Middle East

Niger requested troops to secure shared energy interests in what would be Algeria’s first deployment abroad since 1973.

Algeria’s President Abdelmadjid Tebboune has ordered troops to neighbouring Niger to protect energy and economic interests shared by both countries.

The decision, announced by Algeria’s presidency on Monday, came after both chambers of parliament approved the deployment in an emergency session on Sunday.

The presidency said authorities in Niger had requested military assistance.

If carried out, it would be Algeria’s first overseas military deployment since 1973, when it sent soldiers to support Egypt during the Arab-Israeli war.

The move marks a departure from Algeria’s longstanding reluctance to intervene militarily beyond its borders.

A 2020 constitutional reform allows the president to authorise overseas deployments with the approval of at least two-thirds of legislators in each parliamentary chamber.

Algeria sent fighter jets and support aircraft to Niger in August after what Algerian officials described as an attempt to destabilise its military government.

The presidency said the deployment decision was made under provisions of Algeria’s constitution allowing the military to operate abroad with parliamentary approval.

It has not been announced how many soldiers will be sent or when.

Algerian Senator Belkacem Boulghiti told reporters after Sunday’s parliamentary vote that the soldiers would protect economic infrastructure, particularly Algerian oil facilities in Niger.

He said Algeria was “not sending our soldiers to wage war in Niger”, describing the mission as a response to changing security conditions in the Sahel region.

Algeria’s state-owned energy company, Sonatrach, has been working with Niger on the proposed Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline. It would carry natural gas from Nigeria through Niger to Algeria for export to European markets.

Niger and neighbouring Mali and Burkina Faso have faced years of attacks by armed groups linked to al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS).

All three countries are governed by military leaders who seized power in coups and subsequently formed the Alliance of Sahel States, a regional political and security bloc.

The deployment follows an improvement in relations between Algeria and Niger, which has been led by General Abdourahamane Tiani since a 2023 military coup that Algeria initially condemned.

Tensions deepened in April last year after Algerian forces shot down a Malian drone near the border, prompting the three alliance members to recall their ambassadors from Algiers.

Eastern Libya spent nearly seven years denouncing the maritime memorandum Turkiye struck with its rivals based in Tripoli. Last week, it needed a single sitting of the legislature to embrace it.

On October 20, the House of Representatives (HoR) in Benghazi ratified the deal. The European Union condemned the vote, as did Greece, Israel and Egypt.

Yet the ratification was less a Turkish triumph than the final act of a sequence choreographed by Saddam Haftar, the son of Khalifa Haftar, the military commander who controls eastern Libya. The ultimate goal is the Libyan presidency.

The United States is currently trying to broker a power-sharing arrangement between Tripoli and Benghazi. Championed by Massad Boulos, US President Donald Trump’s senior adviser for Arab and African affairs, the deal could install Saddam as Libya’s president.

For that to happen, however, he needs the backing of Ankara, whose sway over western Libya gives it a decisive voice in any such settlement. The ratification of the maritime deal, therefore, is meant to secure Turkiye’s blessing.

The opening move in Saddam’s pursuit of the presidency was a palace coup: a fortnight before the vote, the HoR unseated its speaker, Aguila Saleh, who had spent 12 years in this position. It thus removed both Cairo’s principal ally in the east and the most stubborn obstacle to the memorandum’s ratification.

Yet Saleh’s ouster was never only about Egypt, and the same stone felled a second bird. As speaker and nominal supreme commander, he embodied the de jure authority from which Khalifa’s own command flows, and with a weighty tribal constituency among the Obeidat tribe, he was one of the few men capable of complicating, or even arbitrating, any transfer of power. Removing him cleared Saddam’s path to a handover already quietly under way, which the elder Haftar’s advanced age could hasten at any moment.

Saleh’s successor, Al-Salhin Abdulnabi, a fellow Obeidi, who chaired the HoR’s Libyan-Turkish friendship committee, is able to defuse the risk of tribal backlash while signalling where the chamber now takes its cues.

Whether the gambit pays off will be decided in Washington. Saddam is counting on the Trump administration’s appetite for a Libyan deal, sharpened by Turkish and Emirati lobbying and by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s rapport with Trump.

He hopes it can prevail over the objections of Athens and Nicosia and the displeasure of Israel, which is uneasy about Ankara’s reach. This is directly pitting Trump’s transactional instinct against a longstanding US partnership with the Greek-Cypriot-Israeli axis.

The broadside against Israel may even pay a domestic dividend, allowing Saddam to pose as standing up to Israel while dispelling perceptions of a covert channel to it.

Europe, meanwhile, has sidelined itself into near-irrelevance: when Benghazi expelled the EU’s migration commissioner and three member-state ministers on arrival in July 2025, European capitals responded with something closer to grovelling than resolve.

Less than a year later, Athens was hosting Saddam, who duly sidestepped any commitment on an alternative maritime memorandum.

That deference flows from the EU’s navel-gazing fixation on migration that has reduced its Libya policy to counting the boats leaving Libya’s eastern coast for Crete. A Union that implores Saddam to police the very waters now in dispute is in no position to make him pay for redrawing them.

Abu Dhabi, for its part, has every reason to look the other way because it wants Saddam to succeed. None of Khalifa’s sons has been more faithful to the Emiratis, and seeing their most loyal client installed at the apex of the Libyan state would cap a decade of investment in the Haftar project. Whatever their past flirtation with Greece and Cyprus, a maritime line drawn in Ankara’s favour is a modest price for that outcome, though the closeness of that embrace may yet constrain him.

Egypt remains the real question mark: Cairo’s statement objected chiefly to the memorandum’s encroachment on Egypt’s exclusive economic zone and was framed almost entirely in legal terms, a sign perhaps that it is keeping its political options open.

Its relationship with Ankara has been transformed, with the two now aligned on Sudan and the Red Sea. A shared wariness of Israel’s expansionist ambitions has only drawn them closer.

Offering commercial deals could go some way towards softening Egyptian opposition. But Cairo could also lean on its rapport with Ankara to champion an alternative Haftar heir. It would not have to look far for a candidate: Saddam’s brother Khaled, the Libyan Arab Armed Forces’ chief of staff, is considerably closer to Cairo and publicly criticised the US initiative in April.

Should that happen, Saddam would have little left to bargain with, having cashed in his most valuable chip with the Turks, and the strongest card he still holds is one Abu Dhabi would never let him play.

Cutting off support for Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces would win favour in Ankara and Cairo alike, both backers of the Sudanese army, but that would jeopardise the one relationship he cannot afford to lose.

Squeezed between a patron in Abu Dhabi he dare not cross and a partner in Ankara that has already pocketed its reward, Saddam is betting that he can keep both on side long enough for Washington to see the deal through. That he is prepared to run such risks may say as much about desperation as acumen, for the alternative to an institutionalised succession is one contested, perhaps violently, by his siblings or by the constituencies left out of the new order.

History, in Libya, has a mordant sense of humour. The maritime memorandum was the price Tripoli paid for the Turkish intervention that helped halt Khalifa Haftar’s offensive at the gates of the capital and sent his forces and mercenaries into headlong retreat in 2020. Where the father tried and failed to storm Tripoli, the son now hopes to be ushered in on a red carpet woven from the very document that sealed his father’s defeat.

Should he succeed, the instrument of the Haftars’ most humiliating setback will have become the cornerstone of their dynasty. Should Washington baulk, it may instead become the epitaph of the son’s ambitions.

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

As the threat of a new war with the United States looms, the Front of Islamic Revolution Stability, a hardline political faction also known as the Paydari Front, has asked the Iranian parliament and the Supreme National Security Council to initiate a withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

This move has been interpreted as a call for Iran to develop nuclear weapons, with the Paydari Front saying these military endeavours should happen “as quickly as possible”.

It is the latest bold and defiant message by Iran’s hardliners against Washington, after the US and Israel launched a war on Iran on February 28 on the pretext that Tehran was trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The war has seen the Strait of Hormuz largely closed to shipping, massive damage to Iranian and Arab infrastructure in missile and air strikes, and huge disruptions to global energy supplies.

The past eight months have also marked an ongoing existential power struggle between moderates and centrists, such as President Masoud Pezeshkian, who generally favour talks with the US, and hardliners in the Paydari Front who do not.

Ultimately, the moderate camp wants a swift end to the conflict to save Iran’s crumbling economy. Hardliners believe Washington only understands the language of force, so the war should continue until the US capitulates to Iran’s demands.

The domestic rivalry can be seen in the public squares of major Iranian cities, where for the past 200 days supporters of the hardline faction have rallied at night.

Initially, these gatherings were a way for people to express public support for the government and protest the unprovoked US war on Iran. Over time, they have evolved into highly organised political rallies where activists can publicly express their strong opposition to moderates’ efforts to end the war through diplomatic channels.

The hardliners’ slogans include “No compromise, no surrender – the fight against America” and “Negotiating with the enemy is a betrayal of the homeland”.

They also protested against President Pezeshkian’s return to Tehran from the UN General Assembly in September, where he condemned the US war but also extolled the virtues of diplomacy. The pickets were viewed as a way for their “anti-negotiation” message to be heard by the president.

This bloc has considerable power beyond these activist circles. Hardliners have a strong presence in Tehran’s municipal government, the parliament, among religious preachers and eulogists, and academia and the media.

Amirhossein Sabeti, a member of parliament aligned with the Paydari Front, said in a statement that negotiations with the US will not begin unless Washington’s siege on Iran’s southern ports or sanctions end.

“The enemy’s objective of destroying Iran has not changed. It is simply waiting for the right moment to launch another surprise attack. Those who thought negotiations could prevent war, or that the United States would lift sanctions through negotiations, did not understand how the world works and were deluding themselves,” he said. “The only language the world understands is the language of power.”

The political faction to which Sabeti belongs has filed a motion in the Iranian parliament to impeach Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, following his visit to New York for the United Nations General Assembly. Iran’s parliament is also considering a law to criminalise interviews with foreign media outlets, which would be another win for hardliners.

But as the impeachment motion against Iran’s foreign minister moves through parliament, the political camp supporting the government continues to advocate for a diplomatic solution to the current conflict.

Davood Heshmati, a journalist considered close to Pezeshkian, said there are signs that US forces have foregone the grand ambition of overthrowing the Iranian government and have instead opted for more modest aims, which makes a diplomatic solution more likely.

“There are several ways to achieve those other goals, one of which is war. But, in any case, to prevent a war, all alternatives to military action must first be tested. Negotiations and a diplomatic agreement are among those alternatives, and they should always take precedence over war,” Heshmati told Al Jazeera.

“Those who say the Strait of Hormuz must not be reopened are people who believe the war must not end. From the perspective of Iran’s anti-negotiation camp, the war between Iran and the United States has no end. What they do not explain is what outcome they expect from this war. They seem to believe that, after several rounds of fighting, the United States will simply walk away from the conflict. But that idea does not appear to be consistent with the logic of what we are witnessing.”

He indicated that for any war to end, there needs to be an understanding with the US that respects Iran’s territorial integrity.

“Those in Iran who support negotiations argue that a balance of power does not necessarily have to be achieved through war, although, given everything that has happened along the diplomatic path, the distrust that exists is understandable,” he said.

Political analyst Negar Mortazavi argues that hardline groups are a powerful domestic force, but they currently have limited influence over Iran’s foreign policy.

“Iran’s hardliners are not a marginal political force. They are a well-organised and deeply entrenched part of [Iran’s] political establishment. Their strength lies in their ability to mobilise supporters, shape political discourse, pressure the government, and raise the political cost of diplomacy,” she said.

“But political influence should not be confused with ultimate decision-making authority. Decisions about war, peace, and negotiations are made at the highest levels of Iran’s leadership and national security establishment.”

Hardliners can continue to confront negotiators, threaten impeachments against those who propose talks with the US, and try to obstruct diplomatic endeavours, she said. But they cannot prevent an agreement being reached if it is backed by the country’s main powerholders, including Supreme Leader Mujtaba Khamenei and the Supreme National Security Council.

“The [hardliners] are powerful enough to complicate diplomacy, but not necessarily powerful enough to stop it. [They] are a highly visible and vocal political force, but they are not calling the shots,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera.

“Throughout the war, Tehran has kept the door open to diplomacy, and the decision at the highest levels of leadership has been to pursue negotiations with the United States and seek an agreement. The hardliners have been unable to stop that. The real test of their power is that they could not stop the JCPOA [nuclear agreement] under [former President Barack] Obama, and they could not stop the more recent MoU [memorandum of understanding] with Trump. Ultimately, the decisions were made above their heads.”

Street rallies and television programmes opposing a peaceful solution to the US-Israeli war against Iran will continue. But the delay in scheduling the foreign minister’s impeachment hearing, alongside continued diplomatic engagement with mediators to end the war, suggests that the moderates are still a force to be reckoned with.

Tehran, Iran – Ministers and senior security officials from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkiye – the three nations that signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement – are in Tehran to discuss regional security issues amid threats of new US strikes on Iran.

Saudi Defence Minister Khalid bin Salman Al Saud, Pakistani military chief Asim Munir and Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin met Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian and will discuss tensions with security chief Mohsen Rezaei.

The meetings are among the highest-profile dialogues held in Tehran in recent months. While there is still little information on what might be discussed, the meetings come amid a flurry of diplomatic activity to deal with a new escalation between the United States and Iran.

But analysts broadly believe the visit to Tehran by the three signatories of the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, a regional defence alliance, will be enough to prevent a new outbreak in violence between the US and Iran.

“The Mecca pact’s 11th-hour visit to Tehran is an attempt to tip the balance in favour of those willing to compromise before the guns start blazing again,” said Ali Vaez, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at the International Crisis Group.

“But unless they arrive with a credible formula to bridge the US-Iran divide, they may find themselves with little more than goodwill in a race against the clock.”

The talks are expected to address the waves of missile and drone attacks carried out by Yemen’s Houthi rebels, who are allied with Tehran, on Saudi Arabia, which supports Yemen’s internationally recognised government.

“I believe that parties to the Mecca agreement lack options of military engagement with the Houthis, but Riyadh is certainly asserting greater pressure for more, and its expectation of its partners has grown in parallel with the offensive from Yemen,” Ayesha Siddiqa, a senior research fellow in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera.

But despite the collective security arrangement in the Mecca defence pact, Saudi Arabia’s allies Turkiye and Pakistan cannot “afford to commit troops on the ground” in Yemen, said Siddiqa.

The latest diplomatic push is likely linked to visits by Pakistani army chief Asim Munir to Saudi Arabia and Iran last week, Siddiqa said, and coincides with Islamabad’s restrictions on overland border trade with Tehran amid the US blockade on Iran.

Iranian authorities have said they favoured “security originating from within the region” as they prepared for the meetings.

Umer Karim, who researches Saudi foreign policy and its implications for regional security, said the Tehran meetings are unlikely to reduce the risk of a renewed war between Iran and the US, which would likely lead to more regional turmoil.

“Therefore, these talks perhaps are more concerned about the security of Saudi Arabia and involve an attempt by Turkiye and Pakistan to compel Iran to reach a compromise,” he told Al Jazeera.

US President Donald Trump is said to be considering new attacks to break the diplomatic deadlock with Iran, which has refused to agree to any peace agreement with Washington unless several of its demands are met.

The US and regional powers want international shipping and transit through the Strait of Hormuz to resume without impediments or attacks. Washington also wants to rein in Tehran’s nuclear programme and bring in international inspectors to assess Iran’s highly enriched uranium. Israel says it wants to overthrow the Islamic Republic.

Tehran wants to lift the US naval blockade of Iran’s southern ports, which has halted crude oil exports and disrupted most trade, and return to a memorandum of understanding agreed between the two countries in June.

The US has refused this, with President Trump saying he is left with a choice to “finish the job” by launching major strikes on Iran’s civilian infrastructure. This could prompt Iran to lash out at its neighbours, as it did earlier in the war with strikes on US bases in Arab states and infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the US Department of State issued an October 21 order for nonemergency US government employees and their family ⁠members to leave Saudi Arabia for their safety’s sake, given the Houthi threat.

As talks involving Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye continue in Iran, analysts say these Mecca Joint Defence Agreement signatories will likely try to minimise the impact on Saudi Arabia if war does break out again.

“However, since little has changed from an Iranian strategic calculus and the actors involved don’t have the kind of leverage needed to affect Iran’s strategic thinking, these negotiations are going to yield little,” Karim said.

Coalition says it destroyed ballistic missile launchers as well as tunnels and a depot used by the Houthis to store missiles.

The Saudi-led coalition fighting Yemen’s Houthis has said it carried out a military operation “aimed at neutralising sources of threat”, as the armed group claimed attacks on infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Coalition spokesman Turki al-Maliki said on Monday its forces destroyed four ballistic missile launchers and five tunnels used by the Houthis to store missiles.

In a post on X, he also said coalition forces attacked a missile depot, adding that the operation “focused on cutting off Houthi militia supply lines between areas under their control”.

The operation also targeted Houthi “fortifications, gatherings of their members, and their military equipment along the front lines inside Yemen”.

The Houthis – also known as Ansar Allah, Arabic for Supporters of God – have carried out a wave of strikes in recent weeks against Saudi airports and other infrastructure. This follows a major escalation in fighting in Yemen’s war, in which Saudi Arabia is supporting the internationally recognised government fighting the Houthis.

A Houthi attack on Riyadh’s King Khalid international airport this month killed 13 people and wounded more than 300, the deadliest attack on the kingdom in more than a decade.

The attacks led to the airport’s temporary closure, forcing the postponement of Saudi Arabia’s flagship investment conference until 2027 and disrupting travel plans for thousands of passengers.

The airport reopened and flights resumed on Sunday with the Houthis warning travellers to avoid the facility, calling it a “military target.”

Houthis claim new attacks

The Houthis later claimed they attacked the airport “with a ballistic missile, striking the target with precision”, according to a post by Houthi military spokesman Yahya Saree on social media on Monday.

Al-Maliki said on Monday that Saudi air defences “intercepted and destroyed a ballistic missile launched by the terrorist Houthi militia towards Riyadh.”

Saree also said that the Houthis had struck oil pumping stations in Saudi Arabia with drones.

In a separate statement, Saree also claimed responsibility for more ballistic missile attacks on “enemy” forces and weapons depots in Yemen.

He said the attacks targeted positions in the Salah al-Din area of Aden governorate and the al-Wahat area of Lahij governorate.

Yemen’s war reignited in the summer when the Houthis announced a maritime blockade on Saudi Arabia, which intervened in 2015 to lead a coalition aimed at restoring the internationally recognised government that was ousted from the capital Sanaa by the Houthis in 2014.

A 2022 truce that had halted most fighting collapsed last month, as the Houthis launched a lightning offensive, seizing much of Yemen’s Red Sea coast from government forces and also attacking Saudi energy facilities and airports.

Yemen’s government forces this month launched the “Operation Yemen Dawn” counteroffensive, aimed at recapturing territory held by the Houthis.

‘Everything is shaking’

As operations resumed at Riyadh airport, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis met Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) and discussed a key air defence system.

Mitsotakis “responded favourably to the kingdom’s request to keep the Patriot system in Saudi Arabia, given the current challenging circumstances”, his office said, referring to a battery of the US-made air defence system deployed by Greece to Saudi Arabia in 2021, which protects energy infrastructure in Yanbu, on the Red Sea coast.

On Sunday, the Saudi-led military coalition said air defences intercepted at least 10 ballistic missiles.

The kingdom’s civil defence agency said two people were injured in the south by falling debris, also reporting damage to several buildings and vehicles.

Images released by the kingdom’s official press agency showed a building with part of its upper facade destroyed, exposing metal rods. Another image captured large windows shattered, with shards of glass strewn across the pavement and part of the road.

Algeria’s parliament has approved a proposal to deploy troops to neighbouring Niger, in a major shift in the North African nation’s noninterventionist military doctrine.

Algeria’s lower house, the People’s National Assembly, ratified the deployment on Sunday after the upper house, the Council of the Nation, unanimously approved the proposal earlier in the day.

Details about the number of soldiers and when they will be deployed have yet to be made public.

It comes nearly two months after Algeria dispatched four Russian-made Sukhoi Su-30 jets, a transport aircraft and an aerial refuelling aircraft to Niamey, following what Algerian authorities described as an attempt to destabilise Niger’s military-led government.

The step comes amid a thawing of relations between Algiers and Niamey as Niger’s President Abdourahamane Tchiani visited Algeria in February and, months later, his defence minister, Salifou Mody, ⁠⁠travelled to Algiers to discuss security cooperation.

The shooting down of a Malian drone by the Algerian army last April triggered a diplomatic crisis after Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso recalled their ambassadors from Algiers. The condemnation of the 2023 coup in Niger by Algeria had also strained ties.

The troop deployment is reportedly intended to protect oil installations belonging to Algeria’s state-owned energy company, Sonatrach. Troops would be sent “to protect Algeria’s economic and strategic interests, particularly its oil facilities in Niger”, The Associated Press news agency reported, quoting Algerian Senator Belkacem Boulghiti.

It also comes as Algiers seeks to deepen security cooperation in the Sahel, a vast belt of territory stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea, including several countries along Algeria’s southern frontier.

Why does this matter?

Algeria has historically been reluctant to deploy its armed forces beyond its borders, reflecting a longstanding foreign policy built around sovereignty, noninterference and opposition to foreign military intervention.

But that does not mean it has never done so.

Algerian forces participated in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, although overseas military deployments have remained exceptionally rare in the decades since.

A constitutional revision in 2020 formalised the conditions under which Algerian troops could be sent abroad.

Under Article 91, the president may authorise such deployments, provided they receive the backing of at least two-thirds of the members of each chamber of parliament.

The constitution also provides for Algerian participation in peacekeeping operations under the auspices of the United Nations, the African Union and the Arab League.

The move is particularly significant given Algeria’s military capabilities. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the country spent more than $25bn on its armed forces in 2025, making it Africa’s largest military spender.

But the decision also comes against a backdrop of growing diplomatic tensions and shifting regional alliances.

In September, Algeria severed diplomatic relations with the United Arab Emirates, accusing Abu Dhabi of repeated “hostile” and “provocative actions” without publicly detailing the incidents behind the decision.

The two countries have long disagreed over several regional issues, including Western Sahara and the UAE’s alleged interference in North African and Sahelian affairs.

Taken together, these developments suggest that Algeria is becoming increasingly willing to assert its security interests beyond its borders, even as it continues to emphasise the principles of sovereignty and noninterference.

Why the Sahel?

For Algeria, instability in the Sahel is not a distant security concern.

The country shares thousands of kilometres of borders with Mali, Niger and Libya, making developments in its southern neighbourhood particularly consequential.

The roots of the current security crisis can be traced, in part, to the collapse of Muammar Gaddafi’s government in Libya in 2011.

At the height of the Arab Spring uprisings, Algeria took a firm stance against foreign military intervention and warned that the disintegration of the Libyan state could destabilise neighbouring countries.

Those concerns were not unfounded.

Following Gaddafi’s overthrow, weapons and armed fighters, including Tuareg who had served in Libya, spread into neighbouring countries.

Their return helped fuel a rebellion in northern Mali in 2012, contributing to a security crisis that preceded the military overthrow of President Amadou Toumani Toure that March.

Over the following decade, armed rebellion expanded across parts of the Sahel, particularly Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger.

Since 2012, those three countries alone have experienced six military coups: three in Mali, two in Burkina Faso and one in Niger.

Many of the coups unfolded against a backdrop of deteriorating security, with military leaders accusing civilian governments of failing to contain increasingly powerful armed groups.

But insecurity was not the only factor. Political grievances, governance failures and rivalries within armed forces also contributed to the coups.

Who else is operating in the Sahel?

Another factor shaping Algeria’s calculations is the changing presence of foreign military forces across the region.

For more than a decade, France was a central player in counterterrorism operations in the Sahel, deploying thousands of troops to combat armed groups linked to al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS).

But that military presence has largely unravelled.

Following successive coups and deteriorating diplomatic relations, France withdrew its troops from Mali in August 2022, Burkina Faso in February 2023 and Niger in December 2023.

The withdrawals were accompanied by growing anti-French sentiment and demands from military governments for greater control over their security policies.

Niger demanded the departure of approximately 1,500 French soldiers following its July 2023 coup.

Just months later, in April 2024, approximately 100 Russian military personnel arrived in Niamey, bringing equipment and providing training to Nigerien forces.

The personnel were associated with Africa Corps, a Russian paramilitary group close to the Kremlin.

Moscow has also expanded its military cooperation with Mali and Burkina Faso, where Russian personnel have undertaken training, advisory and security roles, including combat support in Mali.

The United States has also seen its military footprint shrink.

In 2024, Washington withdrew approximately 1,000 soldiers from Niger after the military government terminated their security cooperation agreement. The withdrawal included personnel stationed at an important US drone base near Agadez.

The result has been a significant realignment of the Sahel’s security partnerships, with Western military forces departing and Russia assuming a more prominent role.

What does Algeria stand to gain?

For Algiers, the proposed deployment to Niger carries immediate security and wider strategic implications.

At the most practical level, protecting Algerian energy investments would help safeguard the country’s economic interests in a region affected by armed rebellions and political instability, including the Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline (TSGP), which would transport Nigerian gas to Europe and traverse Niger and Algeria.

It could also deepen cooperation with Niger, whose military government has sought new security partners since taking power in 2023.

More broadly, the move would allow Algeria to establish a direct military presence in a neighbouring country at a time when the Sahel’s security architecture is being reshaped.

“We are not sending our soldiers to wage war in Niger, but for a mission to secure economic infrastructure,” Senator Boulghiti told reporters after the vote. “It is simply an adaptation of our doctrine to evolving circumstances so we can rise to the new challenges imposed by the situation in the Sahel region.”

The Farsh Al-Hawa area in the city of Hebron in the occupied West Bank is unrecognisable after Israeli forces demolished a three-story building and industrial facilities there. Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who also holds the West Bank portfolio in the Ministry of Defence, said he ordered their destruction.

It all started on Friday, when two Palestinians attacked an Israeli military checkpoint in Farsh Al-Hawa, killing two soldiers and injuring others.

Since then, Hebron, the West Bank’s economic capital, has been attacked and put under lockdown by Israeli forces.

Israel has announced a sweeping military assault in the city, targeting the neighbourhood of the gunmen, who were killed on Friday. Israeli forces have already forcibly displaced more than 2,000 Palestinians. City officials say almost half of the displaced are babies and children under 18, along with 81 pregnant women and 204 elderly.

Fahd Ahmaro was forced to leave his home, along with his family. He told Al Jazeera that he planned to stay but felt compelled to seek shelter outside his neighbourhood because the women and children were terrified.

“We left with nothing but the clothes on our backs. Our savings, belongings and documents are all in the house,” he said. “I tried to go back after I got my family out safely, but I couldn’t. It’s not safe any more.”

Palestinian authorities in Hebron have declared a state of emergency and created a crisis group, bringing together government agencies, the private sector and civil society, to respond after thousands of people in the city were forced to flee their homes.

Riyadh Khamis, who serves on the committee, told Al Jazeera that philanthropists who could not bear the thought of fellow Palestinians staying in temporary shelters opened their homes to the displaced.

“Hebron is known for its social solidarity and generosity. Our city was the first to provide aid during the COVID lockdown and during the genocide,” Khamis told Al Jazeera. “Today, our neighbours needed help so we all rallied.”

Real estate developer Mohamed Al-Rujoob is one of the philanthropists who sprang to action at the start of the assault on the city.

Al-Rujoob, who owns several apartments in Dura, a town close to Hebron, announced that the properties would be made available for displaced families, prompting other owners to do the same. He now hosts three extended families in his apartments, including 30 children.

“We must preserve people’s dignity. Today, we host these good people. Tomorrow, who knows? It might be us who need shelter. We’re all under the same occupation and we’re all vulnerable,” he said.

The Israeli army says Hebron is on lockdown, which affects nearly 1 million Palestinians who live in the city and the rest of the district.

Restrictions on movement have had a severe impact on the West Bank’s largest district. Schools have moved to online classes, while Hebron’s universities have made similar arrangements for their 18,000 students until the Israeli operation ends.

The measures are essential for Palestinian students who are stuck in their homes and neighbourhoods, including the besieged Fawwar refugee camp in Hebron, home to nearly 8,000 Palestinians. Israeli soldiers closed the camp’s entrance gate on Saturday, barring residents from entering or leaving, even on foot.

Abdel Fattah Al-Ttitti, a school teacher who lives in the camp and works in a Hebron school, said “we are locked in”.

“If, God forbid, somebody needs medical attention, we may be able to get them to the clinic in Masafer Yatta, but that clinic is poorly equipped. If there’s a medical emergency, they can’t help,” Al-Ttitti told Al Jazeera.

He is glad that schools announced online classes. “Until this campaign is over, there’s no other way,” he said.

Many in Hebron believe that Israel’s military campaign in the city has a political dimension, with Israelis heading to the polls on Tuesday for a general election.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition is vying for every right-wing vote. Violence against Palestinians has proved an expedient campaign tactic for politicians such as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Minister of Settlement Affairs, Orit Strook.

Both right-wing ministers have homes in illegal settlements in the Hebron area and support the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the occupied West Bank and Gaza, which they refer to as “encouraging voluntary migration”.

Deir el-Balah, Gaza Strip — After three years of genocidal war, Palestinians in Gaza are watching the upcoming elections in Israel with a mixture of fear and uncertainty.

Although the territory has been under a “ceasefire” since October 2025, Palestinians in Gaza continue to endure almost daily Israeli air strikes, dire living conditions, and a punishing siege that has caused shortages of basic goods.

Israelis will head to the polls on Tuesday to vote for their next government, in an election that has been shaped by the war on Gaza. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been strongly criticised for his handling of security before the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel. Members of his far-right government have called for a tougher line on Gaza, including the expulsion of its population.

The people of Gaza know this election will shape their future and many have been closely watching the campaign.

Mohammed Eliyan, 36, was displaced from Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza and now lives in Deir el-Balah with his five children. He hopes a change in leadership in Israel could bring relief to Palestinians who have endured repeated displacement and war.

“We follow the Israeli election to see who will win in the next phase. We hope there might be some easing for the Palestinian cause and for us, who have been displaced again,” he told Al Jazeera.

Eliyan hopes that Gadi Eisenkot, the former Israeli military commander and Netanyahu’s main rival, will defeat the prime minister. He sees Netanyahu as more hardline and fears that if his Likud party and far-right allies win another term, it would mean more war and further displacement for Gaza’s people.

“We hope there will be changes after the election, and that someone other than Benjamin Netanyahu will win. What Netanyahu has done to the Palestinian people, before and after October 7, has not been a small thing,” he said.

But regardless of who wins, Eliyan does not expect a major shift in Israeli policy.

“They are still our enemy, and I don’t expect things to improve dramatically,” he said. “But we hope someone else might be less harsh than Netanyahu.”

He called on Israel’s next leader to end the war, prevent displacement and starvation, and ease restrictions at Gaza’s crossings.

“We want whoever leads Israel not to be hardline. End the war and let us live in peace,” he said.

Islam Salem, 41, is displaced from Beit Lahiya in northern Gaza and has three daughters. He is following Israel’s election closely and believes the result could affect Gaza’s future and the lives of his children, likely for the worse.

“Politics is our livelihood. It is connected to everything in our lives, our living conditions and even the future of our children,” he said.

But he also believes that elections primarily serve Israeli interests, so even if there are new faces in the next government, the Gaza strategy will likely remain the same.

“Israeli policy will not change in any way. Whatever they take, they consider it theirs and a political gain for them, the gains of a war they have pursued for a long time,” Islam told Al Jazeera.

He pointed to Israel’s continued control of about 65 percent of Gaza’s territory inside the “Yellow Line”. He also doubts whether reconstruction will begin soon in Gaza, where more than 80 percent of buildings have been damaged, and about two-thirds of those have been completely destroyed.

“I think reconstruction will be difficult. They do not want to give others any rights. They want their rights in full, and even more,” he said.

Years of war have left Salem struggling to imagine a future beyond his harsh daily reality.

“There is no future left for us to be afraid of. We live day by day. We have no idea what will happen next, and everything we feared has already happened,” he said.

Asked what he would say to Israel’s next prime minister, he spoke of how many in Gaza are feeling.

“If only a simple person could come and talk to him and say, ‘Leave us alone. Give us some breathing space and let us breathe.’ But he would not be convinced. What can I say to him?” he said.

Hanan Abu al-Maaza, 57, has been displaced more than 12 times during the war on Gaza. She fears Israel’s next government could bring more suffering to its people in the besieged enclave.

“We follow the election because of the fear and anxiety we are living with. We have been displaced more than 12 times, and we are afraid they will do even worse to us than before,” she said.

“We go to sleep without feeling safe, wondering what they might do to us next. The fear is still in our heads and hearts.”

Abu al-Maaza says if Netanyahu is defeated, there will be more chance that she can return to her home in Beit Lahiya.

“I hope someone else wins, so we can have peace of mind and feel safe, and return to our homes. That is what we wish for,” she said.

After years of destruction in Gaza, she hopes Israel’s next leader will show Palestinians more mercy.

“Maybe he will say that there is nothing left in Gaza, that they have done enough and should let people live. There is hardly anything left in Gaza for anyone to think about doing anything more,” she said.

Abu al-Maaza urged Israel’s next leader to end the war and stop the suffering in the territory.

“We have had enough of war and destruction. There is nothing left to destroy, yet the suffering continues,” she said.

Manar Owaida, 23, is originally from northern Gaza and is now displaced in the Tal al-Hawa neighbourhood of Gaza City. She is also keeping an eye on the Israeli election and considering its potential impact.

“I follow the election to know what they are saying and planning, and to understand what is happening around us and how the next Israeli government might affect the situation in Gaza,” she said.

Owaida hopes Gadi Eisenkot will replace Netanyahu, and sees the current prime minister as more extreme than his challenger. But she does not believe a change in Israel’s leadership would transform Palestinian lives, arguing that government policies have remained consistent for decades.

“Israel’s policy is one of crime, killing and destruction. Since 1948, it has been the same policy, the same killing and the same blockade,” she said.

Still, she hopes a new government could ease restrictions and killings and withdraw from areas beyond the “Yellow Line”, allowing life to gradually return to Gaza.

“There might be a change in Israeli policy if someone comes in place of Netanyahu and eases the blockade and the killing we are living through,” she said.

“There could be a withdrawal from the Yellow Line and life could gradually return to Gaza. But we are waiting with fear and uncertainty, alongside a little hope.”

Her greatest concern is that Netanyahu could launch a wider regional war to avoid domestic political pressure around the time of the vote.

Owaida said she wants Israel’s next prime minister to allow Palestinians to live without fear of further violence.

“We want to live in freedom and peace, away from killing and wars,” she said.

Mousa Ali, 33, was displaced from Beit Lahiya in northern Gaza and is now in Gaza City with his four children.

He believes that the outcome of the election could determine whether displaced Palestinians can return to areas beyond the “Yellow Line”.

“For Palestinians, this election is critical, especially because of the Yellow Line. We hope the opposition will be better when it comes to allowing displaced people to return to their areas,” he said.

Ali mentioned Gadi Eisenkot as a possible alternative and hopes Arab parties will perform strongly so they have a role in the next government.

But he does not expect a new leader to bring major changes for the people of Gaza and fears that Israeli attacks will continue. He says a Netanyahu victory would prolong displacement and control over areas around the “Yellow Line”.

“Every day in Gaza, there is blood, there are people being killed, and there is bombing everywhere,” he said. “We hope this policy will end and that a new prime minister will stop this ongoing bloodshed.”

Planned talks to be first high-level contact between Iran and the bloc since Houthi rebels escalated their attacks on Saudi Arabia.

Delegations from the Mecca Defence Alliance countries – Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan – will visit Tehran for talks, according to Saudi and Iranian officials.

Ali Bagheri Kani, deputy secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, was quoted by state-run media as saying Saudi Defence Minister Khalid bin Salman Al Saud, Pakistani military chief Asim Munir and Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin will participate in a joint meeting during their visit to Tehran on Monday.

The Iranian delegation will be led by Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.

The participating countries could take an effective step towards establishing regional security based on actors in the region, Bagheri Kani said.

Rayed Krimly, the Saudi deputy minister for public diplomacy, also confirmed the meeting, adding that the visit comes as part of the continued efforts by the Mecca Defence Alliance allies “for de-escalation between parties involved in the ongoing crisis and promoting dialogue and diplomatic solutions in support of the mediation efforts carried out” by Qatar and Pakistan.

“The visit underscores the pivotal role of Mecca Joint Defence Agreement countries in reinforcing regional security and stability and working with all countries in the region to achieve that goal,” he wrote on X.

Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia

The planned talks would be the first high-level contact between Iran and all members of the alliance since Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi armed group escalated attacks on Saudi Arabia last month.

Field Marshal Munir last week visited Tehran, where he met President Masoud Pezeshkian and other senior officials.

During the visit, Iranian officials told him there would be no talks with the United States about ending the US-Israel war on Iran until Tehran’s demands were met, according to Iranian media.

Pakistan has been a key intermediary between Washington and Tehran since the US and Israel launched the war in February.

Earlier mediation efforts helped produce an interim agreement in June, but the deal quickly unravelled as fighting between Iran and the US resumed weeks later.

Saudi Arabia intercepted another wave of missiles and drones on Sunday as fighting with the Houthis continued.

Ministers from the Mecca Defence Alliance countries held an emergency meeting in Riyadh this month and agreed to ensure the “rapid deployment” of military forces and capabilities in Saudi Arabia.

The Houthi attacks have become an increasingly destabilising element in the US-Israeli war on Iran, turning US ally Saudi Arabia into a pressure point ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠in the wider war.

Turkiye, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement in August. Under it, an armed attack on one member is considered an attack on all.

The agreement’s first article says the parties shall use “all necessary means” to eliminate threats to one another’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and internationally recognised borders, according to the text publicised at the time.

Efforts by Turkiye’s parliament to ratify the agreement began last week and are still under way while Pakistan approved the pact last week.

From judicial reform to conscription and the Palestinians, here’s where candidates stand on the key issues dominating the campaign.

For an election often billed as the most consequential in Israel’s history, many issues that outsiders might expect to divide the candidates are, in fact, points of consensus among the frontrunners.

None of the leading contenders in Tuesday’s election has questioned the case for unleashing a genocide on Gaza in response to the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, or the wars that have followed, including the one on Iran. Nor have most candidates for the premiership offered a clear path towards implementing a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict that was envisaged in the 1990s, or towards an equitable settlement with the Palestinians whose territory Israel occupies.

Instead, the points of division centre almost exclusively on Israel’s internal politics and how voters see the future character of their country. The choice is between the hard-right government of incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, unconstrained by the judicial oversight he has railed against, and the future outlined by the disparate coalition of his opponents, which promises a broadly similar policy agenda but within the confines of the law and without the more extreme elements of the current governing coalition.

So, what have the leading candidates said about the main issues?

The two-state solution

Despite having committed to working towards a two-state solution in the 1990s’ Oslo Accords, with many of their allies adjusting their policies towards Israel to reflect that commitment, few of the contenders in Tuesday’s election appear ready to honour it. Instead, their government stands widely accused of abetting the settler pogroms now raging across the West Bank, while supporting continued construction in the occupied territory in defiance of international law. This includes the E1 settlement plan, which ministers openly boast will bury the two-state solution.

Here’s what some of the contenders have said:

• Likud party leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “We are going to fulfill our promise that there will be no Palestinian state; this place belongs to us.”
• Yashar party Gadi Eisenkot: “My position on the Palestinian issue has remained consistent: The principle of two states for two peoples is a mistake.”

• Religious Zionist party leader, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich: The next government should “destroy the idea of an Arab terror state; finally, formally and practically cancel the cursed Oslo Accords and get on the path of sovereignty, while encouraging migration both from Gaza and from Judea and Samaria [occupied West Bank]. There is no other long-term solution.”
• The Democrats leader Yair Golan: “We need to understand that Israeli society is still in trauma from October 7. To make the galactic leap from the current situation to a two-state solution is impossible. It’s not enough to return to old formulas, we need to adjust our plans, our ideas, our perceptions. My concept is about civil separation and security responsibility.”

Haredi draft

The conscription of Israel’s growing ultra-Orthodox, or Haredi, population into the army is an issue largely unique to Israel, and one whose prominence has grown as the human and economic costs of the wars in which many refuse to take part have mounted.

Netanyahu has continued to rely on the two main Haredi parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism (UTJ), for support in the Knesset. They have in turn insisted that he pass legislation overturning the Supreme Court ruling of June 25, 2024 and offering ultra-Orthodox youth a legislative shield against conscription.

Here is what leaders have said:

• Netanyahu after the arrest this month of about 40 Haredim – plural for Haredi – for avoiding the draft: “We must preserve the world of Torah because it preserved us. These arrests are a deliberate attempt to harm the process of drafting Haredim without coercion.”
• Shas leader Aryeh Deri: “There will be no government in Israel with Shas’s support or participation unless the status of yeshiva [seminary] students is regulated.”
• Eisenkot: “That is what the upcoming election is about: Netanyahu’s draft-dodging government, or a government of conscription led by me.”
• Yisrael Beiteinu party leader Avigdor Liberman: “Netanyahu is issuing an impassioned call against the arrest of draft evaders, once again proving that he is a hostage to the draft evaders – without them, he has no government.”

Judicial overhaul

Days after taking office in 2022, Netanyahu’s government unveiled a plan to curb the powers of Israel’s courts, which triggered months of mass protests in 2023 before the war on Gaza paused the fight.

The coalition has passed measures reshaping how judges are appointed, while in July a law stripped Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara of many of her powers, allowing the government to reject her legal advice and choose its own lawyers in court. Both are due to take effect after the election and most of the opposition has promised to reverse them.

The government has also boycotted Chief Justice Isaac Amit. Critics call it a deliberate assault on democracy by a prime minister embroiled in a long-running corruption trial of his own, while Justice Minister Yariv Levin says the election is a historic chance to finish the job.

Here are some of the contenders’ statements:

• Netanyahu: “Democracy is the rule of the people. It’s ‘we the people,’ not ‘we the judges … In Israel, [judicial reform] was completely derailed, and we have to bring it back. We don’t have to crush the judiciary, but we have to make sure it doesn’t crush the legislative branch, the Knesset or the executive branch of government.”
• Together alliance co-leader, former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett: “I want to be clear. We will cancel all the legal revolution laws immediately upon the convening of the Knesset.”

October 7 inquiry

While the killing of more than 74,000 people in Gaza has been entirely absent during the campaign of the two main alliances, questions over political accountability for security failures ahead of and during the Hamas-led attack in 2023 have dominated this election cycle.

Inquiries into failings by the security services ahead of and during the Hamas-led attack led to the resignation of Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, announced in January 2025. They also fed a long, drawn-out and bitter fight with the prime minister that ended with the departure of Shin Bet head Ronen Bar in June last year.

However, despite recent news reports suggesting that Netanyahu was warned by both the UAE and Egypt ahead of the attack, and longstanding criticism of his policy of keeping Hamas in power in Gaza as a bulwark against the Palestinian Authority, no similar inquiry into his own alleged failings before October 7 has happened.

Here are some of the leaders’ statements:

• Eisenkot: “Netanyahu was warned and did not act. A State Commission of Inquiry that we will establish will investigate the disaster. The heads of the systems took responsibility and resigned long ago. We will not allow the master of evaders to escape the truth.”
• Netanyahu: The prime minister told the Knesset that his government “wants to establish a commission of inquiry with as broad public support as possible” and not one dismissed by what he claimed is “at least half the country”. The proposed government-led inquiry never reached its final reading and has been deferred to the next session.

Organisers of January’s off-road race say it will be relocated due to recent developments in the region.

The Dakar Rally, one of the world’s toughest and best-known off-road races, has been moved out of Saudi Arabia for the 2027 edition due to the “recent developments in the region”, organisers say.

The rally, scheduled for January, will now be held “in a different territory” to be announced later before a planned return to Saudi Arabia in 2028, the Amaury Sport Organisation and Saudi Motorsport Company said in a statement on Sunday.

A new location will be announced in the “coming days”, the statement added.

It’s the latest in a series of sports events to be moved out of Saudi Arabia this year over the US-Israel war on Iran and deadly attacks by Yemen’s Houthis on Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has hosted the Dakar Rally since 2020. Reports in specialist race media said a move to Morocco or Spain is being considered.

If it is moved to Morocco, it would be the first time the Dakar has been held in Africa since 2007. The event began as a competition from Paris to Senegal’s capital, Dakar. It was cancelled on short notice in 2008 over security concerns in North Africa. Since then, it has been held first in South America, then in Saudi Arabia.

Organisers said they intend to bring the rally back to Saudi Arabia in 2028 to celebrate its 50th edition.

This season’s Formula One grand prix in Jeddah was cancelled while the race in Bahrain was called off and later rescheduled under the same name in Malaysia.

The final round of the World Rally Championship in Saudi Arabia next month has also been scrapped.

An exhibition tennis tournament in Saudi Arabia due to feature Novak Djokovic, Carlos Alcaraz and Alexander Zverev has been postponed until late December.

The WTA Finals were also scheduled to be held in Riyadh next month but will instead take place at Indian Wells, California, in the United States.

The last two races of the F1 season in Qatar (November 29) and Abu Dhabi (December 6) are still on the calendar, as is the Qatar MotoGP next month, but they are the subject of intense internal debate.

Dakar Rally organisers had hoped to keep the 2027 race in Saudi Arabia by working on a new route in the northern part of the country.

But the latest strikes, including a series of attacks on King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh this month, which killed 18 people and injured hundreds more, have rendered that impossible.

Fighting between government forces and Houthi fighters has intensified across multiple fronts in Yemen in recent weeks, causing a spiralling humanitarian crisis.

The war in Yemen escalated sharply when the Houthis seized strategic territory from forces loyal to the country’s internationally recognised government along the Red Sea coast last month.

The Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia, which leads a coalition supporting Yemen’s government forces, have dealt a huge blow to the kingdom, the world’s biggest exporter of crude oil, disrupting its businesses, airlines and normal life and damaging its international image.

Prince Ali bin Hussein said nobody was allowed to speak, question, debate or talk with the media at the AFC Congress.

The head of Jordan’s Football Association (JFA), Prince Ali bin Hussein, has accused FIFA President Gianni Infantino of hijacking the Asian Football Confederation Congress for political purposes ahead of his re-election bid for a fourth term.

At the AFC’s extraordinary congress in Tokyo on Friday, its president Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al-Khalifa endorsed Infantino’s bid for re-election as FIFA president.

Months after the confederation accused Infantino of a “fundamental breach of trust” over the abandoned FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) proposal, Sheikh Salman told the congress that Asia was now united behind Infantino.

But JFA’s Prince Ali, who has been a vocal critic of FIFA’s leadership, painted a starkly different picture of events in Tokyo.

“Having come back from Tokyo where the AFC Congress took place, the first two days were about football, which we all serve. The last day was pure politics at the behest of Gianni Infantino,” Prince Ali wrote on X.

“There were reports that Asia has a united position when it comes to electing the next FIFA President. In fact, nobody was allowed to speak, question, debate or talk with the media.

“Lack of transparency leads to lack of accountability. No amount of coercion, threats or bribes should be allowed.”

Prince Ali did not elaborate on his statement.

Al Jazeera reached out to FIFA and the AFC for a comment but had not received a response at the time of publication.

Infantino also addressed the AFC Congress, giving Sheikh Salman his backing for another term.

In August, Prince Ali launched a public attack on Infantino, accusing him of “blackmail” and saying FIFA had offered to help solve the kingdom’s problems in exchange for his endorsement.

Two days later, Prince Ali confirmed Jordan’s players and staff had received outstanding reward money for their participation in the 2025 Arab Cup.

The association had been waiting since December for prize money for reaching the Arab Cup final in Qatar.

On Saturday, Infantino laughed off questions about whether he had considered resigning in the wake of the failed FFE proposal, pointing to what he described as overwhelming support from member associations around the globe.

The Swiss-Italian administrator’s re-election prospects were strengthened significantly after the AFC endorsement, leaving Europe increasingly isolated and exposing the lack of a challenger.

Jordan’s prime minister represents king at funeral for eight of the church attack victims as hunt for gunmen continues.

Thousands of mourners have gathered for the funerals of eight of the victims of a deadly attack on a church in southern Jordan, with Prime Minister Jafar Hassan also in attendance.

The burials on Sunday were beside St George’s Greek Orthodox Church in the village of Hamoud, southwest of the capital, Amman, two days after attackers opened fire during another funeral there.

Nine people were killed and dozens wounded in a rare attack on Jordan’s Christian minority, prompting three days of national mourning.

The ninth victim, Mohammed al-Qasous, is due to be buried on Monday, his family told the AFP news agency.

Coffins wrapped in Jordanian flags were carried through crowds gathered around the church in Karak province, as priests led prayers and security personnel stood guard.

Prime Minister Hassan attended the service alongside government ministers and senior military and civilian officials, according to Jordan’s state news agency, Petra.

Thousands of citizens also participated in the funeral procession, Petra said.

Among those caught in Friday’s shooting was Sahar al-Halsa, who told the Reuters news agency from her nearby home that she sheltered behind a pillar as gunfire erupted and people screamed.

When she rushed outside, she found her cousin Assem lying wounded.

“Assem, Assem, my darling, answer me,” she recalled calling to him. He briefly opened his eyes before dying, she said.

Father Yohanna Hamati told AFP that about 170 to 200 people were at the church for Friday’s funeral when firing began outside.

The mourners initially struggled to understand what was happening, he said, before people began rushing into the church to escape.

By Saturday, bullet holes remained in the walls and wooden pews, and windows had been shattered.

Church workers were cleaning away blood as villagers prepared to bury the dead. Jordanian authorities have described the attack as “extremist terrorism”.

King Abdullah, who visited some of the wounded in hospital on Friday, has promised a forceful response and the assailants are still being sought.

Officials say they have not established whether the attackers were connected to an armed group and no organisation has claimed responsibility.

The violence has also drawn expressions of solidarity across religious lines. Christians account for about 3 percent of Jordan’s largely Muslim population and AFP reported that Muslims were among those wounded.

Young volunteers visited a hospital in Karak with flowers and a message reading, “Our loss is one”.

The mourning reached Washington, DC, on Sunday, where members of the Jordanian community lit candles outside their country’s embassy.

Jordan’s ambassador to the US, Dina Kawar, told those gathered that efforts to stir religious division were “bound to fail”. Back in Hamoud, Father Hamati appealed for unity, stressing that Muslims had also suffered in the attack.

“We make no distinction between Muslim and Christian,” he told AFP.

When Altayeb Alhadi was just six years old, his father died after a well collapsed in his village in White Nile state, south-central Sudan. Two months later, and his mother also died, leaving the five children in the family as orphans. As the eldest of the siblings, it was Altayeb’s responsibility to find work and help the family survive.

At 14, he travelled hundreds of kilometres from his home in Galli village to seek work in the north, where gold mines dot the landscape, so he could feed his siblings and keep them in school.

“We warned him about the dangers, but he was ambitious. Some relatives were already working in the area although they had found jobs in restaurants and other services rather than underground extraction,” Ayateb’s uncle Alhadi Hamid told Al Jazeera.

The boy initially worked in transport and other jobs, but when he heard lucrative stories from miners in the area, he began to search for gold in the surrounding mountains.

Altayeb died in an air strike attributed to the Egyptian military at a gold-mining site near Jabal Al-Aigdat in Sudan’s Red Sea region on October 10, which killed at least 72 miners, a few months after he began working at the site.

“It was less than 30 minutes since we separated, and he said he was going to the mine. We suddenly heard a loud sound of bombardment, and we ran. It was too chaotic with people running in all directions and many attacks taking place within a few minutes,” a fellow miner told Al Jazeera, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“We found Altayeb with his hand and leg [blown off] and a severe injury to his abdomen [which] was open. We tried to help him and took him to a safer place near a mountain. We were terrified. He died within hours. … We couldn’t believe how quickly things could happen.”

Altayeb worked alongside about 15 young men and children, using basic tools to extract gold from the rocks. The miners worked night and day, taking the material they gathered to nearby mills for processing.

Proceeds from any gold found were shared, but earnings depended on the amount of gold recovered and individual agreements. On productive days, the group could earn more than $100, the miner said.

“We used to dig for two to three weeks until we found a gram or less. If the gold percentage in the well wasn’t good, we would change locations. When we found a gram or less, we sold it and shared the profit, which was about $100,” Altayeb’s former colleague said.

For young people supporting relatives, even irregular earnings in these dangerous gold mines can seem preferable to unemployment.

Altayeb told his siblings 10 days before his death that he would soon return home, his sister Rogaia Alhadi told local media.

Friends told the family that Altayeb visited them at a restaurant near the mining site on the morning of the attack, his uncle said. They shared a cup of tea before heading towards the mine for the final time. Minutes later, the air strike hit the area.

Authorities in Egypt have accused Sudanese miners of crossing its border and reportedly linked some to gold smuggling, drugs and human trafficking. The Sudanese side did not respond to these allegations.

Since a civil war between Sudan’s military and the Rapid Support Forces paramilitary group broke out in 2023, the economy has tanked and forced thousands with no other source of income to find work in the artisanal gold mines of northern Sudan.

This can vary from independent prospecting to working in investor-owned pits for a share of the proceeds. Earnings depend on the amount of gold found, equipment and fuel costs, and profit percentages agreed with financiers.

Although some miners strike gold, they still face an array of dangers, ranging from collapsing shafts and unstable ground to air strikes. Limited medical care makes mining, particularly in remote areas, especially hazardous.

Living conditions are also extremely hard. Mohamed Awadalkarim, who was a miner in River Nile state for 10 years, said workers often shelter in makeshift huts made from burlap sacks and plastic sheeting. Their diet consists mainly of lentils and sorghum porridge.

But for families without reliable incomes, mining offers a possible source of immediate earnings. Miners may spend hours searching for gold and not find enough to cover their expenses. Others share proceeds with investors or equipment owners, leaving them with limited money left.

Artisanal and small-scale mining accounted for 53.71 tonnes, or about 83 per cent, of Sudan’s declared gold production in 2024, but this was just in areas under government control, according to research by the Chatham House think tank. About one million people were involved in artisanal mining across Sudan’s 18 states, generating $1bn annually for the country.

Artisanal mines, while generally viewed as being outside the main war-funding networks, have still been exposed to violence.

On June 16, several people were reportedly killed and injured in attacks on mining sites near the Egyptian border, according to local sources and miners.

The repeated air strikes near Sudan’s border with Egypt have raised concerns about civilian protection, territorial sovereignty and accountability.

Egyptian authorities have accused Sudanese prospectors of crossing the border to mine near a concession managed by an Egyptian company, but there is little independent evidence to back these claims.

Sudanese military leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan reportedly ordered a fact-finding committee involving prosecutors, judicial representatives and security agencies to investigate the attack. Findings from an inquiry into a similar incident announced in June have not been made public.

Altayeb paid the highest price in this regional conflict and the hunt for gold, which provides huge profits for some and meagre incomes for many.

Altayeb’s siblings are now living with their extended family, including uncles, aunts and cousins. People who know them are trying to help his brothers and sisters and are carrying out community initiatives in Galli to keep his memory alive.

“We will raise the children and care for them as he would have wanted. He was young, caring and brave, and he will always be remembered,” Altayeb said.

Iran’s authorities are increasing investment in a campaign to arm and train civilians who would serve in the state security apparatus against domestic and foreign threats amid growing fears that fighting with the United States and Israel could resume imminently.

The public mobilisation drive – called Janfada, or “those who sacrifice their life” – was launched in late March at the peak of the war with the US and Israel. It has now spread to large parts of the country and is aiming to attract volunteer men and women. It has a stated focus on youth but is open to all ages.

At their numerous street booths and stations, representatives of the Basij militia of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and other state bodies offer training on using weapons and other equipment to defend the government and its “revolutionary” values.

State-organised events and armed “exercises” linked with the mobilisation campaign have been held in Tehran, Isfahan, Zanjan, Shiraz, Kerman, Mashhad, Bojnord, Ahvaz and other big and small cities across many of Iran’s 31 provinces.

Ali Kowsari, Basij’s deputy for training, announced during a news conference this month that the IRGC wants to use at least 14 main squares across Tehran as training and equipment stations for Janfada volunteers. The goal is to use at least one to three squares in the capital city of every single province, he said, without divulging how many cities are currently being used as part of the campaign.

State-run nighttime events are sometimes held with rallies and motorcades during the day. A resident of Gilan province in northern Iran told Al Jazeera that people regularly see state-run stations on the streets in big and smaller cities across the province during their commutes.

“Sometimes they hold competitions to win some small prizes. They bring in live bullets, teach people how to load them into magazines, how to arm pistols and assault rifles, and how to aim and fire,” the resident said, asking to remain anonymous for security reasons.

“The organisers are mostly old men. Since the start of the war, they’ve gathered around the main square almost every night, also often playing revolutionary tunes and chanting from loudspeakers.”

In Gilan’s city of Rasht on October 15, residents objected to the noise and blocking of the street for the nighttime pro-government gathering. Videos circulating on social media showed a confrontation that escalated into a brawl although the authorities did not comment.

On Saturday, authorities cautioned residents in Alborz province’s Karaj near Tehran that they could expect explosions and loud noises from one of the Janfada exercises.

‘Revolutions are like riding a bicycle’

Last week, there was a big mobilisation campaign in northwestern Iran’s Kurdistan province, which borders Iraq.

The IRGC-linked Tasnim News Agency characterised a procession in the provincial capital, Sanandaj, as an exercise in “unity” between the Shia and Sunni Muslim populations.

But a number of foreign-based Iranian human rights groups have characterised such armed mobilisation efforts as “intimidation” campaigns that are held months after January’s nationwide protests, during which thousands of civilians, including many young people, were killed from gunshots and stab wounds.

The government has acknowledged that protests took place in more than 400 counties across all provinces but describes them as a “coup” attempt wholly orchestrated by the US and Israel to overthrow the establishment. It also rejected findings by an independent United Nations fact-finding mission that said the authorities committed crimes against humanity while cracking down on the protests.

Mehran Kamrava, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, said the US-Israeli war on Iran has “presented another opening for the more revolutionary elements of the Iranian body politic”.

“Revolutions are like riding a bicycle. To avoid a nasty fall, you must pedal hard. And this is precisely what the Janfadas and their leaders are trying to do – to remain relevant,” he told Al Jazeera.

“The Janfada’s training mobilisation also gives the more revolutionary-minded figures within the Iranian leadership a chance for choreographed displays of political and ideological loyalty to the revolution and its principles,” the professor said.

‘Siege mentality’

The government said 33 million Iranians have signed up on the campaign’s website but has provided no evidence to support this number.

It represents more than a third of the country’s population, or more than half of the over-12 population, men and women.

Earlier this year, foreign-based activists accessed the website’s source code, which showed that fewer than four million people had registered. Only a phone number was required for registration, and no national identification number was needed.

Speaking last week about the political goals of the campaign, Nematollah Bagheri, IRGC commander for the province of Lorestan, said: “The aim is to show that, just as the government supports the people, the people support the Islamic Republic and the Islamic revolution.”

Organisers said registrants could be used in future rescue operations and for social services and media and financial support. The government has also asked them to help ease the pressure of the US war, naval blockade and sanctions by consuming less fuel, electricity and other resources.

The establishment’s efforts to expand the campaign have only grown after nearly eight months of attritional war, which has killed thousands of people, made Iranians poorer and seen parts of the country’s civilian infrastructure destroyed.

Children have become a major focus for the campaign, and schools have increasingly been accommodating mobilisation. Last week, Education Minister Alireza Kazemi said the Basij militia was registering “student Janfadas” and had plans for more mobilisation and ceremonies involving children over the coming weeks.

Kamrava, the university professor, said this kind of mobilisation does not necessarily broaden the scope of the state’s legitimacy among the larger society.

“It does, however, serve to deepen the legitimacy that the state already has among its existing supporters. It reinforces belief in the revolution’s ideological and political mission and reifies the siege mentality that all revolutionaries have,” he said.