Israel

Several Palestinians were killed after armed Israeli settlers attacked the village of Abu Falah in the occupied West Bank. Witnesses say the settlers carried out the attack under the protection of Israeli forces.

Bahrain has said an Iranian drone attack caused material damage to a water desalination plant in the country, marking the first time a Gulf nation has reported targeting any such facility during the eight days of the war between Iran and the US and Israel.

The attack on Sunday comes a day after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said a freshwater desalination plant on Qeshm Island in southern Iran was attacked by the United States.

“Water supply in 30 villages has been impacted. Attacking Iran’s infrastructure is a dangerous move with grave consequences. The US set this precedent, not Iran,” he said on X on Saturday.

While Tehran has not yet commented on the Bahrain attack, it has raised questions about the vulnerability of the Gulf countries, which depend on desalination plants for the majority of their water supply.

How important are water desalination plants to the Gulf region? Can water security in the Gulf be guaranteed amid a widening of military targets to include energy and other civilian sites?

What are desalination plants?

A desalination plant primarily converts seawater into water suitable for drinking purposes as well as for irrigation and industrial use.

The process of desalination involves removing salt, algae and other pollutants from seawater using a thermal process or membrane-based technologies.

According to the US Department of Energy, desalination systems “heat water so that it evaporates into steam, leaving behind impurities, and then condenses back into a liquid for human use”.

Meanwhile, membrane-based desalination involves “a class of technologies in which saline water passes through a semipermeable material that allows water through but holds back dissolved solids like salts”.

Reverse osmosis is the most popular membrane technology. Most countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) use reverse osmosis since it is an energy-efficient technique.

Why are desalination plants important to the Gulf?

Water is scarce in the Gulf region due to the arid climate and irregular rainfall. Countries in the Gulf also have very limited natural freshwater resources. Groundwater, together with desalinated water, accounts for about 90 percent of the region’s main water resources, according to a 2020 report by the Gulf Research Center.

But in recent years, as groundwater has also begun to deteriorate as a result of climate change, Gulf countries have begun relying heavily on energy-intensive seawater desalination to meet their water needs.

More than 400 desalination plants are located on the Arabian Gulf shores stretching from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to Kuwait, providing water to one of the most water-scarce regions in the world.

According to a 2023 research paper published by the Arab Center Washington DC, GCC member states account for about 60 percent of global water desalination capacity, producing almost 40 percent of the total desalinated water in the world.

About 42 percent of the UAE’s drinking water comes from desalination plants, while that figure is 90 percent in Kuwait, 86 percent in Oman, and 70 percent in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia also produces more desalinated water than any other country.

Desalination has also played a crucial role in enabling economic development in the region, according to Naser Alsayed, an environmental researcher specialising in the Gulf states.

He noted that after the discovery of oil in the late 1930s, Gulf states had very limited natural freshwater resources and could not meet the demands created by population growth and expanding economic activity.

“Desalination plants were therefore introduced,” he told Al Jazeera, adding that the importance of desalinated water in supporting the Gulf’s development is often overlooked.

“As a result, targeting or disrupting desalination facilities would place much of the region’s economic stability and growth at significant risk,” he said.

“Secondly, desalination is the main source of freshwater for most GCC states, especially smaller and highly water-scarce countries such as Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar. Because this water is primarily used for human consumption, desalination carries a strong humanitarian dimension and is essential for sustaining daily life in the region, making any disruption to these facilities particularly significant for the population,” he added.

Iran also uses desalination plants, which have been installed in coastal areas such as Qeshm Island in the Gulf. But Iran also has many rivers and dams and is not as heavily reliant on desalination plants as other countries in the Gulf region.

If a desalination plant is attacked, what is the impact?

The Gulf’s heavy reliance on desalination plants has made it vulnerable during times of conflict.

During the 1990-1991 Gulf War, Iraqi forces intentionally destroyed most of Kuwait’s desalination capacity, and the damage to its water supply was severe.

Raha Hakimdavar, a hydrologist, told Al Jazeera that in the long-term, attacking these plants can also impact domestic food production, which mostly uses groundwater.

“However, the pressures from competing needs can divert this water away from domestic production. This can be especially challenging because the region is also highly food import dependent and is facing potential food security challenges due to the compromising of the Strait of Hormuz,” said Hakimdavar, who is a Senior Advisor to the Deans at Georgetown University in Qatar and the Earth Commons.

A 2010 CIA report (PDF) also warned that while “national dependence on desalinated water varies substantially among Persian Gulf countries, disruption of desalination facilities in most of the Arab countries could have more consequences than the loss of any industry or commodity.”

According to Alsayed, the impact of a plant being attacked in the region, however, depends on the local scenario.

“For Saudi Arabia, which is the least dependent on desalination and has significant geographic space, facilities on the Red Sea provide resilience. The UAE has 45 days of water storage aligned with its 2036 water security strategy, so contingency plans are in place to manage potential disruptions,” he said.

“The effects are likely to be felt more acutely in smaller states that are highly dependent on desalination like Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait, which have minimal strategic reservoirs,” he noted.

“The most significant impact, in my view, is psychological,” Alsayed said. “Water is essential to human life, and the perception of risk can cause fear and panic, which is particularly challenging in the current environment in the region and where authorities are working to maintain calm.”

How can water security be guaranteed?

As attacks on Gulf countries continue, with energy and civilian infrastructure being targeted, Alsayed highlighted that it is important for GCC countries to view water security as a regional issue rather than an independent concern for each member state.

“The countries need to coordinate more closely and work together. The GCC has a strong platform to prepare for water challenges, but has not fully utilised it,” he said.

Alsayed noted that the GCC Unified Water Strategy 2035 called for all member states to have a national integrated energy and water plan by 2020, but this has not yet been achieved.

“Whether through unified desalination grids, shared regional strategic water reserves, or diversifying water resource goals, this is the way to usher a new era to strengthen Gulf water security,” he said.

Hakimdavar, the hydrologist, said there is no replacement for desalination in the GCC in the near-term.

But she added that the GCC countries can rely on strategic water storage reservoirs – many countries maintain large water reserves that can supply cities for several days or longer.

“Countries can also diversify water supply systems, and also invest in smaller, more distributed desalination plants powered by renewable energy to reduce reliance on a few very large facilities,” she added.

Khan Younis, Gaza Strip – On the blue, wavy surface off the Khan Younis seaport, two Palestinian fishermen paddled their small, battered boat nearly 200 metres (656 feet) into the sea. On the shore, Dawood Sehwail, a 72-year-old Palestinian fisherman, stood inspecting a torn net, his eyes fixed on the waves as if reading a language only he understands.

Displaced from Rafah, further to the south, in May 2024 as a result of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Sehwail now comes daily to the water’s edge, not just to fish, but to have an escape, to study the sea, and to remember.

“The feeling never gets old,” he said, with a sparkle in his eye that defies his age. “You come to see what wonders the sea might still have for you.”

“We were always shackled [by Israel],” Sehwail said quietly. “But one period was less harsh than another.”

Even before October 2023, when Israel started its genocidal war on Gaza, the Palestinian enclave’s fishermen operated under heavy restrictions imposed by Israel. Fishing zones were repeatedly reduced. Maritime boundaries outlined in agreements since the 1993 Oslo Accords were rarely implemented on the water. The distances fishermen were permitted to travel in the sea constantly shifted, often shrinking without warning.

“After every Israeli aggression, the consequences fell on us,” Sehwail explained. “We were supposed to [be allowed to] go further into the sea, but the occupation kept pushing us back.”

Controlling the sea

For a coastal territory, the sea should have been a source of wealth, stability, and fresh food. Instead, under Israel’s blockade that controls Gaza’s land, air, and sea since 2007, it has become another mechanism of control and persecution.

Sehwail once owned a stone distribution business, but was forced to shut it down after the Israeli blockade on Gaza tightened in 2007. He eventually turned to fishing, a skill he had learned as a child, and which he once thought he had abandoned.

“Our profession is day by day,” he said. “It used to be that, if you work, and are lucky, you can sell your catch and feed your family. If you’re very lucky, you save a little for the future of your children.”

But within a few days of Israel’s genocidal war, everything changed. Gaza’s seaport was destroyed by Israeli air strikes. Israel also bombed fishing installations from north to south. Boats were burned or sunk. The sector collapsed almost instantly.

“The Rafah fishermen had six fishing trawlers,” Sehwail recalled. “All of them were bombed and burned. I tried to keep my own small boat and nets for as long as I could, but they were destroyed by the occupation just days before we were displaced in May 2024.”

At Khan Younis port, the aftermath is no different. The harbour has turned into a crowded displacement site. Broken or burned boats are no longer vessels but tent supports, tied with ropes to hold fragile shelters in place.

A rusted metal skeleton of a trawler protrudes from the sand where displaced children now play around. But even in ruin, fishermen improvise.

“What we do now is try not to die,” Sehwail said. “We borrow tools. Some even turn refrigerator parts into floating boards. We have no motors, only paddles. We use whatever is left.”

Originally from the coastal village of Jourat Asqalan, depopulated of its Palestinian residents during the 1948 Nakba and the formation of Israel, Sehwail’s bond with the sea runs generations deep. “The connection is powerful,” he said. “My home in Rafah was also near the beach. Even in displacement, the sea keeps me company. But now my children and their families are scattered across displacement camps.”

No safety

Material destruction has been only part of the toll for Gaza’s fishermen. According to the Gaza Fishermen’s Syndicate, at least 238 fishermen have been killed by Israel since October 2023, whether at sea or on land, among more than 72,000 Palestinians.

The sector once consisted of more than 5,000 fishermen providing for more than 50,000 family members, who depended on fishing as a primary source of income. And Israeli violations have continued since the “ceasefire” began in October, with more than 20 fishermen reported to have been killed or detained.

“The sea is practically closed,” said Zakaria Baker, the head of Gaza’s Fishermen Syndicate, in a recent interview with Al Jazeera.

Baker explained that some fishermen do not risk venturing more than 800 metres (2,625 feet) offshore in small boats, as there is still uncertainty over how far they can go into the sea.

Standing on the shore, Sehwail pointed toward an Israeli naval boat.

“They are always there,” he said. “There is no official clearance for us. We enter at our own risk. The farthest we can go is about 800 metres, and even that depends on their mood.”

He described sudden chases by the Israeli navy: boats shot at or sunk, fishermen detained.

“They can see clearly what we are doing,” he said. “But it depends on the soldier’s mood whether he lets you fish or decides to shoot you dead.”

“Israel ‘executed’ fishing in Gaza,” Sehwail said, repeating the phrase in pain. “What we do now is not real fishing. It’s risking your life for the hope of bringing back one or two fish to your tent.”

Critical source of food

Before the genocide, Gaza’s fisheries sector played a vital role in food security and poverty alleviation. According to the United Nations, by the end of 2024, the sector was operating at less than 7.3 percent of its pre-October 2023 production capacity. The UN also estimated that 72 percent of Gaza’s fishing fleet had been damaged or destroyed.

The collapse has severely affected food availability, income generation, and community resilience. The reduction of fishing access to less than a nautical mile (1.85km) has drastically limited both quantity and species variety.

“The further west we used to go, the more variety [of fish] we could find,” Sehwail explained. “But now in shallow waters, you find only small quantities and mostly juvenile sardines that should be left to grow. But people needed whatever they could find.”

Months of Israeli starvation have turned fresh protein into a rarity; thus, fish is a special luxury.

Even now, with the relative relief brought by the “ceasefire”, fish seen in Gaza’s markets are largely frozen imports, often more expensive than fresh local fish was before the genocide. Catastrophic economic collapse means many families cannot afford them.

Baker emphasised that rehabilitation and recovery require more than ceasefire declarations. “No materials or compensation have been allowed in so far,” he said, “Israeli restrictions continue to block the entry of equipment. Fishermen need stable and safe conditions to return to work without fear of Israeli bullets.”

“The fishermen are simple, poor people,” Sehwail said. “We only want to live with dignity and provide for our families. Across Gaza from north to south, we’re all in need of support to finally fish as we actually deserve.”

Israel has claimed responsibility for an assassination attempt, which killed at least four people, at a busy Beirut hotel. The Israeli military claims it targeted members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) at the Ramada Plaza. Al Jazeera’s Heidi Pett spoke to hotel guests who experienced the blast.

Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE report more attacks despite assurance from Iran’s president that the strikes will stop.

Israeli forces dug up graves during an airborne operation in eastern Lebanon, in search of the remains of a pilot who went missing nearly 40 years ago.

This past week, the United States and Israel launched a war on Iran under the banner of regime change. But as the war escalates and with Iran firing missiles at US bases across the region and at Israel – questions are mounting over how far this conflict could spiral.

This week on UpFront Redi Tlhabi challenges former National Security Adviser and former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton on why he believes that a diplomatic end to the war would be a mistake, and we speak to Joe Cirincione, author of, Nuclear Nightmares: Securing the World Before it is Too Late, about the risk of nuclear proliferation.

A father and his daughter have been killed in an Israeli drone attack in central Khan Younis, southern Gaza, as Palestinians continue to suffer amid worldwide attention on the United States-Israeli war on Iran.

The two were killed early on Saturday. In a separate attack later in the day in Khan Younis, another person was killed and a young girl wounded, according to Al Jazeera correspondents on the ground.

Israeli forces continue carrying out air strikes, artillery shelling, and naval bombardment on Gaza on a daily basis, despite an October 11 “ceasefire” as Israel continues its ongoing genocide.

Suffering in Gaza and the occupied West Bank remains acute as the world focuses on the US-Israeli bombardment of Iran.

In the past 48 hours, two additional people have been wounded, the Palestinian Ministry of Health said.

Israeli army-affiliated militias, meanwhile, have advanced east of Gaza City, with heavy gunfire reported in the area. Initial reports also stated a member of the Palestinian police was abducted.

Israeli warplanes also struck several locations east of the Tuffah neighbourhood, near Gaza City, while the Israeli navy fired heavy machineguns and shells towards the coast of Gaza City, Palestinian news agency Wafa reported.

The Rafah border crossing, meanwhile, remains closed. Israel had shut it amid its attacks on Iran.

The Rafah crossing, located on Gaza’s southern border, had reopened only last month allowing a limited number of Palestinians to leave for the first time in months, including patients in urgent need of medical care. Thousands remain blocked from travelling for treatment.

The Karem Abu Salem crossing, also known to Israelis as Kerem Shalom, is partially open for the entry of humanitarian aid only, under strict restrictions.

Nearly all of Gaza’s population of more than two million people was displaced during Israel’s war on the territory, and the enclave remains heavily dependent on humanitarian assistance.

In a February report, Human Rights Watch said Israeli restrictions had contributed to shortages of medicine, reconstruction materials, food and water inside the Strip.

Since the ceasefire in Gaza, 640 Palestinians have been killed and at least 1,700 wounded, according to the Health Ministry. At least 72,123 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023, while 171,805 people have been injured.

Meanwhile, in the occupied West Bank, the Palestinian Red Crescent Society reported its teams in Hebron are treating a Palestinian injured by live fire near the illegal Karmei Tzur settlement, built on Palestinian land north of Hebron.

Three Palestinians were also injured on Saturday after being physically assaulted by Israeli settlers in the Ras al-Ahmar area, south of Tubas, Wafa reported. Medical sources at the Palestinian Red Crescent Society said their teams responded to three people with injuries.

Israeli forces also conducted raids in the towns of Qaffin and Kafr al-Labad, north of Tulkarem, early on Saturday, Wafa said.

A Palestinian man was also injured after being assaulted by Israeli soldiers near the village of Azmut, east of the occupied West Bank city of Nablus.

Palestinians have faced a wave of intensified Israeli military and settler violence across the West Bank since the war on Gaza began in October 2023.

At least 1,094 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli troops and settlers in the West Bank since October 2023, according to the latest United Nations figures.

Air raid sirens blared across occupied East Jerusalem on Saturday after missiles were reportedly fired by Iran, with explosions heard and interception trails visible in the sky.

Explosions shake Tehran as US-Israel attacks intensify, marking eight days of conflict and retaliation from Iran.

Huge explosions have hit several locations across Iran, including the capital, Tehran, as the war that has ignited the Middle East entered its eighth day.

The United States-Israeli attacks sent up clouds of dark smoke in the Iranian capital early on Saturday, and Tehran retaliated by firing missiles at Israel.

The US has warned of a forthcoming bombing campaign that officials said would be the most intense yet in the weeklong conflict, which has already killed at least 1,230 people and is set to cause further casualties daily.

Much of the region has become embroiled in the war, with Tehran not only launching retaliatory strikes on Israel but hitting US assets across the Gulf.

Israel’s military said early on Saturday it had started a “broad-scale wave of strikes” on targets in Tehran.

“Iranians are now waking to day eight since the initiation of the US-Israeli air strikes targeting different facilities and places across the Iranian capital and elsewhere in the country,” said Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi, reporting from Tehran.

Continuous attacks have been occurring since midnight, he said.

“According to the latest reports, Mehrabad, which is one of the two main airports in the Iranian capital, was targeted. The nearby area was said to be affected, as well,” said Asadi.

Meanwhile, attacks have been taking place in other cities across the country – targeting not just military areas or political centres, but also residential areas, schools and hospitals, he added.

Amir-Saeid Iravani, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, told the UN Security Council on Friday that the US and Israel are bombing civilian areas in his country, stating: “These acts constitute clear war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

The continued fighting comes as US President Donald Trump’s administration approved a new $151m arms sale to Israel after Trump said he would not negotiate with Iran without its “unconditional surrender”.

Iran’s UN ambassador said the country would “take all necessary measures” to defend itself.

Iran’s strategy to ‘keep Israelis in shelters’

Meanwhile, Iran has continued to strike back at Israel.

The Israeli military said early on Saturday that it had detected another round of Iranian missile fire headed towards Israel, and a series of explosions were heard in Tel Aviv following the launches from Iran.

Missiles were also detected heading towards other parts of the country, including southern Israel.

“Since midnight, the Israelis have detected at least five ballistic missile launches coming into Israel from Iran,” said Al Jazeera’s Nida Ibrahim, reporting from Ramallah in the occupied West Bank.

“They have led millions of Israelis into shelters throughout the night, which is something that Israeli analysts say the Iranians are intending to do to put more pressure on the Israeli government – by keeping Israelis in shelters and by keeping these missiles launching coming at different times.”

Pro-Palestinian German activist Yasemin Acar told Al Jazeera about what she says was harassment at a Berlin airport where she recorded a border guard asking about her destination because of concerns over “hostility towards Israel”.

The Gulf states have spent years trying to broker peace between Iran and the West: Qatar brokered nuclear talks, Oman provided back-channel diplomacy, and Saudi Arabia maintained direct dialogue with Iran through 2024 and into 2025. Iran attacked them anyway. The idea that the Gulf states have a responsibility, a moral one, to protect Iran from the consequences of its actions because of good neighbourliness is now grotesque in context. Iran did not return good neighbourliness. Iran returned ballistic missiles.

Iran’s position is based on three propositions. First, that Iran acted in lawful self-defence pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter; that host countries relinquished territorial sovereignty by allowing US military bases on their territory; and that the definition of aggression in Resolution 3314 justifies the attack on those bases as lawful military objectives. Each of these propositions is legally flawed, factually skewed, and tactically wrong. Collectively, they add up to a legal argument that, if accepted, would ensure that the Gulf is permanently destabilised, the basic principles of international law are destroyed, and, in a curious twist, the very security threats that Iran is reacting to are reinforced.

The self-defence claim does not meet the required legal threshold

The UN Charter, in Article 51, permits the use of force only in self-defence against an “armed attack”, and this term is not defined by reference to the state invoking it. The International Court of Justice, in cases such as Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States) (1986) and Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States) (2003), has interpreted the requirement of an “armed attack” under Article 51 of the UN Charter restrictively. The Court distinguished between the most grave forms of the use of force, which qualify as armed attacks triggering the right of self-defence, and less grave uses of force that do not. Accordingly, not every use of force, such as minor incidents or limited military activities, amounts to an armed attack. In this light, the mere presence of foreign military bases in Gulf states, maintained for decades under defence agreements with host governments, would not in itself constitute an armed attack against Iran.

Necessity and proportionality are also part of customary international law, requiring that self-defence be necessary and proportional. Iran has not demonstrated either. Targeting the territory of other sovereign Arab states in response to the policy decisions of the United States is neither necessary, since diplomatic and United Nations avenues are still available, nor proportional, since it imposes military consequences on states that are not a party to any conflict with Iran.

Critically, Article 51 also has a mandatory procedural element, in that any state employing self-defence is immediately required to notify the Security Council. Iran has consistently evaded this requirement in each of its escalatory actions. While this may seem to be a minor element, it is in fact the means by which the international community is able to verify and check self-defence claims. A state that evades this requirement is not employing Article 51. It is exploiting the language of Article 51.

Iran’s reading of Resolution 3314 is a fundamental distortion

The provision of Article 3(f) of the Annex to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) (1974) states that an act of aggression includes the “action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State”. Iran could rely on this provision to hold the Gulf states that host United States military bases liable for any act of aggression committed from their territories against Iran. Nevertheless, the mere presence of military bases is not sufficient to hold them to be lawful military objectives; this will depend on their actual contribution to military activities against Iran based on the rules of international humanitarian law.

Thus, such an Iranian reading would be wrong on three distinct legal grounds.

First, Resolution 3314 is definitional in nature. The resolution was adopted to assist the Security Council in determining when aggression has taken place, not to confer upon states the unilateral power to punish states deemed to have committed aggression through the use of force. The resolution itself, in Article 2, asserts the power of the Security Council to make the determination of what constitutes aggression. The self-application of Article 3(f) of the resolution is therefore bypassed altogether.

Second, Article 3(f) speaks of the active launching of an attack, not the passive hosting of a military base. The legal distinction is fundamental. A state, in signing a defence treaty with another and hosting the latter’s troops on its soil, is engaging in a measure of sovereignty. A state, actively launching, coordinating, or enabling military strikes against a third party, is engaged in a different matter altogether. Iran has not credibly shown this latter case. The presence of US troops or bases in the Gulf has been a fact for decades, and this has not constituted armed aggression against Iran under any legal standard.

Third, even if Article 3(f) were applicable, the appropriate course would be to bring the matter to the Security Council, not to launch unilateral military strikes. General Assembly resolutions do not override the Charter. Iran cannot rely upon a non-binding resolution defining terms to override the Chapter VII requirements for the use of force or the clear criteria of Article 51.

Sovereignty cannot be dictated by a neighbour’s strategic preferences

Iran, in invoking the principle of good neighbourliness, asks the Arab Gulf states to deny the United States basing rights. Good neighbourliness is a two-way principle, and it does not allow for interference in the internal affairs of other states, certainly not interference in the decisions of other states simply because they are deemed inconvenient to the interfering state. All UN states possess the inherent right to conclude defence treaties with whomever they choose, and this is so regardless of the opinion of their neighbours.

The asymmetry of Iran’s position is striking and self-disqualifying. Iran itself has active military relationships with Russia and China. Iran arms, finances, trains, and supports the activities of non-state military actors in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force operates openly in various states, and this has been extensively documented in United Nations Panels of Experts reports, as well as other international monitoring reports. According to the standards that Iran applies to the Gulf states, any state that hosts the activities of the IRGC, the transfer of Iranian arms, or the coordination of Iranian proxies on its soil would be engaging in aggression against third parties. Iran will not accept this principle when it is applied to itself. A legal principle that is unacceptable to the party to whom it would be applied is not a legal principle at all; it is a political tool.

A doctrine that defeats Iran’s own strategic interests

From the perspective of international relations theory, Iran’s position follows the logic of offensive realism, which seeks to remove the external balancing architecture of regional neighbours by claiming it to be hostile in nature. However, this approach is empirically self-defeating.

Under balance of threat theory, states react to offensive capability, geographic proximity, and aggressive intentions. Iran’s doctrine, in asserting the right to strike any state that hosts forces it perceives as a threat, drives each and every threat variable to maximum levels for each and every state in the region. The obvious consequence, evident in the data, is that the states in the region and external powers are becoming more, rather than less, securely integrated. The Fifth Fleet’s permanent base in Bahrain, the UAE’s negotiations over F-35s, Saudi Arabia’s deployments of THAADs, and Qatar’s expansion of the Al Udeid base are reactions to Iran’s escalation, not causes of it.

From the perspective of constructivism, the legitimacy of a legal argument is also partly based on the normative credibility of the state that presents the argument. The record of Iran’s compliance with IAEA regulations, including the enrichment of uranium to a purity level of 60 percent or more in 2023–2024, interference with inspections, the removal of monitoring cameras, and the overall violation of the non-proliferation regime, has undermined the credibility of the state significantly. A state that is itself a violator of the legal regime cannot claim the role of a law-abiding state seeking protection under the norms of the legal regime.

Iran’s legal rationale was always theoretically wrong. What has occurred since February 28, 2026, has made Iran’s actions morally and politically wrong. Iran did not simply target US military assets. The reality of the situation is now documented and undeniable. Ballistic missiles and drones were launched against Gulf states in the opening days of the conflict. This marked the first time one actor had simultaneously attacked all six GCC states. Iran escalated its attacks in deliberate stages. Day 1: Iranian missiles were fired against military bases. Day 2: Iranian missiles were fired against civilian infrastructure and airports. Day 3: Iranian missiles were fired against the energy sector. Days 3 and 4: The US Embassy in Riyadh was attacked by Iran. International airports in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Kuwait were attacked by Iranian missiles, resulting in the suspension of flights throughout the region. Videos from Bahrain documented an Iranian Shahed drone attacking an apartment building. This is not self-defence. This is the collective punishment of sovereign nations that went to extraordinary lengths to avoid the conflict.

The rationale provided by Iran falls flat when one considers the actions Iran itself took. Its doctrine held that only targets involved in the preparation or launch of an attack against Iran were legitimate targets. Civilian airports are not military bases. Hotels in Palm Jumeirah are not military command centres. An apartment complex in Manama is not a weapons storage facility. By Iran’s own stated legal rationale, none of these targets was legitimate, yet they were attacked. This was not a legal doctrine at all; it was a pretext for coercion, and the conduct of war revealed this to be the case.

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

Witness videos captured Iranian projectiles soaring over Tel Aviv as sirens blared and Israeli interceptors launched. Residents could be heard shouting as one of the missiles appeared to break apart into dozens of smaller projectiles.

People are tracking a shepherd who has been walking with his herd for days across Lebanon, fleeing Israeli strikes in the south of the country.

Lionel Messi has been criticised for meeting US President Donald Trump and applauding his latest brief on the Iran war at a White House event honouring the Argentinian superstar and his Inter Miami team.

Drone video showed the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in occupied East Jerusalem empty at the start of the third Friday in Ramadan, after Israeli authorities restricted access to holy sites.

The United States used Precision Strike Missiles (PrSMs) for the first time during its ongoing war with Iran, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said on Wednesday.

The war entered its seventh day on Friday, with attacks continuing across Iran and other countries in the Middle East.

CENTCOM stated in an X post that PrSMs provide an “unrivaled deep strike capability”.

“I just could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform leveraging innovation to create dilemmas for the enemy,” the post quoted Admiral Brad Cooper, head of CENTCOM.

It is unclear where these PrSMs were launched from, or which specific targets they hit in Iran.

So what is the PrSM, and why is it significant that it has been used by the US for the first time?

What are Precision Strike Missiles?

PrSMs are described as long-range precision strike missiles by their developer, the Maryland, US-headquartered defence firm Lockheed Martin, which delivered the first PrSMs to the US Army in December 2023.

PrSMs can hit targets ranging from 60km (37 miles) to more than 499km (310 miles) away, according to Lockheed Martin.

The company’s website adds that PrSMs are compatible with the MLRS M270 and HIMARS family of launchers, both also developed by Lockheed and used by both the United Kingdom and US armies.

MLRS stands for multiple-launch rocket systems, used to launch missiles. The UK sent a number to Ukraine in 2022. HIMARS stands for High Mobility Artillery Rocket System. In 2022, the US sent a number to Ukraine, as well.

M-142 HIMARS is a high-tech, lightweight rocket launcher that is wheel-mounted, giving it more agility and manoeuvrability on the battlefield. Each unit can carry six GPS-guided rockets, or larger missiles like Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMs) and PrSMs, which can be reloaded in about a minute with only a small crew.

Lockheed Martin adds that PrSMs can be rapidly developed. “We are ready to produce and deliver to meet the US Army’s accelerated timeline for this long-range precision fires priority,” the website says.

PrSMs feature “open systems architecture”, which means that it is easier to plug in new components, upgrade parts, or work with equipment from other companies. Similarly, they are “modular and easily adaptable”, enabling components to be switched around.

They also feature “IM energetic payload”, or Insensitive Munitions energetic payload, which makes explosions safer, the producer says. This means the warhead is made from explosives that are less likely to blow up accidentally if hit by fire, shrapnel or by accident, but still explode properly when triggered as intended.

What is different about the PrSMs?

PrSMs will ultimately replace the ATACMs currently being fired from the HIMARS launchers, significantly increasing their range from 300km (186 miles) to more than 499km (310 miles), without changing the vehicle carrying the missile.

PrSMs also offer double the “missile load” of ATACMs. While a HIMARS launcher is able to carry one ATACMS missile in its pod, it can carry two PrSMs per pod.

Does the PrSM give the US a strategic advantage?

CENTCOM confirmed that PrSMs have been used in the US and Israel’s attacks on Iran, codenamed Operation Epic Fury and launched on February 28.

CENTCOM posted a video of the PrSMs being launched from M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems in an open desert terrain.

PrSMs do give the US military a boost for its pre-existing long-range capabilities.

Gulf countries such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, specifically the Musandam Peninsula, which have military bases hosting US assets and troops, have at least some territory within 400km (250 miles) of Iran.

The US is using PrSMs in conjunction with other long-range missiles such as Low-Cost Unmanned Combat Attack System (LUCAS) one-way drones, MQ-9 Reaper drones, ATACMs and Tomahawk Cruise Missiles.

The range for LUCAS one-way drones is about 800km (500 miles), while the range for ATACMs is about 300km (186 miles) and the range for Tomahawk cruise missiles is about 1,600km (1,000 miles).

Why is the introduction of the PrSM significant?

The range of this missile is significant as it is likely that it would not have been permitted under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia, which the Trump administration withdrew the US from in 2019. This is because it can exceed the maximum 500km (310-mile) range the treaty imposed on certain land-launched missiles.

The treaty was signed in 1987 by US and Soviet Union leaders Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. It sought to eliminate the presence of land-based nuclear missiles and medium-range arsenals between 500km and 5,500km (310 and 3500 miles) from Europe.

The US suspension of the treaty allowed Washington to resume development of its own medium-range, land-based arsenal.

Following the US suspension, Russia invited the US to reciprocate in a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of ground-launched intermediate-range missiles instead. While Washington initially rejected the offer, in 2022, it said it would be willing to discuss this.

In August last year, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced Russia’s withdrawal from this moratorium, however, saying the US had “made significant progress” and “openly declared plans to deploy US ground-launched INF-range missiles in various regions”. INF stands for intermediate-range nuclear forces.

The statement added that such actions by Western countries posed a “direct threat” to Moscow’s security.

Kyiv, Ukraine – As Washington’s Middle Eastern allies use US-made Patriot air defence systems to shoot down Iranian missiles and drones, Ukraine is about to face a dire shortage of ammunition for them.

And Russian President Vladimir Putin is sure to exploit the shortage of pricey guided missiles the truck-mounted Patriots launch at machinegun speed to down his pride and joy, Russia’s ballistic missiles that he once declared were “indestructible”, experts have told Al Jazeera.

The Patriots were developed in the 1970s to down Soviet missiles whose modifications Russia still rains on Ukraine.

The supply of Patriots to Ukraine began in 2023 and was initially limited to several batteries stationed in the capital, Kyiv. The location of the systems was constantly changed to protect them from Russian attacks.

The Patriots utilise advanced radars to detect targets flying at supersonic speeds and launch their guided missiles with the sound that resembles super-fast electronic beats – up to 32 missiles per minute.

But the noise – along with thunderous shockwaves that follow split-second, sun-bright explosions – made Ukrainians feel safe during harrowing, hours-long Russian assaults that have targeted civilian areas and involve hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles.

Within weeks after their deployment, the Patriots intercepted Russia’s Kinzhal (Dagger) intercontinental ballistic missiles that are launched by supersonic fighter jets and fly in the Earth’s stratosphere.

The interceptions disproved Putin’s earlier claims that the Kinzhals made any Western air defence systems “useless”.

The safety, however, came with a hefty price tag – each Patriot guided missile costs several million dollars, and their manufacturing never exceeded more than 900 units a year.

‘Tomorrow’s problem’

Some 800 guided missiles have been used to repel Iranian aerial attacks within just three days after Tehran began raining its missiles and drones on almost a dozen nations, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Thursday.

“Ukraine has never had this many missiles to repel attacks,” Zelenskyy said, reiterating his readiness to dispatch Ukrainian experts and drone interceptors to help Gulf nations counter the attacks.

The shortage of guided missiles is, however, not immediate and may occur in several weeks.

“This is not today’s problem, this is tomorrow’s problem,” Volodymyr Fesenko, head of the Kyiv-based Center for Applied Political Studies (Penta) think tank, told Al Jazeera.

But the problem may become catastrophic.

In recent days, Moscow stopped attacking Ukraine with drones and missiles – a sign of amassing them for massive raids in the near future, Fesenko said.

“Russia’s most obvious actions would be to bleed Ukraine’s stock of Patriot missiles dry to inflict maximal damage on us through massive missile attacks,” he said.

Kyiv already faces a less critical problem with the shortage of missiles for Western-supplied F-16 fighter jets that proved effective in downing Russian missiles.

“The problem is less critical, but also vital for us,” Fesenko said.

Ukraine has experienced a shortage of Patriot missiles before.

Last summer, when the US and Israel struck Iranian nuclear sites, the Pentagon stopped the Patriot missiles’ supply as it was “auditing” its own stocks.

The suspension of Patriot interceptors and HIMARS multiple rocket launchers left Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, including thermal power stations and transport hubs, more vulnerable to Russian attacks.

Russia’s tactics of indiscriminate aerial strikes have been tried and tested over the past four years.

Moscow starts an air raid with drones and decoy drones to make Ukrainian air defence units use as many Patriot missiles as possible.

It then launches several more waves of attack drones and ballistic and cruise missiles.

As to upcoming attacks, “the question is that this time, it won’t be energy infrastructure, but whatever other targets the Kremlin will want to choose”, Kyiv-based analyst Igar Tyshkevych told Al Jazeera.

He referred to devastating attacks on energy and central heating facilities that left millions of Ukrainians without power and heat this winter, triggering health problems and deaths from hypothermia.

Russia already targets sites unprotected by Patriots: Military expert

Meanwhile, Israel and the European nations that pledged to transfer their stock of Patriot missiles to Ukraine are reluctant to do so now.

“Considering the general instability, I don’t think that many nations will open up their stock and pass it on to us,” Tyshkevich said.

Since the supplies of Patriots began, the US-Russian technological battle has kept raging on, according to the former deputy head of Ukraine’s general staff of armed forces, who for decades specialised in air defence.

“There is a confrontation in engineering,” Lieutenant-General Ihor Romanenko told Al Jazeera.

“Russians change something, Americans together with our experts change something else, because remaining on the old [technological] level means losing the battle before it begins.”

Russian engineers “modified software making the [Iskander-M] missiles able to manoeuvre mid-air, and the modernisation largely complicated the operation of the few Patriot systems that we have to destroy them,” Romanenko said.

The Patriots, however, have not become a Ukraine-wide aegis against the Russian strikes.

Ukraine has fewer than a dozen batteries, while Kyiv said it needed at least 25.

Russians “already know that we have but a few Patriot batteries against their ballistic missiles, so they were hitting the sites that had not been covered by the Patriots, or where they had not been deployed,” Romanenko said.

Luckily, Ukraine has an alternative.

A handful of French-Italian SAMP/T systems with solid-fuel anti-aircraft missiles have been deployed to Ukraine since 2023 and showed the advantages of their radars and “engagement logic” with high-speed targets.

While a Patriot battery requires up to 90 support servicemen and takes half an hour to deploy, SAMP/Ts require about a dozen.

But their ability to down modified Russian missiles will have to be battle-tested, Romanenko said.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s increasingly daring drone and missile strikes deep inside Russia destroy or damage their arm depots and plants producing drones and missiles.

In recent weeks, they hit the Admiral Essen, a Russian frigate capable of launching Kalibr cruise missiles from the Black Sea, nine air defence systems in Russia-occupied Donetsk and Crimea, and Russia’s only plant that produces fibre-optic cable for drones.

Debris from an intercepted Iranian missile has landed near Petach Tikva in central Israel. Video shows efforts by firefighters to quell the flames.

Lebanon is once again drawn into a war many of its leaders say is not their fight.

Against the government’s warnings, Hezbollah has joined Iran in its conflict with Israel. The armed group says it has a right to respond as part of what it calls a resistance campaign.

However, this time, the Lebanese government has responded by deciding to ban Hezbollah’s military activities and demanding that it disarm. The group has not heeded that warning.

Now, as the war between the US, Israel and Iran widens to Lebanon, can Hezbollah’s involvement be of any real help to Tehran?

And what price will Lebanon pay as a result?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Heiko Wimmen – Project director for Iraq, Syria and Lebanon at the International Crisis Group

Nimrod Novik – Member of the leadership of Commanders for Israel’s Security

Nabeel Khoury – Non-resident fellow at the Arab Center Washington DC

WASHINGTON — New signs of a widening regional conflict emerged Thursday as the war with Iran entered its sixth day, with European allies pledging warships and access to military bases for the U.S. campaign, Israel intensifying strikes in Lebanon against Hezbollah militants, and Kurdish forces preparing for a potential incursion into northern Iran.

Iran continued retaliatory missile and drone attacks against Israel and U.S. military sites across the region. The strikes hit at least “10 countries that did not attack [Iran],” British Prime Minister Kier Starmer said at a news conference Thursday.

Starmer announced new military deployments and confirmed the U.K. will allow American forces to use British bases for defensive operations against Iran. The move was a reversal of Starmer’s initial cautious approach, which drew criticism from President Trump, who said, “He’s no Winston Churchill.”

“I took the decision that the U.K. would not join the initial strikes on Iran by the U.S. and Israel,” Starmer said. “That decision was deliberate. It was in the national interest. And I stand by it. But when Iran started attacking countries around the Gulf and the wider region, the situation changed.”

The United Kingdom will send four additional RAF Typhoon jets to reinforce its squadron in Qatar, deploy Wildcat helicopters with anti-drone capabilities to Cyprus and dispatch the Royal Navy destroyer HMS Dragon to the eastern Mediterranean.

The moves place Britain among the most active European partners supporting the U.S. war effort, as Starmer warned that the conflict will likely “continue for some time,” he said. It comes after an Iranian drone struck a British military base in Cyprus on Monday, which has led to a mounting of European naval resources.

Located just 150 miles from Israel in the eastern Mediterranean, the island of Cyprus has emerged as a strategic — and exposed — nerve center in the U.S. offensive against Iran. It hosts vital British military bases and acts as an intelligence, surveillance, and logistics hub in countering Iranian influence and proxy attacks.

On Thursday, Italy’s defense minister, Guido Crosetto, said Thursday that his country would follow the lead of France, Spain and the Netherlands to aid in the defense of Cyprus.

“Within the EU it made sense to send a message of support to Cyprus,” he said.

Smoke plumes billow following Israeli bombardment on Beirut’s southern suburbs on Monday.

(Ibrahim Amro/AFP via Getty Images)

Spain announced Thursday it would dispatch its advanced frigate Cristóbal Colón to Cyprus, after initially maintaining a “no to war” stance.

France also authorized temporary access to U.S. aircraft on bases located on French soil, a French army general staff official told Reuters.

And Germany, a country that has explicitly ruled out military participation in war with Iran and has criticized the legality of the initial U.S.–Israeli strikes, said Western powers must prepare for further escalation.

“Europe must remain united in the face of this crisis,” German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said during an emergency meeting of European leaders. “We will not allow ourselves to be divided while regional stability is threatened.”

Meanwhile, conflict has reached a fever pitch between Israel and Hezbollah, the Lebanese-based Iranian proxy and key pillar of what Iran has called the “Axis of Resistance.” Overnight, Israel launched heavy airstrikes across southern Lebanon and issued urgent evacuation warnings for the southern suburbs of the capital, Beirut.

The outbreak of hostilities in Lebanon marks the end of a Israeli-Hezbollah truce and the opening of a major second front in the war with Iran. The fighting erupted after Hezbollah launched a barrage of drones and rockets at Israeli military sites—a retaliation for the joint U.S.-Israeli assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Lebanon’s health ministry reported that at least 102 people have been killed by the Israeli strikes so far. In the Beirut suburbs, the Israeli military ordered residents of the Hezbollah-dominated Dahieh district to “save your lives and evacuate your homes immediately.”

“Dahieh? There’s not going to be a Dahieh any more,” one young man said as he talked to a family member on the phone at a media vantage point in the nearby hills.

The widening conflict has also drawn in Ukraine, which has some of the world’s most extensive experience in defending against Iranian-made Shahed drones. Such drones have been deployed by Russia in its war on Ukraine.

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky said late Wednesday that the United States and other allies in Europe and the Middle East have sought Kyiv’s “expertise and practical support” to help them stop Iranian drones.

“Of course, any assistance we provide is only on the condition that it does not weaken our own defense in Ukraine and that it serves as an investment in our diplomatic capabilities,” Zelensky said in a social media post. “We help protect against war those who help us — Ukraine — bring the war to a dignified conclusion.”

While the aerial and naval battle intensifies across the Middle East, a ground war may also be on the horizon.

People arrive to sign a condolence book in memory of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the Embassy of Iran in New Delhi, India, on Thursday.

(Raj K Raj/Hindustan Times via Getty Images)

The United States and Israel have increased coordination with Kurdish armed groups along Iran’s western frontier, hoping to exploit longstanding tensions between Tehran and Kurdish factions opposed to the Iranian government, Kurdish officials told the Associated Press.

Iranian forces have already launched missile and drone strikes against Kurdish-controlled areas in northern Iraq following the initial U.S.–Israeli assault on Iranian targets.

Those strikes targeted areas around the city of Erbil and on Kurdish opposition groups operating near the Iranian border, locations where U.S. military forces and diplomatic facilities are also present.

Officials have not publicly confirmed whether Kurdish groups will mount cross-border operations, but security analysts say an incursion into Iranian territory could open a new front in the conflict.

U.S. Central Command, meanwhile, is asking the Pentagon to send more military intelligence officers to its headquarters in Tampa, Florida, to support operations against Iran for at least 100 days, but likely through September, according to a notification obtained by Politico.

The moves come as the House prepares to vote Thursday on a war powers resolution that would withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran, and limit the president’s power to wage war in the region. A similar measure failed Wednesday in the Senate, mostly along party lines.

Quinton reported from Washington and Bulos from Beirut.