through the region.

Aug. 2 (UPI) — President Donald Trump said Sunday night that negotiations with Iran toward ending the war will resume Monday, about a month after formal talks between the two unraveled and preceded a return to open conflict.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Washington after spending a weekend at his Bedminster, N.J., golf club, Trump said talks with Iran will begin Monday afternoon, claiming, as he has repeatedly throughout the war, that Iran wants “to make a deal.”

“We’ll see if it’s true,” he said. “I’d love to do that. Save a lot of lives. Save a lot of unnecessary power, to be honest with you.”

Trump had called off what he advertised as a massive attack on Iran over the weekend, stating it was at the request of allies and Tehran, which he said had agreed to “the parameters of a deal.”

Aboard his plane, he identified Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar as the nations that had asked him to hold off.

“It would have been a massive attack. We were all set to go. But when the allies ask to call it off, you go to sort of say, ‘well, let’s see,'” he said. “And the reason they asked they think there’s a deal.”

Trump has long sought a deal with Iran to constrain its nuclear program, going back to his first administration when in 2018 he unilaterally pulled the United States from an Obama-era multinational accord in order to fashion a new one, and imposed sanctions on Tehran to force it to the negotiating table.

In late February, the United States and Israel attacked Iran with the aims of destroying its remaining nuclear capabilities and inciting regime change, instead igniting the five-month-long war, during which Tehran has laid military claims to the vital Strait of Hormuz.

An April cease-fire created conditions for a memorandum of understanding to be signed in mid-June that was to lay the foundation for ending the war. Amid negotiations on implementing the MOU, disagreements arose over its stance on the vital energy route, which led to a resumption in fighting last month.

Monday’s negotiations would be the first publicly acknowledged since early last month. Trump said the discussions will concern the Strait of Hormuz and led into nuclear talks.

He said that the three allies believe “a deal is imminent.”

Trump called off the attack after speaking with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman over the phone. Trump said Sunday that bin Salman warned him that the consequences of the attack would be unpredictable.

“I mean, will they be flooded with people pouring into their country,” he said. “A lot of bad things can happen.”

Trump said it would have been “the biggest attack since World War II” and “disastrous” for Iran.

The United States is seeking to restore freedom of navigation through the strait, while Iran is trying to maintain some form of control over commercial vessels that pass through it.

According to the nonpartisan, Washington-based Institute for the Study of War, Iranian negotiators may be willing to make what it called “limited compromises” with the United States over Tehran’s control of the strait, though what those concessions may be were not entirely clear.

US President Donald Trump says an agreement with Iran is imminent, with negotiations set to begin on Monday.

WASHINGTON — Immigration remains a stronger issue for President Trump than the economy or Iran among Republican voters, according to a new poll, even after three people were killed in encounters with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents within a week in July.

But Trump’s immigration approach is unpopular among Americans overall, the new survey from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found. Only 39% of U.S. adults approve of his performance on immigration, a decline from 49% at the beginning of his second term.

About 8 in 10 Republicans continue to approve of how Trump is handling immigration. That’s a slight decline from the beginning of his second term, when about 9 in 10 Republicans approved, but his support on the issue within his base has been mostly stable since last summer despite a chaotic year of immigration enforcement actions including several shooting deaths.

Republicans are also more likely to approve of how Trump is handling immigration than the economy or Iran. In just the last month, GOP voter approval of Trump’s handling of Iran dropped slightly in AP-NORC polling.

The poll found that about half of U.S. adults say Trump has “gone too far” on deporting immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. That number also has remained steady for more than a year, despite multiple immigration crackdowns that deployed federal law enforcement to large cities and at least 10 deaths involving encounters with immigration officers since the mass deportation campaign began. Republicans are much less likely to say Trump has overstepped in his immigration enforcement actions.

Overall, Trump’s popularity has fallen since he took office last year, but the findings highlight the relatively muted impact of the last year’s aggressive immigration enforcement on his public standing. That’s a contrast with views of his handling of Iran, where he’s seen more recent signs of slippage, even among supporters.

Partisan divide

Americans remain divided on whether Trump has overstepped on immigration.

About half of U.S. adults say Trump has “gone too far” when it comes to restricting legal immigration, in line with the last time the question was asked in February. Roughly half — 47% — say Trump has exceeded his authority when it comes to deporting immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. In each case, about 3 in 10 say Trump’s actions have been “about right,” and closer to 2 in 10 say he hasn’t gone far enough.

Few Republicans — about 2 in 10 or fewer — say he’s “gone too far” on deporting immigrants in the country illegally or restricting legal immigration.

Most Americans, however, say he’s gone too far when it comes to using traffic stops to find and arrest immigrants living in the U.S. illegally — a practice that was at the center of two recent ICE shootings in Texas and Maine — and when it comes to sending federal immigration agents into U.S. cities. Republicans were also less likely to see these as oversteps.

James Leatherman, a 68-year-old Republican from San Antonio, is generally supportive of Trump’s handling of the presidency and backs him on immigration in particular.

“You cannot come in here illegally — you’re breaking the law,” he said.

More Americans disapprove than approve of the way ICE is enforcing immigration laws. About half of Americans “strongly” or “somewhat” disapprove of the agency’s approach, while roughly 3 in 10 “strongly” or “somewhat” approve. There’s a wide partisan split, though: About 6 in 10 Republicans approve of ICE’s approach, compared with about 2 in 10 independents and just 4% of Democrats.

Eric Coursen, 76, an independent from Chincoteague, Va., agrees with the president that there were problems with the immigration system that needed to be addressed. He said doesn’t believe in “open borders,” but he’s deeply opposed to how the administration has been enforcing immigration law.

“It’s like taking some bread when you’re hungry, and you take it, you’re going to shoot that person rather than just, you know, get them for theft?” he said. “It’s just overkill.”

Poor marks on economy

About 3 in 10 U.S. adults, 32%, approve of how Trump is handling the economy. That’s down from 40% at the start of his second term, and marks a shift from his first presidential term when the economy was a relatively strong issue for Trump.

During Trump’s first term, his lowest approval on the economy was 40% in December 2017. Now, his rating is well below that.

Roughly 7 in 10 Republicans — 69% — approve of how Trump is handling the economy. That’s roughly in line with the share who approve of how he’s handing the presidency, but it’s slightly below the 78% who approved early in Trump’s second term.

Leatherman, despite his support for Trump, said he’s feeling the pinch of higher prices in his budget. “I almost have to go to the bank to get a loan before I go grocery shopping,” he said.

About 7 in 10 U.S. adults describe the nation’s economy as “very” or “somewhat” poor, in line with April. Republicans are more optimistic, with about 6 in 10 saying that the economy is doing well, compared with about 2 in 10 independents and roughly 1 in 10 Democrats.

Healthcare remains a weak issue

Healthcare never has been a strong issue for Trump. Unlike with immigration and the economy, a clear majority of U.S. adults has disapproved of Trump’s performance on healthcare across both terms. That hasn’t changed in the new poll, which found that only about 3 in 10 Americans approve of how Trump is handling healthcare, in line with when the question was last asked in December.

He’s experienced a rebound on the issue among his own supporters since late last year, though. Roughly 71% of Republicans now approve, compared with 59% in the December poll.

That shift comes as Democrats kicked off 100 days until the midterm elections last week, with leaders saying they’ll focus on healthcare cuts, in addition to the cost of living and the war in Iran. Democrats and independents continue to overwhelmingly disapprove of Trump’s handling of healthcare.

The AP-NORC poll of 1,165 adults was conducted July 23-27 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.7 percentage points. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 6 points for Republicans overall and plus or minus 5.4 points for Democrats overall.

Thomson-Deveaux, Sanders and Catalini write for the Associated Press.

Iran’s foreign minister says negotiations with Oman on the Strait of Hormuz are entering their “final stages”, as Tehran insists the vital waterway will never return to its pre-war status.

In a post on Telegram on Sunday, Abbas Araghchi said that in a report he presented to the cabinet, he described the negotiations between Tehran and Muscat as “on the way to being finalised”.

Foreign Ministry spokesman, Esmail Baghaei, said that Tehran and Muscat were close to reaching a deal on a new maritime route through Hormuz, separate from existing corridors.

“We are now going to reach an understanding on a route acceptable to both sides – neither the northern route nor the southern route – but one that respects the sovereign rights of both sides and safeguards our national interests and security,” Baghaei said in an interview with state television.

Muscat did not immediately comment on the matter.

Both Iran’s and Oman’s territorial waters border the Strait of Hormuz, the key waterway through which about 20 percent of global oil consumption is normally shipped.

Details of the new route were not immediately clear, but Iran has effectively maintained control over the strait since the outbreak of war. On February 28 , the US and Israel launched strikes aimed at destroying Iran’s missile programme, preventing a nuclear weapon and cutting off support for allied armed groups.

A June ceasefire collapsed within weeks in a dispute over shipping routes through Hormuz and fighting reignited in July.

Baghaei earlier said “an understanding between Iran and Oman on a new route has nothing to do with whether the Strait of Hormuz is reopened or remains closed”. He blamed the US for the closure and accused Washington of breaching its commitments, according to Iran’s Fars news outlet.

“The strait was closed because of the United States’ breach of its commitments, its naval blockade of Iran and all the hostile measures that the United States has taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran during this period,” he said.

Hassam Ghashghavi, spokesman for the Iranian parliament’s national security commission, said on Sunday that mediators were trying to revive the June memorandum of understanding with the US, and were aware that Hormuz remained the central issue, Iranian news outlet SNN reported.

Ghashghavi said it was possible that an Iranian delegation would travel to Muscat again as part of ongoing diplomacy. “This is the nature of diplomacy and this exchange of views continues regularly,” he said.

Two-sided messaging

The comments come after US President Donald Trump said early on Sunday that the US and Israel had agreed to halt new attacks on Iran, provided a deal to end the months-long conflict is reached “rapidly”.

Trump posted on Truth Social that the US was “locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran”, but Tehran and other Middle Eastern countries asked him to hold off on new attacks.

“Based on this request, I have agreed, for the future benefit of the WORLD and, likewise, the survival of a successful and prosperous Iran, to cancel the attack, subject to being able to rapidly make a DEAL.”

Trump said the deal “would include the Immediate, Complete, and Total OPENING OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT, and an end to Iran’s nuclear threat”.

“The Country of Israel joins me in this commitment. Get to work, everybody, and get it DONE,” he wrote.

Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, (MBS) spoke to Trump by phone on Saturday, urging him to “prioritise dialogue” and “reduce escalation”, the Saudi Press Agency reported.

US news website Axios reported that MBS expressed concern over Trump’s plans for large, new attacks against Iran and reportedly urged him to refrain.

“We know that, in a larger context, Iran is habituated to dancing to the same old tune, as it is receiving this oscillating rhetoric from the US president about the possibility of another round of confrontation on the one hand, [while also hearing] statements about these talks going well and that a potential deal is within reach,” said Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi, reporting from Tehran.

“In that regard, we know that the Iranian side, at the same time, is responding with the same two-sided message, saying that the road for diplomacy is open on the one hand, [while also maintaining] full preparation for another round,” he added.

A 10-foot-tall golden trophy mocking US President Donald Trump for his ‘enthusiastic involvement in the Iran war’ appeared in New York’s Foley Square. The statue was created by anonymous art collective Secret Handshake.

Saudi Arabia’s crown prince spoke to Donald Trump about the deepening crisis between Washington and Tehran, urging a renewed push for dialogue over further military escalation, hours before the United States president halted his latest attacks on Iran.

The Saudi Press Agency (SPA) reported on Sunday that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) spoke to Trump by phone and “stressed the need to prioritise dialogue to reduce escalation and the importance of making every possible effort to achieve calm that paves the way for diplomatic solutions”.

MBS also highlighted the need to preserve the Gulf’s security and stability and prevent a wider conflict “whose repercussions would affect regional and international security and stability”, SPA added.

Trump announced on his Truth Social platform early on Sunday that he would hold off on new strikes against Iran, citing the outline of a deal to end five months of war.

On Saturday, he had struck a very different note, declaring the US “locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran”, at levels of force not seen “since World War II”.

The reversal capped a day of dramatic swings in tone from Washington, after weeks in which the conflict has repeatedly threatened to widen into a broader Gulf confrontation.

Trump said he was calling off the planned attack only because Iran and other Middle Eastern governments had asked Washington to hold back, insisting “the perimeters of a deal has been agreed to”.

That deal, he wrote, would involve reopening the Strait of Hormuz and ending Iran’s “nuclear threat,” with Israel joining the US “in this commitment”.

Iranian state media quoted military officials dismissing Trump’s claim that Tehran had sought a pause as “nothing but a new lie”, insisting Iranian forces remained on high alert.

‘Keep the dialogue going’

The Saudi crown prince’s intervention, according to a person familiar with the call cited by US media, centred on concern that a major US strike on Iran’s energy infrastructure could trigger Iranian retaliation against Gulf oil and gas facilities.

The kingdom has already faced direct attacks in recent weeks, intercepting drones aimed at its eastern oil facilities and at Riyadh, while Iran-aligned Houthi rebels in Yemen have separately struck Saudi crude infrastructure and threatened a Red Sea naval blockade.

The war began on February 28, when the US and Israel launched strikes aimed at destroying Iran’s missile programme, preventing a nuclear weapon and cutting off support for allied armed groups.

A June ceasefire collapsed within weeks in a dispute over shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway carrying roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and gas exports, reigniting the fighting in July.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said US strikes had destroyed much of Iran’s navy, air force and missile defences, leaving it without the “conventional shield” it once relied on. “That’s changed the whole dynamic,” he told Fox News, arguing that the US was now approaching negotiations with Iran “from a position of strength, not from a position of weakness.”

Marlin Hardinger, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, said direct Saudi involvement in mediation, alongside Qatar, Pakistan and Oman, appeared to have pushed Trump to reconsider, “letting some of the senior leaders in the region step forward and take charge of this”, as he put it.

Diplomats’ central task now, Hardinger told Al Jazeera, was simply to “keep the dialogue going”.

Mediators in Islamabad and Doha say they are cautiously optimistic that stalled talks could resume within days.

No culprit has been identified in any of the attacks, which comes after authorities warned of a possible Iranian plot.

Michigan has reported cyberattacks on nine of its water systems, days after Minnesota reported similar breaches across the state.

The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) said it was investigating both of the attacks on Saturday. In an advisory earlier this week, it said that at least seven states have reported incidents, but so far only Minnesota and Michigan have been identified.

No culprit has yet been pinpointed. However, the breaches came after the FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and other agencies warned in an advisory last week that Iranian hackers have been targeting water and wastewater systems and the operational controls of other critical infrastructure sectors.

“The FBI is aware of recent public reporting around Water and Wastewater (WWS) sectors,” the agency said in a statement on Saturday. “The FBI and our interagency partners are fully engaged to protect critical infrastructure, and we remain well-equipped to protect against cyber threats of all varieties.”

Dale George, the director of communications for Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, meanwhile, said that “all systems continued to operate safely” following the attacks.

He said Michigan received a federal cyber alert on Tuesday about attempts to tamper with operational technology in water systems.

Soon after, the state received “a small number of reports from Michigan communities indicating activity consistent with what federal agencies described”, said George.

Minnesota had earlier in the week reported attacks on 30 sites. Minnesota IT Services, the state information technology agency, said most of the confirmed attacks involved technology that water systems use to remotely monitor and control equipment.

The agency has said that impacted systems did not necessarily equate to water disruptions, noting that as of Thursday, there were no active requests for residents to modify their water usage. Some modifications had been requested earlier in the week.

Local water plants are generally more vulnerable than other infrastructure because they are more likely to have out-of-date cybersecurity. Federal law enforcement has previously indicted Iranian hackers for allegedly targeting water infrastructure.

Throughout the war, US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to attack civilian infrastructure in Iran, including power and water desalination plants.

When asked about the Minnesota attacks on Friday, Trump instead pivoted to criticise the Democrat-led state government in Minnesota.

“I think Minnesota is behind it,” Trump said, without providing further evidence or clarification. “I don’t think there was an Iranian cyberattack.”

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, meanwhile, indicated his belief that Iran was behind the attack. He further blamed Trump’s cuts to federal government employees for making the US more vulnerable to cyberattacks.

“Trump knows exactly who is responsible for this attack, and knows that other states were hit too,” Walz said.