Military

Caracas, November 4, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Donald Trump administration is negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Venezuela that would lay the groundwork for a potential long-term US military presence in the country, according to US officials cited by the New York Times.

According to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, negotiations over the military pact are being led by the State Department under Secretary of State Marco Rubio. However, details regarding the number of troops and ground missions would be left for future discussions.

According to US officials, SOFA accords “provide a clear and predictable legal framework for US forces to work on mutually agreed activities with our security partners, such as ship visits, training, exercises, and humanitarian assistance.” 

The US currently has SOFA agreements in place with several Latin American countries, including Paraguay, Ecuador, Panama, and Trinidad and Tobago, to “address shared threats such as drug trafficking and transnational organized crime.” Washington likewise operates multiple bases in the hemisphere and recently launched the “Shield of the Americas” initiative alongside regional allies with the declared purpose of tackling transnational crime and illegal immigration.

The New York Times sources did not clarify whether Washington intends to establish military bases in Venezuela or deploy US troops at existing Venezuelan bases. One official said only that the issue remains “far in the future” in the discussions, citing Venezuela’s “poor infrastructure” and the lack of interaction between the Venezuelan and US militaries in recent decades.

The newspaper warned that the military cooperation talks could be both “significant” and “risky.” Article 13 of Venezuela’s Constitution prohibits the establishment of foreign military bases or facilities serving the military purposes of other countries.

The story comes on the heels of a reported attack involving drones and helicopters against a camp belonging to Colombia’s National Liberation Army (ELN) on Friday in Apure State, close to the two countries’ shared border. 

According to the New York Times, the operation counted on US intelligence assistance, with military personnel helping identify the camp, which was claimed to be a “hub” for drug trafficking. 

The death toll, initially reported at 19 by local NGO Fundaredes, has risen to 23. Fundaredes’ Apure coordinator Juan García said that interviews conducted with survivors and victims’ relatives indicated that the strike also killed civilians not associated with the guerrilla group.

The Times stated that it was “not clear who piloted the drones” which are typically operated by US forces. The Wall Street Journal claimed US military drones executed the attack with “cooperation” from the Venezuelan government. For its part, the acting Delcy Rodríguez government and the Venezuelan armed forces have yet to issue any public comment on the mission targeting the ELN.

The ELN is the longest active guerrilla group in Colombia, having sustained a decades-long insurgency against the Colombian state. The organization maintained an arms-length relationship with the Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro governments, operating across the vast and porous southwestern border uncontrolled by both nations and at times cooperating with Venezuelan authorities against Colombian paramilitaries and dissident FARC elements.

Since the January 3 bombing and kidnapping of Maduro, senior US military brass have visited the Caribbean country.

In June 2026, US forces carried out an airstrike on Venezuelan territory that neutralized Héctor “Niño” Guerrero, an alleged leader of the criminal organization Tren de Aragua. The operation involved CIA intelligence work, with US authorities thanking Venezuelan counterparts for cooperation. Likewise, following the June 24 double earthquake, the US Southern Command deployed around 2,000 troops in Venezuelan territory, temporarily taking control of the country’s main airport.

In May, the US military held “rapid response” military drills, flying Osprey MV-22B aircraft over Caracas and landing at the US Embassy. The exercise drew fierce protests from Venezuelan social movements.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

US President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he had reached an agreement with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end Washington’s annual military assistance to Israel, estimated at approximately $3.8 billion, by the end of 2026.

The announcement reportedly surprised Israel’s security establishment, where senior officials said they had not received advance notice or detailed information about the decision and its potential implications.

Israel’s public broadcaster Kan 11 quoted a senior security official as saying the announcement had caught the defense establishment off guard despite ongoing consultations with Washington.

“We did not expect this announcement—certainly not today,” the official said.

“There is a constant dialogue with the Americans, yet it is fair to say that we were taken by surprise,” the official added, noting that the relevant authorities would assess the implications once further details became available.

Speaking in an interview with Fox News, Trump said he and Netanyahu had agreed several months earlier to discontinue the annual financial transfers, which he estimated at approximately $4 billion.

READ: Trump pressures Netanyahu to exclude Ben-Gvir and paves way for unity government

Trump said the two sides had agreed to stop the payments, adding that Israel no longer required the assistance because of its economic prosperity.

“We will no longer pay Israel,” Trump said, while emphasizing that Washington would remain prepared to provide support if necessary.

“Of course, we will help them if they need it,” he added.

The reported agreement raises questions about the future of US military assistance to Israel, particularly because the existing ten-year memorandum of understanding governing American security aid remains in effect until 2028.

Under the agreement, Israel receives approximately $3.8 billion annually in US military assistance.

In addition to this regular funding, Washington has provided Israel with billions of dollars in supplementary military assistance in recent years amid the war in Gaza and Israeli military confrontations involving Lebanon and Iran.

The report did not clarify how the proposed termination would be implemented under the existing agreement or whether the necessary legislative and administrative measures had been initiated.

READ: Trump claims his endorsement helped Netanyahu perform better than expected in Israeli election

By the end of the year, the U.S. will stop providing Israel with billions of dollars in annual assistance, President Donald Trump proclaimed Tuesday morning. The announcement was delivered as both Washington and Jerusalem are mulling plans for a new wave of attacks on Iran and amid increasing American voter antipathy toward the Israel in the wake of the Gaza war and America’s involvement in the war with Iran.

While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu has openly discussed weaning his country off direct U.S. assistance in favor of more cooperation on weapons development, the Trump announcement still caught many there by surprise. It also raises a lot of questions about Congressional authorization and the impact on future sales of advanced arms from U.S. manufacturers, many of which are planned, that still have to be answered.

“As far as paying Israel, Bibi Netanyahu and I have made a deal that – we give Israel $4 billion a year – and we made a deal months ago that we’re stopping,” Trump told Fox & Friends Tuesday morning during his message to American voters going to the polls for the midterm election. “And they’re fine with it because you know they have become a very successful country. They don’t need it, and we won’t be paying anymore to Israel, so it’s just a wasted thing because we’ve already agreed that by the end of this year we won’t be paying Israel.”

“Now we’ll help Israel if they need it,” the American leader added. “You know they’ve been a great ally, and we’ve been the greatest of all allies to many many countries.”

Trump did not elaborate on what specific expenditures he was referring to, and we’ve reached out to the White House for more details. However, the president was almost certainly talking about the ongoing decade-long Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Israel.

The MoU calls for providing $3.8 billion in annual aid and it is drawing to a close. Set to run through 2028, the vast majority of that funding is for Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to purchase weaponry mostly from American manufacturers.

“In 2016, the U.S. and Israeli governments signed their third 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on military aid, covering [Fiscal Year] 2019 to [Fiscal Year] 2028,” according to a 2025 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. “Under the terms of the MOU, the United States pledged to provide—subject to congressional appropriation—$38 billion in military aid ($33 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grants plus $5 billion in missile defense appropriations) to Israel.”

The MoU is merely a promise and not legally binding. Congress has to approve any funding requests.

A New Deal

Washington and Jerusalem began negotiating a new MoU in June, according to the Israeli Defense Ministry (MoD).

“The new framework, reflecting the strategic vision of Israel’s Prime Minister and Minister of Defense, is designed to strengthen the IDF’s qualitative military edge through expanded joint investment in research, development, and co-production, deepen the U.S.-Israel partnership demonstrated during Operation Roaring Lion, and gradually transition from aid to a completely reciprocal partnership,” MoD explained.

Netanyahu has been warning Israel for months that it would have to face reduced assistance from the U.S.

“If you think we will continue receiving what I secured twice — tens of billions of dollars in American aid for the defense budget — you’d better prepare yourselves and get used to the idea that this will not continue,” he told Israeli media last month, according to Bloomberg News. “That is because America has changed, not because Israel has changed. It will end. It is only a matter of time.”

Netanyahu added that Israel has two more years with Trump, but must prepare for a less favorable Washington after he leaves power.

In January, the Israeli leader said he wanted to reduce Israel’s reliance on American aid. He told The Economist that he was not seeking the full renewal of the MoU, which has to be renegotiated by 2028. 

“I want to taper off the military aid within the next 10 years,” Netanyahu told the publication. Asked if he meant “to taper it off to zero,” Netanyahu said “yes.”

“We want to be as independent as possible,” the Israeli leader proffered. Referring to his meeting with the the American president in Florida in late December, Netanyahu added: “In my visit to President Trump, I said we very deeply appreciate the military aid that America has given us over the years, but here too we’ve come of age, and we’ve developed incredible capacities.”

For Israel, the MoU “now matters less for the money it provides than for what it signifies: a gauge of the depth and durability of U.S. support,” the Crisis Group think tank argued in August. “To be sure, FMF has enabled Israel to build up its military power without fully bearing the cost, and phasing out this assistance would impose real burdens. Israel would have to pay for critical U.S. weapons from its own budget.”

However, with its annual GDP now exceeding $700 billion and defense spending above $40 billion, “Israel has found increasing difficulty in arguing that it requires an additional $3.3 billion each year for military purchases,” Crisis Group posited. “Netanyahu has asked the finance ministry to allocate billions of dollars in additional funding for the defense budget over the next decade, a large portion of which would be earmarked to procure U.S. fighter jets, on the assumption that Israel will no longer receive the funds necessary for these purchases from Washington.”

Since the attack by Hamas, U.S. money from the MoU has made up a smaller percentage of the Israeli MoD’s overall budget as the country has increased its own defense spending. Those funds have also been bolstered by several large tranches of U.S. supplemental aid to procure bombs and other weapons.

“For most of the last 15 years, the $3.3 billion Israel receives annually in FMF made up roughly 20% of Israel’s defense budget, which was itself 5-6% of Israel’s GDP in the same period,” the Israel Policy Forum (IPF) explained in May. “Both Israeli defense spending and the share coming from U.S. aid slowly declined amid major economic growth throughout the 2010s, and then spiked in 2023 following the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and ensuing wars.” 

IPF stated that after the Hamas incursion, “Israel sharply increased defense spending (both within the regular budget framework and in extraordinary expenditures) to 8-9% of GDP, and the U.S. gave Israel several large supplemental security assistance packages between late 2023 and early 2026 in addition to the MOU-directed security aid.”

“The net result, taking into account both much higher Israeli spending and large amounts of American aid, is that in 2024 U.S. assistance briefly accounted for more than one third of Israel’s defense budget,” IPF noted. “In 2025 this figure dropped to close to 10%, with Israel spending an estimated NIS 168 billion ($52 billion) on defense in that year.”

Until recently, “Israel had been given a partial exemption” on the requirement that FMF funds be allocated for American products,” the Crisis Group noted. This allowed Israel to “invest a portion of the money in its own defense industry, Crisis Group explained. “This carveout, in turn, has made Israeli firms more competitive in the arms export market.”

Heavy Reliance On American Hardware

Israel, which has received more than $175 billion in U.S. aid since its creation in 1948, relies heavily on American weaponry. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) tactical aviation fleet consists of U.S.-built F-15s, F-16s, F-35s and AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, among other U.S. types. Israel also made deals for a number of other platforms including KC-46A aerial refueling tankers and CH-53K heavy-lift helicopters and it uses large amounts of American precision munitions. Meanwhile, Israeli missile defense systems like Iron Dome and Arrow 3 have been developed with significant assistance from the U.S.

A top Israeli MoD official told The Times of Israel (ToI) last month that his country wants to flip the switch to add value to the American defense industry by using its experience developing weapons as it fights seemingly constant wars. The continual threats from regional actors and terror groups allow Israel to serve as a testing ground for U.S. defense technologies, Aviram Hasson, director of the Defense Ministry’s mission to the US and Canada, explained.

“Hasson pointed to engineering breakthroughs and intellectual property emerging through development of Israel’s active-defense systems, saying every US government request for technology arising from the long-range anti-ballistic missile Arrow 3 program has been fulfilled,” the publication noted.

“It is clear on both sides of the ocean that this cooperation is a strategic need of both powers, not only of Israel,” Hasson told ToI.

U.S. Has Paid Far More Than $4B A Year For Israel’s Defense

Beyond direct financial aid, the U.S. has expended a great deal of resources defending Israel over the past several years. This has included defending against multiple Iranian missile barrages on Israel on top of participating directly in two wars. In addition, there were the constant drone and missile battles in the Red Sea with the Houthis, who began attacking shipping there in response to Israel’s war in Gaza. Part of the U.S. operation against the Houthis was also providing a layer of protection against long-range missile and drone launches at Israel by the rebel group.

During the course of all these events, the U.S. deployed a very large number of its available warships, aircraft, and air defenses, as well as thousands of personnel, to the Middle East at great expense, both in dollars and the toll on troops and equipment.

Just this year alone, 23 U.S. troops have died and nearly 900 have been injured since the launch of Epic Fury in February. Dozens of aircraft have been destroyed and U.S. bases in the region have been partially destroyed and will take billions to repair.

The U.S. has also fired off a large amount of its own munitions defending Israel from attacks by Iran and its proxies. This has contributed heavily to shortfalls in America’s own stockpiles.

All told, the U.S. has spent nearly $50 billion just on the most current conflict with Iran, far exceeding the $4 billion Israel gets per year in annual direct aid. Then there is the opportunity cost of the massive wear and tear on the force and the U.S. military’s overall capacity to fight in the near and medium term due to all these engagements.

All that being said, it can be argued that the U.S. had major interests in participating in these conflicts beyond just the defense of Israel. It is rarely just that simple. The Iran nuclear program, for instance, has impacts much farther than the Middle East and Israel. Still, the U.S. has poured unprecedented resources into Israel’s defense and these investments far eclipse the $4B being discussed today.

Surprise In Israel

Many Israeli government officials were caught completely off guard by the Trump announcement, according to Politico.

“Officials in the Finance Ministry say they were surprised by U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement that military aid to Israel would cease by the end of the year, ” the publication reported.

“No formal document was submitted from the Prime Minister’s Office regarding the end of aid,” Politico added. “The ministry was aware of the intention to end it, but was surprised by the intention to do so immediately.”

Officials in the Defense Ministry and the military were also reportedly surprised by the announcement, according to the Post.

“We did not expect this announcement, certainly not today,” a senior defense official told Israeli media.

“There is ongoing dialogue with the Americans, and we can say that we were surprised. We will study the implications of the decision, which has yet to reach professional officials,” the official is quoted as saying.

As for Netanyahu, he has yet to weigh in on Trump’s statement. However, one of his main rivals in the closely fought Israeli parliamentary election that could unseat him has commented.

“The fact that Israel’s defense establishment is learning of a shift in our strategic relationship through the media, at the same time as the Israeli public, shows just how dangerous Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct is,” Gadi Eisenkot said in a statement. “He can no longer be trusted and must be replaced.”

In his comments to Fox & Friends, Trump conceded that the midterm election played a role in his decision.

The annual assistance to Israel is a “bad talking point” for Democrats, including Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, the president proclaimed.

“The left uses the $4 billion payment … as a signal of unfairness. And we can’t allow that to happen,” Trump stated. “I don’t like that. … It’s almost too easy to target

There are many unknowns surrounding Trump’s statement about diminishing U.S. support for Israel.

The MoU, if that is what he is talking about, still has two years left, and almost $8 billion worth of anticipated funding, the vast majority earmarked for procurement of U.S. arms. 

As we noted at the top of this piece, the MoU itself isn’t legally binding but the aid is authorized by law and appropriated by Congress each year. Ending it early would mean Congress either not appropriating the money or changing the law.

Will Congress agree to cut the deal off by December? What about the U.S. defense industry? It is unclear at the moment how, or if, this move would affect American defense contractors selling arms to Israel. These companies depend in large measure on predictability and taking this agreement off the table two years early could be problematic.

It is not exactly clear at this point which U.S. arms makers will be hit the hardest by Trump’s announcement. There are billions of dollars in contracts for the future procurement of aircraft, munitions and other equipment to companies like Boeing for F-15Is and KC-46As, Lockheed Martin for F-35Is and AM General for Joint Light Tactical Vehicles. While Israel has bumped up its defense budget, it is not really known at this point how it will cover these costs without that lost U.S. aid.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

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

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

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

Here’s what we know:

What happened in the attack on Qeshm Island?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But isn’t diplomacy ongoing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What has Trump said about diplomacy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happens next?

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

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

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

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

Al-Jawf has become a new focal point in the conflict between forces aligned with Yemen’s internationally recognised government and the Houthis, highlighting the strategic importance of the northern governorate.

A major counteroffensive has been launched by the Yemeni government army and forces loyal to it to capture the strategic heights east of the provincial capital, al-Hazm, from the Houthis.

The operations are part of Operation Dawn of Yemen, launched by the government last month to reverse Houthi territorial gains and restore state control in the country.

Al-Hazm has become a central part of this operation, with the city a potential launchpad for government forces against the Houthis. They have controlled the capital Sanaa and most of northern Yemen since the war broke out in September 2014.

Strategic defence lines

During the 12 years of war in Yemen, control over al-Hazm has shifted several times, with the Houthis seizing the city in March 2020.

The governorate remains highly coveted due to its expansive border with Saudi Arabia and its direct geographic links to five pivotal governorates: Hadramout, Saada, Sanaa, Amran and oil-rich Marib and close to the capital, Sanaa.

Al-Jawf also acts as a vital defensive shield for Marib, controlled by government forces, preventing the Houthis from advancing into the eastern regions. It is also a gateway to major Houthi strongholds in northern Yemen.

Field Commander Colonel Rabie Al-Qurashi said government forces have been able to win complete control over the strategic Huwaishan mountain range, east of al-Hazm city. He said it is the first line of defence for the Houthis in the eastern axis and control over the rugged region would give government forces the ability to disrupt rebel supply routes.

“Government forces succeeded in breaking that defensive format with partial control over the Al-Alam front road,” Al-Qurashi said. “The government advance represents a beginning to tighten the noose on the Houthis in the upper al-Labanat camp,” which is regarded as a vital eastern gateway to Sanaa.

Ali Al-Dahab, a military and strategic affairs researcher, said there are immense tactical benefits from holding this elevated terrain.

“The recent advances of government forces in Al-Jawf are a military transformation that serves the course of future operations for their arrival to al-Hazm city,” Al-Dahab told Al Jazeera.

“The government forces’ recovery of a number of heights there provides a military and psychological morale advantage and confuses the Houthis’ decisions, in addition to granting government forces monitoring, movement, and observation of Houthi supply lines and securing their own lines.”

Military spokesman Majed Abdullah Al-Nuzaili said on X that recent military operations against Houthi positions in al-Jawf were “inflicting losses on the militia’s capabilities”.

Desert battleground dynamics

The government dominates the vast eastern desert district of Khabb wa ash Sha’af, representing 82 percent of the governorate’s total area. The Houthis control the provincial capital, al-Hazm, and 10 other districts.

Security and political affairs researcher Brigadier General Ahmed Al-Awadhi stressed the importance of “continuous but not rapid” government advances in the area.

“The advances of government forces in Al-Jawf cannot be ignored or their importance underestimated,” Al-Awadhi told Al Jazeera.

“Control over heights or mountain ranges in the desert Al-Jawf governorate represents points of military strength regardless of their proximity to or distance from the governorate capital.”

The government forces advances in al-Jawf highlight a historical vulnerability for the Houthis, having suffered repeated defeats in battles in desert and open areas, he added.

The developments coincide with the Presidential Council’s appointment of Major General Amin Ali Al-Akimi as governor and military commander of al-Jawf.

“[His] reappointment… comes within the context of restructuring the theatre of operations and unifying the front,” Ibrahim Jalal, a Yemen-focused analyst told Al Jazeera.

“Hailing from Dhu Hussein, a branch of the Daham Bakil tribe, Al-Akimi possesses tribal and military influence that could help mobilise tribes, overcome divisions and bolster momentum on the ground. However, translating this influence into sustainable gains remains contingent upon unifying command and control, coordinating operations across all battlefronts, securing military and logistical support and strengthening anti-corruption efforts to improve the efficient management of military resources.”

The Houthis say they have thwarted advances by government forces in al-Jawf and Marib.

Escalating nationwide hostilities

Fighting has continued in other parts of Yemen as Houthi-affiliated media reported air strikes on an oil company facility in the Bajil district of Hodeidah, which coincide with fierce fighting further south.

Government forces repelled Houthi attacks in al-Aqroudh and on the Tur al-Baha front in Lahij governorate. Intense fighting continues in Taiz governorate.

The siege of Taiz City continues to strain medical infrastructure, with deliveries of food and fuel severely restricted. Civilians remain at risk from sniper fire from surrounding hillsides, authorities have warned.

Governor Nabil Shamsan said that hospitals are working at only 20 percent capacity, with 120 health centres entirely shut due to the siege.

“We urge the international community to secure at least one safe route between Taiz and Aden to enable citizen movement and the smooth entry of services, essential materials and goods,” Shamsan appealed to Al Jazeera.

More than 300,000 people have fled their homes in western Yemen due to the escalating fighting, leaving civilians highly vulnerable.

JOANNE McNally has revealed the regimental methods used to remove banished players from The Celebrity Traitors castle.

Asked by Vogue Williams on their podcast My Therapist Ghosted Me, Joanne explained precisely what happens once they are asked to leave the round table.

“When you leave, what happens? You just left and go home?” asked Vogue.

“So you get off the podium, they rush you out the side door and you’re bundled into a van like Whitney Houston in the Bodyguard,” Joanne explained. “You have a little backpack there, it’s like an emergency backpack in the castle at all times so that if it’s the night that you do go you have your essentials.

“And then you’re taken to a different hotel.”

Joanne – who was banished on the penultimate episode of the second season of The Celebrity Traitors, after the other players wrongfully accused her of conspiring against the Faithful – explained that she was then sent back to the castle the next day.

TOP THREE

Maya Jama reveals which Celeb Traitors stars she would have picked to be Traitors

‘IT’S GIVING LOBOTOMY’

Celebrity Traitors’ Joe Lycett reveals secret email with bosses

“You actually have a full day’s work to do in the castle because you have to do all your B-shots and there was a video of me in the bath, so it’s all that stuff and your final interviews.

“I always wondered why in the castle if you needed to go to the bathroom or anything it’s this big kind of production.

“It’s because they have to make sure the castle is clear and there’s not people who’ve been banished the night before because they were in the castle doing all their extra last bits of work.

“So they were making sure no one crossed paths. It’s such a huge production and they run it so military!”

Meanwhile, co-star James Acaster has revealed the moment he “should have walked out” of the show before filming was halted.

The comedian left viewers shocked in the penultimate episode when he changed the whole game by outing himself as a Traitor in a tense round table – after Michael Sheen pointed the finger at him and Maya Jama.

James’ shock admission that he was a Celebrity Traitor on the show left him so distraught filming was halted.

Welfare staff checked on the comic before the Round Table vote but he crumbled as Faithful Michael Sheen finally ­rumbled him — forcing producers to step in.

Now, James has revealed that he had considered quitting the castle even earlier in the series, when the celebs took part in a mission that forced them to be buried alive in coffins.

James shared that he was “really scared” during the coffin mission and should have gotten out then.

He told Far Out Magazine: “I was lying there thinking, actually, I think I’m really scared of this. As soon as the soil was heaped on top, Bella did say, ‘Imagine if they can’t get us out.”

During the mission, Jerry Hall decided to quit the mission, and James said: “She didn’t like it. She didn’t like, well, none of us liked it. 

“I respect Jerry the most because Jerry just went, ‘I’m not doing this.’ Like, are you kidding me? And the rest of us were just like, ‘We want to win Traitors in our coffins, idiots.’

“We should have just done what – as soon as I heard Jerry got out, I should have said to Bella, ‘I’m getting out, forget it.’ If it’s a free-for-all now, we should all get out. They can’t stop us all. We could all do it.”

Tehran, Iran – Ongoing contacts through mediators have provided a potential diplomatic opening between Iran and the United States, even as both sides express readiness for renewed military escalation.

After two days of Qatari-mediated talks, Iranian authorities have signalled that a deal remains possible provided that their demands are tangibly implemented. At the same time, they have doubled down on a willingness to expand attacks or even launch preemptive strikes if they deem war is inevitable.

“We are prepared for all scenarios,” Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Al Jazeera on Saturday. “We have upgraded our weaponry, addressed our vulnerabilities, and tested new arms. Our forces are at the highest level of readiness.”

His comments came as US President Donald Trump said on Saturday the talks were going “fine” but added that Iranian authorities were not “reliable”.

The Republican leader, who ordered attacks alongside Israel against Iran on February 28, has repeatedly raised prospects of once more hitting the country’s civilian infrastructure. In recent weeks, he has suggested that an attack could potentially take place after the November 3 midterm elections in the US.

“We still have to take care of, I would say, one or two sites, but we can do that in 10 minutes,” Trump told reporters at a Halloween party at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida about further bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Sequencing and timeline

The mediated talks in Tehran on Friday, and then in Qatar on Saturday, appear to have produced a new tangible result by shortening the period after which Iran’s proposal to partly reopen the Strait of Hormuz can be enforced.

Tehran had previously offered seven days, but that has now come down to two, Araghchi said in his interview with Al Jazeera.

Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow with the Center for International Policy, said there are “indications” of US interest in a negotiated settlement, citing the continuing Qatar-mediated talks and US Vice President JD Vance’s recent outreach.

“However, Iran is seeking a series of concessions while the United States insists on progress on Iran’s nuclear programme before concessions are made,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Therefore the central difficulty is sequencing and leverage. Each side wants the other to act first.”

Araghchi’s two-day offer indicates some flexibility over sequencing that could also allow both sides to claim an initial diplomatic achievement without immediately resolving their fundamental disagreements, according to Hamidreza Azizi, a senior Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group.

“However, the military statements show the limits of this opening. Iran appears increasingly determined to prevent a repetition of previous scenarios in which negotiations or temporary ceasefires were followed by renewed military conflict,” he wrote on social media. “From Tehran’s perspective, the objective is to make another attack so costly and unpredictable that Washington would have to reconsider the option altogether.”

As the talks were ongoing on Saturday, the office of Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei said he had a meeting earlier with top military commanders to demand “maximum deterrence” through preparedness for an immediate response “without geographical restriction” to any threat.

Targets would include “tangible and intangible” US and Israeli assets, Khamenei said. Iranian authorities have previously said if Iran’s civilian infrastructure is attacked again, seabed cables and infrastructure across the region could also become targets.

After Khamenei’s statement, commanders of the general staff of the armed forces, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the traditional army separately expressed readiness to launch missile, drone and other attacks in case of an escalation of conflict.

State media on Sunday also aired footage of missiles and drones being taken out of massive underground storage sites and deployed during the eight months of war so far.

The authorities also signalled that they expect more potential attacks from the US and Israel, including against Iran’s power grid.

Gholamreza Jalali, commander of the National Organization for Passive Defense, said during a speech on Sunday that they have identified 14 sectors most dependent on electricity that would need support if the war restarts, without naming any.

“Adopting preventive measures in the area of passive defence for the electricity grid is a fundamental principle that all authorities must follow up in their capacities,” he said, adding that officials were considering “network islanding” practices to create different segments that would not all be simultaneously affected by potential bombing.

‘Positive change in tone’

In and around the Strait of Hormuz, vessels continue to be attacked if they refuse to coordinate with the Persian Gulf Strait Authority, the entity set up by Iranian authorities to enforce control and sovereignty in the critical waterway.

At least four tankers were identified as being hit on Friday and Saturday, although not all attacks are reported by vessels and monitors. According to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations, a vessel carrying liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) was struck by three Iranian projectiles on Saturday about 40 nautical miles (74km) south of Iran’s Lavan Island, deep into the Gulf.

Transit in the strait and surrounding waterways will not return to normal unless the US takes steps towards Iran’s conditions, security chief Mohsen Rezaei told state television during an interview on Saturday night.

For the sequencing to work, he said Tehran wants the US to lift its naval blockade that has halted oil exports and the majority of Iran’s trade, which used to be facilitated through its southern ports. The US must also issue waivers for oil sanctions, unfreeze Iran’s assets abroad, stop fighting on all regional fronts, including Lebanon, and recognise a bilateral Iran-Oman arrangement for Hormuz.

Rezaei said he has yet to respond to a letter addressed to him by Vance, although he said the missive indicated a “change in tone” that he described as “positive”.

Mostafa Najafi, a Tehran-based political analyst said to be linked with Rezaei, said if the conditions are not met, the letter is likely to go unanswered and negotiations – including on Iran’s nuclear programme – will not enter a higher level.

“It is unclear how willing Washington is to accept these demands. It is clear that not recognising rights emphasised by Iran will lead to the failure of the negotiations,” he wrote on X.

The US has also doubled down on the effectiveness of its Operation Economic Outcast involving the blockade, sanctions and pressure on overland trade and aviation.

A report by the US Treasury to inform Trump’s decision-making, which was publicised by news outlet Axios, said no new oil had been loaded onto tankers at Iran’s terminals since August 25. It also showed overseas crude deliveries were down, while Iran’s year-on-year inflation neared 90 percent in September and the national currency continued to dwindle.

The report said Iran’s economy was “crippled” by the combined measures, but did not argue that it was close to collapsing.

Over the past week, Washington and Tehran have sent mixed signals about whether their eight-month war is heading back to full-scale strikes or towards a peace deal.

On Thursday, the head of United States Central Command (CENTCOM), Admiral Brad Cooper, briefed US President Donald Trump on options for renewed attacks on Iran, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported.

The US and Israel have drawn up joint plans to attack Iran after the November 3 US midterm elections, The New York Times (NYT) reported last week.

Yet on the same day, The Washington Post reported that Vice President JD Vance had offered to meet Mohsen Rezaei, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, in person to negotiate an end to the war.

On Friday, Qatari mediators returned to Tehran for talks coordinated with the US, an official told Reuters.

So is Washington heading back to war, or towards a deal? Here’s what we know:

Why are there conflicting reports?

Essentially, Washington is preparing for war while keeping a diplomatic channel open.

The WSJ reported that the US has boosted air defences and munitions in the region and moved some troops away from bases vulnerable to Iranian retaliation.

Ten US military cargo planes landed at the Ovda and Nevatim air bases in Israel’s Negev region on Thursday, with more sent to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the Israeli public broadcaster Kan reported.

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, who said he had been briefed on the plans, called them “insane” and warned of a devastating escalation.

Can diplomatic efforts hold off a return to strikes?

Diplomacy has not stopped.

Vance’s letter, delivered to Rezaei through Qatari mediators on Sunday, proposed direct talks led by Vance, with Iran’s nuclear programme on the table from the start, according to the NYT, in a bid to prevent a renewal of strikes.

Whether it might have any influence over what happens next is a matter for debate. Rouzbeh Parsi, an Iran analyst who is an affiliated researcher at Lund University’s Department of History and Human Rights Studies in Sweden, described Vance as the “voice of reason” on Iran within the Trump administration, saying his signals have been “the least volatile and unpredictable”.

But he also told Al Jazeera that Vance’s position has “never proven to be sturdy enough to actually sway Trump”.

“Thus, while the optics with Vance look better than anyone else in the Trump administration, I doubt that they [Iranian officials] give the outreach much credence until Vance proves able to actually deliver something on his own,” he said.

Furthermore, Nader Hashemi, a professor of Middle East politics at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera that “Rezaei is just one voice among many” adding that the “reality is that decisions are made collectively inside the Islamic republic”.

Wolfgang Pusztai, a security and defence analyst and Austria’s former defence attache to Libya, has a different view, however, telling Al Jazeera, “There is no doubt that the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] currently calls the shots in Iran.”

In February, Iran’s then supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in the initial attacks by Israel and the United States, and his son became the new supreme leader, but Pusztai says he “simply does not have the influence his father did”.

“Without the IRGC’s approval, there will be no agreement with Iran,” Pusztai said, adding it is safe to assume that when Rezaei makes a statement or endorses a proposal, “it reflects the position of the IRGC leadership” and that the US was “absolutely right to negotiate with him”.

Pusztai said it is unclear whether Rezaei is indeed ready to make a serious compromise, but under sustained US pressure, Rezaei, who holds a doctorate in economics, could come to see that “Iran’s interests and the regime’s survival can be better secured without nuclear weapons and through a less aggressive foreign policy”.

“He certainly knows that peak oil is approaching and that time is running out for Iran’s economic recovery through the use of its oil revenues,” he said.

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said progress depends on Iran’s seven conditions being met – including the lifting of sanctions, ending the US naval blockade of Iranian ports, guarantees to an end to US-Israeli strikes, and the unfreezing of Iranian assets – adding that the “carrot-and-stick approach has no effect on Iran”, according to the semi-official Tasnim news agency.

Vance, meanwhile, told Fox News on Thursday that Trump would “never” let the conflict become “a forever war”.

Which of all these signals matter most?

The diplomacy may say more than the threats.

Andreas Krieg, an associate professor of security studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera that Vance’s offer of direct talks “suggests that the Americans do have second thoughts” and that they are less ready to strike than they publicly suggest.

But he warned that Cooper, whom he called “quite hawkish”, could give Trump false confidence “that there is a military way out of it, when in reality there isn’t a military way out of it”.

“This idea that there is a short and crisp military operation to solve this issue is obviously an illusion,” he said.

Paul Musgrave, an associate professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera the White House could be sending signals to coerce Tehran, but that “the better interpretation is the simplest one”.

He believes “the United States is getting ready to carry out substantial attacks relatively soon”. He said he does not expect Washington to accept what he called the unfavourable deal Tehran is offering “without another round of attacks”.

Pusztai said Trump’s main focus is now the midterms, making it “very unlikely that he will order another large-scale attack on Iran before the elections”.

“Starting in mid to late November, there could be a major wave of attacks aimed at advancing the American agenda,” he said, adding that the aim would be to weaken the IRGC enough to push it towards a deal on US terms.

Whatever the vote’s result, “in the short term it will not change much”, Musgrave said.

A strong Republican showing could encourage more aggressive tactics, while a Democratic win could push Trump to show his unilateral powers, including by attacking, he said.

Hasn’t this all happened before?

It has. Iran was attacked by Israel or the US while talks were under way in both 2025 and 2026.

“We’ve seen this pattern of behaviour before from the United States,” Hashemi said, describing it as “talking diplomacy while preparing for war”.

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched major strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites, two days before a sixth round of US-Iran talks was due in Oman. The US joined on June 22, bombing Iran’s Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan nuclear sites.

This year, the US and Israel attacked on February 28, two days after talks in Geneva that mediator Oman said had made “significant progress”.

A day before the strikes, Oman’s foreign minister said Iran had agreed to reduce its nuclear stockpiles to “the lowest level possible”.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told Al Jazeera in September that Iran no longer trusts negotiations with Washington because attacks had come during previous rounds of talks.

Hashemi said he suspects “the same pattern is repeating itself”, with the US preparing “a massive bombing campaign in Iran, replete with war crimes like we haven’t seen before”, citing his reading of Murphy’s comments.

What is blocking a deal?

“The issue is mostly around sequencing and the lack of trust on the Iranian side that the Americans will actually follow through with their commitments,” Krieg said.

Tehran wants sanctions and the US naval blockade lifted quickly, fearing that a slow process gives Trump room to backtrack, he said.

Some IRGC hardliners do not necessarily see war as a bad thing if it tightens their grip on the Hormuz strait, he added, and “the Iranians have been prepping for this war for the last three weeks, so they are ready to fight”.

Krieg said he expects “nothing is going to happen until the 3rd of November [the date of the US midterm elections]”. After that, he said, the likelihood of war will “increase exponentially”.

Any new escalation would be worse than in February and March, he said, with Iran readier to strike critical infrastructure in Gulf countries.

He said the threat to the Gulf “will be unprecedented”.

EUFOR confirms Chinook CH-47 helicopter crash in Bosnia, with four Italian nationals confirmed dead.

Four people belonging to the European Union Force in Bosnia (EUFOR) have been killed after an Italian military helicopter conducting a training operation crashed.

EUFOR said a CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed during “routine training” in the Brcko region on Thursday, about 180km (110 miles) north of Bosnia’s capital, Sarajevo.

A total of 11 people were injured in the crash, EUFOR said, adding that all the injured are receiving treatment and are in stable condition.

The Italian government said in a statement that all those on board the military helicopter were its nationals.

The victims were two soldiers and two Red Cross volunteers, according to the Italian defence ministry.

“At this moment of immense grief, my thoughts go first and foremost to the families of our fallen, to whom I extend my personal condolences and those of the entire defence establishment,” Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto said.

Wreckage

Bosnian media outlets published photos of the wreckage showing the helicopter overturned on the ground in a flat field.

A spokesman for Brcko hospital told the AFP news agency that there were 15 people on board at the time of the crash, which initially killed three people.

“Twelve people were transported to our hospital. Unfortunately, a fourth person succumbed to injuries in the hospital,” the spokesman said.

“EUFOR is conducting a full and thorough investigation of the incident and will release more information as it is verified, and when appropriate,” the force said in a statement.

EUFOR, which has between 1,000 and 1,500 personnel, has been deployed in Bosnia since 2004, when it replaced a NATO peacekeeping force that had been in the country since the Bosnian War ended in 1995. The mission oversees the implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement, which ended the three-year war.

Ethiopia has received 12 Russian Su-35 fighter jets and will acquire four S-400 air defence batteries, in a deal experts say strengthens Moscow’s foothold in the Horn of Africa while bolstering Addis Ababa’s military amid conflict at home and tensions with neighbouring Eritrea.

Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed announced the deal in Moscow during the two-day Russia-Africa Summit.

“I value the friendly relations between Russia and Ethiopia,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a statement. “Russia and Ethiopia stand together in international affairs.”

Experts say the agreement builds on decades of military cooperation, offering Moscow arms revenue and diplomatic influence while allowing Ethiopia to strengthen its armed forces amid its ongoing conflict in Tigray.

Here is what we know:

What weapons is Ethiopia acquiring?

Abiy said Ethiopia had taken delivery of its first 12 Su-35s under an earlier agreement with Russia, with four S-400 batteries to follow, but did not say when the air defence systems would arrive.

The aircraft would expand an air force already equipped with Russian fighter jets. The S-400 systems would complement this existing fleet by helping the military defend itself against aerial threats, experts say.

“They would be best used against conventional air threats,” Benedict Manzin, a lead analyst on the Middle East and Africa at risk consultancy Sibylline, told Al Jazeera. “In a war with Eritrea, they could be used against Eritrea’s limited air force and drones.”

However, air defences do not provide protection against every kind of attack.

“As we have seen in Ukraine, conventional air defence systems can be overwhelmed by small, cheap drones,” he said.

Why does Russia want closer ties with Ethiopia?

The relationship predates the current competition for influence in Africa.

“Russia has been engaged in Ethiopia for decades, part of the legacy of the Cold War,” Manzin said.

The Soviet Union backed Ethiopia’s former communist government. Today’s cooperation builds on those foundations, with the two countries having signed military agreements intended to improve the Ethiopian armed forces’ capabilities through technology, knowledge and training, according to the Ethiopian News Agency.

Commercial interests also matter.

“Russia is also in the business of making money through arms sales,” Manzin said. “This is one of Russia’s primary exports to Africa.”

Weapons sales provide revenue while sustaining relationships with governments that require training, maintenance and replacement equipment. But the partnership extends beyond defence.

Abiy said his talks with Putin covered nuclear energy, health and trade, alongside bilateral and multilateral cooperation, while in a statement, Putin said bilateral trade exceeded $1.3bn in January-September, more than twice the figure for all of 2025.

He identified energy, agriculture, industry and education among potential areas for further cooperation.

Ethiopia’s size also makes it attractive to competing powers, with experts saying that because it is Africa’s second-most populous country, it offers a substantial market.

“Everyone engages a bit, and Ethiopia tries to maximise its gains,” Manzin said.

Does this mean Ethiopia is turning away from the West?

Manzin suggested Ethiopia is widening its options rather than committing exclusively to Moscow.

“African states are aware that they are a focus of geopolitical competition,” he said.

That competition gives governments room to seek weapons, investment and diplomatic backing from different partners. Ethiopia’s relationship with Russia coexists with a significant Chinese presence and continuing Western investment in the country.

“China has a huge presence in Ethiopia, and Russian arms have always been a huge factor,” Manzin said. Moscow is seeking to turn those established connections into broader influence as Western sanctions over its war in Ukraine constrain its international relationships.

Russia supplied 15 percent of African imports of major weapons in 2021–2025, behind the United States at 19 percent and China at 17 percent, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Could the weapons be used in Tigray?

In his statement, Abiy thanked Putin for ensuring the aircraft were delivered a year ahead of schedule and said the equipment would strengthen Ethiopia’s ability to “preemptively deter aggression”.

The delivery comes amid renewed fighting in Tigray, a separate rebellion in Amhara and concerns about a possible conflict with Eritrea.

“Ethiopia is buying a lot of aircraft,” Manzin said. “The timing comes as Ethiopia is going through conflict in Tigray, with speculation about war with Eritrea.”

He cautioned against assuming the latest battlefield developments directly prompted purchases negotiated earlier.

“Aircraft are helpful regardless, as they are using aircraft and the air force heavily during any suppression,” he said.

What’s the conflict about?

Fighting between Ethiopia’s federal army and Tigrayan forces intensified in late September, in effect unravelling the November 2022 Pretoria peace agreement that ended a devastating two-year war.

Each side has blamed the other for renewed violence. Tensions grew following the formation of a seven-group alliance seeking to overthrow Abiy’s government and establish a transitional administration.

Government troops and allied forces entered Mekelle, Tigray’s capital, earlier in October after Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) fighters withdrew.

Addis Ababa subsequently installed a six-month caretaker administration, but rebel commanders have promised to continue fighting.

Trade and security are expected to be on the agenda as delegations and leaders from dozens of African countries gather in Moscow for a two-day summit with Russia.

The third instalment of the Russia-Africa Summit will run through October 28–29 and will be chaired by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the current African Union chair, Burundian President Evariste Ndayishimiye.

Russia has boosted security and trade cooperation with African nations as it grapples with Western sanctions imposed in response to its war against Ukraine.

So who will be attending and what is at stake?

Here’s what we know.

What is the Russia-Africa Summit?

The Russia-Africa Summit is a two-day diplomatic and economic meeting being held in Moscow on Wednesday and Thursday.

Leaders and delegations from 48 African countries are meeting to discuss bilateral cooperation spanning politics, defence and technology.

This high-profile forum is the third of its kind. The first summit took place in October 2019 in Sochi, marking an unprecedented turn in Russian-African relations.

What’s on the agenda for the summit?

The event’s official theme is Developing Mutually Beneficial Cooperation and “unlocking the potential of every African country”.

More than 40 sessions and about 100 speakers will cover trade, investment, technology transfer, food and energy security, healthcare, education and youth exchange.

There will also be a business programme, culminating in a plenary session.

Who is attending?

Representatives from 48 African countries will participate, as well as 22 heads of state, according to Kremlin presidential aide Yury Ushakov. Heads of state from 17 countries attended the last summit in 2023.

Fewer leaders came to the last two summits, compared with the first gathering in 2019, when 43 took part, a decline which Moscow blamed on Western pressure.

Russian President Putin is scheduled to meet with his Egyptian counterpart Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.

The guest list includes leaders closely tied to Russia’s growing security role in Africa, including Burkina Faso’s Ibrahim Traore and Niger’s Abdourahamane Tchiani.

Kenya’s William Ruto, Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni and Namibia’s Netumbo Nandi-Ndatiwah are also expected, as well as Sudan’s Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Mohamed al-Menfi, the chairman of the Presidential Council of Libya.

What is the relationship between Russia and Africa like?

Russia has gained far more influence in Africa through security than trade, according to a report by the African Security Analysis group (ASA), a security consultancy.

Russia’s security presence has risen significantly in the region. In 2023, Russian forces, mostly from the Wagner Group, operated in only a few African countries, but the ASA now counts Russian missions or troops in at least nine countries.

Trade between African countries and Russia has exceeded $28bn. It was estimated to be about $16.8bn in 2019, when the first summit was held. But trade is mainly concentrated in a few countries and overshadowed by that of China and the European Union.

Russia’s strongest ties to the continent are in energy, fertilisers, defence and nuclear power, where the state-owned firm Rosatom has signed a string of agreements.

Russia has been an essential supplier of fertilisers and wheat to many countries in the region.

In 2023, Russia exported 200,000 tonnes of grain to Mali, Somalia, the Central African Republic, Burkina Faso, Eritrea and Zimbabwe. 

Why does this summit matter?

This is the first summit since 2023, so it will be an indicator of how far the relationship has developed and where it is heading, analysts say.

A final declaration and a Russia-Africa Partnership Forum plan should be adopted by the end of the Summit to cover 2027-2029.

Analysts have said that meetings on the sidelines could be more important than the main event, as talks between African delegations and Russian defence officials can illustrate where Moscow plans to expand its military ties.

The recruitment of Africans to fight in Ukraine could also be a growing problem for Moscow, as it has already caused diplomatic concern in countries such as Kenya.

Amnesty International has used the run-up to the summit to raise the issue of Africans being recruited to fight with Russia.

In an open letter, the directors of Amnesty’s African section urged leaders attending the summit to demand that Moscow end what the group describes as deceptive and coercive recruitment of Africans to fight in its war in Ukraine.

British Chancellor John Healey will set out the country’s autumn budget, the government’s tax and spending plans, the first under Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s premiership amid high inflation and government spending levels.

While the budget will be announced in parliament on Wednesday at 12.30 GMT, speculation about what it will lay out has ranged from a series of tax announcements to commitments to defence spending.

But the country continues to deal with a rising cost-of-living crisis and energy bills are expected to see their biggest rise in four years in January due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

As total United Kingdom borrowing broke through the 3 trillion pounds ($3.99 trillion) barrier for the first time in September, the country is already spending 100 billion pounds ($133bn) each year just on servicing that debt.

Despite that challenge, the chancellor has said the budget will move “money and power out of Westminster and into every postcode around Britain”.

In a speech last month, Healey said that he and Burnham were in “lockstep” in meeting fiscal rules, “to balancing the books, with a buffer to protect against uncertainty, to control borrowing to bear down on inflation, and reducing long-term pressures on our public finances”.

Following the two budgets from former Chancellor Rachel Reeves, which included big tax and spending increases, Healey’s budget is expected to take a more “steady as she goes” line, which some say is the wrong approach.

Here’s how he will be expected to achieve that.

Defence spending

On Monday, Burnham said Healey would set out a plan to fully fund the government’s defence plans and commitments, telling ITV’s Good Morning Britain that his government’s first challenge was financing the already announced defence investment plan.

Announced in June, the plan is backed by 298 billion pounds ($396bn) of investment and will transform the armed forces as the country moves to “warfighting readiness” and stepping up “European security”, according to a government policy paper.

But Burnham said it was “crucial that we have a funded plan that we can then implement, and we will set out more details on Wednesday as to how we’ve done that”.

He added that NATO commitments of spending 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on defence spending by 2030 and 3.5 percent by 2035 are included in the pathway, explaining that national security issues were “at the top of the priority list”.

As it stands, Britain spends about 2.6 percent of its GDP on defence.

The Guardian reported that on defence spending, Healey aims to close a 4.7-billion-pound ($6.2bn) funding gap in the government’s plan inherited from the previous Labour Party leader, with cuts to other departmental budgets likely to fund it.

Inflation

Government borrowing and inflation continue to rise, which is a potential spanner in the works for proposed spending.

Last week, UK inflation and government borrowing both hit their highest levels in a year.

According to the Office for National Statistics, borrowing was nearly 25 billion pounds ($33bn) last month alone, “a little higher than a year earlier, as spending, including higher debt interest costs, increased more than government income, partly reflecting the impacts of inflation”.

ONS added that in the financial year to September 2026, borrowing remained below the same period last year, but it was higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast.

However, debt at the end of last month exceeded 3 trillion pounds ($3.99 trillion), much of it due to the Iran war and the fallout from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as the government borrowed more than expected.

According to Jasper Kanter, a professorial research fellow in ecological economics at Aberystwyth Business School, for the government to grow the economy without raising inflation levels, there needs to be an understanding of what kind of economy is created.

“The strongest policies improve prosperity, resilience and sustainability at the same time,” Kanter said.

“Growth is less likely to be inflationary when it comes from increasing the economy’s productive capacity rather than simply boosting spending. Measures that improve skills, reduce energy dependence, strengthen local economies and regenerate ecosystems are likely to deliver more lasting benefits than short-term stimulus,” he added.

Moreover, Helen Miller, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said in a media release ahead of the budget that Healey “faces a forecast in which borrowing is still expected to fall in coming years, and the fiscal rules are still being met”.

“Despite that, a ‘steady-as-she-goes’ budget is not an option available to the chancellor. Choosing to stay the course with the inherited tax and spending plans would mean allowing inflation to blow departments’ spending plans off course,” Miller said.

Tax on banks, online sellers

The budget is also expected to reveal new taxes on banks and online marketplaces such as Amazon, Temu and eBay, as well as a funding boost for mayoralties and local authorities.

The biggest four banks collectively made about profits of 15 billion pounds ($19.9bn) in the first six months of this year. Trade unions are calling for higher taxes on those earnings, the BBC has reported.

According to the BBC, the Treasury is leaning towards changing a 2023 surcharge rate on banks, which would raise about 2 billion pounds ($2.6bn).

On marketplaces such as Amazon, Healey is reportedly looking to crack down on foreign sellers who avoid paying VAT – a UK sales tax – which is expected to raise as much as 1 billion pounds ($1.3bn) and help fund business rate cuts for high street shops, The Times reported.

Paying for social care and benefits

According to The Guardian newspaper, Healey is expected to allocate about 1.42 trillion pounds ($1.8 trillion) this year for day-to-day spending and public investment, with about 100 billion pounds ($132.8bn) going on debt interest.

Kanter, of Aberystwyth Business School, told Al Jazeera that he expects “targeted support rather than large-scale tax cuts or rises” in the budget announcement.

“The government appears keen to signal empathy with the pressures many people are facing. Addressing the harsh cliff edge in carer’s allowance and expanding parental pay are good examples of this,” he said.

Some of the budget’s contents have already been announced, including ending the carers’ allowance limit and removing tariffs on a range of food items, including chocolate and beans, to make them cheaper for shoppers.

Pensioners are also expected to be shielded from income tax through the introduction of a new personal allowance, while Healey is expected to add another 1 billion pounds ($1.3bn) to the 39 billion pounds ($51.8bn) planned for social and affordable housing in England over the next decade.

“Pensioners will benefit from another substantial increase in the state pension, while low-paid workers will benefit from increases in the minimum wage. For most households, the bigger determinants of living standards will remain wages, inflation and energy costs rather than any new tax measures announced in the budget,” Kanter explained.

Last month, Burnham announced a new national care service to provide free personal care for elderly people. As costs of care for the elderly have soared in the UK, this was a major issue from the outset of Burnham’s premiership.

He said the plan would be introduced in phases and would be fully funded from public spending and savings from scrapping the state pension triple lock – an annual increase in state pension that goes up with inflation, wages or a fixed rate of 2.5 percent, whichever is highest.

A report on how this will be implemented is due in summer 2027.

Energy bills

Amid high gas and oil prices as a result of the US-Israeli war with Iran and the subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz, energy prices worldwide have increased, with Brent crude futures at $115.90 a barrel on Wednesday.

In the UK, energy prices are predicted to reach nearly 2,000 pounds ($2,655) a year for households in January after energy consultancy Cornwall Insight projected in its latest forecast last month that the government’s cap on energy prices is expected to increase by 16 percent.

On energy bills, reports suggest the chancellor is expected to announce help for households in the budget by scrapping standing charges for energy supply, among other things.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi surprised observers when he recently announced his intention to leave office after his third presidential term ends in April 2030.

El-Sisi had been widely suspected of moving to amend the Egyptian constitution to allow him to serve another term, or possibly indefinitely.

But speaking at a graduation ceremony at the Egyptian Military Academy, el-Sisi insisted that his departure was a settled matter and that “no one would tamper with” the constitution.

So what is behind the decision? There has been much speculation that el-Sisi may use this declaration to rally popular support for a fourth term or preempt a move by the military against him. But there is also the possibility that he is setting up the next phase of military rule in Egypt.

It is important to point out first that voluntarily leaving power is a risky proposition for any authoritarian leader.

In el-Sisi’s case, his 2030 departure would leave open the possibility that a future Egyptian government could seek to use him as a scapegoat for the country’s problems, possibly even holding him to account for alleged crimes committed during his presidency.

El-Sisi led a coup in 2013 against Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi, which was accompanied by massacres and the jailing of tens of thousands of politicians, activists, and journalists.

El-Sisi’s economic record has also been the subject of criticism, with detractors accusing him and his government of corruption, poor fiscal policy and lavish spending on vanity projects. Egypt’s debt stands at 81 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), with interest payments alone exceeding combined spending on healthcare, education, wages and subsidies. Meanwhile, the Egyptian pound has lost more than 80 percent of its value against the US dollar since 2014, while cumulative inflation exceeds 460 percent.

In this context, el-Sisi’s announcement that he plans to step down in 2030 was rather unexpected. Some have speculated that he has no intention of actually leaving office and could go back on his statement, as he has done before.

In 2013, following Morsi’s overthrow, el-Sisi denied that he would run for president.

After telling the media in 2017 that he was committed to “preserving [the constitution’s] two four-year terms and not changing it”, he helped lead the drive to amend the constitution in 2019.

A judicial source told Mada Masr last week that el-Sisi’s announcement left open the door for a “popular call” for the president to remain in office.

A second possibility is that with this move, el-Sisi may be attempting to preempt a possible military intervention, which could become more likely if the economy continues to falter.

In 2011, the military responded to popular protests against former President Hosni Mubarak by forcing him to step down.

The army could attempt to defuse public anger by presenting el-Sisi as a scapegoat, forcibly removing him from power, and replacing him with someone who can preserve a measure of stability as well as secure its vast economic interests.

In that context, a member of parliament said recently that he has heard el-Sisi say in private meetings that he would rather step down than wait for the military to force him out.

But a third and much more likely possibility deserves particular attention: el-Sisi may be preparing to leave the presidency while ensuring that Egypt’s military-dominated political system survives his departure.

It is perhaps not coincidental that during the announcement, he cited Article 200 of the constitution, which gives the armed forces an extraordinary role in Egyptian politics.

The article, amended in 2019, makes the military responsible for maintaining the country’s “democracy” and the “gains, rights and freedoms” of the Egyptian people.

According to el-Sisi, the aim of the article is “to protect the Egyptian state from any attempt to infiltrate it or allow people to take it over who cannot handle the responsibility of this country or who do not even understand the meaning of ‘state’”.

Article 200, combined with Article 234 — which requires that a president secure approval from the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces before appointing a defence minister — gives the military significant control over Egyptian political life.

El-Sisi’s vision for the selection of Egypt’s next president gives the military an outsized role. His proposal includes setting up a committee of experts to draft legislation for selecting hundreds of highly educated Egyptians to undergo specialised training at the Egyptian Military Academy.

Applicants, el-Sisi proposes, should hold doctoral degrees, be between 40 and 50 years of age, and be prepared to spend 30 months at the academy learning about the Egyptian state.

The programme would also train future ministers, governors and members of parliament.

Combined with Articles 200 and 234, this proposed mechanism seems intended to preserve the military’s dominance long after el-Sisi leaves office. It could be favourable to him as well.

A genuinely independent, civilian president could seek to investigate massacres overseen by el-Sisi, allegations of corruption, or other alleged crimes. A transition process closely managed by the military is highly unlikely to yield such a result.

The open question now is how an increasingly frustrated and critical Egyptian public will respond to a political process managed by the military that effectively wipes out the need for a popular mandate.

For now, el-Sisi and the military appear determined to shape Egypt’s political future. But the people may have the last word.

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

Foreign ministers form security committee to share intelligence and follow up on impact of Jordan’s strikes on Syria.

Syria is reopening its border crossing with Jordan, and the two countries will investigate Jordanian strikes on suspected ISIL (ISIS) sites that killed seven in southern Syria.

Nassib, Jordan’s only border crossing with Syria, will reopen on Wednesday morning, with regular passenger and commercial traffic resuming, the state news agency SANA reported.

The crossing was briefly closed following the Jordanian airstrikes, which targeted ISIL “hideouts” in southern Syria on Monday in response to a Greek Orthodox church shooting by gunmen in Jordan’s Karak on Friday, the Jordanian military said in a statement. ISIL took responsibility for the attack.

Jordan’s strikes on Syria killed at least seven people in Deraa and Suwayda, including five members of the same family, three of whom were children. Syria’s Ministry of Emergency and Disaster Management said its teams had responded to attacks at four sites.

The two countries also agreed to form a security committee to examine the aftermath of the strikes, foreign ministers said in a statement following a phone call between the two countries’ top diplomats.

Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said Monday’s air attacks were based on field intelligence and aimed at “neutralising confirmed threats and imminent terrorist operations targeting Jordan’s security”.

Safadi expressed “deep regret” over civilian deaths in his call with Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani and stressed Jordan’s respect for Syria’s sovereignty and stability.

Jordan had claimed that the strikes were coordinated with the Syrian government, which Damascus denied.

In addition to investigating the attacks, the security committee will develop “field and intelligence coordination in dealing with terrorist threats” to ensure the protection of innocent civilians.

The church shooting claimed the lives of at least nine people and wounded 34 others. Jordanian security forces arrested two brothers and their brother-in-law on suspicion of carrying out the attack.

Strikes hit a major bridge in the Ukrainian capital as leaders push for ‘direct discussions’ to end the war.

Russia has attacked transport infrastructure in Ukraine’s capital, targeting a major bridge, as the leaders of Finland and Norway held a rare call with Russian President Vladimir Putin and a separate one with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Officials in Kyiv said the South Bridge was hit in overnight attacks on the city ⁠⁠that included 16 ballistic missiles and more ⁠⁠than 280 drones. Zelenskyy said Russian forces struck again while emergency crews were still dealing with the aftermath of the initial strikes.

“This is a serious escalation in Russia’s campaign targeting our logistics,” he said.

Russian attacks also caused deaths and injuries in the cities of Kharkiv and Pavlohrad.

Russia’s Defence Ministry said on Telegram that its forces had targeted transport infrastructure in Kyiv and a logistics hub in the Kharkiv region, along with industrial sites and cargo vessels it said were serving military purposes.

Officials in the Russian-controlled part of Ukraine’s southeastern Zaporizhzhia region said a drone strike on a bus killed one person and injured 30 others.

One person was also killed and six others were wounded in a drone attack on the Russian city of Bryansk, near the Ukrainian border.

The attacks come as the warring sides prepare for talks. On Friday, Kyiv and Moscow said they had agreed to hold United States-mediated technical meetings in Abu Dhabi in early November.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store called Putin from Helsinki on Tuesday to convey messages on future negotiations ahead of the Abu Dhabi meetings, according to a statement from both governments.

Zelenskyy, who spoke to the pair afterwards, said on X that they had told Putin real steps were needed to de-escalate attacks on Ukraine’s energy facilities and infrastructure. He said they also discussed preparations for the November talks.

“There must be peace, de-escalation is needed, and Russia must stop dragging out the war,” he said.

In the Finnish-Norwegian statement, Stubb said the war’s outcome would directly affect the security of Finland and Norway, both of which border Russia, and of Europe more widely.

“Ending the war requires direct discussions,” he said.

Store said the two leaders had stressed the importance of de-escalation during the call.

Both leaders said they spoke for their own countries, not Europe, and that Finnish and Norwegian support for Ukraine would continue.

Most Western European leaders have avoided direct contact with Putin since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022.

The calls come amid a renewed US push to end the war. The two governments described Tuesday’s call, held in consultation with Ukraine, as a follow-up to talks in Oslo on October 20 with Zelenskyy and US special envoy Steve Witkoff.

Witkoff met Putin in St Petersburg the next day, after which the Kremlin said it was ready to resume US-mediated talks with Kyiv that stalled in February.

US President Donald Trump has also credited his wife, First Lady Melania Trump, with securing a localised ceasefire in the southern Kherson region, which took effect on Tuesday to allow aid into the Russian-controlled town of Oleshky.

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

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

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

The presidency said authorities in Niger had requested military assistance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why does this matter?

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

But that does not mean it has never done so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why the Sahel?

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

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

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

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

Those concerns were not unfounded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who else is operating in the Sahel?

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

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

But that military presence has largely unravelled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The United States has also seen its military footprint shrink.

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

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

What does Algeria stand to gain?

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

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

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

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

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