Oil and Gas

The strike leaves more than 70 percent of northern Iraq’s Kurdish region without power.

A drone attack on the Khor Mor gasfield in the semi-autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq has caused a fire at the facility and cut power to the region, according to Iraqi and Kurdish officials.

The Sunday night attack left more than 70 percent of the Kurdish region without power.

It was not clear who was responsible for the attack or whether it was related to the United States and Israel’s war on Iran.

Al Jazeera’s fact-checking agency Sanad has verified footage of smoke and flames rising from the vicinity of the gasfield in the Sulaimaniyah governorate.

Omid Ahmed, spokesperson for the Kurdistan Regional Government’s Ministry of Electricity, said the attack suspended gas supply to power plants in the cities of Erbil, Sulaimaniyah, Bazian, Chamchamal and Duhok, the official Iraqi News Agency (INA) reported.

The strike knocked between 2,500 and 2,800 megawatts of electricity generation off the grid, he said.

He added that the ministry would provide electricity to critical facilities, such as hospitals and water treatment plants, by operating hydroelectric power stations and other plants that run on alternative fuel.

Al Jazeera’s Peter Smith, reporting from Baghdad, cited security sources as saying the explosive-laden drone struck the Khor Mor gas storage facility, reducing the energy grid’s capacity by 70 to 80 percent.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi said there were no casualties as a result of the attack, based on an initial assessment, the INA reported.

Al-Zaidi also directed that a joint investigative committee be formed with the relevant authorities in the Kurdish region to investigate the circumstances surrounding the attack, INA reported.

The attack comes amid heightened regional tensions. A drone strike hit the same facility last year, with no group having claimed responsibility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explosions reported

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

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

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

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

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

Iraqi foreign minister warns of potential regional war, says Baghdad seeking to resolve disagreements with Saudi Arabia.

Iraq has evidence that external parties have been using its territory to launch attacks on neighbouring countries, its foreign minister told Al Jazeera in an exclusive interview on Saturday.

Baghdad is investigating attacks launched from Iraqi territory against Gulf states and is seeking to resolve disagreements with Saudi Arabia through dialogue, Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein said.

Saudi Arabia has accused Iran-aligned groups operating in Iraq of attacking its oil infrastructure. In September, Baghdad confirmed that drone attacks on the kingdom’s East-West pipeline originated from Iraqi territory.

Hussein told Al Jazeera that Baghdad was negotiating with Iran-aligned armed factions to bring their weapons under state control and the process must be pursued through dialogue rather than force.

He also said they were in contact with Tehran regarding the issue of weapons held by Iraqi factions.

Hussein said Washington had formally requested the closure of all but two border crossings with Iran. He said that while Iraq welcomed friendship and an alliance with Tehran, it rejected interference in its internal affairs.

Hussein also said Iraq had lost about $60bn from the suspension of oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz, but that shipments have resumed after understandings were reached with Washington and Tehran.

On the issue of combatting ISIL (ISIS), Hussein said that Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Turkiye have formed a committee to fight the group’s presence in Syria.

The full interview will air at 18:00 GMT on Sunday on Al Jazeera.

Ritu Pant always made sure that her merchant navy officer husband told her two things before departing on an assignment.

“I always noted the details and the name of his ship and his emergency contact details in case of a crisis,” says Ritu, who is based in the northern Indian state of Uttarakhand.

That’s what she did on April 25, when her husband Ajay left Paradip Port in the state of Odisha on board the MT Smyrtos, a crude oil tanker. Her husband had been a sailor for 18 years, and spent six or seven months a year at sea. But growing threats to seamen – amid the wars in the Middle East and between Russia and Ukraine, and from pirates roaming the high seas – had increased her jitters in recent years.

Yet it was through a social media post that she learned in mid-June that the ship had been captured. Not by pirates, but by the British armed forces, because the MT Smyrtos is under Western sanctions for allegedly working as part of Russia’s shadow fleet, a network of vessels that help Moscow evade United States and European economic restrictions to continue to sell oil and gas, amid the war on Ukraine.

Now Ajay Pant faces charges of flouting United Kingdom sanctions against Russia by commandeering the ship. It’s the first known instance when a European nation has kept a ship captain under arrest on such grounds, and could set a worrying precedent, say lawyers and groups advocating for the rights of seafarers. “This is a unique case,” said Tony Patten, the UK representative at the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF), an organisation that works for the rights of seafarers.

Other European countries have also taken over ships that they accuse of violating sanctions against Russia, but while they’ve kept the vessels, they have so far let the sailors go. In March this year, a captain of a suspected Russian shadow fleet was prosecuted in absentia by a French court. In another case from Finland, a court dismissed charges against the captain of a Russian oil tanker accused of damaging undersea cables in the Baltic Sea on account of lack of jurisdiction. In other cases, European nations have set commercial sailors free with fines.

By contrast, Ajay faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted.

The case has also underlined a growing tension between maritime traffic through international waters – the Smyrtos was not in British territorial waters when it was captured – and the enforcement by countries of sanctions that are not approved by the United Nations.

‘Situation of the sea was very bad’

The open seas have always been dangerous, but the risks have mounted as wars and piracy have turned ships and their crew into active targets for militaries and mercenaries alike.

At least 24 seafarers have been killed in the Strait of Hormuz since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran in February. More than 120 commercial ships and tankers have been attacked in this period in the waterway, which used to transport a fifth of the world’s energy supplies before the start of the war.

The death toll in the Black Sea is even grimmer: At least 40 sailors have been killed in more than 570 attacks on vessels there. Piracy off the coast of Somalia has resurged, too.

For Ritu Pant, all of that meant increased insecurity each time her husband went on a ship.“I was quite worried,” she said, describing her thoughts while Ajay was at sea. “When I talked to Ajay, I would tell him that you need to keep in touch always; you need to tell me that you’re fine and everything is safe around because the situation of the sea was very bad.”

But it was not uncommon for her to not hear from her husband for days, due to network disruptions at sea. So Ritu would track updates of her husband’s ship online, a practice that has become increasingly common among families of sailors at sea.

On June 14, the MT Smyrtos was chugging through the English Channel when the Royal Marines Commandos intercepted it, in what was a first-of-its-kind operation authorised by then British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

At the time, the ship was in international waters, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the UK. Yet Chinook, Merlin Mk4 and Wildcat helicopters from the Maritime Air Group; a Royal Air Force P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft; a frigate; and a mine countermeasures ship participated in the military operation to take control of the vessel, according to the British Ministry of Defence.

The ship was carrying oil from Russia and was on track to pass through the Suez Canal on its way to India, its destination.

“This successful operation delivers yet another blow to Russia and reminds those fueling Putin’s war in Ukraine that we will not let them hide,” Starmer said in a post on X.

What followed was equally unprecedented; charges of allegedly breaching Russian sanctions were brought against Ajay, who has since been in detention in the UK. After an initial court hearing, his bail was denied.

‘Criminalisation of seafarers’

Enforcement of maritime sanctions brought against Russia after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has been tenuous at best, which makes the Smyrtos case “very unique”, said David Hammond, a lawyer and founder of Human Rights At Sea, a nonprofit and UN-accredited organisation advocating for the rights of people living, working, transiting and operating at sea.

“It is unique in terms of the interception and the interdiction of a vessel that had been sanctioned, having passed through the English Channel as an international transit corridor. It’s, in my understanding, not happened before,” he said.

On the one hand, Hammond explained, the outcome of the case will determine how coastal states enforce sanctions against vessels. But, he said, it also underscores the risks of “criminalisation of seafarers”.

Hammond said Ajay Pant’s case was part of a broader pattern of “shipping crews finding themselves in a position where they are arrested for many crimes, such as trafficking or movement of drugs that they’re not even aware of having been put on board the ship”.

He cited the example of Ali Albokhari, a Finnish-Syrian chief mate on a cargo ship, who was detained by Turkish authorities in 2023 after 137kg (302lb) of cocaine was found on board.

Patten of the ITF echoed similar sentiments. “Our stance is that seafarers being penalised automatically when something like this happens isn’t fair. We would always uphold the right of the seafarer,” he said.

Hammond said Ajay’s case was especially without parallel. “In the case of the Smyrtos,  it could be argued that Captain Pant is being criminalised for simply doing his job,” he said, adding that the direction in which the British courts rule will set a new precedent for masters’ accountability over movement of sanctioned goods.

The case, Hammond added, “is a perfect storm in a global storm of impunity; who is accountable and who enforces accountability”.

“And the unintended consequences of which are yet to be seen,” he warned.

‘Horrible year at sea’

The case also raises wider concerns, Hammond said, about how shipping companies and the countries vessels traverse often treat seafarers. “Undeniably, seafarers are seen as disposable assets,” he said, “disposable because they can be easily replaced but concurrently, as assets for assuring continuous global movement of goods by sea.”

The killings in the Strait of Hormuz and the Black Sea have underscored that sense among sailors and their families – that the lives of those who keep the global economy moving are seen as disposable by those in power.

In a statement shared with Al Jazeera, the International Maritime Organization confirmed at least 66 sailors were killed in various conflicts this year, and hundreds of others injured. Many sailors are also still missing and feared to be dead. “It has been a horrible year for people at sea,” Patten said. “Problems have always existed, but conflicts and geopolitical change have certainly heightened them.”

Ajay Pant’s case also shines new light on a growing number of instances where navies have gone outside their territorial waters to seize tankers that they claim are violating their domestic sanctions regimes.

Since February, when the US and Israel launched their war on Iran, US forces have intercepted and captured several cargo ships in the Indian Ocean. These vessels were seized not just far from US territorial waters but also far from the theatre of their war, on accusations that they were helping Iran evade US sanctions.

The US and the UK argue that they are acting within the bounds of international law.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea permits a warship to visit a cargo ship to verify its flag where there are reasonable grounds to suspect the vessel is without nationality. The British Defence Ministry, in its statement after the seizure of the Smyrtos, said that if a vessel is determined to be stateless, the UK can exercise criminal and maritime enforcement powers under its domestic Policing and Crime Act.

The Smyrtos, like many ships that are accused of belonging to Russia’s “shadow fleet”, has frequently changed its flag. The ship had once previously been registered in The Gambia, and then adopted a Cameroon flag in December 2025. When it departed from a Russian port, it had a Cameroonian flag, but Lloyd’s List Intelligence reported that the ship had been removed from Cameroon’s register earlier, in June. It is owned by a Chinese company.

According to the British Defence Ministry, Russia sells about 75 percent of its oil using such shadow tankers.

But whether militaries have the right to enforce their domestic sanctions and laws in international waters against individuals and vessels that are not registered in their territory remains a contested question in international law.

The capture of such vessels raises “a much bigger issue” of “the freedom of navigation at sea”, said Hammond.

To Ajay’s family and those advocating for him, it also raises a more human question: If a cargo ship captain passing through international waters can be captured and tried by nations for allegedly violating their domestic laws, is any sailor safe?

Anchored with hope

That’s a question that Ritu has lived with in the past few months, forcing the former school principal into advocacy not just for her husband’s release, but for seafarer rights globally.

“Ajay’s case goes beyond just our family, and could be a landmark judgement for seafarers worldwide,” she said. “It raises the fundamental question of whether a master of a ship can be criminalised for decisions that are beyond his authority, knowledge or control.”

The journey has been a difficult one, she said.

“Ajay was the primary breadwinner of his family, and I have also been forced to give up my work to focus on this case,” the mother of an eight-year-old and a one-year-old said.

“He has also been a caregiver to his elderly parents,” she added, saying that for the first few days after the arrest, she kept the news from them, worried for their health. “I wouldn’t allow the daily newspaper in the house and stopped sending my older daughter to school, afraid that someone would say something hurtful to her.”

Eventually, Ritu informed the family and prepared them for the struggles ahead.

“The hardest part is having to do this across continents. We have only spoken to him over short calls, and he has had no personal visitors since I went to meet him in August,” she said. “I don’t want him to feel that he has been forgotten.”

But despite the hardships, she remains hopeful, as support has poured in from the global seafarers community. “When I started posting on social media, I received so many messages from families and wives of sailors,” she said. “Every seafarer’s family I’ve talked to relates to this. So many sailors are getting targeted right now in conflict at sea; they are being made scapegoats.”

Now, she’s preparing for Ajay’s upcoming trial. “I have to bring him back home,” she said. “For his family, but also because no seafarer should be treated in this way.”

Call comes as Iraq’s foreign minister urges armed groups not to join any Iranian retaliation, warning it would be disastrous for Iraq.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi has told the United States that Baghdad will not let its territory be used to attack neighbouring countries, as his foreign minister warned that a new war on Iran would be a “disaster” for Iraq.

Al-Zaidi spoke to US President Donald Trump over the phone on Thursday, according to his office, as diplomatic efforts intensify to avert renewed US attacks on Iran.

The two men “discussed the evolving situation in the region, security developments, and prospects for the next phase”, al-Zaidi’s office said.

The prime minister reaffirmed Iraq’s call “for respect for the sovereignty of states and for Iraqi territory not to be used as a launching point for attacks against neighbouring countries”, it added.

He also stressed the need for diplomacy and dialogue to safeguard the region’s security and stability, it said.

Iraq, which neighbours Iran, has struggled to maintain a balancing act between US and Iranian interests since Trump launched the war on Iran in February.

Since taking office in May, al-Zaidi has prioritised the disarmament of all fighter groups in the country, including several powerful pro-Iran groups that have launched attacks in support of Iran across the region during the war.

Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein told Dijlah TV on Thursday that the potential of renewed US military attacks against Iran is “not a secret” and warned Iraqi armed groups against joining in any Iranian retaliation.

“Pushing Iraqi society into the war will lead to a disaster,” he said. “We are not prepared for war. Neither Iraqi society nor the armed forces are prepared for war.”

Hussein said Iraq had been turned into a battlefield after the US struck Iran, with the country coming under attack from both the US and Iran, as well as from armed groups inside Iraq.

“We are not part of any axis, and we do not want to let the Iraqi arena be turned into a battlefield,” he said. “We have good relations with the US and with our neighbour Iran… We need a clear policy that we are not a part of the war, and we do not want to be a part of the war.”

Since the war began, Iraq has lost more than $60bn in oil revenues, as about 90 percent of its oil exports normally pass through the Strait of Hormuz and were largely cut off when Tehran closed the waterway.

Oil accounts for about 90 percent of Iraq’s federal budget.

Since then, Iraq has been one of the few countries that have been granted exemption by Iran to pass freely through the Strait of Hormuz.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has met Iran’s security chief Mohsen Rezaei in Moscow to discuss regional security as diplomatic efforts gather pace to end the United States and Israel’s war on Iran.

During the meeting on Thursday, Rezaei also delivered a letter to Putin from Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, according to the Iranian state broadcaster Press TV.

Speaking after the meeting, Rezaei said the talks had focused on security arrangements in the region, as well as Russia’s support for ending what he called the US’s “aggression” against Iran.

“Important regional issues were discussed with Putin and significant conversations took place regarding the post-war period and regional security arrangements,” he said.

Other topics, he said, included plans to deepen energy cooperation, including building gas pipelines from Russia to Iran.

Rezaei, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said Khamenei had wanted him to deliver the message to Putin as soon as possible. The trip to Moscow had been planned nearly a month earlier, he said, but was postponed due to “daily discussions about the military situation in the region”.

He did not say what the message contained.

Khamenei said in a written statement on Wednesday that there should not be “even the slightest inclination towards submission” to the US. He also called for an “ever stronger” Iran to reach a “point of absolute deterrence”.

Seven conditions

Rezaei’s meeting with Putin came as Qatar steps up diplomatic efforts to end the war on Iran amid fears the US could renew attacks following its midterm elections.

In Tuesday’s vote, US President Donald Trump’s Republican Party lost control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate amid widespread anger over rising prices that many blame on the war on Iran.

Efforts to end the conflict have centred on the future status of the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a US blockade of Iranian ports, sanctions against Iran, and a resumption of negotiations over the country’s nuclear programme.

Rezaei said on Thursday that Tehran would not hold talks with the US on ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz until Washington meets its seven demands.

“On the issue of diplomacy, we have announced seven conditions to the Americans. As long as they do not execute our seven conditions, we will neither open the Strait of Hormuz nor have negotiations,” he said.

According to Rezaei, Putin reiterated that Russia is ready to provide support to end the war. Last month, Putin told Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian that Russia was prepared to “do everything” it could towards that end, Russian news agencies reported.

Rezaei said the discussion at the Kremlin also focused on the construction of a gas pipeline from Russia to Iran, aimed at addressing Iran’s gas shortages and enabling Russia to sell its gas to countries neighbouring Iran.

He added that he had briefed Putin on a meeting held in Tehran in late October among Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan, and that the Russian leader had welcomed it.

“Like our Chinese friends, we believe that there should be regional arrangements and that foreign countries should not interfere in the security of the region,” he said.

The Kremlin did not immediately release its own account of the meeting, which took place in the Senate Palace, according to Russia’s TASS news agency.

Separately, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held phone calls with his counterparts in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Turkiye and Jordan.

His calls focused on regional developments and ongoing diplomatic efforts to promote peace, Iranian state media reported.

Russia and Iran, both under heavy Western sanctions, have strengthened their diplomatic and military ties in recent years.

In January 2025, they signed a comprehensive strategic partnership treaty covering trade, military cooperation, science, culture and education.

The treaty took effect that October, but unlike Russia’s pact with North Korea, it does not include a mutual defence clause.

On Saturday, Iranian army spokesman Mohammad Akraminia said Iran had bought Russian Su-35 fighter jets and expected to receive them after the war ends.

The planes were originally supposed to arrive before the fighting began, he told the Iranian news site Tabnak, and the necessary preparations and pilot training were complete.

Hours after results confirmed that the Republican Party had lost control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the United States Congress in the midterm elections this week, senior Republicans were hand-wringing over what had gone so badly wrong and whether a major course correction would now be required.

As once-Republican strongholds like Texas fell to the enemy, US Vice President JD Vance took to X to declare that the “real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone”.

“The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night. If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that’s at least honest,” Vance said.

Former Trump voters had switched sides, he said, over the Iran war and the US ties to Israel.

The elephant in the room was no more.

“I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, ‘I told you so’: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview,” he wrote.

A poisoned chalice

Just days after the US and Israel launched strikes across Iran on February 28, Tehran effectively closed the critical Strait of Hormuz, which once transited roughly 25 percent of the world’s seaborne oil trade, triggering a massive spike in oil prices and a major global energy crisis. The price of Brent crude – the global benchmark – hit $120 in March and April and has hovered around $115 in recent weeks.

On Thursday morning, oil prices dropped to $93.82 a barrel on expectations that Republican Party losses would reduce the likelihood of US President Donald Trump renewing strikes on Iran following weeks of speculation.

But as consumers in the US struggle with sky-high petrol and diesel prices – not to mention the soaring cost of food, which has also been impacted by Trump’s trade tariffs – the midterms have forced a leadership rethink as the Trump brand appears increasingly toxic.

While no Republicans have declared their intention to run for the 2028 presidential election, some in the party are believed to be eyeing it now.

Andrew Payne, from the Chatham House think tank, told Al Jazeera that any Republican wanting to take on the 2028 election will now need to “distance themselves from the more unpopular aspects of Trump’s record”. That means the Iran war, the greatest poisoned chalice of them all.

“That, I think, is why Vance came out so clearly in blaming the war. It is evident to those who have been watching closely that he has always been the voice of scepticism behind the scenes, and he now needs to make that difference of opinion clear to the average voter. But doing so will be really hard while Trump is still in office and, presumably, wants to play an active role as kingmaker,” Payne said.

Unpopular, but not as unpopular as Trump

The most obvious pick and frontrunner for the Republican 2028 nomination is currently Vance, who is known to have ambitions to take over from Trump.

Regarded as an anti-US interventionist, Vance, while publicly supporting Trump’s Iran war, has also been privately urging him and others to end the conflict, according to the US news outlet Axios.

Last week, Vance sent a letter to the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Mohsen Rezaei, proposing a meeting between US and Iranian officials soon in a bid to prevent further escalation. By contrast, this week Trump said the war would only come to an end “when I want it to”.

This move, coupled with his post on X on Wednesday night, is increasingly being seen as Vance putting as much distance as he can between himself and the war.

Throwing off the Trump touch may be trickier than he thinks, however, according to one Vance ally close to the White House who spoke to Politico on Wednesday. While it is “possible for him [Vance] to modestly differentiate himself” from Trump, the source said, there is no way to completely delink himself.

“He’s still Trump’s vice president. This is still a Trump administration war. They’re still both unpopular. He’s not as unpopular as Trump but he’s unpopular,” the anonymous source said.

According to Tuesday polling from The New York Times on who is ahead in a theoretical Republican presidential primary, Vance is at 40 percent. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio follows at 21 percent, alongside Donald Trump Jr, also at 21 percent.

Rubio has yet to comment on the Republican wipeout. Still, like Vance, he is allied with Trump’s administration, which may make a presidential bid challenging.

Any potential candidate now faces a choice between two routes, Payne said. One is to “re-energise the [Make America Great Again or MAGA] movement, which I expect will be difficult, because Trump did it through sheer force of personality that is hard to replicate”.

“The second route is to keep as much of the base on board as possible while appealing to the traditional conservative groups who have drifted from the party over the past decade, thereby expanding the coalition. If he runs, I would think Marco Rubio has a better shot at doing that,” Payne said.

‘Blue tsunami’

There are other potential candidates to consider.

A former frontrunner for the 2016 presidential election, which saw Trump secure his first administration, Ted Cruz is now Texas’s only statewide Republican lawmaker.

In a post on X after the results, Cruz wrote: “2026 was not simply a blue wave; it was a blue tsunami. It was an a** kicking”.

“Food is too high, gas is too high, diesel is too high, insurance is too high, life is too high. Tariffs have made everything too expensive, and the Iran war has dragged on too long. It should have been brief, decisive, and over,” Cruz wrote.

“Understandably, people were pissed off, and elected Republicans didn’t do enough to address their very real pain. So, what do we do now? We need to listen and respond. We need to champion economic policies that make a real difference in working people’s lives, and we need to deal with the consequences.”

In September, the Wall Street Journal reported that Cruz was testing the waters for the 2028 nomination. But as one of the early cheerleaders for the Iran war, Cruz will struggle to disassociate himself from it, other than to criticise the manner of its execution.

As the blame game continues, the Republican Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, described the results of the midterms as “close to an extinction-level event” for the party.

“If the Republican Party doesn’t have Texas as an anchor, then we are not going to be viable nationally going forward,” he said.

“We’re in a very volatile political era, things shift quickly, and the leaders just got to recognise that.”

DeSantis’s time as governor ends in January after two terms, but speculation has grown about whether he also wants to throw his hat into the ring for the US presidential nomination as the playing field remains wide open.

Hezbollah denies the Syrian accusations, reiterating that it does not have any presence on Syrian territory.

Syrian security forces have said they foiled a plot to target the Homs oil refinery in central Syria, arresting a cell affiliated with Lebanon’s Hezbollah armed group.

Syria’s General Intelligence Service (GIS) said on X that “the preemptive security operation” was carried out in cooperation with the country’s Internal Security Forces.

It identified two arrested individuals with their initials – M S and B Sh – but did not elaborate on the time or the location of the operation, “which resulted in the seizure of explosive devices in their possession that had been prepared to execute the plot”.

Hezbollah denied the Syrian accusations in a statement, reiterating that it does not have any presence on Syrian territory and is not ⁠involved in “any activity that undermines the ⁠security and stability of Syria”.

Hezbollah ⁠fought alongside former President Bashar al-Assad’s forces during Syria’s nearly 14-year civil war, but relations with Damascus have deteriorated sharply since his overthrow in 2024.

Syrian authorities have accused ⁠Hezbollah of involvement in a series of alleged plots, including planned assassinations, ⁠rocket attacks and arms smuggling.

The Homs refinery is one of Syria’s two oil refineries, along with the Baniyas refinery, and plays a key role in securing petroleum products.

ISIL cell

In a similar operation, the GIS said on Sunday that they arrested two members of a suspected ISIL (ISIS) cell in the governorate of Deir Az Zor.

Sunday’s statement added that investigations “showed the detainees’ involvement in carrying out a series of assassinations in the province, the latest of which targeted defence ministry member Ibrahim al-Jassem with a gunshot near the al-Rashid mosque in the city of Mayadin”.

The operation led to the seizure of weapons and ammunition found in the cell’s hideout, the security forces said, adding that authorities were continuing investigations of “the terrorists to uncover their links in preparation for bringing them to justice”.

On September 27, the security forces said they had arrested four members of an ISIL cell involved in planning and carrying out several attacks in different parts of the country.

On September 30, the Syrian Electricity Company said the Deir Ali, Nasiriya and Tishreen power stations had gone out of service after an explosion on a gas line at the Tishreen station in the Damascus countryside, which cut off the gas supply needed to run them.

On October 15, the Syrian Petroleum Company said the pipeline carrying petroleum products from Baniyas to Homs was damaged near the village of Hadida in western Homs countryside, causing a fuel leak, state media reported, in the latest in a series of attacks on Syria’s energy infrastructure.

Last month, Syria’s security forces foiled a plot to target a police patrol in Damascus countryside, saying that an ISIL cell was preparing to carry out the attack, Syrian state television reported. They said the group was responsible for explosions and assassinations in Raqqa, Aleppo, Idlib and Homs.

Damascus joined the US-led international coalition against ISIL last November, which was formed in 2014 and has carried out operations against the group in Syria and Iraq.

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.”

United States oil companies have earned more than $130bn in profits during the war on Iran, even as consumers pay much higher prices for key commodities, amid fears that US President Donald Trump may renew fighting after midterm elections.

The estimate, released by The New York Times, is a conservative evaluation based on the performance of 51 large US oil and gas companies in the six months from April through September. By contrast, in the same period in 2025 – when the prices of oil were lower prior to the launch of the US-Israel war on Iran – they collectively earned less than $47bn.

But the gains come as burgeoning living costs are crushing consumers. Americans have spent an extra $150bn on petrol and diesel since the war on Iran began on February 28, according to an analysis by Brown University’s Climate Solutions Lab, which amounts to more than $1,150 per household.

The disparity has fuelled a political debate over who gains and who pays the price for the war. Responding to Trump, Democratic Representative Jim McGovern wrote on X: “We’re not making a ‘freaking fortune,’ we’re PAYING a ‘freaking fortune’.”

US Big Oil in position to profit where others lose

Naser al-Tamimi, a fellow at the Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI) in Milan, Italy, said US energy companies have benefitted from the war in different ways. “Crude producers gain from higher oil prices, while refiners capture exceptional margins as diesel and other fuel supplies tighten,” he said.

Additionally, “damage to Middle Eastern and Russian refineries, disrupted Strait of Hormuz shipments, and sanctions-related trade frictions have intensified shortages”, while “relatively secure US facilities and access to discounted crude strengthen these gains”.

ExxonMobil and Chevron, the biggest US oil companies, on Friday reported profits of between $10bn and $15bn. While the gains are considerable, The New York Times found they generally remained below 2022 levels, when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine caused oil prices to soar to roughly $100 a barrel and raised natural gas prices, compared with the current average of $90 from April through September.

American refining companies also reaped greater profits as global fuel supplies tightened and inventories depleted due to heavy damage to infrastructure in the Middle East and Russia. Valero Energy’s third-quarter profit increased more than sixfold, reaching $6.83bn. Phillips 66 announced its highest quarterly profit on record, with net income jumping to $5.62bn from $133m a year earlier.

Geoffrey Miller, geopolitical analyst and editor of the Gulf States Insights newsletter, said the US-Israel war with Iran “created the largest supply-side shock to global oil and refined products markets in years”.

Miller added that the war “created a risk premium that US-based operators are structurally well placed to monetise”. By contrast, Gulf producers were “hit hard by both higher costs and risks, along with physical damage, which makes their ability to benefit from the higher prices much more difficult”.

Tehran retaliated against the US-Israeli attack by launching missiles and drones at the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), a US-registered independent conflict monitor, found Iran and Iran-backed groups in the region have carried out at least 172 attacks on nonmilitary infrastructure across the six GCC member states. Despite claims by Iranian officials that they were targeting US military facilities, they also hit energy infrastructure.

Iran also effectively blocked passage of most vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. In retaliation, the US imposed a naval blockade on Iranian oil and gas – the tit-for-tat steps raising the risks of transporting energy out of the crucial passageway.

Continued pressure over cost of living

Analysts warned of continued volatility until a durable political settlement between the US and Iran is reached. Oil prices dropped briefly in the summer after a memorandum of understanding was signed in June, but prices quickly soared again when talks broke down.

A more recent escalation in fighting between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis has further compounded the crisis: the Bab al-Mandeb strait that connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, which Saudi Arabia uses to export oil, is now also a theatre of war.

“In the short term, windfall profits will only strengthen oil company balance sheets and shareholder returns,” Miller said. “However, the big profits come with a major caveat. That’s because over the longer term, high oil prices risk harming economic growth prospects and could even contribute towards the outbreak of a recession, which would in turn be likely to lead to reduced demand for oil” and accelerate the transition to renewable energy.

Florence Schmit, senior energy strategist at Rabobank’s global economics and markets team in London, said it was likely that the prices of key energy products would remain high given the uncertainty about the duration of the war in Iran.

“Prices in all markets that have an exposure to this global supply shock – which includes the US – will face high prices also next year, and consumers will continue to feel this price pressure unless governments step in,” Schmit told Al Jazeera.

The US-led war on Iran has raised costs for oil, transport fuels, gas, electricity and food. According to the World Bank Group’s latest Commodity Markets Outlook, commodity prices are set to rise 23 percent this year, as disrupted grain shipments and the El Nino weather phenomenon also threaten harvests and food affordability.

The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization said on October 2 that world food commodity prices rose a further 1.5 percent in September, after reaching their highest level since late 2022 in August, amid adverse weather and trade disruptions in the Black Sea and Strait of Hormuz.

Trump has sought to blame high global fuel prices on Ukraine and pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to halt strikes on Russian refineries, even as Moscow continued to wage attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. The US president has argued that a deal with Russia reversing years of sanctions would help lower diesel prices.

In the Gulf, analysts said higher oil prices will benefit exporters that can maintain shipments, but prolonged insecurity will continue to threaten supply reliability and investment.

“Gulf producers face years of reconstruction and pressure to diversify export routes,” ISPI’s al-Tamimi said. “A diplomatic settlement could ease prices, whereas renewed US-Israeli attacks on Iran risk triggering another regional war, further disrupting Hormuz and prolonging shortages.”

The war on Iran has emerged as a major campaign issue in the United States midterm elections.

Voters are preparing to cast their ballots on Tuesday, November 3, and for many, the effects of the Iran conflict at home are top of mind.

Fuel prices have skyrocketed, driving up the prices of other goods, too.

Polls suggest many Democrats – and Republicans – say this conflict was not worth the consequences.

So will the election shift the Senate and House of Representatives in Democrats’ favour? And what would that mean for the rest of President Donald Trump’s time in the White House?

Presenter: Mohammed Jamjoom

Guests:

Hassan Ahmadian – Associate professor at the University of Tehran and deputy director of the Middle East Scientific and Strategic Studies Center

Patrick Mara – Chairman of the Washington, DC Republican Party

James Butler – Democratic Party strategist

Oil flows out of the Gulf have increased substantially, easing the huge supply disruption caused by the United States/Israel war on Iran.

Crude exports from the Gulf averaged 24.6 million barrels per day (bpd) in the week to October 18, exceeding the pre-war average, according to market intelligence firm Kpler.

Yet, oil prices continue to rise.

Brent crude, the global benchmark, is trading at its highest prices since April, up more than 60 percent compared with before the war.

On Friday, Brent crude front-month futures – contracts for oil deliveries in December – rose more than 2 percent to briefly top $117 a barrel.

The climbing prices reflect anxiety about the possibility of renewed hostilities in the US war on Iran, dwindling oil stocks, and the increased costs of transporting supplies out of the region, according to market analysts.

“The market is doing exactly what it is supposed to do: It is telling us there is plenty of prompt oil, but there is no end to this war in sight – in fact … escalation is very likely,” Adi Imsirovic, a lecturer in energy systems at the University of Oxford, told Al Jazeera.

“Therefore, futures markets reflect that expectation,” Imsirovic, a veteran oil trader, said.

Oil producers have become increasingly adept at responding to the volatile climate in the Middle East to keep supplies flowing.

Facing the threat of Iranian attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, shipping lines have established a shuttle system involving ship-to-ship transfers off Oman and the United Arab Emirates to reduce the distance any one vessel must travel in perilous waters.

Shuttle boats carry the oil through the strait and load it onto waiting tankers once they are out of the danger zone.

In August, more than 70 percent of the crude that crossed the strait did so via ship-to-ship transfers, according to Kpler.

Oil producers have also ramped up exports that bypass the strait altogether via Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, which carries oil supplies from its eastern oil fields to its Yanbu port on the Red Sea in the west, and the United Arab Emirates’ Habshan-Fujairah pipeline.

As of September, 40 percent of exports from the Gulf were bypassing the strait, a conduit for one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies during peacetime, compared with 17 percent before the war, according to Kpler data.

The soaring cost of delivery

Such workarounds have nonetheless come at a cost.

Freight costs have reached as much as $40 per barrel in recent weeks, about 10 times the usual rate, according to data from the London Stock Exchange Group, the surge driven by elevated insurance premiums in addition to logistical challenges.

October has been the deadliest month for attacks on commercial vessels since the start of the war, with 32 incidents logged by the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) as of Friday.

“So barrels are moving, but neither smoothly nor reliably. That should not be read as a sign of normalisation,” Isabel Figuerola-Ferretti, an expert in oil markets at Comillas Pontifical University in Madrid, Spain, told Al Jazeera.

“Delivering a barrel has become far more expensive,” Figuerola-Ferretti said.

While market intelligence data has shown exports reaching pre-war levels at various points in recent weeks, the longer-term supply trend is less clear.

Pavel Molchanov, an investment strategist at Raymond James & Associates, expressed scepticism that supply has returned to the pre-conflict trend.

“The IEA’s most recent production data – for September – shows OPEC Gulf production at 15.8 million bpd, which equates to 75 percent of the pre-war baseline,” Molchanov told Al Jazeera, referring to the International Energy Agency’s latest energy outlook.

“That slightly surpassed July’s 74 percent to reach the highest level since the start of the war, but it’s still a considerable distance from 100 percent.”

Meanwhile, oil stockpiles, a buffer during supply disruptions, are waning.

Observed inventories fell by 10 million barrels in September, taking the global stockpile to 509 million barrels below its pre-war level, according to the IEA.

“The market has moved to a chronic squeeze, driven by concrete supply risks: Hormuz transit, shipping and depleted inventories,” Figuerola-Ferretti said.

No reprieve anytime soon

With no permanent end to the Iran war in sight, few analysts see prices returning to normal anytime soon.

Brent futures for delivery in October 2027 stood at more than $90 a barrel on Friday, in a sign that markets see normality as a long way off, still.

“When could prices return to $70? Not soon,” Figuerola-Ferretti said.

“It would need durable de-escalation, a return to normal transit and shipping conditions through Hormuz, rebuilt inventories and freight costs back to normal,” she added.

Molchanov, the investment strategist, said he did not believe supply could realistically exceed 85 percent of pre-war levels without a permanent diplomatic solution to the war.

“Once the political groundwork is in place, the next steps will be logistical: Demining Hormuz, bringing shipping crews back to work, and resuming production at currently shut-in oilfields,” he said.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi has arrived in Damascus to meet with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa on the first visit of an Iraqi prime minister to Syria since the fall of Bashar al-Assad.

The visit comes as the two neighbours seek to strengthen bilateral ties and boost economic and oil cooperation.

According to the official Iraqi News Agency (INA), the two leaders discussed the export of Iraqi oil through the Baniyas line, increasing the volume of trade exchange and joint work to develop the agricultural sector to achieve food and economic integration.

Iraq has recently begun exporting limited quantities of oil through Syria following the outbreak of the US-led war on Iran.

Last July, the two countries signed agreements to revive the Haditha Baniyas pipeline to transport Iraqi oil in addition to signing a memorandum of understanding with a consortium of three companies, most notably the American oil major Chevron to implement the project.

“The Iraqi and Syrian people are one people in two countries,” Zaidi said according to INA, noting that “work to develop partnership and joint cooperation in various fields especially economic and social affairs, enhance security co-operation, unify positions on regional and international issues, and work to achieve peace and stability in the region”.

For his part, the Syrian president expressed his “great appreciation for the visit of al-Zaidi and his accompanying delegation,” stressing “the depth of bilateral relations and Syria’s keenness to achieve the highest levels of cooperation between the two countries”.

Al-Sharaa and al-Zaidi had previously met last September in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, where they discussed ways to strengthen political and security coordination and expand economic and trade cooperation.

Oil prices have climbed towards their highest levels in five months as attacks on tankers in and around the Strait of Hormuz mount and efforts to end the United States-Israel war on Iran are deadlocked.

Brent crude, the international benchmark, rose by more than $2 to $110.85 a barrel on Wednesday, close to a five-month peak.

A day earlier, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said two tankers were “set ablaze” after hitting mines at what it called an illegal crossing point in the strait. Then, on Thursday, the IRGC said it hit seven more tankers although Washington dismissed the claim. In a statement, the IRGC said four of the vessels were transferring oil when they were targeted and caught fire overnight.

In September, the Houthis, an armed group also known as Ansar Allah (Arabic for Supporters of God), seized territory in Yemen close to the Bab al-Mandeb strait, a critical chokepoint into and out of the Red Sea and a gateway to Egypt’s Suez Canal.

The escalation came as the world’s emergency oil stocks, already tapped heavily since the Iran war began on February 28, sit at their lowest levels in decades.

Al Jazeera put a question to analysts: If fighting resumes in full, the Strait of Hormuz is shut off completely and Houthi attacks choke off Bab al-Mandeb, how long could the world’s reserves last?

Here’s what you need to know:

What emergency oil reserves are there?

Strategic oil reserves are stockpiles of crude oil and fuel held by governments or by companies on their behalf for use in a supply emergency.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), which was established in 1974 after the Arab oil embargo, coordinates most of them. Its importing members must hold at least 90 days of net imports. China and India are not members.

How much of the reserves has already been released this year?

A record amount.

On March 11, days after the start of the US-Israel war on Iran, the IEA’s 32 members agreed to make 400 million barrels available from emergency supplies, more than double the volume released after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

The US pledged 172.2 million barrels from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and Japan 79.8 million, according to IEA figures.

The SPR has since fallen to 283 million barrels, its lowest level since October 1982, according to the US Department of Energy.

Much of that oil was lent rather than sold and must be returned with extra barrels, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

How much oil is left?

Far less than before the war began in February, and not all of it can be used.

Aaron Kildow, a senior crude oil analyst at Sparta Commodities, told Al Jazeera that global strategic stocks excluding China and Iran have fallen by nearly 327 million barrels since the end of December 2025 with the US, Europe and Japan accounting for about 95 percent of the draw.

He estimated that leaves only about 400 million barrels of usable reserves worldwide, excluding China’s stockpile, which is unlikely to be exported, and Gulf stocks, which could be cut off by a total closure of Hormuz.

Nearly half of these available stocks are in Japan.

Europe has about 76 million barrels uncommitted, but members such as Germany are holding some back for a local emergency, Kildow said.

“Europe is the real wildcard, both on timing and willingness,” Kildow said.

Meanwhile, China’s onshore crude stocks stand at 1.13 billion barrels, down from 1.23 billion in late February but still enough for about 80 days of refinery intake, Muyu Xu, a senior crude oil analyst at the analytics firm Kpler, told Al Jazeera.

India’s reserves cover just eight days of its imports, the Reuters news agency reported.

What would a full closure of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb mean?

Before the war, about one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas supplies, or roughly 20 million barrels of oil a day, passed through the Strait of Hormuz.

Saudi Arabia has increased the amount of crude it transports from its oilfields in the east to its Red Sea port of Yanbu in the west via the East-West Pipeline, thereby bypassing Hormuz.

But there have been strikes on that pipeline, and tankers heading south from Yanbu must pass through Bab a-Mandeb, where the Iran-backed Houthis declared a blockade on Saudi shipping in July.

Only a confirmed 373,000 barrels a day of Saudi crude have transited Bab al-Mandeb so far this month, the lowest level since February, Xu said, with most Yanbu cargoes now heading north via Egypt instead.

If Hormuz were shut and the Houthis blocked all Saudi tankers, Gulf producers could export only through a few pipelines and Yanbu’s northbound route, Xu said.

That would leave about 7.5 million barrels a day of Middle Eastern crude, against 16.8 million now, a shortfall of about 9.3 million barrels a day, she estimated.

“If such attacks occur, the supply disruption could be even more severe and prolonged,” Xu said, referring to strikes on oilfields, terminals and pipelines.

So how long would reserves last?

Not for long – possibly just weeks, according to experts.

If Kpler’s estimated shortfall had to be covered entirely from the roughly 400 million usable barrels that Kildow identified, they could not, in practice, be released that fast. Japanese and South Korean reserves can move quickly, Kildow said, but US barrels are staged over three months, and Europe’s contribution is uncertain.

Chris Beauchamp, chief market analyst at IG Group, said the world was fortunate after the first closure. “The salient feature of March and beyond was how a crisis didn’t actually develop. We got away with it,” he said.

“I don’t think the global economy will be as lucky next time if there is a protracted conflict,” Beauchamp said. “A month or two is all we have.”

The world would not literally run out of oil. Instead, prices would rise until enough demand disappeared. “One hundred fifty dollars [per barrel] becomes a very distinct possibility, which then sees significant demand destruction,” Beauchamp said.

The sharpest squeeze would be on diesel, which is already nearly double the price of crude, the IEA said.

Refiners would compete for crude grades rich in diesel, “a cost that ultimately lands on consumers,” Kildow said.

Who would feel it first?

Asian importers with thin reserves.

Most Gulf exports in September and October went to Asian buyers, and India and Pakistan are among the most exposed, Kildow said, adding that their nearest alternative supply, from West Africa, is 25 to 28 days away by sea, compared with two days from Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates.

“The squeeze won’t hit uniformly. It lands fastest and hardest where reserves are thinnest and substitute supply is farthest away,” Kildow said.

Who would gain?

Oil producers far from the Gulf.

In the second quarter of this year, as the US-Iran war was under way, ExxonMobil reported earnings of $14.5bn, its highest in four years while Chevron posted $12bn, its best in six years and Shell more than doubled its earnings to nearly $10bn. Their profits are largely down to the high oil prices.

A second shock would send refiners scrambling for supplies from the US, Latin America, West Africa and Russia, Xu said.

“This would allow non-Middle Eastern producers to benefit from higher crude prices, potentially alongside lower transportation costs,” she said.

In August, US President Donald Trump said companies such as ExxonMobil and Chevron were “making too much money based on a shortage”.

Libya’s eastern parliament has walked back its objection to an agreement with Turkiye, demarcating boundaries in the Mediterranean Sea.

Its rival administration, the internationally recognised Government of National Unity, signed the deal seven years ago.

The ratification has revived a simmering dispute over exploring a potentially gas-rich region. Greece, Cyprus and Egypt were quick to object, with Athens referring the issue to the UN Security Council.

They say Libya and Turkiye are ignoring their sovereign rights.

So what are the geopolitical implications of this deal in the eastern Mediterranean?

Presenter: Mohammed Jamjoom

Guests:

Sinan Ulgen – Chairman of the Centre for Economic and Foreign Policy Studies

Maria Gavouneli – Professor of international law at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

Tarek Megerisi – Director of Informmi, a geopolitical research and advisory firm

French president meets Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh to discuss energy, security, and infrastructure as cost-of-living protests rage at home.

French President Emmanuel Macron visited Riyadh on a surprise “solidarity” visit, making him the first Western leader to touch down in Saudi Arabia since the Houthis intensified their attacks this month.

The unannounced trip comes as Saudi Arabia agreed to supply extra diesel to France “for as many months as necessary”, the Elysee Palace told the AFP news agency on Wednesday.

The visit aims to “demonstrate France’s solidarity with the kingdom in the face of the attacks carried out by the Houthis against its territory, and to continue efforts undertaken on securing and diversifying hydrocarbon supplies”, the French presidency said earlier.

The diplomatic push follows days of rioting in France, fuelled by the cost of living, especially as the US-Iran war and Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz have kept energy prices high.

Faced with criticism of his Gulf tour at home, Macron told reporters he was just “doing his job” in a bid to “ease tensions” over petrol prices, one of the causes of social unrest in France.

“There must be no sign of febrility,” he said. “I am fulfilling my role. I am at my post.”

Macron met Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the Saudi capital, and the two agreed to consult on expanding security cooperation and on infrastructure projects to bypass the blockaded strait, the palace said.

It did not say how much extra diesel Saudi Arabia would supply.

Macron’s Gulf tour

The deal follows pledges secured earlier in Macron’s Gulf tour. The presidency said on Tuesday that the United Arab Emirates had committed to about 100,000 tonnes a month, with a further 100,000 tonnes monthly to be secured in Bahrain.

Together with Saudi deliveries, France now has commitments for 295,000 tonnes a month, just more than 10 percent of its consumption, it said.

Meanwhile, France is also sending military assets to Saudi Arabia, under an earlier agreement, to help protect the Red Sea port of Yanbu, which has come under attack from the Iran-backed Houthis, an armed group also known as Ansar Allah (Arabic for Supporters of God).

The United Kingdom also announced on Tuesday that it would deploy fighter jets to help shield the kingdom. Both countries say their support is purely defensive.

Analysts say the moves protect Saudi oil exports that matter to Europe’s energy markets and bolster the Gulf alliance as the US shows reluctance to offer direct military help. They also carry risks, analysts say, potentially drawing the two European states into the protracted Saudi-Houthi conflict.