Middle East

Taiz, Yemen – Fuad Mohammed has been working as a construction labourer for more than 25 years. The 46-year-old has seen things get progressively worse in Yemen’s construction industry since the war in the country started more than a decade ago, and then further deteriorate after the US-Israel war on Iran began in late February, with its devastating economic impact on the wider region.

“We can barely eke out a living for our families,” Fuad told Al Jazeera.

The ongoing regional war has damaged economies across the Middle East, with government-controlled areas of Yemen bearing a heavy burden as commodity prices soar. Among the hardest-hit sectors is fuel: in January, 20 litres (5.3 gallons) of diesel cost 25,000 Yemeni riyals ($17), but today that price has skyrocketed to 45,000 riyals ($30). That massive spike has triggered a domino effect, driving up the costs of all goods and services dependent on fuel and transportation – including construction.

As a result, countless construction projects across those areas – in Yemen’s east and southwest – have ground to a halt.

Pausing construction

Fuad explained that, before the US-Israel-Iran war, he was able to find work for around two weeks every month. But this year, he has now gone several months with barely any work.

“The price hikes in building materials have frustrated both homeowners and construction labourers,” Fuad said. “Those who want to build find that their budgets are no longer enough, and we are left with no work.”

Fuad recalled that he briefly found work in May for a woman who had saved money to build a home for her family. However, when a fresh wave of price increases hit the market, she paused construction to wait for prices to drop.

“I also work with construction contractors, but most of them have paused their projects at the request of homeowners,” he added. “When I call them, they tell me they are waiting for regional conditions to improve.”

As an example of the rising costs, the price of a truckload of sand increased from 130,000 Yemeni riyals ($87) to 190,000 riyals ($127), while the average cost of one metre of window glass rose from 90,000 riyals ($60) to 130,000 riyals ($87).

Fuad’s situation at home is desperate. Relying entirely on daily wages but having no work, he can not provide basic essentials for his family. He has considered finding another job, but he lacks professional experience in other fields.

In a desperate attempt to find work, he has lowered his daily wage from 25,000 Yemeni riyals ($17) to 20,000 riyals ($13).

“My situation is getting worse every day,” he said.

Economic division

An official from the Yemen Petroleum Company in Aden told the Reuters news agency in May that the increase in the price of diesel was caused by the worsening supply crisis and rising global fuel prices, driven by regional tensions and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, alongside increased transportation and marine insurance costs. The official noted that the measure was temporary and would remain in place until the end of the crisis and conditions returned to normal.

Wafeeq Saleh, executive director of the Taiz Center for Yemeni-Gulf Studies, explained that the Yemeni economy was particularly susceptible to external economic shocks.

“Any disruptions in global commodity markets directly affect the local market because [Yemen] imports nearly 90 percent of its needs,” Saleh told Al Jazeera. “Consequently, the local rise in commodity and fuel prices is a natural outcome of surging global prices, shipping tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, as well as increased maritime insurance and freight fees.”

In areas controlled by Yemen’s Houthi rebels, however, including the capital Sanaa, there has not yet been a sharp increase in fuel prices, and therefore no impact on the construction industry – yet.

Yemen’s war has entrenched two separate economic structures in the country, with the central bank bifurcated between Aden and Sanaa, and two different exchange rates operating for the Yemeni riyal.

The Houthi group is already facing popular anger over a weak economy, as it grows increasingly isolated regionally and internationally. The group has so far avoided an increase in the price of fuel, with 20 litres (5.3 gallons) of diesel costing 9,500 Yemeni riyals, which at the exchange rate set in Sanaa is the equivalent of roughly $18.

“[The Houthis] may have sufficient inventory from previous months, which is why the local market hasn’t been affected,” Saleh said. “However, the impact will appear in the coming period when imports are made at the new price.”

The actions of the pro-Iranian Houthis themselves have contributed to the increase in global oil prices. Having sat out the Iran war for its first few months, the Houthis recently began attacks against Saudi ships passing through the Red Sea, after the Yemeni government and the Saudi-led coalition that backs it refused to allow a plane from Iran to land in Sanaa. The Houthi attacks mean that the transportation of oil from the Gulf is now disrupted in both the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea, and has contributed to oil prices going past $100 a barrel for the first time since May.

Will prices come down?

Lutf Zuraiqi, 58, had saved some money to build a home, but the dramatic increase in the cost of building materials forced him to pause the project until “things get better”.

“Price increases aren’t new in Yemen, but I believe this current surge is regional. I believe as soon as the regional war ends, building materials will return to their old prices,” Zuraiqi told Al Jazeera.

Zuraiqi has been following news of the Iran war on a daily basis because its end would mean lower material costs for him and the chance to resume building his planned home.

“The government promised that prices will go back down after the [US-Iran] war ends,” he said. “So this time I’m choosing to believe them and hope I will manage to finish my home.”

Mohammed Jameel, on the other hand, hasn’t been following the news – but the building contractor has been tracking prices of building materials instead. The 59-year-old believes that, based on his experience, once the price of the materials goes up, they never come down.

“I have worked in construction for more than four decades now, and throughout this entire period, building material prices have consistently risen,” Jameel said. “We have never witnessed a price drop. So, I advise those who have paused their construction to resume, as today is always better than tomorrow.”

Jameel said that he has been forced to reduce his rates and cut profit margins on major contracts to keep some work.

“My experience tells me it is normal for owners of homes and projects to pause work until they adapt to the new prices,” he added. “But eventually, construction labourers’ wages will rise, and the total cost of building will increase.”

Jameel feels for the plight of construction labourers, but he views this as a temporary phase and believes the suffering will ease once work picks up again. “We are all in the same boat, not just the daily wage labourers,” he said. “But we hope things will get better.”

Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains in effect halted.
Tankers are now avoiding another critical waterway – Bab al-Mandeb – as Yemen’s Houthi forces threaten Saudi-linked vessels. Ukrainian strikes have hit Russian export infrastructure.
Three major routes are now disrupted at once: the Gulf, the Red Sea and the Black Sea.

Together, they threaten trade flows equivalent to nearly a quarter of global oil supplies just as reserves sit at multiyear lows.
Goldman Sachs says oil could rise above $120 a barrel by the fourth quarter if disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz alone persist.
Economies worldwide are bracing for another energy shock.

Nearly eight decades after the establishment of Israel, the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state remains the defining question of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Wars have been fought, peace treaties signed and diplomatic initiatives launched, yet this central strategic issue remains unresolved.

Today, Saudi Arabia is at the forefront of the efforts to establish a Palestinian state and deliver a lasting peace arrangement with Israel. Its commitment to the issue is made clear by its decision to cosponsor the creation of the Global Alliance for the Implementation of the Two-State Solution in 2024, which is currently meeting in Rome.

King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman are following in the footsteps of successive Saudi monarchs. For more than half a century, the kingdom has maintained a remarkably consistent position. The question has never been whether peace with Israel is possible, but whether the political conditions required to make such a peace comprehensive, legitimate and irreversible were present.

Within that framework, recognition of Israel and the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state are parallel components of a single settlement. Neither is intended to precede the other.

That doctrine originated under King Faisal, who made Palestinian self-determination a central pillar of Saudi national security policy. His successors preserved the principle while adapting its diplomatic expression to changing regional realities. The objective remained constant even as the diplomatic environment evolved.

The Fahd Plan of 1981 – named after King Fahd – translated that doctrine into a formal peace proposal calling for Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab territories and recognition of Palestinian national rights. Two decades later, the Crown Prince and later King Abdullah expanded the same strategic logic through the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. Israel was offered comprehensive peace and normal relations with the Arab world in return for withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967 and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

The current Saudi leadership therefore inherits an established strategic doctrine rather than an unresolved policy debate. Their responsibility is to determine whether today’s diplomatic environment can finally satisfy conditions that have remained fundamentally unchanged for decades.

That continuity also reflects a broader question of state legitimacy. For the Saudi monarchy, support for Palestinian statehood has never been solely a matter of foreign policy. It has become one of the enduring pillars of the kingdom’s political and religious legitimacy, rooted in the monarch’s role as Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and reinforced by the kingdom’s longstanding position within both the Arab and Islamic worlds.

The significance of that continuity became clearer after the Abraham Accords of 2020. By establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, later joined by Morocco and Sudan, the accords demonstrated that Arab-Israeli normalisation could advance without progress on Palestinian statehood. They reshaped regional diplomacy, but they neither resolved the Palestinian question nor completed the wider peace process.

Successive US administrations have regarded Saudi participation as the decisive missing element. The Abraham Accords could expand without Riyadh, but they could not acquire their full strategic significance without the kingdom’s participation.

The Trump administration has once again placed Saudi-Israeli normalisation at the centre of its regional diplomacy. But this diplomatic push has to be evaluated in the larger post-October 7 context.

The war in Gaza created an entirely new diplomatic environment. The subsequent ceasefire initiative and the establishment of the Board of Peace introduced a framework intended to end the conflict, stabilise the territory and begin reconstruction. Their significance lies not in replacing a political settlement, but in creating conditions under which one might become possible.

For the kingdom, however, the essential political requirement remains unchanged: the actual and irreversible establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.

That position rests upon mutually reinforcing political, religious and economic foundations. The monarch governs not only as head of state but also as Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, a responsibility carrying religious authority throughout the Islamic world. Any decision concerning recognition of Israel would therefore require both political approval and broad religious legitimacy. Such legitimacy could not credibly rest upon promises of future negotiations. It would require the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.

The kingdom’s wider influence reinforces that position. It is by far the Arab world’s largest economy, representing about one-third of total Arab economic output. The kingdom is the only regional member of the G20, one of the world’s leading energy superpowers and the world’s leading crude oil exporter. It is also the Middle East’s principal economic engine. Combined with its religious standing, these factors give Saudi decisions consequences extending far beyond bilateral diplomacy.

The implications would reach well beyond the kingdom itself. Several major Arab states, including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Algeria, have not recognised Israel. Their decisions are sovereign, but a Saudi-Israeli settlement founded upon Palestinian statehood would nevertheless transform the political environment in which those decisions are made.

Lebanon illustrates the point. Washington is encouraging Beirut to move towards formal relations with Israel as part of a broader effort to stabilise the Israeli-Lebanese frontier. The domestic political cost of such a decision, however, would look fundamentally different after a Saudi-backed settlement based upon Palestinian statehood than before one.

The same logic extends across the wider Muslim world. Major influential countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia have withheld recognition of Israel because the Palestinian question remains unresolved. A settlement accepted by the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and accompanied by the establishment of a Palestinian state would compel those governments to follow. It would remove the principal political and religious obstacles to reconsidering their positions.

This is what ultimately distinguishes Saudi Arabia from the earlier Abraham Accords. Saudi Arabia’s participation would be different in kind, not merely in scale, carrying political, economic and religious significance across the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Whether the current diplomatic process can ultimately reach that point remains uncertain. Israel, the Palestinians, the United States, the European Union and certain regional governments all have indispensable roles to play. The final Saudi decision, however, rests with King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Within the strategic framework they have inherited, Palestinian statehood and recognition of Israel are not sequential steps but parallel obligations. Neither can acquire lasting legitimacy without the other.

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

The US and Saudi Arabia launched joint air strikes on Iraq, targeting ‘Iran-aligned’ groups after drone attacks targeted US forces in the region and Saudi oil facilities. Saudi Arabia says it acted in self-defence, while Iraq’s Popular Mobilisation Forces reported at least 20 killed.

The United States military says it intercepted ballistic missiles fired by Iran across the Middle East.

In a statement on X on Wednesday, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched multiple ballistic missiles in an “attempted surprise attack on US forces based in the Middle East”.

All the missiles were intercepted, and “US forces remain vigilant and at a high state of readiness”, the statement added.

Five missile interceptions were reported over Jordan, according to the Jordan News Agency.

The IRGC said its air force targeted a US airbase and Central Command centre in Jordan, “with several ballistic missiles”.

“As long as threats against the Islamic Republic of Iran continue and illegal and vicious actions by American forces against our interests continue, the resistance will continue,” the IRGC said in a statement carried by Iran’s IRIB broadcaster.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar said the latest escalation seemed like a “pre-emptive attack, not a reactionary measure”, from the Iranians.

US President Donald Trump had called off a two-week US bombing campaign on Iran on July 24, claiming after that “good talks” were under way with Iran.

“After 13 consecutive days of constant bombing, in the tit-for-tat US-Iran bombings, these latest attacks will most definitely have an impact on the mediation efforts”, Al Jazeera’s Serdar said.

Trump has threatened to ⁠restart strikes if negotiations stagnate, while Iran has denied seeking to resume talks with Washington.

‘Sending a message’

The Iranian attacks targeting US bases came as Trump was meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been pushing for war on Iran, in the White House.

“This is Iran sending a message to Trump that they need to be involved in all discussions,” Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher said from Washington, DC.

“It was reported in Israel that Netanyahu was very keen to raise the question of Pickaxe Mountain. The Israelis said there has been building work going ahead there; they believe the Iranians are putting together another nuclear facility”, he said.

Jason Campbell, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told Al Jazeera that Tehran is “trying to retake the initiative and the momentum with these latest attacks”.

“Iran has expressed scepticism that the US engages in these pauses between attacks to prepare for another phase of violence, so Tehran likely thinks the US is doing just that with this latest pause”, he said.

US oil futures jumped more than 4 percent to more than $82 a barrel, while Brent crude futures went to more than $88 a barrel after the US military confirmed the Iranian attack.

Oil prices were dropping earlier on Tuesday as Washington’s suspension of strikes on Iran continued, with traders closely monitoring reports of renewed talks.

Hormuz tensions continue

The Strait of Hormuz and its shipping traffic have been major talking points for Trump, who has decried Iran’s blocking of some vessels.

Iran asserts that it is within its rights to control shipping through the strait.

On Wednesday, the IRGC said it “struck and stopped” three oil tankers in Hormuz, according to Tasnim news agency.

It said the tankers “continued to move along an unsafe and illegal route, ignoring our warnings”,

Oman has presented Iran with a proposal to jointly manage traffic in the strait, but Iran has rejected it.

Deputy Iranian Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi told state television that Tehran rejected splitting transit routes equally.

Instead, he said, Tehran proposed managing shipping on its side of the strait, while Muscat would manage part but not all of the opposite lane.

The US military says it has successfully intercepted a barrage of missiles fired by Iran at its troops in Jordan. The sudden attack coincides with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House and comes after a five-day pause in the war. Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar reports from Tehran.

Football’s world governing body announces plans to sell stakes of up to 20 percent in the World Cup and other events.

FIFA has proposed a plan to sell stakes in the World Cup and other events to private investors, provoking a furious response from the European football governing body, UEFA.

Under the plans announced by FIFA on Tuesday, a $20bn subsidiary would be created to run the World Cup and other events.

World football’s governing body said it would retain a majority share in the new FIFA Forward Enterprise, offering minority stakes to external investment to raise up to $4.2bn.

The plan still needs to be voted on by FIFA’s 211 member nations.

If successful, the proposed investor group is expected to be led by a vehicle founded by Joshua Kushner, the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, FIFA said.

UEFA said the proposal “crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross”.

Reinvested in the game

FIFA has just held a 48-team World Cup across the United States, Canada and Mexico – the biggest in the tournament’s history.

It is one of the world’s wealthiest sporting organisations, generating billions of dollars, largely from broadcasting rights, sponsorship and other commercial deals linked to the World Cup.

But it says this proposal can increase funds to widen access to the sport and strengthen global participation, with all net benefits to be reinvested in football.

“Football is the world’s most popular sport,” FIFA President Gianni Infantino said in a statement.

“Parts of the game have turned that popularity into remarkable commercial value – and we celebrate that success and want it to continue, because it lifts the whole game.

“Our job is to make sure the rest of football grows with it: FIFA exists to support sustainable, inclusive development in every corner of the world.”

FIFA said that in addition to retaining sole control of the subsidiary, it would retain authority over football governance, competitions, match calendars and regulatory and sporting decisions.

‘World Cup is not a product’

The proposal deepens the divide between FIFA and UEFA, with Europe positioning itself as football’s custodian, while FIFA, a not-for-profit organisation, says it is focused on broadening access with financial largesse.

In a statement, UEFA said it takes the new proposals “extremely seriously”.

“So should every National Football Association. So should every stakeholder: leagues, clubs, players, supporters, governments and everyone who cares about the future of the game.

“The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade – especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”

The United Kingdom’s new prime minister, Andy Burnham, joined critics, saying on social media that the sport does not belong to investors.

“The World Cup is not a product. It is the greatest competition in world sport, and it was never anyone’s to sell,” Burnham wrote on X.

“Dress the deal up however you like. Once you have sold a piece of it, you have sold out.”

The Houthis recently declared a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea, targeting several tankers.

Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi group says it has fired ballistic missiles at a Saudi oil tanker, more than a week after imposing a naval blockade on Saudi vessels in the Red Sea.

In a post on X, Yahya Saree, the Houthi military spokesman, said the group had “carried out a military operation targeting the Saudi oil tanker (NCC GHAZAL) for violating the maritime navigation ban” that the group had imposed on Saudi vessels.

He added that the group had used several ballistic missiles and forced the vessel to retreat.

The UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), a maritime security monitor, said a tanker reported an explosion while transiting the Red Sea, adding that the crew is safe and no environmental damage was reported.

The Houthis seized the capital Sanaa in 2014 and have fought the internationally recognised Yemeni government, which Saudi Arabia backs, for more than a decade.

On July 20, the Houthis announced their maritime blockade, accusing Saudi leaders of imposing “an unjust and oppressive siege” on Yemen for nearly 12 years, “plundering our resources and imposing a comprehensive blockade”.

It went on to affirm “the right of our great people to respond to the blockade with a blockade”.

Second attack

The Houthis have also claimed an attack on two Saudi oil tankers transiting the Red Sea last week.

“We targeted two Saudi oil tankers, named Encelia and Layla, for their violation of the blockade decision issued by the armed forces,” Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree said on July 22.

The Saudi Press Agency reported that the Encelia had been hit, citing an official source at Saudi Arabia’s Transport General Authority who said all crew members were safe.

The Bab al-Mandeb chokepoint connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden is one of the world’s most important shipping routes, including for oil exports.

Between Yemen to the northeast and Djibouti and Eritrea in the Horn of Africa to the southwest, the strait is just 29km (18 miles) at its narrowest point, limiting traffic to two channels for inbound and outbound vessels heading to the Suez Canal.

In 2024, about 4.1 billion barrels of crude oil and refined petroleum products passed through the strait – about 5 percent of the global total.

Oman’s proposal is based on the Strait of Malacca in East Asia, a model whereby ships that use the strait provide voluntary fees.

Iran and Oman have exchanged proposals regarding the future management of the Strait of Hormuz, as points of contention continue to exist between the two nations whose territorial waters border the strategic waterway.

Oman presented a proposal to Iran ⁠for ⁠a joint regional mechanism to manage the Strait of Hormuz with “voluntary fees”, Reuters reported on Tuesday. Under the Omani proposal, which reportedly has regional backing, Iran would not exercise sole control ⁠of the strait, an unnamed Gulf source and Western diplomat ⁠told the news agency.

Oman’s proposal is reportedly based on the Strait of Malacca, which connects the Indian and Pacific Oceans. There, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore ask ships that use the strait to voluntarily contribute to fund navigation, environmental protection, and ‌search-and-rescue operations.

This proposal aims to contribute to ending the global disruption to trade caused by the strait’s closure in the US-Israeli war on Iran. Tehran, however, says the strait ⁠cannot go back to its pre-war status where shipping flowed freely,

In comments to Iranian state media on Tuesday, Kazem Gharibabadi, the country’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, said Tehran rejects an Omani proposal for an equal division of transit routes between the two countries, as such a plan does not address Tehran’s security concerns.

Gharibabadi said that Tehran proposed to Oman that Iran would manage shipping through its side of ‌the strait and Muscat would manage part but not all of the opposite lane.

He added that Tehran has “no plans to negotiate with the US”, but affirmed talks are proceeding “step by step” with Oman, warning that Tehran will consider “any action” to maintain control over the strait, including the resumption of war.

“The Omanis are now suggesting three lines for the maritime traffic: one that runs through Iran’s territorial waters, an international one, and one through Omani territorial waters,” said Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar, reporting from Tehran. “Despite public statements, our sources tell us Iran is demonstrating some flexibility.”

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi, also reporting from Tehran, said there remain many “points of contention” between Oman and Iran on Hormuz. These include the trajectory of the ships, the fees, the question of who will define the arrangements, and mine clearances – which will reportedly be Iran’s responsibility.

Paul Musgrave, a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar, said Oman’s proposal to Iran to get the Strait of Hormuz running again is positive, but it remains to be seen if hardliners in Iran will go for it.

Musgrave noted that under the Strait of Malacca model, voluntary contributions raise about $70m annually, far from the $1m per ship that’s reportedly been proposed by Tehran as a “service fee” in the Strait of Hormuz.

Meanwhile, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) foreign ministers met via video call on Tuesday to discuss the latest developments in the conflict, including ways to improve cooperation on issues surrounding freedom and navigation through the waterway, a statement from the Qatari Foreign Ministry said.

The United States suspended a nearly two-week-long campaign of air strikes against Iran over the weekend after pressure from regional mediators to find a diplomatic solution and to return to the memorandum of understanding signed in June, which would allow shipping to resume in the Strait of Hormuz. The strait carried one-fifth of global energy supplies before ⁠the February 28 start of the US-Israel war on Iran.

Deir el-Balah, Gaza – For years, Nuha Abu Lebda dreamed of becoming a mother. But Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza has turned that dream into loss, time and time again.

As she was forcibly displaced several times across the Gaza Strip since the war began in October 2023, Abu Lebda lost three pregnancies. She says the losses came after months of air strikes, hunger, fear and living without proper medical care.

“I miscarried because of the air strikes, the displacement, the difficult conditions, the lack of clean water and malnutrition,” she tells Al Jazeera.

After each miscarriage, she hoped she could still become a mother.

“When I lost my baby, I was exhausted. I woke up hoping my baby was still inside me. But the dream I carried for 10 years was gone.”

Abu Lebda sold her gold and almost everything she owned to pay for injections of heparin, a drug prescribed to some women to prevent blood clotting during pregnancy. She hoped the treatment would help her bring her pregnancies to term, but she lost the babies despite it.

“I cried so much because I lost the baby I dreamed of every single day,” she laments.

Even after the fighting slowed, her dream remained the same. “I dream of bringing a baby into this world. I want to be a mother and have children. Every time I see my husband playing with children, I start crying.”

Medical officials in Gaza say they are treating a surge in miscarriages, which they link directly to Israel’s genocidal war and blockade. The trend has worsened as Gaza’s health system has collapsed under bombardments and Israeli ground operations with malnutrition and psychological strain cited as key drivers.

Dr Yasser Saadeddine, the maternity director at al-Awda Hospital in Deir el-Balah in central Gaza, told Al Jazeera roughly 70 percent of pregnancy losses his team treats are linked to the war and blockade.

‘I lost my daughter during childbirth’

Abu Lebda is one of many women in Gaza who say they have lost pregnancies during the war. They describe miscarriages, premature births and losing newborns while trying to survive bombardments, displacement, hunger and the collapsing healthcare system.

Mai Zaqout tells Al Jazeera she lost her daughter because she could not access the medical care she needed.

“I lost my daughter during childbirth. She had already died inside my womb for a month, but I could not deliver her because the medical resources and support I needed were not available,” she says.

Her loss came shortly after another tragedy. “All of this happened within a very short time after my husband was killed.”

For Sara al-Awad, she had a scare when she was eight months pregnant. She says powerful explosions in Tal al-Hawa, a neighbourhood in Gaza City, caused extreme fear and stress, leading to severe bleeding.

“Because of the fear, anxiety and the power of the explosions, I started bleeding. My placenta had separated.”

Al-Awad says no ambulance could reach her, and she waited for hours before her brother took her to al-Quds Hospital in a wheelchair. “The doctors decided I needed an emergency C-section immediately.”

Her baby, Muhammad, was born weighing only 1.1kg (2.4lb) and was placed in an incubator. But as fighting continued around the hospital, Sara and her family were separated from him.

“My brother had to leave for the south while Muhammad stayed alone in the incubator. We could only check on him through messages from the medical staff,” she says.

After more than a month, al-Awad was finally reunited with her baby. “Thank God, the ceasefire came. … Muhammad left the incubator after 37 days.”

‘I witnessed horrific situations’

Across Gaza, other women have similar stories.

For Iman Badah, the loss was of the child she had waited years for.

“I am a mother who lost my only son. I waited six years to have him. I gave birth prematurely while I was being displaced,” she tells Al Jazeera.

Nuha Salameh was carrying twins during the war. “Fear and trauma caused me to lose them.”

She says doctors told her that, before the war, her babies may have survived.

“The doctor told me that if the situation had been normal, we would have placed them in the incubator, and they would have lived.”

Nidaa Seyam says she experienced her second miscarriage during the war. “I lost a baby girl, and this is the second time I have miscarried.”

She says doctors told her the war conditions affected her pregnancy. “They told me it was because of the psychological stress we are living through and malnutrition.”

She also describes surviving intense bombardment.

“I witnessed horrific situations where I was trapped under air strikes. I inhaled a lot of toxic fumes.”

‘War, blockade, malnutrition, displacement’

Palestinian doctors say these stories are becoming more common.

They report more miscarriages and pregnancy complications linked to hunger, stress, displacement and the lack of medical care.

At al-Awda Hospital, doctors say they have seen a major increase in pregnancy losses.

“During the war, there was a significant increase in miscarriage cases we received,” Saadeddine says.

He says the causes include “the war and the blockade, including malnutrition, poor hygiene, environmental contamination and continuous displacement”.

Doctors say miscarriages are only one part of the crisis. They are also seeing more babies dying in the womb, more premature deliveries and more dangerous pregnancy complications.

Many women lost their homes, medical records and access to regular check-ups during repeated displacements. Hospitals are also struggling with shortages of medicines, equipment and medical staff.

For many mothers, the war has left wounds that continue to hurt even after most of the fighting has stopped. For women in Gaza, the war has not ended with October’s “ceasefire”. It continues with every pregnancy lost, and every dream of motherhood left unfulfilled.

Iran rejected US President Donald Trump’s claim that ships damaged by Iran in the Gulf would be compensated from frozen Iranian funds. IRGC spokesperson Ebrahim Zolfaghari warned that any vessel taking such money will be banned from transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

Last week, it was reported that US President Donald Trump placed massive attacks on Iran on hold after a meeting with advisers at the White House. Clearly, domestic political pressure on him and on the Republican Party over rising economic costs is fierce. Current polls suggest nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose the war.

Despite assertions, notably by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, that Iran’s military has reached “its lowest point ever”, Iran is still able to conduct massive drone and missile strikes. Some intelligence suggests Iran has reconstituted and increased its capacity to build these weapons.

Meanwhile, the US has moved more aircraft and missile defence units in preparation for what may be a campaign to target staging points for Iranian forces. Two Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) and components of the 82nd or 101st Airborne are currently stationed in the region.

Yet, reports that the US and its Gulf allies have exhausted defensive missile magazines, as well as Tomahawk land-attack missiles, may be a powerful constraint.

While Trump appears not to have made a decision yet, he has several options on how to move forward.

The first option is ramping up air and missile strikes. One of the challenges of this strategy is that the list of military targets may have been exhausted. If so, expanding the aerial campaign would mean attacking largely civilian infrastructure, including energy production facilities, electricity and power grids, bridges and roads, and television and phone networks. The likely outcomes are all bad.

Trump would be accused of war crimes. The Iranian public would coalesce in their resentment against the US. Iran’s ability to strike back would not be significantly curbed and it may strike Gulf desalination and energy infrastructure. The result would be a humanitarian catastrophe. No plans exist to deal with this contingency. And of course, oil could soar to $150 or even $200 a barrel, triggering an international economic disaster.

Another option is a ground invasion of some sort. The forces currently deployed in the region are too small to achieve any realistic military objectives. A MEU numbers about 2,500 marines and only 800 of them are infantry, able to conduct very limited ground operations. Airborne units deploy with only a few days worth of bullets, beans and batteries. Resupply is essential for these units.

As retired US Army General Barry McCaffery has pointed out, even 150,000 troops may not be enough to secure control of the Strait of Hormuz along the Iranian coast.

Attacking Kharg Island requires a long and dangerous transit from the western end of the Strait of Hormuz. That would create conditions for a high number of casualties among US troops.

The third option is for Trump to employ a nuclear weapon, at least as a demonstration shot. That would open a catastrophic Pandora’s box of consequences. Trump would be declared a war criminal. Wherever and however the weapon is detonated—an air or surface burst—it would have destructive outcomes.

If exploded exoatmospherically, the nuclear bomb would emit an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) which would destroy virtually all chip-installed systems for hundreds of miles beyond Iran. Few modern militaries, including in the Gulf, are protected from EMP due to costs. A surface burst would form a radioactive cloud that would travel east given the winds and affect populations well beyond Iran.

A major geopolitical consequence would be that such an attack could change the way Russia’s President Vladimir Putin sees the possibility of using nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine.

Given this list of unpalatable options, the most promising is to claim victory and pursue negotiations. Trump will say he has brought Iran to the negotiating table even though talks between Washington and Tehran have not stopped despite the escalation. The first issue would be reopening the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb. Oil prices would drop. Stock markets would rebound.

Trump would take the credit. And a devastating war and economic crisis would be sensibly avoided. This is his best and only sensible option.

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

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long presented his closeness to the United States – both politically and personally – as evidence of his indispensability to Israel.

Arriving with a camera-ready American accent after spending a large portion of his youth in the country, Netanyahu is said to have used his unique understanding of US politics to charm and cajole numerous presidents into maintaining their unflagging support of Israel and his personal political projects.

For a time it appeared as though US President Donald Trump was the most amenable of all past presidents to Israel and to Netanyahu, particularly after he became the first US leader to agree to participate in a joint war with Israel against Iran.

And yet, with that war stalling, Trump appearing more willing to make deals in the Middle East without Israeli input, and increasing criticism of Israel in the US, there is a sense in Israel that Netanyahu’s Trump card may not be as useful as it once was.

That has come at a bad time for Netanyahu, who faces an election at home in late October and an ongoing trial for corruption, as well as several unresolved conflicts in the region.

Netanyahu’s visit to Washington on Tuesday to meet Trump – his first since the war on Iran began – therefore is an opportunity for a refresh – and a photo opportunity to remind the Israeli public of his ties to the US president.

The optics

Strains in Netanyahu’s relationship with Trump have been growing since the start of the war on Iran, after reporting emerged that it was the Israeli prime minister who convinced the US president of the feasibility of the mission, and the potential for the Iranian state to be overthrown.

Concern has also grown within the US Congress over Netanyahu’s apparent indulgence of Israel’s increasingly violent settler movement – which included the extrajudicial detention of a US senator by settlers – alongside friction over Washington’s decision to consider selling F-35s to Israel’s regional rival Turkiye and agreeing a nuclear cooperation deal with Saudi Arabia.

“The real reason Netanyahu’s got this visit [to Washington] is purely cynical,” Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli ambassador and consul general in New York, told Al Jazeera. “He’s claimed that he’s flying all the way to the US to attend the wake of his apparently great friend [deceased Republican Senator] Lindsey Graham.”

“Supposedly there’s an agenda, supposedly they’re going to talk about Iran, F-35s and Saudi Arabia’s potential nuclear deal,” said Pinkas.

“But really this is about two things: hoping to assure allies and critics within Israel that the relationship with Trump holds and, separately, hoping that Trump will again call for his pardon in the corruption trial,” he added, referring to Trump’s unorthodox intervention in Israel on Netanyahu’s behalf in November 2025.

However, while Netanyahu may be hoping that a good meeting with Trump may help him in the polls, he arrives at a time when his stock in the US is potentially at its lowest.

Netanyahu has received widespread criticism from figures on the American right, such as podcast host Tucker Carlson and the former Republican US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. Vice President JD Vance has also been critical of “some” Israelis, using an interview with US podcaster Joe Rogan to suggest that figures within the Israeli government were trying to derail the agreement he was brokering with Iran to end the war.

Analysts have suggested that the Trump-Netanyahu meeting will combine public flattery with private cynicism on the US president’s part. Asked about Netanyahu’s public resistance to the F-35 sale to Turkiye on board Air Force One on Monday, Trump told reporters, “Nobody tells me what we should be selling”.

“Netanyahu arrives in Washington at a time when even many around [Trump] are suspicious of him. He has become toxic in the US,” Ahron Bregman, an Israeli security analyst and senior teaching fellow in the Department for War Studies at King’s College London. “He is regarded in the US – rightly or wrongly – as the one who dragged Trump into a war of choice that has turned into a strategic catastrophe. Nobody, not even Trump, will let him pretend to be the cleverest guy in the room. Those days are gone.”

While few expect any overt signs of disharmony from the visit in public, Netanyahu’s ability to present himself as uniquely positioned to manage the country’s relationship with the US – a key factor in the upcoming election – may be limited.

“Netanyahu’s had a tremendous track record with the US, but he’s burned a lot of bridges,” Mitchell Barak, an Israeli pollster and a former Netanyahu aide in the 1990s, told Al Jazeera, adding that the criticism of Netanyahu was not isolated to figures within the nationalist wing of the Republican Party, but included Israel’s traditional allies within the party’s centre right.

“We’ve seen tension through Trump’s comments on the various F-35 sales, including most recently to Turkiye, as well as US criticism of Netanyahu at the start of the Iran war, so I’m not too sure if Trump’s going to be stumping for Netanyahu for all that much longer,” Barak said. “It could easily be that Trump declares Netanyahu was a great wartime leader, but that it was time for Israel to move on, before meeting with [other Israeli politicians] and endorsing a new prime minister for Israel.”

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi is leading a high-level delegation to Turkiye, in his first visit to the neighbouring country since taking office in May.

Accompanied by ministers and senior officials, al-Zaidi’s visit on Tuesday will focus on “strategic cooperation” between the two countries, as well as issues related to security, water and the economy, according to government spokesman Haider al-Aboudi.

Relations between Iraq and Turkiye have fluctuated over the past decade but remained a priority for both sides, particularly for Iraq in relation to oil and water resources.

And the launch of the US-Israel war on Iran in February and the subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz have elevated Ankara’s importance for Baghdad, prompting it to press Turkish authorities to resume and increase the exporting of oil through the Iraqi-Turkiye pipeline after years of suspension.

New oil agreement

The two countries are seeking to sign an oil pipeline agreement that governs the export of Iraqi oil after the expiration of the previous deal on Monday.

A source from Iraq’s Ministry of Oil told Al Jazeera that a technical delegation arrived in Ankara late last week to finalise a one-year extension of the old oil-exporting agreement until a new deal is concluded.

“The new Turkish terms regarding a new agreement are very difficult to be accepted by Iraq. For this reason, no one other than the Iraqi council of ministers is to take such a decision regarding this issue,” said the official on condition of anonymity.

”Turkiye wants to increase the interest from $1.35 for each barrel to $7, and the export capacity must not be less than 1.5 million bpd [barrels per day], whether Iraq can reach this level or not,” the source added.

Part of al-Zaidi’s plan is to find new energy deals and secure alternate routes to export Iraqi crude via Turkiye and Syria and to the Mediterranean Sea.

Iraq signed energy deals estimated at $200bn with US companies during al-Zaidi’s visit to the United States earlier this month, and the government aims to increase its oil and gas production, as well as to diversify exporting options.

“There is an urgent need to find new export outlets away from the Strait of Hormuz, which no longer meets Iraq’s requirements. We must expedite and shorten the timeframe for negotiations and contracting in order to establish new export routes,” said Iraqi Oil Minister Basim Khudair.

Development Route 

During his visit, al-Zaidi is also expected to pursue the establishment of strong trade, development and economic ties while seeking to draw from Turkiye’s experience across different industries.

A government source told Al Jazeera that the prime minister will highlight the importance of utilising Turkish expertise in the energy, infrastructure and transport sectors to boost Iraq’s development initiatives.

Among the main projects is the so-called Development Route – a vital transport project that connects Iraq’s al-Fao port in the south all the way north to the Iraq-Turkiye-Syria border triangle through a 1,200km (746-mile) rail and a highway network that passes through 10 Iraqi provinces.

Abd al-Jabar Ahmad, a professor of political science, said continued attacks by armed groups “have effectively derailed” the project.

He also cast doubt al-Zaidi visit’s will yield major results in relation to it, pointing to Ankara’s involvement in a transport corridor seeking to link Turkiye to Jordan through Syria and then Saudi Arabia.

“In my view, the Saudi project stripped Iraq’s Development Road Project of much of its economic and investment appeal,” he added.

Water and security   

Water management is also expected to be prioritised during al-Zaidi’s discussions in Turkiye.

Iraq blames Turkiye for building dams that have affected the flow of water from its two main rivers – the Tigris and the Euphrates – which originate in Turkish territory.

“Iraq views it as an issue that impacts the future of millions of Iraqis,” said the government source.

But the most complicated and sensitive issue concerns security – particularly, the presence of Turkish forces on Iraqi soil to fight the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which Turkiye, the US and European Union have designated as a “terrorist” group.

Military estimates suggest that Turkiye has about 50 small and big bases in three Iraqi provinces – Erbil, Duhok and Nineveh – hosting some 5,000 soldiers and weaponry, including artillery and armoured vehicles, as well as heavy and medium arms.

In mid-2025, the PKK announced it had taken its first steps towards disarmament as part of a wider peace deal with Ankara to end 40 years of war against the Turkish state in a conflict that has killed more than 40,000 people. Still, Turkiye continues to view the armed group’s presence in different mountainous areas in northern Iraq as a national security threat.

But despite the challenges, there is wide support in Iraq to strengthen relations with Turkiye, driven by the belief that ties with the neighbouring country remain important and serve Iraq’s national interests.

“There is a strong Iraqi desire to deepen relations with Turkiye in many aspects, especially in oil as Turkiye becomes one of the most important countries in the region in terms of transit routes for exporting oil to Europe and the rest of the world,” said Issam al-Faily, a political science professor.

“The problem lies in the nature of the Iraqi political climate, which is affected by the ongoing power struggles. The covert Turkish–Iranian rivalry may be one of the reasons that could prevent al-Zaidi from achieving his aspirations in relations with Turkiye. He should balance these very critical issues, if he wants this visit to be successful,” added al-Faily.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has arrived in Washington, DC, and will visit the White House on Tuesday, with the war on Iran topping the agenda.

Netanyahu’s visit is his first for talks with President Donald Trump since the United States and Israel launched their war on Iran with strikes on Tehran on February 28. It also comes amid increasing Israeli raids and arrests in the occupied West Bank and three months before elections in Israel.

He has visited the White House more times under the Trump administration than under any other US president. Political analysts say Netanyahu is seeking Trump’s support for re-election.

What are the two leaders likely to discuss and what happens next in the US-Israel war on Iran?

Here’s what we know:

Why are Trump and Netanyahu meeting now?

Netanyahu is primarily in the US to attend the funeral ceremony of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who died on July 11.

Graham was a close Trump ally in the Senate, both on domestic and international matters, including the war on Iran, as well as a staunch supporter of Israel. His funeral ceremony will take place on Tuesday in Washington, DC, beginning at 2pm (19:00 GMT).

Before attending Graham’s memorial, Netanyahu is also expected to meet Trump at 11am (15:00 GMT) in Washington, DC, where protesters have lined the streets in anticipation of his visit.

He is scheduled to fly back to Israel on Wednesday.

What are Trump and Netanyahu likely to discuss?

A White House official told the Reuters news agency that the two leaders were likely to discuss the war on Iran as well as Israeli strikes and occupation of Lebanon, whose president Trump hosted last week. Israel says it is targeting strongholds of the Iran-backed group Hezbollah, which began firing rockets into its north shortly after the war on Iran began. However, Iran says it will not agree to a peace deal unless Israeli forces withdraw from Lebanon.

Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher said many people in Israel believe the US should not make a deal with Iran and should instead resume the war. He said some in the US support this view.

“Now, Trump has expressed his frustration with Netanyahu and has said several times that he feels the Israeli leader is not seeing the big picture. And sometimes you’re not sure whether both men are on the same page or whether they are diametrically opposed to one another. So it will be interesting to see if we get any readout from either side after that meeting,” he said.

Fisher, however, added that the outcome of the meeting between Trump and Netanyahu is currently not expected to be made public.

The White House official also told Reuters that the two leaders would also discuss the Abraham Accords, the series of agreements between Israel and Arab and other nations which Trump began brokering during his first term as US president to normalise diplomatic relations. So far, only the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan and Kazakhstan have agreed to sign.

Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, DC comes amid intensifying pogroms and violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinian communities across the occupied West Bank over the weekend following a deadly shootout in the town of Tal, in which two Israelis and four Palestinians were killed.

Israeli settlers have been making a push to increase the number of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank since 2022, when Netanyahu formed the most far-right government in the country’s history, including ministers who are leading figures in the settler movement.

Expanding the illegal settlements would help Netanyahu garner the far right’s support in the upcoming elections, political observers say.

However, in a letter published on Tuesday, about 600 former Israeli officials appealed to Trump, saying he is the only one capable of helping to avoid the “calamity” of escalating violence in the West Bank and its implications for Israeli, US and regional security.

“Unless arrested swiftly and decisively, escalating violence in the West Bank is poised to ignite the region and carries severe ramifications for both Israeli security and US regional interests,” the letter, written by lobby group Commanders for Israel’s Security (CIS), stated.

“It is our professional judgment that no one but you, Mr President, can avert this calamity.”

CIS is a movement of more than 550 retired Israeli army colonels and generals, as well as equivalent ranks in the intelligence agency Mossad, the internal security agency Shin Bet, police, the foreign service and other corps.

What do Trump and Netanyahu currently disagree on?

The two leaders once appeared politically inseparable, with Netanyahu describing Trump as the “greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House” last October. Trump returned the praise. During a 2025 appearance in Israel, he joked, “He’s not easy – not the easiest guy to deal with – but that’s what makes him great.”

But Israel’s hostilities with Iran have showcased a crack in Netanyahu and Trump’s alignment.

War on Iran

Last month, Trump reportedly called Netanyahu “f****** crazy” during a phone call and accused him of undermining US diplomatic efforts to end the war on Iran by continuing attacks on Lebanon, among other issues. He warned that Israel’s military escalation risked derailing peace talks with Iran.

“He will have no choice,” Trump told the Financial Times when asked about the likelihood of Netanyahu approving a possible peace agreement with Iran. “I call the shots. I call all the shots. He doesn’t call the shots.”

Political observers say the two leaders are each driven by their own political interests, which are on a collision course. In the US, the war with Iran is deeply unpopular, so Trump needs to reach a deal with Iran to end the war. Netanyahu, on the other hand, could benefit politically at home if it were to continue.

‘Regime change’ in Iran

“Regime change” in Iran appears to be a major sticking point between the two leaders.

Alex Vatanka at the Middle East Institute told Al Jazeera that Netanyahu is likely to try and “sell the idea of regime change again in Tehran” when he meets Trump at the White House on Tuesday.

“I don’t think it will go down well with President Trump because he doesn’t want to do that,” Vatanka said. “Politically, in the US, this war is hugely unpopular, so it remains to be seen what Prime Minister Netanyahu gets out of this meeting.”

He added that previous meetings between Trump and Netanyahu in Washington, DC, have often preceded a flare-up in tensions with Iran, and it remains to be seen whether this one breaks that pattern.

Vatanka said Israelis are still unhappy with the Trump administration about the memorandum of understanding agreed with Tehran, because they “have a different sense of threat perception when it comes to Iran”.

Israeli officials will want Netanyahu to continue to press Trump on Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programmes, he said.

“The Trump administration’s counter to that is there is only so much the US can do militarily unless they decide to go in and occupy Iran, and this is something nobody really takes seriously,” he added.

But in a video statement before departing for Washington, DC, Netanyahu said: “In these complex times, you need to act with both great determination and great wisdom. We will discuss all the issues ⁠on the agenda, primarily Iran.”

“Of course, our goal is to protect our security and also to expand the circle of peace around us,” he added.

Lebanon

Israel has also refused to withdraw from Lebanon, insisting that it has the right to bomb the country at any time to respond to “threats”.

According to Axios, in a phone call in early June, Trump told Netanyahu: “Everybody hates you now … everybody hates Israel because of this.”

According to an Israeli official quoted by CNN, Netanyahu told his security cabinet on Sunday that the Trump administration wants Israel to withdraw from Lebanon, Syria and Gaza but he would oppose the idea.

US-Turkiye aircraft deal

Al Jazeera’s Fisher noted that another point of friction between the two leaders is Washington’s sale of F-35 aircraft to Turkiye.

“Netanyahu doesn’t want that to happen. Trump was asked about it in the last few hours, and he said we will sell to whoever he wants. So it could be a very interesting meeting at the White House on Tuesday,” Fisher said.

In July, in an interview with Fox News, Netanyahu said: “I don’t think they [Turkiye] should be given F-35s or the engines for their fighter jets because that’ll upset the power balance in the Middle East, which is ultimately guaranteed by Israeli air superiority, and also by, I think, by America’s posture in the Middle East.”

So, do Trump and Netanyahu agree on anything?

Currently, there are frictions between the two leaders’ policies towards the June 17 MoU between the US and Iran that made provision for a regional ceasefire, including in Lebanon.

In February, a White House official told reporters that the Trump administration also opposes any Israeli annexation of the occupied West Bank.

Netanyahu has, however, brushed off frictions with Trump and said their ties are “fine”.

In an interview with Fox News in early July, Netanyahu heaped praise on the US and Trump.

“America has been a tremendous force for good, and without America, there won’t be any democracy in the world, and there won’t be any freedom in the world,” he said.

Netanyahu said there may be some differences between the US and Israel, but the two countries are “model allies”.

“My relationship with the president is fine, and we have a way of ironing out our differences as allies who respect each other,” he said, adding that he would smooth things over.

But an Israeli official told CNN on Monday that it had taken time to schedule the meeting with Trump, and that Netanyahu got confirmation only once Graham’s funeral had been announced.

Speaking to reporters about the war on Iran on board Air Force One while travelling to Michigan on Monday, Trump said Israel “needs the US”.

“You know who wouldn’t survive without us? Israel. Bibi’s coming, he’ll tell you,” he said.

“If I didn’t get involved, and I didn’t blow up those nuclear, essentially, soon-to-be nuclear weapons to dust, Israel would have been terminated months ago.”

Trump added that he and Netanyahu remain “pretty close”.

What happens next?

Amid frictions, it is unclear whether the meeting will end with Israel and the US continuing their war on Iran and Israel continuing its attacks on southern Lebanon, Gaza and in the occupied West Bank.

Therefore, it is going to be a high-stakes meeting for Netanyahu.

Sources have also told Reuters that Netanyahu would use the meeting to lobby for Trump’s support for his re-election campaign ahead of an October 27 vote.

A meeting with Trump will, he hopes, showcase what has traditionally been ⁠a close relationship between the two leaders and could help Netanyahu at home, where he is struggling in opinion polls.

US President Donald Trump says talks with Iran are continuing during a pause in US military strikes, adding he believes there is ‘a good chance’ of a breakthrough but warning military action could resume if negotiations fail.

US accused France of “condescending” rhetoric over its human rights stances

United States diplomats walked out of a United Nations Security Council meeting on Russia’s war against Ukraine as France’s delegation took the floor.

The walkout on Monday came two days after an online exchange between US and French officials over Washington voting against renewing the four-year term of UN human rights chief Volker Turk.

France’s UN Mission in Geneva wrote on Saturday that the US was no longer a “beacon of human rights” and stood isolated alongside North Korea, Nicaragua, Mali and Russia.

US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz replied on X that France had voted for a rights chief who “has been lecturing free, sovereign democracies like the United States, the UK, and Israel, while cozying up to the world’s worst oppressors”.

After the walkout, Dan Negrea, an alternate US representative, told the council that his delegation would keep walking out until France renounced its “condescending and disrespectful rhetoric”.

France’s ambassador, Jerome Bonnafont, did not mention the walkout when he spoke, saying France was working to preserve the UN’s independence and its capacity to act.

Turk, who has criticised violations of international law by Israel and the US in Palestine and Iran, was reappointed by a UN General Assembly vote of 144 in favour, 10 against and 13 abstentions.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has cut funding to UN agencies and withdrawn from dozens of UN entities since 2025. It had also threatened to reassess its engagement over Turk’s mandate.

Washington and Paris have also clashed over NATO spending, trade policy and Trump’s threats to occupy Greenland, a territory of NATO member Denmark.

France, along with other European states, has also drawn Trump’s ire for refusing direct participation in the US-Israel war on Iran.

Drones launched at Saudi, Jordan and Iraq suggest Iran, or linked groups, may be testing US as it mulls new strategy.

Saudi Arabia has reported intercepting drones that targeted oil facilities in its eastern province and Riyadh.

Saudi’s Foreign Ministry said it “reserves the right to respond” to the attack, which it attributed to Iran-backed armed groups in Iraq.

Separately, Yemen’s Houthi rebels said in a statement on Monday that they had targeted Saudi crude oil transport infrastructure.

It remains unclear whether the two incidents were coordinated or separate.

The attack comes amid a lull in hostilities between the United States and Iran, with mediators suggesting the chances of a return to negotiations have risen.

Following two weeks of intense hostilities, US officials have spoken of a change in strategy, and Washington has paused strikes on Iran.

Iran has said it has also paused its attacks on US allies across the Gulf region.

However, the drone attacks on Saudi and elsewhere suggest that Tehran may be testing the new US stance, and that the armed groups believed to be linked to Iran are not ready to follow suit.

Aside from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq also reported drone attacks on Monday. Amman said it shot down two drones, while Iraqi security sources reported strikes on camps housing Iranian-Kurdish opposition fighters in the country’s north.

The officials did not identify the source of either attack, but Jordan and northern Iraq were locations in which four US service members were killed over the past fortnight of conflict.

The Houthis announced later on Monday that nine of its fighters had been killed amid escalating military confrontations with Yemeni government forces backed by the Saudi-led coalition in recent days.

No word on jailed Tunisian opposition leader Ghannouchi for 11 days, his son tells Al Jazeera.

The son of jailed Tunisian opposition leader Rached Ghannouchi says his family and lawyers have been unable to see or contact the 85-year-old for 11 days since he was hospitalised after collapsing in prison.

In an interview with Al Jazeera on Monday, Moadh Ghannouchi said the last time lawyers saw his father was days before he temporarily lost consciousness on July 17, and that requests to visit him in hospital, including one submitted to the public prosecutor, had been refused, leaving the family with no confirmation of his whereabouts or condition.

“It is like a situation of enforced disappearance,” he said.

Ghannouchi said his father, who has high blood pressure and difficulty breathing, had been left exposed to a severe heatwave in a prison with no air conditioning.

“We hold the authorities fully responsible for his condition,” he said, alleging that his father’s confinement in a stiflingly hot prison was intended to worsen his health.

“It was not enough to imprison him – they want to torment him further,” Moadh told Al Jazeera.

“This is stressful for us and certainly for him as well because he’s used to always having a number of visits every week from lawyers and from family – so it has been 11 days cut off from everything, from every visit, from everyone.”

Ghannouchi said conflicting rumours had spread on social media, with some placing his father at the Rabta public hospital in Tunis, others at a military hospital, and some claiming he had suffered a heart attack. But the family has received no official information, he said, with the authorities refusing to communicate.

In a statement on his official Facebook page on Monday, Ghannouchi’s defence team demanded information on his condition. An Ennahda party spokesperson told Al Jazeera that it did not know which hospital he is in or his state of health.

The former speaker of parliament and most prominent figure detained in President Kais Saied’s crackdown on opponents has been jailed since April 2023 after receiving a life sentence that his supporters say was politically motivated. Saied’s government denies that prosecutions of opponents are politically driven.

Rached Ghannouchi lost consciousness last week as temperatures inside Mornaguia prison climbed, according to Haifa Chebbi, daughter of another imprisoned opposition figure. She said she witnessed the incident and that the temperature reached 52C (126F). His lawyers said on Thursday that his condition was “critical.”

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention previously found that Ghannouchi’s detention was arbitrary and called for his immediate release, a ruling his son said authorities ignored.

On Sunday, the National Salvation Front, a broad opposition coalition, urged the authorities to issue an immediate statement on his health and Amnesty International called for the protection of prisoners during the heatwave.

Months after the United Nations Security Council backed a comprehensive framework to end Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Israel’s security cabinet has approved a highly constrained pilot project to allow foreign security forces into a narrow pocket of the devastated territory.

Israeli media reported on Sunday that the so-called International Stabilization Force (ISF), part of United States President Donald Trump’s 20-point “peace plan”, will include 200 members from countries such as Morocco and Uganda deploying to a designated “test” zone in the southern city of Rafah.

While international officials have welcomed the move, analysts describe the limited deployment as a calculated diplomatic gesture with little practical effect that comes as the US-backed peace process has largely stalled and as Israel’s deadly attacks continue.

Instead of a genuine transition towards peace, they argue, the move is a political manoeuvre designed to deflect US pressure ahead of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington this week, while simultaneously entrenching the geographic fragmentation of the Gaza Strip.

“Netanyahu is going to Washington to say ‘no’ to the broader demands of withdrawal” from the Strip, says Wissam Afifa, a Gaza-based political analyst. “Instead, he is offering this alternative: ‘Take this small appetiser, take this minor achievement, and play within this highly restricted space.’”

Scaled-back forces and ‘rubber batons’

The Israeli daily Haaretz reported that the original plan anticipated the deployment of 500 Moroccan troops to a refugee camp in the city. The drastic reduction to just 200 troops may indicate that Israel’s political-security cabinet has decided to divide the deployment into even smaller, heavily controlled stages.

The force will operate in full coordination with the Israeli military. According to the Israeli news outlet Ynet, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir was the sole cabinet member to vote against the measure, arguing that the Palestinian group Hamas had failed to fulfill its commitment to disarm and insisting that “the solution in Gaza is to encourage migration”.

Israeli media also reported that the government maintains that the Israeli military will retain control of the “Yellow Line” – a unilaterally imposed boundary that effectively places up to 70 percent of the Gaza Strip under tight Israeli control – and that no withdrawal will take place until Hamas has fully disarmed.

The original framework endorsed by UNSC Resolution 2803 called for the deployment of an international force alongside a transitional Palestinian administration.

Earlier this month, Hamas announced it would dissolve its government in Gaza and hand over power to a new, Palestinian technocratic governing authority called the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG).

Analysts said Hamas’s move was likely designed to apply pressure on Israel and demonstrate the group’s commitment to handing over governance and allowing the rebuilding of the territory.

The pilot programme also envisions the NCAG’s entry to oversee civil affairs in Gaza. Yet, according to Haaretz, the Palestinian police accompanying them will be stripped of firearms, permitted to carry only “rubber batons and tasers”.

Meanwhile, preparations on the ground appear to be moving forward to accommodate this new security architecture. Israeli Army Radio recently broadcast a video showing a military base under construction in the southern “Gaza envelope” near the Karem Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom) crossing.

The station reported that the sprawling facility is being built specifically to host the incoming multinational forces before their deployment.

Despite the severe Israeli restrictions, Nickolay Mladenov, the high representative for the Board of Peace, welcomed the Israeli cabinet’s decision, praising it as a “critical part of the agreed framework for stabilizing Gaza, supporting demilitarization, and enabling the transition to effective Palestinian transitional administration”.

A ‘sweetener’ for Washington

To understand the timing and motivation behind the decision, experts pointed to the diplomatic deadlock surrounding the US-brokered peace initiative. Trump’s plan envisioned a phased approach, bridged by the handover of Gaza to a technocratic committee. However, this framework has been stalled by Israel’s refusal to link a ceasefire to the broader political situation and its rejection of a phased withdrawal.

Afifa said the “failure” of the US administration’s flagship initiative had left it “embarrassed” as the project that was repeatedly highlighted by Trump “as a great achievement, resulted in zero”.

With Netanyahu heading to Washington, the Israeli prime minister desperately needed a deliverable, said Afifa. The cabinet’s decision, passed hastily via a telephone vote during a Knesset recess to avoid internal coalition fractures, provides exactly that, he added.

Mamoun Abu Amer, an expert on Israeli affairs, echoed this assessment. He viewed the rushed cabinet vote as an attempt to preempt US pressure and present an image of compliance to Trump, while fundamentally altering the agreement’s core terms to suit Israel’s long-term security strategy.

Abu Amer also said that Israel has effectively turned Resolution 2803 upside down through selective and highly conditional implementation.

“This is an inverted process,” said Abu Amer. The original text implied that the NCAG would enter Gaza, the ISF would deploy and the Israeli military would withdraw to new lines to allow for stabilisation. Instead, Israel is demanding unilateral disarmament first, while keeping the technocratic committee besieged within an Israeli security envelope.

Abu Amer also suggested the requirement for the Palestinian police force to only carry rubber batons and tasers reflects a premeditated Israeli strategy to strip the Palestinian administration of genuine law enforcement capabilities, reducing them to subcontractors managing municipal decay in a thoroughly devastated environment under a strict military occupation.

The NCAG itself appeared to reject this Israeli paradigm. In a recent statement, the committee declared it would only assume responsibility for Gaza after UNSC approval of the force’s deployment and, crucially, a full Israeli military withdrawal.

‘False witnesses’

The spatial realities of the Israeli plan reveal a strategy of deep fragmentation and long-term control, experts said, pointing to the cabinet’s decision to explicitly restrict the ISF and the technocrats to operating strictly outside the “Yellow Line”.

Afifa warned that transforming a small pocket of Rafah into an “experimental bubble” subverts the idea of Gaza as a single, contiguous territorial entity.

“This raises a massive question about the fate of two million people,” he said. “If this entire project is reduced to a few thousand individuals selected under Israeli criteria, it means a tacit agreement from the international community to leave two million Gazans hostage to a catastrophic humanitarian crisis while Israel claims to be implementing a peace plan.”

This also carries significant diplomatic risks for the participating nations. Israeli media reported the cabinet’s decision stipulated that ISF contributors must be nations that have peace agreements with Israel and do not pursue legal actions against it in international forums.

“It is not wise for an Arab country like Morocco to be a party to helping Netanyahu implement his political agenda,” said Abu Amer, urging participating nations to reject the altered Israeli formula and insist on a comprehensive withdrawal.

Failing to do so, he cautioned, would reduce foreign troops to mere security buffers, acting as “false witnesses” to the continuation of the occupation and the destruction of the Palestinian society.

Israeli soldiers have intensified their offensive in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, raiding at least 20 towns and villages, demolishing homes and arresting dozens of Palestinians, as Arab states and the Arab League condemn escalating settler attacks against Palestinians and their property.

Al Jazeera reporters in the occupied West Bank reported on Monday that Israeli forces had stormed the Jabal Salman area in the town of Beita, south of Nablus, and carried out demolition operations in the town of Nilin, west of Ramallah.

In a separate incursion, forces stormed the town of Arrabeh in Jenin, accompanied by military bulldozers.

Raids and arrests were also reported in Deir al-Ghusun, north of Tulkarem, where five Palestinians were detained.

Four young men were arrested during raids on the Balata camp and Asira al-Shamaliya in Nablus, Quds News reported.

Soldiers raided homes and made arrests in several other villages and towns, including Deir Jarir, Jalbon, Kafr Qaddum, Tal, Burqa, Beit Furik, Anabta, the Aktaba suburb, Qalqilya, Arroub camp and Beit Ummar.

Quds News reported that Israeli soldiers halted an ambulance trying to transport a pregnant woman from the town of Qaryut to a Nablus hospital for treatment for a medical emergency. Her condition deteriorated, leading to a miscarriage.

As the Israeli military continues its crackdown, emboldened settlers have intensified their harassment and violent attacks. Palestinians in the Abu Fuzaa encampment near Taybeh village east of Ramallah were attacked on Monday, and in Al-Burj village, south of Hebron, settlers released cattle among olive trees, damaging agricultural land.

“Israeli settlers continue their attacks against Palestinians, mostly in their homes, at night, intimidating them,” Al Jazeera’s Nida Ibrahim reported. “And what happens is that usually Israeli forces would come in and instead of curbing these settlers, they would conduct arrests in the occupied West Bank among Palestinians.”

Palestinians felt trapped and defenceless, with “no one to protect them”, she said, “while the Israeli settlers have the support of the Israeli army and have the impunity to continue attacking Palestinians without any accountability”.

International condemnation

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has sent letters to several world leaders, the European Union, the Arab League and the president of the United Nations Security Council, calling for urgent action to stop Israeli aggression and settler violence against Palestinians.

Francesca Albanese, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian Territories, wrote in a post on X on Saturday that settler attacks were “pogroms against defenceless civilians”.

The UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Oman, Kuwait and Bahrain issued statements condemning the attacks, including a mosque in Tulkarem being set ablaze.

The Arab League issued a collective condemnation, warning that the situation was approaching a “moment of explosion” and calling on the international community to intervene.

The Spanish government said in a statement on Saturday that Israel “must reverse its policies of settlement expansion and of shielding settler violence against the Palestinian civilian population”.

Hamas official Mahmoud Mardawi described settler attacks on mosques as “systematic fascist crimes”.

Haaretz quoted Israeli military officials describing the situation in the West Bank as “extremely dangerous and volatile”. An editorial in the Israeli newspaper said senior army officers had warned that the government was giving “tailwind” to settler violence, with one reservist officer saying his unit lacked sufficient troops and could only “stand by and watch”.

“We have to remember that this time is very sensitive, because we’re getting closer to Israeli elections, and Netanyahu wants to stay in power. He wants to appease his far-right members and coalition by showing the voters that he will be cracking down more and more on Palestinians,” Al Jazeera’s Ibrahim said.

“He’s trying to get some sort of credit for the attacks against Palestinians and the raids in general.”

Since October 2023, the Israeli military has killed nearly 1,200 Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, according to Arab League figures, in addition to more than 73,000 killed in Gaza during Israel’s genocidal war there.

Germany has approved almost 800 million euros ($913m) in arms export licences to Israel in the first five months of 2026, more than in the previous 20 months combined, the government in Berlin has confirmed.

According to a Federal Foreign Office reply to a parliamentary question by the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, nearly all the approvals were cleared in April and May.

The approvals portend a dramatic surge in weapons exports to Israel from one of the country’s most steadfast allies in Europe despite the German government’s insistence that it is concerned about the devastation wrought by Israel’s military in Gaza.

The big spend

The government said more than 60 percent of the value of the arms licences is earmarked for a single, unnamed “major maritime project”.

The most likely candidate, analysts said, is a submarine built by the German manufacturer TKMS.

The INS Drakon, a nuclear-capable Dolphin II-class submarine, underwent its maiden voyage last year at a shipyard in Kiel on the Baltic Sea. Its estimated value is 480 million euros ($548m). It was officially handed over to the Israeli Navy last week, according to German media reports.

According to several reports, it could feature a vertical launching system (VLS), enabling it to launch nuclear-tipped cruise missiles or ballistic missiles. Israel would become only the second navy after South Korea known to field a VLS on a modern, air-independent propulsion (AIP), conventionally powered submarine.

During its sea trials, the submarine’s tower was covered with tarpaulins and fibreglass plates to prevent observers from determining its weapons configuration. Strategically, submarines of this class could provide a sea-based second-strike capability – the ability of a country to fire back nuclear weapons after it has itself faced a nuclear attack.

In May, TKMS signed a memorandum of understanding on future collaboration with Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest private defence contractor.

The German Foreign Office and Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy, under whose purview arms export licences fall, both declined to comment on the matter.

Max Mutschler, a senior researcher with the Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies, told Al Jazeera: “Unfortunately, the fact that the federal government does not explicitly mention this is also typical of the lack of transparency surrounding arms exports.”

Last year, reports conflicted over whether the export licence for the submarine had been granted. The order dates back to 2012. While TKMS indicated approval, the German government denied it at the time.

Germany’s shifting positions

The hesitation might have stemmed from legal concerns surrounding proceedings against Germany at the International Court of Justice in The Hague as well as shifting public opinion in Germany, which has largely turned against arms exports to Israel. According to media reports, Germany is helping finance about 30 percent of the costs for the Drakon and roughly one-third of those for the future Dakar class.

This month, TKMS was also selected by Canada as the preferred bidder to build up to 12 submarines in what would be the largest order in TKMS’s history. The value of the vessels alone is estimated at 12 billion euros ($13.7bn) to 18 billion euros ($21bn).

For years, submarine deals with Germany have been under investigation by the Israeli judiciary over bribery allegations involving close associates of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Ruth Rohde from the British research organisation Shadow World Investigations told Al Jazeera: “Israel has used German ships to fire at Gaza, to blockade and starve Gaza, and is using submarines to station nuclear weapons. At a time when Israel is waging brutal wars on its neighbours and is committing a genocide in Gaza, this submarine export would give Israel another tool in its arsenal of mass destruction.”

Berlin’s arms export policy towards Israel has been marked by reversals. In early August, Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced that Germany would issue no further licences for military equipment that could be used by Israel in the Gaza Strip. By that time, an Al Jazeera investigation had shown that Germany had already exported almost $12m worth of weapons consignments to Israel since October 2023 when Israel launched its genocidal war on Gaza.

And the partial suspension proved short-lived: In November, the government lifted the restrictions and returned to reviewing export applications on a case-by-case basis. Even during the suspension, previously approved deliveries continued. In September, for instance, a $794,000 weapons consignment from Germany landed at Ben-Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv.

Mutschler told Al Jazeera that some people in government “found the export of certain weapons to Israel problematic in light of numerous and credible reports of Israeli war crimes during the military operation in Gaza”. However, it was not enough to “bring about a generally restrictive arms export policy toward Israel”.

The economic calculation

Germany is one of the world’s largest arms exporters. In the first six months of 2026, licences were granted for arms worth 13.87 billion euros ($15.8bn), according to the Arms Export Report of the Ministry of Economics, published in mid-July. That is more than four times as much as during the same period in 2025. Ukraine remains the primary recipient of German arms exports.

Mutschler explained: “Arms exports have been and continue to be viewed by most federal governments primarily from an economic perspective and welcomed as a means of strengthening the defence industry.” He added: “The fact that these arms shipments can also be used to commit war crimes seems to play a significantly smaller role in the decision-making process.”

As a crisis in Germany’s economy – whose strength has relied primarily on exports, particularly in the car industry – has intensified, its defence industry has boomed in recent years. This development was publicly attributed to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine although plans for increased defence spending had already been prepared beforehand, according to reports.

Pieter D Wezeman, a senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, sees this as a general trend. He told Al Jazeera: “The demand for arms in Europe has increased dramatically over the past few years whereas the demand for arms in many other parts of the world does not seem to be decreasing or is likely to increase.”

The German market remains very important to the country’s arms industry as Germany is set to double its military spending from well below 2 percent of it gross domestic product to a stated goal of 3.5 percent of its GDP within a few years, Wezeman explained. “Germany is now the largest military spender in Europe [not counting Russia], and its arms industry is a core component of the European military-industrial base.”