plan

US Central Command says they redirected 122 commercial vessels to “ensure strict compliance” with the US blockade against Iran.

NEW YORK — The nation’s cybersecurity agency on Thursday released an election infrastructure security plan 40 days before November’s midterms, laying out potential threats to election systems and listing services it would offer to election officials to protect the vote.

Election officials said the plan is both inadequate and belated after the administration gutted the agency’s election security work last year, prompting the officials to pay for private services to ensure they were prepared for the upcoming elections.

“For them to come in five weeks before the election, yeah, nice effort,” said Nevada’s Democratic Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, who added that he would have liked to see the federal government provide more funding for cybersecurity, rather than Nevada taxpayers having to pay for it.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin had originally promised to release the plan by mid-August as part of the Trump administration’s move to kickstart election security assistance after a hiatus. He announced the plan at the same time he threatened election officials for not cooperating with the administration’s preferred methods to hunt down noncitizen voting, a phenomenon that research shows is extremely rare.

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is housed under the Department of Homeland Security, has since its founding in 2018 helped warn state and local election officials about potential threats from foreign governments.

But CISA, as it’s known, was largely absent from that role in last year’s elections after the Trump administration dismantled much of its role in election security. The administration cut some 1,000 employees from CISA and slashed $10 million from two cybersecurity initiatives, including one dedicated to helping state and local election officials.

CISA has also gone the entirety of Trump’s second term without a Senate-confirmed director, instead cycling through a series of acting leaders.

Plan refers to ‘consistent’ support that many election officials say has been lacking

The 13-page document released Thursday warns of various threats to election security, including software vulnerabilities, hacks of voter registration databases, insider threats and physical security incidents, such as bomb threats that targeted several polling locations in the 2024 elections.

But it affirms that many longstanding election practices can address such threats and says the agency’s goal is “to ensure the American people can trust voting systems and know that physical safety measures will be in place when they go to their assigned polling locations to cast their votes.”

It states that DHS has “consistently supported CISA’s delivery of cybersecurity and physical security services to election officials,” something numerous election officials around the country have said isn’t true.

Multiple secretaries of state told the Associated Press that services previously provided by CISA, such as live tabletop exercises and penetration tests to evaluate security of their systems, were not available in the lead-up to this year’s midterms.

Minnesota Secretary of State Scott Simon, a Democrat, said in August that his office expects to spend roughly $250,000 on private vendors to conduct penetration testing, which can expose security vulnerabilities and recommend actionable fixes.

Shenna Bellows, the Democratic secretary of state in Maine, told the AP the same month that communications with CISA had been “sporadic and irregular, to say the least.” She said it would be helpful if the Trump administration could restore intelligence briefings that used to be granted to election officials about threats from foreign adversaries, but noted that trust with federal officials had been broken with the cuts to the agency.

Thursday’s plan doesn’t mention any specific 2026 threats from adversaries like Russia, Iran or China, all of whom have sought to meddle in U.S. elections — either directly through hacking or indirectly through influence campaigns.

Kris Warner, the Republican secretary of state in West Virginia, said Thursday that some of CISA’s assistance to his state had been continual throughout the Trump administration, including no-cost reviews of its public-facing websites for cybersecurity issues.

Warner acknowledged CISA had cut back under the Trump administration but said he views the agency “as a resource and not as a service provider” and said his office had last year hired a departing CISA election security advisor who has helped fill any gaps that may exist.

Report follows August call between CISA and election officials

In early August, two CISA officials — acting director Nick Anderson and assistant director for integrated operations Jim Harrell — joined a National Assn. of Secretaries of State call attended by a bipartisan group of secretaries of state, according to several election administrators.

The call grew tense when Arizona’s Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes voiced his concerns about the withdrawal of federal resources.

Fontes told the AP at the time that he told the CISA officials he didn’t trust them. He said it seemed to him the officials were there “to cover their butts.”

“They even acknowledged on the call that it was too late for them to do anything for 2026,” he said.

Simon said the officials appeared interested in rebuilding relationships and previewing their future plans, which he appreciated. But he said the effort at goodwill came later than election officials needed.

“Secretaries of state have already moved on and sought other partners and other resources for the services that CISA has retreated from over the last year and a half,” Simon said.

In Michigan, a voting rights group has tried to fill the gap

In Michigan, where mail ballots have already been sent out for the Nov. 3 elections, Deputy Secretary of State Aghogho Edevbie said the state’s relationship with CISA has been “nonexistent” this year despite working together closely in previous election cycles.

“If the federal government wants to be helpful, they can’t do so at the 11th hour,” the Democrat said.

Ashiya Brown, the Michigan state director of the voting rights group All Voting Is Local, agreed. She noted the new plan says CISA has 10 regional directors to support election administrators but still doesn’t answer her biggest question.

“Does CISA still have the people and capacity to provide that support when clerks need it?” she asked. “I’m glad CISA has put forward a plan, but what matters now is whether the support described in it reaches local election officials before November.”

CISA has been hiring on its website for new positions, Brown said, but it’s unclear whether they are all staffed yet.

Meanwhile, Brown, a former security official with the Michigan Department of State, said her group has hired former CISA employees to help provide training and other support to election clerks and fill the gap.

Edevbie said even without collaboration with CISA, he is confident the state’s elections are secure.

“We are always prepared to defend our elections and to ensure that every voter who is eligible to cast a ballot can do so here in Michigan,” he said.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Jessica Hill in Las Vegas and Jacqueline GaNun in Lansing, Mich., contributed to this report.

Iran says it has put forward a plan to the United States to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within seven days, as Qatar passes messages between the two countries at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Speaking on the sidelines on Thursday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the timetable could begin as soon as Washington accepted the proposal.

Both sides have described the indirect contact facilitated by Qatar in New York positively, but neither has indicated any diplomatic breakthrough as the war approaches its seven-month mark.

Analysts have told Al Jazeera a firm peace deal remains unlikely, with Iran still wanting to follow the approach set out in an earlier agreement, which would give it and Oman a main role in managing the strait before moving on to discussing terms for a broader peace deal.

For its part, the US, which has claimed to be “in total control” of the Strait of Hormuz, wants Iran’s nuclear programme to be the subject of discussions straight away.

Iran has previously made clear that it will not engage with broader peace talks, including addressing the issue of its nuclear programme, until the US naval blockade of its ports in and around the Hormuz strait is lifted, sanctions are repealed and the US provides a guarantee of an end to strikes, among other conditions.

Here’s what we know.

What has Iran proposed?

Araghchi told reporters in New York that Iran had presented its plan to the US through intermediaries. “If certain conditions are met, the Strait of Hormuz would be open on the end of the seventh day and [peace] talks would restart,” he said.

He did not give details but said the proposal resembles the June 17 memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by Iran and the US, which briefly eased the conflict before breaking down. “The moment they accept this plan, from the next day, this timetable can start, and after seven days, the strait will be open,” he said.

Under the June agreement, Iran undertook to allow ships to pass through the strait without paying tolls for 60 days – that was the period of time given for peace talks to take place. But the MoU left open what would happen after that period.

Araghchi did not say whether the same arrangement formed part of his new proposal. Nor did he spell out what Washington would have to do before the seven-day timetable began, how either side would verify those steps, or what rules would govern shipping once the strait reopened.

It is highly unlikely Iran would be offering to cede control of the Strait of Hormuz, analysts say.

Urban Coningham, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, told Al Jazeera that Tehran is unlikely to receive the sanction relief it has previously demanded and, therefore, sees the strait as its primary ticket to helping it recover from the war economically.

“Hormuz is a clear Iranian red line,” he told Al Jazeera. “The Iranians will not get reparations for the war, so control of the strait is the only way they can recover economically. I cannot see them backing down from that.”

Why does the June agreement matter?

The MoU signed in June set out an immediate halt to military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, where Israel has launched strikes and occupied part of the country, and triggered a 60-day period for negotiations on a lasting peace settlement. It included US waivers for Iranian oil exports and provisions to restore maritime traffic through the strait.

It deferred other issues, including the future of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, to broader peace talks.

But the agreement unravelled the following month amid renewed confrontation over shipping routes through the strait.

Coningham told Al Jazeera that Iran’s latest proposal follows this earlier model: “Open the strait within seven days, then start talks on the nuclear file.”

But “the US does not want to compartmentalise the issues, it wants them discussed as one package”, he said.

How else does this new proposal place pressure on the US?

Coningham also sees a political calculation in making the offer publicly at the UN as Americans contend with high fuel prices. “By explicitly saying this may be the only chance before the midterms, Iran is putting pressure on Trump over oil and gas prices and the strait,” he said. “It is a tactic to put more pressure on the US.”

The strait, which runs between Iran and Oman, is a vital route for oil and gas exports from the Gulf. Disruption to shipping has driven up energy prices far beyond the region, giving both governments an economic reason to reach an agreement despite their differences.

With the US midterm elections approaching, a deal to get it reopened could give Trump a chance to bring down fuel prices before voters go to the polls – potentially giving the Republican Party a much-needed electoral boost before the midterms.

Trump has presented the electoral calculation differently, however. In his address to the General Assembly on Tuesday, he accused Iran of waiting to see how his Republican Party performs in November and predicted a deal would happen after the vote. He also threatened to “annihilate the Islamic Republic” if there was no agreement.

Trump claimed the election did not affect his own decision-making on Iran: “The only thing that does is that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.”

That leaves an open question about whether the prospect of lower energy prices is enough to persuade his administration to accept Iran’s proposed order of talks. Coningham doubts it. “Trump is prepared for this to go on through the midterms,” he said. “The same problem remains where the proposal does not answer questions about the nuclear file.”

Where do broader US-Iran peace talks stand?

Araghchi met US envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner on Tuesday in talks mediated by Qatar. The Iranian foreign minister described the exchange as productive and said messages continued to pass between the sides.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said it would be wrong to describe the meeting as a major breakthrough, however.

Burcu Ozcelik, a senior research fellow for Middle East security, told Al Jazeera that the major blockage for Washington and Tehran is that each is making different assumptions about how much pressure they can exert on the other. The Trump administration is unlikely to revive the failed MoU, she said, because it assesses its naval blockade and tighter sanctions as working.

“The US appears to believe it can wait this out until Tehran is prepared to make meaningful concessions,” Ozcelik said.

“But Iran remains defiant despite indications that it is hurting economically.”

The pact stipulates that an attack on one of the three countries is considered an attack on all of them.

Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan have announced they are planning an urgent meeting of their chiefs of staff to discuss ways to support the kingdom under the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement.

The announcement followed a meeting on Thursday in New York between Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, according to the Saudi Press Agency.

The statement did not say when the military chiefs would meet or what form of support could be considered.

Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement on August 7 to strengthen collective deterrence and expand defence cooperation.

The pact stipulates that an attack on one of the three countries is considered an attack on them all.

The three countries have since begun setting up mechanisms under the pact. Their foreign and defence ministers and military chiefs met in Istanbul on August 31 for the first meeting of the Strategic Political and Defence Committee, agreeing to establish a secretariat in Saudi Arabia and to deepen military cooperation.

Thursday’s foreign ministers’ meeting also condemned attacks targeting Mecca as well as civilian and economic facilities in Saudi Arabia, and it affirmed the kingdom’s right to defend itself under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

The diplomatic moves came as Saudi Arabia reported a fresh wave of attacks from Yemen.

Saudi Arabia said its air defences shot down six ballistic missiles launched towards Taif and Yanbu on Thursday.

Major-General Turki al-Malki, the coalition spokesman, said further Houthi escalation would be “dealt with firmly”. Saudi Civil Defence authorities had issued alerts in several areas before later saying the danger had passed.

The Houthis separately claimed missile and drone attacks on a “sensitive target” in Riyadh and Saudi Aramco facilities in Yanbu.

France has also offered to provide defensive support to Saudi Arabia. President Emmanuel Macron said Paris would send military assets to help protect Yanbu.

“We are going to send military assets, meaning soldiers, radars and defence systems to protect this site,” Macron said in an interview with TF1 on Thursday.

Yemen clashes drive rising casualties and displacement

The cross-border attacks have coincided with some of the heaviest fighting inside Yemen since hostilities escalated again.

Fighting across several fronts in Yemen killed at least 150 Houthi fighters and members of government-aligned forces in the 24 hours leading into Friday, according to an AFP news agency tally.

The toll compiled by AFP included 98 fighters on the government side and 52 from the Houthis, with clashes reported around the Kahboub Mountains and areas between Lahj and Taiz overlooking the Bab al-Mandeb strait.

The Houthis have also expanded their presence along Yemen’s Red Sea coast, including by taking the port city of Mocha and strategic islands. The gains have strengthened the group’s position around Bab al-Mandeb, one of the world’s busiest shipping corridors. About 12 percent of global trade normally passes through the waterway, according to AP.

Yemen’s internationally recognised government has urged greater international involvement, warning at the UN General Assembly that Houthi control around the strait poses a wider economic risk.

Vice President Abdullah Abdulkader Al Alimi-Bawzer accused the Houthis of using freedom of navigation as leverage, saying their actions were “taking hostage the entire global economy”.

The renewed fighting has forced more than 230,000 people from their homes since the beginning of September, according to UNHCR, as clashes spread across multiple front lines. The agency said the latest displacement has added to about 5.2 million people already internally displaced across Yemen.

UNHCR said families have been uprooted across governorates, including Hodeidah, Taiz, Lahj, Aden, Abyan, Marib, al-Dhalea and Shabwah, with many fleeing at short notice and leaving with few belongings.

Shelter, food, clean water, healthcare and protection services are among the most urgent needs, while host communities and displacement sites are becoming increasingly overstretched.