Military

Amid the US-Israel war on Iran, the country’s economy has suffered a sharp contraction, with its crucial oil and gas sector taking the biggest hit as the United States tightens its economic and military pressure on Tehran.

Data released by the government-administered Statistical Center of Iran showed gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 10.1 percent year-on-year between March 21 and June 20, the first quarter of the Persian calendar.

The period covers the opening months of the US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28.

The economic downturn has come as Iran struggles to export its oil, one of its most important sources of foreign currency, while also contending with high inflation, a weakening rial, and disruptions to trade and industry.

Here is what you need to know:

What does the economic data say?

The headline GDP number masks an even steeper decline in Iran’s energy industry. Crude oil and natural gas activity contracted by 26.4 percent compared with the same period a year earlier. GDP excluding oil, by comparison, fell by 4.6 percent.

The damage has spread beyond the energy sector. Industry and mining contracted by 14.7 percent, services declined by 4.8 percent, and manufacturing contracted by 2.5 percent. Agriculture was the exception, growing at 2.3 percent.

Those figures come amid an already difficult economic situation in the country. Earlier this month, Iran’s 12-month average inflation reached 69.9 percent, while food, beverage, and tobacco prices rose at nearly twice that rate. Official unemployment climbed to 9.1 percent in the spring.

The rial, meanwhile, fell from about one million to the US dollar a year earlier to more than 2.2 million in early September.

What is the latest with Iran’s oil exports?

Iran’s ability to sell crude has been dramatically curtailed by the US naval blockade, imposed for most of the war.

Iranian crude and condensate loadings collapsed from about two million barrels per day in March to roughly 740,000bpd in July and just 220,000-255,000bpd in August, according to estimates from Kpler and Vortexa.

TankerTrackers.com told the Reuters news agency that 29 tankers, carrying 36.11 million barrels of crude, were trapped in the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Vortexa estimated total Iranian crude afloat had fallen from 135 million barrels at the end of July to 107 million barrels by late August.

Is Trump winning the economic war on Iran?

By several economic measures, Washington’s pressure campaign is inflicting damage on Iran’s economy.

On September 6, total trade had fallen by 25 to 35 percent, President Masoud Pezeshkian said, with imports hit harder than exports. The US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has made it hard for ships carrying imports to reach Iranian ports.

Tehran has also explicitly linked the end of the war to economic relief. Iran’s security chief Mohsen Rezaei told Al Jazeera on Saturday that its conditions include “the release of our frozen funds and an end to the naval blockade”.

In addition to the naval blockade, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last month announced an economic pressure campaign against Iran, pledging to target its financial interests across the world. He said the US would target all of Iran’s sources of revenue, including oil, to prevent other countries and companies from doing business with Tehran.

The US-Israeli attacks and Iran’s retaliations have disrupted Tehran’s trade with one of its main economic partners, the United Arab Emirates.

The UAE last month announced an indefinite trade embargo on Iran after accusing its forces of carrying out several ballistic missile attacks, which Tehran denied, calling it a “false flag operation” by Israel and the US.

Chris Beauchamp, market analyst at IG Group, said, “Most wars are contests of stamina more than anything else.”

“The 10 percent drop in Iranian GDP is a sign that the US is succeeding in putting pressure on its foe. But the question rests, as it has done since March, on whether Iran can weather the fall in economic activity better than the US can stand the surge in energy costs,” he told Al Jazeera.

“For a regime prepared to do anything to stay in power, this news will make little difference, so long as the security forces remain loyal,” he added.

What is the latest with diplomatic efforts to end the war?

While Iran has taken a defiant stance against US economic and military pressure, it has indicated repeatedly that it remains open to diplomatic means to end the nearly seven-month-old war.

On Saturday, Rezaei told Al Jazeera that Iran conveyed a formal set of conditions to Washington through Qatari mediators for ending the war.

Iranian state media outlet IRNA reported on Monday that Pakistani Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi was set to visit Tehran, without specifying the agenda or other details.

Mediators Qatar and Pakistan have been working to re-establish negotiations between the two sides since their memorandum of understanding (MoU) expired last month.

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will stop briefly in Qatar before going to New York for the UN General Assembly, IRNA reported.

Iran has repeatedly said it remains ready for any new strikes by Washington.

Rezaei said on Saturday Tehran did not rule out a new US strike against Iran, calling the possibility “very much on the cards” based on his country’s military assessments.

Mark Pfeifle, a Republican strategist and former White House and national security official, said Iran and the US are still willing to strike a deal.

“Sometimes in diplomacy it’s what’s taken off the table,” he told Al Jazeera.

Pfeifle said when Rezaei reiterated his demands for talks with the US, he spoke of “ending the blockade, releasing the frozen funds [and] stopping the attacks”.

“But he left off reparations and reconstruction money, which tells me that there’s a concrete sign that amongst all the rhetoric, which is still very strident, that the pressure campaign that the US is putting on Iran is having some effect,” he said.

“And it tells me that both sides are still looking for room to negotiate in the coming weeks.”

South Korean officers injured in DMZ explosion, possibly caused by a landmine, according to local media reports.

Three South Korean military officers have been wounded in an explosion in the western sector of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) that separates North and South Korea, Seoul’s Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) said.

The cause of Monday’s explosion was not immediately clear, the Ministry of Defence said.

Two of the officers were evacuated from the site by helicopter, while the third was transported by land before being airlifted, according to the ministry. The officers are being treated at a military hospital near the capital Seoul, it said.

Mine explosions and other blasts are a recurring hazard in and around the DMZ, where legacy ⁠devices and suspected stray mines have periodically wounded military personnel on both sides.

The DMZ, which is 248km (154 miles) long and 4km (2.5 miles) wide, is one of the world’s most heavily armed borders. An estimated 2 million mines are peppered inside and near the border, which is also guarded by barbed wire fences, tank traps and combat troops on both sides. The zone is a legacy of the Korean War from 1950 to 1953, which ended with an armistice but not a peace treaty.

There have been growing concerns in South Korea about increased activity by North Korean soldiers near the military demarcation line as the North strengthens its border defences during prolonged tensions.

Tehran threatens retaliation as Trump weighs military action while Qatar pushes to revive talks.

Iran’s central military command says it has received information that the United States is preparing to resume strikes on the country.

The warning, issued on Sunday by the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, which oversees Iran’s armed forces, raises the prospect of a new round of fighting after months of reduced direct attacks.

Tehran said any renewed US assault would bring retaliation against American bases and interests in the Middle East and warned regional countries against helping Washington.

The military command said states that allowed their territory or facilities to support US attacks would be “considered complicit” and could face an Iranian response.

US President Donald Trump told Fox News on Sunday that he was in a “deciding mode” over Iran and said his options included further military action, economic pressure or a deal.

He also said he would be open to meeting Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York this week.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi left Tehran on Sunday evening for the UN General Assembly in New York, state media announced, adding that he is making a brief stopover in Qatar.

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf told lawmakers on Sunday that Tehran should use military force to push back its opponents before turning to diplomacy to secure any gains.

Tehran has told Qatari and Pakistani mediators that conditions for renewed talks include an end to the war and US attacks, the release of frozen Iranian funds and the lifting of the US naval blockade on Iranian ports.

Ghalibaf said the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed until Washington met what Iran says are its commitments under an earlier agreement.

Al Jazeera correspondent Tohid Asadi, reporting from Tehran, said Iranian officials were sending a deliberate two-track message, signalling that they remained open to diplomacy while preparing for renewed fighting.

Qatar, a Gulf state mediating between the two sides, says its officials are travelling between capitals and exchanging proposals aimed at restarting negotiations.

Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesperson Majed al-Ansari said Doha had heard assurances from US officials that Washington wanted an agreement.

The confrontation is already disrupting the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway linking the Gulf to the Arabian Sea and a key route for global energy shipments.

Shipping data showed 12 commodity vessels crossed the strait over the weekend, down from 35 the previous weekend. The war began in late February after joint US-Israeli strikes on Iran.

A 60-day memorandum reached in June reduced full-scale fighting but expired last month, with attacks around Hormuz increasing since then.

Mark Pfeifle, a Republican strategist and former White House national security official, told Al Jazeera that both countries were “locked in this frozen conflict” and trying to increase pressure before possible diplomacy around the UN gathering.

The NATO Response Force (NRF) and EU Battlegroups have demonstrated that placing multinational forces on standby does not automatically make them immediately operational. German-Dutch military integration, in contrast, has generated a different outcome since cooperation was internalized within permanent command structures, units, training, and capability planning before a crisis occurred.

Such a comparison is becoming increasingly relevant to Northeast Asia. A Taiwan contingency could absorb American military assets at the very moment when North Korea embarks upon a serious provocation towards South Korea. Continued US commitments in Europe and the Middle East could further complicate the allocation of finite resources.

Why Standby Forces Encountered Problems

The NRF was established after the 2002 Prague Summit as a rapidly deployable multinational joint force of roughly 25,000 troops. Yet the NRF was heavily dependent on the member countries assigning their respective forces to particular rotations, while these governments had the final say over whether the forces could ultimately be employed. During the Afghanistan and Iraq wars—when operational demand was high—each government had strong disincentives in introducing scarce high-readiness units and specialized enablers to NRF rotational deployment.

This created a gap between designated readiness and actual availability. Strategic transportation, logistics, specialized support units, and communication capacity could still be subject to competing national demands. Eventually, in 2024, NATO replaced the NRF with the NATO Force Model, which emphasized a substantially larger pool of high-readiness forces that is closely aligned with specific defense plans.

Meanwhile, the EU Battlegroup was faced with an even clearer problem. Although the multinational battlegroups had been maintained on rotational standby since 2007, they had never been deployed. While acknowledging that the battlegroups enhanced interoperability and military transformation, the European Parliament attributed the shortcoming largely to insufficient political will, difficulties in decision-making, implementation problems, and the financing arrangements.

What Germany and the Netherlands Did Differently

German-Dutch cooperation developed according to a different institutional logic. Although the 1st German-Netherlands Corps was created in Münster in 1995, the integration later expanded deep into both militaries’ force structures. The Dutch 11th Airmobile Brigade was incorporated into the German Division Schnelle Kräfte (DSK) in 2014, while the Dutch 43rd Mechanized Brigade was integrated into Germany’s 1st Panzer Division in 2016, and the Dutch 13th Light Armoured Brigade joined Germany’s 10th Panzer Division in 2023.

The relationship was extended below the brigade level. Germany’s Panzerbataillon 414 is operated under the Dutch 43rd Mechanized Brigade, and Dutch personnel operate Germany’s Leopard 2A6MA2 tanks while serving within the battalion. Moreover, German officers serve in Dutch command headquarters and vice versa, turning multinational command into a routine organizational reality instead of a stopgap measure that is only activated during major exercises.

Needless to say, such an arrangement does not eliminate national sovereignty. Both Germany and the Netherlands preserve the political prerogative over whether and where their forces are deployed. Meanwhile, the benefits of integration would become observable once a crisis necessitates the deployment. Staff are already well-versed in each other’s procedures, and units have repeatedly conducted joint exercises, while command and logistics relations do not need to be newly constructed during mobilization.

The distinctions were visibly observable during training. For example, approximately 7,000 German and Dutch personnel participated in the 2026 Fighter Lion—the largest military exercise conducted by the Netherlands in two decades—ten years after the Dutch 43rd Mechanized Brigade was integrated into Germany’s 1st Panzer Division. These types of exercises strengthen existing command relations rather than creating temporary interoperability for a single event.

What Japan and South Korea Can Apply

It is quite obvious that Japan and South Korea cannot replicate the German-Dutch model. Neither country has a formal mutual defense pact nor a NATO-style integrated command structure. Therefore, the directly applicable lessons are more limited. Nonetheless, selected operational relationships can and should be institutionalized before multiple simultaneous contingencies make such coordination necessary.

The practical first step could be a standing bilateral adjustment mechanism that links Japan’s Joint Operations Command (JJOC) with relevant South Korean joint headquarters. Instead of exercising command authority, the mechanism could maintain procedures for intelligence exchange, deconfliction in the air and at sea, movement of US reinforcements, logistics coordination, and the use of Japanese facilities that support a Korean contingency. This would be especially crucial when Japan has to assist US operations related to Taiwan while installations across Japan—including Yokota, Yokosuka, Sasebo, Iwakuni, and other United Nations Command (UNC)-Rear facilities—play a pivotal role in US reinforcement to the Korean Peninsula in accordance with Operational Plan (OPLAN) 5055.

Under this mechanism, small-scale functional cells could concentrate on specific missions. Missile warning would be the most obvious starting point since the United States, Japan, and South Korea have conducted North Korean missile-warning data-sharing since December 2023. Additional cells could treat maritime domain awareness (MDA), anti-submarine warfare (ASW), cyber defense, transportation, medical evacuation, and logistics.

The exchange of officers should accompany the aforementioned measures. Japanese officers could participate in South Korean command posts, while South Korean officers could join Japanese operational staff who deal with naval operations, air defense, logistics, or reinforcement coordination. The goal is to get familiar with each country’s procedures, communications, command relations, and other miscellaneous constraints before wartime pressure markedly shortens the timeframe for decision-making.

Exercise Scarcity Rather Than Ideal Conditions

The most notable changes should be related to exercise design. Trilateral exercises should not be premised on the assumption that the full inventory of United States support capabilities will always be available. A more pessimistic scenario would begin with a Taiwan scenario that is already consuming a substantial amount of US assets—including its ISR capacity, strategic transportation, and precision-guided munitions—when North Korea embarks upon a serious horizontal or vertical military escalation on the Korean Peninsula.

In this particular situation, elaborated by the Atlantic Council report, South Korean military planners should determine which missions could be conducted independently and which can be addressed bilaterally. South Korea may assume greater responsibility for ISR, missile defense, logistics, and conventional firepower on the Korean Peninsula—yet this would be affected by the tempo of wartime operational control (OPCON) transition—while Japan could take on additional maritime surveillance, ASW, sea lines of communication (SLOC) protection, base defense, and logistics. The primary aim is not to divide the Taiwan and Korean Peninsula theaters between Seoul and Tokyo but to identify how both countries could most effectively conduct missions that complement US military operations across the two regions.

Logistics should be placed at the center of these exercises. A dual contingency could impose on the Japanese government the need to support both US operations on Taiwan and USFJ reinforcement to the Korean Peninsula, which inevitably involves Japanese ports and airfields. It could cause competition for fuel, maintenance, transportation, ammunition depots, runways, and port capacity. Thus, Tokyo and Seoul should develop procedures concerning reciprocal servicing, immediate repair, medical support, transportation, and selected supplies before the bottleneck transmogrifies into wartime problems.

Functional Integration Without a Bilateral Alliance

The German-Dutch case illustrates that political authority is not necessarily the same thing as operational preparedness. A government can maintain full authority over whether its forces enter conflicts and can also prepare in advance to cooperate effectively if that decision is made. These distinctions are highly relevant to Japan and South Korea since they enable a considerable level of operational preparedness without a formal defense pact. For instance, South Korea could discuss target allocations for North Korean TELs with its Japanese counterparts in order to effectively use the finite weapons available to Japan’s enemy base strike capability and South Korea’s Kill Chain and Korea Massive Punishment and Retaliation (KMPR).

Naturally, the primary objective should be functional integration in fields where both governments already have overlapping interests. A large set of measures—spanning from ISR coordination to cyber defense—can be institutionalized without creating either an integrated force or an Asian version of NATO.

Both the NRF and EU Battlegroups revealed the limits of formations that remained dependent on political and operational arrangements being assembled only when crises occur. German-Dutch cooperation worked better since many of those arrangements already existed.

Given the historical baggage that Japan and South Korea carry, it would undoubtedly be a Herculean task for them to take novel steps. Nonetheless, the emerging regional security environment is rapidly narrowing down the available options.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Sunday that the massive arch he wants to build between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery would become a “top grade military complex” able to host drones and snipers while storing ammunition.

It is one more example of how Trump is insisting that his initiatives to remake the White House and its environs are also serving a defensive purpose. Trump has been calling the new White House ballroom a “military complex” and arguing it is necessary for national security purposes, at least in part to help it pass legal muster.

The Pentagon said it had no information beyond the president’s statement.

Trump’s announcement comes as the arch, like his other projects, faces legal challenges. Though the arch has received early approval from the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, whose members were all appointed by Trump, a group of three veterans and an architectural historian sued, saying the project needs to be approved by Congress.

“The president’s belated efforts to manufacture a national security justification for this project do nothing to cure its fundamental illegality,” Nicolas Sansone, one of the attorneys representing the litigants, said Sunday. “Congress has not authorized the arch, and unless and until Congress does so, the project should not be permitted to move forward.”

The president said in a social media post that he had agreed, at the “strong request” of the military, to convert the planned 250-foot-tall memorial arch “into a top grade Military Complex/Triumphal Arch, to house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, plus Snipers, on both the roof and plaza areas, and additionally have and hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage.”

The arch is proposed for a circle adjacent to the Memorial Bridge, which is a heavy traffic area as one of several connecting bridges between the nation’s capital and northern Virginia.

Among the other projects Trump is pursuing to refashion Washington’s cityscape are renaming and renovating the Kennedy Center, refurbishing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and rebuilding a golf course in East Potomac Park that could significantly reduce the public’s access to running and biking paths. Some of the projects have run into trouble: The Kennedy Center now faces closure and perhaps demolition, and the botched Reflecting Pool renovation, originally set for completion by July 4, remains incomplete.

The groundbreaking for the arch was to have happened sometime this month. The project has not yet received final approval from the National Capital Area Planning Commission, which greenlighted the site and preliminary plans at its July meeting. The commission is expected to take up the matter again this fall.

Kim writes for the Associated Press.

Trump has wanted a foothold in Greenland for some time, as a strategic battle unfolds for supremacy in a warming Arctic.

Denmark has hailed a “binding” deal by United States President Donald Trump to give Washington “permanent control” over Greenland’s security and bar Russian and Chinese military bases from the Arctic territory.

But Denmark and Greenland – an autonomous Danish territory – said on Saturday that any deal with the US would not compromise Greenland’s sovereignty, and the two countries would sign the agreement next week at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

“A long period of uncertainty will hopefully be replaced by a binding agreement that strengthens security in the Arctic and North Atlantic, and thereby our shared security within NATO and Europe – while respecting the [Danish] Kingdom’s red lines,” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said in a social media post.

Since returning to the White House in January 2025, Trump has repeatedly insisted that Washington needed to control Greenland for strategic reasons, alarming NATO ally Denmark and sparking fierce pushback from the alliance.

Key details of the agreement ⁠have not been made public, including the scale of the US military presence in the self-governing Danish territory and whether any formal power over foreign policy and resources would be ceded to Washington.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said the agreement “recognises Greenland’s interests” and is “to the benefit of us all”.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said it is “great for NATO and Europe”, as it “strengthens our common security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic Area”.

‘I have mixed feelings’

But in Greenland’s capital Nuuk, residents had mixed feelings.

“I don’t know exactly what the agreement is or what has been signed. But whenever the US and Trump are mentioned, I have mixed feelings. I’m not entirely comfortable with how much attention Greenland has right now,” Soren Kreutzmann, a 29-year-old hairdresser, told the AFP news agency.

“We hope the leaders have made a good agreement, because our country needs to be protected, both from the air and sea. Denmark had not given that enough attention for many years,” said Bibbi Kleist Jepsen, a 64-year-old educator.

Trump, who had previously said the US needs “ownership” of Greenland, announced that Washington would immediately start building up a large military presence in the territory.

“From now on, no US adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval”, he said.

Trump has repeatedly warned of Russia and China trying to establish a foothold in Greenland as a strategic battle unfolds for supremacy in the warming Arctic region. The State Department left no doubt that they would not be allowed to do so.

“This agreement guarantees that China and Russia cannot have a base in Greenland, they cannot send troops to Greenland and the necessary mechanisms are in place to prevent investment in sensitive sectors,” a State Department official said.

Fidan highlights Turkiye’s readiness to assist Saudi Arabia militarily, as Houthi attacks escalate in Yemen.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has said that Saudi Arabia may have unmet military needs from the attacks by Yemen’s Houthi rebels and that Turkiye would consider how to support the kingdom as part of a trilateral defence pact.

Speaking to Turkish broadcaster NTV on Friday, Fidan said it was unacceptable for Saudi Arabia to be dragged into the US-Iran war, adding that Riyadh had no desire to join the conflict.

He added that proposals had been conveyed to all sides in an effort to end the fighting, without further elaborating.

The Iran-backed Houthi rebels and Saudi Arabia continue trading attacks in an escalating war in Yemen, as the Houthis press gains that have brought large stretches of the Red Sea coast, including the strategic Bab al-Mandeb Strait, under their control.

Pakistan has made a similar pledge to defend Saudi Arabia under the defence pact.

Lieutenant-General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, a spokesperson for Pakistan’s military, told Arab News on Thursday that Islamabad would defend Saudi Arabia “to any extent”, including “physically”, though he did not say whether Riyadh had asked for more Pakistani troops.

Pakistan’s Foreign Office has said no military response is currently under discussion under the pact, adding that Islamabad would act “when time comes”.

The trilateral agreement, known as the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, was signed on August 7 in Mecca by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

The three countries formally named the arrangement the Mecca Defence Alliance on August 31, after officials meeting in Istanbul agreed to set up a secretariat in Riyadh, to be headed initially by a Pakistani secretary-general.

Its founding principle is that an armed attack against any one of the three states will be treated as an attack against all three.

Fidan said at the time the alliance was built on “respecting the sovereignty of other states, territorial integrity and not intervening in internal affairs”, and remained open to other countries joining.

Analysts have questioned how much substance lies behind the pact so far, noting it lacks the integrated command structure and standing forces that underpin NATO.

Its institutional shape, including how the mutual defence clause would actually be triggered, remains unclear.

The trilateral pact was struck as Gulf states grow increasingly concerned about being pulled into the wider US-Iran war, which has continued for more than six months since Washington and Israel first struck Iran in February.

There’s no better way to draw attention to an artist’s work than threatening to shut it down.

Take this week, when Macklemore was kicked off singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran’s tour at the behest of concert venue owners who found the rapper’s on-stage pleas to “Free Palestine” offensive.

Now Macklemore, who hasn’t had a major hit since the 2010s, is relevant again. He has the support of artists, fans and thousands more outraged by his dismissal and the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. The “Thrift Shop” rapper has emerged a hero, and a chastened Sheeran and Gillette Stadium owner Robert Kraft have pledged to donate millions toward humanitarian causes in “the region.”

The stakes are considerably higher for Israeli documentarians Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened this week to revoke their citizenship for what he called the “shocking incitement” that is of their forthcoming documentary, “NAZA.”

NAZA is an acronym used by Israeli military intelligence to describe the number of civilians it estimates will be killed in an airstrike. The documentary captures the actions of Israel’s military after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack in footage shot at night from Tel Aviv rooftops. “NAZA” also features anonymous interviews with intelligence officers and soldiers from the Israel Defense Forces, and builds on reporting first published by the Israeli-Palestinian publication +972 Magazine, the Hebrew-language outlet Local Call and The Guardian to make the case that mass civilian deaths were built into Israel’s target decisions in Gaza.

When “NAZA” premiered at the Venice Film Festival on Sept. 10, the documentary received a 25-minute standing ovation, setting a festival record. It went on to win the prestigious Special Jury Prize.

Soon after, the directors came under attack from members of Israel’s government, with Culture Minister Miki Zohar accusing them of “treason against the state” and calling for their citizenship to be revoked.

But it’s Netanyahu who’s providing free publicity for “NAZA,” ensuring that everyone outside the film festival circuit will know of the documentary by the time of its official North American premiere at the New York Film Festival on Sept. 26.

In a move that’s likely designed to quash “NAZA’s” release and silence its directors, the prime minster pledged this week to advance two bills that would address the “immense damage” done to Israeli soldiers in the film.

Netanyahu explained in a social media clip that one bill would “revoke the citizenship of anyone who defames soldiers, and the second [bill will] hit them in their pockets and increase the statutory damages for defamation they can ⁠be sued for by 20 times. We ⁠will hit them both in their pockets and in their citizenship, as their place is not with us.”

Macklemore lost his place on a pop music tour for speaking out against Israel’s military. Abraham and Szor may lose their place as Israeli citizens. The pair were already considered controversial for their 2024 documentary, “No Other Land,” a film chronicling five years of displacement and violence in the life of Palestinians in a small village in the occupied West Bank. It won the 2025 documentary feature film Oscar.

They explained in a statement why making “NAZA” was so important.

“We made this film out of a sense of obligation to use our position as Israeli filmmakers and journalists to examine the systems behind the mass killing of Palestinian civilians for which our country is responsible,” the statement said. “While filming members of Israel’s military on rooftops at night in Tel Aviv over the past three years, we found ourselves asking the very questions that were asked by our grandparents’ generation and throughout the 20th century: How does one group of people allow the total dehumanization of another? What do the inner workings of such a system look like? … The film lets us explore something deeper than we could in our investigative journalism alone: not only the words being said, but also those that are not said, the silence. It is up to all of us to break that silence.”

The filmmakers have said that they’re using an “innovative distribution model” to bring the film to audiences “as quickly as possible.” It’s slated to reach Los Angeles on Oct. 9 before rolling out in theaters nationwide.

“NAZA” may not need a robust marketing plan if Netanyahu and the Israeli government continue to condemn the film and threaten its creators with expulsion from their own country. Censorship, and worse, are the surest way to elevate an artist and their work. Just ask Macklemore.

United States President Donald Trump claims the US has reached a deal with Denmark granting it “permanent control” over Greenland’s security “and all other needs”.

The announcement comes more than a year after the US president threatened to seize the self-governing Arctic territory, which is part of Denmark. Those threats roiled the NATO security alliance that Washington and Copenhagen are part of.

According to Denmark, the deal is expected to be signed during next week’s United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York. Copenhagen has stressed that it retains sovereignty over Greenland, and this deal will still need to be ratified in the Danish and Greenland parliaments.

Here’s what we know about the deal and what it could mean for the US and Greenland:

What’s in the deal?

The official text has yet to be released. But according to Trump, the deal gives the US permanent control over Greenland’s security and “all other needs”, at no cost to the US.

The deal bars US adversaries from establishing a military presence or making “sensitive investments” in Greenland without US approval, said Trump.

A US Department of State official cited by the BBC said the deal will mean non-NATO states won’t be able to set up bases in Greenland and will be barred from “making investments in Greenland that could threaten the United States”.

The official said that means China and Russia won’t be able to build bases or send troops to Greenland, and that those states would be blocked from investing “in sensitive sectors”.

However, Mikkel Olesen, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, told Al Jazeera that it is unlikely to be a major concession because “the Danes and Greenlanders never wished for Russia or China to have bases in Greenland.”

However, it is unclear whether other countries could similarly be labelled “adversaries” to the US in the future, subjecting them to these restrictions.

Trump called the deal an “‘Infinite Life’ Agreement”, meaning “it never ends”.

The State Department official also said the agreement gives the US the right to build more military sites on the island without Greenland or Denmark approving. According to the official, the deal would remain in force even if Greenland were to become an independent state in the future.

There was no specific mention of potential US mining rights in Greenland, which has a rich deposit of rare-earth minerals, including zinc, iron, uranium and graphite, that are likely to interest Trump. These minerals are highly sought after and are used in the manufacture of hundreds of technological products, from smartphones to fighter jets.

However, some observers think this could be what Trump means by his mention of “sensitive investments”.

The US president has sought to expand the US’s global access to rare-earth metals, especially as China, a global leader in the technology, AI and renewables industries with 60 percent of the world’s known deposits of these minerals in its territory, restricts their exports.

What have Greenland and Denmark said?

Greenland and Denmark acknowledged the deal on Friday, but neither gave specific details about its terms. They said the agreement would be announced next week.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said it “recognises Greenland’s interests” and is “to the benefit of us all”.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said it is “great for NATO and Europe”, as it “strengthens our common security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic Area”.

Olesen stressed that details of the deal remain unclear and that available information should be taken “with a grain of salt” as most of it has so far come from the US side.

Does the deal give the US ownership of Greenland?

No, it does not meet Trump’s previously stated objective of “ownership”.

Denmark’s Frederiksen said the agreement “recognises the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom and the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination”.

Olesen said the deal could be positive for Greenland and Denmark as it “has the potential to end the crisis” caused by Trump’s insistence on acquiring Greenland last year, without sacrificing sovereignty.

Trump’s earlier threats to seize control of Greenland were met with high resistance on the island of 56,000 people. A January 2025 poll found that 85 percent of Greenlanders opposed becoming part of the US.

What military rights does the US already have in Greenland?

A substantial number. Under a 1951 treaty, the US has broad overflight and basing rights on the island.

In addition to giving the US the right to build bases and maintain personnel, the treaty also stipulates that the US can “control landings, takeoffs, anchorages, moorings, movements, and operation of ships, aircraft, and waterborne craft”.

As part of the treaty, the US currently operates a Space Force base in a remote part of northwestern Greenland – the Pituffik Space Base. It has more than 100 personnel stationed there.

What would actually change under this new agreement?

That largely remains to be seen. Trump said the US will “immediately” begin building up a large military presence on Greenland. However, the US already had the right to build bases and send personnel there under the 1951 treaty.

Imran Bayoumi, a former Pentagon official, told the Reuters news agency that it would be new if the US could now build bases unilaterally, but “it seems that Washington could have achieved a lot of these ⁠objectives through diplomacy and dialogue without straining the broader US-NATO relationship.”

Trump has also said the US will support Greenlanders with “development and construction”, without elaborating.

Richard Weitz, a fellow at the NATO Defense College, told Al Jazeera the deal “defuses perhaps one of the most severe sources of internal tension” within NATO.

While Trump “backed down and settled for less” than he sought with respect to Greenland, he still “got pretty much everything he wanted, except formal annexation”, added Weitz.

The war in Yemen intensifies with mounting clashes and reciprocal attacks between Saudi forces and the Houthis.

Yemen’s Houthi rebels have said Saudi Arabia carried out 26 strikes against areas under the group’s control in the past 24 hours, as the two sides continue trading attacks amid an escalating war in Yemen, according to the AFP news agency.

On Friday, the group claimed Saudi strikes on Houthi-held territory had reached 300 over the past week alone, hitting positions across the areas it controls, AFP reported.

Yemen’s government, backed by Saudi Arabia, said on Friday its forces had killed 30 Houthi rebels and wounded more than 60 in clashes in the al-Wazi’iyah district of Taiz province, one of several fronts where combat has picked up this week.

The exchange has come on the heels of a widening escalation of fighting in Yemen between the government’s military and the Houthi fighters.

Tens of thousands marched through Sanaa on Friday in a show of support for the Iran-backed Houthis and against Saudi Arabia, as the rebels press gains that have brought large stretches of Yemen’s Red Sea coast, including the strategic Bab al-Mandeb Strait, under their control.

Earlier this week, the intensifying attacks between the Yemeni government and the Houthi rebels killed at least five people, including three children, according to reports from both sides.

Saudi Arabia said one person was killed in the Taif governorate after a Houthi drone was intercepted, while Houthi-linked media reported deaths from Saudi strikes in Taiz and the town of Abs.

The escalation has drawn in Washington, though reluctantly.

US officials met Houthi representatives at the US embassy in the Omani capital, Muscat, over the weekend after the group’s rapid territorial gains raised concern over shipping through Bab al-Mandeb, a vital corridor for global trade.

The Houthis reportedly assured Washington that vessels not linked to Saudi Arabia would not be targeted.

Despite appeals from Riyadh for US President Donald Trump to strike the Houthis directly, Washington has so far held back, wary of opening a new front while still fighting a costly war with Iran.

Meanwhile, European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said on Friday the bloc’s Red Sea naval mission, Operation Aspides, had raised its alert level as the situation in the region worsened, the Reuters news agency reported.

“Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia are unacceptable and sabotage the global economy,” Kallas said in a post on X.

She added that she had spoken with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud about diplomatic efforts to end the fighting in Yemen and restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

Denmark and Greenland plan to sign a US defence pact next week, pending approval from both parliaments.

United States President Donald Trump claimed on Friday that Washington has entered into an agreement with Denmark and Greenland that gives the United States “permanent control over security and all other needs”.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump said, “At my direction, we worked with representatives of Denmark and Greenland to guarantee that the US will FOREVER have the complete ability to do what is necessary in Greenland”.

He added that US adversaries will be barred from establishing military bases or personnel in Greenland unless they receive written authorisation from the United States.

Trump alleged that plans will begin immediately to build a significant US military footprint in suitable areas across Greenland, noting there are numerous potential locations.

Denmark and Greenland released a joint statement on Friday indicating that a pact with the US is set to be signed during next week’s high-level United Nations General Assembly summit.

The statement added that the agreement remains subject to formal parliamentary approval in both Nuuk and Copenhagen.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said the agreement “recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom and the right of the Greenlandic people to self-determination.”

Hundreds of thousands of Iranians have marched in a government-organised show of defiance in Tehran, pledging their readiness to take up arms.

The Iranian government showcased a newly formed volunteer force at the rally on Friday. It will receive limited military and emergency response training to serve as an additional layer of security for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Basij militia.

Volunteers rallied through downtown Tehran in combat uniforms, some carrying flags and weapons, while the government displayed drones, anti-aircraft batteries and other weaponry.

Iranian authorities said 313,000 people joined the event in the capital. Attendance figures could not be independently verified.

Tehran’s IRGC chief, Hassan Hassanzadeh, told the state broadcaster IRIB that over 600,000 people had registered to participate in the voluntary Janfada-ye-Iran campaign. That roughly translates to “Those who sacrifice their lives for Iran”, with over one million expected to take part in the training.

Senior Iranian leaders at the rally included President Masoud Pezeshkian and Basij head, Hossein Taeb.

Taeb told participants that the volunteers would be ready for “full-fledged defence” and would be a “nightmare” for Iran’s enemies.

A broader strategy

Iranian authorities say mobilising the new volunteer force is part of a broader defence strategy.

“The Islamic Republic has mobilised these people to show that they are united, that they have solidarity and that their people are ready to give anything for the country,” said Al Jazeera’s Sinem Koseoglu, reporting from the rally.

Women and teenagers have also registered with the volunteer units, she added.

“I want to show the world that Iran is strong and united. We don’t want war, but we’re ready to defend our country to the very end,” one of the volunteers, Bahera, told our reporter.

Another volunteer, wearing a combat uniform and carrying a rifle, said: “This is our homeland and we won’t let others decide its future”.

President Pezeshkian said in a speech that the rally was a show of solidarity, Koseoglu noted.

“This is not only a message to countries like the US and Israel, which are attacking Iran, but also to the Islamic Republic that we are ready for any crisis.”

Economy and mobilisation

Friday’s rally happened as the Iranian economy struggles under the US naval blockade of Iranian ports and new US sanctions.

Esmaeil Baghaei, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, condemned the “brutal economic war, deliberately designed to inflict maximum pain and suffering on every Iranian citizen”.

As the latest addition to its economic pressure campaign, the US administration on Thursday went after digital currency networks that it says are illegally providing sanctioned Iranian entities with access to the international financial system.

The struggling economy was a key driver for protests last December that quickly turned into a challenge to the political system in place since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Iran said about 3,000 people were killed in the protests, but activists say the state crackdown killed over 7,000.

However, the war launched in late February by US-Israeli strikes has since allowed the authorities to regain the initiative by presenting themselves as a bulwark against the country’s enemies.

The volunteer mobilisation campaign started in early April, at the height of US-Israeli attacks.

According to the authorities, more than 30 million people registered for a potential call-up, about a third of the population of 86 million.

Indonesia says vessel will be used to aid disaster relief across the archipelago, but its arrival comes amid drive to upgrade the military.

Indonesia has welcomed the delivery of its first-ever aircraft carrier with a military ceremony as the vessel arrived at a naval base.

The 41-year-old former Italian navy vessel Giuseppe Garibaldi docked in North Jakarta’s Tanjung Priok seaport on Friday, after sailing from Italy via Colombo and the Malacca strait, Indonesian Navy Chief of Staff Muhammad Ali told reporters.

Indonesia’s President Prabowo Subianto says the ship will be used to manage disasters across the archipelago. However, it arrives amid a drive to upgrade the military.

The 180-metre (590-foot) vessel can carry up to 18 helicopters and accommodate up to 830 personnel, a navy spokesperson said in a statement.

The carrier will be renamed KRI Sriwijaya, honouring the Srivijaya empire, a maritime kingdom based in Sumatra that became one of Southeast Asia’s dominant naval and trading powers between the seventh and 13th centuries.

“There are many disasters in this country. So we really need a vessel or platform that could carry many helicopters, because the helicopters can drop logistics quickly to remote areas,” Ali said.

However, he also noted that the ship could “be deployed for combat missions if necessary”.

Bolstering defence

The arrival of the vessel, which was commissioned by the Italian navy in 1985, comes as Prabowo has been pushing to upgrade Indonesia’s military assets and build closer defence cooperation with other countries.

Italy agreed to give Indonesia the carrier in March, after it was retired in 2014. The move was meant to bolster the two countries’ defence engagement.

Italy is seeking deals on submarines and aircraft, and gifting the carrier to Indonesia also saves it the cost of decommissioning the ship.

“Its condition is still very good and hopefully it can be used by the Indonesian navy for the next 15 to 20 years,” navy chief Ali said.

Indonesia’s Finance Ministry approved $450m in financing for the aircraft carrier programme in 2025. Opposition politicians worry the overall bill could be far higher.

However, Prabowo – formerly a general under the Suharto regime – has made building Indonesia’s defence assets and agreements a priority.

Jakarta signed an $8.1bn deal in 2022, when Prabowo was defence minister, to purchase 42 French-made Rafale fighter jets. India confirmed this year that it will supply the country with long-range missiles.

Indonesia has also agreed this year to a “Major Defence Cooperation Partnership” with the Trump administration in the United States, and a security treaty with Australia.

Italy’s defence minister warns of severe economic fallout if Bab al-Mandeb becomes impassable, bypassing EU delays.

Italy will deploy warships to ensure safe passage for its commercial vessels through the Bab al-Mandeb strait, Defence Minister Guido Crosetto said, adding that Rome would not wait for a joint decision from the European Union.

“We have the capabilities to protect the passage,” Crosetto said, warning that if the waterway became impassable, the economic consequences would be severe.

The Italian defence minister said that Rome “must not allow bureaucratic delays in decision-making to exacerbate an already complex situation”.

Bab al-Mandeb links the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, forming one of the world’s busiest shipping corridors between Europe and Asia and a critical route for oil, gas and container traffic heading to and from the Suez Canal.

Roughly 12 to 15 percent of global trade has historically passed through the narrow waterway, which separates Yemen from Djibouti and Eritrea on the African side and is only about 30km (19 miles) wide at its narrowest point.

The strait’s importance has grown sharply since Iran effectively seized control of the Strait of Hormuz earlier this year amid its war with the United States and Israel, choking off the world’s most important oil chokepoint and pushing much of the Gulf’s crude exports towards alternative routes.

Saudi Arabia, in particular, has increasingly relied on pipelines and Red Sea shipping to bypass Hormuz altogether, making the Bab al-Mandeb strait one of the last major arteries still open to Gulf oil reaching global markets.

Control of the strait has been contested for years, as Yemen’s government, Houthi rebels and, at times, forces in the region have held stretches of its coastline at different points since the war in Yemen began in 2015.

The significance of the strait has been hit dramatically in the past few weeks, when the Iran-backed Houthi movement launched a rapid offensive that brought the entirety of Yemen’s western Red Sea coast under its control, including several strategically located islands.

The advance has given the Houthis effectively unrestricted access to the waterway, a development seen as a major setback for international shipping, given the group’s history of attacking vessels it associates with the US or its allies in the region.

The US and the European Union have already carried out military operations aimed at better protecting merchant ships from Houthi attacks in the area, though those efforts have struggled to fully secure the route as fighting in Yemen has escalated.

Critics say Serbia’s military ties with Israel are rising significantly.

Serbia has opened a factory ⁠to assemble advanced Israeli-made drones, which will supply ⁠the Serbian military and armed forces in other countries.

Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic inaugurated the facility jointly operated with an unnamed Israeli company on Thursday.

“Our plans are huge,” Vucic said in a social media post showing a video of him touring the facility with Israeli Ambassador Avivit Bar-Ilan, adding that at least three more factories will be opened across Serbia with Israeli partners.

Vucic said the facility “will employ around 100 workers and produce state-of-the-art equipment both for the Serbian Armed Forces and the armies of some other countries”.

Vucic did not disclose the factory’s location or the Israeli firm involved, saying journalists were excluded from the opening because of “the confidentiality of the production process”.

Previous reporting by investigative outlet BIRN and Israeli newspaper Haaretz has identified Israeli defence firm Elbit Systems as Serbia’s partner in the drone-manufacturing process.

Elbit has previously been criticised over its role in operations in Gaza and the West Bank.

Last month, Vucic told Serbian news outlet Nezavisne Dnevne Novine that the goal of the factory was to “preserve peace and stability, and to be strong enough to deter all potential aggressors”.

Serbia is one of the few countries in the Western Balkans that is not a NATO member, and it has invested heavily in its military to “preserve neutrality”.

It has faced scrutiny over arms exports to Israel, which BIRN and Haaretz said rose from 1.4 million euros ($1.6 million) in 2023 to 42.3 million euros ($48.5 million) in 2024.

During a visit to Serbia earlier this year, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese said Belgrade remained one of Israel’s “most steadfast and determined allies” despite calls for more countries to restrict weapons exports due to the war in Gaza.

Islamabad, Pakistan — More than 16 months after India and Pakistan fought a four-day air war, firing missiles and drones at each other, the South Asian neighbours came the closest since then to a military face-off — this time in the Arabian Sea.

Indian and Pakistani naval vessels collided on Tuesday, setting off tit-for-tat accusations. Pakistan’s government summoned India’s top diplomat in Islamabad on Wednesday, mirroring action New Delhi had taken hours earlier when it summoned Pakistan’s charge d’affaires and lodged a protest of its own over the incident.

The collision is the first direct military encounter between the nuclear-armed neighbours since their four-day conflict in May 2025, when Indian air strikes and Pakistani retaliation brought both countries closer to full-scale war than at any point in decades.

So far, details of what happened remain disputed. Neither government has released video, track data or an independent account – and each statement places the blame on the other’s vessel.

But analysts say it underscored the risks of unintended incidents in the seas that could potentially escalate into broader crises, when India and Pakistan have few military and diplomatic mechanisms left in place to defuse tensions.

Two accounts

According to Pakistan’s Foreign Office statement issued on Wednesday evening, the navy has been conducting its biennial SEASPARK-26 exercise inside its exclusive economic zone since September 1 .

A country’s EEZ extends 200 nautical miles (370km) from its coast. Its territorial waters are only 12 nautical miles (22km) from the coast, with the rest of the EEZ in international waters. While vessels from other countries can pass through a nation’s EEZ in international waters unencumbered, they cannot exploit the waters economically: that right belongs only to the country whose EEZ it is.

Pakistan said that an Indian vessel, identified as the guided-missile destroyer INS Kolkata, had “repeatedly” tried to enter the exercise area since September 7 .

On September 15 , it said, Kolkata made a “dangerous” change of course that brought it into contact with a Pakistani vessel identified in local media as PNS Hunain, an offshore patrol vessel.

“Pakistan strongly rejects this belligerent Indian action,” the Pakistani Foreign Office said, calling it a violation of a 1991 bilateral agreement requiring warships to stay at least three nautical miles (5.5km, 3.4 miles) apart in international waters.

India’s Ministry of External Affairs said the warship was on “routine surveillance” in international waters when a Pakistani vessel approached at high speed and manoeuvred unsafely.

Neither government has named the vessels in its own on-record statement, and India has not confirmed or denied the Kolkata identification.

The two navies last collided in June 2011, when Pakistani frigate PNS Babur brushed against Indian frigate INS Godavari in the Gulf of Aden, while escorting a merchant vessel freed from Somali pirates.

Each side blamed the other then too. That row faded within weeks.

The risks

Retired Vice Admiral Ahmad Saeed of the Pakistan Navy said the pattern — two ships pressing close without a clear intent to collide — was familiar from Cold War-era “bumping” incidents between Soviet and US ships in the Black Sea.

But he argued that India and Pakistan are worse placed to manage similar encounters.

“There’s no bilateral Incidents at Sea agreement, the kind the US and USSR signed in 1972, and no navy-to-navy hotline,” Saeed told Al Jazeera. “Article 10 sets a distance, but it gives no manoeuvring rules and no procedure for investigating an incident afterwards. That gap is exactly why each side can just accuse the other.”

Article 10 of the 1991 confidence-building agreement between the two nations requires warships to stay at least three nautical miles (5.6km, 3.5 miles) apart in international waters.

Saeed said the greater risk was what might follow the collision: sharper tactics such as fire-control radar lock-ons or helicopter overflights and eventually “a contact with actual casualties.”

Muhammad Shareh Qazi, a Lahore-based security and maritime analyst, however, pointed to the same 1991 agreement, which he said requires 30 days’ written notice before a military exercise, as well as international collision regulations that apply to both countries as signatories to the UN maritime convention.

“If this collision really had the potential to escalate militarily, you’d have noticed by now,” Qazi said. “There’s a tool for that, called chaff, fired just above the bow or stern purely to signal you could escalate if needed. Nothing like that happened here.”

Both navies also have their own internal accountability channels, he added, with a captain found to have acted without authorisation facing a court martial process separate from any diplomatic protest.

On fishermen routinely detained for straying across the Sir Creek boundary, which is not demarcated between India and Pakistan further south, Qazi said the link to incidents further out at sea was indirect but real.

“Clear demarcation could help close those ambiguities over time, by reducing the ambiguity around where and how these interactions are expected to occur,” he added.

Saeed was more cautious about how contained an incident like this would remain.

“This hasn’t stayed quiet. Both governments went public with protests within a day of each other,” he said, adding that what made the moment riskier than 2011 was that “both publics are primed after last year’s conflict, which was not the case in 2011.”

Similar close-quarters confrontations have become more frequent between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea.

In the most recent flare-up, on July 24 , Philippine officials said a Chinese vessel came within about seven metres (23 feet) of a Philippine fisheries boat near Scarborough Shoal, the Philippine-claimed reef that China has controlled since 2012, and that Chinese coast guard ships fired water cannon at Philippine vessels.

Whether this week’s collision follows that pattern or fades like the 2011 incident depends less on the ships than on what comes next diplomatically, Qazi said.

“If, in the next 24 to 48 hours, an official statement suggests there was a genuine cause to manufacture an incident for the purpose of escalation, then yes, there may be a real possibility of this happening again,” he added.