Middle East

Iran’s top negotiator, Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf, has declared that the country’s armed forces have “complete freedom of action” against the “enemy’s aggression”, after a day of attacks by the United States killed seven Iranian troops.

The attacks on Wednesday were the latest in days of escalating hostilities between Washington and Tehran that appear to have doomed an interim peace deal they agreed to on June 17.

The US announced several rounds of air strikes on Iran overnight on Tuesday and again on Wednesday, saying its forces hit military targets in Iranian coastal areas near the Strait of Hormuz and on the Greater Tunb island.

Iran’s army said one attack struck a barracks in Bampour in the country’s southeast, killing seven personnel from the 388th Brigade and injuring several others. It pledged to deliver “a decisive response… at the appropriate time”.

Iranian media also reported that an overnight US attack hit a wheat storage facility in the  western Khuzestan province, which the US military denied.

The US announced its latest wave of strikes on Wednesday had begun at 10:30pm Iranian time (19:00 GMT), as Iranian media reported explosions in or near Bandar Abbas, Chabahar and Ahvaz.

Earlier, the US military also said it had redirected two commercial vessels as part of a renewed blockade on Iranian ports, which it began enforcing the night before.

Return to negotiations ‘extremely difficult’

Tehran said the repeated waves of US attacks had voided the memorandum of understanding with Washington that had underpinned the fragile ceasefire. Ghalibaf said Iran was “in an essential and existential war with America” and had no reason to continue adhering to the terms of the peace agreement.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Iran had abandoned its commitments under the memorandum because the US had reneged on its side of the deal.

“Our commitments remain in effect only as long as the other side fulfils its pledges,” Baghaei said.

He said Tehran had no plans to engage in further talks with Washington and was focused solely on defending the country.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar said the latest escalation made a return to negotiations “extremely difficult”.

“There’s now a low-intensity war, new sanctions are back on Iran, and there’s a US blockade again,” Serdar said.

However, he said, “if the Americans commit to the articles of the memorandum of understanding, then the Iranians say they’re open to engaging diplomatically”.

Iran renews attacks on Gulf neighbours

On Wednesday morning, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it targeted the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain as part of a “crushing response”. It said it also targeted a major US military logistics hub in Mina Abdullah, Kuwait.

Kuwait’s Ministry of Defence said later on Wednesday that it had downed at least four cruise missiles and 21 drones from Iran throughout the day.

Jordan’s military said it had downed three missiles from Iran.

Gulf Cooperation Council Secretary-General Jasem AlBudaiwi condemned the latest “treacherous” Iranian attacks on Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan, saying they “reveal Iran’s determination to drag the region into further chaos and instability”.

Zeidon Alkinani, founding director of the Arab Perspectives Institute, said that Iran’s continuing attacks on its neighbours had tested the patience of Gulf states, who oppose the US-Israel war on Iran and have staunchly advocated for diplomacy.

“The patience within the Gulf and the view of Iran may fall apart very soon,” Alkinani told Al Jazeera.

Trump says Iran ‘better behave’

US President Donald Trump warned on Tuesday that US attacks against Iran would intensify if the country’s leaders did not return to negotiations, even threatening to “knock out” Iran’s power plants and bridges.

But Trump declined to give Iran a firm deadline when asked on Wednesday, saying: “I don’t ⁠like giving deadlines, but ⁠they pretty ⁠much know; they ⁠know the story… they better ‌behave.”

Ghalibaf said Iran was still balancing diplomacy with military action in pursuit of its national interest.

While Iran has “never welcomed war… we must always be prepared for battle and stand firm to protect our national security and interests”, Ghalibaf said.

“We must also use the tools of diplomacy and negotiation to achieve and solidify our national interests.”

Nothing much stays with me from the first days of Twitter, which was publicly launched 20 years ago, on July 15, 2006.

I had discovered the internet back in 1995 and early on, I started thinking about how to get my voice heard by the world. I created a couple of websites through Angelfire and 8m, but there was no real ecosystem to nurture the idea. It’s like opening a shop to sell a certain product in a remote area – somewhere nobody really knows, at a time when there’s no interest – compared with opening that same shop in a mall, or on a street full of other vendors.

MySpace was another opening, but the idea was not yet ripe. Facebook came with a spark – and then we got Twitter.

“It’s like having your own breaking news platform, you’ll set your own agenda,” I remember one of my colleagues at the BBC, where I used to work, saying at the time.

It didn’t take me long to sign up. I cannot recall whether I tweeted immediately or not, yet what happened afterwards helped frame my future as an international journalist.

Twitter’s first defining moment for me was 2009’s Green Revolution in Iran, when I and others followed how the platform shaped the discourse in a way that differed completely from traditional media. We were not new to citizen journalism; a few years earlier, Salam Pax emerged as the first ever famous war blogger, presenting his distinctive view of the US-led invasion of Iraq through his individual blog. A few years later, tens of thousands of Salams have appeared – and I’m one of them.

Going through my early timeline, I see that I was tweeting randomly – an earthquake in Japan, an election in Lebanon, an explosion in Somalia, and so on. Then came the Arab Spring. Just as with many in the world, this was the moment that shaped my Twitter presence, and as I got involved in the coverage, I became well-positioned to post and attract followers.

My coverage of the Libyan revolution in March 2011 introduced me to many people and gave me a better understanding of what was happening. I was based in Sallum, a village on the Egyptian side of the Libyan border, without a connection of my own. I fed a colleague back in Cairo a sentence at a time over a crackling Thuraya satellite phone, and he typed my words into the account that I could not reach. Its password lived on my friend’s head until days later, when I finally got my hands on a satellite dish.

Trips to Libya, Egypt, Syria, Somalia – all of it made Twitter part and parcel of my journalistic journey, and it also helped me build a parallel path writing for international outlets including Al-Monitor and The Sunday Times.

Yet still, there was something else that changed my direction. Until 2013, I was a journalist covering stories without specialisation – I used to report from Iran, like I do today, yet it was not my career the way it currently is. But then I became a bureau chief in Tehran and my knowledge began growing – and here, Twitter gave me another layer, widening my network day after day.

Personally, that specialisation gave the platform its finest hour for me. I broke developments out of Iran’s nuclear talks with world powers before the news agencies had finished their first draft, filing in Arabic and English within minutes of each other and announcing the agreement itself while other newsrooms were still working on their bulletins.

The war against ISIL (ISIS) followed, then a January 2020 morning near Baghdad airport when my sources told me the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani, and the deputy chief of Iraq’s Popular Mobilisation Forces, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, were in a convoy hit by a US air strike – and I was among the first to say so.

Twitter was never only a wire service for other people’s wars. I’ve “met” heads of state and celebrities on this platform – and for a moment we felt equals. I have made my scoops there, and I have made my hugest gaffes there, too. You act and you interact and you see the result immediately, backlash or praise. It’s like a daily journal, one that outlives you. I know of many, some friends, some colleagues, some people I only happened to follow, who left our world while their accounts are still there – for us, and for me – to return to for the memory or to get a piece of information.

It was also where, on the 100th anniversary of World War I, that I told the story of my great-grandfather, Ali Hashem, who went to the war and never returned; and of my grandfather Hussein, who was three when his father was summoned to the Ottoman army and never saw him again.

It was where colleagues at Al Jazeera, stationed in the north of Palestine, went looking for my family’s village on my behalf, for a cemetery nearly in ruins, for a great-grandmother’s grave that has never been found.

It became, eventually, the subject of my own academic work too, a master’s thesis on Twiplomacy, examining how a platform built for gossip and jokes quietly rewired the choreography of nations, with Iran’s nuclear diplomacy as my case study.

In the summer of 2023 – sensing where things were headed, as new owner Elon Musk decided to change Twitter’s name to X, and to tragically, if I may so, kill the famous and lovely blue bird that accompanied the journey many made with the platform, including myself – I posted five words.

“Someone buy Twitter and save the bird.” Alas, nobody did, and the bird disappeared from the icon, and the name went with it, replaced by a single letter that still sits wrong in my mouth. In Arabic or in English, the word that comes out of me, though, is still Twitter.

Ali al-Zaidi met US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Tuesday as Iraq’s prime minister. He carried the title. The power was another matter.

Eleven weeks earlier, after months of paralysis, the Shia alliance which is known as the Coordination Framework had taken just 25 minutes to choose him. That sudden consensus was forged under intense pressure from Washington DC.

The United States Treasury had frozen Iraq’s dollar lifeline, the cash shipments that fly from New Jersey to the Central Bank of Iraq. Nouri al-Maliki, a former prime minister, and the top contender to return to the premiership had to abandon his plans because of Washington’s veto.

Al-Zaidi, a 40-year-old banker with no political base, was the man left standing.His lack of an established political base is part of his usefulness. He owes his position less to Baghdad’s ballot box than to the pressure exerted by Trump’s Treasury.The banker’s own ledger is not clear.

In 2024, Iraq’s Central Bank barred al-Zaidi’s own institution, Al-Janoob Islamic Bank, from US-dollar transactions as part of a wider crackdown intended to curb illicit dollar flows to Iran. He was never charged. Neither the bank nor the man is currently sanctioned. But the file exists. Its existence could give Washington another source of leverage should al-Zaidi drag his feet.

The real power in Baghdad now sits in one man’s portfolio. Tom Barrack holds three titles at once: ambassador to Turkiye, envoy to Syria, and now envoy to Iraq. His influence rests less on diplomacy than on Washington’s financial leverage over Baghdad. Iraq’s oil revenue sits in an account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In April, Washington blocked a cash shipment of nearly $500m drawn from those revenues and suspended parts of its security cooperation. Oil funds roughly 90 percent of Iraq’s budget. Barrack does not need to threaten military force when the administration he represents can reach directly into the financial system on which the Iraqi state depends.

Washington’s demand that Iraq bring all armed factions under state control remains far from resolved. Shia Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr dissolved his Saraya al-Salam militia in late May. Other militias such as Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq and Kataib Imam Ali have announced steps towards handing over their weapons or placing them under fuller state control. That is real movement. But Kataib Hezbollah and Harakat al-Nujaba, the two factions most tightly bound to Tehran, have rejected full disarmament. In their own words, their weapons are not for bargaining. Washington has answered in kind. US strikes killed dozens of Iranian-backed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) fighters this spring; the Treasury has sanctioned seven militia commanders by name. Baghdad has set September 30 as its disarmament deadline, the same date on which the remaining US forces are expected to leave Iraq. Whether the hardest factions bend by then remains the open question that Washington has yet to answer honestly.

Even Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani’s authority has limits here, as it always has. Al-Sistani’s 2014 fatwa built the PMF’s founding myth. But his call was for men to defend Iraq under the state’s command, not to form independent militias. The hardline factions never answered to Najaf. They answer to Tehran. al-Sistani’s own representative in Karbala has also pressed publicly for exclusive state control of weapons. His influence remains significant, but it has never extended to full control over these factions, and the current standoff is making that reality harder to ignore.

The prize Washington actually wants, however, lies underground. Chevron is negotiating an expanded role in Iraq’s oil sector, while other US companies are pursuing contracts in gas, electricity and export infrastructure. Baghdad wants production up from 4.5 million barrels a day to 7 million within three years, though doing so would require a substantially larger OPEC quota. Western Iraq’s gas reserves, largely untapped, could one day elevate the country into a dominant regional energy player and exporter. This is the potential bonanza al-Zaidi is being asked to unlock in exchange for the loyalty Washington is seeking.

Kurdistan’s place in this emerging arrangement is still unclear. Barrack has called the old Baghdad-Erbil federal model outright “Balkanization”, a structure he blames for letting Iran fill the vacuum. Yet the same envoy spent much of June pressing the prime minister of the Kurdish region, Masrour Barzani, to reactivate the Kurdistan parliament and form a new cabinet, not dissolve it. Read together, these positions suggest a clear message: Washington wants a functioning, cooperative Kurdistan region, firmly inside Washington’s orbit, not an autonomous wildcard and not a vassal of Baghdad’s sectarian blocs either.

Stripped of diplomatic varnish, Washington’s vision for Iraq is this: no militias operating outside the state; no Iranian veto over Iraqi policy; no single sect running the table from Baghdad; a Western economic orientation locked in by contracts, not sentiment; American energy firms as the primary beneficiaries; and a prime minister who answers, in practice, to Tom Barrack before he answers to his own parliament. Whether Iraq is pressured towards the Abraham Accords, whether the old nationalist and Ba’athist-adjacent currents find any oxygen again, whether sectarian parties actually lose their seats at the ballot box, these remain predictions, not settled facts.

What is clear is simpler and starker. Iraq spent two decades as the ground on which Iran and America fought indirectly, through proxies and sanctions. It is now becoming something else: a state whose oil, banking system and militias are all being renegotiated at once under intense US pressure. At the centre of this transformation is a banker-premier chosen in twenty-five minutes and now expected to deliver by September 30.

The Gulf model, from Riyadh and Abu Dhabi to Manama, Kuwait, Doha and Muscat, took decades to lock in. Trump’s Washington wants to compress Iraq’s version into a single presidential term. Whether Baghdad survives that compression intact, or merely changes which capital it answers to, is the question al-Zaidi’s visit left unresolved.

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

United States President Donald Trump is scheduled to address a defence summit at the US Army War College on Wednesday, where he is expected to laud US investments in its armed forces that he has argued have helped add a new edge to history’s most powerful military.

But his speech comes at a time when the US’s war on Iran has significantly depleted the US military’s weapons stockpile.

The summit, which will be held in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, comes as the US has re-ignited attacks on Iran in the past week, and as Trump has threatened to continue a war that, according to recent US polls, is highly unpopular among Americans facing high costs of living.

The US has expended half of at least four of its most critical munitions since its war on Iran began on February 28, and has racked up billions of dollars in weapons expenses, analysis shows.

Replenishing low stockpiles could take anywhere between several months and several years. Analysts warn that a shrinking arsenal could put the US in a less formidable position in a potential future conflict – particularly against China.

Here’s what we know about the US weapons inventory:

What’s happening with the US-Iran war?

Following an April ceasefire between the US and Iran, and the subsequent signing of a memorandum of understanding in June, the conflict kicked off again after the US Central Command launched heavy waves of attacks on Iran’s military sites last Wednesday, saying it was aiming to degrade Tehran’s military capabilities. Huge, hourlong attacks have continued for four nights since Sunday, including on railway tracks and bridges.

Both sides traded low-intensity attacks throughout the ceasefire period. However, the US escalated air attacks last week after Iran fired on three commercial ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz – because those vessels had used a shipping route not approved by Tehran.

Each blames the other for violating the ceasefire, and at last week’s NATO leaders’ summit, Trump declared the pact with Iran over, although he said American negotiators could continue talks. Washington has also reinstated a naval blockade on Iran-linked ships trying to transit the waterway and has re-imposed sanctions on Iran.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has responded with retaliatory attacks on US military assets in Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait.

More than a dozen people have been killed in Iran since the new wave of US attacks, including civilians.

“We’re going to knock out all their power plants. We’re going to knock out all their bridges unless they get to the table and negotiate,” Trump threatened in a Fox News interview that aired on Tuesday.

Attacking civilian infrastructure is a violation of international law.

Does the US have enough weapons to keep attacking Iran?

Washington’s supplies are running low but have not reached a critical level, according to analysis of the US weapons inventory by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank.

In the 39 days of conflict between the start of the US-Iran war in February and the ceasefire in April, the US hit more than 13,000 targets, focusing mainly on using seven of its most powerful missiles and air defence systems: Tomahawk missiles, Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM), Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM), Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), Standard Missile-6 (SM-6), Terminal High Altitude Area Defenses (THAAD) and Patriots.

For at least four of the munitions, Washington likely expended more than half of its available stockpiles, although many lower-grade alternatives are still in stock, according to CSIS. Government data on weapons inventory is classified.

Here’s how the munitions were used:

• Tomahawks – The US had about 3,000 of the long-range missiles that are fired from sea at ground targets. It likely used up more than 1,000 in the war on Iran.
• JASSM – About 4,000 of these stealthy, air-launched long-range missiles were in the US inventory before the war. About 1,100 were used in the war on Iran.
• PrSM – Supplies of the newly delivered, ground-launched long-range missiles were already low to start with, with deliveries since 2023 amounting to a total of 90. An estimated 40-70 were used in the war. One US military official claimed that the “entire” inventory had been expended.
• SM- 3 – The most expensive weapon per unit at $28m, these ship-launched ballistic missile interceptors numbered about 410 before the war. The US has used between 130 and 250 of these in the war on Iran.
• SM-6 – Also ship-launched, this missile is mainly used to intercept aircraft and cruise missiles. The US had about 1,160 stockpiled. An estimated 190- 370 have been expended in the Iran war.
• THAAD – The US had about 360 of the costly anti-ballistic missile systems by April, and between 190 and 290 were used in the war. The US has a total of 8 THAAD units or “batteries” consisting of launchers, interceptors, and radar systems.
• Patriot – An estimated 2,330 Patriots were in stock before the war, but between 1,060 and 1,430 have been expended. Some older versions may also likely be available – about 400 of them.

What does this mean?

Analysts from CSIS say that while the US may have enough to continue hitting Iran in the near-term war, it has reduced its stockpiles so significantly that it may not have enough for potential future wars, especially against a formidable rival like China.

Replenishing high-capability and costly weapons like the ones the US has used in Iran will likely take several years.

Trump and senior administration officials have publicly maintained that the US has an “unlimited” supply of weapons as the US-Iran war has raged on.

However, in March, Trump said administration officials met with the heads of US manufacturers, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Honeywell Aerospace, L3Harris Missile Solutions, and Northrop Grumman. He said all promised to “quadruple” production and that increased manufacturing was already under way.

Subsequently, in June, Trump signed the Defense Production Act, an executive order compelling US weapons manufacturers to speed up production, citing existing conditions “which may pose a direct threat to the national defense or its preparedness programs”.

An order compelling private actors to ramp up production likely reflects timeline concerns within the Pentagon, analysts note.

In the short term, Washington is also unlikely to meet demands from its allies, and may not have the capacity to supply the THAADs and Patriots that Ukraine says are crucial in its war against Russia.

Already, supply orders have hit road bumps. Japan’s order of 400 Tomahawks from Raytheon was meant to be delivered between 2025 and 2027, but US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in May that two more years could be added to the schedule.

Meanwhile, Switzerland began negotiations with France, Israel and South Korea in June to buy another missile defence system after its 2022 order from Lockheed Martin and Raytheon continued to face delays.

How long will replenishing weapons take?

Hegseth said in May that it could take “months and years” to replenish the supplies, based on the weapons system.

Analysts reckon it could take the US between one and four years to get its most exquisite munitions stockpiles back to pre-Iran war levels, even as Trump has boasted that new weapons plants are being built around the US and production is being ramped up.

Trump’s administration is set to buy large amounts of advanced munitions in its proposed $1.5 trillion 2027 defence budget – a 44 percent increase from 2026’s defence budget.

According to CSIS, estimated timelines to replenish the seven critical munitions, based on existing production facilities, are:

• Tomahawk: Between 4- 5 years (207 will be delivered in 2026, while 785 have been requested for 2027).
• JASSM: 1 year (821 to be delivered in 2026 and 821 requested for 2027).
• PrSM:  8 months (70 to be delivered in 2026 and 1,134 requested for 2027).
• SM- 3:  3 years ( 52 to be delivered in 2026 and 214 requested for 2027).
• SM-6:  3 years (125 to be delivered in 2026, and 540 requested for 2027).
• THAAD: 3 to 3.5 years (92 to be delivered in 2026, and 857 requested for 2027).
• Patriot: 3 years (172 to be delivered in 2026, and 3202 requested for 2027).

May God have mercy on Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the humane emir, the brave leader, and the great father, who loved Qatar and its people. Advancing the nation, both in the present and the future, was his primary concern and highest goal; today, it occupies advanced ranks across all fields, including media.

The Al Jazeera Media Network was one of the projects launched during his reign, may God rest his soul.

One day, His Highness summoned me, and I met him at his home. He informed me that he intended to establish a television news channel to be named Al Jazeera. It would enjoy a wide margin of freedom so it would be different from what people were accustomed to seeing in the Arab media landscape.

It would be a news channel that operates according to the principles of free journalism, akin to professional international media institutions and outlets.

We began constructing the building not far from Qatar Television, and we proceeded to equip it with broadcasting and satellite communication equipment, and prepared the newsroom to receive those who would work there.

His Highness was keen on following the progress of all major projects, offering encouragement and guidance, despite his immersion in state affairs, having taken the reins of power only a few months prior at the time.

The Board of Directors was formed, and the director general of the channel was appointed. Then the steps of attracting and recruiting journalistic and technical personnel began.

Journalists and staff arrived, and the newsroom came to life. The channel’s slogan, “The Opinion and the Other Opinion”, was set and trial broadcasting commenced.

In late November 1996, the first half-hour news bulletin aired, serving as a window outside the general norm. The beginning consisted of six hours of broadcasting per day.

Signs of success emerged from the early days when journalists and the general public began talking about a new voice unlike anything the Arab world had seen before. Everyone felt joyful at the success of the idea after doubts had troubled many.

Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa used to visit the channel, but he never once interfered in any coverage or programme, as long as everything proceeded according to professional rules.

This is what strengthened everyone’s belonging to the project and cemented the conviction that it was a project for the nation, aimed at conveying the truth from the field in image and word, no matter the hardships and sacrifices.

It was not unexpected for His Highness that the channel — with its strong performance in the arena of news and talk shows, and its independent, professional editorial policy — would face opposition and pressure from both the Arab and international spheres alike.

However, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa did not yield to this, driven by his belief in the importance of independent and free media. This served as a protective umbrella for the channel and its employees, reinforcing their spirit of belonging, deepening their faith in their message, and increasing their readiness to continue contributing.

His vision for the future of Al Jazeera also proved true. The painful targeting it endured over the years did not deter it from continuing to carry its independent message. Its impact continues to grow day by day, within its region and beyond. It changes concepts, broadens culture and awareness, and shifts media equations around the world, north and south. The network today occupies a leading position at the forefront of both the traditional media landscape and the digital sphere.

Among all the projects established by His Highness, Al Jazeera held a special place. In my final meeting with him, may God have mercy on him, his health condition did not prevent him from asking about Al Jazeera and checking on its current state and future, just as he used to do with the workers in the rest of the country’s projects.

Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani succeeded his father as emir. He too faced, during one of the most difficult periods in Qatar’s history, pressures seeking to alter the network’s approach, yet he did not accept any interference in its editorial policies, regardless of the source.

Furthermore, he does not personally intervene in its operations as long as it adheres to professional rules and ethics.

This is the story of Al Jazeera’s inception with its visionary founder, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa, up until he passed away.

However, this article does not recount the complete history of Al Jazeera; rather, it presents merely one chapter of its tale. It is a story that will continue to be read, emulated and cited as an example of a successful enterprise that left a profound impact spanning generations, despite the hardships and challenges it endured.

Above all, these words — and many more — cannot do justice to Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa for all that he gave to his nation, his people, and his extended Qatari family. He dedicated his entire life to serving them and spearheading developmental projects across all fields. Among these is the Al Jazeera project, which is widely regarded as a success story acclaimed by the entire world and described as an exceptional media model.

May God have mercy upon Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa — the human, the father and the leader. May He grant him rest in His vast paradise and reward him with the best of rewards on behalf of us all. And may God protect the emir and wise leader, Sheikh Tamim, and protect Qatar and its people.

A version of this piece was first published on Al Jazeera Arabic. 

Istanbul, Turkiye – At around 19:30 GMT on July 15, 2016, a faction of the Turkish military launched a coordinated attempt to overthrow President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s democratically elected government.

But within hours, the attempted takeover involving tanks and fighter jets had been quashed. Thousands of people poured onto the streets of major cities, joining loyalist members of the army and the police, and much of the chain of command, in defeating the putschists.

The failed coup attempt 10 years ago was not only the bloodiest in Turkiye’s modern history – some 250 were killed and more than 2,200 wounded – but also a watershed moment that fundamentally changed relations between civil and military authorities in the country.

“The failure of July 15 had three pillars,” said retired Colonel Unal Atabay.

“The resistance of the people, the officers, noncommissioned officers and soldiers inside the Turkish Armed Forces who resisted the coup, and the institutional reflex of the armed forces themselves.”

Military intervention cast a long shadow over Turkish politics for decades.

The armed forces overthrew governments in 1960 and 1980; intervened through a memorandum in 1971; and forced another elected government from office in what became known as the “post-modern coup” of 1997.

Although civilian rule returned after each intervention, the military remained one of Turkiye’s most influential institutions, seeing itself as the guardian of the republic’s founding principles.

Yet that was not how the republic’s founders had envisioned civil-military relations. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and Ismet Inonu, both commanders during the War of Independence of the early 1920s, entered politics only after leaving military service.

“If the military had remained involved in politics, it would most likely have been exploited by various groups in the uncertain and weak conditions of those early years of the republic. They made the most accurate diagnosis and said that the military should stay out of politics.

Political scientist Ali Carkoglu said separation between military command and civilian politics was regarded as one of the republic’s founding principles, calling it “the most accurate diagnosis”.

Over time, however, the armed forces increasingly came to see themselves as guardians of the state, repeatedly invoking that role to justify intervention in politics.

But 10 years since the latest attempt, few experts believe Turkiye faces another conventional coup.

“You never say never,” said Howard Eissenstat, a Turkiye specialist at St Lawrence University in New York. “But to bet on a military coup in Turkiye is to lose money.”

While the military’s political role appears to have receded, the broader consequences of the post-coup transformation remain the subject of debate.

Reducing the military’s influence over politics had already become a central objective of the governing Justice and Development Party, or AK Party, after it came to power in 2002.

Following years of tension with the military establishment, the government steadily expanded civilian oversight – and the failed coup accelerated that process dramatically.

Ankara accused the network of United States-based Muslim scholar Fethullah Gulen, designated by the Turkish government as the Fethullah Terrorist Organisation (FETO), of orchestrating the coup attempt. Tens of thousands of soldiers, judges, police officers, teachers and civil servants were dismissed or arrested. Military academies were replaced by the National Defence University, command structures were overhauled, and civilian oversight of the armed forces expanded.

Atabay said these changes have fundamentally reshaped the relationship between the military, the state and society.

He added the military has strengthened its internal oversight after the coup to prevent another organised infiltration, noting that both the armed forces and wider society are now more alert to attempts to penetrate state institutions.

“External centres of power may always make such attempts,” he said. “The important thing is to detect them early, expose them and build a system that prevents them from infiltrating the state.”

For Carkoglu, however, the military cannot be examined in isolation from the broader health of Turkiye’s democratic institutions.

He said bringing the armed forces firmly under civilian authority was essential. But civilian supremacy alone, he argued, does not necessarily amount to democratic consolidation.

“It is certainly a success that civilian authority has established greater control over the military,” he said. “But if that comes at the expense of democracy, then it is, at the very least, an unfortunate outcome for Turkish politics.”

Carkoglu noted that institutions derive legitimacy not simply from who controls them, but from whether citizens trust them.

“The healthy development of trust in institutions requires competitive politics and the possibility of free expression,” he said. “Otherwise, institutions themselves begin to lose credibility.”

That debate has become increasingly prominent in recent years.

The arrests of several opposition mayors – including Istanbul mayor and presidential candidate for the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) Ekrem Imamoglu, together with investigations into other opposition politicians, have fuelled criticism from political parties and rights groups, who argue judicial processes are increasingly being used against rivals.

The government rejects those accusations, saying the investigations are conducted independently and are based solely on evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

The debate has unfolded during a period of remarkable political continuity. Since coming to power in 2002, the AK Party has won every parliamentary election, most recently in 2023, when the governing People’s Alliance retained its parliamentary majority.

Rights groups, meanwhile, focus on a different legacy of the coup.

Human Rights Watch says emergency powers introduced after the 2016 coup attempt gradually evolved into broader restrictions on civil liberties. It argues the crackdown extended well beyond those responsible for the attempted overthrow, leaving many dismissed public employees unable to rebuild their professional lives even after acquittal.

The government says the measures were necessary to dismantle clandestine networks inside the state and prevent Turkiye from facing a similar threat again.

Ten years on, that effort continues. On Monday, two days before the anniversary, Turkish authorities launched coordinated operations across all 81 provinces targeting nearly 1,000 suspects over alleged links to FETO.

For the government, it was another reminder that the events of July 2016 remain an active national security issue rather than a closed chapter in the country’s history.

US President Donald Trump and Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi have met at the White House in Washington, DC, with both leaders pledging to deepen economic ties and boost Iraq’s oil output. The meeting comes as the US prepares to reduce its military presence in Iraq. Al Jazeera’s Tanya Noury has the latest.

Iran’s bridges, power plants possible targets, Trump said as IRGC says it attacked US forces in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan.

Activists say Moroccan authorities are intensifying repression of critical voices and the Gen Z protest movement.

Politically outspoken Moroccan artist, rapper, and filmmaker Mehdi El Youbi has been arrested in Casablanca, days after being barred from returning to France, where he has been based since 2017.

El Youbi, better known by his stage name Mehdi Black Wind, was detained on Monday night after being questioned by Morocco’s National Brigade of Judicial Police in Casablanca, according to a statement from a group of his friends and supporters.

“After a day of questioning, his family were informed at around 9pm that he had been taken into police custody and was due to appear before the public prosecutor on Wednesday”, the statement said. “According to the latest information, his arrest is believed to be linked to his artistic views and posts on social media.”

El Youbi, born in 1992, is widely known in Morocco and across North Africa for his rap songs heavily influenced by US hip-hop. He rose to prominence in the early 2010s, at the same time as the Arab Spring, with songs that caught the attention of the authorities for their politically engaged lyrics.

“When I return home, I’m afraid of being arrested or banned from the country,” El Youbi told French music magazine Mosaique Magazine in December 2025. “Many people try to depoliticise art or sport, but I believe that every committed artist, every activist, or anyone who takes risks lives between boldness and fear.”

El Youbi is “the best rapper in North Africa and it’s not close”, Algerian journalist Maher Mezahi said on X.

Omar Radi, a Moroccan investigative journalist and human rights activist who was previously jailed in Morocco for criticising a judge, told Al Jazeera that El Youbi is “the most outspoken and politically direct Moroccan rapper”.

“There is a deliberate attempt to stamp out any possibility of criticism of the government or police methods, whether within civil society and the press, or in artistic circles or amongst football supporters,” Radi said.

El Youbi’s detention comes a day after the arrest of Moroccan journalist Ali Lmrabet, which was condemned by the Committee to Protect Journalists, and two weeks after Zineb Kharroubi, a leading figure in the Gen Z 212 activist movement, was given a six-month suspended prison sentence after being found guilty of “incitement to commit crimes or offences by electronic means”.

A supporter of El Youbi said that these developments reflect “intensified repression linked to the Gen Z movement”, referring to the youth-led protest movement that emerged last year in Morocco demanding better health services and education reforms.

El Youbi is due to appear before the public prosecutor on Wednesday morning. His supporters said they were concerned that he may have to appear without a lawyer, as lawyers in Morocco are currently on strike.

US President Donald Trump welcomed Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi to the White House. Trump praised the ‘tremendous chemistry’ between him and the PM and said the countries will be announcing a new ‘massive’ oil partnership.

Military and defence analyst Alex Alfirraz Scheers says the US risks falling into an ‘escalation trap’ if it launches a ground assault in Iran because Tehran still retains a large number of ballistic missiles.

Renewed conflict and tensions in the Strait of Hormuz have slowed fertiliser shipments, worsening hunger in Sudan.

Sudan risks facing a deepening hunger crisis due to ongoing conflict, aid ⁠funding cuts, and rising agricultural costs driven by the global disruption caused by the Iran war, a senior World Food Programme (WFP) official has said.

“It’s a massive crisis, both in terms of numbers, but also due to the gravity,” Carl Skau, the WFP’s acting executive director, told Reuters on Tuesday.

Skau said that more than 100,000 people were still facing famine-like conditions, placing them in the highest level of the United Nations-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). “With these kinds of numbers in IPC 5 starvation, it is extremely, extremely serious,” he said.

Sudan remains the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, with around five million people facing emergency or catastrophic levels of hunger, even after an intensive ‌aid response helped reduce the number of people in famine-like conditions, Skau said.

Nearly 19.5 million people across Sudan face high levels of acute food insecurity, according to the ⁠IPC. Skau said that recent fighting around el-Obeid in North Kordofan had raised fears the ⁠city could suffer a fate similar to el-Fasher in Darfur, where conflict and siege conditions trapped civilians and hindered aid deliveries, and where the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) carried out mass killings and gang rapes after they took control of the city in the course of their three-year conflict with the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).

In recent days, however, violence has eased somewhat around el-Obeid, raising hopes that aid deliveries can be expanded from 100,000 to 250,000 in the area.

The WFP is ⁠also increasingly concerned about renewed fighting over the past week in Darfur, which has forced the closure of the Tine border crossing, a route from Chad ⁠into Darfur. This renewal of conflict threatens to reverse gains made after famine took hold in parts of the country, it said.

Throughout the country, the WFP has reduced the number of people ⁠it assists from five million a year ago to about 3.5 million, and reduced rations in many areas, including in Tawila in Darfur, as it faces a $646m funding gap after cuts from major donors, including the United States, European countries and Britain.

“We’re not heading in the ‌right direction here,” Skau said. “If anything, we are falling backwards.”

Skau also warned that soaring diesel prices and fertiliser shortages linked to conflict in the Gulf and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz could further undermine ‌Sudan’s food security during the current planting season.

Sudan relies heavily on fertiliser imports from Gulf countries, while much of its agriculture depends on irrigation pumps, which may be too expensive for farmers to run.

The ⁠war between SAF and the RSF, now entering its fourth year, has displaced millions and devastated much of the country. Aid agencies have repeatedly warned of worsening food insecurity and limited humanitarian access.

The United States carried out attacks against Iran for a third consecutive night late on Monday.

Iran has continued to hit targets in the Gulf in several waves of retaliatory strikes on Tuesday, including UAE‑flagged oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and US military facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait.

Here is a recap of what has happened on Monday night and Tuesday, and what each side has said.

Where did the US attack Iran?

US Central Command, the military’s regional command known as CENTCOM, said its latest strikes began at 4:45pm ET (20:45 GMT) on Monday and were aimed at degrading Iran’s capacity to attack “innocent civilians and commercial shipping” in the strait.

CENTCOM later announced the conclusion of its strikes and said the latest round of attacks on Iran lasted five hours. It added that US forces “successfully struck military targets across Iran including Bushehr, Chah Bahar, Jask, Konarak, Abu Musa, and Bandar Abbas”.

Iranian state television and semi-official news agencies reported explosions throughout the night across the country’s southern coast, including the port city of Bandar Abbas, and on Kish and Qeshm islands, as well as the town of Jam in Bushehr province.

A projectile that struck western Bandar Abbas caused no casualties, the Fars news agency reported, citing the regional governor’s office.

What areas did Iran target?

For its part, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it had launched a wider retaliatory campaign against US allies and interests across the Gulf.

Iran’s Tasnim news agency reported that Iranian forces had struck several “violating” vessels in the strait, and that a US-made drone had been shot down near Bandar Abbas.

The UAE: The UAE said two of its oil tankers had been hit by Iranian cruise missiles in Omani waters in the Strait of Hormuz. The UAE added that one Indian national crew member had been killed on one of the tankers, and eight other people were wounded.

Iran’s Tasnim news agency said the IRGC hit two “offending” oil supertankers, citing an IRGC statement – apparently referring to the two UAE tankers.

Kuwait: The Iranian army said on Monday that it had carried out a drone attack on US military targets in Kuwait. In a statement posted by state broadcaster IRIB, the army said it launched drones at a US Patriot missile system, fuel tanks, a watchtower, an ammunition depot and communication systems.

Bahrain: The IRGC said it targeted “several weapons storage depots, a satellite communications centre, and a building housing US forces” at al-Juffair Base in Bahrain. It also said it had hit the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain with missiles and drones.

Air sirens have been heard four times in Bahrain on Tuesday so far.

Jordan: Jordan’s army said it shot down four missiles in Jordanian airspace that were fired from Iran, according to the official Petra news agency. After this, the IRGC said it launched ballistic missiles at US forces and key facilities at an airbase in Jordan.

In a message addressed directly to Jordanians, the IRGC insisted that the operation was aimed at the US military presence in the country rather than at Jordan or its citizens. “You know that we hold no animosity toward your country. On the contrary, we deeply love you, the noble people. You understand the pain and suffering of the Palestinian people better than any other nation, and you are aware of the crimes of the Zionist regime in the massacre of 70,000 Palestinians, including 20,000 children in Gaza, carried out with the direct involvement of the United States,” it said.

What have the US and Iran said?

US President Donald Trump formally notified Congress on July 10 that fighting with Iran had resumed on July 7, invoking his authority to keep US forces in combat for another 60 days without lawmakers’ approval.

At a news conference on Monday, Trump said Iran’s offensive capabilities were being dismantled, but he still thinks a “deal is possible” despite the return to open fighting.

Trump also repeated an earlier demand that Gulf nations help cover the cost of protecting shipping, saying Washington was “protecting a very rich portion of the world” and expected to be paid for it.

On Monday, Trump also threatened to “take out” Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, also known as Pickaxe Mountain, a suspected nuclear site near the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in central Iran.

Meanwhile, the US blockade on Iran, confirmed by the US Navy-led Joint Maritime Information Centre (JMIC), is due to begin at 20:00 GMT on Tuesday.

The US’s blockade covers Iran’s ports and terminals along the entire southern coastline, according to JMIC.

Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security Committee, has warned that Iran remains steadfast in defending its red lines, following the formal introduction of a bill to manage the Strait of Hormuz.

In an X post on Tuesday, Azizi wrote: “Last night, coinciding with the downing of US drones, the ‘Strategic Action for the Security and Sustainable Progress of the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf’ bill was formally introduced in Iran’s Parliament. We remain steadfast in defending our red lines, particularly regarding the management of the Strait of Hormuz.”

What is happening to shipping in Hormuz?

Oil prices rose more than 9 percent on Monday, with Brent crude climbing to about $81 a barrel, its highest level since mid-June.

Kpler, the ship-tracking firm, said crossings through the strait fell by about 52 percent between July 10 and July 12, compared with the previous week.

US President Donald Trump is threatening to attack a heavily-fortified underground nuclear facility in Iran known as ‘Pickaxe Mountain’. It followed a third night of US strikes and a demand the US be paid 20% of the value of all cargo passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

US is carrying out more attacks on Iran, with Iranian media reporting explosions in Kish Island, Jam Island, Qeshm Island, Bushehr and Bandar Abbas.

From Gaza to India, this is how the world paid tribute to Qatar’s Father Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani.

Source link

The $1bn scheme falls critically short of the $71bn reportedly needed for Gaza’s recovery over the next 10 years.

The European Commission has announced a billion-dollar aid and reconstruction fund aimed at helping the recovery of Gaza from more than two years of devastating war.

The “Team Gaza Initiative” launched on Monday at a meeting of donors in Brussels. The scheme will support projects such as restoring water and sanitation infrastructure, removing debris and re-establishing health infrastructure, an EU Commission statement said.

However, the size of the fund falls critically short of the tens of billions estimated to be needed to rebuild the Palestinian enclave amid Israel’s genocidal war, which continues to kill Palestinians and create dire humanitarian conditions.

Spain, France, Denmark, the UK, Germany, Norway, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden and Belgium, the World Bank and the European Investment Bank are taking part in the initiative, along with the ⁠Commission itself, the statement said. Australia and Canada ⁠are also expected to join.

“We will present the initial package today of almost 900 million euros or one billion dollars,” Dubravka Suica, EU commissioner for the Mediterranean, said ahead of the donor meeting. “Our objective is clear: to help build hope, resilience and a better future for the Palestinian people.”

The funding is intended to assist in providing the population with basic water and sanitation facilities, clearing and disposing of rubble and rubbish, as well as restoring health, energy, agricultural and food systems.

No breakdown of how much each partner would contribute was provided. Suica said donors “want to start with so-called early recovery, and it is very important to show that we are willing to do it.”

“We now need the conditions on the ground that will allow the support to reach the people in Gaza,” she added.

While Israel and Hamas agreed to a US-brokered “ceasefire” last October, Israel has consistently breached it.

The intensity of the fighting has reduced, but at least 1,100 Palestinians have been killed and more than 3,500 wounded since the “ceasefire” began. In total, the war has killed at least 73,000 Palestinians.

The EU Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management described the situation in Gaza as “unbearable”. Hadja Lahbib called for humanitarian access to the enclave and greater political engagement from Israeli authorities.

“Nine months after the so-called ceasefire, shelling continues, disease is spreading, people are dying,” Lahbib told reporters ahead of the billion dollar fund announcement.

European Union and United Nations said in April that more than $71bn will be needed over the next 10 years for Gaza’s recovery and reconstruction.

The Gaza Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA) report found that $26.3bn will be required in the first 18 months to restore essential services, rebuild critical infrastructure and support Gaza’s economic recovery.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi is travelling to the United States for talks with President Donald Trump, in what will be his first foreign trip since taking office in May.

During this week’s meetings, al-Zaidi is expected to sign agreements in energy and trade while also boosting investment with US companies.

Iraqi government spokesman Haider al-Aboudi told reporters on Sunday the visit to Washington, DC, will mark a shift in the countries’ relations “from a framework of crisis management to a strategic economic partnership”.

The focus, he said, would not be about striking a “temporary” agreement but about establishing “a durable, long-term partnership that serves the shared interests of both countries”.

Al-Aboudi said oil would be “a top priority” during the visit as the Iraqi government seeks to increase production and find alternative export hubs to lessen the consequences of any future closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Iraq was one of the countries badly hit by the shutting down of the critical waterway in recent months due to the US-Israel war on Iran, as about 90 percent of its 3.4 million barrels per day (bpd) of exports passes through it.

Al-Aboudi said Iraq’s proposal to establish an energy and development fund with the US would be on the table to finance any projects that would be agreed upon, especially in the energy sector.

Al-Zaidi had previously said the fund would initially be structured in oil exports of 500,000 bpd with the goal of increasing to as much as two million bpd.

The prime minister has also said Iraq seeks to increase oil production to seven million bpd over the next three years, up from its current output of about 4.5 million bpd.

“Iraq is in need of such kind of cooperation, especially with a partner like the United States to enhance and strengthen its capacity, particularly in the energy, oil, gas, electricity, and petrochemicals sectors,” said Abdulrahman Almashhadani, an Iraqi economic expert and professor.

“However, the critical question remains whether Iraq can provide a safe and stable environment that would encourage US companies to come to Iraq,” he said. “This issue is sensitive and unresolved; it largely depends on the government’s ability to deliver on its commitments to restrict weapons to state control.”

Large delegation

Sources told Al Jazeera the Iraqi delegation to the US comprises more than 70 people, including key ministers, the head of the central bank, the national security adviser, lawmakers and businessmen.

A well-informed source said meetings with US administration officials and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have also been planned. According to the source, who asked not to be named, Iraq is seeking to secure an IMF loan of up to $8bn.

A separate well-informed source told Al Jazeera that the disarming of pro-Iran Iraqi armed factions and restricting weapons under state authority, as well as Baghdad’s relationship with Tehran, are expected to be among the issues the US side will raise during the visit.

In his first speech in parliament as prime minister, al-Zaidi had promised that the state would have control over weapons in a country where paramilitary groups, including many supported by Iran, have been powerful since the 2003 US-led war on Iraq.

Some armed factions said they would abide by the prime minister’s declaration, but others – particularly the powerful ones that launched missiles and drones at US facilities during the war on Iran – rejected it.

In a statement released hours before al-Zaidi’s trip to Washington, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, an umbrella group of Iran-backed armed groups in the region, including Iraq, rejected the prime minister’s visit and its outcomes.

“We will not give a blank cheque for all government policies. We warn against replacing military occupation with an economic occupation that is even more dangerous,” the statement said.

“The option of defending Iraq and its legitimate interests will remain on the table,” it added.

Al-Zaidi has said his government is eager to implement a 2024 deal made with the US-led coalition’s military mission in Iraq to end its presence as combat forces by the end of September.

Some of the factions that rejected the prime minister’s disarmament statement said they would wait to see what happens on September 30 and then act accordingly.

Ehsan al-Shammary, a professor of international studies at Baghdad University, said the economic initiatives and the backing that al-Zaidi is seeking from Trump during Monday’s talks would inevitably be overshadowed by the issue of Iran’s influence in Iraq.

Ultimately, he added, it is the issue that will determine the success or failure of a “very important” visit that could “redefine” bilateral relations and “give it a push”.

“Al-Zaidi has little room for manoeuvre. He should choose either to align with the United States or move closer to Iran,” said al-Shammary. “I do not believe Washington is willing to accept a divided sphere of influence in Iraq alongside Tehran. That is why the prime minister’s task appears to be almost impossible.”

European Union foreign ministers met in Brussels on Monday to discuss whether there is enough support for new measures to curb trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

“Everybody agrees that the situation in the West Bank is really intolerable,”  EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said at the start of a meeting.

“What is happening in the West Bank is actually making it more and more impossible that the two-state solution ever can come into effect.”

Here is more about the ongoing EU discussions on Israeli settlements.

What options are the EU foreign ministers discussing?

The discussions are based on a confidential paper by the European Commission that floats three different options – an import licensing system, prohibitive tariffs, or a ban – an unnamed senior EU diplomat and a European official said, Reuters reported.

The EU has long struggled to take major decisions on Middle East policy because of deep and long-standing divisions among its 27 member countries, particularly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Diplomats said the debate at a meeting in Brussels on Monday was not expected to yield any concrete decisions, but would help to sound out if there is enough support to move forward.

Are Israel’s illegal settlements in the West Bank expanding?

Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967. More than 500,000 Israeli settlers live in the territory, excluding east Jerusalem, among some three million Palestinians.

This month, Israel’s Security Cabinet has approved a plan to establish 13 new settlements in the central occupied West Bank.

The number of new settlements has soared recently, according to new data from the Palestinian Forum for Israeli Studies (MADAR). After averaging approximately eight outposts annually between 2012 and 2022, the number jumped to 32 in 2023, then 62 in 2024, reaching 86 during 2025.

Nasser Khdour, Middle East assistant research manager at the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), said that 2026 is the deadliest year for settler violence since ACLED began tracking incidents in Palestine a decade ago.

“Incidents have included attacks on Palestinians, property destruction, damage to farming equipment and facilities, tree uprooting, and grazing on Palestinian agricultural land. Other incidents have involved looting, including the theft of equipment, sheep, and crops,” Khdour was quoted as saying on the ACLED website in May.

What pressure has the EU faced to take measures about this?

Under pressure for the EU as a whole to take measures, the bloc’s executive last week laid out options to curb trade with settlements, including a ban.

“There have been a lot of asks and requests from the member states regarding the ban of the trade with illegal settlements,” Kallas said.

“Let’s see if these options that have been provided now will have a stronger push from member states.”

Belgium’s Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot said the options laid out appeared to be more “a bone to gnaw on than a genuine desire to move forward”.

“We are calling for concrete proposals,” he said.

There is disagreement in Brussels as to whether that move would need backing from all 27 member states or just a weighted majority.

Diplomats say that key players Germany and Italy are still undecided on the move.

What has the EU’s position been so far?

Several EU countries – including Spain, the Netherlands, and the Republic of Ireland – have already imposed their own trade restrictions on Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, considered illegal under international law.

In May, the EU imposed sanctions on four entities and three individuals over what it described as serious and systematic human rights abuses against Palestinians in the West Bank.

In a July 2024 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice said Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories and settlements in the West Bank are illegal and that states should take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that help maintain the situation.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar last year described a push by some European governments to implement the advisory opinion as “shameful”.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has targeted US military facilities in Bahrain, claimed it has destroyed radar systems in Oman and hit Jordan and Kuwait in its latest round of overnight retaliatory strikes against the United States.

Tehran’s attacks on Monday came as a response to Washington’s escalating strikes as prospects of peace between the two countries recede.

Here is a recap of the latest attacks:

Where were the latest Iran attacks?

Oman: The IRGC said it attacked Oman as part of its latest phase of retaliation. It said it targeted “the FPS long-range aerial radar and the vessel detection radar in Oman”, adding that these radar systems were destroyed.

Bahrain: The IRGC also said it launched missile and drone attacks targeting “installations and infrastructure of the aggressive US army” in Juffair, Bahrain.

Bahrain’s Ministry of Interior said on Monday that sirens had been sounded in the country as it warned people to remain calm and head to the nearest safe place.

The IRGC earlier said it targeted several facilities at the Sheikh Isa Air Base in Bahrain.

Jordan: Jordan’s military said on Monday that it intercepted and downed “four missiles that entered Jordanian airspace” and came from Iranian territory.

Earlier, the IRGC said it targeted Jordan’s Prince Hassan Air Base with missiles and drones and set fire to several fuel depots and ammunition storage facilities.

Kuwait: The IRGC said on Monday that it also targeted a US surface-to-surface missile base in Kuwait, “setting fire to two HIMARS missile launchers and missile-packed warehouses, completely destroying them”.

HIMARS stands for high mobility artillery rocket systems, which are mobile rocket launchers manufactured by the US.

Earlier, the General Staff of Kuwait’s Army said air defence systems were engaging “hostile aerial targets” inside the country’s airspace.

It said any explosions heard were the result of air defence systems intercepting the attacks and urged the public to follow safety and security instructions.

Where was Iran hit?

The US military’s Central Command (CENTCOM) earlier said it hit “dozens of targets at multiple locations with precision munitions to degrade Iran’s ability to continue attacking international shipping flowing through the Strait of Hormuz”.

These targets included “Iranian military air-defense systems, coastal radar sites, missile and drone capabilities, and small boats”, it said.

CENTCOM said it deployed “US fighter aircraft, naval vessels, one-way attack aerial drones, and one-way attack sea drones for the first time”.

Valiollah Hayati, the deputy governor for security and law enforcement in western Iran’s Khuzestan province, told the semiofficial ISNA news agency on Monday that US forces attacked at least eight locations across Khuzestan overnight.

Hayati also said one person was killed and four were injured when a projectile hit an agricultural water-pumping station in Mahshahr, according to the IRNA news agency.

Iran’s Tasnim News Agency reported on Monday that a US-manufactured LUCAS (low-cost uncrewed combat attack system) suicide drone was “accurately hit and shot down” in Bandar Abbas, a city on the Strait of Hormuz.

What has each side said?

The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement on Monday condemning the US strikes on targets in Iran.

US President Donald Trump insisted that the Strait of Hormuz was open during an appearance on the NBC TV network’s Meet the Press programme on Sunday.

“They’re very, very evil and sick people. We had meetings with them. They agreed to a deal yesterday, a perfect deal for us. No nuclear, no this, no that, no nothing. They gave up everything. And then after that, they left the room. And then within an hour, they launched a drone at a ship,” Trump said.

When did the conflict reignite?

On July 6, the IRGC struck three commercial vessels, including a Qatari liquefied natural gas tanker, off Oman. Iran accused the ships of trying to pass through the Strait of Hormuz without its permission. Tehran’s interpretation of a key clause in the June memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the US gives it the authority to manage traffic through the waterway.

The following day, the US said it carried out strikes on Iranian military targets. Tehran in turn responded with missile and drone attacks on military bases across the Gulf where US forces are deployed.

On Wednesday, Trump told reporters the MoU was over, and on Saturday, the IRGC said the Strait of Hormuz was closed yet again.

How has this impacted the Strait of Hormuz and shipping?

The number of vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz has fallen to its lowest level in five weeks, according to shipping data.

Six ships sailed through the strait on Sunday, according to data from the trade intelligence firm Kpler, including the Humanity and the Capetan Andreas, transporting 2 million barrels of Iranian oil and 500,000 barrels of Kuwaiti petroleum products, respectively.

Three empty tankers also entered the Gulf to load oil, according to the data.

Retired US General Mark Kimmitt warns renewed attacks in the Strait of Hormuz could push the US and Iran back towards wider conflict.

Qatar’s Father Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani has died at the age of 74.

During his 18-year rule, Sheikh Hamad reshaped the energy-rich country’s domestic and global footprint.

When he assumed power in 1995, Qatar’s economy was limited in size and relied mainly on oil, while the vast gas wealth of the North Field site was still in the early stages of development.

In less than two decades, Qatar became the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), the owner of one of the largest sovereign wealth funds and one of the countries with the highest per capita incomes.

This transformation was not just an oil or gas boom fuelled by rising energy prices, but an overhaul of the country’s economic model that was underpinned by a strategy of investing natural resource wealth in building productive assets, financial institutions, infrastructure and human capital.

The economic shift did not begin with Sheikh Hamad’s assumption of power. It was preceded by his appointment in 1989 as chairman of the Supreme Council for Planning, the body then responsible for formulating Qatar’s economic and social policies, which allowed him to oversee the preparation of development programmes before he came to power.

Here, we take a look at Sheikh Hamad’s economic legacy that helped transform Qatar from a small Gulf economy to a major and influential player in global energy and investment markets.

How gas changed Qatar’s economy

The development of the North Field, the world’s largest natural gas field, marked the true starting point of Qatar’s economic transformation.

The decision to accelerate investment and expand gas liquefaction projects during the second half of the 1990s changed the country’s position in the energy market and propelled it towards global leadership.

Qatar went from exporting its first LNG shipment in 1996 to becoming the world’s largest exporter of the commodity in fewer than 15 years.

By 2010, production capacity had risen to 77 million tons per year, according to data from QatarEnergy and the International Energy Agency.

The impact of this boom was not limited to increasing revenues; it also cemented Qatar’s position as a strategic partner in global energy security, especially for the economies of Asia and Europe.

Data from Qatar’s Amiri Diwan reflect the scale of the transformation witnessed by the energy sector, as the added value of the hydrocarbons sector rose from 11 billion Qatari riyals (about $3bn) to 403 billion riyals (about $110.4bn) during Sheikh Hamad’s rule.

Unprecedented economic growth

The gas boom was directly reflected in the performance of Qatar’s economy, which became one of the fastest-growing in the world during the first decade of the millennium.

World Bank data cited by Bloomberg showed Qatar’s economy grew more than twentyfold during Sheikh Hamad’s reign, with gross domestic product (GDP) rising from about $8bn in 1995 to about $199 billion in 2013.

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the economy also recorded the highest growth rates in the world during that period, with real growth reaching 18 percent in 2006 before rising to 26.2 percent in 2011, as LNG production projects came onstream.

From gas boom to capital export

The economic transformation did not stop at increased production or revenues, but it also extended to the way wealth was managed.

As part of building a system to manage financial surpluses, Qatar in 2001 established the Supreme Council for Economic Affairs and Investment under the chairmanship of Sheikh Hamad.

The council was tasked with diversifying domestic and foreign investments “with the aim of developing Qatar’s financial reserves and diversifying sources of income”, according to the Qatari Amiri Diwan.

Four years later, the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA) was established to manage the financial surpluses generated from oil and gas exports.

Sheikh Hamad implemented a policy based on allocating part of the energy revenues to long-term investment, with the aim of building sustainable sources of income beyond natural resources.

QIA quickly became one of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds, acquiring stakes in companies such as Barclays and Volkswagen, as well as the United Kingdom-based Harrods department store in 2010.

Qatar’s investment policies expanded to cover almost every continent – from investments in football clubs, to global economic institutions, to London’s Shard skyscraper, among others.

The authority’s assets are now estimated at more than $500bn, according to the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute, making it one of the world’s largest government investors.

Qatari citizens’ rising living standards

The economic growth was reflected in welfare indicators.

According to the World Bank and the IMF, Qatar during Sheikh Hamad’s reign became one of the countries with the highest GDP per capita in the world.

It exceeded $90,000 in terms of purchasing power parity, as it expanded spending on housing, education and health and recorded a steep decline in unemployment rates to very low levels.

Experts believe the rise in income was not solely the result of higher energy prices, but also stemmed from expanded government investment and the creation of jobs linked to energy and infrastructure projects.

Investment in people

In parallel with energy investments, Qatar also moved towards building a knowledge-based economy.

One of the first development decisions after Sheikh Hamad assumed power was the establishment of the Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development in August 1995 to serve as the main arm for investment in education, scientific research and innovation.

The country later attracted international universities including Georgetown, Texas A&M and Carnegie Mellon, in a move seen as part of a strategy to prepare for the post-oil and gas phase.

The health sector also saw significant expansion through the development of Hamad Medical Corporation and the establishment of new hospitals and specialised centres as part of efforts to improve the quality of public services and keep pace with population growth.

At the same time, the country’s economic openness, coupled with a policy of strengthening its position as a financial and commercial hub in the region, turned the expanding capital of Doha into an increasingly important centre for international economic and investment conferences.

The World Cup and the economy of the future

Gas revenues during Sheikh Hamad’s rule were not limited to financing Qatar’s budget, but were also used for massive infrastructure investments.

That period saw the launch of projects such as Hamad International Airport, Hamad Port, Lusail City and modern road networks, alongside projects that later formed the foundation of the Doha Metro.

These works helped transform Doha from a small Gulf city into a global urban hub, providing the foundation that enabled Qatar to become the first Arab and Middle Eastern country to host the FIFA World Cup in 2022.

After the country won the right to host the major football tournament, its infrastructure and construction sector witnessed a major boom as the government approved huge spending plans exceeding $200bn in infrastructure, including roads, stadiums, railway lines and the construction of a new airport and port.

An ongoing economic legacy

In 2008, the state launched Qatar National Vision 2030, a strategic plan aimed at building a knowledge-based economy with the goal of ensuring continued prosperity for future generations.

This vision, which continues to serve as the governing framework for economic policies, reflects a direction that began under Sheikh Hamad based on transforming natural wealth into a foundation for sustainable development.

And if the development of the gas industry was the starting point for Qatar’s economic transformation, the most prominent legacy of Sheikh Hamad lies in transforming exceptional energy revenues into long-term development tools.

Through the establishment of institutions such as the Supreme Council for Economic Affairs and Investment and QIA, the launch of Qatar National Vision 2030 and investments in education and infrastructure, Qatar moved from an economy dependent on oil exports to a model that combines energy strength with global investment influence.

This blueprint still forms the basis of the state’s economic policies that are being pursued to this day by Sheikh Hamad’s son and successor, Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.