United Arab Emirates

Convictions handed down amid an intensified crackdown by Bahraini authorities on individuals accused of having ties to Tehran.

Bahrain has sentenced nine people to life in prison for carrying out what authorities describe as “hostile and terrorist acts” in cooperation with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Two other defendants were also jailed for three years each after being convicted of collaborating with the IRGC in what prosecutors described as “terrorist and espionage” activities, state media reported on Sunday.

The convictions were handed down during an intensified crackdown by Bahraini authorities on individuals accused of ties to Tehran. The crackdown followed a wave of Iranian strikes on Bahrain after the United States and Israel launched their war on Iran in late February. Iran began striking all of its Gulf neighbours in response, saying it was targeting American interests, including military bases.

Prosecutors said some of the defendants photographed vital and strategic sites in Bahrain on behalf of the IRGC. Others were accused of facilitating the transfer of funds from Iran to Bahrain, including through cryptocurrency transactions, to finance the operations. Authorities also alleged that individuals inside the country were recruited to support some of the plans.

Bahrain began arresting individuals allegedly linked to Iran in March, shortly after the conflict began.

Earlier this month, authorities detained a further 41 people.

Less than two weeks later, more than 60 people were stripped of their citizenship for allegedly supporting Iranian attacks on Bahrain and “colluding with foreign entities”.

The London-based Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy described the move as “dangerous” and said it constituted a clear violation of international law.

Other Gulf states have also arrested individuals accused of cooperating with Iran. Last month, the United Arab Emirates said it had dismantled a group allegedly planning to carry out what officials described as “terrorist acts”.

Bahrain is home to a large Shia population. Many of its members have long accused the authorities of political and economic marginalisation. The government denies discriminating against Shia citizens, accusing Iran of fuelling unrest in the country.

The crisis caused by the US-Israel war on Iran has affected the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) at different levels.

Oman has barely felt any shock as its ports and terminals continue operating as usual. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have been able to reroute some oil exports through terminals in Yanbu and Fujairah, respectively, to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, on the other hand, have been practically cut off from the global market and are facing the prospect of economic contraction.

Under these circumstances, the GCC states more than ever need to demonstrate unity and address the crisis through collective action. The issue of solidarity is not about showing benevolence to neighbours. It is about setting up mechanisms now that can diminish the consequences and value of any future threat of closure. It is about the survival of the whole idea of GCC unity and the leverage it has on the global scene.

Collective action, common interest

Even if some sort of agreement is reached between the warring sides today, the GCC will continue to suffer under the shadow of the nearly three-month closure. States face the risk of losing clients due to the risk of not fulfilling their obligations or being perceived as a risky supplier. Only a joint effort can stop a free fall.

So far, self-interested approaches are winning over collective action. For instance, the UAE’s exit from OPEC was largely driven by the perception of the Emirati leadership that the Strait of Hormuz crisis was an opportunity to grab greater oil market share.

If this trend of unilateral crisis response continues, it would have grave economic consequences for the whole GCC and threaten its existence. With no burden-sharing mechanism, Gulf countries would end up competing against each other in a zero-sum game. This would reduce the influence the GCC has as a regional bloc and diminish its ability to sway energy markets.

Up until now, there have been some demonstrations of solidarity in rhetoric. During the GCC consultative meeting in Jeddah on April 28, Gulf leaders attempted to show unity and discuss possible ways out of the crisis. The meeting led to discussions about what the GCC states could do in practical terms, yet there are still no signs that these discussions have moved beyond the expert level.

Nevertheless, there are practical steps the GCC can take now that could help address the present crisis and ensure stability in the face of future risks. One of them could be the introduction of swap arrangements.

Swap as an instrument of solidarity

There are three relevant swap mechanisms that the GCC could consider: physical, contractual and quality swap deals. Physical and contractual swap deals allow one party to deliver an equivalent commodity to fulfil a contract on behalf of another.

A quality swap, on the other hand, exchanges one grade or product for another to align the feedstock needs of refineries or optimise transport costs.

Thus, instead of Kuwaiti, Qatari or Bahraini cargo physically passing through the Strait of Hormuz, a buyer can receive an acceptable substitute at Yanbu, Fujairah, Duqm, Ras Markaz, Sohar, Qalhat, Singapore, India, Korea, Japan or Europe, while the parties involved settle the accounts through future delivery, cash compensation, product exchange, or a retained-volume fee.

The swap does not require the trapped commodity to move immediately. It requires a transparent title, valuation and reconciliation, so that a substitute commodity can be delivered to the end user.

The strongest swap deals, therefore, resemble clearing systems. They are most reliable when they are established before the crisis, but they can also be assembled during a crisis if the parties already have pre-existing experience of trading, a trusted customer base or alternative physical infrastructure to be utilised.

In fact, the swap deals are not something completely unfamiliar to the GCC member states. In 2013, when Egypt failed to fulfil its contractual gas obligations, Qatar agreed to export its own liquefied natural gas (LNG) directly to the customers that Egypt otherwise could not serve while it channelled its gas for domestic needs.

In 2021, the UAE’s Emirates National Oil Company (ENOC) won a tender to swap 84,000 tonnes of Iraqi fuel oil for 30,000 tonnes of Grade B fuel oil and 33,000 tonnes of gas oil to supply to Lebanon. In 2024, the state-owned Oman LNG conducted about two swap tenders per month, with Atlantic cargoes originating from the United States delivered to Spain, while the company delivered its LNG to clients in Asia.

All of these examples show that Gulf countries and their national energy companies have the required expertise to carry out intra-GCC swaps.

The most practical way to implement such deals now would be to establish an energy swap facility through a coordinated clearing mechanism among national oil companies, major regional refiners, selected traders, insurers, banks and key Asian and European buyers.

Its function would be to match blocked obligations with delivery alternatives and to reconcile the value later.

Insurance for the future

The implementation of any swap arrangement would require substantive effort to operationalise, not to mention a high level of political will, trust and mutual determination. Moreover, at present, there are physical limitations before any arrangement, as the GCC infrastructure does not have the capacity to reroute export volumes that pass through the Strait of Hormuz completely.

In the immediate term, swap arrangements imply that one group of countries – Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE – would sacrifice a bit of income and market share to the advantage of the others, namely Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait, by allocating part of their current export, storage or transport capacities. But in the longer term, all would benefit.

The critical call is on Saudi Arabia, which has the largest options to bypass Hormuz and provide the largest pool of deliverable crude. Its command of customer credibility, global familiarity with Saudi oil grades, Red Sea export infrastructure and Aramco’s trading capacity make it the main pillar of any future swap system.

Complementing its role as market regulator within OPEC/OPEC+ with the leadership within the GCC, Riyadh can help stabilise the market by covering priority cargoes for strategic buyers.

The UAE can also play a major role by utilising its export capacity through Fujairah, and so can Oman, which has crude storage capacity at Ras Markaz, refining capacity at Duqm, LNG experience and ports that can receive and dispatch cargoes without having to cross the Strait of Hormuz.

If such swap deals are implemented, they can strengthen the GCC unity and help the members avoid internal economic rivalry in the future. More importantly, they can encourage the launch of a larger regional infrastructure drive that would lessen dependence on the Strait of Hormuz and diminish its value as a geopolitical tool to be used against the Gulf.

If there are a well-functioning swap mechanism and infrastructure in place that can be used whenever a threat of closure is made, then clients would feel more confident in continuing their relationships with all Gulf suppliers. In the longer term, this could serve as the GCC’s insurance against any new turbulence in the region.

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

United States President Donald Trump says he has decided to pause an attack on Iran at the behest of Gulf leaders after Tehran sent a new peace proposal to Washington through Pakistan.

On Monday, Trump said there is now a “very good chance” the US could reach an agreement with Iran to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

An initial, temporary ceasefire commenced on April 8, six weeks into the war. Since then, armed hostilities have largely subsided, but a durable peace agreement remains elusive, with both the US and Iran dissatisfied with each other’s proposed terms.

Also on Monday, Saudi Arabia said it had intercepted three drones, one day after a drone attack hit the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in the United Arab Emirates. This has raised more concerns about the potential for renewed military escalation in the Gulf as peace negotiations drag on.

What has Trump said about a new attack on Iran?

Following the reported drone attacks on the UAE and Saudi Arabia on Sunday and Monday, Trump wrote in a Truth Social post: “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

Then, later on Monday, Trump wrote another post, saying he had been asked by the leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to hold off on a planned attack on Iran scheduled for Tuesday since “serious negotiations are now taking place.”

He added that he had instructed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine and the US military not to carry out the scheduled attack. However, he said, he “further instructed them to be prepared to go forward with a full, large scale assault of Iran, on a moment’s notice, in the event that an acceptable Deal is not reached”.

What do we know about the latest peace plan Iran has submitted?

Iran has submitted a revised 14-point peace plan to end the war, the semi-official Tasnim news agency reported on Monday.

Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei told a news briefing on Monday that Tehran’s response to the previous US proposal had been “conveyed to the American side through mediator Pakistan”, according to Tasnim.

Washington and Tehran have exchanged multiple proposals in recent weeks amid a ceasefire that has mostly halted six weeks of fighting. However, the initial direct talks mediated by Pakistan in Islamabad in April stalled, and Trump said last week the ceasefire is “on life support”.

While the specific proposals in the latest plan from Iran have not been made public, Baghaei said demands include the release of its assets frozen abroad and the lifting of sanctions.

“The points raised are Iranian demands that have been firmly defended by the Iranian negotiating team in every round of negotiations,” he said.

Iran has also previously demanded compensation for damage inflicted by US-Israeli attacks, an end to the ongoing US naval blockade of Iranian ports and a halt to fighting on all fronts, including in Lebanon, where Israeli forces continue daily attacks and have mounted a ground invasion in the south of the country.

Washington has urged Tehran to dismantle its nuclear programme and lift a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, which, before the war, carried one-fifth of the world’s crude oil and liquefied natural gas ‌(LNG) supply.

What are the main sticking points between Iran and the US?

A major point of contention is Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium. During negotiations, Washington has urged Tehran to give away its enriched uranium, a demand Tehran has resisted.

Iran is believed to have about 440kg (970lb) of uranium enriched to 60 percent. A 90 percent threshold of enriched uranium is needed to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran has never officially declared an intention to build nuclear weapons. The US wants this stock to be handed over to it, but Iran is reportedly only willing to consider handing it to a third party – if at all.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told reporters on the sidelines of a meeting of foreign ministers from BRICS nations in New Delhi last week that Iran and the US have reached a “deadlock” on the question of Iran’s “enriched material”.

As a result, he said, the topic is being “postponed” until later stages in the talks. “For the time being, it is not under discussion, it’s not under negotiation, but we will come to that subject in later stages.”

Araghchi confirmed he had spoken to Russian officials about an offer from Moscow to store Iran’s enriched uranium. He said Iran may consider Russia’s proposal at an “appropriate time” and that he appreciates Moscow’s efforts.

“When we come to that stage, obviously we will have more consultations with Russia and see if the Russian offer can help or not,” he said.

The US and Iran are also arguing about whether Iran should be allowed to enrich uranium at all. Under the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signed with several countries in 2015, Iran was able to continue enriching to 3.87 percent – enough for the development of a nuclear power programme. Trump withdrew the US from that agreement in 2018, despite consistent reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran had stuck to its terms. Now, the US wants a moratorium on all uranium enrichment for a period of up to 20 years, it says.

Another sticking point between the two countries is the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf.

Since early March, Iran has restricted shipping through the strait, a narrow waterway linking Gulf oil producers to the open ocean and through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped during peacetime. Iran has allowed passage by vessels from select countries, but they are required to negotiate transit with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

In its previous proposals to end the war, Iran has mentioned charging fees or tolls for vessels seeking to pass through the state. Washington has repeatedly rejected the prospect. In April, the US announced a naval blockade on ships entering or leaving Iranian ports, further adding to the disruption of global oil and gas supplies.

Iran’s state media reported, citing the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that technical teams from Iran and Oman met in Oman to negotiate a mechanism for safe transit in the Strait of Hormuz.

A third likely major point of friction – although one which may also be kicked into later discussions – is Iran’s support for a network of “proxy” armed groups around the Middle East which it calls its “axis of resistance”. These include the Houthis in Yemen, who have also caused disruption by launching attacks on Israel-linked ships in the Red Sea in the past, Hezbollah in Lebanon and multiple groups based in Iraq and Syria.

Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Tehran says Iranian leaders are ‘projecting defiance’ and rejecting ‘public pressure’ from the US.

A drone attack that caused a fire close to the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in the United Arab Emirates has raised further concerns about nuclear security and military escalation in the Gulf as discussions of peace between Iran and the United States hang in the balance.

Barakah was the first nuclear power station to be built on the Arabian Peninsula. Here is what we know about it:

What is the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant?

Barakah is a nuclear energy plant located in Al Dhafra, the largest municipal region of the emirate of Abu Dhabi. It is the UAE’s only nuclear power plant.

Construction of the plant began in 2012, and its first reactor became commercially operational in 2021.

The plant is located close to the border with Saudi Arabia, about 225km (140 miles) west of the UAE’s capital city, Abu Dhabi.

The facility features four pressurised water reactors, the most common type of nuclear power reactor. The model used here is the advanced power reactor 1400, a pressurised water reactor design developed in South Korea. Each reactor of this type has the capacity to produce 1,400 megawatts (MW), which is enough to power roughly 1 million homes.

According to the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC), the plant’s reactors produce 40 terawatt-hours (TWh) each year, which is equivalent to about 25 percent of the UAE’s electricity needs. The website for the London-based World Nuclear Association also confirmed that Barakah, when fully operational, meets 25 percent of the UAE’s electricity needs.

According to a September report by the Abu Dhabi media office, Barakah had produced 40TWh of clean energy over “the past 12 months”.

Since nuclear power plants produce a lower amount of carbon dioxide emissions than conventional power plants, the ENEC said Barakah saves up to 22.4 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year, equivalent to removing 4.8 million cars from the roads.

What happened in the attack on Sunday, and how has the UAE responded?

Authorities in Abu Dhabi said a single drone strike caused a blaze to break out at an electrical generator outside the Barakah plant’s inner perimeter in the Al Dhafra region on Sunday. No injuries were reported, and officials said radiation levels remained normal.

The UAE’s nuclear regulator said operations at the Barakah facility had not been affected. “All units are operating as normal,” it said in a social media post.

In a statement, the UAE’s Ministry of Defence said two more drones had been “successfully” intercepted and the drones had been launched from the “western border”. It did not give more details.

The UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted a statement on X on Sunday saying the country condemned “the unprovoked terrorist attack” in “the strongest terms”.

The statement added: “The UAE emphasised that it will not tolerate any threat to its security and sovereignty under any circumstances, and that it reserves its full, sovereign, legitimate, diplomatic, and military rights to respond to any threats, allegations, or hostilities in a manner that ensures the protection of its sovereignty, national security, territorial integrity, and the safety of its citizens, residents, and visitors, in accordance with international law.”

There was no immediate claim of responsibility, and the statements by the ministries did not publicly blame any country.

But Anwar Gargash, an adviser to the UAE’s president, wrote in an X post on Sunday: “The terrorist targeting of the Barakah clean nuclear power plant, whether carried out by the principal perpetrator or through one of its agents, represents a dangerous escalation and a dark scene that violates all international laws and norms, in criminal disregard for the lives of civilians in the UAE and its surroundings.”

Gargash’s post appeared to blame Iran and its proxy network of allied armed groups in the region, which Tehran calls the “axis of resistance”.

The launch point of the drones remained unclear, but on Sunday, Saudi Arabia also reported it had intercepted three drones that had been launched from Iraq, where some Iran-allied groups operate. If Iranian Shahed-136 drones, which have an estimated range of 2,000km to 2,500km (1,240 to 1,550 miles), were fired from Iraqi territory, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE would fall well within their reach.

Other reactions

Neighbouring Gulf states Saudi Arabia and Qatar condemned the attack on the Barakah plant.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kuwait also issued a statement denouncing the attack, which it called “heinous”.

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs condemned the attack, calling it “unacceptable”, saying it represented “a dangerous escalation” and urging a return to diplomacy.

Has Iran responded to the incident?

Iran has not claimed responsibility for the drone attacks, and there has been no public statement from Iran about the incident at Barakah.

However, in the aftermath of the drone attacks, United States President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post: “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

Iranian Ministry of Defence spokesperson Reza Talaei-Nik said on Sunday that the military is “fully prepared” to confront any new aggression from the US and Israel.

Iran has previously warned that countries where US military assets are deployed or Israeli-linked interests are located are viewed as legitimate targets.

Iran has also accused the UAE of strengthening ties with Israel while reports have emerged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a “secret” visit to the Gulf state during the US-Israel war on Iran. The UAE has denied this.

US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee also said last week that Israel had deployed Iron Dome air defence systems and personnel to the UAE to help defend against possible Iranian attacks.

What has the IAEA said?

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the global nuclear watchdog, said Sunday’s incident in the UAE had forced one reactor to rely temporarily on emergency diesel generators.

IAEA chief Rafael Grossi expressed “grave concern” and warned that military activity threatening nuclear facilities was “unacceptable”.

How serious could a strike on a nuclear facility be?

Attacks on nuclear power plants are especially worrying because they can risk damaging critical safety systems or reactors, which could release radioactive material into the atmosphere, not only over the country targeted but also across neighbouring states. Radiological material, specifically the hazardous isotope Caesium-137, could be released into the atmosphere.

The release of radioactive material could result in environmental contamination and poses major risks to public health. Water, if contaminated, becomes undrinkable while farmland and fisheries could become unsafe for decades, depending on the isotope released.

Short-term, acute exposure to radioactivity can cause burns and acute radiation sickness, which can be life-threatening.

Prolonged exposure, even to smaller doses, can increase the risk of illnesses such as cancer, especially thyroid cancer and leukaemia. Children and pregnant women are especially vulnerable.

Over the course of the US-Israel war on Iran, energy infrastructure has become a target.

Iran’s only functioning nuclear plant, the Bushehr power plant, has come under repeated attacks in the war. There are fears that damage at Bushehr could contaminate water across the entire Gulf region, most of which lacks groundwater and relies heavily on the desalination of seawater. Desalination plants are not specifically built to filter radioactive material, and not all plants currently are fitted with the technologies required to do so.

Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said Tehran’s ‘right’ to the Strait of Hormuz is ‘established and the matter is closed’, state media reports.

A fragile ceasefire in the US-Israel war on Iran is coming under growing strain as several Gulf countries have reported drone attacks.

Qatar said on Sunday that a drone struck a cargo ship in Qatari waters, sparking a fire, while Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates said they repelled drone attacks.

Though no Gulf country reported casualties in the latest attacks, they have put pressure on the fragile ceasefire, which took effect on April 8.

Qatar’s Ministry of Defence said the freighter had been arriving in the country’s waters from the UAE capital, Abu Dhabi, and was hit by a drone northeast of the port of Mesaieed.

“The vessel continued its journey toward Mesaieed Port after the fire was brought under control,” the ministry said.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) said a bulk carrier reported being struck by an “unknown projectile”, and a small fire had been extinguished, but there were no casualties from the incident. “There is no reported environmental impact,” it said.

Kuwait’s Defence Ministry said a “number of hostile drones” were detected in the country’s airspace at dawn. In a post on X, a spokesperson said the drones were dealt with “in accordance with established procedures”, but did not specify where the drones were launched from.

The UAE Defence Ministry said two Iranian drones were intercepted.

“UAE air defence systems successfully engaged two UAVs launched from Iran,” the ministry said in a statement on X.

Ceasefire tested

The Trump administration has said the truce is still in effect, but a naval battle has been taking place in the Gulf region, with Iran restricting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which a fifth of traded oil transited before the war, and the United States imposing a blockade of Iranian ports.

Several attacks have been reported on ships in the Gulf and the countries in the region over the past week.

On Friday, the US struck two Iranian oil tankers, saying they were trying to breach its blockade of Iran’s ports.

On Tuesday, the UAE said it came under attack from Iranian missiles and drones for the second day in a row. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), however, denied the claim.

The IRGC Navy on Sunday reiterated its warning that any attack on Iranian oil tankers or commercial vessels would be met with a “heavy assault” on one of the bases in the region used by US forces and enemy ships.

The spokesperson for the Iranian parliament’s foreign policy and security committee, Ebrahim Rezaei, said Tehran’s “restraint is over”.

“Any aggression against our vessels will be met with a heavy and decisive Iranian response against American vessels and bases,” Rezaei wrote on X.

“The clock is ticking against the Americans’ interests; it is to their benefit not to act foolishly and sink themselves deeper into the quagmire they have fallen into. The best course is to surrender and concede concessions. You must get used to the new regional order,” he added.

Talks to end the war

While the truce remains in effect, President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to resume the US bombardment if Iran does not accept a deal which includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz and rolling back its nuclear programme.

Iran is still mulling its response to a 14-point proposal by Washington, with Iranian frozen assets and war reparations among other main sticking points.

In a meeting with US Secretary of State Marc Rubio on Saturday, Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani pushed for all parties to respond to the ongoing mediation efforts and to reach an agreement for lasting peace.

Qatar’s prime minister also held a phone call with Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, the Qatari foreign ministry reported on Sunday.

Sheikh Mohammed told Araghchi that Iran’s use of the Strait of Hormuz as a “pressure card” would only deepen the crisis in the Gulf, and said all parties in the conflict should respond to mediation efforts to end the war.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Tohid Assadi said when it comes to diplomatic engagement, it seems that the US and Iran want the content of any negotiations to remain private.

Meanwhile, there is a mixture of different sentiments among Iranian citizens, he noted.

“Since the early days of the war, people have gathered to show their sense of nationalism and support for the political establishment,” he said.

“But we also know that there is a sense of frustration, especially when it comes to soaring prices and economic difficulties,” he added.

At a meeting on the reconstruction after damage caused by the war, President Masoud Pezeshkian said negotiations with the US on ending the war do not mean Iran is surrendering.

“The goal is to realise the rights of the Iranian people and defend national interests with authority,” he said.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says ceasefire with Iran remains in place despite growing tensions in the Strait of Hormuz.

Sudan has recalled its ambassador to Addis Ababa, accusing Ethiopia of being behind attacks on Khartoum’s airport. International Crisis Group’s Alan Boswell says the escalation risks making the countries’ internal challenges worse.

Iranian commander says US military attacked two passenger boats, not IRGC vessels, in the Strait of Hormuz on Monday.

Iran has accused the United States of killing five civilians in the Strait of Hormuz, saying its forces attacked passenger vessels in the waterway rather than boats belonging to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as claimed.

The claim on Tuesday contradicted a statement by US Admiral Brad Cooper, who said Central Command forces had sunk six IRGC vessels that had attempted to interfere with a US mission to escort stranded ships out of the Strait of Hormuz.

US President Donald Trump later put the number at seven boats.

The US operation, dubbed “Project Freedom”, has shaken a fragile ceasefire reached between Iran and the US on April 8 and renewed fears of a return to war.

Iran’s state broadcaster IRIB quoted an unnamed Iranian military commander as saying that Tehran launched an investigation following the US claim of attacks on IRGC vessels.

It said while none of the IRGC vessels was hit, the investigation found that US forces had “attacked two small boats carrying people on their way from Khasab on the coast of Oman to the coast of Iran on Monday”.

The attacks destroyed the boats and killed five civilian passengers, the commander said. The US “must be held accountable for their crime”, the commander added.

There was no immediate comment from the US military.

The violence comes as Trump seeks to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has effectively blockaded following the US and Israeli attacks on the country on February 28.

The closure of the vital maritime corridor – through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s energy supplies flow – has sent oil and fertiliser prices surging around the world and prompted fears of a global recession and food emergency.

Iran is now insisting on maintaining control over the Strait of Hormuz and collecting transit fees as reparations for the destruction caused by the US and Israel.

Attacks on UAE, ships in Hormuz

The Iranian military on Monday warned commercial vessels they would “jeopardise their safety” if they attempted to cross the waterway without permission. The military also warned US forces would face attacks if they approached or entered the chokepoint.

Amid the tensions, the United Arab Emirates said Iran launched a drone attack on one of its oil tankers that attempted to transit the strait and said Iranian forces launched 15 ballistic missiles and four drones at its territory.

UAE authorities said the attacks set off a large fire at a major oil refinery in the eastern emirate of Fujairah and wounded three Indian nationals.

A South Korean vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, the HMM Namu, also reported an attack, saying an explosion had caused a fire in its engine room.

Nonetheless, the US military said two US-flagged ships made it through the strait on Monday with the support of navy guided-missile destroyers.

The IRGC denied the claim as “baseless and completely false”, but the global shipping firm Maersk said the US-flagged Alliance Fairfax exited the Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz accompanied by the US military on Monday.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the events in Hormuz on Monday “make clear there’s no military solution to a political crisis”.

He said in a post on X that peace talks with the US were “making progress” with Pakistan’s mediation and that Washington “should be wary of being dragged back into quagmire by ill-wishers”.

“So should the UAE,” he added. “Project Freedom is Project Deadlock.”

Meanwhile, Trump has renewed his threats against Iran.

He told Fox News Iran would be “blown off the face of the Earth” if they attacked US vessels carrying out Project Freedom.

“We have more weapons and ammunition at a much higher grade than we had before,” he said.

“We have the best equipment. We have stuff all over the world. We have these bases worldwide. They’re all stocked up with equipment. We can use all of that stuff, and we will, if we need it.”

Iran claims its navy forced a US warship to turn back from the Strait of Hormuz as Washington denies any clash, amid rising tensions in the key waterway. The rival narratives come after US President Donald Trump announced Project Freedom, a mission he framed as a humanitarian effort to “free” stranded ships.

Chris Weafer, the CEO of Micro-Advisory Partners, says the UAE’s OPEC exit frees one million barrels of spare capacity. He warns Kazakhstan and Venezuela may follow, leaving OPEC far less influential on global oil pricing.

Oil markets face renewed instability following the United Arab Emirates’ formal exit from the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its wider alliance (OPEC+), announced on Tuesday and taking effect on Friday.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The move, which ends decades of membership, comes as the global economy continues to reel from the ongoing war with Iran and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz remains in place.

Investors are currently weighing the potential for higher future output from the UAE against the immediate and acute risks posed to global supply routes, as well as the increased chances that more countries drop out of OPEC and OPEC+.

Following the announcement, markets reacted swiftly as the potential for oversupply from the UAE was priced in. Oil prices fell by between 2% and 3%, particularly in futures contracts a couple of months ahead.

However, the move was just as quickly offset by the risk premium associated with the Middle East conflict and the current halt to US-Iran negotiations.

At the time of writing, US benchmark crude, WTI, is trading above $105 a barrel, while Brent crude, the international standard, is over $112. Both prices are around 4% higher on Wednesday from the UAE announcement low.

The UAE’s decision follows years of simmering tension between Abu Dhabi and Riyadh over production quotas. The UAE has invested over $150 billion (€128bn) in the state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) to expand its capacity to five million barrels per day.

However, under OPEC’s restrictive framework, much of this capacity remained underutilised, now prompting the government to prioritise its national interest.

The departure of the group’s third-largest producer is a significant blow to the cohesion of the 60-year-old organisation. Maurizio Carulli, global energy analyst at Quilter Cheviot, noted the limitations this exit places on the remaining members.

“Until tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is safe again, OPEC’s ability to stabilise prices is sharply constrained, while US producers have gained outsized influence,” Carulli explained.

While the UAE has pledged to bring additional production to the market in a “gradual and measured” manner, the sudden lack of coordination within OPEC has introduced a new layer of uncertainty.

For the UAE, the blockade served as a final catalyst for its exit. With its primary export route under threat, Abu Dhabi has sought the diplomatic flexibility to forge independent security and trade partnerships outside the traditional cartel structure.

Despite the geopolitical turmoil, energy equities have remained resilient.

According to Carulli, “integrated majors such as BP, Shell, TotalEnergies, ENI, Chevron and ExxonMobil are benefitting from a price uplift that could add 5-10% to operating cash flow for every $10 increase in oil prices.”

Standoff over the Strait of Hormuz

In a separate but related development, the security situation in the Middle East remains precarious despite a fragile ceasefire. Iran has recently offered a ten-point proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

In exchange for restoring maritime traffic, Tehran is demanding a full withdrawal of the US naval blockade and an end to the current hostilities.

US President Donald Trump, who recently extended the two-week ceasefire mediated by Pakistan, described the latest Iranian offer as “much better” than previous iterations but still did not accept the terms.

Shortly after, Trump posted on social media claiming that Iran is in a dire and desperate condition with no leverage to negotiate.

Washington continues to insist on a permanent settlement regarding Iran’s nuclear programme and an “unconditional” reopening of the waterway before sanctions are lifted.

The impact of this blockade on global energy security cannot be overstated.

“The prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz has removed roughly 12% of global oil supply from the market, according to the IEA, a bigger disruption than the Yom Kippur war, the Iran‑Iraq conflict, the invasion of Kuwait or even the fallout from Ukraine,” Carulli highlighted.

The UAE’s decision to quit OPEC to prioritise its ‘national interests’ deals a blow to the oil group already grappling with the challenge of shipping Gulf exports through the Strait of Hormuz. Here’s what we know about why it’s withdrawing and the impact it might have.

The Gulf state is the latest to quit the group, which was created to form a united ⁠front on oil pricing.

The United Arab Emirates has announced its withdrawal from OPEC and the wider OPEC+ framework, removing a core pillar of one of the most influential groups in the energy world.

The Gulf country, with a capacity of approximately 4.8 million barrels per day and significant room to increase output, announced on Tuesday that it would quit the organisation to focus on “national interests”.

The move comes as the US-Israel war on Iran has sparked ⁠an historic energy shock.

Here’s a look the at the organisation’s history and role in the global economy:

When was OPEC established and why?

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a permanent, intergovernmental organisation based in Vienna, Austria, that has the objective of coordinating and unifying petroleum policies among member states.

It was originally created at the Baghdad Conference in September 1960 by five oil-producing founding states, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

At that time, global oil markets were dominated by a group of powerful Western oil companies, known as the “Seven Sisters,” which controlled production and set prices.

The broader aim of the founding countries was to assert sovereignty over their natural resources and secure fair and stable prices for petroleum producers, as well as regular supplies to consuming nations.

OPEC currently has 12 members, including, aside from the UAE: Algeria, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.

According to a statement issued on Tuesday, the UAE’s withdrawal will be effective on May 1, marking the exit of a member that had contributed to the organisation since 1967.

The organisation pursues price stability by setting agreed production quotas for the membership, which together controls about 30 percent of global supply.

Since 2016, OPEC has also cooperated with Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Bahrain, Brunei, Malaysia, Mexico, Oman, South Sudan, and Sudan through its OPEC+ framework, bringing its output to about 41 percent of global supply.

Why did the UAE leave OPEC and OPEC+?

Alongside Saudi Arabia, the UAE is one of the few OPEC members with meaningful spare capacity, which allows the organisation to respond to supply shocks.

However, nations with spare capacity may decide to cash out their reserves rather than use them to adjust the market.

The UAE’s assertive foreign policy approach has progressively isolated it from fellow OPEC members, especially Saudi Arabia, which disagrees with its positions on Yemen and elsewhere.

Abu Dhabi, meanwhile, has been carving out its own sphere of influence across the Middle East and Africa, and has doubled down on relations with the United States and Israel, with which it opened ties in the 2020 Abraham Accords.

It views relations with Israel as a critical lever for regional influence and a unique channel to Washington, especially after coming under attack ⁠during the Iran war.

The UAE is not the first country to leave the organisation. Others to have withdrawn in recent years include Indonesia, Qatar, Ecuador, Angola and Gabon, mainly due to disagreements over output quotas.

‘This will be a great and brilliant day for the world’ US President Donald Trump said at a Turning Point USA event as Iran fully opens the Strait of Hormuz. He also thanked Gulf states for their ‘tremendous’ support.