Military

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that Washington’s economic pressure campaign against Iran is proving so effective that a resumption of large-scale military operations is unnecessary.

His remarks are the latest in an often-evolving series of messages from US President Donald Trump’s administration on the conflict with Iran. They also come after a crushing midterm defeat for Trump’s Republican Party, which the president acknowledged was likely partly driven by public opposition to the war.

So how do Rubio’s latest remarks compare with the positions of other administration officials, and what do they say about the state of the conflict?

What have Trump, Rubio and Vance said about the conflict?

Rubio made his latest comments on Tuesday after meeting with foreign ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) forum in Paris.

He said he told G7 allies that “the economic campaign [against Iran] is so devastating that right now there is no need for major combat operations”.

“We don’t need to conduct military strikes if we’re achieving the same objective through economic means and economic pressure. That’s not stalemate,” Rubio said.

“The economic pressure on Iran is going to get even worse,” he added.

Rubio also pushed G7 allies to help “protect shipping” around the embattled Strait of Hormuz, where he said US forces would stay.

The secretary of state’s remarks were largely in line with Trump’s comments on Monday, when the president said further strikes against Iran were “quite unlikely”.

Writing on his Truth Social platform, Trump said the US’s Gulf allies preferred a continuation of the “status quo”, referring to the US’s blockade of Iranian ports. Trump added that there appears to be “positive momentum” towards ending the conflict, but that the US remains “locked and loaded” should circumstances change.

Vice President JD Vance, who has been more critical of the war and recently wrote a lengthy social media post blaming the Republican Party’s midterm defeat on the conflict, favours a deal with Iran, which Trump does not believe is possible right now, the Reuters news agency cited an informed source as saying.

Between sanctions and diplomacy: What are the divisions on Iran war strategy?

Negotiations to end the US-Iran conflict have been largely stalled for months, as Iran continues to target vessels it claims are violating its conditions for transit through the Strait of Hormuz and the US ramps up sanctions against Iran and continues to blockade Iranian ports, with plans to block Iran’s land-based supply routes as well.

Back in September, Iran proposed a seven-day plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and restart talks. Tehran has since said that timeline could be brought down to two days. Tehran’s demands for the US include lifting sanctions Washington imposed after the collapse of a June memorandum of understanding (MoU), reducing the US military presence in the region, reinstating oil waivers and releasing frozen Iranian funds.

Trump, torn between restarting an unpopular war or pushing harder for a deal with Tehran, has for now settled on a middle ground: doubling down on the pressure campaign against Iran while avoiding a return to full-scale military action, according to officials quoted by Axios.

That strategy is backed by several key administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, as well as Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, Axios cited US officials as saying.

However, several US allies in the region, including Pakistan, Iraq and Turkiye, are concerned that a drawn-out US pressure campaign against Iran could hurt their own business interests, said one official cited by the news outlet.

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said that a long-term US policy of intensive sanctions and a blockade against Iran would only prolong an “unstable status quo” that would eventually escalate into more military confrontation.

However, he said one “walk-away” option for Trump could be to quietly relax the sanctions and blockade while maintaining them “on paper”.

In this case, “Trump walks away and claims to retain the blockade and sanctions infrastructure, but in reality, allows it to imperceptibly wither away,” Parsi told Al Jazeera. “The blockade begins to loosen, sanctions enforcement begins to decay, and slowly but surely, Asian and Middle Eastern countries begin trading with and investing in Iran.”

“A new equilibrium emerges in which sanctions enforcement is strong enough for the US to claim the restrictions are still in place, yet weak enough to prevent Tehran from challenging the new status quo,” Parsi said.

Have the midterm election results impacted Trump’s strategy?

Yes, according to analysts.

Negar Mortazavi, senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, DC, said the Republicans’ resounding election defeat “dramatically raised the political cost of more escalation” and gave the Democrats a stronger mandate to challenge the war.

“If Democrats unite and use their new power aggressively, they can make it increasingly difficult for Trump to continue the war, pressuring him to end it,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera.

“A diplomatic breakthrough is not guaranteed, but the political and strategic costs of escalation keep growing, making another round of war less likely,” she added.

Both Trump and Vance have acknowledged that the Iran war was partly to blame for the Republicans’ loss, with Trump saying voters were not ready for petrol prices to rise.

According to a poll by Reuters/Ipsos completed on Monday, 71 percent of Americans – including 93 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of Republicans –  favour congressional legislation that would halt the Iran war.

What is Iran saying?

Iranian officials have upped their rhetoric even as Washington appears to be moving away from military escalation.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Tuesday said the war will “not end either through military means or by increasing sanctions”, but only through “using the language of respect”.

In comments carried by Iran’s IRNA news agency, he urged the US “to act on Iran’s demands and conditions”, adding that Trump “should have realised much earlier that he has not achieved, and will not achieve, any of his goals in the war with Iran”.

Iran’s top security chief Mohsen Rezaei, in a social media post on Monday, said the US government had been “wrecked” by the war and that it was time for it to “surrender” to Iran’s demands.

Al Jazeera’s Mohamed Vall, reporting from Tehran, noted that Iran’s language has become “more confident than ever before”.

“They’re trying to convey to the public, internally, and also to the Americans, that there is no way this war can be declared over without responding to those conditions presented by Iran during the negotiations,” said Vall.

What is the current status of diplomacy?

There are mixed messages.

The Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday said that Doha is “working tirelessly” in its ongoing mediation efforts, and has received positive reactions from both sides.

Trump, the day before, after hosting Qatar’s prime minister at the White House, also spoke of “momentum towards the end of this conflict”, adding that “Iran is talking to us, and they’re talking very politely”.

Rubio, for his part, said the US remains “open to diplomacy”, but called Iran’s current demands “totally unrealistic”.

“We expect that could change – and if it does, we’re prepared for diplomacy,” he said.

Iranian officials, meanwhile, have appeared more sceptical of the latest reports of mediation, insisting that the US must accept their demands.

Rezaei on Tuesday said there ⁠were no negotiations taking place between Tehran and Washington and that Iran would retaliate against any new US attack by targeting US bases “far away”. He also said Iran would not let any of its enriched nuclear material leave the country, ruling out a concession the US has sought in potential nuclear talks.

In a social media post, Rezaei went on to accuse the US of “manufacturing FAKE NEWS about imaginary talks”.

Germany’s military is phasing out Chinese-made drones used for training and restricting certain vehicles from military bases amid concerns that onboard sensors could transmit sensitive information to Chinese intelligence agencies.

A military counterintelligence investigation identified potential espionage risks involving cameras, microphones

UNIFIL said on Tuesday that ‘about a dozen rounds’ were fired at one of its patrols, without identifying the assailants.

A United Nations peacekeeping force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) patrol has come under fire in southern Lebanon, the force said.

UNIFIL said on Tuesday that “about a dozen rounds” were fired at one of its patrols near Wadi Jilu, in Lebanon’s Tyre district, without specifying the entity behind the shooting.

The patrol returned fire, after which the shooting stopped. UNIFIL reported no casualties and called for an investigation.

“We reiterate the obligation under international law for all actors to ensure the safety and security of UN personnel and property at all times. Deliberate attacks on peacekeepers are violations of Security Council resolution 1701 and international humanitarian law,” UNIFIL said.

Security limbo

UNIFIL is a peacekeeping mission established by the UN Security Council in March 1978, days after Israel invaded Lebanon.

The force has acted as a buffer between Israel and Lebanon ever since, but its presence has been unable to prevent several rounds of conflict, including the latest between Israel and Hezbollah.

Israel continues to occupy swaths of southern Lebanon, despite a so-called ceasefire and a US-brokered framework agreement through which the Israeli military would withdraw from those areas and the Lebanese army would move in to disarm Hezbollah.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on Tuesday that the G7 foreign ministers agreed on “the need to avoid a security void” in Lebanon after the UNIFIL mandate expires at the end of 2026.

The foreign ministers backed “the need to move quickly toward a new security architecture”, Barrot said after the group met in Paris.

However, the French foreign minister acknowledged that there had been no breakthrough regarding replacing UNIFIL, which comprises some 7,500 personnel from nearly 50 countries.

The UN Security Council last year voted, under US pressure, to end UNIFIL’s mandate on December 31, 2026. Lebanese officials have called for the mandate to be extended.

It has also been used as a staging area for aircraft and material bound for the Middle East.

Air refuelling tankers were “forward deployed” to the region during operations against Iran.

Asked about the US evacuating aircraft from RAF Mildenhall, Education Secretary Lucy Powell told BBC Breakfast she could not comment on ongoing operational matters.

She added that “we take the security and safety of our bases incredibly seriously” and “we will always act on security intelligence when we need to”.

A US Air Force spokesperson said its aircraft “rotate between installations and operating locations for a variety of reasons including training and real world requirements”.

“US military aircraft are hosted in accordance with access, basing, and overflight agreements with our allies and partners. Due to operations security, we will not provide further information on movement of assets,” the spokesperson added.

Former UK national security adviser Lord Ricketts told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “We are talking about an airbase which houses these large tanker aircraft. Of course, they are large targets, an airbase has a long perimeter, so they are inevitably vulnerable.”

He added: “Nobody knows at this stage what this information was. I suspect part of it is an abundance of caution.”

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) says it has lifted its self-imposed 2,000km (1,250-mile) limit on the range of its ballistic missiles, raising questions over whether Tehran now considers hitting targets beyond the Middle East.

“This limitation has been lifted for us,” IRGC spokesman Brigadier-General Hossein Mohebbi announced at a news conference in Tehran on Saturday.

Mohebbi did not say whether Iran already had missiles that exceed the cap, but added that Iran would show its capabilities through action rather than statements, as Tehran has hardened its position and shifted towards an “offensive” military doctrine.

The announcement came days after Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei warned that “any kind and level of threat” from the United States or Israel would be met with a response unlimited by geography. Mojtaba has said Iran needs to end the “no war, no peace” situation amid the volatile status of the Strait of Hormuz and the US naval blockade on the Iranian ports.

It also comes as the diplomatic push to end the US-Israel war on Iran has intensified, with Trump on Monday saying there is “positive momentum” towards ending the military hostilities after talks with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani in Washington, DC.

So what does lifting the limit actually change, and why is Iran doing it now?

Where could Iran’s missiles reach?

Iran already has operational capabilities to launch missiles beyond 2,000km, but it has kept a cap on them amid focus on regional deterrence. Iranian missiles can reach the entire Arabian Peninsula, the Levant and most of Egypt, as well as parts of Southeastern Europe, including Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, North Macedonia and Serbia.

For Gulf states, the announcement changes little. They already sit well within Iran’s 2,000km range and have come under repeated Iranian missile fire since the US and Israel launched the war on February 28.

The change can help Iran to position some of its rocket launchers in the country’s east, from where it would require a bigger range to reach Israel. The US and its European allies fear Iran can target US bases in the Indian Ocean and Europe.

In March, the United Kingdom accused Iran of firing missiles towards the joint US-UK base at Diego Garcia, some 4,000km (about 2,500 miles) from Iran. Tehran denied targeting the base located in the Indian Ocean, saying it was “an Israeli false flag” operation.

In 2019, the UK, France and Germany said their modelling put a lighter-warhead version of Iran’s Khorramshahr missile at a range of approximately 3,000km (about 1,900 miles). US officials have also said technology from Iran’s space programme could be repurposed to build intercontinental ballistic missiles, The Associated Press news agency reported. Iran currently does not have intercontinental ballistic missiles in its arsenal.

Muhanad Seloom, assistant professor of international politics and security at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, told Al Jazeera that the Diego Garcia launch had already made Iran’s point. “Iran denied doing that, but they wanted to signal that they have the capacity. So yes, they do have the capacity,” he said.

Seloom, who is also an honorary research fellow at the University of Exeter, pointed to Iran’s space launches over the past decade, saying the same rockets could in theory reach anywhere in the world. “How effective, that’s a totally different story,” he said, adding that Iran could probably field missiles with a range of about 5,000km (3,100 miles).

Iranian security analyst Mohamed Taheri made a similar case on Iran’s state-run Channel 3, saying range had stopped being a technical obstacle for Iran by the mid-2010s. “Even now we have no technical limitation in reaching ranges above 2,000km,” he said.

“If we were to increase that range to 4,000km, we would certainly have most of Europe within our missile range, and roughly most of North Africa as well,” Taheri said.

How has Europe responded to Iran’s missile threat?

The IRGC announcement about ending its self-imposed limit seems to be a shift from Tehran’s assurances to Europe on missile range. Europe’s relations with Iran have deteriorated over its nuclear programme and regional geopolitical ambitions. The European Union’s designation of the IRGC as a “terrorist” group and its allowing the US to use bases on the continent have attracted Iran’s ire.

Iran warned Bulgaria repeatedly this year over US aircraft on its soil. In April, Tehran sent a diplomatic note cautioning Bulgaria against letting US military aircraft use its airports for operations against Iran.

When Bulgaria’s parliament approved hosting up to eight US KC-135 refuelling tankers at Bezmer airbase in July, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said Bulgarian decision-makers “must bear responsibility” for the move. It was Tehran’s third warning to Sofia.

In August, two Iranian insiders told the Financial Times that the US bases in countries such as Bulgaria had been assessed as possible targets, describing the threat to Europe as real but confined to the continent’s south and southeast. Two US tankers left Bezmer on August 21.

Last month, the UK spy chief said Iran is stepping up targeting of military bases in Europe. It came after UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham said the IRGC was “almost certainly” behind a suspected plot against Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford, an airbase used by US bombers to carry out strikes on Iran. The incident prompted the US to withdraw its military jets from the facility over security concerns earlier this month. Tehran has denied involvement, saying it was a “false flag” operation.

On Monday, the US military evacuated aircraft from a second British base, RAF Mildenhall, “in the wake of a threat from Iran”, according to The Wall Street Journal. The refuelling tankers were moved to Germany and elsewhere, and US officials were still discussing the precise nature of the threat.

The UK Ministry of Defence did not confirm the reason. “Aircraft and other assets move regularly according to operational requirements,” a spokesperson said.

Bases in the UK, Germany and Romania are among other European locations the US has used during the conflict.

“It’s possible that in this war we may set aside the geographic restraint we’ve observed stemming from our diplomatic relations with certain countries and even be able to strike the bases that exist in Europe,” Iran’s Taheri said.

For European governments, the announcement is “worrying … but not alarming”, Doha Institute’s Seloom said. Missiles would have to travel far to reach mainland Europe or the UK, he explained, giving NATO members with assets in the region early warning and time to intercept them.

He said threatening Europe would not serve Iran’s interests, since European governments did not back Trump’s war and have pushed for a diplomatic solution despite paying a heavy price in energy costs. That could change if Iran comes to be framed as a threat to international security, he warned, pointing to Iraq, where successive UN Security Council resolutions preceded European support for the 2003 invasion.

“No one could defend Iranian policies when it comes to threatening Europe or the UK,” Seloom said. Lifting the limit, he added, suggests Tehran “is reading this conflict as existential now”.

That, he argued, is what should concern the whole region. “When you give them the idea that you have only one option, is to die … they can do anything. There would be no red lines,” he said.

Why is Iran doing this now?

Because the cap was self-imposed, Iran could have dropped it at any time. For years, the IRGC said the limit was meant to reassure European countries that they would not be targeted.

Mohebbi, the IRGC spokesman, went further, saying that if Iran decided to change its nuclear doctrine and build a bomb, the necessary preparations would be made.

One reading is deterrence: a warning to Washington, and to European governments hosting US aircraft, that renewed strikes could bring a wider response. Iran’s earlier threats to Bulgaria were seen in similar terms, as an attempt to discourage European governments from supporting US operations.

Tehran is also eyeing diplomatic leverage amid efforts to end the conflict. It can offer the cap as a concession, suggesting that any restraint on range now has a price at the negotiating table.

“It’s both,” Seloom said. He argued that Tehran sees a narrow window before the new US Congress convenes in January, in which Trump will want a deal he can present as a success.

The decision to lift the limit, he said, “is basically to push the Trump administration to go for a deal, not to launch another campaign of military action”. With Trump threatening to hit bridges and the power grid, Iran is “signalling that they can go even crazier”.

What has the West historically said about Iran’s missiles?

Western concern over Iran’s missiles has run alongside the nuclear file for more than a decade.

The 2015 nuclear deal signed under US President Barack Obama put a limit on Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), put a curb on Iran’s ballistic missile programme.

Those curbs expired in October 2023, following which Western countries expressed concerns about Tehran’s missile activities. In September 2025, France, Germany and the UK reimposed sanctions on Iran over its nuclear enrichment. But Tehran defended the enrichment boost after blaming Trump for withdrawing from the 2015 deal.

Trump put the destruction of Iran’s missile and nuclear programme as the main goals of the war launched in February. “We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground,” he had said.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said days later the goal was to destroy Iranian offensive missiles and missile production. Experts and US intelligence assessments, however, indicated Iran’s missile programme was years away from threatening the US homeland.

Before the war, Iran held the largest ballistic missile stockpile in the Middle East, estimated at between 2,500 and 6,000 missiles.

It was another bold statement from United States President Donald Trump: An edict in his usual inflated style, claiming that the US had almost sealed Iran off from the rest of the world.

“Very little gets into, or out of, Iran!” the US president posted on his Truth Social account on Sunday, a day after the US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced its latest plan to choke Tehran’s military supply networks.

On Sunday, CENTCOM announced Task Force Iron Gate – a unit targeting land routes and the Caspian Sea, which will aim to prevent Iran from using ground routes to transport advanced weapons and other materials.

Trump’s message on Truth Social claimed that the task force was “in full force and effect” in Iran – and that between this and the US naval blockade of the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the US had virtually cut off what enters and exits the country.

But analysts say a small intelligence-focused unit cannot seal Iran’s borders or stop its extensive procurement networks without regional cooperation.

They did warn, however, that attempts to disrupt these networks could draw neighbouring countries into the conflict and undermine ongoing diplomatic efforts in the US-Israel war on Iran.

“I see Task Force Iron Gate as a desperate attempt to extend the American naval blockade into Iran’s continental supply networks without deploying American troops along its borders,” Andreas Krieg, an associate professor of defence studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera.

An ‘intelligence fusion cell’

Task Force Iron Gate aims to find out where “weapons systems are coming in, how they could potentially be cut off” and how “Iran is transporting its energy”, Michael Mulroy, a former US deputy assistant defence secretary for the Middle East, has told Al Jazeera.

Based in Tampa, Florida, the unit will coordinate with other US government agencies “on preventing the movement of advanced weapons systems, dual-use technologies, sanctioned materials and illegal revenue streams across Iran’s land borders and the Caspian Sea”, CENTCOM has said.

Analysts said the task force could coordinate sanctions enforcement, pressure foreign suppliers, and work with partner countries to disrupt smuggling.

According to Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, the US mission would rely on a combination of satellite imagery, drones, intercepted communications, financial intelligence and intelligence-sharing.

“Then, frankly, I would expect some use of force – strikes or discreet ground operations – to confiscate components, whether done by US forces or the Israelis,” the analyst told Al Jazeera.

“They would want to pass some intelligence on and bring legal and economic pressure to bear outside the Middle East if they think dual-use components are coming from the West … but if the target is supplies from Russia and China, that will be tougher.”

While CENTCOM’s announcement did not explicitly identify Iran’s weapons trade with Russia, analysts say the unit could be seen as an attempt to disrupt supply networks that include Russian connections.

US media have reported that Russia has sent drone components and explosives to Iran via the Caspian Sea. There are also claims that Russian technology could be helping Iran develop advanced supersonic cruise missiles.

Krieg agreed the task force would combine methods, but stated that it would operate largely as an “intelligence fusion cell”.

“Twenty people cannot police thousands of kilometres of frontiers,” he said.

“The objective is not necessarily to stop every shipment, but to make Iranian military procurement progressively more expensive, slower and riskier,” he added.

The obstacle the US mission will face, however, is political rather than technological, he argued. Iran’s neighbours will be largely unwilling to cooperate.

“Iraq offers Washington some leverage, but Iranian-aligned networks remain deeply embedded in its economy and security institutions,” he explained.

Azerbaijan could cooperate discreetly, while Turkmenistan would be “extremely reluctant” to jeopardise its neutrality or relationships with Russia and China, said the professor.

Pakistan is particularly unlikely to participate openly because it is currently mediating between Washington and Tehran, he added. Turkiye also has little interest in turning its border with Iran into another confrontation, said Krieg.

“Without these countries’ cooperation, Washington can disrupt individual networks but cannot effectively seal Iran’s borders,” he said.

Rami Khouri, a public policy fellow at the American University of Beirut and a non-resident senior fellow at the Arab Center Washington DC, has previously told Al Jazeera that Iran’s history as a trading nation for thousands of years makes the US mission near impossible.

“There’s an enormous web of contacts that Iran has had for thousands of years with traders and partners and allies all over the region, especially in Asia – it’s virtually impossible for the US to seal off every one,” he said.

“There are people all over the region who have links with Iran, some very close, some just commercial,” he said.

Mission creep or mission impossible?

Krieg expressed concern about the potential for mission creep — that the task force’s action could widen the war to new arenas.

“Intelligence gathering can quickly become pressure for seizures, border closures or military strikes against suspected logistical infrastructure,” he said.

“This would extend America’s economic war into the sovereign territory of neighbouring states.”

Iran’s response in turn would likely be asymmetrical, “intensifying maritime coercion in Hormuz and potentially using the Houthis to increase pressure around Bab al-Mandeb and Saudi Arabia”, Krieg added.

Joe Kent, a former top US counterterrorism official, has also argued that the new task force is an attempt by CENTCOM to subvert ongoing diplomatic efforts.

“This is CENTCOM inviting Iran to escalate while the vice president is attempting to negotiate with the Iranians,” Kent, who resigned in March in protest against the US’s war on Iran, said on X following the US military’s announcement.

“This is, as CENTCOM calls it, ‘policy by CONOP’, when the military finds a way to subvert the White House without blatantly disobeying the President, by taking actions that will ensure a war escalates or perpetuates.”

The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, has reported that CENTCOM chief Brad Cooper is among the many officials, alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, pressing Trump to renew attacks on Iran.

Some analysts, however, argue that without US access to the Caspian Sea, troops on the ground, or cooperation from neighbouring states, the task force will have limited practical impact.

Mahjoob Zweiri, a professor of contemporary history and politics at Qatar University, has told Al Jazeera that the new initiative may just be symbolic because of the lack of US military presence on the Caspian Sea.

“America has no access to the sea, unless some of the neighbouring countries like Azerbaijan or Armenia or others collaborate [with them] … And they’re not collaborating on this because they don’t want to upset Russia,” said Zweiri. “It will require … troops on the ground, and this is unlikely to happen.”

Tehran, Iran – The Iranian government has reported more strikes by the United States but insists this pressure will not impact its demands to end the war.

Ahmad Nafisi, deputy governor for Hormozgan, where the overnight US strikes hit, confirmed on Monday morning that the southern island of Qeshm was targeted but no residential and commercial areas or vital infrastructure were damaged.

The US did not directly acknowledge the air strikes, but Secretary of State Marco Rubio reiterated Washington’s characterisation of similar recent strikes on Qeshm as “defensive”. Previous attacks, the latest of which was acknowledged by President Donald Trump on Friday, have targeted Iranian air defences and radar installations.

Mediators are trying to prevent large-scale US attacks on Iran, which Trump has repeatedly threatened, with talks continuing. But Washington appears unwilling to accept Iran’s seven demands to end the war, which include the lifting of the US blockade on Iran’s southern ports and lifting sanctions on Tehran.

Seven demands

Esmail Baghaei, the spokesman of Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on Monday rejected Rubio’s remarks that some of these seven demands were “ridiculous and really not realistic”.

“Iran’s plan is still the most logical plan on the table. I think it can lead to security returning to the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf, and create the grounds for a process,” Baghaei said during a news conference in Tehran.

The terms mostly amount to a return to the Islamabad memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed in June between Iran and the US. But Tehran now has additional stipulations regarding the future of the Strait of Hormuz.

Baghaei said the US announcement of a reward of up to $20m for information on Iran’s nuclear programme is a ploy by the Trump administration to “convey the sense that the Iranian nuclear issue is still a threat”, after the Republican Party’s heavy defeats in midterm elections.

Tehran says it will not part with its highly enriched uranium, which is believed to be buried under the rubble of facilities bombed by the US and Israel last year. But it is open to downblending the material, which would be needed to build a nuclear bomb.

International inspectors have no access to Iranian nuclear sites, except for the Bushehr nuclear power plant, where the Foreign Ministry said there was a recent visit.

Iran has accused the International Atomic Energy Agency and its director, Rafael Grossi, of stepping out of their technical mandate and creating the grounds for attacks on nuclear facilities during last year’s 12-day war and the current war.

There have been signs of a positive breakthrough in mediation efforts, with reports that Trump and Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani will meet in the White House on Monday.

But Andreas Krieg, an associate professor at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera that Washington’s biggest objection to the ongoing mediated talks is that Iran is essentially demanding the rewards of an agreement before providing the concessions to justify one.

“Reopening Hormuz within two days sounds accommodating, but it changes the timetable rather than the substance of the bargain,” he told Al Jazeera about the Iranian proposal.

Both the US and Iran’s Arab neighbours would not accept long-term Iranian-approved shipping corridors in the Strait of Hormuz.

Rubio and other officials are also against Iran’s demand for an end to hostilities across the region, as it would restrict Israel’s military freedom of action.

“Iran is going beyond a ceasefire, trying to translate its wartime leverage into a new regional security arrangement on its own terms,” Krieg said.

Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said Sunday that the country’s military mission in Iran remained unfinished, and threatened Lebanon’s Hezbollah with further territorial losses if it joined an Iranian attack.

Tankers and navigation systems targeted

Iranian authorities continue to warn ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz to refrain from taking “unauthorised” routes or face potential attacks.

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) spokesman Hossein Mohebbi rejected the claim by the US that all naval mines have been cleared from the Strait of Hormuz.

“Nobody dares enter the Strait of Hormuz to remove the mines,” he said on Sunday.

Iranian state television reported on Monday that 11 tankers have been attacked over the past 10 days, with four unable to continue transit.

IRGC-affiliated media cited an unnamed IRGC Navy source as claiming on Monday that maritime navigation systems were targeted in the southern areas of the waterway overnight, preventing tankers from transiting as part of the US-coordinated oil shuttle system.

Trump played down the prospects of a return to all-out war with Iran on Sunday, but added that the US military had marked civilian infrastructure like 38 bridges as targets if the war restarts at scale.

Krieg said he expects Tehran to continue its strategy of “controlled escalation” rather than immediate all-out retaliation against the US strikes.

“The new American effort to disrupt Iran’s overland trade will reinforce this strategy. Tehran will increasingly seek to make the Gulf states bear the economic consequences of Washington’s decisions, hoping they will pressure Trump towards compromise,” Krieg said.

“Washington may believe it is conducting a limited campaign of coercion, while Tehran increasingly sees an unrestricted economic war against its survival. At some point, Iran may decide that the costs of continued restraint exceed the risks of escalation.”

The interceptions come as the Houthis report 33 people killed in a coalition air attack on a village near Sanaa.

The Saudi-led coalition fighting Yemen’s Houthis says its air defences have destroyed three ballistic missiles launched by the Iran-aligned armed group towards the kingdom.

Two of the missiles were launched towards the kingdom’s capital, Riyadh, Major-General Turki al-Maliki, the coalition’s spokesperson, said in a post on X on Sunday.

Later, the coalition said it intercepted and destroyed two cruise missiles in Riyadh and the southern region.

Earlier, al-Maliki also confirmed another interception of a ballistic missile launched by the Houthis towards the kingdom’s Eastern province.

The attacks come as fighting intensifies across Yemen between the Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah (Arabic for Supporters of God), and government forces, who launched the Dawn of Yemen operation aimed at retaking Houthi-held territory, including the capital, Sanaa, last month.

The Houthi-run Health Ministry spokesperson, Anees al-Asbahi, said on Saturday that 33 people, including eight women and 13 children, were killed after Saudi-led coalition air attacks on the village of al-Shariyah, near Sanaa.

In a post on X, al-Asbahi said at least 39 others were wounded in the attacks on Saturday, which targeted homes, roads, paramedics and civil defence teams in the village, located in the Bani Hushaish district east of Sanaa.

There was no immediate comment from the Saudi-led coalition on the reported strikes. Al Jazeera could not independently verify the reports.

Media outlets affiliated with the Houthis reported on Sunday that various areas of the Shada border district in Saada province have also been subjected to artillery shelling.

Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree earlier claimed that the coalition had carried out 105 air strikes and missile attacks over 24 hours targeting Sanaa and seven other governorates, taking the total number of strikes since the escalation began to 4,369.

The Houthis, meanwhile, carried out six operations targeting Aramco oil facilities, Riyadh airport and Saudi military positions on both sides of the border, Saree claimed in a post on X.

On Friday, an attack on a market in Taiz province killed 30 people. The Houthis blamed it on Saudi air strikes, while Yemeni government forces accused the Iran-aligned group of firing a ballistic missile at the site.

According to the United Nations, more than 1,600 people have been killed and almost 300,000 displaced since a 2022 ceasefire collapsed in July after the Houthis announced a blockade of Saudi ports.

In September, the Houthis seized much of Yemen’s Red Sea coast in a lightning offensive, while government forces launched a campaign to reclaim Houthi-held territory in October.

Colombian President de la Espriella says those behind the attack in Santa Rosa del Sur will have ‘nowhere to hide’.

A drone attack on a military base in northern Colombia has killed three soldiers and wounded at least 16, the country’s armed forces said.

The Colombian military said in a statement on Saturday that the attack hit a base in Santa Rosa del Sur, a small town in the foothills of the San Lucas mountain range. Authorities have not said who carried out the strike, the latest in a series of attacks on security forces as violence rises across rural parts of the country.

The area is rich in gold mines and has long been disputed by rebel armed groups including the Gulf Clan, the National Liberation Army (ELN) and smaller groups led by former members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

Footage shared on social media showed clouds of smoke rising from the base after three explosions, and soldiers taking cover in shelters made of sandbags.

“Those who were behind this attack… will have nowhere to hide,” President Abelardo de la Espriella wrote on X. “Every attack against our soldiers strengthens our resolve to defend Colombia.”

Rising violence

Violence has intensified in several rural areas since de la Espriella, a conservative, took office in August.

The president cancelled peace talks with rebel groups and has taken a confrontational approach, including more air strikes, deploying more troops in some cities and creating joint task forces to defend strategic assets such as a pipeline that runs from the Caribbean coast to central Colombia.

De la Espriella’s government argues that armed groups used ceasefires granted by the previous government to consolidate their grip on rural areas, where they tax local businesses and profit from the drug trade.

Some groups have responded by stepping up attacks on the country’s armed forces.

Last week, a military base in Tolima province was targeted with missiles made from gas canisters. The attack killed four civilians, including a two-month-old baby.

Police in the border city of Cucuta have been attacked several times with remotely activated bombs.

State forces and illegal armed groups carried out 34 attacks with bombs or explosives in Colombia in the four weeks to October 16, a 9 percent increase on last year’s four-week average, according to ACLED, a group that monitors armed conflicts.

A 2016 peace deal with FARC led to the demobilisation of more than 14,000 fighters, but smaller groups have since fought over the rebels’ former territory.

The operation is to prevent Iran from using ground routes to transport weapons and other materials, US Central Command says.

The United States military’s Central Command (CENTCOM) has announced a plan to block Iran’s land-based supply routes, expanding its months-long naval blockade of Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz.

CENTCOM, which oversees US military operations in the Middle East, announced on Saturday that it had established a new task force “to prevent Iran from using ground routes to transport advanced weapons and other materials”.

Task Force Iron Gate will reinforce “the success of our ironclad blockade against Iran at sea”, CENTCOM Commander Admiral Brad Cooper said.

Based in Tampa, Florida, the task force will coordinate with other US government agencies “on preventing the movement of advanced weapons systems, dual-use technologies, sanctioned materials, and illegal revenue streams across Iran’s land borders and the Caspian Sea”, CENTCOM said.

Michael Mulroy, a former US deputy assistant defence secretary for the Middle East, told Al Jazeera the task force’s role will be to find out where “weapons systems are coming in, how they could potentially be cut off”, and how “Iran is transporting its energy”.

He added that if US President Donald Trump orders an escalation to the war, it will likely be attacks on this “series of targets”.

“Unlike Operation Epic Fury, which primarily focuses on military targets, I think these targets will be focused on economic and infrastructure targets, as part of this comprehensive plan to cut the regime off from its ability to fight and ability to fund itself,” Mulroy told Al Jazeera.

CENTCOM separately said on Saturday that it had disabled a commercial cargo vessel in the Gulf of Oman as part of its blockade of Iranian ports.

A US “military aircraft fired precision munitions at the stern of St. Kitts-flagged M/V Huda, disabling the ship after CENTCOM forces directed the crew to abandon targeted spaces”, it said in a statement.

“Enforcement actions since July have resulted in U.S. forces redirecting 147 commercial vessels that complied”, and disabling “five merchant ships that refused to comply”, it added.

Explosions reported

On Saturday, Iran’s official news agency IRNA reported the sound of two explosions on Qeshm Island, located in the Strait of Hormuz.

IRNA also reported the sound of “several explosions” in the cities of Jask, Sirik and Bandar Abbas.

Trump confirmed new strikes on Qeshm Island a day earlier, but downplayed them as “minor”. He added that Tehran still wants a deal as Qatari-mediated talks continue.

Meanwhile, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy reported that two oil tankers struck mines near the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday.

Iranian state television, citing the navy, said the tankers had passed through an “unsafe” part of the strait with their navigation systems off. They “suffered severe damage and stopped after hitting sea mines”.

Israel’s President Isaac Herzog has tasked Gadi Eisenkot with forming the country’s next government, passing over the former army chief’s rival, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Herzog told Eisenkot of his decision on Saturday evening and will formally hand him the mandate at a ceremony on Sunday, the president’s spokesperson said.

Herzog held consultations with political parties this week to decide who he would appoint to form a government after neither side secured a majority in the October 27 general election.

Some 67 lawmakers, including from Arab-led parties, endorsed Eisenkot, leader of the Yashar party, to form the next government, while only 46 backed Netanyahu, the current prime minister.

Eisenkot will have 28 days – with a possible 14-day extension – to build a coalition of at least 61 of the Knesset’s 120 seats, the minimum threshold for a government.

In the October election, Eisenkot’s four-party alliance won 48 seats, while Netanyahu’s right-wing and religious bloc secured 53, leaving both short of the 61 needed for a parliamentary majority. Arab-led parties, representing Palestinian citizens of Israel, won a record 19 seats.

Eisenkot has ruled out forming a government with the Arab-led parties, which would give him a 67-seat bloc. Winning over the two ultra-Orthodox parties, United Torah Judaism and Shas, would give him exactly 61 seats.

He could also form a government with fewer than 61 seats if he wins a parliamentary confidence vote.

Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh, reporting from Ramallah in the occupied West Bank on Herzog’s decision, said the president “took the predictable route” in selecting Eisenkot, as he had the highest number of recommendations.

“The hard work will begin now for Eisenkot to put together a government that can pass a vote of confidence at the Knesset that: one, will not break too many of the promises he made on the campaign trail; and two, that can survive the opposition of the right-wing bloc led by Netanyahu,” Odeh said.

If Eisenkot fails to form a government within the allotted time, Herzog will nominate another candidate. If the second nominee fails, a parliament majority can back a third candidate, who will be granted a final 14 days.

If, once again, no government is formed, a new election will be called within 90 days, with Netanyahu staying on as a caretaker prime minister.

United against Netanyahu government

Eisenkot led Israel’s military from 2015 to 2019 and sat as an observer in Netanyahu’s war cabinet for the first eight months of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, which began in October 2023.

Ahmad Tibi, a senior member of the Joint List – a coalition of Arab-led parties that holds 11 seats – told Al Jazeera on Saturday that Herzog’s decision was “expected”.

“We were concerned that the president would move towards a national unity government,” he said, referring to a proposed power-sharing agreement between Eisenkot and Netanyahu.

Instead, Arab-led parties endorsed Eisenkot for the mandate, granting him a “considerable margin”.

Tibi said he believes Eisenkot is headed for a minority government “with external support from the Arab parties”.

While this would not be a “dream government” for Arab-led parties, Tibi prioritised bringing down “the government of Netanyahu, [Itamar] Ben-Gvir and [Bezalel] Smotrich”.

Hours before Herzog’s decision, Netanyahu had warned that a government formed by the opposition bloc with support from Arab-led parties would lead to Israel’s collapse.

“Such a government, dependent on Islamists, will dismantle the state of Israel from within, as is happening in European countries, and far worse than that,” Netanyahu said in a prerecorded video speech, echoing the language of far-right politicians who falsely claim parts of Europe have come under Islamic law.

Netanyahu “described us as supporters of terrorists and terrorism”, Tibi said. “My response to him is this: Netanyahu is the biggest terrorist in Israel and the region, and the foremost supporter of terrorism, particularly Jewish terrorism in the West Bank and the Palestinian territories.”

Al Jazeera’s Odeh noted that although Eisenkot has expressly said he does not wish to form a government with Arab-led parties, “they both share quite compelling reasons to get rid of Netanyahu”.