Sanctions

Israeli journalists asked coach Hallgrimsson about the Flydubai attack and alleged racist abuse by Ireland’s players.

Members of an Israeli media contingent heckled Republic of Ireland head coach Heimir Hallgrimsson’s news conference prior to the UEFA Nations League football match, causing it to end abruptly amid growing political tensions and protests against the fixture.

During the media event on Saturday, an Israeli journalist asked Hallgrimsson about his views on an incident onboard a Flydubai flight to Israel earlier this week.

According to the prosecutor general of the United Arab Emirates, the Flydubai co-pilot “attempted to carry out a terrorist act”, using an axe against the pilot to take over the aircraft’s controls.

The plane carrying 174 passengers was on its way from the Dubai in the UAE to Tel Aviv in Israel on Wednesday when the copilot wounded Indian pilot Smit Machchhar, who opened the cockpit door to seek help.

The aircraft briefly plunged about 17,000 feet (5,180 metres) before it was brought back under control.

The attacker was not officially identified, but media reports quoting unnamed sources said he was an Omani national, Hamam al-Hammami.

“What do you say about the people that you support? Their ideology is based on murder,” the journalist asked, purportedly hinting at Ireland’s stance on Palestine and attempting to link it to the aviation incident.

Before the Irish team’s coach could answer, the Football Association of Ireland’s communications manager Kieran Crowley stepped in and asked the journalist to refrain from asking questions not linked to the match.

The journalist persisted, carrying on with her question before Crowley stopped her again.

“We respected your questions at the last press conference, but we are doing football questions today,” he said, referring to Israeli journalists’ pointed questions about the calls to boycott the first leg of the European match.

Icelandic coach Hallgrimsson later termed the incident a “verbal attack”.

‘You’ve just broadcast a lie’

The first leg of the fixture was played on September 27 and the FAI faced strong calls for a boycott from the Irish public and former players. The match went ahead and Ireland beat Israel 3-0 amid a tense atmosphere on the pitch.

Following the match, Israeli supporters were accused of directing racist chants towards Ireland player Adam Idah and were filmed raising military slogans, but evaded disciplinary action from the competition’s organisers.

However, another Israeli journalist turned the incident on its head during Saturday’s news conference and accused the Irish team of calling Israel’s players “monkeys” during the match.

FAI’s Crowley was quick to shut out the accusation and ended the media event.

“That’s a lie. You’ve just broadcast a lie,” Crowley said before getting up to walk away.

According to Irish media reports, the FAI is continuing to investigate allegations that Irish players Adam Idah and James Abankwah were racially abused by Israeli fans.

An Israeli supporter also led chants about his country’s military from the stands as he attempted to brush aside the team’s drubbing on the football pitch.

The day before the first leg, goalkeeper Gavin Bazunu publicly withdrew, saying he felt “it would be wrong to participate in the upcoming fixtures against Israel”.

The second leg will be played at the TSC Arena in Backa Topola in Serbia on Sunday.

Ireland’s Hallgrimsson termed it “a game with a lot of emotions attached to it”.

He said the team was focused on winning the second leg as well.

“There’s been a lot of emotions from the people in Ireland about this and obviously that affects the players as well. We want to do good, but it’s always going to be a challenge when the environment is as noisy as it is.”

Iran’s foreign minister says his visit to the UN General Assembly last week was mainly to outline Tehran’s position on regional conflicts and the critical security situation in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Houston Texans’ linebacker wore eye black with the names of slain sisters Lana, 12, and Bana, eight.

American football player Azeez Al-Shaair has once again honoured Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces in Gaza, despite previous fines and the threat of being removed from games, this time wearing the names of sisters Lana and Bana Ahmad on his eye black during his latest National Football League (NFL) game.

The Houston Texans linebacker took the field against the Indianapolis Colts on Sunday wearing the names of Lana, 12, and her sister Bana, eight, who were killed along with their family in an Israeli air attack earlier this month.

Hours before the game, Al-Shaair posted about the sisters on his Instagram account and followed it with a photo of the black tape bearing their names that he would later wear during the game. The image also showed part of Al-Shaair’s black shoes with flags of Palestine and Sudan stitched on them.

Al-Shaair, a Black American Muslim player, has repeatedly spoken about the plight of Palestinians. On September 13, he wore the name of Hind Rajab, the five-year-old girl who was killed in Gaza after Israeli soldiers opened fire on her family’s stranded car on January 29, 2024.

The NFL fined him $11,491 for breaching the league’s code of conduct on players’ clothing and equipment during a match against the Buffalo Bills.

However, basketball player Kyrie Irving stepped in and offered to pay the fine for Al-Shaair, who later confirmed that he had been in touch with the nine-time NBA All-Star.

Al-Shaair brushed off talk of the fine while speaking to reporters last week. “It’s bigger to me; what’s a life worth? Is a life worth $11,000? No, I think it’s priceless,” he said.

In his subsequent game against the Cincinnati Bengals, Al-Shaair then wore an eye black — a sticker or paint frequently used by NFL players to reduce glare — with the name of Wafa Akila, an eight-year-old who was killed along with her father in an Israeli attack in western Gaza as they were making their way home.

He was also fined in January, during the NFL’s last season, for displaying the message “Stop The Genocide” on his nose tape. While it did not specifically refer to a particular conflict, it was widely understood to be about Gaza and Sudan.

Following his NFL outing in which he wore the name of Rajab, Al-Shaair was informed he would have to remove the eye black or he would not be permitted to continue playing in the game, according to reports in US media.

US Democratic politician Isaiah Martin condemned the NFL’s reported reaction to Al-Shaair wearing eye black with the names of slain Palestinian children.

“This harms no one by letting him do this,” Martin said in a post on X. “I think it’s absurd they were fining him, but those were the ‘rules’ and he agreed to pay the fine. Removal from the game is INSANE. This shouldn’t stand!”

The Israeli genocide in Gaza has severely limited education for the Strip’s 660,000 children, with 90 percent of schools left damaged or destroyed.

Israel has killed at least 21,500 children since October 7, 2023, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza.

Manchester City are understood to be ready to appeal any guilty verdict, but could face ‘severe penalty’ says ex-chair.

Former Manchester City chairman David Bernstein said the club could face potentially “drastic” sanctions after reportedly being found guilty on all but one of 115 charges for breaching Premier League financial rules.

The Premier League has not made an official announcement over the case and there is no indication of any possible punishment.

Abu Dhabi-backed City have always strenuously denied the charges and a club spokesperson said the position had not changed.

It is understood City will appeal should the charges be upheld.

“The club has diligently respected due process for eight years on the basis that the Premier League board and executive would behave as an independent, impartial and fair-minded regulator, free from partisan influence,” the spokesperson said.

City were charged by the Premier League in 2023 following an investigation into alleged breaches of rules between 2009 and 2018.

The club were accused of failing to provide accurate financial information and details of payments to players and coaches, as well as breaches of financial sustainability rules.

They were also charged with failing to cooperate with an investigation.

A hearing by an independent commission started in September 2024.

Man City face ‘severe penalty’

Bernstein, who was City chairman between 1998 and 2003, told Times Radio that “money is not sufficient” in terms of a potential punishment, urging a swift appeal process.

“The appeal process cannot go on for year after year, I think that would be a disaster,” he said, “not just for this particular case but for English football generally. The timing is crucial.

“I can’t give a view on the punishment. If they are found, after the appeal, guilty of [the] charges, my beloved club is going to face a very severe penalty.

“All I would say is that money is not sufficient, it would have to be something, unfortunately, more drastic than that.”

Oasis star and City fan Noel Gallagher described his “shock” at the developments.

Speaking on the Let Me Talk podcast, he said: “Surprised because only that the club have assured us all along that they vehemently denied any of these charges.

“So it was a bit of a shock to find out that we’ve been found guilty of all but one. But really overall just quite sad really. Sad for the fans and for the players.”

UK culture secretary Lisa Nandy described the case as “unsettling” for football fans and called for a swift resolution.

In 2020, UEFA imposed a two-year European ban on City as well as a fine for breaking financial fair-play rules, though that ban was later overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

If the reported guilty verdicts are confirmed, sanctions could include a severe points deduction and possibly even expulsion from the Premier League.

Everton and Nottingham Forest were both hit by points deductions in the 2023/24 season for single breaches of profit and sustainability rules.

Other Premier League clubs are understood to be taking legal advice about compensation relating to the charges.

Under the ownership of Sheikh Mansour, whose Abu Dhabi United Group acquired the club in 2008, City have become the dominant force in English football.

They have won eight Premier League titles, a Champions League crown and multiple other trophies over the past 15 years.

The latest developments in the case come just months after former City manager Pep Guardiola left the club following a golden decade in charge at the Etihad.

Guardiola always backed the club’s stance on the charges but threatened to walk away if he felt he had been lied to and they were proven to be true.

Baghdad, Najaf, Erbil, and Sulaimaniyah airports suspend flights as US ramps up pressure on Iran’s aviation sector.

Four Iraqi airports have suspended all flights to and from Iran days after the United States announced new aviation sanctions on any global companies doing business with Iranian airlines.

It is the latest ramping up of sanctions since the US launched Operation Economic Outcast in August in an effort to isolate Iran from the global economy.

Iraqi state media said flights will no longer be operating from Baghdad, Najaf, Erbil and Sulaimaniyah airports.

Iraq was one of the top destinations for Iranian airlines, especially after Iraqi airlines stopped flying to Iran at the start of the US-Israel war on Iran in February.

Passengers travelling between Iran and Iraq will now be forced to make a land journey of at least 12 hours, depending on the destination.

Najaf airport

Iraq’s state news agency reported the suspension at Najaf international airport earlier on Friday.

Airport director Hussein Muhanna told the AFP news agency that “all flights were halted between Iran and Najaf airport following a directive from the prime minister’s office to the governor” of Najaf.

Iraq and neighbouring Iran are both Shia-majority countries, and flights to and from Najaf carry Iraqi Shia Muslim pilgrims to Iran’s holy cities or Iranians visiting sacred sites in Iraq.

In a post on X, the Iranian Consulate in Najaf responded to the suspension of flights to and from Iran, saying “Najaf international airport, the shrine of the first Imam of the Shia, and the capital of their last Imam, is closed to the largest Shia country in the world?!”

An Iraqi employee of an Iranian airline at Najaf airport told AFP Iranian carriers usually operate at least 20 daily flights, but after the suspension, only four flights to other destinations remained scheduled on Friday.

Several other regional countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, have either cancelled or restricted flights to Iran to enforce US aviation sanctions.

That is despite the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council warning neighbouring nations against imposing a US flight ban.

Iranian airlines are now relying on a few reduced routes, including Turkiye, Russia, China and Armenia, to remain operational.

“We cannot say that Iran is totally cut off from air traffic, but shrunk considerably,” said Al Jazeera’s Sinem Koseoglu, reporting from Tehran.

Reporting from Baghdad, Al Jazeera’s Jack Hewson said Iraq’s central government has made no statement about the flight suspensions, likely because it “doesn’t want to antagonise” pro-Iranian factions in Iraq’s parliament.

Explaining the country’s decision to comply with the US move, Hewson said: “Companies providing ground services, like refuelling, baggage, it appears, are not willing to risk secondary sanctions and being frozen out of the international US dollar system.”

“Iraq’s in a very difficult position,” Hewson added. “It’s tied to the US, but it’s also tied to Iran. And at times like these, it’s squeezed between the two.”

Flights operated by Iranian airlines to and from the UAE suspended as part of broader efforts to enforce US aviation sanctions on Iran.

The United Arab Emirates has halted flights operated by Iranian airlines, joining several other countries in adopting United States sanctions aimed at pressuring Tehran’s aviation sector.

On Thursday, a statement carried by the Emirati WAM news agency said, “The General Civil Aviation Authority announced the suspension of all flights operated by Iranian airlines to and from the UAE.”

It said the decision was “based on the US sanctions imposed on Iranian airlines preventing them from using airports around the world”.

The UAE has joined Oman, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkmenistan in restricting or suspending access for Iranian airlines amid the new US sanctions threat.

Dubai, the UAE’s commercial hub, is a major destination for Iranian carriers, with multiple daily flights, a large Iranian community and close business links.

An Iran Airtour flight from Tehran to Dubai was cancelled shortly before its scheduled departure on Thursday morning, after tickets had already been issued, according to the AFP news agency.

The UAE, which was repeatedly hit by Iranian missiles and drones throughout the US-Israel war on Iran, suspended trade and financial exchanges with Iran last month.

On Wednesday, the UAE’s central bank blocked transactions involving Iran’s Bank Melli, claiming the financial institution had violated rules on money laundering, terrorism and arms proliferation.

The US Treasury announced sweeping sanctions on Iran’s aviation sector earlier this month, targeting 27 airlines and dozens of companies that support them. The measures aim to cut off Iran’s air links entirely, warning that any airport or company still servicing Iranian carriers risks being cut off from the US dollar system.

Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization spokesman Majid Akhavan said: “Diplomatic and aviation talks are under way to remove the restrictions and restore flights” to the UAE.

Akhavan added that Turkmenistan also turned back a flight from Tehran to Dushanbe on Thursday.

“Turkmenistan’s refusal to allow the Iranian aircraft to pass through its airspace meant the flight could not continue on its route and had to return,” Akhavan told the Iranian IRNA news agency.

Several smaller Iranian airlines continue flying to China and Armenia, both of which have resisted US pressure, while routes to Turkiye remain open for some carriers.

When European football’s governing body announced the schedule for its upcoming Nations League competition in February, one fixture became an instant point of contention.

The Republic of Ireland and Israel were allocated the same group in League B of the UEFA Nations League 2026-27, provoking strong opposition from Irish fans, footballers and celebrities due to Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza. It also led to calls for a boycott of the fixture regardless of the consequences.

Seven months on, the Ireland vs Israel game is expected to be played as scheduled but amid vociferous criticism, louder calls for Irish football officials not to send a team to the game and bitter Israeli responses to the backlash.

What’s happening between Ireland and Israel?

They will play two matches in the space of eight days amid tense political relations  and in the face of increasing opposition from the Irish public.

The fixtures will be played on a home-and-away basis, with Ireland “hosting” its home leg in Debrecen, Hungary, on Sunday, September 27. Israel’s “home” match will be played in Serbia on October 4.

Why does Ireland have to play against Israel?

Ireland and Israel are members of UEFA, European football’s governing body. As UEFA members, and in order to progress to the top tier of European football competitions and improve their rankings in international football, both nations participate in UEFA-run tournaments.

The UEFA Nations League pits closely ranked nations against each other in groups, where all teams face each other twice in round-robin-style matches.

Ireland and Israel were drawn together in Group B3 along with Austria and Kosovo.

Who is leading the calls to boycott the Ireland vs Israel match?

Ever since the fixture was first confirmed on February 12, the Football Association of Ireland has been under pressure to boycott the matches due to Israel’s genocide in Gaza and Ireland’s status as a Palestine ally.

In May, leading Irish footballers joined celebrities in a campaign by Irish Sport for Palestine, urging Ireland to boycott the match against Israel. A United Nations inquiry confirmed in June 2025 that Israel was committing a genocide in Gaza.

The campaign group says Israel has breached UEFA and FIFA statutes by allowing teams to play on occupied Palestinian land and should be stripped of its membership at both football bodies.

Last November, 93 percent of FAI members voted for its leadership to pressure UEFA to suspend Israel under those statutes, a mandate campaigners say the Irish governing body should “respect and represent”.

The letter, entitled “Stop the Game”, was signed by League of Ireland players, former men’s coach Brian Kerr and twice women’s player of the year Louise Quinn.

The letter includes a statement from Shamrock Rovers captain and Professional Footballers’ Association of Ireland (PFA) chair, Roberto Lopes.

International rights organisations have also called on UEFA and FIFA to exclude Israel from its competitions.

“It’s unconscionable that Israel will participate despite clear evidence that Israel’s football association continues to support illegal settlements,” Amnesty International said in a statement.

“When rules are broken, when occupation, apartheid and genocide are ongoing, we cannot look the other way,” it added.

What have Ireland’s officials said about the match?

Ireland’s Prime Minister Micheal Martin gave a green light to the matches, citing the challenges of mixing sport and politics.

“We have been critics and have opposed very strongly Israeli government policy within Gaza in particular. We condemned the Hamas attack on Israel, which was absolutely horrific,” ‌‌the Taoiseach told The Irish Times.

“I think sport is an area that can be challenging when it crosses into the realm of politics.”

In February, FAI Chief Executive David Courell said the national team had no choice but ‌‌to ‌‌fulfil its obligations or risk harming the long-term sporting interests of Irish football, including potential disqualification from future competitions.

Last week, Ireland manager Heimir Hallgrimsson responded to the boycott calls, saying his team were not “playing with genocide”.

“We’re playing against genocide,” Hallgrimsson said.

What is the public sentiment in Ireland?

The rights groups calling for a boycott of the match have cited several public polls, run by local newspapers, footballers’ bodies and individuals online, which indicate that a vast majority are in favour of opting out of the Nations League fixtures.

A poll by the PFA in February showed that 63 percent of those surveyed did not want Ireland to play the fixtures. A similar poll by the Irish Mirror newspaper indicated that 71 percent of the public would support the FAI if they refused to play the game.

Bohemian FC, an Irish football club with a strong pro-Palestine stance, have thrown their weight behind the calls for a boycott and have urged the FAI to call off their participation.

Bohemian’s Director of Football Pat Fenlon believes it is up to the FAI to “take a stand for what’s happening in Gaza”.

“What an opportunity it would be to be the first country to stand up and say this is totally wrong,” Fenlon told Irish Sport for Palestine.

“The game shouldn’t be played,” he said.

According to officials at the club, the Irish public is aware of the potential consequences but believe that boycotting is “the right thing to do”.

“It is not acceptable to put a price on standing up for what is right and in solidarity with the Palestinian people,” the club’s communications director Luke O’Rodrian told Al Jazeera.

He accused the FAI of showing “sheer cowardice”.

O’Rodrian said the boycott calls have been supported by trade unions representing workers, particularly those employed by the FAI, the PFA and the Irish Football Supporters Partnership, who represent Ireland’s football supporters.

In the country’s political sphere, Mary Lou McDonald, leader of Ireland’s main opposition party Sinn Fein, has also called for the FAI to “do the right thing by its players” by telling them not to take the field.

How did Israel respond?

The Israeli FA responded to Hallgrimsson’s statement on Monday by saying: “We are not playing with ignorance, hypocrisy and stupidity; we’re playing against the coach who embodies them”.

Martin defended Hallgrimsson, describing Israel’s remarks as “unacceptable”, adding that “Israel can’t keep denying what the world knows”.

Why are the matches being played in Hungary and Serbia?

The first leg of the fixture will be held at the Nagyerdei Stadion in Debrecen, Hungary, and the second, which is Ireland’s “home” game, will be played at the TSC Arena in Backa Topola, Serbia.

Israel has not played an international fixture at home since September 2023 as it has been barred by UEFA from hosting teams due to security concerns.

While the October 4 fixture was scheduled to be held in Dublin, the FAI moved it following the protests and boycott calls. That game will be played behind closed doors.

Irish state broadcaster RTE, which ‌‌has ‌‌contractual obligations to show the games, will provide stripped-back coverage.

There will be no studio presentation or punditry and commentary will be taken from the international feed. RTE has not taken advertising or sponsorship around either game.

What would happen if Ireland boycotted the match?

UEFA does not have a fixed fine for refusing to play a Nations League match, and forfeiting teams could face a mix of fines, point penalties and forfeitures.

Officials at Bohemian FC pointed towards a recent report in the Irish Examiner newspaper, which highlighted that the punishment given to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia when they refused to fulfil recent UEFA fixtures against Belarus was a 3-0 walkover and, in one case, a fine of 5,000 euros ($5,684).

O’Rodrian said there was “real anger” among grassroots towards the FAI.

“The FAI exaggerated the potential consequences to force their delegates to vote in favour of proceeding with fulfilling these fixtures,” he said.

Meanwhile, Bohemians’ Director of Football Fenlon believed such a stance would always come at a cost.

“[They are] talking about losing money, about losing points and punishment, but we’re talking about more than 20,000 children killed [in Gaza],” he said.

“There will be a cost. Stand on the right side. We shouldn’t be playing Israel in anything.”

Tehran, Iran – Travel is becoming increasingly difficult for Iranian civilians as United States sanctions shut domestic airlines out of much of the world’s airspace and international carriers continue to avoid the country.

The US Department of the Treasury designated 27 airlines on September 8, covering the remaining Iranian carriers that had not previously been sanctioned by Washington. Major names like Iran Air and Mahan are among those already heavily sanctioned, but have continued limited operations.

Recent designations have also targeted individuals and entities linked to aviation support and procurement in the United Arab Emirates, Turkiye, China, India, the United Kingdom, Malaysia and elsewhere.

Airports and companies that provide Iranian-operated aeroplanes with fuel, landing services, or ticket sales risk secondary US sanctions that could cut them off from the US financial system, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Monday. It is the latest attempt to squeeze Iran and force it to make concessions amid the US-Israel war on Iran.

Wednesday marked the expiry of a short wind-down period allowing countries to stop servicing Iranian carriers, leading to the cancellation of all but a handful of Iranian flights to Turkiye, UAE and China.

Aviation authorities in several neighbouring countries that had continued to allow Iranian airlines to use their airspace and airport services would no longer be providing them, including Oman, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. In Iraq, Baghdad Airport was declared off-limits to Iranian carriers, but flights to Najaf Airport were still operating on Wednesday.

Many flights between Iran and major transit hubs in Turkiye and the UAE had already been suspended because of the war and sanctions. International airlines have also largely stopped flying to Iran, with Turkish Airlines suspending flights until at least March 2027, and Qatar Airways, Emirates, and Lufthansa’s operations also suspended.

‘A new level’ of sanctions

Iran-based aviation and transit expert Mohammadreza Ebrahimpour said years of US sanctions had already forced Iranian airlines to rely on third countries and work with smaller firms to get fuel or services. Obtaining spare parts needed to keep Iran’s ageing aircraft flying has also become increasingly difficult.

But the decision by aviation authorities in neighbouring countries to formally refuse services to Iranian airlines constituted “a new level of sanctions in action” that could have longer-lasting consequences, he told Al Jazeera.

Ebrahimpour said the US had also effectively prohibited international airlines from flying through Iranian airspace by suspending authorisations for some US-origin aircraft to fly to Iran and limiting US-linked overflight payments.

“This is a big blow because payments for overflights were one of the most lucrative parts of [Iran’s] aviation industry, which could act as a support for developing infrastructure and the overall industry,” Ebrahimpour said, adding that Iran earned more than $300m a year from this.

Beyond the effect on civilian passengers and the import of some goods, the measures could put tens of thousands of jobs at risk across the aviation sector and related industries, including tourism and hospitality.

Ebrahimpour pointed out that the International Civil Aviation Agency and other organisations have failed to offer any tangible protection to Iran’s aviation industry during years of sanctions. Iranian authorities, he said, would likely consider China and Russia among the few countries potentially able to provide assistance.

The two countries have rejected US sanctions against Iran, although some of their more globally connected financial networks and companies have, at times, distanced themselves from Iran to avoid secondary sanctions.

Under pressure from all fronts

The flight cancellations have pushed thousands of travellers towards land crossings, particularly those with Turkiye and Armenia, where onward international flights remain available for Iranians. Heavy congestion has been reported in recent days at the Bazargan and Razi border crossings with Turkiye and along land routes to the Armenian capital Yerevan.

But everyday passenger travel overland into Azerbaijan remains restricted, with Azerbaijan’s government citing internal security and COVID-19 restrictions. As a result, Iranians cannot cross overland into Azerbaijan to catch a flight there.

The Shalamcheh and Chazabeh border crossings with Iraq were also temporarily closed earlier this month, leaving travellers stranded, before reopening to passengers on September 13.

For thousands of Iranians attempting to travel, the flight suspensions mean significantly longer journeys. Some members of the Iranian diaspora have expressed concern online that the lingering effects of war and sanctions could potentially prevent them from visiting parents and other family members in Iran.

Bus tickets from Iran to Turkiye have reportedly sold for quadruple their normal price on the black market amid surging demand.

Some of the people making the journey are young Iranians who are attempting to take international language tests that are not allowed to be administered inside Iran due to sanctions. The tests are often a prerequisite for anyone planning to study, work, or settle abroad.

Iranian academics have also expressed concern about growing isolation from the international academic community. Numerous universities across the globe, including in Norway, Australia, Singapore, Estonia and elsewhere, have in recent weeks rejected postgraduate and research applications from Iranians as a result of US education sanctions.

At the same time, many of Iran’s roughly 90 million people are currently unable to afford international travel – or even domestic flights – as the country’s economic conditions worsen.

The Trump administration has portrayed the war and sanctions as measures directed at the Iranian authorities.

The US Treasury has said its aviation restrictions are intended to disrupt the use of Iranian commercial aviation for weapons procurement and transportation, including activities linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). But the designation of entire airlines under “Operation Economic Outcast”, after nearly seven months of war, has also had sweeping consequences for affected civilians.

Iran’s international aviation network was already badly damaged prior to the latest package of sanctions. Aviation analytics company Cirium reported that international capacity in August 2026 was 49 percent lower than in August 2025, despite a modest recovery from July.

The latest flight cancellations are also expected to further disrupt imports by air at a time when the US naval blockade of Iran’s southern ports in the Strait of Hormuz has constrained maritime trade routes, while war and sanctions have caused disruptions and delays to road and rail cargo routes.

Some of Iran’s medical imports enter the country by air, raising concerns that the latest aviation restrictions could place more pressure on an already struggling healthcare sector. A domestic pharmaceutical company executive told Al Jazeera earlier this month that the cost of some imported supplies, some of which arrived by air, had risen as much as 10-fold as a result of sanctions, wider economic pressure, and war damage.

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Wednesday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian accused the Trump administration of “bullying”.

“They have tested Iran’s resilience, and now they know full well that Iran cannot be forced to surrender through war,” Pezeshkian said.

Iran’s aviation officials negotiate with Oman and Iraq as Secretary Bessent targets carriers seven months into the conflict.

Flights from Iran to Baghdad and Muscat will be cancelled starting at midnight ahead of new United States sanctions taking effect Wednesday, Tasnim News Agency reported.

A spokesman for Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization told the news agency on Tuesday that the agency is “negotiating so that flights whose destination is Baghdad can be redirected to [Iraq’s] Najaf Airport”.

Iran’s ISNA news agency reported that negotiations with Oman were likewise ongoing, adding that all remaining international flights, including those to Istanbul, will operate as scheduled.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Monday that all Iranian airlines would be shut down on September 23 through the threat of secondary sanctions on aviation service providers, seven months into the war between the US and Iran.

Bessent told CNBC that when Iranian carriers land at an airport, “you cannot provide them with fuel, you cannot provide them with landing services, you cannot sell them tickets, or you will be knocked out of the dollar system”.

The move marks the latest step in Washington’s expanding sanctions campaign against Tehran. Aviation analysts told Al Jazeera that although the US lacks authority to close foreign airspace, targeting local refuelling and ground-handling providers achieves a similar outcome by cutting off essential operational support.

Earlier this month, the US issued stricter measures administered by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), placing restrictions on trade, energy and financial institutions.

The administration of President Donald Trump also expanded secondary sanctions in late August, warning that foreign firms doing business with Iran across shipping, technology, gold and digital assets face penalties of their own.

Tehran, however, signalled on Saturday that it remains open to talks mediated by Qatar to reach a long-term resolution, while maintaining a combative stance towards Washington.

“It is in Washington’s interest to accept these conditions,” Mohsen Rezaei, Iran’s security chief, told Al Jazeera in an interview last week. “Trump’s threats will not achieve any results. We are prepared for a decisive war.”

Measures targeting the court itself could disrupt payments, IT services and investigations.

The Trump administration is reportedly preparing sweeping sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC) that could disrupt the tribunal’s finances and day-to-day operations.

The US sanctions would prohibit most transactions with the ICC after a grace period of six to seven months, The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday.

The move would mark a sharp escalation in Washington’s campaign against the Hague-based court by targeting the institution itself rather than individual judges and prosecutors.

The Trump administration plans to announce the sanctions soon, according to the Reuters news agency, quoting two sources familiar with the matter.

The Journal, citing anonymous officials, said a decision could be finalised during this week’s United Nations General Assembly gathering in New York or soon afterwards.

If imposed, the measures would generally bar US citizens and companies from providing the ICC with money, goods or services without a licence from the US Treasury.

Banks and other companies often take an especially cautious approach to US sanctions because they rely on access to the American financial system.

The ICC president and registrar have previously warned that sanctions on the organisation as a whole could interfere with its ability to buy information technology and insurance services, hire investigators and make routine payments, including salaries for American employees.

The ICC was created in 2002 to prosecute individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity when national authorities are unable or unwilling to do so.

Washington has already sanctioned more than a dozen ICC judges and prosecutors under an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in February 2025.

In August, it added the court’s President Tomoko Akane and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye to the list, with restrictions on them taking effect on September 17.

The United States has never joined the court.

The Trump administration says the court has exceeded its authority by pursuing officials from countries that are not ICC members.

Relations deteriorated sharply after the court issued arrest warrants in November 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Israel, like the US, is not an ICC member and rejects the court’s jurisdiction.

Washington has also objected to an earlier ICC investigation into alleged abuses in Afghanistan involving US personnel.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a campaign in July to further isolate the court and urged other countries to withdraw from it.

Trump’s move adds to growing opposition to the ICC in recent months.

Chad and Venezuela moved in July to withdraw from the court, following Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger.

Four US-based rights groups sued the Trump administration in August, arguing that existing sanctions obstruct their legal and human rights work.

Thousands take to the streets in support of Houthis in Sanaa, Trump extends sanctions on Iran.

Israeli politicians reacted to sanctions by states including the United Kingdom, France, and Canada on the country’s illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank with self-righteous anger. But what is the latest example of Israel’s international isolation brought on by its treatment of the Palestinian people has not been influential in swaying the electorate in the run-up to October’s elections, analysts tell Al Jazeera.

Responding to the UK Foreign Minister Ed Miliband’s accusation that Israelis were ethnically cleansing the occupied West Bank, Israel’s Gideon Saar accused his counterpart of spreading “outrageous lies” and attempting to interfere in the election through foreign pressure.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog also condemned the measures, branding them a “gross interference in the democratic elections” of Israel.

But, in reality, the majority of Jewish Israelis have supported their country’s genocidal war in Gaza and the occupation of the West Bank.

A poll from August, published as the death toll for Palestinians killed in the West Bank had already reached 76 this year, showed that more than half of Jewish Israelis supported retaining the illegal settlements as part of any future agreement on a Palestinian state, while nearly 40 percent supported annexing the territory in defiance of international law.

“People just don’t care that settlements are illegal,” Israeli political analyst Ori Goldberg said.

”Ed Miliband expressed a number of laudable sentiments when announcing the measures,” Goldberg said, referencing the UK foreign secretary’s references to his own Jewish heritage when announcing the cessation of trade with Israel’s illegal outposts. “But we’re at the stage where Israelis aren’t even interested in the truth so much as they are the sentiment.”

Little political impact

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu goes into the elections at serious risk of losing, with many polls predicting that a coalition of parties opposed to him could win the majority in Israel’s parliament.

But it will not be issues like the settlement-related sanctions that will lose him votes, analysts said.

Public backing for the “government and opposition blocs are pretty hardened, and nobody is going to switch from one side to the other over sanctions arising from [the settlements],” Michael Koplow, chief policy officer at the Israeli Policy Forum, said. He added that the sanctions were unlikely to weigh as heavily with the electorate as “this government’s record and the related feelings people have about Netanyahu”.

“When people were asked what would determine their vote, security came first,” Israeli sociologist Yehouda Shenhav-Shahrabani said.

“I think there are several mechanisms operating simultaneously,” he added.

First, he said, is the normalisation of the settlements. In Israeli public discourse, the occupied West Bank is increasingly referred to by the biblical name “Judea and Samaria” – a shift he said was becoming institutionalised.

“Second, external sanctions don’t necessarily translate into domestic political costs,” Shenhav-Shahrabani said. “And perhaps most importantly, politically foreign pressure can be absorbed into an existing Israeli narrative [of anti-Semitism] rather than [changing how the issue itself is understood].”

No criticism of the voters

None of Israel’s most prominent politicians has criticised the government for its support of the settlements in defiance of international condemnation. Yair Lapid, a former prime minister and one of Netanyahu’s leading opponents, has, instead, focused his ire on the countries condemning Israel. “Imposing boycotts and sanctions on Israel is a grave mistake,” he said. “This is a wrong and dangerous policy, at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons.”

Another of Netanyahu’s principal rivals, Gadi Eisenkot – whose Yashar Party manifesto does not mention either the West Bank or Gaza – has declined to speak on the sanctions directly. Netanyahu has also yet to comment on the sanctions publicly, despite his Likud party having championed settlement expansion for decades.

“The sanctions haven’t particularly hurt Netanyahu, at least not as far as we can see in terms of direct influence on … polling,” said Dahlia Scheindlin, a pollster and public opinion researcher based in Tel Aviv.

Instead, the focus has been on other elements of an eventful electoral cycle, including the emergence of new challengers to Netanyahu on the right.

“We aren’t seeing any real backlash from the sanctions,” Scheindlin said. “Instead, it’s just getting filtered through what people already think of him – his critics dislike him even more, and his supporters basically say, ‘Well, the world hates us no matter what.’”

CAPE TOWN, South Africa — The Trump administration has announced that it will impose travel bans on officials it claims are responsible for discrimination against whites and other minority groups in South Africa.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Tuesday he would revoke U.S. visas or reject visa applications from foreign nationals found to be responsible for, or complicit in, enacting or enforcing laws and policies that allow for uncompensated land seizures, race-based discrimination and the incitement of violence against minority ethnic and racial groups in South Africa.

“The United States will not allow such behavior to go unchecked,” Rubio said in a statement. “These actions directly undermine peace, economic stability, and the rule of law, and they are incompatible with the pillars of America’s foreign policy.”

The South African government has strongly rejected U.S. allegations of discrimination against whites, calling the claims made by the administration since President Trump returned to office last year baseless and a result of misinformation.

It’s the latest U.S. move to sanction South Africa

Rubio did not identify any officials who would be targeted with the travel restrictions, though a lobby group for minority whites in South Africa has previously called for the U.S. to sanction officials of the African National Congress party, the party of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and the largest in South Africa’s Parliament.

It’s the latest move by the Trump administration to sanction South Africa over its claims that whites, and especially the Afrikaner group, are being discriminated against by their Black-led government. Afrikaners are descended from mainly Dutch and French colonial settlers who first came to South Africa in the 17th century. They were at the heart of South Africa’s previous apartheid system of racial segregation.

There are approximately 4.5 million white people in South Africa’s population of 62 million, which also includes whites with British or other heritage.

The Trump administration casts South Africa as anti-white

The U.S. has cited a contentious South African law that allows for the expropriation of unused private land without compensation in some circumstances, affirmative action policies that advance opportunities for Blacks and others, and a small number of violent crimes against white farmers as evidence of a larger anti-white stance in South Africa.

The Trump administration has also strongly criticized South Africa’s move to accuse U.S. ally Israel of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, in a highly emotive case at the United Nations’ top court. Israel vehemently denies that allegation.

South Africa asks the U.S. to respect its sovereignty

South African Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola said Wednesday that some of the domestic policies that the U.S. had branded as discriminatory were designed to address the injustices of apartheid and hundreds of years of colonial rule before that, when Black people were stripped of their rights.

“South Africa respects that the United States may hold differing views on certain policy measures and their implementation. … The people of South Africa likewise respect the right of the American people to develop legislation that addresses their own circumstances,” Lamola said in a statement. “We expect that the same respect will be accorded to the people of South Africa, as the principle of sovereignty requires.”

The U.S. says more sanctions will follow

The U.S. has enforced a series of other sanctions against South Africa during Trump’s second term for purported anti-white and anti-American policies. They include barring South African officials from meetings of the Group of 20 economic bloc this year in the U.S., and phasing out aid for South Africa’s HIV treatment program.

The U.S. has also launched a refugee program for Afrikaners and other whites, claiming baselessly that they are victims of a humanitarian emergency in South Africa.

The U.S. says the sanctions are because South Africa has not changed its policies, and warned of more to follow.

“This visa restriction policy is only the first step in a series of escalatory measures that will show America’s firm resolve in this matter,” the official U.S. Ambassador to South Africa account posted on X, referring to Rubio’s visa announcement.

Imray writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.

Clippers owner Steve Ballmer released a lengthy statement Sunday night apologizing to fans and accepting the findings of an NBA investigation of salary cap violations.

“This has been a very difficult time for everybody associated with the Clippers, and for that, I have sincere regrets,” Ballmer said in the statement released 11 days after the NBA first sanctioned the owner and his team. “I want to apologize to our fans, employees, and my fellow NBA team owners for the distraction and distress this matter has caused, for which I accept responsibility as principal owner.”

The NBA handed down stiff penalties to Ballmer and the Clippers after the law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz found “a pattern of misconduct and multiple significant rules violations” that benefited Clippers star Kawhi Leonard.

The investigation found Leonard received $66 million in cash and equity from four companies facilitated by Ballmer and Clippers executives at the behest of Dennis Robertson, Leonard’s uncle and then-agent. Ballmer invested $60 million in Aspiration Partners, while Boingo Wireless, Daktronics and Lockton Insurance received $22 million from the Clippers in consulting fees.

The Clippers initially protested and vowed to use all means available to contest sanctions that included banning Ballmer from all league activities for a year, fining the team $30 million and taking away five first-round draft picks in the 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032 and 2033 drafts.

Leonard previously agreed to pay a $700,000 fine and did not contest the sanctions, removing the possibility of the case going to arbitration because the mechanism only exists for players and not teams.

“We are committing to put this chapter behind us,” Ballmer’s statement read. “We have communicated to the NBA that we are complying with the penalties assessed by the league, have paid the fine and are moving forward. While there are still disagreements concerning the findings in the report, this is not where I want to focus. Team owners should support, not distract.”

Two of Ballmer’s top executives were also sanctioned, altering the way the team will have to operate moving forward.

Clippers president of business operations Gillian Zucker was suspended without pay for one year for “being primarily and directly culpable for the impermissible endorsement arrangements and for providing false and misleading statements to investigators.”

Clippers president of basketball operations Lawrence Frank was suspended without pay for six months for “his involvement with the impermissible endorsement arrangements and for approving impermissible expenses incurred by Mr. Leonard and his family.”

Ballmer, however, has assembled a deep front office staff, giving the Clippers a number of options to offset the loss of those who are suspended.

“The challenges ahead of us are significant, but so is our resolve,” Ballmer wrote. “We will continue to build our team and invest in our community. The confidence of our fans is our priority. With our talented roster, outstanding staff and clear vision, I am certain that we will compete at the highest level and be an organization our fans can be proud of.”

The decision to comply with the sanctions rather than attempting to contest them in the court could help resolve one of the biggest outstanding offseason items the Clippers face.

Leonard’s trade to the Toronto Raptors in exchange for forward Brandon Ingram, shooting guard Gradey Dick, two first-round draft picks, a pick swap and two second-round picks was put on hold while both teams awaited investigation results.

With the NBA stripping the Clippers of five future first-round picks, the package they are expected to receive when the Leonard trade is completed would have a substantial impact on their future roster-building options.

KYIV: US President Donald Trump’s administration should impose new sanctions on Russia “now” over recent deadly strikes on Ukraine, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Friday.

“Sanctions need to be imposed now,” Zelensky told the Yalta European Strategy forum. “Honestly, I sometimes do not understand why decisions cannot be made quickly,” he added.

NEW YORK CITY: A UN Security Council committee tasked with overseeing sanctions on Iran remained blocked for a fourth consecutive quarter on Thursday.

Council members traded accusations over the panel’s inertia, against a backdrop of intensifying US-Iran hostilities and a landmark decision by the UN’s nuclear watchdog to refer Tehran back to the council for the first time in 20 years.

The 1737 Sanctions Committee has not met in the year since it was reestablished with the backing of most council members, and no report on its activities was presented during Thursday’s session after China and Russia once again blocked it.

The impasse has also stalled the appointment of experts to a panel, the mandate for which is due to expire on Sept. 27, that is intended to support the sanctions-monitoring work of the committee.

The dispute dates back to August 2025 when France, Germany and the UK triggered a so-called “snapback” mechanism under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, to reimpose pre-2015 UN sanctions on Tehran.

China and Russia dispute the legality of that move, arguing that all sanctions lapsed on Oct. 19, 2025, with the scheduled expiration of the deal, and so the council’s consideration of the Iranian nuclear file was effectively ended.

Against this backdrop of an unresolved procedural fight, the Security Council session on Thursday was dominated by more recent developments: the International Atomic Energy Agency’s formal referral of Iran to the Security Council and the General Assembly this week; and the continuing military exchanges between Iran and the US.

The agency’s board of governors voted 23-3 on Wednesday to refer Iran over its noncompliance with international nuclear safeguards, the first such referral in two decades. China, Niger and Russia voted no and eight countries abstained.

Ambassador Jennifer Locetta, the US alternate representative for special political affairs, told the council that the IAEA “has not received information from Iran regarding the status of its declared nuclear materials or facilities” and has been denied access to carry out verification procedures.

The agency’s director general, Rafael Mariano Grossi, has again urged Tehran to engage constructively with the process, she added. Locetta dismissed Iranian claims that inspections were being blocked as a result of security concerns, noting that “Ukraine has been a worse and more constant war zone” and yet IAEA inspectors had still been able to work there throughout the conflict.

Washington, she said, would “look to partners in the coming days to weigh options” for strengthening the sanctions regime.

China’s deputy permanent representative, Sun Lei, voted against the meeting’s agenda and placed the blame for the deteriorating situation squarely on Washington. He said the US strikes and campaign of “maximum pressure” on Iran were the “primary causes” of the crisis.

A memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran in June was “undermined shortly after it took effect” by renewed military clashes, he added, and Washington had since “intensified unilateral sanctions” and “launched a new round of military strikes” against Tehran.

Beijing, he said, opposed further use of force and called for a return to efforts to reach a political and diplomatic settlement based on “equality and mutual respect.”

France’s ambassador to the UN, Jerome Bonnafont, said Iran’s stockpile of more than 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent had “no credible civilian justification” and was sufficient for about 10 nuclear devices.

He cited the latest report by Grossi as saying the situation “raises an issue of proliferation and should be addressed with the greatest urgency.”

France backed a US-drafted resolution for the renewal of the expert panel’s mandate, Bonnafont added. He called for the full reopening to international shipping of the Strait of Hormuz, and offered a French naval presence there, alongside the UK, to help secure freedom of navigation.

Pakistan’s permanent representative, Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, told the council that the “upsurge of violence in the Middle East in the last few days” was “unsettling for the prospects of peace,” and said Islamabad was engaged in back-channel diplomacy to encourage de-escalation.

He urged “all sides to exercise restraint” and voiced concern over the continuing divisions within the council.

A memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran in June, which paused hostilities and set a 60-day window for a final nuclear agreement, expired on Aug. 17 without any deal.

The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed to international shipping, attacks on vessels have continued, and the US has revoked sanctions waivers on Iranian oil exports. A Security Council vote on renewal of the Iran sanctions expert panel’s mandate is scheduled for Sept. 17.

LONDON: Prominent Israeli figures have welcomed British sanctions against illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, The Guardian reported.

In a joint statement, they described the move as an “inevitable consequence” of their government’s actions.

Sanctions are being imposed “against Jewish terrorists, and not against the legitimacy of the state of Israel,” they said.

“There is no basis to the government’s response that the decision to impose sanctions against Jewish terrorists is an expression of antisemitism.”

Prof. David Harel, British-born president of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities and a signatory to the statement, said the measures delivered urgently needed support for liberal Israelis who are trying to stop attacks on Palestinians and end the occupation.

“I personally would fight until my last breath against antisemitism and against anti-Israelism,” he told The Guardian. “But what is justified, and I do support, is being anti things that Israel is doing, and these days in particular what it is doing in the West Bank.

“Getting out of there (occupied Palestine), or, at least for the present, stopping these things from happening and starting to really talk about a two-state solution is not only good for the Palestinians. It’s not that we’re doing these poor people a favour. We’re doing a favour to ourselves, no less, maybe even more.”

Signatories to the statement include former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert; former commander of the Israeli military Dan Halutz; former ministers Yuli Tamir and Roni Bar-On; and former Ambassador to Germany Yoram Ben Zeev.

They wrote: “This decision is precisely what the state of Israel should have received in order to remove the disgrace of Jewish terrorism from the face of the country.”

Former diplomat Nadav Tamir also said the sanctions are good for Israel. “Any move to prevent annexation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in the West Bank (and Gaza) is serving the long-term interests of the Zionist vision of Israel as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people,” he added. “It will help us to be more secure and moral.”

Avraham Burg, a former parliament speaker, said “like many Israelis and Palestinians, I am grateful for the courageous moral leadership” of UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband. “It’s a good beginning. Do not stop.”

Fourteen Israeli human rights organizations — including B’Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights Israel and Breaking the Silence — welcomed the sanctions.

“This is an important and necessary first step to meet states’ legal obligation,” they said in a statement. “We urge the international community to take further concrete measures to ensure that its relations with Israel no longer enable Israel’s settlement enterprise, forced displacement and ethnic cleansing in the occupied West Bank, or its broader assault on Palestinian human rights across all territories under its control.”

“It’s terrible for Israel and for Israel’s future, it’s not what Judaism teaches and it’s deeply wrong”, he added.

Supported by other Rabbis in the liberal and progressive UK Jewish communities, Rabbi Wittenberg believes that it is possible to support Israel, be concerned for the safety of British Jews, and that it is right for the UK government to take action to protect Israelis and Palestinians.

However, he also said he was “extremely sad that it’s come to this” and that he shared the “concerns of the Jewish community leadership that people will use this for antisemitism and for demonising Israel even further”.

Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis, who represents the Orthodox community, previously said the sanctions marked a “truly dark day” and placed British Jews at greater risk of attacks.

In Golders Green – where ambulances run by a Jewish medical charity were set on fire and two visibly Jewish men were stabbed in what police called a terror attack earlier this year – there was concern the government’s actions against Israel would increase attacks against British Jews.

“It’s so tricky because, in principle, I agree with opposing these new settlements,” Michael Cohen, who works for a Jewish charity, told the BBC.

But he added: “The timing of it, I think, was completely… just self interest for the Labour Party, signalling before a by-election, before the party conference.”

He said the practical impact of the move would be “almost zero”.

One woman, who runs a jewellery shop that was was twice cordoned off due to incidents in Golders Green, was very critical of the sanctions and said she would “make it my mission” to continue to buy Israeli goods whenever she could.

“We have to [support] our own because no one else is going to”, Deborah Miller told the BBC.

At the end of the week, Jewish congregations will celebrate Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year.

Police are already increasing security around Jewish areas to protect communities who have faced multiple attacks this year and are fearful of more.

The number of antisemitic incidents recorded across the UK since the start of the year is up by a fifth compared to last year, figures show.

The Community Security Trust (CST), an organisation that provides security support to the Jewish community, recorded 1,926 incidents of anti-Jewish hate across the UK in the first six months of 2026.

The Crime Survey for England and Wales, external, estimates that only 44% of hate crime incidents between April 2022 and March 2025 came to the attention of the police.

Caracas, September 9, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The president of Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA, Héctor Obregón, backed the recent agreement with the Trump administration as a “win-win relationship” on Monday.

“We signed Productive Participation Contracts where we put forward crude reserves and qualified personnel. What were we missing? Foreign capital,” he said in an interview with Unión Radio.

Productive Participation Contracts (CPP) are concession-type agreements whereby energy projects are turned over to private corporations which run operations and commercialization while paying a negotiated portion of proceeds to the Venezuelan state.

The recent oil deal, hailed by Trump as “the biggest in history,” will see Venezuela transfer 17 prime oilfields, containing 65 billion in proven crude reserves, to private operator NABEP. The projects are split between extra-heavy crude fields in the Orinoco Oil Belt and mature light- and medium-crude ones in the Lake Maracaibo basin.

Obregón insisted on the mutual benefits, explaining that Venezuela will collect taxes and royalties while the US will be able to supply its domestic demand. Regarding the agreement’s timeline, which the White House has claimed to span 100 years, Obregón stated that the concession is for 25 years but may be renewed for similar periods “as many times as necessary.”

After initially vowing that NABEP would invest US $100 billion in the oilfields, a figure repeated by Venezuelan officials, the Trump administration changed the pledge to “more than $10 billion.” 

According to a White House “fact sheet” on the deal, the US State Department will be able to secure 20 percent of the NABEP’s output at cost and have a right of first refusal over the remaining 80 percent.

Obregón suggested that Washington could secure additional benefits, indicating that a reference $65 barrel would have a $15 “sales discount.” The oil official likewise estimated capital and operational expenditures at $12-15 and stated that NABEP would never secure a smaller portion of proceeds than the Venezuelan state, with the percentage increasing for greenfield projects.

The $19 revenue estimate offered by Venezuelan officials as the government’s take for a reference $65 barrel is significantly lower than the benchmarks established under the 2001 Hydrocarbon Law approved by former President Hugo Chávez and subsequent reforms. Under the previous framework, only PDVSA or PDVSA-majority joint ventures were allowed to operate oilfields, with the Venezuelan state securing as much as $0.80 for every $1 of oil proceeds in the latter case.

NABEP, owned by Venezuelan oil mogul Alejandro Betancourt, will grant a 35 percent stake at no cost to the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital (OSC). Washington will likewise have veto power over NABEP’s board of directors. Betancourt has faced corruption accusations in Venezuela, with authorities issuing an arrest warrant in 2022 that was later dropped. For its part, the Trump administration has sought to halt money laundering investigations against the Venezuelan businessman both in the US and in Switzerland.

Obregón went on to acknowledge that Venezuelan export revenues are currently deposited in a US Treasury account before US officials decide on the disbursement amounts and timings back to Caracas.

“There is a state-to-state agreement to receive Venezuelan funds in Treasury accounts,” he disclosed, echoing Washington’s assertion that its seizure of Venezuelan export proceeds aims to protect them from potential creditor claims. 

“The channeling of revenues through the US Treasury could be considered a protection measure, since there are debt claims against PDVSA and creditors could target our accounts,” he argued.

Neither US nor Venezuelan authorities have disclosed the amount of revenue collected and disbursed back to Caracas. Luigi Pisella, an advisor to Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, claimed that the Trump administration is deducting the costs of its January 3 military operation against Venezuela from the country’s funds.

The costs of goods and services supplied by US-based exporters to Venezuela are also being directly deducted from the funds held in the Treasury accounts.

Apart from controlling export earnings, US officials have publicly participated in a pro-business overhaul of the Caribbean nation’s hydrocarbon law and regulations, including reviewing drafts of the legislation.

The Trump administration has maintained sanctions on the Venezuelan oil industry while issuing licenses for select Western corporations. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright oversaw the signing of agreements with Chevron, Eni, and smaller US-backed energy firms during a visit to Caracas earlier this month.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Philadelphia, USA.

British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband has said the United Kingdom will sanction illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, describing the move as “overdue” and necessary to “salvage” a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

He made the comments on Tuesday as 11 nations joined the UK in supporting or ⁠considering curbs on trade in goods with settlements that are a barrier to a future Palestinian state.

But analysts say the step is far from enough to drive momentum for Palestinian statehood, threatened by ever-expanding settlements in the West Bank and an increasingly hostile Israeli political environment.

Tahani Mustafa, a lecturer in international relations at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera the latest anti-settlement measures are “modest” and unlikely to have a significant impact on ambitions for Palestinian statehood.

“After three decades of breakneck settlement expansion, Palestinian territory is only being held together by its sinews,” said Mustafa. “If what remains is still territorially viable as a state, it is only barely so. Much more decisive action is needed to salvage the two-state solution and a durable lasting solution to the conflict.”

Settlements dividing Palestinian territory

More than 30 years after the Oslo Accords set out a negotiating process aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel has remained the foundation of international efforts to forge peace.

But since the Oslo process began in 1993, the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem, has ballooned from about 260,000 to more than 700,000, according to the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics, posing a glaring roadblock to the plan.

The challenge is not just the raw number of settlers, but their geographic spread. Today, many Israeli settlements are embedded deep inside West Bank areas that would be needed for a contiguous Palestinian state, including near major Palestinian urban centres such as Nablus, Salfit and Hebron.

Israel’s recent E1 settlement plan, which would build thousands of illegal housing units between the Israeli settlement of Maale Adumim and East Jerusalem, is a case in point. The plan would effectively split the West Bank in two and fully sever it from East Jerusalem, which Palestinians seek as their future capital.

Experts have long said Israel will need to dismantle some of its West Bank settlements, as it did in the Gaza Strip in 2005, to make room for a cohesive Palestinian state. But many Israeli settlements, especially those closer to Israel’s pre-war 1967 borders, would likely need to be addressed through land swaps.

“A complete withdrawal from some of the deeply embedded settlements is highly unlikely,” so land swaps would be the only way to create some form of Palestinian “territorial integrity”, Andreas Krieg, associate professor at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera.

However, such an arrangement – under which Israeli settlements close to the pre-1967 borders would become part of Israel and some “northern Arab-Israeli communities would be integrated into a Palestinian state” – would be “highly controversial” and face blowback from multiple communities, said Krieg.

He argued that Israelis would be certain to oppose any forced withdrawal from West Bank settlements, while some “Arab-Israelis may not want to live within a Palestinian state”.

Palestinian citizens of Israel make up approximately 21 percent of Israel’s overall population but are treated as second- or third-class citizens at the institutional level. According to rights groups, several dozen Israeli laws actively discriminate against Palestinian citizens across a number of issues, including education and housing.

Israeli ‘consensus’ against Palestinian state

Beyond the physical obstacle created by settlements is the Israeli political landscape, in which the idea of a Palestinian state has become toxic.

The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to be among the most hardline in Israel’s history on the issue. Netanyahu has emphatically ruled out the prospect of a Palestinian state, while his far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who also oversees Israeli settlements in the West Bank, has celebrated blocking Palestinian statehood as a badge of honour.

The views of Netanyahu’s most influential domestic critics do not deviate much. His top rival in elections slated for October, former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, has promised not to allow the establishment of a Palestinian state. And Naftali Bennett, a Netanyahu rival from the far right, fervently opposes Palestinian statehood.

As for the Israeli public, a June poll by the Council for a Secure America found that only 22 percent of Jewish Israelis favour a two-state solution, while 63 percent oppose it.

“The consensus within Israel, socially and politically, does not allow for any party to make any steps towards a Palestinian state,” said Krieg.

Meanwhile, Israel’s closest ally, the United States, is unlikely to apply significant pressure over Israel’s settlement policy so long as President Donald Trump remains in office for the next two and a half years, he added.

Krieg said a “best-case scenario” is for Israel’s next elected government to reverse some of the country’s recent settlement advances.

John Strawson, professor at the University of East London, said that any new Israeli government is “unlikely to support a Palestinian state”, but that a more moderate Israeli government may at least “stop the ethnic cleansing and other moves which are aimed at making that impossible”.

“Removing Netanyahu is the first step towards a two-state solution,” said Strawson.

Two states are the ‘only alternative to violence’

If the two-state model is still alive at all, it is largely due to pressure from the international community.

More than 150 countries, including the majority of European Union nations, have recognised Palestinian statehood. And several Arab states with whom Israel seeks better ties have indicated Palestinian statehood is a precondition for normalisation with Israel.

Krieg said Tuesday’s move by the UK and the 11 other mostly European nations is an “overdue step in the right direction”, but also “shows the laziness and lack of creativity on the part of the international community to actually think outside the box in terms of a two-state solution”.

Anders Persson, a political scientist specialising in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, said that while the settlement sanctions are concerning to Israel, other previous anti-settlement measures, such as 2013 EU restrictions on funds for Israeli entities operating in occupied Palestinian territory, “changed little on the ground”.

He said the latest sanctions may be “too late” and “too limited … to save the two-state solution”.

Strawson said that while a two-state solution may “seem optimistic”, it is the only alternative to “permanent war and violence”.

Jerusalem: Israel’s President Isaac Herzog warned against British sanctions on settlements in the occupied West Bank, expected to be announced on Tuesday, saying the decision would “fall on the wrong side of history”.

“Later today, we expect to see headlines announcing certain British trade sanctions on Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria,” Herzog said, using the biblical term for the West Bank.

“If this happens – and other nations may join – I believe it will prove to be a grave miscalculation, a decision that will fall on the wrong side of history,” he added.

The expected UK move follows weeks of increasing settler attacks against Palestinians in the occupied territory.

It also comes as the right-wing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ramps up settlement construction in the West Bank, which some western governments fear threatens a two-state solution.

British government minister Pat McFadden said Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband would make a statement to parliament laying out “measures specifically targeted at the expansion of these settlements, which are illegal under international law, in the West Bank”.

He told Sky News that the changes, on which he provided no further detail, would be motivated by “the idea of keeping alive this possibility of seeing a Palestinian state alongside Israel”.

“I think it’s also important to say that Israel is an important trading partner for the UK. This isn’t intended to be a boycott of all Israeli goods.”

UK government ministers have suggested recently that goods coming out of settlements could be subject to trade restrictions as part of the changes.

Herzog on Tuesday said: “Sanctions are not a solution. Dialogue is.”

“I say to all foreign governments: Stop! Step away from the dead-end of sanctions and boycotts. And turn toward constructive dialogue and toward cooperation,” he added.

Israel has since 1967 occupied the West Bank, where more than 500,000 Israelis live in settlements among some three million Palestinians.

With Israel headed to the polls next month, Herzog said the UK move, if announced, “would be a gross interference in the democratic elections of a sovereign nation”.

“It will serve no one. It will directly harm – unfortunately – Palestinians, robbing them of business and employment,” he added.