rhetoric

After initially congratulating Democrats on their midterm wins, which he said he was “absolutely willing to accept,” President Trump posted a baseless missive to social media about not trusting early ballot totals or voting machines.

“Does anybody really believe that this ‘Election’ was honest. How could the Polls be so wrong???” he wrote.

The post was a return to the unsubstantiated election denial that has animated his political career since its inception. It was also the latest swing in public messaging from the president and his administration since Republicans lost control of both chambers of Congress and key governorships across the country last week.

Trump — notoriously hard to pin down and prone to meandering tangents — has waffled for nearly a week now on several key policy positions. Other leaders in his administration have split on the same issues, further confusing the public.

On Friday, Trump named Stephen Miller — chief architect of his administration’s sweeping immigration crackdown — as his new chief of staff, which many took as an unambiguous sign that Trump intends to double down on those policies through the second half of his term.

In a “60 Minutes” interview taped the same day and aired Sunday, Trump said that some of those same policies were “too tough,” and that he was open to working with Democrats to find a pathway for undocumented but law-abiding immigrants to remain in the country legally.

On Monday, Trump said he hadn’t told Miller to change his approach, that his administration has a “very strong deportation policy” and that there would be “no amnesty, no anything” for undocumented immigrants, though the administration will be focusing on “the worst of the worst.”

“My policy hasn’t changed,” he said. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement posted, “If you are here illegally, we will find you, arrest you, and DEPORT you.”

After Vice President JD Vance last week blamed the party’s stunning losses squarely on the Iran war, Trump acknowledged that the war — and the spiking gas prices it caused — probably hurt his party at the polls.

But he has since dismissed growing calls from both sides of the aisle for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to be fired, claimed the war has already been “won,” and suggested Americans’ displeasure with the economy was based on little more than bad messaging on the nation’s economic “numbers,” which he claimed are strong.

Hegseth said he wasn’t going to get into a “finger pointing exercise” over Vance’s remarks, but that the war “doesn’t have to be necessarily popular” to be necessary.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on Trump’s shifting postelection messaging.

Leading Democrats, smelling political blood and preparing to take control in Washington, have seized on Trump’s vacillations and doubling down on unpopular positions to paint him as badly out of touch and stubbornly resistant to the will of the American people.

After his Friday appointment of Miller, for example, California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote, “The American people just delivered Donald Trump a historic rejection. So naturally, he hands keys to the architect of his most cruel and inhumane policies. Absolutely disgraceful.”

After Trump’s post Monday about voting machines, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote, “Donald Trump’s pathetic return to election denialism was inevitable. He can whine all he wants, but nothing will stop this inescapable truth: For the last two years of his presidency, Trump will face the largest Democratic congressional majorities in decades, all because he has been an unprecedented failure.”

Experts who have long studied the president’s rhetoric said it should come as no surprise, as it is perfectly in line with his mantra of never admitting defeat, never accepting blame and never showing weakness — even in the face of an overwhelming defeat.

“He is caught between a rock and a hard place,” said Robert C. Rowland, a professor of rhetoric at the University of Kansas and author of “The Rhetoric of Donald Trump: Nationalist Populism and American Democracy.” “He’s seen the anger of the country, but he’s trying desperately to blame someone else — when all of the data says that this was mostly about him and the results or failures of his policies.”

After Republicans suffered substantial midterm losses in 2006, President George W. Bush acknowledged his party got a “thumping” and immediately fired Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was closely tied to the unpopular Iraq war. After Democrats suffered losses in 2010, President Obama acknowledged what he called a “shellacking” and also recalibrated, becoming less “post-partisan” in his messaging and more pragmatic, Rowland said.

Trump’s message about working with Democrats on certain issues could be seen as his own attempt to pivot, if only slightly, Rowland said, but it has been completely undermined by his moves to elevate Miller and reject accountability from Hegseth and others tied to the Iran war.

More than anything, Rowland said Trump’s baseline instinct is to project masculine power and deny culpability for any political failings, in part to hold on to his MAGA base, which is “pretty much all he has left,” and in part to resist any move by Republican moderates to reclaim power in the party.

“He doesn’t want to send any messages of weakness that would allow the remaining Reagan Republicans to kind of stick their heads back up and try to become involved again in conservative politics,” and is loath to “fire any of the men who screw up for him” lest he undercut his message of masculine power, Rowland said.

Trump is ultimately desperate to leave a mark — as evidenced by his ballroom and other vanity projects in Washington — and cares less about substantial policy accomplishments than “his name being in lights in historical terms,” Rowland said.

In his “60 Minutes” interview Sunday, Trump repeatedly avoided accepting blame. Instead, he suggested those who disagreed with him were wrong or misunderstand the reality before them.

He said the American people’s displeasure with the economy, for instance, was due to “bad messaging,” which he blamed in part on the press not covering “positive news for Republicans.”

Others in his administration have also dug in on pre-midterm messaging about the Trump administration being on the side of the American people, ignoring the fact that the electorate clearly and resoundingly rejected its policies last week.

Miller took an immediately combative tone after his promotion to chief of staff was announced, writing on X that Trump has saved the nation “from those who would destroy it,” and that the “mission now is more clear than ever: Fight with all of our soul to support our President and defend this magnificent Republic.”

On Monday, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin wrote on X, “While Americans enjoyed their weekend, the patriots of [ICE] worked around the clock to arrest and remove dangerous criminals from our communities, including murderers, pedophiles, and sexual predators.”

Over the weekend, Hegseth posted a video to U.S. military troops, telling them, “Don’t blink. Ignore the noise. Never hesitate.”

“You see, all this is politics. You do real things. 
You stay the course. And as always, President Trump leads the way. And I’ll assure you, we have only just begun to fight,” Hegseth said.

Whether such bravado will hold is unclear.

On Monday, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) filed articles of impeachment against Hegseth, calling for his ouster on eight charges, including for “waging the Iran war despite no declaration of war, statutory authorization, attack on the United States, or imminent threat”; for launching “extrajudicial killings” against alleged drug smugglers in offshore boats; and for the “kidnapping of a sovereign foreign leader,” a reference to the U.S. capture of now-former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

About the same time, Trump posted an AI-generated video of Ultimate Fighting Championship Chief Executive Dana White serving as White House press secretary, telling reporters to “sit down and shut up.”

Hours later, he and White were actually in the White House briefing room — where Trump defended the Iran war as “won” by the U.S., called Massie a “loser” and said he will “stand by” Hegseth even if he’s impeached.

“He won two wars,” Trump said.

Iranian officials have been speaking with Qatari mediators about a two-day plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, according to Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, in the latest effort to find a diplomatic path out of the US-Israel war on Iran that has caused a serious global energy crisis.

But even amid signs of diplomatic progress, officials from both sides say they are ready for renewed military escalation.

President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly suggested the United States could attack Iran after the November 3 midterm elections, said the latest negotiations were “going fine”, but added that the US still had several Iranian targets to “take care of”.

Meanwhile, Araghchi has also said Iran’s military was more prepared than ever for renewed war, while the country’s security chief, Mohsen Rezaei, threatened Iran would use “new weaponry” in response to any future attack.

Here’s what we know about the latest diplomatic efforts and the sharp rhetoric from both sides, and what it could mean for what lies ahead:

What is the status of talks?

Araghchi said on Saturday that an Iranian delegation, including one of his aides, travelled to Doha to meet Qatari mediators. Earlier, Qatari officials also travelled to Tehran for consultations.

The latest discussions in Doha centred on a plan that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a global energy chokepoint, within two days and restart peace talks with the US, provided Washington meets a set of demands from Tehran, Araghchi told Al Jazeera.

Those demands include the lifting of recently imposed US sanctions, the reinstatement of oil waivers granted in June, a reduction in the US military presence in the region, recognition of new shipping routes in the Strait of Hormuz designated by Iran and Oman, and an end to the conflict on all fronts, including Israel’s attacks on Lebanon, said Araghchi.

Qatari and Pakistani mediators were “continuing consultations regarding our conditions”, said the top Iranian diplomat.

Pakistan has been mediating between the US and Iran, with its army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, visiting Tehran several times as part of the diplomatic efforts to end the war. Doha and Islamabad played key roles in the signing of the June memorandum of understanding (MoU) that collapsed in August.

Iran’s Rezaei said the US had “indicated its readiness” to accept its conditions, although Washington has not confirmed this.

On the US side, Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed Qatar-led talks were ongoing, but said he was not aware of a timeframe for them.

“There are multiple talks. Talks have actually never stopped,” said Rubio. “If there is a diplomatic solution, we would be open to it.”

Why has Iran noted a change in the US’s ‘tone’?

The renewed diplomatic activity comes after US Vice President JD Vance sent a letter earlier this week to Rezaei, reportedly seeking to gauge the prospects of restarting negotiations and averting another round of military escalation.

Rezaei confirmed on Saturday that he had read the letter, whose tone he said had “completely changed” compared with earlier correspondence from Trump.

Araghchi also said he had studied Vance’s letter, which he described positively.

“The American side’s attempt to open the door to dialogue and understanding more broadly is a positive step,” Araghchi told Al Jazeera.

However, he warned, “If Washington’s goal in sending this letter is to stir up discord, it would be yet another mistake to add to its previous ones.”

What has Iran said about prospects for peace and war?

Iranian officials have said they are open to new peace talks if the US meets their conditions, but also ready to act more aggressively in any new military confrontation.

“I know that our armed forces are more prepared for war than any time before, and we are ready for any scenario,” Araghchi told Al Jazeera.

In the event of any new military threat from the US or Israel, Iran’s response would be “immediate” and “without geographical limitations”, according to a statement by Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei.

Khamenei ordered commanders to update Iran’s target list to include “all types of tangible and intangible assets belonging to the American-Zionist enemy”.

Rezaei told Al Jazeera that Iran would use “new weaponry” in its response to any future attacks. He also said Iran’s government was weighing a change to its “nuclear doctrine”, which currently includes a ban on nuclear weapons.

Iran’s nuclear programme has been a major point of contention in the conflict with the US, and Trump has repeatedly said Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes.

What is the latest from Trump?

The US president has sent mixed signals about the status of peace talks. On Saturday, he said negotiations were “going fine” but added that they were “not very reliable”.

He also said the US military still needed to “take care of” several Iranian sites, singling out a suspected underground nuclear complex known as Pickaxe Mountain.

Trump added that the US could achieve its military objectives “very quickly” and was not in a hurry.

Previously, he threatened to renew attacks that would “finish off” Iran, while the US has reportedly warned its Gulf allies to prepare for a short, high-intensity round of conflict after the midterm elections.

Rubio said Trump had not yet decided on whether to carry out new strikes, but warned the US “can achieve military objectives if we seek to”.

How could Israel play into the calculation?

Israel, which joined the US in initiating the war against Iran in February, is preparing for another round of potential conflict right after the US midterm elections, according to a senior Israeli official cited by Israel’s Ynet News site.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel has a “historic, one-time opportunity … to remove the Iranian threat once and for all”. While Netanyahu’s coalition lost its parliamentary majority in recent legislative elections, the 77-year-old leader remains in office as caretaker until a new government is formed.

Andreas Krieg, an associate professor of security studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera that Netanyahu’s threats complicate Iran’s calculus because Tehran fears “even a nuclear agreement with Washington may not end the threat of another Israeli attack”.

Brigadier-General Yadollah Javani, the deputy for political affairs of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said Iranian forces are operating on the assumption that the US or Israel could strike at any moment.

What explains the parallel diplomatic efforts and war rhetoric?

Hamidreza Azizi, a senior Iran analyst with the Crisis Group, said Tehran is pursuing diplomacy while also “attempting to redefine” the military implications of another potential conflict.

“For now, diplomacy and military preparations are proceeding simultaneously,” he wrote in a post on X. “The emerging Iranian position seems to be that an agreement remains possible, but another war would be fought under different rules and on a much wider battlefield.”

He added, “Whether Washington takes these warnings as credible deterrence or further escalatory threats could significantly influence what happens next.”

Krieg said the November 3 elections give Iran an incentive to delay concessions to deny Trump a diplomatic victory. But that calculus could change afterwards when he has fewer domestic political restraints on military action.

“We could therefore reach a situation where Iran becomes more willing to compromise precisely when Washington becomes more willing to strike,” said Krieg.

Democrats, election officials and voting rights groups have long wondered whether President Trump, upon his return to the Oval Office, would again attempt to overturn an election when his party is trailing.

It’s no longer hypothetical.

Late last week, the president directed his Department of Justice to preemptively contest a potential Republican loss in the U.S. Senate race in Alaska. The department is demanding a court hold up certification of a possible Democratic win until it’s determined whether voters were confused by having two candidates with the same name on the ballot.

Trump followed that by calling for the prosecution of Democratic candidate Mary Peltola, a former congresswoman, based on a New York Times report that her campaign helped recruit someone named Dan Sullivan to siphon away votes from the Republican incumbent, also named Dan Sullivan. The governor has ordered an investigation.

Academics believe the lawsuit is the first time since the Civil Rights era that the federal government has sued to halt certification of an election, a duty the Constitution places in the hands of states.

Trump, for years, has claimed elections are rigged when he or his party loses, and this time is no exception. He has used his midterm rallies to say Democrats cheat, criticize election officials by name and call the ranked choice voting system in Alaska, which might hold the key to Senate control, a scam.

But the certification lawsuit elevates Trump’s crusade beyond mere rhetoric, indicating that he is preparing to use the power of the presidency to try to reverse a possible loss as his party struggles to hold its control of Congress in Tuesday’s elections.

Earlier this week, the president also announced a $1 million bounty for anyone who provides proof of prior or current voter fraud in the country. It wasn’t clear whether or how he planned to follow through.

“For at least the last year and a half, they’ve been laying that groundwork,” said Theresa Lee, a senior attorney with the ACLU. “We’ve been preparing for just as long, if not longer.”

Trump says he’ll accept results if the election is ‘honest’

Trump told reporters this week that he would accept the election results, but with his typical caveat: “If they’re honest elections,” he said.

That follows a pattern. Trump has preemptively claimed that upcoming elections will be rigged and labeled elections he’s lost as stolen. It started with the 2016 Republican Iowa caucuses, when he came in second to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

“Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa,” Trump said at the time. “He stole it.”

Democrats and other groups that oppose Trump have been concerned that his words would turn into directives to have his administration interfere in the midterms. They have been running exercises for months and have lawsuits pre-written. They also plan to have tens of thousands of people monitoring the polls on Election Day.

So far, early voting has been quiet, with about 35 million people already casting ballots without any notable disruption.

In that respect, this year’s election so far resembles 2025’s off-year elections in New Jersey, Virginia and a handful of other states. Democrats braced for possible Trump action then, but the election proceeded with no major issues. But the Justice Department’s more aggressive actions this month already make 2026 different from any election in recent memory.

It has sued California to block it from counting ballots after it alleged the state had 20,000 noncitizens on its rolls and made a similar demand of Washington related to about 400 voters in that state. Both states said the demands came too close to the election to fulfill, and a federal judge Wednesday rejected the federal government’s California demands.

Earlier, the Justice Department seized ballots and election records related to the 2020 presidential election in Georgia’s Fulton County, and the administration launched a sweeping investigation of that vote, though it has yet to turn up evidence supporting Trump’s false claims of fraud.

Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department does not want to intervene in elections, but had no choice in Alaska.

“We are not doing anything improper,” Blanche said Sunday on CNN. “But I do think it’s important for the American people to understand that we are not — (and) President Trump is not — trying to take over a state election in any way, shape or form.”

After the lawsuit was filed, Trump told reporters he was the one who pushed for it: “I’m the one that said do it,” the president said.

Lawsuits seem more ‘impulsive’ than strategic

Though the Trump administration claimed to be acting on behalf of Alaska’s voters in its lawsuit to hold up certification, the president’s Republican allies in the state didn’t appear happy.

Sen. Sullivan would not say whether he supported the lawsuit. Alaska’s Republican-controlled state government filed court papers to try to have it dismissed. The state’s other Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, said the administration “should never have filed” it.

While controversial, the situation in Alaska is not that unusual. Political parties often support extra candidates on the ballot to try to pull votes from their rivals. If state courts allow it, legal experts say, the federal government has no role challenging the results.

Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor, wrote that the Alaska lawsuit’s legal argument was “one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen.” He said that should reassure the public that Trump won’t be able to change election outcomes.

“The notion that there’s going to be something systemic that’s going to thwart the will of the voters seems much more speculative,” he said. “A lot of the conduct seems impulsive rather than strategic and planned.”

The courts have repeatedly rebuffed the administration, in many cases because the Constitution gives the president no direct power over how elections are run. Courts put on hold two Trump executive orders seeking to change voting procedures. The administration also has lost more than two dozen cases trying to get detailed voter information from the states.

That resembles 2020, when Trump and his allies tried to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden and in the process lost dozens of lawsuits.

Can the institutions hold?

Pat McCrory, a former Republican governor of North Carolina, is part of Right Count, a group of conservatives pushing back against election conspiracy theories and intervention in local elections. He said he’s confident the system will hold.

“The only thing that protects us from anarchy is this thin piece of paper called the Constitution,” McCrory said. “That thin piece of paper is, to me, a cement wall.”

It’s one that many analysts expect will continue to stymie Trump in the courts.

“The courts are likely to throw most, if not all, of these charges out,” said Matt Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University. “But this is a way of intensifying the signal to Trump’s supporters that the elections are rigged.”

The Justice Department in 2020 refused to join Trump’s allies in litigation. In his second term, Trump has pushed out career staff and stocked his administration with people who helped him challenge the 2020 election. That’s led to mounting concern he could deploy immigration agents, the FBI or even the military to the polls or seize ballots or voting machines, although multiple administration officialshave denied they have such plans.

All of that could happen before courts even have a chance to weigh in, said Brendan Nyhan, a Dartmouth political scientist.

“The threat is that he’ll take actions that can’t be undone,” Nyhan said.

Riccardi and Swenson write for the Associated Press.

Israel’s parliamentary election on Tuesday produced no clear winner, with nearly 90 percent of ballots counted and both major political blocs falling short of the 61 seats needed to form a government.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc is on course to win 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, while the opposition bloc led by Gadi Eisenkot is expected to secure 48 seats.

The Arab-majority parties won 19 seats, a historic high, driven by record turnout among Palestinian citizens of Israel of about 80 percent. That has placed the Arab parties at the centre of coalition arithmetic, even as several party leaders ruled out governing with them.

So what did the main contenders say in the run-up to and during the vote, and how did they fare? Here is a look:

Benjamin Netanyahu, Likud: Elections ‘stolen by Arab parties’

Pre-election: In the build-up to the election, Netanyahu expressed confidence, telling The Jerusalem Post on October 22, “I’m gonna have five more terms.”

On Sunday, he targeted the opposition, with Haaretz citing a broadcast on Israel’s Channel 14 that Netanyahu warned if they win, they will “give citizenship to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians”, a move that would signal the “end of the Jewish state”.

Election day: On Tuesday, he said forming a government with Arab-led parties would be “a shame and a disgrace”.

“It is forbidden – simply forbidden – to endanger Israel and to establish a government that relies on anti-Zionist Arab parties,” he told supporters.

Post-election day: After the elections, Netanyahu’s Likud party took aim at Palestinian citizens of Israel who voted.

In a party statement shared by Netanyahu, it claimed the elections “were stolen by Arab parties that support terrorism and the elimination of the Jewish state through serious criminal offences”. According to The Times of Israel, police and the Central Elections Committee have already dismissed these claims.

What the results show: Likud is on course for 26 seats, the largest party, with 20.65 percent of the vote. But his bloc has 53 seats, eight short of a majority.

Gadi Eisenkot, Yashar Party: ‘I do not see an Arab party that accepts my principles’

Pre-election: In a September interview with The Jerusalem Post, he dismissed the idea he would need to form a coalition with Arab parties: “I believe the majority we receive will be much larger than what the polls currently show,” adding “I do not see an Arab party that accepts my principles.”

He also said his “inner feeling is that I now have the ability to defeat Netanyahu”.

Election day: Eisenkot rallied Israelis to get rid of “the worst government Israel has known”.

However, he acknowledged how tight the race was, saying, “We are on perhaps the most critical day since the founding of the state.”

Post-election day: On Wednesday, Eisenkot told his supporters the Israeli public “voted against” Netanyahu and promised, “to ensure that the people’s decision is translated into a Zionist government”.

What the results show: Yashar is on course for 21 seats, with 16.16 percent. His bloc has 48, 13 short of a majority, and he cannot reach 61 without the Arab-led parties.

Naftali Bennett, Together Party: ‘The October 7 government is going home’

Pre-election: In February, months before the vote, Bennett told a closed conference of party activists that he stood by his 2021 decision to govern with Ra’am, but said he would not repeat it.

He said, “We will establish a unity government under my leadership … We are going to win, and we are going to form it,” Israel National News reported.

Election day: “Netanyahu has lost, and the October 7 government is going home,” Bennett told supporters in Tel Aviv.

Post-election: In a post on X, Bennett told Israelis to “lift your heads” and said he will do everything “to establish a Zionist Alliance of Servants government”.

What the results show: Together is on course for 12 seats with 9.07 percent, narrowly behind the Joint List.

Itamar Ben-Gvir, Otzma Yehudit: Palestinians in Gaza ‘shouldn’t live’

Pre-election: In his election campaign, Ben-Gvir expressed his most genocidal views yet, saying in August that there are Palestinians in Gaza “who are not worthy of life. They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people.” He called for Israel to kill “30 to 40” people in Gaza every night.

Election day: “If you want this country to stay Jewish and Zionist, if you don’t want it to be in the hands of (Israeli Knesset members) Mansour Abbas and Ahmad Tibi, go out and vote,” he told supporters at the entrance to the Arab city of Kafr Qasim.

What the results show: Otzma Yehudit is on course for seven seats, with 5.58 percent, less than half of the 15 he wanted.

Bezalel Smotrich, Religious Zionism-Zehut: ‘Jewish settlements will be established in Gaza’

Pre-election: In a statement he issued in August, he promised an expansion of his settlement “revolution” with a programme for the “Judaization of the Negev and the Galilee” at the expense of Palestinians, as part of his campaign.

Election day: He warned on Facebook of high turnout in communities of Palestinian citizens of Israel, claiming that failing to mobilise right-wing voters could let “terror supporters” into government.

That night, he told supporters “Jewish settlements will be established in Gaza.”

What the results show: Religious Zionism is on course for six seats, with 4.78 percent.

Yousef Jabareen, Joint List: ‘Change comes through Jewish-Arab partnership, a true and equal partnership’

Pre-election: In August, he stated that only “a large and strong Joint List will work with all its might to send the Netanyahu/Ben-Gvir/Smotrich government home”, according to The Jerusalem Post.

Election day, night: In a video statement, he said Netanyahu knew “we can put an end to his bloody reign.”

Post-election: He wrote on X  that his party was ready for the “ousting of the Netanyahu government”, which he called one of “bloodshed”.

“Against a politics of supremacy, racism, and exclusion, we offer a completely different alternative. The change comes through Jewish-Arab partnership, a true and equal partnership,” he wrote.

What the results show: The Joint List is on course for 12 seats with 9.14 percent, making it the third-largest party by vote share.

Mansour Abbas, Ra’am: Netanyahu uses ‘scare tactic to mobilise right-wing voters’

Election day, night: In July, Abbas set Ra’am a goal of at least seven seats, enough, he argued, to make it the balance of power in a “government of change”.

Election day: He hit back at Netanyahu’s posts about Palestinian citizens of Israel, stating in a video that he was “lying and inciting against Ra’am, using it as a scare tactic to mobilise right-wing voters and drive them to the polls”.

What the results show: Ra’am is on course for eight seats, with 6.09 percent, beating his target of seven.

Avigdor Lieberman, Yisrael Beiteinu: ‘We will reach 61 seats’

Pre-election: On October 15, he claimed: “We will reach 61 seats or more for the change bloc.”

Election day: He urged patience, saying on Friday, “we’ll be able to talk about a much better and more optimistic picture.”

What the results show: Yisrael Beiteinu is on course for seven seats, with 5.93 percent.

Yair Lapid, Together: Netanyahu is ‘busy fear-mongering’

Pre-election: In September, he posted a statement which said, “Netanyahu ignored every warning before October 7, and now, 28 days before the election, he’s suddenly busy fear-mongering.”

Election day: He declared victory, stating, “The Netanyahu bloc has suffered a crushing defeat.”

What the results show: Together, which he co-leads with Bennett, is on course for 12 seats, with 9.07 percent.

Ethiopia and Eritrea have exchanged accusations of aggression at the United Nations, raising fears of a new conflict in the Horn of Africa region as fighting intensifies in Ethiopia’s northern Tigray region.

The diplomatic spat comes as Ethiopian troops and allied armed groups advanced across Tigray, where forces from Asmara have allegedly crossed the border to support rebels fighting the government forces.

The two neighbours, which fought a deadly border war between 1998 and 2000, were allies during Ethiopia’s devastating 2020-2022 Tigray war.

However, they have since been at loggerheads over the 2022 peace agreement that ended a two-year civil war between the government in Addis Ababa and Tigray rebels, and over Ethiopia’s demands for access to the Red Sea.

So, what did Eritrea and Ethiopia accuse each other of, and are they inching towards war?

What did Eritrea and Ethiopia say at the UN?

Eritrean troops had advanced as far as 60km (37 miles) into Tigray, Ethiopia told the UN Security Council on Friday, accusing its neighbour of violating its sovereignty.

In a letter, Ethiopian Foreign Minister Gedion Timothewos described the alleged incursion as “a blatant act of aggression that engages Ethiopia’s inherent right to self-defence”.

He invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter, which recognises a country’s right to self-defence, but did not specify what measures Ethiopia was taking.

Eritrea, which won independence from Ethiopia in 1993, rejected the accusations of incursions into Ethiopia, calling them a pretext for an Addis Ababa offensive.

Eritrean Foreign Minister Osman Saleh, in his own letter to the UN Security Council on Saturday, urged the body to condemn Ethiopia’s “deplorable declaration of war” and take “deterrent measures”.

He warned that an Ethiopian offensive would cause “huge devastation to the peoples of both countries and destabilise the whole region”.

The accusations come amid a broader dispute over access to the Red Sea.

Landlocked Ethiopia has repeatedly argued that securing direct sea access is essential, while Eritrea fears Addis Ababa intends to seize its port of Assab.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed reiterated on Monday that Ethiopia must have access to the Red Sea.

Hossamaldeen Ibrahim, an analyst at Bloomsbury Intelligence and Security Institute (BISI), said the narratives of both countries contain “verifiable elements”.

“The danger lies in the fact that each side now treats the other’s narrative as existential,” he told Al Jazeera.

Eritrea and Ethiopia fought a deadly border war from 1998 to 2000. Relations improved after Abiy came to power in 2018, but have soured again in recent years.

Professor Matthias Rompel from the Institute of Sociology at the Justus-Liebig-University Giessen in Germany, said that both sides have legitimate security concerns, but their accusations need to be distinguished from independently verified facts.

“Ethiopia’s allegations of Eritrean military incursions into Tigray… and …the scale of Eritrean involvement, and particularly allegations that Asmara is orchestrating the rebellion against Addis Ababa, remain difficult to substantiate independently,” he told Al Jazeera.

He added that the latest developments suggest that the confrontation is no longer merely about Tigray. “Ethiopia’s quest for Red Sea access, Eritrea’s concerns about sovereignty, and Egypt’s strategic rivalry with Ethiopia over the Nile are interconnected,” he said.

“The conflict, therefore, has the potential to destabilise the wider Horn of Africa, with repercussions for Sudan, Somalia and Red Sea security.”

What is the latest fighting about, and how is Eritrea allegedly involved?

Fighting escalated on September 23 when a rebel alliance, including the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), launched attacks against Ethiopian government forces across Tigray, Amhara and Afar regions.

The rebels captured Tigray’s capital, Mekelle, and its airport before announcing their withdrawal on October 3. Government-allied forces subsequently entered the city.

In the latest on the battlefront, government and allied forces took Idaga Hamus early Friday and Abiy-Adi, in the Tembien area, on Thursday afternoon, according to Ermiyas Ababu, a commander of the government-allied Tigray Peace Force.

Residents, according to Reuters news agency, also reported the takeover of Idaga Hamus. Gebremedhin Kihishen, a business owner in Tembien, said government-allied forces controlled Abiy-Adi.

It was unclear from those accounts who held the towns immediately before the reported government advance or whether Eritrean troops were involved in the fighting.

Ermiyas previously reported Eritrean personnel entering Adigrat on Tuesday and Idaga Hamus on Wednesday, citing reports from his personnel. Al Jazeera was unable to independently verify the claims.

The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), a United States-based conflict monitor, reported that Eritrean troops crossed into Ethiopia near Zalambessa and came under Ethiopian drone attack while advancing towards Idaga Hamus. Eritrea has yet to comment on the development.

Addis Ababa accuses Asmara of financing, arming and directing armed groups, as well as deploying troops inside Tigray. Eritrea denies the allegations, which have not been independently verified.

The renewed fighting threatens to unravel the 2022 peace agreement.

That conflict began in November 2020 after months of tensions between Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s government and the TPLF, which had dominated Ethiopian politics for nearly three decades before Abiy took office in 2018.

Eritrea fought alongside Ethiopian federal forces against the TPLF, its longtime adversary. The war killed hundreds of thousands of people and was marked by allegations of massacres, sexual violence and widespread hunger.

The November 2022 Pretoria agreement ended major hostilities, but Eritrea was not a party to the deal. Relations between Addis Ababa and Asmara subsequently deteriorated.

Has Ethiopia sent troops north towards Eritrea?

Multiple media reports say Ethiopian government troops and allied militias entered Adigrat, a strategic city roughly 30km (19 miles) from the Eritrean border, on Saturday.

Three residents confirmed their presence to Reuters, while verified footage showed government-allied militia members walking through the city.

Associated Press news agency footage also showed Ethiopian military vehicles entering Adigrat as some residents welcomed the troops.

Government-allied forces have reported capturing Idaga Hamus and Abiy-Adi, while explosions and alleged drone strikes have been reported near Adigrat.

Are Ethiopia and Eritrea inching towards war?

Analysts warn that Ethiopia and Eritrea may already have moved beyond threats and into a dangerous phase of possible military confrontation.

BISI’s Ibrahim said the two countries have moved beyond “inching” towards war, noting that “The situation has entered a high-risk phase of limited but direct military confrontation with a real possibility of rapid escalation into interstate war.”

He warned that the severing of diplomatic ties removed the “last formal mechanism for crisis management”, while Ethiopian military advances towards the Eritrean border increased the risk of “miscalculation”.

Tom Gardner, a correspondent for The Economist, said the current tensions should be understood in the context of decades of hostility between the neighbours.

Their brief alliance during the 2020-2022 Tigray war was an exception and was driven by a shared hostility towards the TPLF, Gardner told Al Jazeera.

“The Ethiopian government’s strategic goal number one is access to the Red Sea, but also removing Eritrea’s government from the picture,” he noted.

“It’s very much looking like the most dangerous moment for the region since that 1998 to 2000 war.”

Rompel from Justus-Liebig-University Giessen said that the current situation is evolving. “The danger of a wider interstate conflict is real, and the situation has already moved beyond a purely diplomatic confrontation,” he said.

“The central danger is not necessarily that either government has decided to launch a full-scale war, but that military miscalculations, mutual distrust and domestic political pressures could trigger a further escalation neither side can easily control.

“A wider conflict is not inevitable, but the space for diplomatic de-escalation is rapidly narrowing,” he said.