Israel

Media freedom organisations and opposition lawmakers have criticised sweeping media reforms pushed through by Israel’s right-wing coalition as part of a legislative blitz before the parliament’s dissolution in advance of elections later this year.

The parliament, or Knesset, last week approved the bill that could give the government a far greater say in Israel’s news and broadcast sectors. The controversial measure strips away traditional oversight safeguards, eliminates requirements for minimum journalism standards and lifts longstanding limits on cross-ownership, among others.

Following the July 17 vote, watchdog groups, including the Union of Journalists in Israel, along with opposition parties, successfully petitioned the High Court of Justice to freeze parts of the legislation. They warned that some provisions that were set to take effect immediately, including the removal of limits on ownership of multiple media outlets and the stripping away of newsroom standards, could permanently distort the media landscape before the October 27 election, potentially influencing its outcome.

The government has until Sunday to respond, after which the court will decide whether to keep the freeze, widen it, or allow the provisions to take effect. Other, less contentious and immediate sections of the law were left to stand.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not vote on the measure. He is currently bound by a 2020 conflict-of-interest agreement that bars him from participating in government decisions that could affect his ongoing corruption trial, where, among other charges, he stands accused of using his position to unduly influence media coverage of his administration.

Nevertheless, Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi thanked Netanyahu directly, saying: “Mr prime minister, I want to thank you and tell you that the mission you gave me four years ago – to deliver right-wing reform of the media – was today successfully completed.”

Israeli media reported that such a directive by Netanyahu could be a violation of his agreement. Neither the Prime Minister’s Office nor the Communications Ministry responded to Al Jazeera’s queries over whether Netanyahu’s role in the legislation’s passage represented a conflict of interest. However, Karhi subsequently claimed that he had secured a legal opinion determining that the prime minister was not in breach of the conflict-of-interest agreement.

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi have proven repeatedly that they are enemies of independent journalism in Israel,” Martin Roux, of the Reporters Without Borders media monitor, told Al Jazeera.

“This means they’re attacking every Israeli citizen’s right to reliable information from diverse sources. This has been true for years, and it is becoming more obvious every day as the legislative elections, set for the end of October, approach. It’s all about controlling the narrative,” he said.

In a social media post, Karhi claimed the new legislation would bring “more right-wing coverage and less regulation”.

“After a determined struggle against every possible element from the deep state, tycoons, attorneys, officials and fearmongering networks – we managed to pass the right-wing media reform.”

‘Boosting propaganda channels’

However, for many observers, there was little new in overhauling media that had grown used to toeing the government line, with critical coverage of the multiple wars that Israel has engaged in and the international outrage that many have caused typically relegated to the sidelines of the national conversation.

“The reforms are part of Netanyahu’s ongoing media overhaul – undermining the remains of critical reporting and journalistic independence in the country, while boosting Netanyahu’s propaganda channels,” London-based Israeli academic and media analyst Ayala Panievsky told Al Jazeera.

She cited the far-right Channel 14, which she said emboldened Israel’s war crimes and offered unflagging support to what she described as the most right-wing government in Israel’s history.

“In 2020, they amplified ‘the Big Lie’ in the US elections, claiming Trump won the election – they might therefore act similarly following the Israeli general elections in October, if Netanyahu’s coalition indeed loses,” said Panievsky, echoing similar concerns among academics and legal analysts sparked by accusations from lawmakers within Netanyahu’s Likud party that the acting head of the Central Elections Committee, Dean Livne, was “clearly politically biased”.

Analysts and observers from across Israel have long pointed to the strongly nationalist undertone of much of Israel’s current affairs coverage and the absence of space given to Palestinians and Palestinian suffering.

When the United Nations’ Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded in September 2025 that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza, Israel’s Foreign Ministry dismissed the findings as “distorted and false“, a framing echoed across domestic outlets rather than scrutinised.

A subsequent Molad report found only 3 percent of Channel 12’s early war coverage referenced Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, with just two of 206 visuals showing Palestinian civilian casualties. Elsewhere, allegations of Israeli war crimes, including sexual abuse, are either omitted or given pro-government framing, observers told Al Jazeera.

“The Israeli media just doesn’t feature Gaza. It’s not there,” political analyst Ori Goldberg said from outside Tel Aviv. “There’s no sense of solidarity with the journalists killed there, or those they don’t let in. They’re just not mentioned.”

Similarly, discussion panels on the various wars that the Netanyahu administration had embarked upon were typically staffed by ex-generals, who had no question with the need for war, only differences over its prosecution, said Goldberg.

However, even this relative compliance was not enough for a prime minister fighting an election that had come to rely on the appearance of forward momentum and paper enemies to sustain his political project.

“Netanyahu always needs to be seen to be pushing the envelope,” Goldberg added. “He needs a media that will give barely critical coverage of his every word, but one that he can still present as the enemy within.”

EXPLAINER

The UN General Assembly voted 144-10 to grant Turk a new four-year term, despite objections from the US, Israel and Russia.

Volker Turk has been elected as United Nations human rights chief for another four-year term, despite strong objections from the United States, Russia and Israel.

The United Nations General Assembly vote on Friday means Turk, who has served in the role since 2022, will become the first person to serve two full terms as the UN rights chief since the position was created in 1993.

Who is Turk and why has his reappointment caused controversy?

Who is Volker Turk?

Turk, an Austrian lawyer, joined the United Nations in 1999 and went on to work in the organisation’s refugee agency. This included posts in Malaysia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

He later worked in senior roles at UN headquarters in New York, including as assistant secretary-general for strategic coordination under UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The two are believed to have a close relationship.

In his role as UN rights chief, Turk has been highly critical of both Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He has also been vocal on conflicts and rights abuses in Afghanistan, Sudan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Nicaragua.

How was he reappointed?

The UN General Assembly overwhelmingly backed a proposal by Guterres to give Turk another four-year term with 144 votes in favour, 10 against and 13 abstentions.

Earlier, the assembly shot down a US proposal to delay the vote until the end of next week as well as a Russian bid to extend Turk’s term until the end of the year only.

How has Turk angered the US, Russia and Israel?

The role of UN human rights chief is inherently controversial because it requires public criticism of governments of UN members for alleged rights violations.

Turk’s outspoken criticism of policies in Israel, Russia and the US has put him at odds with all three countries.

Turk has repeatedly criticised Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, its deadly assault on Lebanon, and a “shameful” lack of accountability for its rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territory.

Turk has also described Russia’s war in Ukraine as “senseless” and a “blatant affront to the UN Charter and the whole body of international law”.

On the US, he has raised concerns about the war on Iran and the “dehumanisation” of immigrants under President Donald Trump, citing routine “abuse and denigration of migrants and refugees”.

Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticised Turk’s record, saying that under his leadership the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has “erased the atrocities of October 7, misused funds, and betrayed UN neutrality in favor of corrupt political radicalism”.

Russia’s ⁠Deputy Ambassador to the UN Dmitry Chumakov accused Turk of bias and making unfounded allegations against Russia.

What objections were raised to Turk’s reappointment?

Guterres, whose own term is due to end at the end of this year, has faced criticism for how he managed the reappointment. Critics say the vote was rushed and the selection of a rights chief should have been left to his successor.

The UN secretary-general, whose term expires in December, sent letters to regional groups at the UN earlier this month informing them of his intention to reappoint Turk, and held the vote just weeks later.

The US Department of State criticised the vote for being rushed and said it was “another example of the UN’s inherent corruption and incompetence”.

The US also accused Turk of turning “a blind eye to real atrocities and instead pursued a radical ideological agenda”. US Deputy Ambassador Jeff Bartos claimed before Friday’s vote that reappointing Turk would prove that the General Assembly “is dysfunctional”.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry called Guterres’s push for a second term for Turk a “moral failure,” saying that the choice should be left to his successor.

UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said Guterres had followed UN rules and engaged “in a very transparent manner” in appointing Turk, including by holding prior consultations with member states and regional groups.

What other criticism has Turk faced?

Turk’s critics say he could have done more to publicly follow up on a report issued by his predecessor, former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, that said China’s detention of Uighurs and other mostly Muslim ethnic groups in Xinjiang may amount to crimes against humanity.

Turk also has stopped short of joining independent UN rights experts who have accused Israel of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Turk’s office said he had used both private engagement with Beijing and his public advocacy to support human rights in China.

Trump says the US remains ‘locked and loaded’ while pursuing talks with Iran, as Tehran reports strikes on US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan.

As Israeli politicians and protesters keep up their demands to annex and settle in Gaza, recent satellite images reveal the construction of a huge earthen barrier dividing the territory. Al Jazeera’s Hala Al Shami explains.

Built in 1875 and modelled on the Chapelle Saint-Marc in Lyon, the church was originally intended to be the chapel for St Joseph University, which was opened by French Jesuits as part of France’s colonial-era “civilising mission”.

Its pale stone facade rises above a busy Beirut street. Today, it remains under Jesuit stewardship, with Father Michael Petro leading the parish.

“It’s an interesting space, because it is on the edge of Ashrafieh, a predominantly Christian, francophone area, which has plenty of wealthy Lebanese people living in it. But it also has their domestic workers. From the start of the first waves of migrants in the 70s, this place became known as a place for them,” he tells Al Jazeera.

Every Sunday, during peacetime, the gravel car park is transformed into a cricket ground. Indian and Pakistani migrant workers play softball cricket while families sit on the sidelines sharing home-cooked food, catching up with friends and enjoying one of their few days away from work.

Today, the atmosphere is very different.

Instead of the crack of a plastic bat and Bollywood music spilling across the church grounds, rows of mattresses line the floors, and laundry hangs from railings. Men slouch on plastic chairs littered around the church, scrolling through their phones. Women carry blankets and washed clothes in plastic tubs. Only the children seem able to break the subdued mood, darting between adults and filling the space with bursts of laughter.

“When the war escalated, we immediately had large groups of Sudanese and South Sudanese come here,” Father Michael says. “They showed up because they would ask community leaders what to do, and were told to come here, as it is the first place they trusted.

“On one hand, that’s very beautiful, because people thought they would be welcome here, and they were.”

However, the strain of being a first port of call for so many displaced migrants is beginning to show.

Supplies are low, and tensions occasionally flare among those sheltering at the church. Father Michael says the church reached its capacity of 250 people on just the second day of the war.

“We’ve turned away more than 100 people in the last few days,” he says. “It’s a disaster.”

Mohammad says daily life has become increasingly difficult, particularly since the arrival of their son.

“We do not have enough clothes, especially now that the baby is growing. Also, my wife’s nutrition is not great. Sometimes she gets constipated, and then the baby becomes ill. We need more protein and vegetables. The diet is a huge concern.”

Living in crowded conditions, surrounded by uncertainty, has taken a toll on people’s mental wellbeing, Rufaida says.

“Because of the atmosphere and mental health problems, small problems become big ones. I said good morning to someone, and they didn’t like it. There are no big fights, but there is an underlying tension.”

Both say they understand why tempers sometimes fray. Many of those sheltering at the church have fled war, lost homes and spent months or years living with uncertainty.

Small problems become big ones.

by RUFAIDA, DISPLACED SUDANESE MOTHER

Their gratitude is rooted partly in what happened when Rufaida sought maternity care.

At Karatina Hospital, they say they were repeatedly overlooked by doctors in favour of Lebanese patients. “We were there to get papers so she could give birth in that hospital, but we were ignored, and Lebanese people were allowed into consultations first,” Mohammad says.

After waiting for three hours, a worker from the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS), who had accompanied them to the hospital, intervened and helped ensure they were seen.

Through support coordinated by JRS and partner organisations, the entire cost of Rufaida’s pregnancy was covered, including prenatal care, the cesarean delivery and Ahmad’s vaccinations.

“It gave me comfort and peace that I was able to deliver in a safe environment,” Rufaida says.

Their experience is increasingly common among Sudanese migrants in Lebanon, many of whom have found themselves uprooted more than once — first by war in Sudan and then by conflict in Lebanon.

Rufaida’s story is far from unique. According to figures published by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in August 2025, there are 164,097 migrants living in Lebanon, of which 14,854 are Sudanese nationals.

That number represents only a small fraction of the 4.4 million Sudanese who have fled their country since the outbreak of civil war in April 2023.

Some, like Rufaida, arrived on tourist visas. Others found jobs as concierges or domestic workers, under Lebanon’s kafala sponsorship system, which ties a migrant worker’s legal residency to their employer.

Human Rights Watch has described the system as, at its worst, a form of modern slavery.

About 3,800 Sudanese have also found asylum in Lebanon as registered refugees with the UN Refugee Agency.

For refugees in Lebanon, a UNHCR registration card can mean far more than a piece of paper. It offers a measure of protection from detention or deportation, can unlock access to aid and education where services exist, and, for many, represents their best hope of one day being resettled in another country.

Among them is 30-year-old Roudaina Mustafa.

Israeli attacks come amid ongoing talks with Lebanese officials to implement framework for peace between two countries.

The Israeli army has attacked the southern Lebanese town of al-Mansouri and carried out blasts in the nearby village of Majdal Zoun, Lebanon’s National News Agency reports, despite the “ceasefie” and ongoing talks between the two countries.

The explosion in Majdal Zoun on Friday was heard as far away as city of Tyre, over 15 kilometres (nine miles) away, according to local reports.

The attack and demolitions have become a routine feature of life in southern Lebanon, despite a United States-brokered framework that is supposed to end the fighting and lead to “peace”.

On Thursday, an Israeli strike on an ambulance in Nabatieh al-Fawqa injured two medics. The Lebanese Health Ministry called the attack a “flagrant violation of international and humanitarian laws and norms”.

Israel has been systematically levelling entire villages near the border, with Israeli officials openly declaring the objective of erasing Lebanese towns out of existence to create a “security zone”.

Israel occupies nearly fifth of Lebanese territory and has killed more than 4,000 people since fighting erupted on March 2, maintaining that its operations are aimed at stopping Lebanese armed group Hezbollah from launching assaults into northern Israel.

However, the demolitions bear close resemblance to Israel’s tactics in Gaza, where a “ceasefire” has not halted the Israeli military’s campaign to destroy the territory. Rights advocates say Israel’s policies aim to make the strip uninhabitable.

US President Donald Trump promised to “help” Lebanon during a White House meeting with Lebanese president Joseph Aoun earlier this week.

Asked whether there will be a timeline for Israel’s withdrawal from the country, Trump said: “They’re in the process of doing that. They’re in the process of redeploying [to] other sections.”

Under the framework agreement signed in Washington on June 26, the Lebanese army is to take over Israel-occupied territories in the south, provided that Hezbollah is disarmed.

Lebanese and Israeli officials have been meeting regularly to discuss the implementation of the deal with the next round of talks scheduled for August 4 in Italy.

Hezbollah has rejected the agreement outright, with its leader Naim Qassem calling the deal “null and void” and calling for armed resistance to push Israel out of Lebanon.

The deal sets no timeline for withdrawal. Instead, it outlines two “pilot zones” where the Lebanese military “will gradually assume full and effective security responsibility”.

The Lebanese army deployed to the first pilot-zone villages this week. But residents returning to Froun and Ghandouriyeh say their villages were never occupied by Israeli forces, arguing that Israel has not given back any territory.

A $1.15 trillion US defence bill passed by the House includes plans to expand military cooperation with Israel through joint work on missile defence, drones and AI. Critics warn the move could deepen ties amid growing political divisions over aid to Israel.

Trump says he is considering a ‘massive attack’, as Iran’s Araghchi says ‘mindless aggression’ won’t help a deal.

America’s war on Iran has already cost the US nearly $110 billion. Now, the Trump administration wants another $67 billion, even after declaring victory. Al Jazeera’s Emma Withrow breaks down the growing price tag.

The U.S. war with Iran escalated again Thursday as Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen attacked two Saudi Araian oil tankers in the Red Sea, causing global oil prices to surge amid fears of yet another vital energy corridor being choked off by the conflict.

The attacks came after the Trump administration threatened additional strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure while pushing a new deal to help Saudi Arabia develop a nuclear energy program of its own. Also Thursday, four Republicans in the U.S. House joined Democrats in a vote to halt the American military campaign absent congressional approval. Senate Republicans blocked a similar measure.

The price of oil hit $100 a barrel for the first time since May, increasing the financial pressure on Americans at the gas pump and the political pressure on President Trump to end a war he promised would last weeks but has persisted for months. At least 18 U.S. service members have died in the war.

The Houthis, who control the populous northwest of Yemen, receive arms and training from Tehran but had remained largely on the sidelines since the U.S. and Israel launched the war. Their latest strikes complicate already fraught negotiations between the U.S. and Iran after the collapse of a ceasefire this month amid renewed hostilities in the Strait of Hormuz, the other major energy passageway choked by the conflict.

The Houthis had this week announced a naval blockade of Saudi ships in the Red Sea, which stretches along Saudi Arabia’s western flank. That blockade centered on the Bab al Mandeb strait, the only southbound route for Saudi tankers headed to Asian markets.

Tanker traffic has already been heavily diminished in the Persian Gulf along Saudi Arabia’s northeast flank and between it and Iran, because of Iran’s threats to vessels traveling through the Strait of Hormuz. Saudi Arabia had diverted its oil exports to its Red Sea ports and out the Bab al Mandeb, dispatching some 4.5 million barrels via that route per day.

In a social media post Thursday, Trump said that if the Houthis continue attacking ships in the Red Sea, the U.S. “will hold Iran responsible” because the Houthis are an Iranian proxy, and inflict “major military punishment” on the Houthis and Iran.

He said he was “very disappointed” in the Houthis, “in that they have, until now, acted very professionally and smart” amid the Iran war.

At a later event Thursday, Trump said the U.S. is “doing extremely well” against Iran, which he accused of having “evil intentions.”

Democrats in the House and Senate cited the war’s spread to the Red Sea as yet another reason that Congress should act to pass a war powers measure to halt the president’s military campaign. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who led the unsuccessful effort in the Senate, cited the expansion while recalling how Trump had claimed victory in Iran as far back as March.

“If we won back in March, why are more Americans getting killed in July? If we won back in March, why is the Strait of Hormuz closed? If we won back in March, why is the war expanding as Houthis attack ships transiting the Bab al Mandeb strait in the Red Sea? If we won back in March, why are oil and gas prices and diesel prices shooting through the roof again, imposing costs on every American family?” Van Hollen said. “Is that their definition of winning?”

The Houthis’ military spokesman, Yahya al-Sarea, said the group’s forces conducted “a qualitative military operation” targeting two Saudi oil tankers with missiles and drones for what he said were violations of the Houthis’ blockade on the Red Sea.

The Houthis have accused Saudi Arabia of imposing a blockade on airports and seaports in northwestern Yemen, where most of the country’s population lives and which the Houthis otherwise control. They also blamed Saudi Arabia for an attack this month on Sanaa’s airport to prevent the landing of a plane carrying a Houthi delegation returning from the funeral of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who was killed at the start of the war.

Al-Sarea said that in addition to striking the two tankers, the Houthis forced 10 other ships to turn back from their passage, will “continue their naval operations against the Saudi enemy” and will “continue imposing the equation of blockade against blockade.”

The escalation of the war — and the shock wave it sent through global energy markets — added to regional uncertainty already being stoked by the Trump administration’s announcement Wednesday that it had agreed to work with Saudi Arabia to develop a civilian nuclear program.

That announcement, after years of U.S. attempts to block nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, sparked widespread concern in Washington, where lawmakers will vote on the deal, and in Israel, which has long feared a nuclear arms race in the region.

Trump administration officials said the deal would “uphold the highest standards of nuclear safety and nonproliferation,” with American firms developing the program. But they provided few details, and questions immediately arose about the absence of clear inspection protocols or any requirement that Saudi Arabia first normalize diplomatic relations with Israel.

On Thursday, Trump said the deal would be conditioned on Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords and establishing diplomatic ties with Israel. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later said that Trump had not talked to Saudi leaders since making that condition public, but that they would have to agree to it or “the deal is off.”

Leavitt said that Trump had raised the matter with Saudi leaders in the past, and that it is something Trump “feels very strongly about.”

Asked whether Israel pressured the president to impose the condition, Leavitt said, “Not to my knowledge.”

Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Congress that the Iran war has already cost the U.S. $37.5 billion. House Republicans on Wednesday pushed through a $1.15-trillion defense policy bill to fund the war moving forward. Most Democrats voted against the measure in protest of the war, and it faces stiff opposition in the Senate.

Trump in recent days has tried to deny polls showing plummeting support for the war among Americans. On Wednesday, before attending the dignified transfer of the bodies of U.S. service members killed in the war to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, Trump claimed Americans don’t want high gas prices but “aren’t against the war.”

On Tuesday, Trump posted statistics showing that more U.S. service members died in past wars, which Democrats denounced as disrespectful to those killed in the current conflict.

The Houthis seized control of the Yemeni capital in 2014, along with much of Yemen’s populous northwest. Their advance triggered a devastating Saudi-led campaign to dislodge them. Since 2022, the two sides have been in a stalemate, though tensions have been rising again in recent months.

Mohammed al-Basha, founder of the Basha Report, a U.S. risk advisory firm focused on the Middle East and Africa, said the Houthis’ latest escalation comes as their influence is growing because of the increased importance of Bab al Mandeb while the Strait of Hormuz is choked off by Iran.

“This is their moment, because with everything happening in the Strait of Hormuz, Bab al Mandeb quadrupled in importance. By exerting maximum pressure in this period, they can maximize the effect of any kinetic action they’re trying to do,” Al-Basha said.

“Their narrative is very aggressive. They want war. And they feel that because they want war and sense that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia don’t, that they will submit to their demands.”

United States President Donald Trump agreed to a 30-year nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia on Wednesday that would see Washington transfer nuclear technology to the Gulf kingdom.

This has drawn concerns that if the deal comes to fruition, it could spark a nuclear arms race across the Middle East amid reports that Riyadh would be able to enrich its own uranium, a necessary step in acquiring nuclear weapons.

US officials have stressed the proposed deal would serve civilian nuclear purposes, although exact details of the agreement have not been made public.

It has now been tabled in the US Congress for a review, but is expected to survive resistance from Democrats.

Here’s why some are concerned about the agreement:

Could this spur a nuclear arms race in the region?

Analysts have raised concerns about whether the proposed deal could lead to Saudi Arabia seeking to develop military-grade uranium, which the US Energy Department has not yet confirmed.

Some analysts have warned this could open the door to spurring an arms race with other regional powers.

Saudi Arabia has long voiced its intention to use nuclear energy for power generation, but in 2018, de facto leader Mohammad bin Salman told CBS that Riyadh would “without a doubt” develop a nuclear weapon if Iran did the same.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted on Thursday that the deal would not lead to nuclear proliferation, as US contractors would handle the project, allowing Washington to monitor it. US nuclear reactor designer Westinghouse is believed to be a major contractor.

Former Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Liberman said in a post on X on Wednesday that Israel must oppose the deal with “all our might.”

“We must all understand that Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear programme will end in nuclear weapons and lead to a mad arms race across the entire Middle East,” he posted.

Israel, which developed a nuclear arsenal in the 1960s, has long sought to stop Arab countries and other regional countries from gaining their own nuclear weapons.

Is there a risk of nuclear reactors being attacked in strikes?

Some others have also raised concerns over possible nuclear leaks amid the tensions in the Middle East.

Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant, for example, has seen some of its outer facilities hit in the US and Israel’s war on Iran. Iran too has hit the perimeter of the United Arab Emirates’ Barakah nuclear power plant in a drone strike.

None of these strikes hit the nuclear plants’ reactors, but analysts say allowing more such facilities in the Middle East when tensions are so high is a mistake.

Damage to a reactor’s core could release highly radioactive gases, causing immediate catastrophic damage within a 20- to 30-kilometre (12- to 18-mile) radius.

Nuclear accidents at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant in 2011 and Chornobyl in Ukraine in the former Soviet Union in 1986 are cautionary stories.

Could Saudi Arabia have access to sensitive material?

That’s unclear for now.

Highly enriched uranium and spent nuclear reactor fuel are key components of nuclear bombs.

According to US media, the agreement includes a clause providing for a “black box” uranium enrichment facility that would be situated in Saudi Arabia but run by US companies.

A joint study by the two countries, set to last two years, will determine whether such a facility is needed, or if Saudi Arabia should import commercial-grade low-enriched uranium.

“That’s really the concern,” Matthew Kroenig, a fellow with the Atlantic Council, told Al Jazeera, saying there’s been no such arrangement anywhere else in the world.

“What does the US really mean by a ‘black box’? So will the US bring its engineers there full time, forever? Realistically, the Saudis will be involved, they will learn the tech, and they could kick out the US in the future,” Kroenig said.

Washington could be seeking to model Moscow’s agreement with Turkiye and Egypt, where Russian contractors manage active nuclear power plants, including the needed uranium and the highly radioactive spent fuel from the reactors.

The difference, Kroenig pointed out, is that Russia does not enrich the uranium in those cases.

On the other hand, the UAE, which runs a civilian nuclear programme that has been held up as a gold standard for non-proliferation, imports all of its low-enriched uranium from France, the United Kingdom and Russia among other countries.

Kroenig suggested that the US could be using the two-year study as a negotiating tactic, noting that the same claims of impact studies have been used to stall South Korea’s requests to enrich its own uranium.

“The deal doesn’t immediately speak about uranium enrichment, so my hope is that this is a negotiating tactic and that after two years the US will say ‘oh no, this doesn’t make sense right now’”, he said.

Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, told CBS News in 2018 that his own nation was not planning to acquire a nuclear weapon, but that “without a doubt if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible”.

Earlier US media reports suggested the deal could allow Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium in the future – which can be used as fuel for power plants, but also potentially to make nuclear bombs. However, Trump’s remarks appear to deny this.

Rosemary Kelanic, the director of the Middle East programme at the US-based Defense Priorities think tank, said it would be “quite shocking” if the US were to allow Saudi Arabia uranium enrichment facilities.

“The US has never done that before. We have never helped another country enrich on their own soil,” she said, adding that this was because “if you can produce your own nuclear fuel, you become a much bigger risk” for building nuclear weapons.

The agreement will now be sent to the US Congress for review.

Some lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle are expected to oppose the deal, though Trump’s Republican Party controls both the upper and lower chambers and opponents of the deal do not appear to have the votes needed to block it.

Israeli police barred Palestinian worshippers from entering Al-Aqsa Mosque as more than 2,300 right-wing Israelis entered the compound under police protection during Tisha B’Av. Palestinian officials say the incursions aim to undermine the site’s longstanding status quo.

US and Iran trade new threats as more explosions are reported in Iranian cities, including Sirik, Ahvaz and Bushehr.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has agreed to work with Saudi Arabia to develop a civilian nuclear program, a watershed moment following a years-long effort to curb the proliferation of nuclear technology in the Middle East.

The announcement comes as President Trump has vowed to continue executing a war against Iran over its own nuclear ambitions. On Wednesday, the president warned he would target a bridge or power plant for every commercial vessel Iran fires upon in the Strait of Hormuz, after earlier this week threatening to strike a new facility Tehran is reportedly building to conceal its continued nuclear work.

The Saudi deal stoked surprise and immediate concern across Washington, where lawmakers are expected to have a vote on the matter, as well as in Israel, itself a nuclear power that has long feared an atomic arms race could grip the region.

A Saudi nuclear program has long been tied to the standoff over Iran’s nuclear work, which successive U.S. administrations have said extends beyond civilian purposes. After Iran struck a nuclear deal with world powers in 2015, Saudi Arabia vowed to match whatever nuclear capabilities Tehran was allowed to keep.

In the decade since, U.S. officials had tried to keep Saudi Arabia from developing its own program, fearing it would fuel nuclear competition across the Middle East. But it became a consistent and central point of negotiation between the two allies.

Both the Trump and Biden administrations ultimately offered to support a limited, monitored program as part of a broader deal to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, hoping that a diplomatic breakthrough would mitigate the risks of an arms race.

But the agreement secured this week left skeptics in Washington and the region unclear what the United States had secured in return.

The deal comes after Trump told reporters this week that the goal of resuming war with Iran was to prevent them from ever obtaining nuclear weapons, a challenge that has vexed the international community since the outset of the century.

U.S. presidents have long sought to prevent Middle Eastern countries from acquiring technologies that could be used to build weapons of mass destruction. The 2003 invasion of Iraq over false claims about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs prompted Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi to abandon his nuclear work. Over the next two decades, the United States and Israel also targeted Syria’s nuclear and chemical weapons programs under Bashar al-Assad.

But Iran’s slow march to nuclear weapons capability, enriching uranium near to weapons-grade with no clear civilian or scientific ends, has prompted other countries in the region to question whether they, too, might need similar capabilities to counterbalance a historic foe. Israel, which views the Islamic Republic and its nuclear program as existential threats, is widely believed to possess its own nuclear weapons.

Hours after the nuclear deal was reported by the Wall Street Journal, the White House was silent on the details and Trump administration officials were left scrambling when asked by lawmakers and reporters for answers.

While traveling in Manila, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters he was aware of the news reports, but deferred to the White House to provide more public information.

When pressed about the risks of such a deal, Rubio said he would not “opine directly on the agreement,” but said the United States “is not going to reach any agreement with any country in the world that leads to the risk of proliferation.”

The White House confirmed the deal Wednesday afternoon.

Back in Washington, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz told members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that he has not yet seen the agreement with Saudi Arabia.

The deal, which would last 30 years and involve American firms developing the program, is expected to be submitted for review to Congress. Lawmakers will consider the deal as they grow increasingly uneasy about the Trump administration’s handling of an expanding Iran war, which Trump and Israel launched, arguing for the need to wipe out Tehran’s capabilities to build nuclear weapons.

As the war enters its fifth month, Trump has continued to defend the military efforts and has dismissed the idea that war is unpopular among Americans as they feel the economic effects.

“Americans aren’t against the war,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday. “Americans don’t want high gasoline prices but they’re not against the war.”

Trump’s remarks were made as he traveled to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to attend a dignified transfer of U.S. service members killed in the war. Asked what he would say to the families who lost their loved ones, Trump said he’d tell them they’re loved.

“All I’m going to say is, we love you. We love your child, and that’s what they are to them. They’re their children. There’s no games, no nothing,” Trump said. “That’s their child, and all you can do is throw out your heart.”

Earlier in the day, Trump said the United States will destroy a bridge or power plant in Iran each time it shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway for the global energy supply.

Trump’s threat to target bridges and power plants would mark yet another escalation that could affect civilians in the region.

Hasan Ghashghavi, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, denied Trump’s claim on Tuesday that Iran was requesting negotiations, saying in a statement on X that it was “in no way consistent with the facts.”

“It seems that Trump, in order to extricate himself from the quagmire he’s trapped in, should seek better paths,” he wrote. “Repetitive lies no longer even bring about short-term market relief.”

Times staff writer Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani releases a video statement calling for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to face trial for war crimes, citing the ICC’s arrest warrant. But, after days of speculation, Mamdani says New York does not have the power to arrest Netanyahu.

A former Biden official tells Al Jazeera that Lebanon’s pilot zones will only create an environment for Hezbollah to continue its armed resistance. Former State Department official, Jennifer Gavito, says she has a difficult time imagining Israel fully withdrawing from Lebanon.

President Donald Trump has promised that the United States will “help” Lebanon as he met with his Lebanese counterpart Joseph Aoun amid continued occupation of the south of the country by Israeli forces.

The US president did not announce any concrete policies towards Lebanon as he spoke to reporters alongside Aoun at the White House on Tuesday.

Asked whether there will be a timeline for Israel’s withdrawal from the country, Trump said: “They’re in the process of doing that. They’re in the process of redeploying [to] other sections.”

In reality, Israel has not pulled back from any area it has occupied since March. On Monday, the US State Department announced the establishment of the first “pilot zone” under a Lebanon-Israel framework.

Such areas are supposed to see the Lebanese army deploy to previously occupied towns and ensure that there is no Hezbollah military presence, so reconstruction can begin and residents can return. But the three towns announced in the first pilot zone were not under Israeli control, so Israel did not withdraw from them.

Israel has been systemically razing entire villages in south Lebanon, with Israeli officials openly declaring the objective of erasing Lebanese border towns out of existence.

On Tuesday, Aoun did not mention Israeli abuses in his comments next to Trump. Instead, he heaped praise on the US leader and hailed the US-brokered framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel, which conditions Israeli withdrawal on disarming Hezbollah.

“I would like to thank President Trump, really, and his team for the historic visit and for the historic achievement that we did together by signing the framework with the ultimate objective of ending the state of hostility between Lebanon and Israel forever,” the Lebanese president said.

‘We’re going to help it a lot’

Israel has killed more than 4,000 people in Lebanon since the all-out regional war broke out earlier this year, targeting hundreds of medics and journalists as it invaded the country.

In his opening remarks, Trump said that Lebanon had been “badly treated” for decades without elaborating on the source of the mistreatment.

“We’re going to help it. We’re going to help it a lot,” the US president said. “So it’s an honour to have the president and your representatives here.”

Trump also renewed his suggestion that neighbouring Syria should intervene militarily in Lebanon to help disarm Hezbollah – a proposal that has been repeatedly rejected by Syrian authorities.

Hezbollah and the current government in Damascus – led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa – fought on opposite sides of the Syrian civil war.

The Lebanese group backed the government of President Bashar al-Assad, and al-Sharaa was a rebel commander who, early in the war, led the al-Qaeda branch in the country.

Trump took the opportunity on Tuesday to express his admiration of al-Sharaa once again.

“He’s pulled Syria together. He would like to come in and do something with Hezbollah. You know, they’ve been fighting. He’s been fighting Hezbollah for a long time. I think it’d be very effective. So it’s something I think about,” he said.

A Lebanese reporter asked Trump what concrete support he may offer Aoun during the visit. The US president said, “You’ll find out.”

‘I would speak to Hezbollah,’ Trump says

Trump also said he is open to speaking directly with Hezbollah.

“I would speak to Hezbollah. I speak to everybody,” he told reporters.

“I would say this: If the president wanted me to speak to Hezbollah – you know, he’s lived with Hezbollah for a long time – and if the president wanted me to speak to Hezbollah, I would,” Trump added, referring to Aoun, who previously served as Lebanon’s top general.

Aoun had called for assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), saying that the military remains the “backbone of security and stability”.

Hezbollah has been highly critical of Aoun’s decision to engage in direct talks with Israel, as well as the framework in which Lebanon agreed not to pursue accountability for Israeli abuses in international courts and at the United Nations.

For his part, Aoun has accused Hezbollah of dragging Lebanon to war on behalf of Iran, stressing that the Lebanese military must be the sole armed force in the country.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich says Israel has “no interest” in joining the renewed US military campaign against Iran, arguing the current US-Iran conflict and sustained economic pressure on Tehran benefits Israel.

Arizona voters head to the polls on Tuesday to choose party nominees in races that could help determine who controls the US House of Representatives and whether Republicans can flip one of the country’s most competitive Democratic governorships.

Once considered reliably Republican, Arizona has swung between the two parties in recent election cycles. Democrat Joe Biden narrowly won the state in 2020, while Donald Trump reclaimed it in the 2024 presidential election.

The biggest contest is the Republican primary for governor, where four candidates are competing to challenge Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs in November. The results will also set up key congressional races in one of the country’s most closely watched battleground states.

Here’s what to know.

When will polls open and close?

Polls will open at 6am (13:00 GMT) and most will close at 7pm (02:00 GMT on Wednesday). Anyone in line by 7pm may vote.

Who can vote?

Registered Democrats and Republicans can vote only in their own party’s primary, while independent voters can choose whether to vote in either the Democratic or Republican contest.

There are about 4.3m registered voters in Arizona, including roughly 1.5m Republicans, 1.2m Democrats and 1.5m independents or voters not affiliated with either major party.

What races are on the ballot?

Arizona voters will choose party nominees for governor, congressional seats, state offices, including secretary of state, attorney general, treasurer and state superintendent of public instruction, and all 30 seats in the state Senate and all 60 seats in the state House of Representatives.

Who is running for governor?

One of the most anticipated races is the Republican primary for governor, where four candidates are competing to challenge Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs in November. Hobbs, who is running for her second term, is one of only two Democratic governors seeking re-election this year in states Trump carried in 2024.

While four Republicans are on the ballot, the race has largely become a showdown between Andy Biggs and David Schweikert, two longtime congressmen who represent competing visions for the future of Arizona’s Republican Party.

Biggs, a former chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, is closely aligned with Trump and has built his campaign around the president’s agenda. He was among the Republicans who sought to block Congress from certifying Biden’s 2020 election victory and has long been associated with the party’s most conservative wing. Trump endorsed Biggs after previously backing another Republican candidate who later dropped out of the race.

Schweikert has also supported many of Trump’s priorities in Congress, but has cast himself as a more pragmatic conservative. Representing one of Arizona’s most competitive congressional districts, he argues Republicans have lost ground in the state by nominating candidates seen by voters as too extreme.

What are the congressional races to watch?

The primary will also decide who will compete for Arizona’s open 1st Congressional District, a seat left open after Representative David Schweikert decided to run for governor. Covering Scottsdale and northeastern Phoenix, it is expected to be one of the state’s most competitive races in November and could play a role in deciding which party controls the House.

Republicans are choosing between state Representative Joseph Chaplik, former NFL kicker and sportscaster Jay Feely, who has Trump’s endorsement, and technology executive John Trobough.

On the Democratic side, doctor and former state Representative Amish Shah, who narrowly lost to Schweikert in 2024, is competing against former news anchor Marlene Galan-Woods. The registered Republican until 2018 is the widow of former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, a prominent Republican who later became a vocal Trump critic.

She is being backed by the national party, which backed Shah in 2024. Publisher Rick McCartney and entrepreneur Jonathan Treble are also on the ballot. Another closely watched House race is in Arizona’s 6th Congressional District, where Republican Representative Juan Ciscomani is seeking a third term against Democrat JoAnna Mendoza, a Marine Corps veteran. Both are unopposed in Tuesday’s primaries and will face each other in November in what’s expected to be one of the Democrats’ best opportunities to flip a Republican-held seat as they try to regain control of the House.

How are Israel and Gaza shaping the Arizona primaries?

The Democratic Party’s growing divisions over Israel’s war in Gaza are becoming apparent in some of Arizona’s congressional primaries, where candidates have clashed over US support for Israel and the direction of the party’s foreign policy. Two races in particular illustrate those tensions.

In Arizona’s 4th Congressional District, which is considered reliably blue, Representative Greg Stanton faces a primary challenge from progressive candidate Kai Newkirk. He has made US support for Israel a central issue in his campaign, arguing that Stanton has been too supportive.

Stanton, a staunch supporter of Israel who has been endorsed by AIPAC, recently voted against a proposal to restrict US military aid to Israel. According to Track AIPAC, an advocacy group that monitors pro-Israel political spending, Stanton has received about $322,000 in donations linked to AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups.

In the neighbouring 3rd Congressional District, Representative Yassamin Ansari has dramatically changed her position on Israel since first running for Congress, reflecting the changing dynamics within the broader Democratic Party.

Ansari received support from Democratic Majority for Israel in her closely fought 2024 primary, but has since become a sharp critic of Israel’s war in Gaza and said she will no longer accept backing from the group or AIPAC.

When will the results be announced?

Polls close at 7pm on Tuesday (02:00 GMT on Wednesday) across most of Arizona, although no results can be released until 8pm local time (03:00 GMT on Wednesday). Because Arizona conducts most voting by mail or through early voting, counties typically report a large share of ballots shortly after polls close.

More than 755,000 ballots had already been cast before election day.

Most races are expected to become clearer during the first few hours of counting, although close contests could take longer if additional mail ballots need to be processed.