Iraq

Global energy markets remain in a state of high alert after several Gulf states suspended oil and gas production following escalating tensions in the region.

Since Saturday’s attacks by the United States and Israel, Tehran has targeted various sites in Israel and across several Gulf countries.

Initially, these Iranian attacks focused primarily on US military assets, but Gulf states have reported that Iran has since broadened its scope to target civilian infrastructure, including hotels, airports and energy facilities. Iranian officials have publicly denied targeting Gulf energy facilities, however.

The Middle East remains the world’s dominant source of hydrocarbon reserves and a major driver of crude oil and natural gas output.

How much oil and gas does the Middle East have?

Nearly half of the world’s oil reserves and exports come from the Middle East, which contains five of the seven largest oil reserves in the world.

Once refined, crude oil is used to make various products, including petrol, diesel, jet fuel and a wide range of household items such as cleaning products, plastics and even lotions.

After Venezuela, which has 303 billion barrels, Saudi Arabia holds the world’s second-largest proven crude oil reserves, estimated at 267 billion barrels.

The Middle East’s largest oil reserves:

• Saudi Arabia: 267 billion barrels
• Iran: 209 billion barrels
• Iraq: 145 billion barrels
• UAE: 113 billion barrels
• Kuwait: 102 billion barrels

Saudi Arabia is also the world’s top oil exporter with an estimated $187bn of crude in 2024, according to data from the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC).

The Middle East’s top oil exporters:

• Saudi Arabia: $187bn
• UAE: $114bn
• Iraq: $98bn
• Iran: $47bn – largely sold at a discount due to US sanctions
• Kuwait: 29bn

Other Middle Eastern countries with sizeable oil exports include: Oman ($28.9bn), Kuwait ($28.8bn) and Qatar ($21bn).

In addition to crude oil, the Middle East is a global powerhouse for natural gas, accounting for nearly 18 percent of global production and approximately 40 percent of the world’s proven reserves.

Natural gas is primarily used for electricity generation, industrial heating, and in chemicals and fertilisers.

The heart of Middle Eastern gas is a single, massive underwater reservoir called the South Pars/North Dome field. It is the largest gasfield in the world, and it is shared directly between Qatar and Iran.

Gas is transported either through pipelines or by tankers. When using pipelines, the gas is pressurised and moved through steel networks. When pipelines are not feasible, such as across oceans, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is used.

To create LNG, the gas is cooled to approximately -162C (-260F), shrinking its volume and allowing it to be safely loaded onto specialised tanker ships for global transport.

To transport oil and gas, tankers from various Gulf states must navigate the narrow waterway known as the Strait of Hormuz. Approximately one-fifth of global oil and gas passes through this strait, primarily heading to major markets in Asia, including China, Japan, South Korea and India, as well as to Europe.

Which energy facilities have been attacked?

Here are the facilities which have recorded damage as of Wednesday:

Saudi Arabia – Ras Tanura oil refinery

On Monday, one of the world’s largest oil refining complexes, the Ras Tanura oil refinery owned by Saudi Aramco, was forced to halt operations after debris from intercepted Iranian drones caused a small fire.

Saudi Aramco is one of the world’s largest companies, with a market capitalisation exceeding $1.7 trillion and revenue of $480bn. Headquartered in Dhahran, in eastern Saudi Arabia, Aramco controls 12 percent of global oil production, with a capacity of more than 12 million barrels per day (bpd).

On Wednesday, Saudi defence officials reported a second drone attempt on the facility but this was successfully intercepted with no damage or disruption to operations reported.

Qatar – Ras Laffan Industrial City LNG facilities

On Monday, Qatar’s Ministry of Defence reported that Iranian drones had targeted an energy facility in Ras Laffan belonging to QatarEnergy, the world’s largest LNG producer.

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

QatarEnergy’s 81 million metric tonnes of LNG exports are mostly bound for Asian markets, including China, Japan, India, South Korea, Pakistan and other countries in the region. The halt in production hiked global gas prices to a three-year high this week.

Qatar – Mesaieed Industrial City

Qatar’s Defence Ministry said the country was attacked by a second drone launched from Iran on Monday, targeting a water tank belonging to a power plant in Mesaieed, without reporting any casualties.

On Tuesday, QatarEnergy also stopped production of some downstream products like urea, polymers, methanol, aluminium and others.

UAE – Fujairah and Mussafah oil terminals

On Monday, a fire broke out at Mussafah Fuel Terminal in southwest Abu Dhabi after it was struck by a drone.

On Tuesday, falling debris from a drone interception caused a fire at the Fujairah Oil Terminal along the eastern coast of the United Arab Emirates. No injuries were reported.

Oman – ports of Duqm and Salalah

On Tuesday, multiple Iranian drones struck fuel tanks and a tanker at the port of Duqm, with at least one direct hit on a fuel storage tank, causing an explosion.

On the same day, a drone strike was recorded at the Port of Salalah, which handles fuel and industrial minerals.

Athe Nova – oil tanker

On Monday, the Athe Nova, a Honduran-flagged tanker positioned off the coast of Khor Fakkan, UAE, was struck by Iranian drones as it was transiting the Strait of Hormuz, setting it ablaze. Despite the fire, the vessel managed to exit the chokepoint into the Gulf of Oman, and no casualties were reported.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed responsibility for the strike, identifying the Athe Nova as an “ally of the United States”.

On the same day as the attack, Iran declared the Strait of Hormuz closed, warning that any ship attempting to pass would be “set ablaze”.

Since then, several other tankers have been hit.

Other regional energy disruptions

Although not directly targeted, the following energy sites suspended operations in response to Iranian retaliatory attacks:

Israeli offshore gasfields – Major gas production fields such as Leviathan and Tamar were shut down as a precaution following regional drone and missile launches linked to Iran.

Oil fields in semiautonomous Iraqi Kurdistan – Producers including DNO, Gulf Keystone and Dana Gas halted output as a safety measure amid the escalation.

Rumaila oilfield – Operations at Iraq’s largest oilfield – operated by BP – in southern Iraq were halted on Tuesday as a security precaution due to its proximity to the escalation zone.

As conflict in the Middle East enters its fifth day on Wednesday, American and Israeli officials are pushing rhetoric suggesting that the campaign against Iran is a religious war.

On Tuesday, Muslim civil rights organisation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), condemned the Pentagon’s use of this rhetoric, deeming it “dangerous” and “anti-Muslim”.

The United States and Israel began their attack on Iran on Saturday and have continued to carry out strikes on Iran since then. In retaliation, Iran has hit back at targets in Israel, and US military assets in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and Cyprus.

A US watchdog has reported that US troops have been told the war is intended to “induce the biblical end of times”. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also recently stated that Iran is run by “religious fanatic lunatics”.

What are American and Israeli leaders saying?

US watchdog Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) said it has received emailed complaints that US service members were told the war with Iran is meant to “cause Armageddon”, or the biblical “end times”.

An unnamed noncommissioned officer wrote in an email to MRFF that a commander had urged officers “to tell our troops that this was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’ and he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ”.

The MRFF is a nonprofit organisation dedicated to upholding religious freedom for US service members.

The officer claimed the commander had told the unit that Trump “has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth”.

Israeli and US leaders have also resorted to religious rhetoric in public.

Last month, Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, told conservative US commentator Tucker Carlson during an interview that it would be “fine” if Israel took “essentially the entire Middle East” because it was promised the land in the Bible. However, Huckabee added that Israel was not seeking to do so.

Speaking to the media on Tuesday this week, Rubio said: “Iran is run by lunatics – religious fanatic lunatics. They have an ambition to have nuclear weapons.”

And, the previous day in a Pentagon news briefing, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said: “Crazy regimes like Iran, hell-bent on prophetic Islamic delusions, cannot have nuclear weapons.”

In its statement, CAIR claimed that Hegseth’s words are “an apparent reference to Shia beliefs about religious figures arising near the end times”.

On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referenced the Torah, comparing Iran with an ancient biblical enemy, the Amalekites. The “Amalek” are known in Jewish tradition as representing “pure evil”.

“We read in this week’s Torah portion, ‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’ We remember – and we act.”

CAIR said: “We are not surprised to see Benjamin Netanyahu once again using the biblical story of Amalek – which claims that God commanded the Israelites to murder every man, woman, child and animal in a pagan nation that attacked them – to justify Israel’s mass murder of civilians in Iran, just as it did in Gaza.”

The statement added that every American should be “deeply disturbed by the ‘holy war’ rhetoric” being spread by the US military, Hegseth and Netanyahu to justify the war on Iran.

“Mr Hegseth’s derisive comment about ‘Islamist prophetic delusions’, an apparent reference to Shia beliefs about religious figures arising near the end times, was unacceptable. So is US military commanders telling troops that war with Iran is a biblical step towards Armageddon.”

Why are US and Israeli leaders framing the conflict with Iran as a religious war?

By attempting to frame the conflict as a holy war, leaders are using theological beliefs to “justify action, mobilise political opinion, and leverage support”, Jolyon Mitchell, a professor at Durham University in the UK, told Al Jazeera.

“Many on both sides of this conflict believe that they have God on their side. God is enlisted in this conflict, as with many others, to support acts of violence. The demonisation and dehumanisation of the enemy, the ‘other’, will inevitably make building peace after the conflict even harder,” Mitchell said.

“There are several overlapping reasons, and they operate at different levels: domestic mobilisation, civilisational framing, and strategic narrative construction,” Ibrahim Abusharif, an associate professor at Northwestern University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera.

Domestic mobilisation refers to rallying a country’s own people. Leaders can frame conflict as religious and hence morally clear and urgent, rallying public support, he said.

In a video circulating on social media this week, Christian Zionist pastor and televangelist John Hagee is seen delivering a sermon promoting the US assault on Iran. Hagee said that Russia, Turkiye, “what’s left of Iran” and “groups of Islamics” will march into Israel. He said that God will “crush” the “adversaries of Israel”.

“Religious language mobilises domestic constituencies,” Abusharif said, explaining that in the US, this connects deeply with many evangelicals and Christian Zionists, because they already see Middle East wars as part of a religious “end times” story.

“References to the ‘end times’, the Book of Revelation, or biblical enemies are not incidental; they activate a cultural script already present in American political theology.”

Civilisational framing refers to the creation of an “us vs them” dichotomy, casting the conflict as a clash between whole ways of life or faiths, not just a dispute over borders or policy, he added. Hence, statements such as Hegseth’s reference to “prophetic Islamic delusions” simplify the terms of the war in the minds of ordinary people.

“Wars are difficult to justify in technical strategic language,” Abusharif said.

“Casting the conflict as a struggle between ‘civilisation and fanaticism’, or between biblical ‘good and evil’, transforms a complicated regional confrontation into a moral drama that ordinary audiences can easily grasp.”

“Israeli leadership has long used biblical referents as political language. We all are familiar with it. The narratives have become globalised. In Israeli political discourse, this language situates contemporary conflict within a long historical narrative of Jewish survival, and it signals existential stakes,” Abusharif said.

Have US or Israeli leaders made religious references before?

Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have used the term “Amalek” before in reference to Palestinians in Gaza during Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza.

Historically, during wars or military confrontations, US presidents and senior officials have also invoked the Bible or used Christian language.

President George W Bush invoked similar language after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

On September 16, 2001, Bush said: “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while.” The Crusades were a series of religiously framed wars, mainly between the 11th and 13th centuries, in which the papacy fought against Muslim rulers for territory.

The White House later tried to distance Bush from the word “crusade” to clarify that Bush was not waging a war against Muslims.

Abusharif said that the war on Iran is about power and politics, but using religious rhetoric energises supporters and “moralises” the conflict.

“The war itself is not theological. It is geopolitical. But the language surrounding it increasingly draws on sacred imagery and civilisational narratives. That rhetoric can mobilise supporters and frame the conflict in morally absolute terms,” Abusharif said.

“Yet it also carries risks: once a war is cast in sacred language, political compromise becomes harder, expectations become higher, and the global perception of the conflict can shift in ways that complicate diplomacy.”

A shock-and-awe campaign laying down a tsunami of bombs. An enemy succumbing rapidly under overwhelming firepower. And a triumphant U.S. president trumpeting a quick and easy campaign.

In 2003, President George W. Bush strode confidently on the deck of an aircraft carrier less than five weeks after he ordered the invasion of Iraq and declared the “end of major combat operations” under a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished.”

It proved anything but.

The invasion became a meat grinder, leaving thousands of Americans and possibly more than a million Iraqis dead. It unleashed forces whose effects are felt in the region and beyond to this day.

More than two decades later, another U.S. president attacked another Persian Gulf nation, promising rapid success in yet another Middle East adventure that he says will remake the region.

President Trump and his staff have vehemently rejected any comparison between “Operation Epic Fury,” launched Saturday, and “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” On Monday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a pugnacious news conference, insisting, “This is not Iraq. This is not endless.”

Yet the assault on Iran — almost four times larger than Iraq with more than double its population — presents no lack of challenges, ones that could spread chaos far beyond Iran’s borders and become a defining feature of Trump’s presidency.

In many ways, analysts say, toppling Iran’s leadership represents a much more complex task than Iraq ever did. Iraq was a state with deep sectarian divisions that was largely dominated by a single dictator: Saddam Hussein.

The Iran that emerged after the 1978-79 Islamic Revolution had a supreme leader, but Iran also developed an elaborate system of governance. That includes a president, a parliament and varying governmental, military and religious hierarchies, noted Paul Salem, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.

“Unlike Saddam’s Iraq, the Iranian state is multi-institutional and hence much more resilient — and, yes, not as vulnerable,” Salem said. “And hostility to the United States and Israel is at the heart of the Islamic Revolution — baked into the state.”

Here are some of the ways the Iran attacks could develop into the very scenarios Trump once derided in his days as the antiwar candidate:

Boots on the ground

For now, the U.S. and Israel have wielded air power to pound Tehran into submission. In the first minutes of the joint operation, a 200-plane fleet — Israel’s largest — struck more than 500 targets in Iran, according to the Israeli military. One such strike killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Iran is still fighting back, lobbing missiles at Israel, Persian Gulf nations, Jordan and other areas with U.S. bases in the region. The U.S. has the qualitative and quantitative edge of materiel to eventually prevail, but Iran’s capabilities will not make it easy, as the losses in service members and planes have demonstrated in the last two days.

And wars have never been won with air power alone. Rather than relying on boots on the ground, Trump expects ordinary Iranians to finish the job for him.

“When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take,” he said in a video address on the first day of the campaign.

During the Arab Spring of 2011, protesters throughout the Middle East took to the streets to demand change. But those efforts mostly did not lead to significant reforms and, in some countries, prompted further repression.

In Iran, it’s true many people would welcome the Islamic Republic’s demise — as many Iraqis rejoiced at Hussein’s fall. But it’s unlikely that mostly unarmed protesters will triumph in a confrontation against enforcers from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or its volunteer wing, the Basij.

It’s also difficult to gauge how many of Iran’s 93 million people despise the government enough to rise up against it.

Meanwhile, Trump has left the door open for dispatching U.S. troops, but the math of such a deployment raises doubts.

According to the U.S. Army, counterinsurgency doctrine dictates 20 to 25 troops for every 1,000 inhabitants to achieve stability. In the case of Iran that would entail deploying 1.9 million people — almost all the U.S. military’s active duty, reserve and National Guard personnel.

New leadership unclear

At this point, it’s not clear that decapitation of much of Iran’s leadership class will produce any real change in government, much less a successor inclined to bend to U.S. wishes. The top echelons of the Islamic Republic boast a deep bench of mostly hard-liners — not surprising, perhaps, for a nation that has braced for attack for years, if not decades.

Whatever new leadership that does emerge could rally around the “martyrdom” of Khamenei. Not especially popular in life, he appears to have become, in death, a rallying cry for defiance. And martyrs are exalted in Shiite Islam, Iran’s prevalent faith.

“He was the religious leader of the Shiites, so it’s sort of like killing the pope,” Salem said. “And he’s more popular dying as a martyr, than, say, of a heart attack. … He went out in style, no doubt about it.”

When the U.S. occupied Iraq, the expectation was that whatever came next would be a fervent U.S. ally, an idea perhaps best captured in the notion in Washington that a grateful Iraqi populace would shower U.S. troops with flowers. That didn’t happen. And in the Darwin-esque culling of leaders that followed, the ones that emerged victorious had little love for the U.S.

One of them was Nouri Al-Maliki, a Shiite supremacist whose policies were blamed for fueling years of sectarian bloodletting, and whose loyalties often seemed more aligned with Tehran than Washington.

Meanwhile, Tehran, playing on its proximity and deep ties to the new Iraqi ruling class, was able to steer Iraq — a majority Shiite country — deeper into its orbit.

After the Iraqi government — with the help of a U. S.-led coalition — pushed Islamic State out of Iraq in 2017, Iran was able to embed allied militias into Iraq’s armed services. That created the paradoxical situation of Tehran-aligned fighters wielding U.S.-supplied materiel.

Iraq has yet to emerge from Iran’s shadow. After Iraq’s most recent elections, Maliki seems poised to become prime minister once more, prompting Trump to write on Truth Social, “Because of his insane policies and ideologies, if elected, the United States of America will no longer help Iraq.”

A fragmented opposition

Iran’s population is diverse; an estimated two-thirds of Iranians are Persian, while minorities include Kurds, Baloch, Arabs and Azeris.

Those minorities have long-standing grievances against the ruling majority. It’s possible that Trump’s campaign and the resulting disorder could fuel separatist tensions.

Just last month, Iranian Kurdish factions joined together in a coalition that they said would seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic “to achieve the Kurdish people’s right to self-determination, and to establish a national and democratic entity based on the political will of the Kurdish nation in Iranian Kurdistan.”

An experienced insurgency

Over the decades, the Islamic Republic created a network that at its peak stretched from Pakistan to Lebanon.

It was a fearsome constellation of paramilitary factions and amenable governments that became known as the Axis of Resistance. It included Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestinian lands, Yemen’s Houthis, and militias in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

After Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks, Israel — and, eventually, the United States — launched offensive campaigns to defang the groups.

Although weakened, the factions still survive, and could form a powerful, transnational and motivated insurgency when the time comes to fight whatever emerges if the Islamic Republic falls.

Bulos reported from Khartoum, Sudan, and McDonnell from Mexico City.

An unexploded US kamikaze drone was found on farmland in Western Iraq on Monday. The low-cost drones have reportedly been used in US-Israeli strikes on Iran.

The killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in a United States-Israeli air campaign has sent shockwaves through the Middle East, decapitating the leadership of the “axis of resistance” at its most critical moment.

For decades, this network of groups allied with Iran was Tehran’s forward line of defence. But today, with its commander-in-chief dead and its logistical arteries cut, the alliance looks less like a unified war machine and more like a series of isolated islands.

Hassan Ahmadian, a professor at the University of Tehran, warned that the era of strategic patience is over and the Iranian government is now prepared to “burn everything” in response to the attacks.

While Tehran promised to retaliate against the US and Israel “with a force they have never experienced before”, the reaction from its key proxies in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq revealed a deep hesitation driven by local existential threats that may outweigh their ideological loyalty to a fallen leader.

Hezbollah: Walking between raindrops

In Beirut, the response from Hezbollah, long considered the crown jewel among Iran’s regional allies, has been cautiously calibrated.

After Sunday’s announcement of Khamenei’s death, the group issued a statement condemning the attack as the “height of criminality”. However, Al Jazeera correspondent in Beirut Mazen Ibrahim noted that the language used was defensive, not offensive.

“If one dismantles the linguistic structure of the statement, the complexity of Hezbollah’s position becomes clear,” Ibrahim said. “The secretary-general spoke of ‘confronting aggression’, which refers to a defensive posture. … He did not explicitly threaten to attack Israel or launch revenge operations.”

This caution is rooted in a new strategic reality. Since the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria in late 2024, the “land bridge” that supplied Hezbollah has been severed. Ali Akbar Dareini, a Tehran-based researcher, noted that this loss “cut the ground link with Lebanon”, leaving the group physically isolated.

Now with top leaders of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) killed alongside Khamenei, Hezbollah appears paralysed – caught between a battered domestic front in Lebanon and a vacuum of orders from Tehran.

The Houthis: Solidarity meets survival

In Yemen, the Houthis face an even more volatile calculus.

In his first televised address after the strikes on Iran began on Saturday, the group’s leader, Abdel-Malik al-Houthi, declared his forces “fully prepared for any developments”. Yet his rhetoric notably emphasised that “Iran is strong” and “its response will be decisive,” a phrasing that analysts interpreted as an attempt to deflect the immediate burden of war away from the Houthis.

The Houthis are under immense pressure. While they have successfully disrupted Red Sea shipping and fired missiles at Tel Aviv, they now face a renewed threat at home.

The internationally recognised Yemeni government, having won a power struggle against southern separatists, has sensed a shift in momentum. Defence Minister Taher al-Aqili recently declared: “The index of operations is heading towards the capital, Sanaa,” which the Houthis control. The statement signalled a potential ground offensive to retake Houthi territory.

This places the Houthis in a bind. While Houthi negotiator Mohammed Abdulsalam recently met with Iranian official Ali Larijani in Muscat, Oman, to discuss “unity of the arenas”, the reality on the ground is different. Engaging in a war for Iran could leave the Houthis’ home front exposed to government forces backed by regional rivals.

“Expanding the circle of targeting will only result in expanding the circle of confrontation,” the Houthi-affiliated Supreme Political Council warned in a statement that threatened escalation but also implicitly acknowledged the high cost of a wider war.

Iraq: The internal time bomb

Perhaps nowhere is the dilemma more acute than in Iraq, where the lines between the state and the “resistance” are dangerously blurred.

Iran-aligned militias, many of which operate under the state-sanctioned Popular Mobilisation Forces, are now caught in a direct standoff with the US. Tensions have simmered since late 2024 when Ibrahim Al-Sumaidaie, an adviser to Iraq’s prime minister, revealed that Washington had threatened to dismantle these groups by force, a warning that led to his resignation under pressure from militia leaders.

Today, that threat looms larger than ever. Unlike Hezbollah or the Houthis, these groups are technically part of the Iraqi security apparatus. A retaliation from Iraqi soil would not just risk a militia war but also a direct conflict between the US and the Iraqi state.

With the IRGC commanders who once mediated these tensions now dead, the “restraining hand” is gone. Isolated militia leaders may now decide to strike US bases of their own accord, dragging Baghdad into a war the government has desperately tried to avoid.

Resistance without a head

Khamenei’s assassination has essentially shattered the command-and-control structure of the “axis of resistance”.

The network was built on three pillars: the ideological authority of the supreme leader, the logistical coordination of the IRGC and the geographic connection through Syria. Today, all three are broken.

“The most important damage to Iran’s security interests is the severing of the ground link,” Dareini said. With Khamenei gone, the “spiritual link” is also severed.

What remains is a fragmented landscape. In Lebanon, Hezbollah is too exhausted to open a northern front. In Yemen, the Houthis face a potential domestic offensive. In Iraq, militias risk collapsing the state they live in.

When the dust settles in Tehran, the region will face a dangerous unpredictability. The “axis of resistance” is no longer a coordinated army. It is a collection of angry, heavily armed militias, each calculating its own survival in a world where the orders from Tehran have suddenly stopped coming.

Explosions are being heard in Iran, Israel and across several Middle Eastern states after the United States and Israel began attacking Iran on Saturday.

Tehran has responded by launching waves of missiles and drones at Israel and towards several military bases in the Middle East where US forces operate.

Iran had previously warned that if it were attacked, it would respond by targeting US military facilities across the region, which it considers legitimate targets.

Which countries have been attacked?

Israel’s air force says it dropped more than 1,200 munitions across 24 of Iran’s 31 provinces over the past day in its joint attack with the US.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) says it has launched attacks on 27 bases in the Middle East where US troops are deployed as well as Israeli military facilities in Tel Aviv and other parts of Israel.

So far, Iran has launched strikes across eight countries in the region: Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Most of these attacks have been intercepted.

US military presence in the Middle East

The US has operated military bases in the Middle East for decades.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the US operates a broad network of military sites, both permanent and temporary, across at least 19 locations in the region.

Of these, eight are permanent bases in Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

As of mid-2025, there are about 40,000 to 50,000 US soldiers in the Middle East stationed in both large, permanent bases and smaller forward sites.

The countries with the most US soldiers are Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. These installations serve as critical hubs for US air and naval operations, regional logistics, intelligence gathering and force projection.

How many people have been killed or injured?

Below are the confirmed casualties across the 10 countries that have been subject to attacks as of Sunday at 13:40 GMT.

Due to the rapidly evolving situation, all figures may change as more information becomes available.

Iran – killed: 201, injured: 747

As of Sunday morning, the Iranian Red Crescent Society and official state-linked media have reported preliminary casualty figures of 201 people killed and at least 747 injured as rescue operations continue.

Since then, explosions continue to be heard across Iran with Israel saying it has carried out a large aerial attack on the “heart of the capital”.

The deadliest single incident occurred in the city of Minab in southeastern Iran, where a strike on an elementary girls school reportedly killed at least 148 people and injured 95. The attack occurred on Saturday, and the death toll has been climbing since.

Israel – killed: 9, injured: 121

On Sunday afternoon, an Iranian ballistic missile strike on central Israel’s Beit Shemesh killed eight people and injured about 20. Rescue workers are still combing through the rubble.

Late on Saturday, one woman in the Tel Aviv area was confirmed killed after being struck by falling shrapnel.

At least 121 others have been reported injured, at least one seriously.

At least 40 buildings in Tel Aviv were damaged in Iranian strikes on Saturday, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported, citing the city government.

Bahrain – killed: 0, injured: 4

Iranian missiles targeted the headquarters of the US Navy’s 5th Fleet in Bahrain’s Juffair area.

Bahrain’s Ministry of Interior also confirmed that the country’s international airport was targeted with a drone, “resulting in material damage without loss of life”.

On Saturday night, several residential buildings in the capital, Manama, were struck by Iranian drones.

Government hospitals said four people were receiving treatment for shrapnel-related injuries.

Iraq – killed: 2, injured: 5

The US and Israel also targeted the Jurf al-Sakher base, also known as Jurf al-Nasr, in southern Iraq, which houses the Popular Mobilisation Forces, made up of mostly Shia fighters, and the Iran-supported Iraqi paramilitary group Kataib Hezbollah.

Iraqi state media and sources within Kataib Hezbollah confirmed that two fighters were killed in the strikes and five were wounded.

In northern Iraq‘s semiautonomous Kurdish region, where the US is reported to still have troops, several powerful explosions were reported near the US consulate and international airport in Erbil.

Air defences intercepted the drone attacks on Saturday, according to reports.

Jordan – killed: 0, injured: 0

The Jordanian armed forces reported intercepting 49 drones and ballistic missiles that entered Jordanian airspace. While their fragments caused localised property damage, there have been no deaths or injuries within the kingdom.

Kuwait – killed: 1, injured: 32

Kuwait’s Ministry of Defence says Ali al-Salem Air Base came under attack by a number of ballistic missiles, all of which were intercepted by Kuwaiti air defence systems.

A drone targeted Kuwait International Airport on Saturday, resulting in minor injuries to a number of employees and limited damage to the passenger building.

On Sunday, Kuwait’s Ministry of Health said one person had been killed and 32 wounded.

Oman – killed: 0, injured: 5

On Sunday morning, the Oman News Agency, quoting a security source, said two drones had targeted the Duqm port, injuring one foreign worker.

Later, Oman’s Maritime Security Centre said a Palau-flagged oil tanker was ‌attacked about 5 nautical miles (9km) off Oman’s Musandam governorate, injuring four people.

Qatar – killed: 0, injured: 16

As of Sunday morning, the Qatari Ministry of Interior confirmed that the number of injured was at 16 people. Most injuries were reported to be from falling shrapnel and debris with one person seriously hurt.

The Qatari Ministry of Defence confirmed that two ballistic missiles struck the Al Udeid military base, where US forces are stationed, while a drone targeted an early warning radar installation.

Qatari air defence systems, in coordination with regional partners, successfully intercepted about 65 missiles and 12 drones over Qatari airspace, it said.

The Qatar Civil Aviation Authority suspended all air navigation indefinitely. Qatar Airways grounded all flights and advised passengers that updates will be provided on Monday by 9am (06:00 GMT).

All schools have moved to remote learning, and public gatherings for Ramadan have been suspended until further notice to ensure public safety.

Saudi Arabia – killed: 0, injured: 0

The Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that Iranian attacks targeted both the capital, Riyadh, and Eastern Province, home to major oil infrastructure and the King Abdulaziz Air Base.

The kingdom has officially reported no casualties as of Sunday afternoon.

United Arab Emirates – killed: 3, injured: 58

As of Sunday afternoon, at least three people in the UAE were confirmed killed and 58 others wounded.

A Pakistani national was killed and seven people were injured when debris from intercepted missiles and drones fell on a residential area near Zayed International Airport in Abu Dhabi.

The Ministry of Defence confirmed that another individual, identified as an Asian national, was killed by falling shrapnel in a residential district of the capital.

Additionally, four airport staff at Dubai International Airport sustained injuries, and four people were injured at Palm Jumeirah after a fire in a building caused by falling debris.

As of Sunday afternoon, The UAE’s Defence Ministry says it detected 165 ballistic missiles, destroying 152, and intercepted two cruise missiles.

Iran has begun 40 days of mourning after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in ongoing attacks by the United States and Israel, according to Iranian state media.

Top security officials were also killed in Saturday’s strikes, along with Khamenei’s daughter, son-in-law and grandson. The killings mark one of the most significant blows to Iran’s leadership since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

President Masoud Pezeshkian condemned the killing as “a great crime”, according to a statement from his office. He also declared seven days of public holidays in addition to the 40-day mourning period.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi said people were pouring into the streets of the capital following the news of Khamenei’s killing.

“There will be expected ceremonies,” he said, noting they would likely take place amid continuing bombardment across the country.

Protests denouncing Khamenei’s killing were also reported elsewhere, including Shiraz, Yasuj and Lorestan.

“There will be expected ceremonies,” he said, noting they would likely take place amid continuing bombardment across the country.

Footage aired by Iranian state media showed supporters mourning at the shrine of Imam Reza in Mashhad, with several people seen crying and collapsing in grief.

The killing also led to protests in neighbouring Iraq, which declared three days of public mourning. In Baghdad, protesters confronted security forces in the heavily fortified Green Zone, which houses Iraqi government buildings and foreign embassies.

Videos verified by Al Jazeera showed demonstrators waving flags and shouting slogans, with witnesses saying some were attempting to mobilise towards the US Embassy. Footage also showed protesters blocking vehicles at a roundabout near one of the entrances to the area.

There was also a protest in the Pakistani city of Karachi, where footage, verified by Al Jazeera, showed people setting fire to and smashing the windows of the US consulate.

However, there have also been reports of celebrations in Iran, with the Reuters news agency quoting witnesses as saying some people had taken to the streets in Tehran, the nearby city of Karaj and the central city of Isfahan.

Meanwhile, the official IRNA news agency reported that a three-person council, consisting of the country’s president, the chief of the judiciary, and one of the jurists of the Guardian Council, will temporarily assume all leadership duties in the country. The body will temporarily oversee the country until a new supreme leader is elected.

Khamenei assumed leadership of Iran in 1989 following the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who had led the Islamic revolution a decade earlier.

While Khomeini was regarded as the ideological force behind the revolution that ended the Pahlavi monarchy, Khamenei went on to shape Iran’s military and paramilitary apparatus, strengthening both its domestic control and its regional influence.

Attacks across the region

Meanwhile, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) pledged revenge and said it had launched strikes on 27 bases hosting US troops in the region, as well as Israeli military facilities in Tel Aviv.

Explosions have continued to be reported in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, while security alerts are in place in several countries across the region.

US President Donald Trump, in a social media post on Sunday, warned Iran that it would be hit “with a force that has ⁠never been seen before” if it retaliated.

Iran’s retaliatory attacks since Saturday have targeted Israel and US assets across multiple Middle East countries, including Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Harlan Ullman, chairman of the strategic advisory firm Killowen Group and an adviser to the Atlantic Council in Washington, DC, said the US may have made a “big mistake” by killing Khamenei.

“Decapitation only works when you get all the leaders, and I don’t think that we got all the leaders,” Ullman said, adding that the US should not expect Iran’s leadership to enter negotiations in the immediate aftermath.

Iranian state media reported on Saturday at least 201 people have been killed in the joint US-Israeli attacks across 24 provinces, citing the Red Crescent. In southern Iran, at least 148 people were killed and 95 wounded in a strike on an elementary girls’ school in Minab on Saturday, with the toll continuing to rise, according to state media.

The Obama administration is finding some new political cover by invoking the Bush administration after Republican presidential hopefuls stepped up their attacks on the president’s announcement that the United States would withdraw its troops from Iraq by year’s end.

Relations between any presidential administration and its predecessor are never easy, especially when they represent different parties and sharply dissimilar philosophies as is the case between the presidencies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush. On the economic front, the Obama administration has long argued that the deep political hole it inherited from the Bush years has caused a big part of the president’s current woes.

In a briefing with reporters aboard Air Force One, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney cited the Bush administration as he fielded a question about the GOP response to the announced troop withdrawal from Iraq. It was Bush who launched the Iraq campaign when he called Iraq part of the axis of evil that threatened the United States and said it was linked to international terrorism and wanted to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Both claims were questioned by critics, especially after no such major weapons were recovered during the more than eight years of the U.S.-led war.

In a question, a reporter described the Republicans as accusing Obama as acting “based on political motivations and just sort of sheer ineptitude.” Carney fired back that the commitment to withdraw by the end of the year was part of an agreement “signed by the Iraqi government and the Bush administration.

“So in response to the criticism, I just have to ask, you know, what country are they living in? What planet are they living on,” Carney said of the Republicans.

“Because, again, this president has — from the very beginning when he ran for office, he made clear what he wanted to do in Iraq, which was end this war responsibly in a way that was in the best interests of the United States. He made clear from the beginning that he would keep the commitment made by the Bush administration with the sovereign Iraqi government to withdraw all U.S. forces by the end of 2011,” he said.

Lest anyone miss the connection, Carney later went back to the Bush administration a third time, wondering what the Republicans wanted.

“Are they suggesting that we violate an agreement that’s signed by the Bush administration with the sovereign government of Iraq? That we keep troops there without the consent and agreement of the Iraqi government?” Carney said.

michael.muskal@latimes.com

Iraq is in a political deadlock. It still has no government, though general elections were held in November.

At the heart of the crisis is the former prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who was picked by the majority coalition in parliament as its candidate to take over the role again.

But that choice has been met with strong opposition from United States President Donald Trump.

And that warning has further polarised the political landscape in the country.

So, what’s really behind Washington’s strong stance against al-Maliki? And what role does the US still play in Iraq?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests

Muhanad Seloom – Assistant professor of international politics at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies

Ahmed Rushdi – President of the House of Iraqi Expertise Foundation, and a former foreign policy adviser in the Iraqi parliament.

Kenneth Katzman – Senior Fellow at The Soufan Center

Recent comments by United States and Israeli officials supporting the concept of a “Greater Israel” have raised alarm bells across the region and shed light on a vision once only rarely publicly spoken about.

An interview aired last week by the American right-wing podcaster Tucker Carlson with US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee started the current furore. Carlson, an influential figure who has been vocally critical of Israel over the past year, repeatedly asked Huckabee whether he supported Israel controlling all the land between the Nile River in Egypt and the Euphrates River in Iraq.

Huckabee, a Christian Zionist, would not disavow the belief that the Bible promised that land to Israel – even though it now encompasses all or part of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

“It would be fine if they took it all,” Huckabee said, leading to anger from those countries and others in the region, many of which are close US allies.

Then, speaking on Monday, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid said that he would support “anything that will allow the Jews a large, broad, strong land and a safe haven for us”.

“Zionism is based on the Bible. Our mandate over the land of Israel is biblical, [and] the biblical borders of the land of Israel are clear … Therefore, the borders are the borders of the Bible,” the apparently secular Israeli politician said.

So what is Greater Israel exactly? And is it really an ultimate goal for some Israeli politicians?

Defining Greater Israel

The most expansionist claim for a Greater Israel is based on a biblical verse (Genesis 15:18-21), which narrates God making a covenant with Abraham that promises his descendants the land between the Nile and the Euphrates.

That would include the Jewish people, with the tribes of Israel believed to be descended through Abraham’s son, Isaac. But it would also include the children of another of Abraham’s sons, Ishmael (Ismail), regarded as the forefather of the Arabs.

Other definitions based on different biblical verses are narrower in their territorial scope and specify that the land of Israel would be promised to the tribes of Israel descended from Isaac.

How has Israel worked to achieve expansion?

The current state of Israel emerged from the British Mandate for Palestine in 1948. The mandate, created by the League of Nations in the wake of World War I and the occupation of Palestine by the British, geographically limited Israel upon its creation.

The 1948 war that followed the end of the mandate led to Israel taking control of all of Mandatory Palestine, with the exception of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

But Israel soon expanded by force – in 1967 it defeated Arab forces and took control of the West Bank and Gaza, as well as Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, and Syria’s occupied Golan Heights. Israel continues to occupy all of those regions, with the exception of the Sinai, which it returned to Egypt in 1982.

Since then, Israel has ignored international law and continued occupying Palestinian and Syrian land, and has shown little respect for its neighbours’ sovereignty, occupying more land in Syria, as well as in Lebanon.

How popular is the idea of Greater Israel?

This needs to be broken down into two separate concepts – the expansion of Israel into the territory that immediately borders it, and the most extreme definition of Greater Israel: between the Nile and the Euphrates.

In terms of expansion into its immediate surroundings, Israeli Jews by and large support the annexation of East Jerusalem, which is occupied Palestinian territory, and the Golan Heights.

The Israeli government continues to move towards the de facto annexation of the occupied West Bank. Israeli politicians vary in how open they are in their support for the formal annexation of the West Bank, but most mainstream Israeli politicians are supportive of the illegal Israeli settlements in the territory.

An expansion of Israeli settlements into Gaza is not as popular, but is supported by far-right Israeli parties.

A Greater Israel, including parts of Jordan, or the most irredentist definition between the Euphrates and the Nile, is more controversial. Pre-1948, many Zionists sought not just Palestine but also Jordan for their future state – one of the most important Zionist armed groups at the time, the Irgun, even included the map of both Palestine and Jordan in its emblem.

But after the foundation of Israel this took a back seat, and open calls for a vastly expanded Israel were largely restricted to the fringes. But those fringes – far-right figures like Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir – are now in government, reflecting a wider radicalisation within Israeli society itself.

That means the Israeli ‘mainstream’, politicians such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and centrists like Lapid, are either more open in their support for some form of Greater Israel beyond the West Bank, or less willing to publicly oppose it.

How threatened do regional countries feel?

Regional states have said that the annexation of the West Bank would be a red line, but have been unable to reverse Israel’s occupation.

Hints at a wider expansion have led to an angry reaction from Arab countries. This goes further back than Huckabee’s recent comments. For example, Jordan condemned Smotrich – Israel’s finance minister – when he gave a speech in 2023 at a podium that displayed a map that showed Jordan as part of Israel.

And Huckabee’s support for Greater Israel was roundly condemned by more than a dozen states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkiye.

For Arab and Muslim states, the anger at the comments partially emanates from the sense of a lack of respect towards the sovereignty of regional states by a US official. But it also highlights fears that the balance of power in the region is weighted towards an Israel that is increasingly willing to attack across the Middle East, and has little interest in peace.

Even if the takeover of the land between the Nile and the Euphrates is not feasible, a region where Israel is the primary hegemon will likely lead to more attacks, more wars, and, if Israel determines it necessary, more occupation of land.

As the Muslim holy month of Ramadan began last week, the Iraqi city of Mosul regained its spiritual and cultural vibrancy, with religious rituals blending with cultural activities that reflect the city’s heritage, identity and collective memory after years of war and devastation.

On the first night of Ramadan, immediately after the Maghrib call to prayer, the chant “Majina ya Majina”, a traditional Ramadan song, echoes through the old neighbourhoods. Children in traditional clothing roam the streets singing Ramadan songs, in a scene that revives longstanding customs.

“This gathering of children revives Mosuli and Iraqi heritage and teaches them the values of sharing and celebrating the holy month,” said Yasser Goyani, 31, a member of the Bytna Foundation for Culture, Arts and Heritage

Tarawih prayers, performed at night during Ramadan, have also returned to the Grand al-Nuri Mosque and its iconic leaning minaret, al-Hadba, for the first time in nearly nine years, just before the bombing of the mosque in 2017 by ISIL (ISIS) fighters at the peak of an Iraqi government campaign against the group that had taken control of the city.

“I feel great joy performing prayers again in the mosque after its restoration and reopening, which reflects its spiritual and historical importance,” adds Goyani.

The traditional storyteller, or hakawati, has also re-emerged during Ramadan evenings, recounting stories from Mosul’s past.

“The hakawati represents a link between the past and the present. We narrate stories about how life in Mosul used to be, especially during the holy month of Ramadan. Despite technological development, people still love returning to their old memories,” explained Abeer al-Ghanem, 52, who plays the storyteller.

Meanwhile, the musaharati – the traditional predawn caller who wakes people up for a small meal to help them cope with the daylong fast – still walks through neighbourhoods in the Old City of Mosul before dawn.

Ghufran Thamer, 34, who performs the role, says, “The musaharati reminds people of authentic Ramadan rituals and keeps the nights of Ramadan alive, despite the changes in modern life.”

Traditional games remain a key part of the Ramadan atmosphere.

“We have been playing the siniya game since the 1980s. It is closely associated with Ramadan and creates a warm and joyful atmosphere among participants during the nights,” said Fahad Mohammed Kashmoula, 55.

Mosul’s markets, particularly the historic Bab al-Saray, come alive during Ramadan as residents flock to buy seasonal staples. Dates are especially in demand, providing a quick source of energy for those fasting. Khalil Mahmoud, 65, who has been selling dates in Bab al-Saray for nearly 40 years, says date sales increase significantly during Ramadan, especially in this market.

“Dates are highly sought after by those fasting, because they help compensate for the sugar lost during the day,” he said

Raisin juice, another Ramadan drink, is also popular across the city.

“The juice is prepared from high-quality raisins and fresh mint from the mountains of Kurdistan. The raisins are soaked, strained, crushed and strained again before being poured into bags for sale. Shops become crowded as people seek to replenish their energy after fasting,” said Hussein Muwaffaq, a raisin juice maker.

Alongside religious and cultural activities, the city also sees growing humanitarian initiatives during Ramadan, including paying off the debts of people in need, distributing food baskets, setting up free iftar meals, and promoting the values of social solidarity.

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential candidates are stepping up their assault on President Bush’s handling of Iraq, increasingly faulting the White House for failing to anticipate or avert the tumult that has engulfed the war-torn nation.

The Democrats have urged Bush to rely more on allies to help stabilize Iraq, reviving past criticism that the administration is too reluctant to work with the international community. And they have questioned Bush’s credibility after White House officials conceded this week that part of his case for going to war was based on incomplete intelligence.

The escalating attacks signal a sense among the Democratic campaigns that Bush may be vulnerable on a front that has been his strength — national security.

Bush couched the conflict with Iraq as crucial to America’s war on terrorism and basked in the quick overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Violence Continues

But since Bush triumphantly flew aboard the aircraft carrier Lincoln off San Diego and declared the end of major conflict in Iraq, U.S. occupational forces have been plagued by continuing violence.

Since Bush’s May 1 speech, 31 Americans have died as a result of hostile fire.

On Thursday, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Army Gen. Tommy Franks said U.S. troops are facing 10 to 25 attacks a day by Iraqi insurgents.

Franks, the commander of the war, was grilled by lawmakers about problems — and rising costs — confronting the U.S. effort to rebuild Iraq. He warned that American troops could be there for years.

Franks’ remarks followed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s estimate on Wednesday that monthly military costs in Iraq total about $3.9 billion — almost double the administration’s projection in April.

These developments — along with the White House’s acknowledgment on Monday that there was insufficient support for Bush’s claim in January that Hussein had tried to buy uranium in Niger for use in a nuclear weapons program — have fueled the growing Democratic criticism of the president on Iraq.

“We lack sufficient forces to do the job” of restoring order in Iraq, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts said Thursday. “It is time for the president to step forward and tell the truth: The war is con- tinuing and so are the casual- ties.”

Kerry, who like several other Democratic presidential candidates supported the congressional resolution last fall that authorized Bush to use force against Iraq, released his own four-point plan for reconstructing the country.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, campaigning in New Hampshire on Thursday, berated Bush for making the claim in his State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to buy uranium.

Resignations Sought

Dean, whose rise in the Democratic race has been based largely on his opposition to the war, called for the resignation of any administration official responsible for the mistake.

“Anyone who deliberately misled the president about a matter as serious as sending our troops to war should resign — whoever that might be,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee sent an e-mail to activists seeking donations to pay for a television ad questioning Bush’s credibility on Iraq.

Democrats in Congress joined in the criticism of Bush’s postwar policy.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, backed by other Democrats, sponsored a measure that urged Bush to seek military support from NATO and the United Nations in the occupation of Iraq.

The measure passed 97 to 0; because it was nonbinding, few saw it as an accurate measure of likely divisions among lawmakers over how far Bush should go in seeking international aid.

But Biden said there was broad bipartisan anxiety about the rockiness of the postwar period.

“Find me somebody on the floor who says, ‘This is going great,’ ” Biden said.

The barbs from Democrats have intensified as a recent poll indicated that the pub- lic has an increasingly nega- tive view of the situation in Iraq.

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found fewer than one-quarter of those surveyed in June and July thought that the U.S. effort was going “very well” — down from 61% in mid-April.

Still, the poll found little sign that those anxieties had seriously hurt Bush’s political position — 63% of those surveyed said there was a “good” chance or “some” chance they would vote for him in 2004.

The Democrats “need a lot more than some screwed-up intelligence report to really be able to peck at the president on foreign policy,” said a Republican political consul- tant close to the Bush cam- paign.

But he added: “If three months from now things aren’t any better [in Iraq], people are going to be asking: ‘What’s the plan, Stan?’ ”

The more pointed Democratic criticism of Bush stands in contrast to the wartime posture of most candidates.

Among the party’s major candidates, only Dean and Sen. Bob Graham of Florida opposed the decision to attack Iraq.

Along with Kerry, those supporting the war were Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Sens. Joe Lieb- erman of Connecticut and John Edwards of North Caro- lina.

Coalition Urged

The emerging critique among the candidates of Bush’s handling of Iraq echoes the argument some used against him before the war: that he has been too reluctant to build a coalition of allies to share cost and responsibilities.

“The United Nations, European Union, NATO — all have to be involved,” Ed- wards said at a recent town hall meeting in New Hamp- shire.

“We should welcome their involvement. It gives us a chance to re-engage in the international community.”

Kerry, in the plan he unveiled, called on the administration to increase troop strength in Iraq by adding coalition soldiers.

He also proposed more rapid training of Iraqi troops for security functions, development of a clear plan for transferring power to Iraqis and increased efforts to improve basic services such as electricity and water.

“The administration went to war without a thorough plan to win the peace,” said Kerry.

“It’s time to face that truth and change course.”

This week Lieberman mounted a similar attack in an opinion article in the Washington Post.

“Enough time has passed to conclude that what we are doing is not working,” said Lieberman. “The administration has … mishandled the efforts to get key allies on board….”

Erik Smith, a spokesman for Gephardt, said the congressman and other candidates have been arguing for some time that the presi- dent had not adequately pre- pared a postwar strategy for Iraq.

The criticism “takes on a new urgency in light of unfolding events,” said Smith.

“Voters are increasingly concerned about it.”

*

Times staff writers Mark Z. Barabak and Ronald Brownstein contributed to this report.