Saudi Arabia

A deal between the US and Iran could be signed within 48 hours, according to US officials. The agreement would reportedly focus on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and could mark a first step towards broader negotiations.

Al Jazeera’s Marah Ryan has the latest.

The US president says Gulf allies and Tehran urged him to delay planned strikes.

United States President Donald Trump has said that negotiations with Tehran are set to begin on Monday after he decided to hold off on new strikes on Iran in pursuit of a deal.

Trump said on Sunday that a plan was in place for the US to launch “the biggest attack since World War II” against Iran but that he halted it to give diplomacy a chance.

“Obviously, they don’t want to be attacked. They knew the extent of the attack because they saw it forming,” Trump told reporters on board Air Force One on Sunday.

“Now what we’re doing is talking to them in the form of a negotiation. It begins tomorrow afternoon.”

He gave no details about the venue or participants in the talks.

Trump pulled back from threats of an attack on Saturday after saying the “perimeter” of a deal was in place.

In his latest comments, Trump said Iran and US partners Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar had urged him to hold off on the strikes.

“When the allies asked to call it off, you’ve got to sort of say, ‘Well, let’s see.’ And the reason they ask is they think there’s a deal,” he said.

“There’s a deal on [the Strait of] Hormuz, and then there will be a deal on the nuclear, or you might call it the denuclearisation of Iran.”

He said Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had also urged against the strikes, warning of possible unintended consequences.

“I mean, will they be flooded with people pouring into their country and disaster? A lot of bad things can happen,” Trump said.

Regional diplomacy intensifies

Trump’s announcement came hours after Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi held a second phone call with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, joined by Pakistani Army Commander Asim Munir, to discuss recent diplomatic efforts.

The officials exchanged views on the current situation and on “initiatives aimed at maintaining and strengthening security and stability” in West Asia, Araghchi said in a Telegram post. They also stressed the need to use regional cooperation and political solutions, he added.

Earlier on Sunday, Iran’s official news agency IRNA reported that negotiations between Tehran and Oman over the Strait of Hormuz were in their final stages, citing Araghchi.

Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said the negotiations focused on agreeing to a new route through the strait, adding that this had “no link to the Strait of Hormuz being opened or closed. That is a separate discussion”.

The war began on February 28, when the US and Israel launched surprise strikes against Iran, although months of on-and-off diplomacy have led to periods of relative calm.

A previous ceasefire deal, which included the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital conduit for global energy supplies, fell through. Iran has since tightened its control over the waterway as the two countries resumed attacks against each other in recent weeks.

Oil prices fall as escalation fears ease

Oil prices dropped sharply in early trading after Trump abandoned plans for a new military operation against Iran, easing fears of further disruption to Gulf energy supplies.

Brent futures were down $4.08, or 4.64 percent, at $83.85 a barrel on Sunday. West Texas Intermediate lost $4.01, or 4.74 percent, to trade at $80.66, according to the Reuters news agency.

The decline reversed part of last month’s surge, when both benchmarks gained more than 20 percent as renewed US-Iran fighting and attacks on commercial vessels near Oman intensified concerns over shipping through the region.

Saudi Arabia’s crown prince spoke to Donald Trump about the deepening crisis between Washington and Tehran, urging a renewed push for dialogue over further military escalation, hours before the United States president halted his latest attacks on Iran.

The Saudi Press Agency (SPA) reported on Sunday that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) spoke to Trump by phone and “stressed the need to prioritise dialogue to reduce escalation and the importance of making every possible effort to achieve calm that paves the way for diplomatic solutions”.

MBS also highlighted the need to preserve the Gulf’s security and stability and prevent a wider conflict “whose repercussions would affect regional and international security and stability”, SPA added.

Trump announced on his Truth Social platform early on Sunday that he would hold off on new strikes against Iran, citing the outline of a deal to end five months of war.

On Saturday, he had struck a very different note, declaring the US “locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran”, at levels of force not seen “since World War II”.

The reversal capped a day of dramatic swings in tone from Washington, after weeks in which the conflict has repeatedly threatened to widen into a broader Gulf confrontation.

Trump said he was calling off the planned attack only because Iran and other Middle Eastern governments had asked Washington to hold back, insisting “the perimeters of a deal has been agreed to”.

That deal, he wrote, would involve reopening the Strait of Hormuz and ending Iran’s “nuclear threat,” with Israel joining the US “in this commitment”.

Iranian state media quoted military officials dismissing Trump’s claim that Tehran had sought a pause as “nothing but a new lie”, insisting Iranian forces remained on high alert.

‘Keep the dialogue going’

The Saudi crown prince’s intervention, according to a person familiar with the call cited by US media, centred on concern that a major US strike on Iran’s energy infrastructure could trigger Iranian retaliation against Gulf oil and gas facilities.

The kingdom has already faced direct attacks in recent weeks, intercepting drones aimed at its eastern oil facilities and at Riyadh, while Iran-aligned Houthi rebels in Yemen have separately struck Saudi crude infrastructure and threatened a Red Sea naval blockade.

The war began on February 28, when the US and Israel launched strikes aimed at destroying Iran’s missile programme, preventing a nuclear weapon and cutting off support for allied armed groups.

A June ceasefire collapsed within weeks in a dispute over shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway carrying roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and gas exports, reigniting the fighting in July.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said US strikes had destroyed much of Iran’s navy, air force and missile defences, leaving it without the “conventional shield” it once relied on. “That’s changed the whole dynamic,” he told Fox News, arguing that the US was now approaching negotiations with Iran “from a position of strength, not from a position of weakness.”

Marlin Hardinger, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, said direct Saudi involvement in mediation, alongside Qatar, Pakistan and Oman, appeared to have pushed Trump to reconsider, “letting some of the senior leaders in the region step forward and take charge of this”, as he put it.

Diplomats’ central task now, Hardinger told Al Jazeera, was simply to “keep the dialogue going”.

Mediators in Islamabad and Doha say they are cautiously optimistic that stalled talks could resume within days.

The war in Iran has taken a significant turn even as the memorandum of understanding to stop the fighting is supposed to be in progress.

Saudi Arabia, in coordination with the US, has carried out strikes inside Iraq against armed groups with ties to Iran.

Riyadh accused the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) of attacking its oil facilities.

The strikes have ignited fears of an escalation.

Now, the PMF is promising to retaliate.

And one of its factions has given the Iraqi government a week to respond to the Saudi attacks.

What could happen if it does not?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Ahmed Rushdi – President of the House of Iraqi Expertise Foundation, a policy think tank and research organisation

Ahmed al-Maimouni – Head of research at the Rasanah International Institute of Iranian Studies

Muhanad Seloom – Assistant professor in critical security studies at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies

Saudi Arabia has hosted the last two Asian Champions League Elite finals and has now been confirmed for the next three.

Saudi ‌Arabia will organise the next three ⁠editions ⁠of the Asian Champions League Elite finals after the Asian Football Confederation’s ⁠executive committee confirmed the country’s provisional hosting rights had been made permanent.

The Saudis have hosted the first two editions of the event, which sees the quarterfinals, semifinals and final played in ‌a centralised venue, since the continent’s premier club competition was restructured before the 2024/2025 season.

Jeddah-based outfit Al-Ahli have won the title on the two occasions the city has hosted the ⁠finals, defeating Japan’s Kawasaki ⁠Frontale in 2025 before beating Machida Zelvia, also from Japan, in May.

The upcoming edition of the tournament, which ⁠features the domestic champions of the leading competitions from ⁠the region, will ⁠see the league phase expanded from 24 to 32 teams.

The qualifying rounds will start on August 11, ‌with the draw for the league phase to be held in Kuala Lumpur ‌on ‌August 18 and play commencing on September 14.

Saudi Pro League side Al-Ahli completed their back-to-back victories with a 1-0 win after extra time against Machida Zelvia, of the Japanese J1 League, in last year’s final.

Fellow Saudi Pro League side Al-Hilal are the record winners of the competition with four wins from nine appearances in the final – which is also a record.

Japan’s Urawa Red Diamonds and South Korea’s Pohang Steelers have each lifted the trophy twice, having both appeared in the final on three occasions.

Nearly eight decades after the establishment of Israel, the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state remains the defining question of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Wars have been fought, peace treaties signed and diplomatic initiatives launched, yet this central strategic issue remains unresolved.

Today, Saudi Arabia is at the forefront of the efforts to establish a Palestinian state and deliver a lasting peace arrangement with Israel. Its commitment to the issue is made clear by its decision to cosponsor the creation of the Global Alliance for the Implementation of the Two-State Solution in 2024, which is currently meeting in Rome.

King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman are following in the footsteps of successive Saudi monarchs. For more than half a century, the kingdom has maintained a remarkably consistent position. The question has never been whether peace with Israel is possible, but whether the political conditions required to make such a peace comprehensive, legitimate and irreversible were present.

Within that framework, recognition of Israel and the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state are parallel components of a single settlement. Neither is intended to precede the other.

That doctrine originated under King Faisal, who made Palestinian self-determination a central pillar of Saudi national security policy. His successors preserved the principle while adapting its diplomatic expression to changing regional realities. The objective remained constant even as the diplomatic environment evolved.

The Fahd Plan of 1981 – named after King Fahd – translated that doctrine into a formal peace proposal calling for Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab territories and recognition of Palestinian national rights. Two decades later, the Crown Prince and later King Abdullah expanded the same strategic logic through the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. Israel was offered comprehensive peace and normal relations with the Arab world in return for withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967 and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

The current Saudi leadership therefore inherits an established strategic doctrine rather than an unresolved policy debate. Their responsibility is to determine whether today’s diplomatic environment can finally satisfy conditions that have remained fundamentally unchanged for decades.

That continuity also reflects a broader question of state legitimacy. For the Saudi monarchy, support for Palestinian statehood has never been solely a matter of foreign policy. It has become one of the enduring pillars of the kingdom’s political and religious legitimacy, rooted in the monarch’s role as Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and reinforced by the kingdom’s longstanding position within both the Arab and Islamic worlds.

The significance of that continuity became clearer after the Abraham Accords of 2020. By establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, later joined by Morocco and Sudan, the accords demonstrated that Arab-Israeli normalisation could advance without progress on Palestinian statehood. They reshaped regional diplomacy, but they neither resolved the Palestinian question nor completed the wider peace process.

Successive US administrations have regarded Saudi participation as the decisive missing element. The Abraham Accords could expand without Riyadh, but they could not acquire their full strategic significance without the kingdom’s participation.

The Trump administration has once again placed Saudi-Israeli normalisation at the centre of its regional diplomacy. But this diplomatic push has to be evaluated in the larger post-October 7 context.

The war in Gaza created an entirely new diplomatic environment. The subsequent ceasefire initiative and the establishment of the Board of Peace introduced a framework intended to end the conflict, stabilise the territory and begin reconstruction. Their significance lies not in replacing a political settlement, but in creating conditions under which one might become possible.

For the kingdom, however, the essential political requirement remains unchanged: the actual and irreversible establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.

That position rests upon mutually reinforcing political, religious and economic foundations. The monarch governs not only as head of state but also as Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, a responsibility carrying religious authority throughout the Islamic world. Any decision concerning recognition of Israel would therefore require both political approval and broad religious legitimacy. Such legitimacy could not credibly rest upon promises of future negotiations. It would require the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.

The kingdom’s wider influence reinforces that position. It is by far the Arab world’s largest economy, representing about one-third of total Arab economic output. The kingdom is the only regional member of the G20, one of the world’s leading energy superpowers and the world’s leading crude oil exporter. It is also the Middle East’s principal economic engine. Combined with its religious standing, these factors give Saudi decisions consequences extending far beyond bilateral diplomacy.

The implications would reach well beyond the kingdom itself. Several major Arab states, including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Algeria, have not recognised Israel. Their decisions are sovereign, but a Saudi-Israeli settlement founded upon Palestinian statehood would nevertheless transform the political environment in which those decisions are made.

Lebanon illustrates the point. Washington is encouraging Beirut to move towards formal relations with Israel as part of a broader effort to stabilise the Israeli-Lebanese frontier. The domestic political cost of such a decision, however, would look fundamentally different after a Saudi-backed settlement based upon Palestinian statehood than before one.

The same logic extends across the wider Muslim world. Major influential countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia have withheld recognition of Israel because the Palestinian question remains unresolved. A settlement accepted by the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and accompanied by the establishment of a Palestinian state would compel those governments to follow. It would remove the principal political and religious obstacles to reconsidering their positions.

This is what ultimately distinguishes Saudi Arabia from the earlier Abraham Accords. Saudi Arabia’s participation would be different in kind, not merely in scale, carrying political, economic and religious significance across the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Whether the current diplomatic process can ultimately reach that point remains uncertain. Israel, the Palestinians, the United States, the European Union and certain regional governments all have indispensable roles to play. The final Saudi decision, however, rests with King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Within the strategic framework they have inherited, Palestinian statehood and recognition of Israel are not sequential steps but parallel obligations. Neither can acquire lasting legitimacy without the other.

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

The US and Saudi Arabia launched joint air strikes on Iraq, targeting ‘Iran-aligned’ groups after drone attacks targeted US forces in the region and Saudi oil facilities. Saudi Arabia says it acted in self-defence, while Iraq’s Popular Mobilisation Forces reported at least 20 killed.

The Houthis recently declared a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea, targeting several tankers.

Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi group says it has fired ballistic missiles at a Saudi oil tanker, more than a week after imposing a naval blockade on Saudi vessels in the Red Sea.

In a post on X, Yahya Saree, the Houthi military spokesman, said the group had “carried out a military operation targeting the Saudi oil tanker (NCC GHAZAL) for violating the maritime navigation ban” that the group had imposed on Saudi vessels.

He added that the group had used several ballistic missiles and forced the vessel to retreat.

The UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), a maritime security monitor, said a tanker reported an explosion while transiting the Red Sea, adding that the crew is safe and no environmental damage was reported.

The Houthis seized the capital Sanaa in 2014 and have fought the internationally recognised Yemeni government, which Saudi Arabia backs, for more than a decade.

On July 20, the Houthis announced their maritime blockade, accusing Saudi leaders of imposing “an unjust and oppressive siege” on Yemen for nearly 12 years, “plundering our resources and imposing a comprehensive blockade”.

It went on to affirm “the right of our great people to respond to the blockade with a blockade”.

Second attack

The Houthis have also claimed an attack on two Saudi oil tankers transiting the Red Sea last week.

“We targeted two Saudi oil tankers, named Encelia and Layla, for their violation of the blockade decision issued by the armed forces,” Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree said on July 22.

The Saudi Press Agency reported that the Encelia had been hit, citing an official source at Saudi Arabia’s Transport General Authority who said all crew members were safe.

The Bab al-Mandeb chokepoint connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden is one of the world’s most important shipping routes, including for oil exports.

Between Yemen to the northeast and Djibouti and Eritrea in the Horn of Africa to the southwest, the strait is just 29km (18 miles) at its narrowest point, limiting traffic to two channels for inbound and outbound vessels heading to the Suez Canal.

In 2024, about 4.1 billion barrels of crude oil and refined petroleum products passed through the strait – about 5 percent of the global total.

Drones launched at Saudi, Jordan and Iraq suggest Iran, or linked groups, may be testing US as it mulls new strategy.

Saudi Arabia has reported intercepting drones that targeted oil facilities in its eastern province and Riyadh.

Saudi’s Foreign Ministry said it “reserves the right to respond” to the attack, which it attributed to Iran-backed armed groups in Iraq.

Separately, Yemen’s Houthi rebels said in a statement on Monday that they had targeted Saudi crude oil transport infrastructure.

It remains unclear whether the two incidents were coordinated or separate.

The attack comes amid a lull in hostilities between the United States and Iran, with mediators suggesting the chances of a return to negotiations have risen.

Following two weeks of intense hostilities, US officials have spoken of a change in strategy, and Washington has paused strikes on Iran.

Iran has said it has also paused its attacks on US allies across the Gulf region.

However, the drone attacks on Saudi and elsewhere suggest that Tehran may be testing the new US stance, and that the armed groups believed to be linked to Iran are not ready to follow suit.

Aside from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq also reported drone attacks on Monday. Amman said it shot down two drones, while Iraqi security sources reported strikes on camps housing Iranian-Kurdish opposition fighters in the country’s north.

The officials did not identify the source of either attack, but Jordan and northern Iraq were locations in which four US service members were killed over the past fortnight of conflict.

The Houthis announced later on Monday that nine of its fighters had been killed amid escalating military confrontations with Yemeni government forces backed by the Saudi-led coalition in recent days.

Anthony Joshua survives two knock downs by Albania’s Kristian Prenga before winning the fight in the second round.

Former two-time world champion Anthony Joshua recovered from two knockdowns to knock out Kristian Prenga in the second round of a dramatic non-title heavyweight fight in Saudi Arabia.

The fight in Jeddah on Saturday was seen as the British boxer’s final step before setting up a long-awaited showdown against his compatriot Tyson Fury.

It also marked his return to the ring for the first time since a horrific car crash in Nigeria in December, during which Joshua lost two of his best friends and sustained injuries.

Back inside the ring, Joshua was floored by an uppercut inside 30 seconds. He beat the count but looked seriously shaken.

Then Prenga knocked Joshua down again, but the former heavyweight champion rose before the end of the count and survived until the bell in the first round.

A quick end to the fight was expected, but nobody thought it would be Prenga’s.

In the second round, Joshua unleashed a flurry of punches and finished Prenga with a right hook, sending the Albanian through the bottom of the ropes.

The turnaround shocked even heavyweight king Oleksandr Usyk, whose face was caught by TV cameras as he watched from ringside.

The comeback kept alive the possibility of an all-British fight between Joshua and Fury.

Joshua’s manager Eddie Hearn claims his fighter and Fury have signed a contract to meet for the first time later this year, but on the condition that they come through warm-up bouts this weekend.

“I hope the fans will be in for a lovely treat,” Joshua told the crowd about fighting Fury following his win over Prenga.

Fury played his part by coming out of retirement this year and, on Friday, forcing 46-year-old Polish journeyman Mariusz Wach to retire in round seven in Pattaya, Thailand.

Joshua almost blew his part of the claimed contract before showcasing his champion’s fightback spirit.

Prenga brought a 20-1 fight record with 20 KOs into the match-up with Joshua and looked every bit the knockout artist.

Joshua, fighting for the first time since surviving the car crash that killed his friends Sina Ghami and Latif ‘Latz’ Ayodele, acknowledged them straight after improving his fight record to 30-4 (27 KOs).

“It’s more than punch power,” Joshua said of his knockout punch. “That was spirit. That was Latz and Sina. That was the family. You know what I mean? That hurts even talking about it.

“He [Prenga] gave me a good test, but this is what champions do: we rise. We get knocked down and stand up. That is life; that is life’s motto.”

Tehran-backed Houthi forces in Yemen have fired missiles and drones at two of Saudi Arabia’s most strategically important oil facilities on the Red Sea, in a major escalation of the latest simmering regional conflict to be reignited by the war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran.

But the skies over the country at the epicentre of the widening war were quiet for a second successive night, with no new US attacks on Iran reported by Sunday morning.

Iran had been pounded by 13 consecutive waves of overnight US air strikes since July 11, after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) attacked tankers trying to transit the Strait of Hormuz. As hostilities escalated, both sides declared that an interim peace agreement signed in June was dead, and a second phase of talks to finalise a comprehensive peace deal appeared doomed.

But there have been no US air strikes since Friday, and tentative signs are emerging that Washington and Tehran are still talking via mediators and might return to more meaningful discussions.

Even if another fragile truce is agreed, however, the cascade of consequences unleashed by the war is still stoking conflict and confrontation elsewhere.

Iran’s attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz have put a stranglehold on exports of oil and raw materials for fertiliser, sending energy prices soaring and raising the risk of a food security crisis in some of the world’s most vulnerable countries.

In March, in response to attacks on Iran, the Tehran-backed Hezbollah movement in Lebanon resumed missile attacks on Israel, which then launched a devastating invasion of southern Lebanon that has displaced 1.2 million people.

Now, another smouldering regional conflict has erupted again, between US-allied Saudi Arabia and the Houthi movement which controls most of northern and western Yemen, including the capital, Sanaa. Saudi Arabia and its regional allies joined a brutal civil war against the Houthis in 2015, until a truce was agreed in 2022.

Risk of global crisis

The truce collapsed this month after an attack on Sanaa airport to stop an Iranian plane landing provoked the Houthis to fire ballistic missiles at Saudi Arabia. Last Monday, the Houthis declared a naval blockade of Saudi Arabia, and late on Friday the Saudis launched air strikes on the Houthi-held city of Hodeidah.

In retaliation, Houthi forces launched Sunday’s attacks on facilities belonging to Saudi state oil giant Aramco in the coastal cities of Jizan and Yanbu, Houthi military spokesman Yahya Saree said.

There has been no comment from Saudi Arabia on the extent of any damage to Aramco’s refinery in Jizan, but a large column of smoke was seen rising after the attack.

In Yanbu, Saudi Arabia’s principal west coast export gateway, two ballistic missiles aimed at oil installations were intercepted by a Patriot battery operated in Saudi Arabia by the Greek military under an agreement ‌with Riyadh.

The escalating conflict has raised fears that the Houthis could block the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, which connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden. If both the Bab al-Mandeb and Hormuz straits were blocked, the resulting supply chain crisis would cause major economic damage across the world.

Entangled wars

Besides spreading to the Red Sea, the US-Iran war has become entangled with the deadliest active conflict in the world – Russia’s attempted conquest of Ukraine.

A long-range strike on an Iranian vessel in the Caspian Sea on Saturday caused an explosion that killed one sailor and wounded another, according to Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which blamed the attack on Ukraine and summoned Kyiv’s charge d’affaires in Tehran to convey its condemnation of the “hostile and criminal” act.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a post on X that Kyiv had achieved “very strong results” with long-range strikes in the Caspian Sea, hitting “vessels used in military cargo shipments involving Iran, as well as a warship”.

Zelenskyy claimed in further comments on X on Saturday that since the start of July, Kyiv had detected “active Russian satellite ⁠surveillance of the Gulf states and US military facilities located there”. He said the satellite images were passed to Tehran to help the IRGC identify targets for ballistic missile and drone attacks.

US President Donald Trump has not given a reason for the sudden cessation in air strikes on Iran, but a senior administration official told the Reuters news agency that Trump “has always been clear that his preference is diplomacy, but he has shown Iran what will happen if they fail to come to the table in a serious way”.

Trump said on Friday that there was still some communication with Iran.

“They are talking to us right now; they’d love to make a deal,” he said. “I don’t think they’re ready to … but I’m willing to listen.”

Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar, reporting from Tehran, said Iranian officials had confirmed the two sides were exchanging messages.

“There have been proposals conveyed by the mediators, and Tehran is still reviewing them,” Serdar said, adding there was “not much progress yet” due to “fundamental differences” in their positions and deep mistrust.

The U.S. war with Iran escalated again Thursday as Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen attacked two Saudi Araian oil tankers in the Red Sea, causing global oil prices to surge amid fears of yet another vital energy corridor being choked off by the conflict.

The attacks came after the Trump administration threatened additional strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure while pushing a new deal to help Saudi Arabia develop a nuclear energy program of its own. Also Thursday, four Republicans in the U.S. House joined Democrats in a vote to halt the American military campaign absent congressional approval. Senate Republicans blocked a similar measure.

The price of oil hit $100 a barrel for the first time since May, increasing the financial pressure on Americans at the gas pump and the political pressure on President Trump to end a war he promised would last weeks but has persisted for months. At least 18 U.S. service members have died in the war.

The Houthis, who control the populous northwest of Yemen, receive arms and training from Tehran but had remained largely on the sidelines since the U.S. and Israel launched the war. Their latest strikes complicate already fraught negotiations between the U.S. and Iran after the collapse of a ceasefire this month amid renewed hostilities in the Strait of Hormuz, the other major energy passageway choked by the conflict.

The Houthis had this week announced a naval blockade of Saudi ships in the Red Sea, which stretches along Saudi Arabia’s western flank. That blockade centered on the Bab al Mandeb strait, the only southbound route for Saudi tankers headed to Asian markets.

Tanker traffic has already been heavily diminished in the Persian Gulf along Saudi Arabia’s northeast flank and between it and Iran, because of Iran’s threats to vessels traveling through the Strait of Hormuz. Saudi Arabia had diverted its oil exports to its Red Sea ports and out the Bab al Mandeb, dispatching some 4.5 million barrels via that route per day.

In a social media post Thursday, Trump said that if the Houthis continue attacking ships in the Red Sea, the U.S. “will hold Iran responsible” because the Houthis are an Iranian proxy, and inflict “major military punishment” on the Houthis and Iran.

He said he was “very disappointed” in the Houthis, “in that they have, until now, acted very professionally and smart” amid the Iran war.

At a later event Thursday, Trump said the U.S. is “doing extremely well” against Iran, which he accused of having “evil intentions.”

Democrats in the House and Senate cited the war’s spread to the Red Sea as yet another reason that Congress should act to pass a war powers measure to halt the president’s military campaign. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who led the unsuccessful effort in the Senate, cited the expansion while recalling how Trump had claimed victory in Iran as far back as March.

“If we won back in March, why are more Americans getting killed in July? If we won back in March, why is the Strait of Hormuz closed? If we won back in March, why is the war expanding as Houthis attack ships transiting the Bab al Mandeb strait in the Red Sea? If we won back in March, why are oil and gas prices and diesel prices shooting through the roof again, imposing costs on every American family?” Van Hollen said. “Is that their definition of winning?”

The Houthis’ military spokesman, Yahya al-Sarea, said the group’s forces conducted “a qualitative military operation” targeting two Saudi oil tankers with missiles and drones for what he said were violations of the Houthis’ blockade on the Red Sea.

The Houthis have accused Saudi Arabia of imposing a blockade on airports and seaports in northwestern Yemen, where most of the country’s population lives and which the Houthis otherwise control. They also blamed Saudi Arabia for an attack this month on Sanaa’s airport to prevent the landing of a plane carrying a Houthi delegation returning from the funeral of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who was killed at the start of the war.

Al-Sarea said that in addition to striking the two tankers, the Houthis forced 10 other ships to turn back from their passage, will “continue their naval operations against the Saudi enemy” and will “continue imposing the equation of blockade against blockade.”

The escalation of the war — and the shock wave it sent through global energy markets — added to regional uncertainty already being stoked by the Trump administration’s announcement Wednesday that it had agreed to work with Saudi Arabia to develop a civilian nuclear program.

That announcement, after years of U.S. attempts to block nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, sparked widespread concern in Washington, where lawmakers will vote on the deal, and in Israel, which has long feared a nuclear arms race in the region.

Trump administration officials said the deal would “uphold the highest standards of nuclear safety and nonproliferation,” with American firms developing the program. But they provided few details, and questions immediately arose about the absence of clear inspection protocols or any requirement that Saudi Arabia first normalize diplomatic relations with Israel.

On Thursday, Trump said the deal would be conditioned on Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords and establishing diplomatic ties with Israel. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later said that Trump had not talked to Saudi leaders since making that condition public, but that they would have to agree to it or “the deal is off.”

Leavitt said that Trump had raised the matter with Saudi leaders in the past, and that it is something Trump “feels very strongly about.”

Asked whether Israel pressured the president to impose the condition, Leavitt said, “Not to my knowledge.”

Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Congress that the Iran war has already cost the U.S. $37.5 billion. House Republicans on Wednesday pushed through a $1.15-trillion defense policy bill to fund the war moving forward. Most Democrats voted against the measure in protest of the war, and it faces stiff opposition in the Senate.

Trump in recent days has tried to deny polls showing plummeting support for the war among Americans. On Wednesday, before attending the dignified transfer of the bodies of U.S. service members killed in the war to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, Trump claimed Americans don’t want high gas prices but “aren’t against the war.”

On Tuesday, Trump posted statistics showing that more U.S. service members died in past wars, which Democrats denounced as disrespectful to those killed in the current conflict.

The Houthis seized control of the Yemeni capital in 2014, along with much of Yemen’s populous northwest. Their advance triggered a devastating Saudi-led campaign to dislodge them. Since 2022, the two sides have been in a stalemate, though tensions have been rising again in recent months.

Mohammed al-Basha, founder of the Basha Report, a U.S. risk advisory firm focused on the Middle East and Africa, said the Houthis’ latest escalation comes as their influence is growing because of the increased importance of Bab al Mandeb while the Strait of Hormuz is choked off by Iran.

“This is their moment, because with everything happening in the Strait of Hormuz, Bab al Mandeb quadrupled in importance. By exerting maximum pressure in this period, they can maximize the effect of any kinetic action they’re trying to do,” Al-Basha said.

“Their narrative is very aggressive. They want war. And they feel that because they want war and sense that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia don’t, that they will submit to their demands.”

United States President Donald Trump agreed to a 30-year nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia on Wednesday that would see Washington transfer nuclear technology to the Gulf kingdom.

This has drawn concerns that if the deal comes to fruition, it could spark a nuclear arms race across the Middle East amid reports that Riyadh would be able to enrich its own uranium, a necessary step in acquiring nuclear weapons.

US officials have stressed the proposed deal would serve civilian nuclear purposes, although exact details of the agreement have not been made public.

It has now been tabled in the US Congress for a review, but is expected to survive resistance from Democrats.

Here’s why some are concerned about the agreement:

Could this spur a nuclear arms race in the region?

Analysts have raised concerns about whether the proposed deal could lead to Saudi Arabia seeking to develop military-grade uranium, which the US Energy Department has not yet confirmed.

Some analysts have warned this could open the door to spurring an arms race with other regional powers.

Saudi Arabia has long voiced its intention to use nuclear energy for power generation, but in 2018, de facto leader Mohammad bin Salman told CBS that Riyadh would “without a doubt” develop a nuclear weapon if Iran did the same.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted on Thursday that the deal would not lead to nuclear proliferation, as US contractors would handle the project, allowing Washington to monitor it. US nuclear reactor designer Westinghouse is believed to be a major contractor.

Former Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Liberman said in a post on X on Wednesday that Israel must oppose the deal with “all our might.”

“We must all understand that Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear programme will end in nuclear weapons and lead to a mad arms race across the entire Middle East,” he posted.

Israel, which developed a nuclear arsenal in the 1960s, has long sought to stop Arab countries and other regional countries from gaining their own nuclear weapons.

Is there a risk of nuclear reactors being attacked in strikes?

Some others have also raised concerns over possible nuclear leaks amid the tensions in the Middle East.

Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant, for example, has seen some of its outer facilities hit in the US and Israel’s war on Iran. Iran too has hit the perimeter of the United Arab Emirates’ Barakah nuclear power plant in a drone strike.

None of these strikes hit the nuclear plants’ reactors, but analysts say allowing more such facilities in the Middle East when tensions are so high is a mistake.

Damage to a reactor’s core could release highly radioactive gases, causing immediate catastrophic damage within a 20- to 30-kilometre (12- to 18-mile) radius.

Nuclear accidents at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant in 2011 and Chornobyl in Ukraine in the former Soviet Union in 1986 are cautionary stories.

Could Saudi Arabia have access to sensitive material?

That’s unclear for now.

Highly enriched uranium and spent nuclear reactor fuel are key components of nuclear bombs.

According to US media, the agreement includes a clause providing for a “black box” uranium enrichment facility that would be situated in Saudi Arabia but run by US companies.

A joint study by the two countries, set to last two years, will determine whether such a facility is needed, or if Saudi Arabia should import commercial-grade low-enriched uranium.

“That’s really the concern,” Matthew Kroenig, a fellow with the Atlantic Council, told Al Jazeera, saying there’s been no such arrangement anywhere else in the world.

“What does the US really mean by a ‘black box’? So will the US bring its engineers there full time, forever? Realistically, the Saudis will be involved, they will learn the tech, and they could kick out the US in the future,” Kroenig said.

Washington could be seeking to model Moscow’s agreement with Turkiye and Egypt, where Russian contractors manage active nuclear power plants, including the needed uranium and the highly radioactive spent fuel from the reactors.

The difference, Kroenig pointed out, is that Russia does not enrich the uranium in those cases.

On the other hand, the UAE, which runs a civilian nuclear programme that has been held up as a gold standard for non-proliferation, imports all of its low-enriched uranium from France, the United Kingdom and Russia among other countries.

Kroenig suggested that the US could be using the two-year study as a negotiating tactic, noting that the same claims of impact studies have been used to stall South Korea’s requests to enrich its own uranium.

“The deal doesn’t immediately speak about uranium enrichment, so my hope is that this is a negotiating tactic and that after two years the US will say ‘oh no, this doesn’t make sense right now’”, he said.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

Claimed attacks come days after Houthis announced naval embargo on Saudi vessels.

Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis have claimed an attack on two Saudi oil tankers transiting through the Red Sea.

“We targeted two Saudi oil tankers, named ENCELA and LAYLIA, for their violation of the blockade decision issued by the armed forces,” Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree said on Wednesday.

Saree added that the attacks were carried out, “using a number of ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as drones”, and led to fires on the ships.

The Houthis, officially known as Ansar Allah, had also forced “nearly ten ships… to abandon their routes, and turn back”, Saree said.

Saudi Arabia has not commented on the claims, but the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) centre said it had received reports that a tanker has been struck.

“The master of a tanker reports being struck by an unknown projectile which has caused a fire onboard that the crew are currently fighting,” UKMTO, which monitors shipping in the region, said.

Yemen’s Houthi group, which has fought the Yemeni government and a Saudi-led coalition that backs it for more than a decade, imposed a maritime blockade on Saudi Arabia on July 20. That followed some of the worst violence Yemen has seen for four years, after the Yemeni government bombed the Houthi-controlled Sanaa airport to stop an Iranian plane from landing.

The Houthis said the declaration of the maritime embargo on Saudi Arabia was “based on the equation of ‘an eye for an eye’ and affirmed “the right of our great people to respond to the blockade with a blockade”.

The group, which seized Sanaa in 2014, accused Saudi leaders of imposing “an unjust and oppressive siege” for nearly 12 years, “plundering our resources and imposing a comprehensive blockade on our ports and airports by land, sea, and air”.

“The Saudis feel that they can instigate a popular uprising against the Houthis using these economic strangulation methods,” Hussain al-Bukhaiti, a journalist based in Sanaa told Al Jazeera.

Riyadh has rejected claims that it was imposing a siege on the Yemeni people, and the group’s critics point out that they have rejected a proposal from Jordan to resume flights between Amman and Sanaa.

“The ultimate goal for Ansar Allah’s naval blockade against the Saudis, is to force Riyadh to lift its embargo on the ports and airports controlled by the Houthis,” al-Bukhaiti said.

Amid the disruption in shipping through the Strait of Hormuz due to the US-Israel war on Iran, Saudi Arabia has been attempting to facilitate oil flow through alternative routes through the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait. But that route is now under threat from the Houthis.

The Houthis disrupted global commerce when they began attacking ships around the Bab al-Mandeb after the launch of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza in October 2023. The attacks ended with the announcement of a “ceasefire” in Gaza in October 2025.

“The people who are questioning if the Houthis can successfully do a blockade against the Saudis should remember, how successfully the Houthis closed access to the Red Sea for the Israeli ports, which in fact resulted in the closure of Eilat port in southern Israel,” said al-Bukhaiti. “Eventually the Americans had to do a deal with the Houthis, with mediation from Oman,” he added, referring to a May 2025 agreement.

The Bab al-Mandeb chokepoint connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden is one of the world’s most important shipping routes, including for oil exports.

Between Yemen to the northeast and Djibouti and Eritrea in the Horn of Africa to the southwest, the strait is just 29km (18 miles) wide at its narrowest point, limiting traffic to two channels for inbound and outbound vessels using the Suez Canal.

In 2024, about 4.1 billion barrels of crude oil and refined petroleum products passed through the strait – about 5 percent of the global total.

With the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed since Israel and the US launched their war on Iran in late February, shutting down Bab al-Mandeb as well could block 25 percent of the world’s oil and gas supply.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has agreed to work with Saudi Arabia to develop a civilian nuclear program, a watershed moment following a years-long effort to curb the proliferation of nuclear technology in the Middle East.

The announcement comes as President Trump has vowed to continue executing a war against Iran over its own nuclear ambitions. On Wednesday, the president warned he would target a bridge or power plant for every commercial vessel Iran fires upon in the Strait of Hormuz, after earlier this week threatening to strike a new facility Tehran is reportedly building to conceal its continued nuclear work.

The Saudi deal stoked surprise and immediate concern across Washington, where lawmakers are expected to have a vote on the matter, as well as in Israel, itself a nuclear power that has long feared an atomic arms race could grip the region.

A Saudi nuclear program has long been tied to the standoff over Iran’s nuclear work, which successive U.S. administrations have said extends beyond civilian purposes. After Iran struck a nuclear deal with world powers in 2015, Saudi Arabia vowed to match whatever nuclear capabilities Tehran was allowed to keep.

In the decade since, U.S. officials had tried to keep Saudi Arabia from developing its own program, fearing it would fuel nuclear competition across the Middle East. But it became a consistent and central point of negotiation between the two allies.

Both the Trump and Biden administrations ultimately offered to support a limited, monitored program as part of a broader deal to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, hoping that a diplomatic breakthrough would mitigate the risks of an arms race.

But the agreement secured this week left skeptics in Washington and the region unclear what the United States had secured in return.

The deal comes after Trump told reporters this week that the goal of resuming war with Iran was to prevent them from ever obtaining nuclear weapons, a challenge that has vexed the international community since the outset of the century.

U.S. presidents have long sought to prevent Middle Eastern countries from acquiring technologies that could be used to build weapons of mass destruction. The 2003 invasion of Iraq over false claims about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs prompted Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi to abandon his nuclear work. Over the next two decades, the United States and Israel also targeted Syria’s nuclear and chemical weapons programs under Bashar al-Assad.

But Iran’s slow march to nuclear weapons capability, enriching uranium near to weapons-grade with no clear civilian or scientific ends, has prompted other countries in the region to question whether they, too, might need similar capabilities to counterbalance a historic foe. Israel, which views the Islamic Republic and its nuclear program as existential threats, is widely believed to possess its own nuclear weapons.

Hours after the nuclear deal was reported by the Wall Street Journal, the White House was silent on the details and Trump administration officials were left scrambling when asked by lawmakers and reporters for answers.

While traveling in Manila, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters he was aware of the news reports, but deferred to the White House to provide more public information.

When pressed about the risks of such a deal, Rubio said he would not “opine directly on the agreement,” but said the United States “is not going to reach any agreement with any country in the world that leads to the risk of proliferation.”

The White House confirmed the deal Wednesday afternoon.

Back in Washington, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz told members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that he has not yet seen the agreement with Saudi Arabia.

The deal, which would last 30 years and involve American firms developing the program, is expected to be submitted for review to Congress. Lawmakers will consider the deal as they grow increasingly uneasy about the Trump administration’s handling of an expanding Iran war, which Trump and Israel launched, arguing for the need to wipe out Tehran’s capabilities to build nuclear weapons.

As the war enters its fifth month, Trump has continued to defend the military efforts and has dismissed the idea that war is unpopular among Americans as they feel the economic effects.

“Americans aren’t against the war,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday. “Americans don’t want high gasoline prices but they’re not against the war.”

Trump’s remarks were made as he traveled to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to attend a dignified transfer of U.S. service members killed in the war. Asked what he would say to the families who lost their loved ones, Trump said he’d tell them they’re loved.

“All I’m going to say is, we love you. We love your child, and that’s what they are to them. They’re their children. There’s no games, no nothing,” Trump said. “That’s their child, and all you can do is throw out your heart.”

Earlier in the day, Trump said the United States will destroy a bridge or power plant in Iran each time it shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway for the global energy supply.

Trump’s threat to target bridges and power plants would mark yet another escalation that could affect civilians in the region.

Hasan Ghashghavi, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, denied Trump’s claim on Tuesday that Iran was requesting negotiations, saying in a statement on X that it was “in no way consistent with the facts.”

“It seems that Trump, in order to extricate himself from the quagmire he’s trapped in, should seek better paths,” he wrote. “Repetitive lies no longer even bring about short-term market relief.”

Times staff writer Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.

The Houthi declaration that they intend to block Saudi shipping and vessels bound for Saudi ports in the Red Sea is not another act of revolutionary theatre. It is Iran’s latest attempt to test Saudi Arabia’s strategic patience through one of its most capable regional proxies. That is a dangerous gamble because Riyadh has spent nearly a decade avoiding the wider regional war that Tehran increasingly appears determined to provoke.

Saudi restraint has never reflected military weakness. It has been a deliberate strategic choice intended to preserve regional stability while enabling the kingdom to focus on its historic economic transformation. Unable to compete with Saudi Arabia’s regional trajectory through conventional means, Iran has increasingly turned to proxy warfare, maritime coercion, and economic intimidation.

The Houthis have become the principal instrument of that strategy.

By threatening shipping in both the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb, Tehran seeks to pressure Saudi Arabia from its eastern and western maritime gateways while raising the cost of regional stability. The objective is not military victory but economic disruption: undermining investor confidence, threatening energy exports, and projecting instability onto the Middle East’s largest economy.

That strategy carries consequences far beyond the region. Saudi Arabia remains the world’s largest crude oil exporter, OPEC’s leading producer, and the only country with sufficient spare production capacity to stabilise global energy markets during periods of crisis – as it did during the first phase of the Iran war through its 7 million barrels per day East West Pipeline. Sustained disruption of Saudi exports would ripple through international shipping, insurance markets, inflation, and the global economy.

Iran tried to prepare for the present escalation by attempting to restore the Tehran-Sana’a air bridge. The flights were never simply about reconnecting two capitals. They would have provided a direct logistical corridor through which operational planning advisers, missile specialists, drone technicians, and intelligence officers could rotate into Houthi-controlled territory. Such an air corridor would have allowed Tehran to transfer not only equipment but also operational expertise and command capability.

This explains why the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) strike on Sana’a International Airport carried significance beyond denying a specific aircraft permission to land. The objective was to prevent Iran from establishing a permanent logistical architecture capable of sustaining a more sophisticated proxy campaign against Saudi Arabia’s maritime and economic interests.

It is clear Tehran’s calculations increasingly rely on outdated assumptions about Saudi military capability. The Saudi-led Joint Forces Command (JFC) bears little resemblance to the force that first entered Yemen a decade ago. Years of hard learnt lessons from past mistakes and operational experience have transformed it into an integrated coalition built around persistent intelligence, fused command-and-control, precision strikes, air missile defence, and cyber operations.

Rather than functioning as separate military combatant commands, these capabilities now operate as a single decision-making architecture capable of compressing the time between intelligence collection and operational execution.

That transformation extends beyond the Saudi armed forces alone. The Saudi-led JFC now includes more than 650,000 personnel drawn from Saudi Arabia and allied Yemeni, Pakistani, Sudanese, and limited but symbolic GCC formations operating within a unified operational framework. Its principal advantage lies not simply in numbers but in its ability to synchronise military effects across multiple domains while maintaining operational tempo and centralised escalation control.

The JFC maturity became unmistakable during RSAF’s campaign that restored control over southern Yemen in less than a week in January. Built upon an advanced command and control (C2) fused architecture that supports persistent intelligence, electronic warfare, precision targeting, and synchronised manoeuvre, has demonstrated a level of operational sequencing and command integration unseen in earlier phases of the war.

The same C2 maturity was evident during Iran’s coordinated missile and drone attacks launched from Iranian territory and allied formations in Iraq, when RSAF executed synchronised precision strikes across multiple theatres while maintaining centralised escalation control.

The broader consequences extended beyond the battlefield. Saudi operational performance helped create the conditions under which Pakistan was able to broker an unofficial ceasefire between the Saudis and Iranians while reinforcing a new deterrence equation in which further direct Iranian military pressure carried significantly greater operational and political risk. Tehran’s subsequent caution reflected not diplomacy alone but recognition that the kingdom had entered a fundamentally different stage of military maturity.

None of this means the Houthis cannot impose costs. Their missiles, drones, maritime attacks, and psychological operations remain capable of generating disruption disproportionate to their size. But disruption is fundamentally different from sustaining a prolonged confrontation against an opponent possessing overwhelming advantages in intelligence, air power, maritime control, and operational endurance.

Every escalation therefore increases the likelihood of a comprehensive Saudi response. Such a campaign would not simply target missile launchers or drone facilities. It would seek to dismantle the command-and-control networks, logistics infrastructure, communications systems, intelligence apparatus, and operational support that enable Houthi military operations.

This is why the current trajectory is so dangerous.

Saudi Arabia has consistently demonstrated that it prefers stability to confrontation because its overriding strategic priority remains economic transformation and long-term national development. But no state can indefinitely tolerate an Iranian-backed proxy threatening its economy, energy infrastructure, and maritime lifelines.

Ultimately, the Houthis are not testing Saudi military capability. Years of operational adaptation have already answered that question. They are testing Saudi Arabia’s strategic patience.

History suggests that even the greatest strategic patience has limits. If Tehran continues using the Houthis as an instrument of coercion against the kingdom, Riyadh may conclude that the costs of restraint have exceeded the costs of decisive action. If that moment arrives, the campaign that follows will bear little resemblance to the Yemen war of a decade ago. It will reflect years of coalition integration through an elaborate C6ISR architecture to be strategically prepared for such a war. Iran, and the Houthis, may then regret testing the limits of Saudi Arabia’s strategic patience.

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

The US military has continued strikes against Iran, hitting targets further to the country’s north as well as close to capital Tehran for the first time in the latest round of violence.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) said early on Thursday it struck several military sites and assets in a bid to “further degrade Iran’s ability to threaten innocent mariners” in the Strait of Hormuz. The unit also said it disabled an oil tanker in the passageway.

At least 35 people have died, and more than 300 have been wounded in the latest wave of attacks that began last Wednesday after CENTCOM launched strikes on Iranian port cities close to the Strait of Hormuz. The US says the attacks are in retaliation for Iran hitting three commercial ships in the Strait.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it targeted US military assets in neighbouring Gulf countries.

Here’s what has happened in Iran and the US on Wednesday and Thursday and what both sides are saying:

Where did the US hit?

CENTCOM said in a statement early on Thursday that US air strikes targeted Iranian command centres, air defence sites, missile and drone capabilities as well as coastal surveillance facilities.

Multiple locations were hit, CENTCOM said, including Bandar Abbas on Thursday.

An earlier wave of strikes late on Wednesday hit coastal defence and cruise missile sites on Greater Tunb Island in a 90-minute bombing wave, CENTCOM added. The small, strategically located island sits near the Strait of Hormuz and is believed to hold a naval base, although details are not publicly available. It is also believed to be a point from which the Iranian military has disrupted shipping routes.

Meanwhile, Iranian media reported attacks in Bandar Abbas, Qeshm Island, Sirik, Chabahar, Konarak, Rask, Khondab, Khorramabad and Semnan.

A hospital in Ahvaz was forced to evacuate 211 patients after reportedly being hit in the strikes.

Air defences were activated in Tehran and neighbouring Pakdasht and Parchin on Thursday.  The Iranian military said an MQ-9 drone was downed over the city of Andimeshk.

CENTCOM, in a separate statement on Thursday, said it was enforcing a naval blockade reimposed on Tuesday by disabling a “non-compliant” oil tanker that was attempting to sail towards Iran’s Kharg Island using Hellfire missiles.

How has Iran responded?

Iran’s army claimed retaliatory attacks on US military assets in Kuwait and Bahrain on Thursday.

Kuwait: The Iranian army said in a statement it targeted radar systems, the Patriot defence system and fuel tanks belonging to US forces at the Ali Al Salem airbase in Kuwait. In an earlier statement, it said it hit a radar and gathering point for US soldiers in Kuwait, as well as US communications systems and fuel depots in Jordan’s al-Azraq airbase.

Bahrain: Drones also targeted US Super Hawk radars and Patriot defence systems at the Sheikh Isa airbase in Bahrain, the army added.

Jordan: Meanwhile, Jordan said it intercepted eight Iranian missiles on Thursday.

Iraq: Iraqi authorities said five drones attacked the city of Erbil, with two crashing near a US base and one shot down near the US consulate. Iran’s army has not claimed the attacks.

What are both sides saying?

Iran’s parliament speaker and lead negotiator, Mohammad Ghalibaf, said on Wednesday Iran is prepared for a fuller military confrontation if the US does not live up to the terms of the interim deal. The country is fighting an “existential” battle, he added.

The IRGC has, meanwhile, threatened to halt all energy exports from the Middle East over the US’s naval blockade, which was reimposed on Tuesday.

“The export of oil and gas from the region will be either for everyone or for no one,” it said in a statement.

Speaking at the US Army War College in Pennsylvania on Wednesday, President Donald Trump reiterated his claims that Iran was pushing to strike a peace deal behind the scenes but did not provide details.

“They don’t like what we’re doing, and they do want to settle. We’ll find out whether or not we settle with them, or we just finish it off,” he said.

However, in a rare show of gratitude on Wednesday, Trump thanked Iran via his Truth Social platform for the release of Dena Karari, an American citizen the US says was “wrongfully” jailed in the country since 2024.

Meanwhile, US Vice President JD Vance, in an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan released on Wednesday, defended the war on Iran but added that an agreement was needed between the two sides to end the conflict.

Britain’s culture minister may challenge Paramount Skydance’s takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery — presenting a potential speed bump to David Ellison’s plan to wrap up his $111-billion deal by September.

Earlier this month, Paramount secured the U.S. Justice Department’s blessing to buy the Warner assets, which include CNN, HBO, Cartoon Network, Animal Planet and the Warner Bros. film and TV studios in Burbank.

Paramount also must win the approval of British and European regulators, who are known for drilling deeply into media matters because of their influence on society.

Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority took a preliminary step this month by opening an investigation into Ellison’s proposed merger.

On Tuesday, Lisa Nandy, Britain’s secretary of state for culture, media and sport, notified Parliament that she was inclined to intervene in the blockbuster deal.

In a written statement, Nandy cited her ability to weigh in on “public interest grounds,” due to concerns about maintaining a competitive media market in Britain.

“The UK’s move to intervene in the Paramount–WBD deal confirms what we’ve been saying for months. The real regulatory risk was never in the US — it’s in Europe,” Forrester VP Research Director Mike Proulx said Tuesday in a statement.

While Nandy cautioned she has not made “a final decision on intervention at this stage,” she has invited Paramount and Warner Bros. to respond to her concerns by Monday.

Lisa Nandy, Britain’s secretary of state for culture, media and sport, has said she may intervene in the deal on “public interest grounds.”

(Alishia Abodunde / Getty Images)

Paramount did not offer immediate comment.

The company owns CBS News, children’s channel Nickelodeon and Channel 5, one of the largest over-the-air television broadcasters in the United Kingdom.

Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN, Cartoon Network and TNT Sports, which broadcasts the Olympics, Champions League and Premier League soccer matches.

“I am conscious that the proposed acquisition is global in nature,” Nandy wrote in her statement. “In reaching this decision, my focus has been, and will remain, on the UK public interest and the range of services available to UK audiences, including Channel 5, TNT Sports, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, and CNN International, as well as Paramount+ and HBO Max.”

If Nandy decides to intervene, the Office of Communications, known as Ofcom, would launch an assessment of the deal. Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority also would determine how the merger might reshape the competitive landscape.

Teams from the two companies have been huddling for months to plan for the melding of the two operations as soon as Paramount receives all of its regulatory approvals.

Australia, New Zealand, China, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Serbia, France and Italy have already given their approvals to the deal.

Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund is planning to contribute $10 billion to help the billionaire Ellison family pull off the merger, which would make the Saudi royal family a significant, although passive, equity owner. In addition, the royal families of Qatar and Abu Dhabi have agreed to each contribute $7 billion in equity financing.

The Federal Communications Commission must evaluate the foreign ownership stakes due to Paramount’s holding of CBS broadcast licenses. U.S. antitrust regulators already have concluded the combination would not violate federal anticompetition laws.

Approval had been expected because President Trump — who has friendly ties with Ellison and his father, tech billionaire Larry Ellison — favors the deal.

Trump has been eager for changes at CNN.

The U.S. government stopped short of asking Paramount to make concessions or divestitures. Many expect that Paramount may have to reconfigure its children’s television holdings abroad due to the proposed combination of two large players — Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network.

Nandy suggested that Britain also should scrutinize the impact of combining two major streaming services, HBO Max, a Warner property, with Paramount+.

HBO programming, including “Game of Thrones,” “Boardwalk Empire” and “Succession,” has long been popular in Britain.

A coalition of state attorneys general, led by California‘s Rob Bonta, also is expected to challenge the deal, in part, due to concerns about news media consolidation. Bonta’s office has said the matter remains under review.

Opposition to the deal has been building in the U.S. for months. A group of Hollywood activists — led by actors Jane Fonda and Mark Ruffalo — have spearheaded a “block the merger” campaign that now has support from more than 5,000 entertainment workers.

The group’s open letter calls on Bonta to take action to thwart the Ellison expansion effort. Paramount’s Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim has blasted the campaign, calling it “fear-mongering” and a partisan distortion of antitrust law.

Forrester’s Proulx noted differences in attitudes toward the deal among the various constituencies.

“For U.S. consumers, this merger has become a proxy fight about political influence and control of media,” Proulx said. “In the UK, it’s being treated as a structural competition issue where regulators, not consumers, will decide how this deal plays out and how long it takes.”

Khartoum, Sudan – As drone attacks rain down on el-Obeid and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) tighten their months-long siege, the capital of North Kordofan has emerged as the latest flashpoint in Sudan’s grinding war of attrition.

Despite mounting international alarm and renewed US diplomatic pressure aimed at securing a nationwide truce, Sudan’s warring generals remain deeply entrenched. Both the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the RSF appear locked in a pursuit of outright military victory, largely sustained by a continuous flow of foreign weapons.

Through the lens of the escalating crisis in el-Obeid, a grim reality is unfolding: Civilian suffering is increasingly weaponised amid polarised domestic narratives, while geopolitical manoeuvring repeatedly stalls any viable path to peace.

A strategic prize and international alarm

El-Obeid holds immense strategic value. Located 550km (340 miles) southwest of Khartoum, it acts as the primary gateway linking Khartoum to the vast Darfur region. The city is also a major military stronghold, hosting the SAF’s 5th Infantry Division, known as “Al-Hagana”, and has become a refuge for hundreds of thousands of displaced civilians fleeing violence elsewhere.

The looming threat of a full-scale ground invasion has triggered urgent global warnings. Recently, 38 international nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), alongside the UN and countries including Qatar, sounded the alarm over the escalating use of drones and the potential for mass atrocities, warning that el-Obeid could face the same devastation recently seen in el-Fasher.

Yet these warnings have failed to alter the calculus on the ground.

Polarised narratives of a stalled peace

Recent United States diplomatic efforts, led by Massad Boulos, an adviser to US President Donald Trump, have pushed for a comprehensive ceasefire. However, the push for peace has collided with absolute domestic polarisation.

SAF commander Abdel Fattah al-Burhan has firmly rejected unconditional truces, stating that the army will operate with the precision of “digging with a needle” until the RSF is entirely dismantled.

This deadlock reflects a deeply fractured political landscape. Fathi Abu Ammar, a Sudanese academic, told Al Jazeera that the SAF is primarily responsible for the prolonged suffering by obstructing peace initiatives and refusing to establish safe corridors for civilians to leave el-Obeid.

He accused the army of using the city’s residents as “human shields” to garner international sympathy, while arguing that the RSF is fighting to address legitimate historical grievances.

Conversely, Sudanese journalist and political analyst Yousef Abdel Mannan vehemently rejected these claims.

Speaking to Al Jazeera from Sudan, Abdel Mannan accused the RSF of widespread atrocities, including a recent drone attack on a girls’ school in el-Obeid and the systematic killing of thousands of civilians in el-Fasher, including patients inside the Saudi Hospital.

Abdel Mannan dismissed the US-backed truce proposals as inadequate measures that merely “treat the wounds of the conflict while leaving the root cause intact”, arguing that only a comprehensive political settlement, not a temporary ceasefire, can resolve the crisis.

He maintained that civilians in el-Obeid are not being held hostage by the army, but rather prefer to remain in their homes rather than face displacement at the hands of paramilitaries.

Foreign arms and the geopolitical deadlock

Beneath the domestic blame game lies a critical factor sustaining the conflict: Foreign interference.

David Shinn, a former US diplomat and assistant secretary of state for African affairs, noted that despite years of US engagement and sanctions targeting both SAF and RSF leaders, neither side has shown a genuine interest in halting the violence.

“There is a desire from both sides to continue fighting until one side wins,” Shinn told Al Jazeera.

The escalating use of uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) over el-Obeid underscores this external lifeline. “Neither the RSF nor the Sudanese army manufactures drones,” Shinn pointed out, meaning these advanced weapons must be imported.

He highlighted that the warring parties are actively backed by regional powers, pointing to the United Arab Emirates as a backer of the RSF, and Egypt and Saudi Arabia as supporters of the SAF, arguing that the conflict has transformed into a proxy war.

For the siege of el-Obeid to end and a genuine peace process to begin, the geopolitical spigot must be turned off.

Until the international community forces external actors to halt their military support, analysts warn that Sudan will remain hostage to a war its generals believe they can still win.

Doha, Qatar – Gulf states have welcomed a breakthrough agreement between the United States and Iran to end a war they never wanted.

Six countries – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman – form the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which was created in 1981 following fears of the perceived expansionist ambitions of the new Iranian government.

Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, Israel has attempted to isolate Iran and its wide network of regional proxy groups. But in a twist of irony, Israeli aggression in this pursuit has pushed some Gulf states closer to Tehran.

When Israel and the US launched strikes on Iran on February 28 – and Tehran responded by attacking Gulf states – they were again forced to reassess their relationship with their neighbour.

Gulf relations with Iran, at present, appear more shaped by realism than reconciliation, but this approach could help them navigate the uncertain road ahead.

“The ongoing conflict … compelled the Gulf states to pursue a more pragmatic relationship with Tehran, one that will include enhanced dialogue to deter conflict,” Farah al-Qawasmi, a researcher at the Gulf Studies Center at Qatar University, told Al Jazeera.

Embracing de-escalation – not Iran

All six GCC member states have welcomed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by Iran and the US last week. But this is shaped more by the Gulf states wanting the war to end rather than a newfound trust of Iran.

“An agreement between the two parties is being [highly] advocated by the Gulf states in [an] attempt to prevent and contain regional conflicts,” al-Qawasmi said.

Shortly after the US and Iran agreed in 2015 to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – putting guardrails on Tehran’s nuclear programme – Gulf states remained sceptical about their neighbour.

The current war has only heightened these suspicions, but it has also seen regional states seek diplomacy with Tehran rather than military confrontation, despite Iran directly attacking Gulf cities.

“The Gulf states still feel like diplomacy is better than using force to get a deal … to change Iran’s behaviour and to insulate them from Iran’s destabilising actions,” Rob Geist Pinfold, a lecturer on security studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera.

Pinfold points out that Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz via drones and missiles, not nuclear weapons, making dealing with that threat a priority for Gulf states rather than Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Gulf states will want a more comprehensive agreement between Iran and the US, rather than the nuclear-focused JCPOA, said Pinfold.

“If you talk to people in Gulf capitals, they will tell you that the nuclear programme is a tomorrow problem for them,” he said.

“The today problem is Iran’s use of drones and proxies to destabilise and undermine the sovereignty of Gulf states, but also states throughout the region.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s three-day tour of the Gulf, which ends Thursday, is seen as a way of allaying these fears and assuring the GCC that Tehran will not be strengthened by the agreement.

Seat at the table

Mehran Haghirian, the director of research and programmes at the Bourse & Bazaar Foundation, believes Gulf states are in a better position to guide the outcome of the current US-Iran talks than in 2015.

“They are at the heart of the negotiations,” Haghirian said regarding the Gulf states’ role in the current talks.

In its role as a co-mediator, Qatar is essentially representing the GCC and their interests during the talks, while articles five and six of the Iran-US MoU place Gulf states at the centre of the agreement.

Among the biggest concerns for the GCC are the future of the Strait of Hormuz, with Tehran demanding tolls on shipping, and calls for the creation of a regional investment fund for Iran.

“There really cannot be any new Hormuz authority by Iran that would not include other GCC countries,” Haghirian told Al Jazeera.

US Vice President JD Vance claimed last week that the investment fund would be financed by the Gulf coalition, but Rubio said this week that regional allies would not be asked to contribute to any reconstruction fund for Iran.

Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani has described the reported $300bn figure as “aspirational” in an interview with the Financial Times, while no Gulf state has yet said if it will contribute to the fund.

‘Maximum pressure era’

The analysts stress that the GCC is not a monolith – with Gulf states having contrasting and changing approaches towards Iran.

Oman, Qatar and Kuwait were broadly supportive of the JCPOA. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain were more sceptical, but even these states publicly backed the agreement, said Haghirian.

When Trump pulled the US out of the JCPOA in 2018, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain believed they had “found a partner in DC”.

That led to a “maximum pressure era” that brought a period of brinkmanship in the region, said Haghirian.

Suspected Iran-linked attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq-Khurais oil facilities and vessels off the coast of Fujairah in 2019 were “the initial reaction by the Iranians to that maximum pressure” campaign, he added, but paradoxically, this also triggered a recalibration of relations.

The UAE and Iran restored ties in 2022, and a China-brokered Saudi-Iran agreement took place in 2023.

“That was enough of a reason for Saudi Arabia [and] the UAE, particularly, to basically restructure their approach towards Iran,” Haghirian said.

The war and accelerated pragmatic rapprochement

While Israel has used war to attempt to increase its presence in the Gulf region – reportedly sending an Iron Dome battery to the UAE – other Gulf states view both Iran and Israel as unsettling forces in the region.

“Israel started the war, which was a destabilising act, and then Iran escalated by targeting the Gulf states, which was in turn a destabilising act,” Pinfold said.

Despite this, the Gulf states targeted by Iran still demonstrated patience and pragmatism in dealing with their neighbour.

Qatar, for example, has played a leading role in mediating between the US and Iran, even after being on the receiving end of Iranian drone and missile attacks.

“All six got attacked, and that’s really a level of foreign policy decision-making that is very difficult for any state to be able to really undertake, considering the fact that it was a military attack,” Haghirian said.

“But again, this pragmatism came out within this context to engage Iran and to actually speak for themselves at these negotiations. This war has really initiated a complete rebalancing of the entire region.”

Yamal makes a goal-scoring return for Spain as European champions get their World Cup campaign back on track.

Inspired by ‌Lamine Yamal, Spain strolled to a 4-0 win over Saudi Arabia in Group H, as Mikel Oyarzabal ⁠restored his reputation with two goals and Luis de la Fuente’s side found their groove after an underwhelming World Cup opener.

Yamal opened the scoring in the 10th minute on Sunday and Oyarzabal, ⁠who failed to register a touch in the opening half hour in Monday’s scoreless draw with Cape Verde, scored twice in quick succession as Spain had the game wrapped up by half-time.

An own goal shortly ⁠after the interval failed to reopen the floodgates, as Spain used the opportunity to make changes and rest their scorers.

De la Fuente celebrated his 65th birthday in style, and Yamal, whose only football in the last two months came as a substitute against Cape Verde, sparked life into the team that returned to Atlanta Stadium.

A huge ‌cheer greeted Yamal’s first touch, twisting and turning his marker before playing a teasing cross that was cleared by Abdulelah Al-Amri, the scorer of Saudi Arabia’s goal in their 1-1 match with Uruguay.

The opening goal came with Oyarzabal sending an inviting ball across the box, and Yamal being there to slide in at the back post and score his first World Cup goal.

Having toiled in vain in their opening game, the goal relaxed Spain, who began to carve open the Saudi defence at will, and the second ⁠goal came from a corner.

Dani Olmo sent the ball back into the mix ⁠which the Saudis failed to clear and Aymeric Laporte nodded down to Oyarzabal, who bundled the ball into the net.

Three minutes later, Spain were in again with a beautifully worked goal. Pedro Porro floated a pass into the area and the ball never ⁠touched the ground until it found the net.

Marc Cucurella’s hooked pass found Olmo, who headed into the six-yard box for Oyarzabal to tap it in on the volley, ⁠as the striker proved that given the right service, he is ⁠Spain’s man to deliver.

Spain replaced Yamal and Oyarzabal for the second half, but picked up where they left off when the Saudi goalkeeper blocked Cucurella’s volley from a corner and the ball ricocheted off defender Hassan Al-Tambakti and into the net.

The European champions continued to ‌create chances, but understandably took their foot off the gas on a day when even Vozinha, Cape Verde’s 40-year-old hero keeper, would have struggled against this version of Spain, who look back to their best.

Spain ‌advance ‌to four points in the standings, while Saudi Arabia stay on one after two games each. The other teams in the group, Cape Verde and Uruguay, meet later on Sunday in Miami.

Oyarzabal said he was happy to get the win and to have given his own performance after criticism of how he played against Cape Verde.

“It’s not about proving myself. I’ve always said I feel loved by my teammates, the coach, the staff day to day. That’s what counts for me,” he told the media.

“People will talk outside. We know how the football world works, but we have to stay relaxed.”

Yamal said it was a “dream” to score in a World Cup.

“I watched the last World Cup from a classroom, so being able to score here with my mum and my family in the stands is a dream come true,” he said.

Governments across the world have welcomed the tentative deal between the US and Iran to end the war, calling it a major diplomatic breakthrough. But Israeli politicians have been quick to criticise it, claiming it would undermine Israel’s security.