Israel

AVROTROS says escalating international conflicts are undermining the event’s neutrality and fuelling divisions.

The public broadcaster in the Netherlands has announced it will not participate in next year’s Eurovision Song Contest because the event can “no longer be considered neutral” due to ongoing divisions over the war in Gaza.

“It is undeniable that international conflicts are increasingly affecting the Contest, undermining its neutral character. The Eurovision Song Contest has therefore become a platform for division,” said Taco Zimmerman, Director-General of AVROTROS, in a statement on Monday.

The widely-watched show has recently faced a series of boycotts over Israel’s participation. Organisers announced earlier this month that they would exclude any country involved in an armed conflict from hosting the competition.

“However, the recently announced changes… do not provide sufficient confidence that the independent and neutral character of the Eurovision Song Contest has been restored,” the AVROTROS statement added.

Israel finished second in the competition – the world’s largest live televised music event – in both 2025 and 2026.

Next year’s Eurovision is due to be held in Bulgaria’s Black Sea city of Burgas, after Bulgarian singer Darina Yotova, known as Dara, won this year’s contest in Vienna, Austria, with her catchy floor-filler ‘Bangaranga’. The contest on May 15 will be the first time the Balkan nation has hosted.

Since its launch in 1955, Eurovision has become the ultimate pop platform, catapulting Swedish icons ABBA to worldwide fame, while also boosting the careers of artists such as Celine Dion, Cliff Richard and Olivia Newton-John.

However, this year’s competition pulled in 131 million viewers, 35 million fewer than last year, after five countries boycotted over Israel’s participation. The Netherlands, Iceland, Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia all pulled out, with the latter three refusing to broadcast the show at all.

Aug. 23 (UPI) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz have warned Hamas of military escalation if the Palestinians do not stop sending children’s kites into Israeli territory.

In a joint statement issued Sunday, the Israeli leaders said the Israel Defense Forces “will act to increase targeted strikes against those responsible” and “evacuate the population” from areas in Gaza used as launch sites for kites, drones and balloons.

The warning came after a “situational assessment” attended by top national security and military officials.

“There will be no return to the state of affairs prior to October 7,” Netanyahu and Katz said. “Israel will not allow the Hamas terrorist organization or any other element in the Gaza Strip to threaten our communities again and compromise our citizens’ sense of security.”

The IDF identified at least six children’s kites that crossed from the Gaza Strip into Israeli territory during the past seven days, including four over the weekend, the Jerusalem Post reported.

Military sources said the kites are being sent over by teenagers who are acting on behalf others, most likely Hamas operatives.

IDF officials told Israeli media outlets that nothing suspicious was found on the kites.

However, residents of Kibbutz Nahal Oz, which was attacked by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, have linked them with past efforts by Palestinian militants to use such kites to carry incendiary devices into southern Israel and have demanded action to stop them.

In 2018, Palestinians sent burning kites to the Israeli territory, causing damage to thousands of acres of agriculture and nature reserves.

Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem dismissed the latest kites as “children’s toys” released from Gaza refugee camps.

The threats issued by Israel “are based on fabricated pretexts and are an attempt to justify the continuation of the aggression and violations against our people,” he said in a statement to The Times of Israel.

United States President Donald Trump’s unpredictability isn’t strengthening the US position in the Iran war, as “the Iranians have no reason to believe anything Trump tells them”, argues Stephen Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Walt tells host Steve Clemons that the war is now in a “hurting stalemate” where “neither side really wants to escalate; they’re just waiting for the other side to crack”.

On the Palestinian-Israeli front, Walt doesn’t see an opening for a genuine political solution, as neither US party is willing to exert pressure on Israel, where “there’s still a very strong commitment to ‘Greater Israel’”.

Israeli forces launch wide search in Jordan Valley after stabbing incident in the occupied West Bank village of al-Auja.

Israeli forces have launched search operations in the Jordan Valley after an Israeli man was wounded in a stabbing attack in a village in the eastern occupied West Bank.

Israeli public broadcaster Kan reported on Sunday, citing a security source, that the man was stabbed at a commercial complex on the main road near the village of al-Auja.

The victim, a man aged in his 20s, was moderately wounded, Israeli police said.

The suspect escaped from the scene after carrying out the attack, according to the Israeli army, which launched a large-scale search operation in the area, supported by a substantial police presence.

The army said it had set up roadblocks in the village and the surrounding areas. The military is “in constant contact with the residents and security forces in the area”, it said in a post on Telegram.

The incident comes amid a rise in state-backed Israeli settler violence against Palestinians across the occupied West Bank since Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza began in October 2023.

Data from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) shows that between January 1, 2025, and June 31, 2026, there were 3,033 Israeli settler attacks.

Some 1,291 settler attacks were recorded in 2023, rising to 1,449 in 2024, 1,835 in 2025, and 761 in the first four months of 2026. That equates to an average of 190 attacks per month in 2026, up from 153 per month in 2025 – a 24 percent increase in the monthly rate.

Gas bombs fired, entrance closed at al-Mughayyir

In a separate incident on Sunday, Israeli forces used gas bombs and closed the western entrance of al-Mughayyir village, north of Ramallah, according to video footage and Palestinian officials.

Video clips documented Israeli forces firing gas canisters while blocking the western entrance to the village. The Palestinian news agency Wafa reported that Israeli troops prevented residents from entering or leaving al-Mughayyir, subjected a number of them to field interrogations, mistreated young men, and fired gas bombs towards vehicles.

The agency added that the western entrance is currently the only outlet for the village after Israeli forces closed its eastern entrance in October 2023.

Most documentaries urge you to not turn away from the horrors they chronicle, but few make that request as explicitly as “American Doctor.”

Near the start of her despondent film, director Poh Si Teng spends time with Mark Perlmutter, a North Carolina surgeon who, like Teng’s other subjects, volunteers in Gaza, treating the many who have been severely injured in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furious at the attacks on innocent Palestinian children, Perlmutter shows Teng photos of dead bodies. She says she may need to blur them for the movie. Perlmutter becomes indignant: “You’re not doing them a service by not showing them,” he says. “You have the responsibility, as I do, to tell the truth.”

Teng does reveal those stark faces and much more — not just the terrible human toll of Israel’s shelling of the Palestinian territories but also the strain on the doctors fighting to save lives while spreading the word about the atrocities they’ve witnessed.

Perlmutter, who is Jewish, is one of three American physicians at the center of Teng’s documentary. The other two are Thaer Ahmad, a Palestinian, and Feroze Sidhwa, who is Zoroastrian. Each of them resides in the U.S. but is drawn to lending a hand at Gazan hospitals — that is, when they’re actually allowed entry into the region. (Because of Ahmad’s Palestinian heritage, he’s been barred by the Israeli government.) As part of their humanitarian efforts, Perlmutter and his colleagues go on Western media, such as CNN, to decry the conditions of the Palestinian people. They are often met with resistance, if not outright hostility. The casualties keep piling up, and nobody outside the walls of the hospital seems to care.

Teng, who produced the 2019 Oscar-nominated documentary short “St. Louis Superman,” a portrait of a local Black activist, once again ponders how much any one person can do to bring about change. She gracefully balances between a three-pronged character study and a larger examination of the unending war. We come to admire Ahmad, Perlmutter and Sidhwa, but Teng provides just enough shading so that subtle cultural tensions between the men start to emerge.

That strain is particularly evident during the bighearted but strident Perlmutter’s impolitic media appearances, in which he brandishes impassioned criticism of Zionism that angers the Palestinian Ahmad. “We’ll be guilty by association and we’ll just get crushed for it,” he worries. It’s a documentary with a paucity of inspirational moments. Teng and her subjects are embedded in a world of tough choices and grim conditions.

With Ahmad largely sidelined in the U.S., though still advocating for the Palestinian people, Sidhwa ultimately becomes “American Doctor’s” most striking figure. Armed with an eloquent, righteous fury, he speaks to journalists with a stirring moral authority. Teng mostly avoids on-camera interviews with her subjects, preferring to watch them interacting with patients or in the operating room. In the process, we come to know Sidhwa, who projects a calm confidence, even when he’s nearly killed by a missile.

But his self-assurance is intriguingly undercut during an unguarded exchange in which he acknowledges that no prospective romantic partner has been comfortable with his desire to keep returning to Gaza. “I think I’m just probably a hard person to get along with,” he admits, laughing. “I wish I could blame the fact that no woman can put up with me on the Israel-Palestine conflict, but I don’t think that’s the issue.”

There are myriad ways to document the violence in Gaza, and it’s telling that Teng includes only a very brief news clip of President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the phantom figures hovering far above the film’s unfolding tragedy, even though they are among its chief architects. Instead, “American Doctor” focuses on the micro, giving voice to the doctors and caregivers who traditionally have been spared during armed conflicts, as laid out by the Geneva Conventions. In defiance of such norms, though, Israel’s government seems to be targeting hospitals, creating psychic wounds alongside mass casualties.

A closing text card indicates that more than 1,700 healthcare workers have died in Gaza, laying culpability at the feet of Israel and the United States. But it’s a testament to the physicians featured in “American Doctor” that none of them would suggest that this is the greatest crime occurring in the region. We observe them lamenting how powerless they feel: Their medical skills can do some good, but not nearly enough. And when they reluctantly return to America, they agonize over their guilt at not being able to do more — and what of Gaza will remain when they eventually get back.

Iran security chief Rezaei says any state joining US would be considered an enemy and Tehran would target their interests in retaliation.

Illegal under international law, Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank have been expanding for decades.

The right-wing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has fast-tracked the establishment of new ones.

The policy aims to tighten Israel’s hold on the occupied West Bank and block the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state.

With just months to go until the elections, the government has opened bids for the construction of 1,200 illegal housing units. It has also ignored international criticism of the planned illegal settlement, known as E1.

Some Western countries are threatening sanctions if Israel goes ahead. But would that make a difference?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Ammar Hijazi – Ambassador and head of the Palestinian Mission to the Netherlands

Alon Pinkas – Former Israeli ambassador and consul general in New York

On Tuesday, Israeli fighter jets attacked Abu al-Duhur airbase in northwestern Syria, drawing condemnations from the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, as well as regional countries. The Israeli government claimed that it had intelligence of Turkish military movement to the site.

In a subsequent interview, US Ambassador to Turkiye and Special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack said the US had received this intelligence from the Israelis six days before the attack. However, US intelligence conducted its own due diligence and found no basis for the claim.

The incident not only reflects a shift in the dynamics between Turkiye and Israel, but also signals a regional reordering that the latter is no longer at the centre of.

The Turkish response

Seeing the Israeli attack on the Syrian base as a provocation, Ankara refrained from escalating and instead provided an off-ramp out of the crisis. It framed the issue not in bilateral terms but as one between Israel and the US, and between Israel and the regional and international consensus.

Normally, there is a deconfliction mechanism between Turkiye and Israel. However, as Barrack indicated in the interview, Israel did not warn Turkiye about the attack, which could have triggered a military response.

The US envoy called for a deconfliction mechanism, but such an initiative can be effective only if the sides involved want it to be. In this case, there is no evidence that Israel sought de-escalation. In fact, it appears escalation was the intended outcome, as Israel notified neither Turkiye nor the US about the attack and acted on a pretext that the US intelligence found no basis for – a ploy to boost Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s electoral campaign.

After the US-imposed lull on the Iran front, Netanyahu is likely seeking escalation on other fronts, be it Syria, Lebanon or Gaza, in the run-up to the Israeli election. The challenge for Turkiye would be to avoid taking Netanyahu’s bait while also preventing the normalisation of such aggression.

That would require direct intervention by US President Donald Trump to rein in Netanyahu. Indeed, a trilateral deconfliction mechanism can work and be credible only if the US throws real weight behind it.

But even if a mechanism is in place, it would not change the fact that Syria has altered the lens through which Turkiye and Israel view each other. For a long time, the core of Turkiye’s discontent with Israel was the Palestinian issue. Hence, it was more humanitarian-, identity- and solidarity-based in nature.

Today, Ankara views Israeli attempts to undermine the Syrian transition as having direct repercussions for its national security. Therefore, Turkiye is no longer seeing Israel solely through the prism of the Palestinian question. Rather, it increasingly sees it as a national security challenge, with Israeli regional revisionism threatening its interests.

The international consensus on Syria

From the Eastern Mediterranean to the Horn of Africa and the wider Middle East, Turkiye and Israel have conflicting policies, priorities and threat perceptions. Despite this, Syria serves as a microcosm of Turkiye and Israel’s visions of the regional order.

Ankara wants its southern neighbour to be centralised, stable and capable militarily. In contrast, Israel wants a Syria that is weak, fragmented and bereft of serious military might.

Yet this is not merely a conflict between Turkish and Israeli visions. Israel is at odds with the regional and international consensus on Syria. The US, the UK, Europe and regional states have all supported a centralised and stable government in Damascus. In an ironic way, the only other regional state that probably wants a weak or failed Syria is Iran.

Like any other sovereign state, Syria will have an army. If Israel believes that the only way to ensure its own security is by keeping its neighbouring or regional states weak, fragmented and bereft of military capability, this is a recipe for perpetual wars and for regional and international isolation.

The undermining of the Syrian state and the failure of its transition would pave the way for non-state actors and radicalism, which would bode ill for the entire region, including Israel. Indeed, neighbouring Lebanon should serve as a cautionary tale. The Israeli occupation and the weakness of the Lebanese state gave birth to and empowered Hezbollah.

Post-Abrahamic Middle East

Israel and Turkiye’s ideas of regional order are also at odds. The recent Mecca Pact, which brought together Turkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is not inherently anti-Israel. However, it represents a regional shift that signals the failure of the order envisioned by the Abraham Accords, or similar initiatives such as India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) or the strategic partnership between India, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and the US known as I2U2.

The Abrahamic vision of the regional order was premised on Arab-Israeli normalisation and cooperation under the US security umbrella. Hard containment of Iran, soft containment of Turkiye, and de-emphasising the Palestinian issue were also part of the same vision.

Inherently, this Abrahamic vision had more to do with Israel and its regional normalisation than the Arab states and their needs and priorities.

However, with its aggressive and revisionist policies, Israel has deepened the prospect of its regional isolation, increased the cost of any normalisation, and doomed this Abrahamic – or Israeli-centric – vision of regional order.

Israeli revisionism is not only driving a wedge between Israel and other major regional states, but it is also revealing the gap between Israel and the US on the question of regional reordering.

While Israel opposes the Mecca Pact, Trump has hailed it, likely seeing it as aligned with his strategy of burden-sharing and burden-shifting with regional allies, and as enjoying more regional legitimacy and acceptance. The US position might also reflect a recalibration of Washington’s regional vision.

Over the last decade, the US invested heavily in creating a regional order premised on Israel and the Arab-Gulf states. But this was essentially an Israeli-centric project for the regional order.

This vision is no longer tenable, and no one is more responsible for its demise than Israel itself.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Syria condemns attack in southwest as a ‘flagrant violation of sovereignty’ and a ‘blatant breach of international law’.

An Israeli drone strike in southwestern Syria has injured several people, the country’s foreign ministry says, in the latest of near-daily Israeli incursions and attacks in the area.

Syria’s official Alikhbariya channel reported on Saturday that a man was wounded when an Israeli drone hit his truck near the town of Beit Jinn in the western Damascus countryside.

The Israeli military confirmed the strike, saying in a statement that it had targeted “a terrorist who advanced terror attacks in their final stages of preparation” in southern Syria. The activity “posed an immediate threat to our forces”, the military added.

Syria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates said in a statement that Saturday’s strike resulted in several civilian injuries.

It said it “condemns in the strongest terms” the targeting of a “civilian vehicle” by an Israeli drone.

“This attack constitutes a flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic and the integrity of its territory, and a blatant breach of international law, and comes in the context of repeated Israeli attacks on Syrian territory,” it added.

Israel sees southern Syria ‘as a security zone’

Saturday’s strike hit a small delivery truck on the main road between the Beit Jinn farmland and the town itself, said Al Jazeera Arabic correspondent Adham Abu al-Hussam, reporting from the area.

“Residents say [one of the victims is] a civilian who works as a driver, delivering goods and orders on this truck,” Abu al-Hussam said, adding that neighbours rushed a wounded man to hospital after hearing the explosion. He is in stable condition with an injury to his right hand, according to a medical source.

Abu al-Hussam said residents had reported Israeli reconnaissance drones flying over the area for four days. Beit Jinn, which lies near Jabal al-Sheikh and roughly 55km from Damascus, has been repeatedly targeted in the past year, including in a late November raid that killed 13 civilians, he said.

Muhsen al-Mustafa, a security and strategic researcher at the Omran Center for Strategic Studies in Damascus, told Al Jazeera that the attack could be Israel sending Syria’s government a message. “Israel currently treats Syria, particularly the south, as a security zone it is trying to fill any vacuum in.”

He said Israel had used a similar rationale days earlier when it struck Abu al-Duhur military airport in Idlib province, in northern Syria, saying the aim was to prevent a Turkish military presence there. That strike, he said, signalled that Israel’s declared security zone “isn’t limited to the south” but “extends even to Abu al-Duhur airport”, roughly in the middle of the country. “Israel’s security zone, it’s saying, extends further than that.”

Al-Mustafa suggested that Israel opted for a drone strike rather than sending in ground forces partly because of the November raid, when Israeli troops came under direct fire during the incursion into Beit Jinn, wounding six soldiers, three of them seriously. “Israel is always trying to apply pressure and ask for more in every round of negotiation,” he said.

A Syrian diplomatic source told Al Jazeera that Damascus remains committed to de-escalation and is pursuing a security arrangement with Israel through United States mediation, based on the 1974 disengagement agreement.

Tehran, Iran – The Iranian military is looking at how to respond to the United States’s planned implementation of economic measures that are designed to “collapse” the government in Tehran.

It comes as US President Donald Trump announced this week the “most crushing economic operation” against Iran, saying Tehran would face “economic warfare and isolation on an unprecedented scale”.

Iranian commanders are reviewing new military strategies to counteract the new US threats.

“The only intelligent and effective solution to navigate difficult historical junctures and neutralise the enemy’s plots today and in the future,” Ahmad Vahdi, commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), warned on Friday.

Marking National Day of Defence Industry in Iran on Saturday, Ali Abdollahi, chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, hailed a “deterrent defensive industrial revolution” in the domestic production of weaponry.

But as happened last year, authorities opted not to exhibit new arms.

“We have limited unveilings of weapons and equipment in order to surprise the enemy and safeguard the country’s defensive information and secrets,” Ministry of Defence spokesman Reza Talaei-Nik told state media on Saturday.

However, he claimed that in the 12 months after the 12-day war with Israel and the US in June 2025, Iran doubled its production of weapons and defensive equipment.

Since the start of the current war with the US and Israel on February 28, manufacturing of some “strategic and prioritised products” has more than tripled, he claimed.

Talaei-Nik also said more than 9,300 companies in Iran are involved in producing weapons, which means US and Israeli strikes would not be able to destroy this sector.

Acting Defence Minister Majid Ebn-e Reza said on Friday that compared to last year’s war with Israel and the US, the Iranian armed forces were able to achieve deeper penetration of enemy bases, greater strike accuracy, and more successful air defence interceptions.

In another future war, the IRGC will deploy new generations of warheads for its ballistic and cruise missiles, as production and development never stopped, IRGC spokesman Hossein Mohebbi said on Thursday.

The truce between the US and Iran, which took hold on April 8, followed nearly 40 days of intense bombing and involved thousands of flight sorties.

The White House claimed that more than 85 percent of Iran’s defence-industrial base had been destroyed, including the majority of its ballistic missiles, mobile launchers and long-range drones.

It also said that more than 150 Iranian warships were destroyed, every submarine sunk, and 97 percent of Iran’s naval-mine inventory eliminated.

But a confidential US intelligence assessment reported by media in May found that Iran retained approximately 75 percent of its mobile launchers and 70 percent of its pre-war missile inventory.

Even after an additional two weeks of intense bombardment by the US in July, the IRGC and the Iranian army continued to launch missiles and drones at US bases and international shipping in the Strait of Hormuz – although at a slower pace compared with the start of the war.

Iranian commanders have said the July strikes by the US signalled potential planning for ground operations in southern Iran, and the military was ready to counter any such efforts by Washington.

Experts have said Iran has continued to produce weapons in geographically dispersed underground bases that have stayed out of reach of US bombs, even as many overground manufacturing lines were decimated.

In addition to the more complex and costly ballistic missiles, cheaper and easier-to-make explosive drones have helped Iran consume a large number of US interceptors, reveal radar positions, force airports or energy sites to suspend operations, and create disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran’s air defences and ageing air force largely failed to prevent US, Israeli and Arab breaches of its airspace during bombing runs.

But smaller electro-optical, heat-seeking and man-portable systems have managed some interceptions, including the downing of an F-15 fighter jet.

At least 45 advanced MQ-9 Reaper drones of the US military, about a quarter of the entire fleet at the cost of more than $1.3bn, were either shot down by Iran or were lost through data-link or operational failures, according to US media reports.

In the Strait of Hormuz, which US President Donald Trump declared US territory this week, Washington and its allies have managed to increase discrete oil and energy transfers over recent weeks.

But despite significant damage inflicted on Iran’s naval capabilities, missile, drone and fast boat attacks mean oil flows via the Hormuz are still considerably lower than their pre-war levels.

Disruptions to sea traffic are also happening in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandeb strait, where Iran-aligned Houthis in Yemen have intermittently clashed with Saudi Arabia and its interests.

Iran and the US are not engaged in any meaningful dialogue, so a diplomatic way out of the war is currently not in sight.

China opposes the US and Western escalation against Iran and insists on condemning the US and Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear targets. China considers the US and Israeli military attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities a blatant violation of international law and the UN Charter. While Beijing officially adheres to nuclear non-proliferation, it will hold the US directly responsible and will oppose the imposition of new international sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council. China will work to hold Washington accountable. Beijing believes that the US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement is the root cause of the current impasse in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) negotiations. The Chinese Foreign Ministry asserts that the policy of maximum pressure and economic sanctions against Tehran will not resolve the crisis but will only exacerbate tensions. China views Tehran’s threat to withdraw from the NPT as an understandable reaction to the maximum pressure exerted upon it, but it consistently prefers diplomatic solutions and supports maintaining the international legal framework to prevent escalation.  The Chinese stance came after Iranian parliamentarians, including Ebrahim Rezaei, asserted that withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the best response to the Trump administration’s escalation of economic warfare.

The main dimensions of the Chinese position regarding the Iranian threat to withdraw from the NPT are embodied in China’s rejection of pressure and sanctions against Iran. China maintains that the escalating US sanctions and policies against Tehran will not resolve the nuclear crisis but rather exacerbate it. Chinese intelligence, military, political, and strategic circles have adopted a strategy of legal consideration versus feasibility. Experts and observers close to Chinese circles argue that Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT is a legitimate legal right for independent states, but Beijing implicitly suggests that such a move could trigger harsher international sanctions against Tehran. Therefore, Beijing is working to (obstruct UN sanctions against Iran). China, along with Russia, has expressed its readiness to block the activation of the snapback mechanism or any harsh international sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council to protect its interests and regional stability, while adhering to a political settlement. Beijing is calling on all parties to return to the negotiating table and maintain regional and international stability, instead of taking radical and escalatory steps that violate international treaties.

In my analysis, China will insist on referring the Iranian issue to international forums, such as the Security Council, using its veto power to condemn and block any resolutions issued against Iran. Here, China is expected to cooperate with Russia to obstruct any Western or American Security Council resolutions aimed at condemning Iran or imposing new, harsh UN sanctions. China will maintain its commitment to dialogue by continuing to call for a return to the political negotiating table, while publicly acknowledging Tehran’s previous assurances that it is not seeking to produce nuclear weapons. Here, we must understand all the strategic parameters of China’s position regarding the escalation against Iran over its nuclear program through the lens of China’s opposition to nuclear armament. Despite China’s understanding of Iran’s motives and its right to peaceful energy, it categorically rejects Tehran’s move towards acquiring a nuclear military arsenal in order to preserve the stability of the international order and prevent a regional arms race. This is coupled with the desire of relevant circles in Beijing to safeguard their interests. Therefore, Beijing will strive to avoid sliding into a direct confrontation with the West and the United States while continuing to provide Iran with as much economic and diplomatic support as possible in order to alleviate Iran’s isolation.

China supports Tehran diplomatically, emphasizing dialogue and rejecting the unilateral sanctions imposed by Washington. Despite the ongoing pressure, the likelihood of direct war remains low, as a major war of attrition is avoided. China’s position is characterized by its call for diplomatic solutions and dialogue based on mutual respect, its rejection of unilateral US economic sanctions against Iran, and its insistence that all parties address the root causes of the tension and resume the nuclear agreement. This is especially relevant given the Iranian threat to withdraw from the agreement, voiced by several members of the Iranian parliament who believe that remaining in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is pointless under continued US pressure.  Intelligence, military, political, and strategic circles in Beijing considered the Iranian parliamentary proposal a political response to the tightened US economic sanctions against Tehran. Chinese intelligence circles are well aware that an actual Iranian withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty requires the approval of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. Should this occur—a slim possibility according to Chinese strategic assessments—it would mean the potential outbreak of a full-scale war. Therefore, strategic assessments in Beijing suggest that the potential confrontation between Washington and Tehran will likely escalate into a protracted war of attrition rather than a full-scale military clash. According to Chinese analyses, both Washington and Tehran prefer economic pressure and the prospect of open negotiations to the option of open warfare. Hence, China seeks to curb any military escalation that could threaten energy security and regional stability.

Accordingly, China supports the continuation of the diplomatic and political track to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. It rejects pressures, escalatory policies, and economic sanctions against Tehran, while simultaneously calling for dialogue based on mutual respect and the preservation of regional stability, without supporting any sudden steps that could fuel the conflict. China’s general position stems from its rejection of sanctions. Beijing believes that the policy of maximum pressure and economic sanctions does not resolve the nuclear issue. Therefore, China consistently calls for adherence to dialogue to resolve differences through peaceful political and diplomatic means and to resume negotiations. China also provides strategic support to Iran. In this regard, China stands with Iran in the face of Western and American pressure. China is working alongside Russia to submit draft resolutions to the UN Security Council to support de-escalation, extend the agreement’s framework, address threats of withdrawal, and avoid mutual escalation. China urges all parties to avoid any unilateral steps or escalatory measures, such as triggering the snapback mechanism or mutual withdrawals from international agreements and treaties, which could lead to a loss of control.  Therefore, Beijing prefers to contain this crisis and the Iranian threats to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty through negotiating frameworks that preserve the basic structure of the non-proliferation regime, while holding the United States and European countries partly responsible due to Washington’s previous withdrawal from the same nuclear agreement that Tehran is now threatening to withdraw from.

Progressive state Sen. Aisha Wahab will replace former Rep. Eric Swalwell in Congress and finish his current term.

Wahab (D-Hayward) defeated Melissa Hernandez, the president of the Bay Area Rapid Transit Board and the former mayor of Dublin who was seen as the more moderate candidate. The two faced off in a special runoff election on Tuesday, and the Associated Press declared Wahab the winner Thursday afternoon.

The two Democrats will face each other again in the Nov. 3 general election to determine who will represent a slightly redrawn district in the East Bay for a full term beginning in 2027.

Following a Thursday update from Alameda County elections officials, Wahab led with 53.1% of the vote to Hernandez’s 46.9%, according to the secretary of state’s website. The additional ballots widened the slim lead Wahab held on election night.

“This victory belongs to the voters who made clear that our district cannot be bought,” Wahab posted on Facebook Thursday after the race was called. “Through one of the ugliest, most expensive elections we’ve ever seen, we never took the bait or went negative. We stayed focused on the people, and I will fight for this district that raised me. From foster care to Congress, this journey shows the possibility of the American Dream. Today this district made history by electing the first Afghan American to Congress.”

In an email to supporters, Hernandez said the November election “will be in the new district lines, adding 26,000 Dublin voters who didn’t have the chance to vote for me in August. We’re looking forward to winning this on November 3rd with a more favorable district and a much larger electorate. Game on!”

Swalwell, a Dublin Democrat, resigned from the seat and dropped his bid for California governor in April after multiple women accused him of sexual assault and misconduct, which he denies.

Though Wahab was favored to win the seat and finished first in both the regular and special election primaries, the race became more competitive after the pro-Israel group American Israel Public Affairs Committee spent millions of dollars on ads attacking her. Though the war in Gaza was not a central campaign issue, Wahab has criticized Israel’s military actions in Gaza and described it as a genocide. Hernandez has defended Israel’s right to defend itself.

Progressives celebrated Wahab’s victory despite the heavy spending against her.

Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, a group founded by progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said her campaign “should be studied by every progressive running for office in America.”

“The lesson from CA-14 is simple: Democrats do not have to surrender to the biggest checkbook in the race,” Geevarghese said. “Big money can buy television ads, mailboxes and endless attacks. It cannot buy the trust built through thousands of conversations between neighbors. That is the model: Unite the movement, organize everywhere, and make billionaire money fight us on our terrain.”

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says Washington will impose its ‘toughest sanctions in history’ to ‘collapse’ Iran’s government, warning of consequences for countries that maintain economic ties with Tehran.

It had been a lengthy and productive meeting with the chief of staff to a Republican member of Congress. We had discussed United States policy towards Israel, and the scepticism of many of the Grand Old Party members towards the relationship and the challenge they face in saying anything about it given President Donald Trump’s iron grip on it. But there was one final agenda item I needed to raise: the member’s participation in the newly created “Sharia-Free America Caucus”, a group of US representatives standing against what one founding member described as “a religion of violence, abuse of women, and ruthless political conquest. Its laws and practices have no place in American society.”

“Oh, don’t worry about that,” the staffer said, with a wave of his hand. “Muslims are just the low-hanging fruit. Really it is about Indians. And brown people in general. And the Jews, too. It won’t get in the way of putting America first. Really the only Member [of the Caucus] who believes all the bullshit about Israel is Randy Fine.”

The whipping up of Islamophobia in the US has become visible and visceral, to the extent that many in the Muslim community now look back almost wistfully to the days of George W Bush, who made a point, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, of visiting a mosque and declaring that “Islam is peace”. Such efforts at inclusivity have almost vanished entirely from the Republican Party, replaced by an outright bigotry that has inspired a spike in anti-Muslim attacks, such as the shooting at the Islamic Center of San Diego in May that killed two worshippers and a security guard. A recent proposal by Dallas Fort Worth international airport to add unobtrusive foot-washing stations for Muslims wishing to perform wudu (and presumably anyone else with dirty feet) was swiftly abandoned in the face of condemnation by Texas Governor Greg Abbott that the installation of such stations would be unconstitutional.

Where is all this coming from? To be sure, some of it is a reflection of the politics that Trump has promoted since his very first day of presidential campaigning in 2015 to divide Americans by suggesting that the country’s White majority and its historic place atop the social hierarchy are at risk; in this context it is not only Muslims who are under attack, but all minorities, as demonstrated by his administration’s attacks on Black history or Hispanic culture. But when it comes to Islamophobia, there is a more targeted driver of the trend.

In January this year, the government of Israel hosted an anti-Semitism conference in Jerusalem. This, by itself, is rather unremarkable. But what is noteworthy is who attended: leaders from across the European far right, including representatives from Poland’s PiS, Spain’s Vox, Hungary’s Fidesz, and France’s Rassemblement National. The event was, perhaps, the largest gathering of European right-wingers to discuss anti-Semitism since the US-led umerziehung (re-education) process in post-war Germany.

But the far right are now allies, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told them, in the fight against the “invasion of radical Islam”. Since January, Netanyahu has continued on this theme, recently warning that “the first Islamic republic with nuclear weapons will be the Islamic republic of Britain”, and campaigning for re-election under a billboard titled “Don’t let them win” that features the faces of Hezbollah and Iranian leaders alongside those of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Israel’s promotion of Islamophobia is not limited to Netanyahu, nor does it end at its own shores. As Israel’s own reputation has cratered, rather than examining its actions (particularly in Gaza), it has decided its salvation rests in more effective public relations and propaganda campaigns. Some of this has materialised in an effort to prop up its own reputation: “The US-Israel relationship promotes stability”, explained an automated text message that millions of other Americans and I recently received via Israeli-contracted Clock Tower X. But Israel is also going on the offensive by trying to knock down and delegitimise its critics and by rallying the right through a purposeful campaign of Islamophobia.

The strategy may have been informed by a leaked study solicited by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs from US public relations firm Stagwell Global, which found that the most effective tactic in shifting public opinion would be to drive fear of “Radical Islam” and “Jihadism” but, in the absence of any compelling reason why the US should continue to back his country, Netanyahu has increasingly leaned into the argument that Israel is, as he claims foreign leaders have told him, the “model in the struggle against radical Islam which threatens the entire civilised world”.

This has manifested itself in Israel’s leveraging of increasingly virulent Islamophobia as part of its hasbara strategy, for instance in Canada in 2024, when an Israeli-government-funded influence operation using the name United Citizens for Canada conducted social media campaigns claiming that Muslim immigrants to the country posed a threat to society and were trying to impose Islamic law.

In many cases, Americans and Europeans have seen through such efforts. Recent primary wins for prominent Muslim congressional candidates such as Abdul El-Sayed have demonstrated a cross-communal rejection of Islamophobic rhetoric. But in other areas, Muslim communities increasingly feel under siege.

Israeli society is premised on Jewish supremacy and the pursuit of demographic homogeneity, but Western countries are increasingly diverse in both their demographics and their leadership. While the path to peace for Israel may be one that makes Israel look more like the West – a country with equality for all its people – at the core of its current propaganda campaign is the desire to make the West look more like Israel. That poses a test for Western pluralism, but even if the West fails that test, Israel should not assume that such a failure would inherently lead to an embrace of Zionism.

Fear and hatred are powerful tools, and the current Islamophobic campaign is likely to unleash further and deeper harms. But even on its primary objective, to stem the loss of support in Israel’s last bastion of Western far-right opinion, it is far from clear that it will succeed. In the meantime, Europeans and Americans would be wise to see it for what it is: a desperate foreign influence operation driven by a state that is increasingly running out of options.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

The foreign minister says in an interview that Turkish military officials had visited the airbase as part of training.

Syria has no plans to establish a Turkish military presence at the Abu al-Duhur airbase attacked by Israel earlier this week, Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani has said.

Al-Shaibani said in an interview with the US news outlet Axios on Wednesday that while Turkish military officials had visited the site as part of training and broader military cooperation, he denied any Turkish military build-up, explaining that the facility was largely empty.

“There was no intention to establish a Turkish base there, nor to establish a permanent Turkish military presence or deploy Turkish forces at the site,” al-Shaibani said, adding that he had made this clear to Israel.

On Tuesday, Israel carried out eight air strikes on the runway and storage facilities at the Abu al-Duhur base near Aleppo, state media reported, in what appeared to be Israel’s first attack on Syrian government assets since March.

No casualties were reported from the attack, which drew international condemnation.

Al-Shaibani said Israel had no legitimate justification for attacking the facility.

He said that while Syria remained open to negotiations with Israel on de-escalation, any future deal must address the security concerns of both countries, reiterating that Israeli military operations would increase regional instability.

The strikes came amid worsening security tensions between Israel and Turkiye over Syria, where both countries’ militaries are active.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel warned Syria ahead of the strike not to allow a Turkish presence at the base.

“Our message was very clear. Don’t. I guess they didn’t quite understand the message,” Netanyahu said on Wednesday.

On Thursday morning, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz claimed that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was “dragging Turkiye into dangerous adventures in Syria”.

“Israel will not allow any entity to threaten its security,” he said.

“It is preferable for Erdogan to continue delivering empty, delusional speeches against Israel in the Turkish parliament rather than testing Israel’s resolve to defend itself,” Katz added.

Turkiye has rejected what it called “untenable allegations” by Israel over its military position in Syria.

The Turkish defence ministry said on Thursday that Ankara would continue supporting Syria’s efforts to develop its own military capacity and infrastructure.

It said there was no military delegation at the air base hit by Israel before or during the attacks, calling for the international community to take more concrete and effective measures against Israel’s actions, which it said threatened regional peace and stability.

Turkiye, a NATO member, has emerged as one of Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s main allies and has accused Israel of trying to destabilise Syria and undermine its new administration.

It has also repeatedly called for international pressure and measures on Israel to respect Syria’s territorial integrity.

Last year, Turkiye and Israel established a line of communication to avoid any incidents in Syria.

An Israeli attack on a Syrian airbase has been widely condemned.

The United States envoy warns the incident could have caused a direct confrontation with Turkish forces.

So why did Israel attack the base? And what are the implications?

Presenter: Anna Burns-Francis

Guests:

Murat Yesiltas – Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA) think tank

Haid Haid – Consulting fellow with the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House

Michael Mulroy – Former US deputy assistant secretary of defence for the Middle East

Canada official condemns Israel’s ‘invasion’ of Lebanon, calls for sovereignty as aid pledged to the crisis-hit nation.

Canada’s secretary of state for international development, Randeep Sarai, visited Lebanon to announce new humanitarian aid, condemning what he called Israel’s “unlawful invasion” of Lebanon.

During his visit, Sarai stated that Beirut should govern its own space. He also announced new programmes Canada is launching to support Lebanese families affected by the conflict, raising its total assistance to Lebanon this year to more than $50m.

“Our commitment is long-term, and we’re there for Lebanon,” said Sarai, who visited shelters housing people displaced by the war and Syrian refugees during his visit.

Amid the escalation between Israel and Lebanon in March, Canada warned on March 25 that Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity “must not be violated” and strongly condemned plans by Israeli forces to occupy southern Lebanon.

As part of the US-mediated framework agreement signed in late June, “pilot zones” were designed to return small areas in southern Lebanon from Israeli forces to the Lebanese army.

In late July, the Lebanese Armed Forces accused Israel of obstructing its efforts to take over control of security in southern Lebanon.

The war has killed more than 4,000 people and has caused widespread destruction across Lebanon. The United Nations says that about 360,000 people are displaced as a result of the latest conflict.

Home to a large Lebanese diaspora, Canada has given Lebanon about $575m in assistance in the past 10 years, Sarai said.

Sarai also met Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who promised to reinstate state authority across Lebanon and to implement reforms to fight corruption.

Israeli officials said they will not pull out of Lebanon until Hezbollah is disarmed.