Middle East

Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is exercising power without appearing in public or allowing his voice to be heard. Since succeeding his father in March, he has governed through written statements and decrees, while reports of his meetings with senior officials offer a glimpse into how he exercises power.

The meetings announced in May and August appeared intended primarily to reassure Iranians that their new leader was alive and exercising authority. But a series of four meetings announced within 11 days in October, involving the heads of Iran’s parliament, judiciary and national security establishment, as well as senior military commanders, suggests something more: a new system of decision-making taking shape.

The meetings come as Tehran weighs its options between negotiations and renewed confrontation with the United States and Israel. They also invite comparisons with the consultations that preceded the 2015 nuclear agreement. The question is whether Iran’s new leadership is preparing for a similarly consequential decision, and whether this system is capable of making one.

The new Khameneism

For nearly 37 years, Ali Khamenei’s rule rested on his direct personal presence: speeches setting red lines, public meetings with commanders, political elites and ordinary Iranians. His son came to power in different circumstances. Injured in the February 28 strike that killed his father, he was advised, according to sources close to him quoted by Reuters, not to appear or release audio recordings for fear of being tracked.

His rule has taken shape through decrees rebuilding institutions, decisions channelled through a narrow circle of trusted officials, and the testimony of others in place of personal appearances.

The October meetings followed appointments to replace military and security commanders killed in the war. In August, Khamenei appointed his military adviser, Mohsen Rezaei, as his representative on the Supreme National Security Council; Rezaei later became its secretary. Six military appointments followed, including Ali Abdollahi as chief of the Armed Forces General Staff, Ahmad Vahidi as commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ali Azmaei as IRGC Navy commander. Abdollahi was also instructed to complete the merger of the General Staff with Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters.

The sequence of Khamenei’s reported meetings is revealing. Those announced in May with President Masoud Pezeshkian and Abdollahi, then head of Khatam al-Anbiya, and another with Pezeshkian announced in August, served chiefly to reassure Iranians that the new leader was alive and exercising his duties. October’s meetings appear to have constituted a systematic round of consultations reaching from constitutional institutions to the armed forces.

At his first reported meeting with the military leadership he had reconstituted, announced on October 31, Abdollahi, army commander Amir Hatami and Vahidi reportedly briefed Khamenei on military readiness in the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman.

Iran thus appears to be moving from reconstruction to operation: activating a decision-making system rather than merely establishing the leader’s presence.

These consultations unfolded alongside intensive mediation, with each stage of internal consultation following an external diplomatic development.

On October 20, Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, carried a Qatari-Pakistani compromise proposal to Tehran. According to Arab media reports, it envisaged unannounced inspections of nuclear facilities in exchange for Iran receiving the interest on its frozen funds in Qatar. Khamenei’s meeting with Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s chief negotiator, was announced the following day.

On October 26, Munir returned with Saudi Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman Al Saud and Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin. Their discussions produced an understanding that regional security was the responsibility of the region’s own states. Rezaei also announced that Tehran had sent Washington a proposal concerning the Strait of Hormuz with a seven-day deadline. Khamenei’s meeting with Rezaei, who had received a letter from US Vice President JD Vance, was announced the next day.

On October 30, Qatari mediators held 12 hours of talks in Tehran, coordinated with the White House, after US envoy Tom Barrack suggested an initial understanding was close. Khamenei’s meeting with military commanders was announced the following day.

This timing suggests that internal consultation has become the other side of external mediation.

The statements from these meetings carry two parallel, not contradictory, messages. In the meeting with Rezaei, Khamenei insisted on Iran’s conditions for ending the war, escaping the debilitating state of “neither war nor peace” and managing the Strait of Hormuz. In his instructions to the commanders, he demanded immediate retaliation against any threat without geographical limits, an expanded list of US and Israeli targets, and emphasised that Iran would decide when any renewed confrontation ended.

Repeated appeals for unity suggest an awareness of competing views within the political elite over war and negotiations.

Yet the meetings appear to have defined the upper and lower limits of Iran’s choices, rather than settled on a particular course: at one end, rejecting an intolerable continuation of “neither war nor peace”; at the other, preparing to widen the war if attacks resume. Between these limits lie a settlement on Iranian terms, pursued through Ghalibaf, Rezaei and the mediators, or continued mutual pressure while strengthening the domestic front.

The gap remains wide. Washington wants nuclear concessions before negotiations resume; Tehran first wants the naval blockade lifted, frozen assets released and oil exports restored.

Significantly, Khamenei spoke of conditions “set by the country’s officials”, not by himself. The wording distributes responsibility among institutions and preserves room for him to embrace or disown an eventual outcome.

The comparison with 2015

There are echoes here of the lengthy consultations before the nuclear agreement of July 14, 2015.

A secret channel in Muscat opened with Ali Khamenei’s approval. On September 17, 2013, he spoke to IRGC commanders of “heroic flexibility”, reassuring the military before negotiations. In June 2015, he set out his red lines, and in October he issued a letter of conditional approval. Responsibility for the nuclear file passed from the Supreme National Security Council to the Foreign Ministry under Mohammad Javad Zarif, a sign that the political decision had been made.

The resemblance is clear: a supreme leader establishes red lines, delegates negotiations to trusted figures and brings the military into the process before a major shift.

The differences are deeper. The earlier process lasted around two years under sanctions, not war. Today’s consultations were compressed into 11 days amid armed confrontation, a naval blockade and the approaching November 3 US midterm elections.

Ali Khamenei spoke in his own voice; his son speaks through written statements. Diplomats led the earlier negotiations; now two figures with IRGC backgrounds, Ghalibaf and Rezaei, play central roles. Where the earlier backchannel ran through Oman, today mediation involves Qatar and the countries of the Mecca Agreement, signed on August 7.

Above all, “heroic flexibility” was presented to commanders as preparation for an agreement. Today, conditions for a settlement sit alongside an expanded list of military targets.

The deficit of trust has also deepened. If the legacy of 1979 shaped Washington’s view of Tehran, and the US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement in 2018 shaped Tehran’s view of Washington, the wars of June 2025 and February 2026 have added a layer of mistrust that no technical agreement can easily overcome.

The consultations thus resemble those of 2013 in form but not function. Then, they prepared the ground for negotiations; now, they prepare for a choice between negotiation and escalation.

The seven reported meetings suggest that the new Khameneism may be more than an attempt to fill a leadership vacuum. Its decision-making machinery appears to be in place and functioning, even though the supreme leader’s presence can be established only through others.

Yet every announcement intended to dispel doubts produces more of them, without photographs or details of exactly when and where the meetings took place. The legitimacy of decisions remains partly dependent on the legitimacy of the leader’s presence.

Can this system, with its new commanders and parallel messages of compromise and deterrence, make a decision as consequential as the one taken in 2015, when war has raised the political cost of flexibility beyond what a leader who has yet to appear publicly may be able to bear?

The father saw and was seen; the son makes his presence felt through endorsements and influence from behind protective barriers.

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

Khan Younis, Gaza – A few metres from the sea, near al-Qarara port on Gaza’s coast, Anas al-Shami, 33, is trying to keep his family of six warm and dry in a dilapidated tent. It offers little protection from wind and rain, while the damp seeps into their bedding and belongings at every moment. The swelling waves in the sea also pose a constant threat as winter approaches.

The beach was not al-Shami’s choice of place to live, but the refuge his family took shelter in after being displaced from their home quickly became overcrowded. They can’t afford anything safer than this tent.

Now, he and his family are living in constant fear of a repeat of last winter’s flooding.

Al-Shami and his family were forced to leave Bani Suheila, east of Khan Younis in southern Gaza, when it became part of Israel’s so-called “Yellow Zone” beyond which Palestinians are not permitted to go.

“I searched for land in displacement areas where I could pitch a tent, but overcrowding and high rental costs made that impossible,” he tells Al Jazeera. “I was therefore forced to stay on the beach, despite the dangers facing my family and me.”

Al-Shami recalls last winter, when seawater and rain flooded his tent while the family was asleep. He would wake to find his children lying in water. Their bedding and belongings were repeatedly soaked, leaving him unable to protect them from the cold as the tent turned into a pond.

Despite trying all year, the family has been unable to find anywhere else to go, leaving them facing another winter on the beach.

“My children’s repeated exposure to water, cold and damp caused serious illness which threatened their lives,” he says.

‘I feel helpless in front of my children’

It’s a familiar story along this stretch of coastline.

Ibrahim Abu Tair, 47, whose family has also been displaced from eastern Khan Younis, is sharing a cramped tent with his seven children on the port’s shoreline. The dilapidated shelter lacks any basic necessities and offers little protection from the cold, rain and wind.

“What hurts me most is feeling helpless in front of my children,” he says. “I cannot provide winter clothes to protect them from the cold or even a dry mattress for them to sleep on.”

The strong wind and the sound of the rising waves keep him awake at night, he says, and he is terrified of another flood like last year’s, when water inundated the tent and forced the family to endure the cold in the open. His greatest wish is to find safe shelter where his children can sleep without fear.

Some families have found a makeshift solution to keep the water at bay.

By filling damaged cooking pots with earth, they have forged a barrier against encroaching seawater alongside the tents.

Mayasem Association, an aid organisation which works in cooperation with World Central Kitchen, has seized on this innovation and is now producing these pot-barriers for families in this area close to al-Qarara port.

The initiative reuses large pots rendered unusable by repeated exposure to flames, corrosion and holes. Three pots, donated by World Central Kitchen, are filled with soil and stacked on top of one another, reaching approximately 150 centimetres in height to form barriers that hold back the incoming water and prevent waves from reaching shelter sites.

“The initiative initially involved building barriers to protect the association’s safe space, which hosts its education programmes, school, cultural activities, arts and heritage programmes,” Khalil Abu Lahia, the association’s emergency response coordinator, tells Al Jazeera. “The idea later developed into an attempt to protect the displaced families’ tents along the coastal strip.”

A winter fraught with risk

While this is an example of the innovative thinking which can help families who are destitute and at risk in Gaza, it is nevertheless only a temporary measure which cannot make up for the widespread lack of safe shelter.

The initiative comes amid a warning from Gaza’s Winter Emergency Committee of a worsening humanitarian catastrophe, as tents and caravans remain in critically short supply as Israeli authorities continue to prevent their entry into the Gaza Strip, alongside the delivery of critical construction materials and fuel.

The committee has reported that Israeli forces have also destroyed about 70 percent of municipalities’ essential operational equipment and 90 percent of civil defence rescue equipment. The fuel crisis means machinery and generators will soon stop functioning altogether, further limiting the ability to respond to floods, carry out rescue operations and clear roads.

In all, there are about 200,000 dilapidated tents sheltering hundreds of thousands of displaced people, including children, women and people with disabilities.

Some 7,800 of them are located in extremely hazardous areas, the committee has warned, including on dry riverbeds which may now flood, rainwater collection ponds and beaches exposed to crashing winter waves. These need to be urgently relocated to safer locations.

About 2,000 cracked buildings are also at risk of collapse, threatening families who have sought refuge inside them. Building materials, caravans, shelter and fuel are all urgently needed, the committee says.

Ten years ago, the Paris Agreement entered into force, binding nearly every country to a shared goal: to hold global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C (2.7F).

A decade on, the deal has helped drive stronger climate policies and a rapid expansion of clean energy. But emissions remain near record highs, temperatures keep climbing and countries are still far from the cuts needed to keep a 1.5C limit within reach.

In this visual explainer, Al Jazeera looks at what the Paris Agreement set out to do, how far global temperatures have risen since and which countries are driving emissions.

What is the Paris Agreement?

The Paris Agreement is a legally binding climate treaty adopted by 196 parties at the United Nations climate summit in Paris, also known as COP21, on December 12, 2015. It entered into force on November 4, 2016.

The United States, the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter after China, has joined and left the agreement twice. President Donald Trump ordered both withdrawals. The first took effect in November 2020, and President Joe Biden rejoined in February 2021. The US left again in January this year, 12 months after Trump ordered its exit for a second time.

Today, 194 parties, 193 countries and the European Union, belong to the agreement.

Rather than imposing the same cuts on everyone, the agreement asks each government to set its own targets through nationally determined contributions, or NDCs, outlining how it will cut emissions and adapt to climate change.

Countries submit a new, more ambitious NDC every five years, and a Global Stocktake assesses collective progress on the same cycle. The agreement also covers reporting, climate finance and support for developing countries.

The agreement does not force countries to meet their targets. It relies on transparency and international pressure to raise ambition.

How close is the world to breaking the 1.5C limit?

Temperatures have kept rising since the deal was adopted.

In 2024, the planet was more than 1.5C warmer than preindustrial levels across a full calendar year for the first time.

The past three years, 2023 to 2025, were the hottest on record and the first three-year period to average more than 1.5C of warming.

The long-term warming average now stands at about 1.4C, and scientists expect it to surpass 1.5C around the end of this decade.

In October, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) said the chance of keeping warming to 1.5C without overshooting it has been lost.

“Every additional fraction of a degree and additional year of warming above 1.5C increases climate impacts and risks, such as the deadly floods, heatwaves and wildfires that have plagued many nations this year,” UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen said.

Still, the outlook is less bleak than it was in 2015.

When the Paris Agreement was signed, existing policies put the world on course for about 3.6C of warming by 2100. According to the Climate Action Tracker, that projection has since fallen to about 2.6C as countries adopted climate policies and clean energy expanded.

Progress has stalled since 2021, however, and current policies still point to far more warming than the agreement promised.

Which countries emit the most?

Carbon dioxide, the main driver of warming, comes mostly from burning coal, oil and natural gas while deforestation removes trees that once absorbed it.

China, the US and India now produce more than half of the world’s annual emissions. China alone emits more than the US, India, Russia and Japan combined although the US has released the most carbon emissions historically.

Investments in clean energy are now almost double those in fossil fuels, but emission cuts have been too slow to keep 1.5C within reach.

The graphic below ranks the biggest emitters in 2024 and shows how their emissions have changed since the agreement took effect in 2016.

China remains by far the largest polluter, and its emissions have kept rising alongside those of India and Indonesia as these fast-growing economies burn more coal to meet soaring power demand. Indonesia has climbed into the top 10, replacing Canada.

Germany, Japan and the US have cut their emissions, largely by replacing coal with renewables and gas. But growth elsewhere has outweighed those cuts, and global emissions are 9 percent higher than in 2016.

Seoul proposes expanding its Cheonghae unit’s operational areas to waters near Duqm in Oman amid pressure from US to support war on Iran.

South Korea plans to expand its anti-piracy patrols off the coast of Somalia to waters closer to the Strait of Hormuz, the Ministry of National Defense said, following pressure from the United States to provide support for the war on Iran.

The government will ask the National Assembly to extend the mandate of the Cheonghae unit, a naval task force due to expire at the end of 2026, a Defence Ministry spokesperson told the Reuters news agency on Thursday. The request would also widen the unit’s area of operations to waters near the port of Duqm in Oman, about 650km (403 miles) from the Strait of Hormuz.

The motion will go to lawmakers after the cabinet endorses it next week, the Yonhap news agency reported.

The Cheonghae unit has patrolled the Gulf of Aden since 2009 to protect commercial shipping. Its latest contingent sailed from South Korea’s Busan on October 2 on board the Chungmugong Yi Sun-sin, a 4,400-tonne destroyer carrying a maritime helicopter and about 300 service members.

Under the new mandate, the unit would push northeast into the Arabian Sea south of Oman, roughly doubling its operating radius to about 1,930km (1,200 miles), officials told Yonhap.

It would add 75 personnel, including a bomb disposal team, and a P-8A maritime patrol aircraft to help monitor shipping routes.

Officials told Yonhap the mission would be strictly noncombat and the unit would remain under South Korean command, operating independently of allied forces.

“The enhancement of the Cheonghae unit’s mission is to protect our citizens and safeguard our economic interests,” a defence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Yonhap.

“Operations will remain restricted to the open waters south of Oman, and the maritime patrol aircraft will be prohibited from targeting or monitoring Iranian territory, territorial waters or the interior of the Strait of Hormuz during their missions,” he said.

The latest proposal follows pressure from US President Donald Trump for Seoul to support Washington’s war on Iran.

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung pledged in April to help safeguard shipping during talks led by the United Kingdom and France. In September, he said he would avoid any deployment that could draw South Korea into the war.

Opposition lawmakers have argued against an expansion of the Cheonghae unit’s mission.

“Expanding the Cheonghae unit’s operational area amounts to a troop deployment,” Kim Joon-hyung, the floor leader of the small left-leaning Rebuilding Korea Party, said at a news conference at the National Assembly in Seoul on Wednesday.

“It is not a clever solution but a deceptive workaround.”

Kim warned that an expanded mission could expose South Korean forces to Iranian retaliation, even if Seoul insisted that its personnel would not take part in combat.

“If President Donald Trump boasts that South Korea was the first country in the world to dispatch troops, we would become the first country to join the Middle East war,” he said.

Democrats rode a blue wave to victory in the United States midterm elections, winning control of both chambers of Congress. Now comes the question of whether they can deliver on their promises.

The party campaigned on bringing down the cost of living, ending the war on Iran and holding President Donald Trump accountable, as well as pushing back against his immigration crackdown.

But Democrats won’t take control of Congress until January. Even then, there’s only so much they’ll be able to do without Republican cooperation.

Most bills need 60 votes to get past a filibuster in the Senate, and even if Democrats manage that, Trump can still veto their legislation. He has already threatened to do just that, telling a podcast on Monday, “I’ll veto everything.”

But the Democrats now also have other tools at their disposal, including power over Senate confirmations and control over committees that can launch investigations.

So what can Democrats realistically accomplish over the next two years, and where might they struggle to make good on their promises?

Can Democrats bring down the cost of living?

Affordability was one of the biggest issues for voters heading into Tuesday’s midterm elections, and Democrats seized on that, promising to bring down the costs of energy, housing, healthcare and groceries.

Dean Baker, an economist and cofounder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a US-based think tank, said one of the most effective things Democrats can do to bring down costs is push for an end to the war on Iran.

Since February, the conflict has driven up energy prices, as Iran has restricted commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for the oil and gas trade.

Baker argued that Democrats could use congressional investigations and oversight to pressure the Trump administration to end the war, potentially helping to give consumers relief.

Foreign policy is an area where some Republicans could find common cause with Democrats, said Baker.

Another area, he added, might be healthcare, an issue that similarly hits voters in the pocketbook.

The expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies in 2025 has left many Americans facing higher insurance premiums.

With their new congressional majorities, Democrats could push to restore those subsidies and reverse cuts to Medicaid, the government healthcare programme for low-income Americans.

A possible path to accomplishing that goal would be to include those measures in government spending bills that Congress needs to pass, according to Baker. That would also make them harder for Trump to reject.

“Republicans living in a post-Trump world, I don’t think they want to be on the side of preventing people from getting healthcare or basically paying more for healthcare,” Baker said. “They can make the politics such that he doesn’t want to veto it.”

Trump’s tariff campaign is another factor driving up consumer costs. But Baker warned that they could be tougher to reverse, without substantial support from Republicans to override a Trump veto. Even if they do manage that, prices could take a while to actually drop.

“Prices are like rockets and feathers. They shoot up like rockets; they come down like feathers,” said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive economic think tank.

Jacquez, however, pointed to another path Democrats could take that wouldn’t need Trump’s approval.

With majorities in Congress, Democrats could wield congressional committees to investigate companies that have been raising the prices of everything from groceries to electricity bills.

“There’s a lot of precedent for getting some real material outcomes just through having the gavels and being able to subpoena CEOs and haul people in front of Congress,” Jacquez told Al Jazeera.

While there’s no guarantee these investigations would bring down prices, they could put pressure on companies to explain or adjust their decisions.

Could a Democratic Congress hold Trump accountable?

Laura Blessing, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute, expects Democrats to make extensive use of their new investigative powers.

“In terms of time spent and newspaper ink spilled, this is where you’re going to see the most action from Dems, by a mile,” she told Al Jazeera in an email.

Congressional investigations do not require White House approval. But they could make life harder for Trump by scrutinising his actions both within and outside of government.

Many Democrats have signalled they plan to investigate the source of the Trump family’s wealth as part of January’s incoming Congress.

Trump’s personal wealth has soared by about $2.2bn since the start of his term, according to financial disclosure forms released earlier this year.

His family’s business empire has likewise expanded over the last two years into everything from cryptocurrency and drones to artificial intelligence and prediction markets — industries his government has favoured in its policies.

Democratic senators have already been laying the groundwork for potential investigations, sending letters to companies and government departments demanding that they preserve records.

Among the issues they could examine are whether donors to Trump’s White House ballroom received favourable treatment from the government, and whether the Justice Department targeted his political opponents.

There is no guarantee, however, that everyone will cooperate.

Trump administration officials could challenge subpoenas in court, delaying investigations. But while Blessing doesn’t expect “Trump’s nuclear family to show up to a subpoena”, she said Democrats could still question government employees and others connected to Trump’s inner circle.

Even if they uncover wrongdoing, however, there is no guarantee of legal consequences, since it’s Trump’s own Justice Department that would have to decide whether to take up the cases.

Impeachment is another possibility. Lawmakers have already introduced articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for multiple reasons, including allegations that he waged war against Iran without seeking congressional approval first.

Republican Representative Thomas Massie has said he will try to force a House vote on Hegseth’s impeachment when the outgoing Congress returns to session next week.

Trump, who was impeached twice during his first term, however, dismissed the prospect of facing a third impeachment himself, telling reporters on Wednesday that he was “not even a little bit” worried.

“I think it would destroy the Democratic Party if they did that, because it would be impeachment for no reason,” he said.

Trump also defended Hegseth, saying he was doing “a very good job”.

Even if the House of Representatives votes to impeach a government official, the case must still be weighed in a Senate trial.

Removing an elected official would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate, meaning many Republicans would need to get on board to oust a figure like Trump or Hegseth. No president in US history has ever been removed from office as a result of an impeachment proceeding.

Could Democrats end the war on Iran?

With less than two months until the 120th Congress is sworn in, experts anticipate Trump will use his final weeks with the outgoing Republican majorities to push through any remaining legislative priorities.

It also leaves Trump a critical window in which to escalate the war on Iran, according to Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a foreign policy think tank.

“He has shown a pattern in which, in the face of humiliation and defeat, he becomes more reckless,” Parsi told Al Jazeera.

Democrats could pursue a binding resolution to wind down the war. After all, the US Constitution assigns Congress the sole authority to declare war, and laws like the War Powers Act of 1973 give lawmakers a path to ending unauthorised conflicts past the 60-day mark.

But there is no guarantee that those efforts would work, given the possibility of Trump vetoing their proposed measures.

Experts, however, say there is another way that Democrats could rein in Trump’s war powers. One of their most powerful tools will be control over government spending.

The Trump administration can continue using money already allocated for military operations, but Democrats could try to block additional funding for the war.

“It creates a limitation for how long he can pursue the war,” Parsi said. “If he needs more funding for it, we’re not talking about small sums that he can just reallocate from other places easily.”

With control of congressional committees, Democrats could also investigate the administration’s conduct during the war, including whether its military operations complied with US law.

“Rigorous oversight would not restrict military operations by itself but could raise the political costs of the war beyond what the president or other key officials are willing to endure,” said David Janovsky, a policy analyst at the Project on Government Oversight.

How much political will Democrats have to end the conflict, however, is an open question.

Blessing, the government affairs fellow, noted that the party has historically been reluctant to withhold military funding out of fear of being accused of undermining US troops.

But Parsi warned that failing to act would be politically unsustainable — and could be seen by the party’s base as a tacit endorsement of US military involvement in the Middle East.

“It will no longer be just Trump’s war,” Parsi said. “They will also co-own it, because they will be complicit, because they have the ability to stop it.”

Could Democrats rein in Trump’s immigration crackdown?

Another target for the incoming Democrat-led Congress could be Trump’s hardline immigration crackdown.

His pledge to oversee the largest mass deportation in US history has sparked widespread public backlash. A public opinion poll earlier this year found that 65 percent of Americans believe Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has “gone too far” in its efforts.

With control of both chambers of Congress, Democrats could launch investigations into ICE and other agencies involved in the crackdown.

Their probes could seek information about conditions inside detention centres, allegations of abuse and how taxpayer dollars are being used for immigration enforcement, said Heidi Altman, the vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center.

Altman argues Congress could also claw back the roughly $240bn already given to the Trump administration for immigration enforcement over the past two years.

That amount of money, she explained, has allowed ICE to operate with few constraints, without having to prioritise which communities to go into or who to detain.

“The only way to force a slowdown and actual sort of decision-making and prioritisation and enforcement is to dramatically curtail their budget by taking back the funding from the last session,” she said.

Doing so would require passing legislation that Trump could eventually veto. But Altman argued that Democrats should push ahead anyway.

“The worst possible thing we could do is throw up our hands and say we have limited power,” she said.

“Pass the bills, see what happens, put them on the president’s desk, and dare him to look at the American people and say he’s not signing something that they overwhelmingly demanded.”

As the dust settles on the 2026 US midterm elections, two facts are clear: First, the Democrats have achieved a historic victory – and second, Donald Trump remains president for the coming two years.

That means Congressional Democrats will have three legislative lanes to pursue: The first is constraining Trump. This includes doing what they can through Congress to bring the Iran war to a conclusion, blocking many of his nominations, particularly to the judiciary, ending ICE’s aggressive immigrant detentions, and pursuing oversight of Trump and his allies’ financial networks and alleged corruption.

The second lane will be about demonstrating a positive policy agenda to inform the 2028 cycle, when Trump will be off the ballot. This is more about “messaging bills” focused on social issues, but could also include economic measures such as tax reform proposals, as well as significant reforms of US global defence cooperation authorities and shifts to major foreign policy questions, such as aid to Israel.

The final lane will be that – perhaps narrow – set of issues where bipartisanship and cooperation with the White House is possible. Putting guardrails around America’s burgeoning artificial intelligence (AI) sector may fit in that box, although some of Trump’s biggest funders are likely to do what they can to derail progress.

Many of the bills that will be put forward in the first and second lanes would be subject to presidential veto. Others will be toned down, as the Democratic establishment seeks to resist the progressive left’s ambitious agenda. These dynamics are likely to make the upcoming Congress less productive.

On foreign policy, in particular, Congress is able to pass just a slim set of acts without presidential endorsement, such as war powers legislation, limiting the president’s ability to wage war without Congressional approval; or measures like the recent Senate resolution advanced by Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen to demand reporting on Israel’s human rights record; or committee subpoenas, which can be used to investigate members of the Trump administration for wrongdoing. But they are likely to be ignored or stonewalled by the White House, leading to months, if not years, of fruitless litigation.

That is not to say that introducing “stand-alone” bills on issues, such as arms transfers to Israel, would not be important even if blocked by the president. They remain useful both for framing the conversation and for getting members of Congress on the record and establishing consensus positions.

In the Senate, where several incumbents are likely to throw their hats into the upcoming presidential nomination contest, such bills could be used to highlight the progressive credentials of some candidates – or to force more conservative members into awkward positions. That might ultimately make a difference in terms of the framing and debate for the 2028 election – and a potential Democratic administration thereafter. But it will not change anything in the immediate term.

There are at least three tools available to legislators where a fierce – and perhaps impactful – debate is likely to play out. The first is that enabled by Congress’ constitutional “power of the purse”.  If the current Republican majorities do not manage to pass an annual funding bill by the end of this calendar year, the Democrats will have both the current year and the next two years of US government funding under their control.

This includes, of course, Israel’s annual allocation of $3.3bn, which Trump himself put into doubt in a surprising and as yet unclarified statement on election day. If nothing else, the president’s call for an end to security assistance to Israel may accelerate what would likely have been a steady reduction under Democratic leadership.

The new Congress will also be able to reconsider a range of funding restrictions and requirements, such as the prohibition on funding the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), or the limitations on funding the Palestinian Authority.

Passing such bills will not be simply a matter of partisan rancour — we can expect some pretty tough battles to play out within the Democratic caucus itself on some of these issues. Then it is another matter of whether the Trump administration adheres to the law with the funding it ultimately receives.

The second area to watch is that of oversight. With the majority in hand, Democrats in the House and Senate can set the agenda – deciding which actions by the Trump administration are ripe for investigation, identifying witnesses, and using the committee gavels to drive the public debate.

Party leadership will be eager to focus on the issues that are most damaging to the current administration and its likely candidates for succession, such as Vice President JD Vance or Secretary of State Marco Rubio, while being least disruptive to party unity.

And because the system relies on seniority, control of the agenda of Congressional committees that can investigate the government would rest with Democratic establishment members who would be less likely than their newer or younger peers to be critical of the US-Israel relationship.

That said, it is hard to imagine a Democratic Congress that does not at least conduct oversight of Trump’s Board of Peace and its opaque sources of funding and influence. Another likely topic is the question of US involvement in the current war with Iran.

What the Democrats choose not to pursue via oversight will also be important: The weaponisation of anti-Semitism by the current and previous Congress to attack the US education sector and civil society should come to an end under the next Congress. Though certainly Democratic leadership will be keen to find ways to demonstrate that they still care about genuine concerns from the Jewish community, one would hope that these are pursued with a more concrete grounding in reality and shared security than as a tool for repressing pro-Palestinian speech.

But many in the Democratic base would like to see the party do much more – including holding hearings into the US role in enabling Israel’s genocide in Gaza, a topic that would ensnare senior officials from the Biden administration in a very public accounting that the establishment is keen to avoid.

Here is where the details of the outcome of the midterms will truly matter. While there is no doubt that the centre point of the Democratic Congressional caucus has shifted to the left for the upcoming 120th Congress, particularly in the House, the size of the majority matters.

As recent Republican Houses have demonstrated, a small majority is a challenge for the speaker, as it empowers a small group of members to exert significant leverage through the threat of withdrawal of their support for basic procedural steps that are typically decided on a partisan vote basis.

As a result of the midterms “blue tsunami”, however, the Democratic majority is secure enough that leadership will have to make few real concessions to the left of their party, likely teeing up some tense, and almost inevitably public, tussling in the coming two years, particularly when it comes to appropriations bills.

In short, the Democrats’ campaign for legislative power has been a success, but particularly in the face of an imperious White House that has shown little interest in even longstanding legal precedent in its deference to Congress, it remains incomplete.

At the same time, being the party locked out of power has enabled the Democrats up to this point to dodge some degree of the internal wrangling that is already long overdue on key issues, such as foreign policy on Israel.

A majority in Congress may not give them complete control – but it does mean they will now own the legislative branch’s decisions. Whether they demonstrate a meaningful and proactive shift – or let themselves be constrained by establishment conservatism – may define the viability of their path to further electoral success in 2028.

Either way, the American people will be watching what Democrats do and do not do – as will the Republicans who, as Trump enters his “lame duck” years, are likely to undergo an evolution of their own on these key issues.

This makes progress in the coming Congress all the more acute an issue for the Democrats. The challenge for them is simple: take credible leadership on driving change or face the very real possibility of being outflanked by the “America First” right.

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

Vance cited trusted pollster saying Iran war, Israel ties were top of mind for Trump voters swinging to Democrats.

Vice President JD Vance has blamed the war on Iran for his party’s withering midterms defeat, suggesting that the conflict may not have been worth ceding control of the US Congress to Democrats.

“The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night,” he wrote in a lengthy post on X. “If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so.”

“Everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.”

Vance, a likely 2028 presidential candidate and heir apparent to Trump’s Make America Great Again movement, has been a key negotiator with Iran as the two countries search for a way out of the conflict, which has dented their economies and pushed global fuel prices up.

His statements on Tehran have been more dovish than those of other key members of the administration, and his post-election note appears to mark the closest he has yet come to publicly diverging from his boss on an issue that looks set to dog Republicans as the war continues.

Citing a pollster he describes as “one of the smartest people I know”, Vance said he was told ending the Iran war and “changing our relationship with Israel” were two of the top four answers given by Americans surveyed who had voted for Trump in 2024 but were planning to vote for Democrats in the 2026 midterms.

In stark contrast, Trump said, in the wake of the rebuke at the ballot box, that he had no regrets about launching the conflict.

“I did the right thing. I would have done it again,” he told the Wall Street Journal.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has said that anyone expecting a shift in the United States’ policy towards his country is “seriously mistaken”, hours after midterm elections dealt a blow to President Donald Trump.

His comments came as other Iranian officials struck a more optimistic tone on Wednesday, following the results of the US vote, which saw Democrats score a major victory by taking control of both chambers of Congress.

“Those who still harbour even the slightest hope that the behaviour of the hegemonic system might change through partisan or factional shifts, or who imagine that making concessions to the United States can dissuade it from hostility towards the Iranian nation, are seriously mistaken,” Khamenei said in a written statement published on his website.

He said that Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz had shattered the “myth of America’s invincibility”, and warned that any renewed US attack would draw a far wider response.

Trump himself has acknowledged the US-Israel war on Iran that began in February likely impacted his Republican Party’s poor performance in the elections, saying voters were probably not ready “for the short-term consequence of paying more for gasoline”.

Khamenei said Iran’s confrontation with the US had reached a point where “every day and every hour” had become a time of resistance against “the Great Satan”. His message was to mark the National Day of the Fight Against Global Arrogance, which falls each year on November 4, the anniversary of the 1979 seizure of the US embassy in Tehran.

The supreme leader described Iran’s management of the strait and what he called the elimination of US military bases in regional countries as a reaction to US “aggression and crimes” during the war.

“In the event of repeated transgressions, it will take on much wider dimensions,” he said.

‘Americans said NO TO WAR’

The supreme leader struck a “cautious” note on Wednesday, warning that a party shift in the US would not persuade Washington to abandon its hostility against Iran, noted Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas, reporting from Tehran.

This contrasted with a more celebratory mood among other Iranian officials reacting to the Republican defeat, Atas said.

“Conscience or the cost of living, Americans said NO TO WAR, and we endorse this message,” said Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s chief negotiator with Washington and his country’s parliament speaker.

“If the US [government] betrays their public will to serve international paymasters and blackmailers, it will learn our NO comes with a Nightmare,” he added on X.

Mohammad Mokhber, an adviser and assistant to the supreme leader, said Trump had been “slapped in the face by his own people”.

“The true winner in this arena was Iran, which transferred the cost of the war into the United States,” he wrote on X.

Judiciary chief Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei wrote on Telegram: “Trump was defeated both in war and in politics; we will certainly impose further defeats on him; this is still only the early outcome.” He added that November 4 “has always been a day of defeat for the Americans” and honoured “the dear martyred students of Minab”.

Mehdi Tabatabaei, deputy head for communications at the president’s office, said Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, “blind adherence” to Israel’s interests and the “futile war” with Iran had handed the Republicans their biggest defeat.

Atas said Iranians believe a Democratic-controlled Congress could restrain Trump and make him “less reckless” over the war, with some Republicans wary ahead of the 2028 elections. But some in Tehran fear that because officials have framed the result as a defeat imposed by Iran, Trump could “personalise the matter” and launch a new round of war “in an act of revenge”.

The US has warned it could carry out a short but intensive military campaign against Iran after the midterms.

Hamidreza Moghadamfar, an adviser to the commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), said Iran would hit targets beyond US bases if Gulf states allowed Washington to launch attacks from their territory. Speaking at a rally in Bandar Abbas, he named the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain and said Iran would respond with a “new doctrine and new technology”.

Iran says a ‘maximum deterrence’ plan is ready against any new US attack, warning of an immediate response.

Michigan voters are casting their ballots in a charged, closely watched race that could make Democrat Abdul El-Sayed the first Muslim in the United States Senate and help decide control of the chamber.

Mike Rogers, his Republican opponent, cast his ballot at a polling station in White Lake, Michigan hours after polls opened. El-Sayed had already had his vote submitted and counted through an absentee ballot before Election Day.

The two candidates seek to fill the seat of retiring Democratic Senator Gary Peters. A final New York Times/Siena poll placed El-Sayed 11 points ahead of Rogers going into the election.

Polls opened at 7am local time (12:00 GMT) and close at 8pm (01:00 GMT on Wednesday). If the race is close, it may not be called until later on Wednesday. The US Department of Justice has announced that election monitors will be present at the polls in Michigan and all 50 other states, a first in US history.

El-Sayed, a Muslim born to Egyptian parents, is the former head of Detroit’s health department and has campaigned on progressive policies such as Medicare for All.

Rogers, a former congressman and close ally of US President Donald Trump, is seeking to come back after a narrow loss to a Democrat in a 2024 Senate race.

Democrats need to gain four seats in Tuesday’s midterm elections to wrest back the Senate from Republicans and rein in Trump. The race is also seen as a test of whether a progressive who openly criticises Israel can win in a swing state.

Both candidates made a final push on social media as voting got under way.

“It’s time. It’s up to us to show the country what’s possible. The world is watching,” El-Sayed wrote, sharing an upbeat campaign video that features former US President Barack Obama.

Rogers posted a video that featured interviews with supporters, one of whom called El-Sayed an “extremist”.

“We have a state to save”, the post read.

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer gave a firm endorsement of El-Sayed after casting his own ballot in New York’s race.

“There are millions of Michiganders whose number one issue is getting their costs down,” said Schumer.

“Abdul El-Sayed is … talking to the people about those issues and doing things about them … He is going to win tonight because he’s talking about what Michiganders care about.”

‘One vote’

The El-Sayed campaign’s final days were overshadowed by a rift with Congresswoman Haley Stevens, a fellow Democrat whom El-Sayed narrowly defeated in a primary election in August.

On Sunday, Stevens endorsed Rogers, saying she was “choosing country over hate” and capping off a weeks-long row about El-Sayed’s opposition to US support for Israel.

Stevens is a staunch supporter of Israel, and the pro-Israel lobbying group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spent more than $30m backing her against El-Sayed. A majority of her large donors lined up to support Rogers after her loss, channeling $9m into a Republican group that supports him, according to The New York Times.

El-Sayed, by contrast, has accused Israel of genocide in Gaza and argued that US aid to Israel would be better spent at home.

Asked by NewsNation on her way in to vote for Rogers whether her change in support was worth it, Stevens replied: “Absolutely. Voting is always worth it, right?”

Senate leader Schumer, who had initially backed Stevens, was asked whether her defection could hand the election to Republicans. “Haley Stevens is one vote,” he replied.

Islamophobic attacks

El-Sayed, the Michigan-born son of Egyptian immigrants, has faced persistent attacks on his faith. Republican Party ads have sought to link him to “terrorism” and radicalism, with Trump joining in the inflammatory rhetoric.

The US president has repeatedly called El-Sayed a “jihadist” and a “nasty guy”, mocking his name and repeating an unfounded, widely circulated Republican claim that he belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Hours before polls opened, Trump once again took aim at El-Sayed, this time in a post on his Truth Social platform.

“Abdul El-Sayed Hates Jews and Hates Blacks. Don’t feel bad, he also Hates Whites. Only fools would vote for him in the Michigan race for the U.S. Senate! He will, 100%, do you in! VOTE FOR MIKE ROGERS,” Trump wrote.

The US president also mentioned El-Sayed in a Fox News interview early on Election Day, when he said annual US financial aid to Israel should stop at the end of 2026.

“Why should we suffer the slings from lunatics like an El-Sayed when they [Israel] don’t need it?” he said.

In a small house in Omdurman, Hassan Saber Jumaa, a senior administrator at the Zamzam displacement camp in Sudan, sat on a simple wooden chair. He scrolled through his phone, looking for any photograph he might have of Zamzam, which is near el-Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, and once sheltered hundreds of thousands.

He found nothing. Jumaa explained that his old phone was looted during last year’s attack by Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces on the camp. Pointing to the bare walls around him, Jumaa said that all he has left are his memories of the camp, and the people who once called it home.

Zamzam, established in 2004, was home to generations of people displaced by western Sudan’s Darfur war, which began in 2003 and continued for nearly two decades. Alongside Abu Shouk camp and al-Salam camp, Zamzam formed part of one of Darfur’s largest concentrations of displaced people.

Jumaa recalled a bustling community, with its market open every day, and children walking to school.

Zamzam memories

Zamzam continued as a refuge for civilians until Sudan’s current war, which began in 2023. The RSF, fighting the Sudanese Armed Forces and its allies, captured the camp in April 2025, after months of attacks. Famine had been confirmed in the camp in August 2024.

Mukhtar Musa, a survivor of the assault, watched the community he knew descend into starvation and violence. He said restrictions on the movement of goods had exhausted food supplies, leaving some residents with little choice but to eat animal feed and peanut shells.

Umm Kulthum Ali Saleh described the months before the final attack as the hardest of her life. The RSF siege on Zamzam stopped goods from entering. She searched for food every morning, and recalled seeing women cooking grass and mixing mud with flour to bake bread.

Saleh believes the blockade was not merely a military measure, but a deliberate way to weaken the camp’s residents in advance of the final offensive, and Zamzam’s fall.

Brutal military offensive

On April 11, the RSF launched a three-day assault using cars, camels, and horses, burning straw homes and health facilities.

A United Nations Human Rights Office report documented at least 1,013 civilians killed, including 319 who were summarily executed in homes, markets, schools, clinics, and mosques. The report documented other abuses, including rape, gang rape, sexual slavery, and other forms of sexual violence, particularly targeting the Zaghawa community.

Musa was a witness to some of those mass killings, and said he saw RSF fighters kill civilians while chanting religious slogans. He described seeing bodies scattered around the main market and near schools, and said fighters continued pursuing civilians along roads leading out of the camp.

Saleh also recalled seeing bodies littering the roads, with only chickens, donkeys, and sheep wandering among the abandoned buildings.

The attack forced tens of thousands to flee Zamzam, with many remaining in the el-Fasher area, and others fleeing south to Tawila and Dar al-Salam.

The violence continued to engulf el-Fasher and its surrounding displacement camps over the following months.

With Zamzam under its control, the RSF launched an attack on el-Fasher in August 2025, and soon captured the Abu Shouk camp.

The UN Human Rights Office said at least 40 displaced people were killed inside Abu Shouk, while 19 others were injured. The International Organization for Migration reported that at least 500 residents fled the camp that day.

The RSF captured el-Fasher itself on October 26, 2025. More than 6,000 people are believed to have been killed in the attack, in el-Fasher as well as on escape routes out of the city. The UN found that RSF fighters targeted civilians, including members of non-Arab communities, and committed acts amounting to war crimes.

The RSF has previously denied targeting civilians in Zamzam and el-Fasher, while acknowledging that some fighters committed abuses.

The survivors of Zamzam, al-Shouk, and el-Fasher focus on bearing witness to the tragedy they faced.

Jumaa said the destruction of Zamzam marked not the end of the violence, but the beginning of another wave of displacement.

For him, the camp survives in the memories of those who once lived there – even as they are now displaced elsewhere.

Musa, meanwhile, said he cannot forget the first days of the siege, and the bodies he saw on the streets.

“Whoever survives must tell the story of what happened,” Musa said.

Hezbollah denies the Syrian accusations, reiterating that it does not have any presence on Syrian territory.

Syrian security forces have said they foiled a plot to target the Homs oil refinery in central Syria, arresting a cell affiliated with Lebanon’s Hezbollah armed group.

Syria’s General Intelligence Service (GIS) said on X that “the preemptive security operation” was carried out in cooperation with the country’s Internal Security Forces.

It identified two arrested individuals with their initials – M S and B Sh – but did not elaborate on the time or the location of the operation, “which resulted in the seizure of explosive devices in their possession that had been prepared to execute the plot”.

Hezbollah denied the Syrian accusations in a statement, reiterating that it does not have any presence on Syrian territory and is not ⁠involved in “any activity that undermines the ⁠security and stability of Syria”.

Hezbollah ⁠fought alongside former President Bashar al-Assad’s forces during Syria’s nearly 14-year civil war, but relations with Damascus have deteriorated sharply since his overthrow in 2024.

Syrian authorities have accused ⁠Hezbollah of involvement in a series of alleged plots, including planned assassinations, ⁠rocket attacks and arms smuggling.

The Homs refinery is one of Syria’s two oil refineries, along with the Baniyas refinery, and plays a key role in securing petroleum products.

ISIL cell

In a similar operation, the GIS said on Sunday that they arrested two members of a suspected ISIL (ISIS) cell in the governorate of Deir Az Zor.

Sunday’s statement added that investigations “showed the detainees’ involvement in carrying out a series of assassinations in the province, the latest of which targeted defence ministry member Ibrahim al-Jassem with a gunshot near the al-Rashid mosque in the city of Mayadin”.

The operation led to the seizure of weapons and ammunition found in the cell’s hideout, the security forces said, adding that authorities were continuing investigations of “the terrorists to uncover their links in preparation for bringing them to justice”.

On September 27, the security forces said they had arrested four members of an ISIL cell involved in planning and carrying out several attacks in different parts of the country.

On September 30, the Syrian Electricity Company said the Deir Ali, Nasiriya and Tishreen power stations had gone out of service after an explosion on a gas line at the Tishreen station in the Damascus countryside, which cut off the gas supply needed to run them.

On October 15, the Syrian Petroleum Company said the pipeline carrying petroleum products from Baniyas to Homs was damaged near the village of Hadida in western Homs countryside, causing a fuel leak, state media reported, in the latest in a series of attacks on Syria’s energy infrastructure.

Last month, Syria’s security forces foiled a plot to target a police patrol in Damascus countryside, saying that an ISIL cell was preparing to carry out the attack, Syrian state television reported. They said the group was responsible for explosions and assassinations in Raqqa, Aleppo, Idlib and Homs.

Damascus joined the US-led international coalition against ISIL last November, which was formed in 2014 and has carried out operations against the group in Syria and Iraq.

The chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces has laid out five conditions for what he calls a roadmap to lasting security, as Qatar said it was “hopeful” that Tehran and Washington could reach a deal paving the way for future negotiations, despite overnight US strikes on Qeshm Island.

Major-General Ali Abdollahi’s plan calls for an end to hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, the complete lifting of sanctions and the unfreezing of Iranian assets and war reparations, Iran’s Tasnim news agency reported on Tuesday.

The plan also calls for recognition of Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, and a guarantee against future aggression under a regional security framework for West Asia.

The plan comes as Qatar steps up mediation efforts amid fears the US-Israel war on Iran, launched in late February, could escalate after the midterm elections in the United States on Tuesday.

Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Majed al-Ansari said in his weekly briefing in Doha on Tuesday that a Qatari delegation held a meeting with Iranian officials in Tehran for more than three hours on Monday, before returning to Doha that evening. Both sides are now reviewing Qatar’s proposal, he said, with mediators exchanging proposals between them in real time.

“If there were no glimmer of hope, there would be no negotiations,” al-Ansari said, adding that Qatar would not speculate on whether an agreement or a military escalation was more likely.

He warned that any escalation, whether attacks on Iranian territory or on shipping, “will have an impact on the negotiations”, and said continuing the Qatari-Pakistani mediation remained a priority. He reiterated that freedom of navigation in Hormuz was nonnegotiable, referring to Doha’s condemnation of the targeting of the Qatari tanker Al-Mayda.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas said mediators were aiming to avert a new round of fighting.

He said a Qatari delegation visited Iran on Friday in response to a letter to Iran from US Vice President JD Vance, and an Iranian delegation travelled to Qatar the following day.

“The Qataris are trying to mediate with Iran, not on a peace deal, but on a framework to restart the negotiations,” he said. Of Monday’s brief visit, he added: “The reading is that the Qataris carried a message to Tehran and immediately left after that.”

“The main issue is the mistrust between the two parties,” Atas said. “The Iranians say that twice previously the US attacked them when they were engaged in diplomacy. That’s why they’re asking for concrete steps, such as lifting sanctions, removing the naval blockade, returning frozen Iranian assets and letting Iran sell oil on the global market.”

US officials reportedly said the military carried out limited strikes on Qeshm Island on Monday that did not amount to a resumption of major combat operations, saying Iran had tried to target a US aircraft and the attack took out the launcher.

One official called it “a defensive measure for Iranians using surface-to-air missiles against US assets”. IRNA reported five explosions on the island, with more blasts heard in Bandar Lengeh. President Donald Trump had said on October 8 that the US would not attack Iran before the midterm elections.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Tuesday it downed two US MQM-170 reconnaissance drones south of Qeshm and destroyed an MQ-9 drone east of the strait.

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s lead negotiator, said, “The ball is in America’s court to prevent war.”

Tehran’s Hamshahri newspaper reported that Iran had updated its target bank to include US bases and infrastructure in Europe.

Zeidon Alkinani, the founding director of the Arab Perceptions Institute, said both sides remained open to diplomacy.

“Diplomacy and force are running in parallel,” Alkinani told Al Jazeera. “The diplomatic channel is alive – it has always been since March, but there hasn’t unfortunately been a fundamental breakthrough.”

Vance had said on Monday he was optimistic about reaching a negotiated settlement.

However, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said on Tuesday Iran was neither waiting for the outcome of US midterm elections nor shaping its policies around them.

Amid growing concerns about renewed attacks on Iran following Tuesday’s midterm elections in the United States, US forces have struck Iran’s Qeshm Island in what officials have reportedly described as a defensive measure.

In the first attack since June on Qeshm Island, which serves as the primary platform for Iran’s “asymmetric” naval power, according to analysts, the US strikes come as both sides continue to adopt military and diplomatic postures.

Mediation efforts led by Qatar are continuing in a bid to avert a return to all-out war, which began on February 28 when the US and Israel launched strikes across Iran, triggering the closure of the critical Strait of Hormuz, surging oil and gas prices and massive damage to military, civil and energy facilities around the Gulf.

Here’s what we know:

What happened in the attack on Qeshm Island?

Several explosions were heard on Qeshm Island late on Monday, as US media reported that the US military had carried out what officials called “defensive strikes” in the Strait of Hormuz.

The blasts came in rapid succession, according to Iran’s state-owned IRNA news agency. Witnesses told the agency they saw two planes flying over the island, located off Iran’s southern coast along the waterway.

According to The Wall Street Journal, which quoted an unnamed official, the strikes on Monday night appeared limited and were not a resumption of a major operation.

The Associated Press news agency also quoted an unnamed US official as saying Washington had conducted the defensive strikes against “Iranians using surface-to-air missiles against US assets”.

The attack came after IRNA reported that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had destroyed a US MQ-9 drone east of the Strait of Hormuz.

The US first struck a critical desalination plant on Qeshm Island on March 7 – one week into the war. The strike, which Tehran branded a “flagrant crime” against civilians, cut off freshwater supplies to 30 surrounding villages.

But isn’t diplomacy ongoing?

It is, but it is fragile, and mixed messages are coming from both sides.

Qatari mediators have been engaged in indirect talks with Iranian officials in recent days. They have passed messages between the two sides, but the talks appeared to come to an end on Monday with no news of a breakthrough.

An official briefed on the talks told the Reuters news agency that Iran’s delegation had departed from Doha on Sunday, but that a draft proposal was still being circulated, without elaborating on the content.

Qatari mediators travelled to Tehran on Monday night for talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi regarding a version of a draft US-Iran deal which has been under negotiation for the past eight days, an official told Reuters.

Araghchi told IRNA on Monday: “Consultations through mediators are very intensive. We have presented our conditions and proposals, and everything depends on the political rationality of Washington.”

Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei also told a news conference on Monday that the “ball” was in the US’s court as Iran’s demands were “clear and logical”.

He said the plan Iran submitted in September to end the war remained the focus of talks, but that the proposal could be shortened and implemented in “two days”, including reopening the Strait of Hormuz and returning to talks about Iran’s nuclear programme.

On Monday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also said Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei had given the government “certain authorities” over talks with the US, local media reported.

The president added that Tehran would look to resolve the conflict through dialogue.

Khamenei’s apparent approval of diplomacy marks a change since the breakdown of the June memorandum of understanding, which allowed a brief ceasefire and peace negotiations, when the supreme leader said the US could not be trusted.

For the US side, Vice President JD Vance also told reporters on Monday that he was hopeful for a diplomatic solution – just hours before the strikes on Qeshm Island.

“The president and I both feel pretty good about the prospects for potentially coming to a negotiated settlement,” Vance said. “We’ve certainly made some progress. We’ll see if we can make some more.”

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf reiterated on Tuesday that Iran’s response to any US “miscalculation”, such as launching strikes, would be unpredictable.

“The enemy seeks to force the Iranian nation into submission through threats and military action, but they are sorely mistaken; Iran will not submit,” he said.

What has Trump said about diplomacy?

Oil prices dropped by more than 7 percent on Monday. In response, Trump wrote on his Truth Social account that people believe the war with Iran will not resume as mediation efforts continue.

“Iran wants a settlement, as soon as possible. It could happen!” Trump wrote.

He told media at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington, DC, that it looked like efforts were “coming together very nicely”.

“That’s why I guess the oil prices dropped. People found out about it.”

However, Trump also told the US media outlet Axios before his post on Truth Social that he was “in no rush” to decide whether to resume strikes on Iran.

“One way or the other, we will do something, but there is no rush. We crippled them financially. They have no money, no gasoline, and their people are getting very tired of it,” Trump told Axios in an interview.

What happens next?

The US midterm elections are being viewed as the inflexion point for Trump’s decision on what path he takes next.

The president has suggested several times that he could attack Iran following the vote and told the Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN) on Sunday that the conflict would end “very soon one way or the other”, adding that Tehran would either “make a deal, or we’ll just end it”.

Observers say the US will likely renew strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities if they do resume.

In particular, this could include Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain, a highly fortified site that contains two tunnel complexes buried deep underground, and which Trump told US outlet Newsmax last month could be a target. He said the US “may have to go there. We’ll take a shot at that one. We’ll knock it out fast.”

FIFA Council members may view documents related to Gianni Infantino’s doomed plan, but only in person in Zurich

FIFA will release details of President Gianni Infantino’s aborted plan to sell off stakes in future World Cups to private investors, but they will not be shared with the public.

Reports in the British media said members of the FIFA Council, the main decision-making body of football’s world governing body, will be given access to “key documents” related to the proposal, named FIFA Forward Enterprise.

However, they can only view them under “strict protocols to preserve confidentiality”, the reports said. Those include the 37 members of the council having to register for an in-person appointment to view selected paperwork in Zurich, Switzerland, in the next two weeks.

The news came out late on Monday, the deadline European football’s governing body, UEFA, had set for FIFA to release details about the $4.2bn scheme and answer questions about how the proposal came about and who approved it before the plans were dropped in July amid a worldwide backlash.

UEFA set the deadline after a tense council meeting at which Infantino apologised for the proposal but provided no details about how the plan was formed. He asked council members to submit their questions in writing.

UEFA is leading attempts to remove Infantino before or at the FIFA presidential election on March 18 in Rabat, Morocco. Infantino, who was elected in 2016, is seeking a fourth term through 2031.

Start date for AFC Cup 2027 moved from January to December due to ongoing Houthi attacks on host nation Saudi Arabia.

Football’s upcoming Asian Cup 2027 tournament in Saudi Arabia has been rescheduled from a January start to December due to the ongoing conflict in the region, the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) has confirmed.

The 24-team competition, which was due to get under way in Riyadh on January 7, 2027, will now begin on December 23, the AFC said in a statement on Tuesday.

Asian football’s governing body announced the decision following “extensive discussions and close consultation with the Local Organising Committee (LOC) of the AFC Asian Cup Saudi Arabia 2027 and the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (SAFF)”.

The tournament will now run from December 23, 2027, to January 21, 2028.

“The organising committee for the AFC Asian Cup approved rescheduling the tournament in light of the current exceptional circumstances arising from developments in the region, including substantial logistical complexities and travel disruptions,” the AFC’s statement added.

Saudi Arabia has repeatedly come under attack from Yemen’s Houthis since September, with capital Riyadh among the cities repeatedly targeted by missiles.

The Saudi-led coalition in Yemen reported on Friday that it “intercepted and destroyed” a drone launched by the Houthis towards Saudi Arabia’s Mecca region.

It was also reported that a missile aimed at western Saudi Arabia was earlier brought down, as hostilities between the Riyadh-backed Yemen government and Iran-backed Houthis continue to escalate.

The tournament’s fate hung in the balance in past weeks, with several participating nations expressing concerns about the security situation.

The AFC said while “exceptional circumstances” had been created for the organisation and delivery of the competition as originally scheduled, the postponement became necessary “in the interest of all participating teams, officials, spectators and other stakeholders.”

The AFC will submit the new tournament dates to FIFA for approval from football’s global governing body.