United Arab Emirates

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.

MANAMA, Bahrain — U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Thursday that relations between the United States and its gulf Arab partners are rock solid, despite fears by some of them that they might be left out of discussions aimed at ending the war with Iran.

Rubio used a three-day, three-nation trip to the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain this week to try to convince all the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council that the Trump administration does indeed have their backs in negotiations to end the war President Trump and Israel launched on Feb. 28.

That conflict sharply curtailed the region’s oil exports and saw several gulf countries take direct retaliatory Iranian missile and drone hits.

“They’ve shared with us some very concrete concerns, ideas,” Rubio said in Bahrain, the last stop on the trip. “And when I say concern, the biggest concern is that they really just want to be informed every step along the way as we enter these negotiations at both the technical and political levels.

“We want them to be involved and we want the views of all these countries to be reflected,” he said. “We don’t want to and will not be making any decisions or commitments that in any way undermines the prosperity, stability or security of our gulf partners.”

Although the U.S. and the gulf council members — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — eventually released a joint statement after the meeting that extolled areas of agreement about the end goals of the Iran deal, there were small signs of potential discontent.

The joint statement said the two sides “stressed the need to maintain momentum and unity as negotiations proceed toward a more permanent end to hostilities and the shared objective of preventing Iran from ever developing or otherwise acquiring a nuclear weapon.”

They also expressed opposition to any attempt by Iran to impose tolls or fees, or assert control over the Strait of Hormuz. They welcomed an Omani initiative to create a safe lane to evacuate stranded sailors from the waterway and stressed that any economic benefit Iran might realize “is conditional and reversible, contingent on Iran’s compliance” with the temporary agreement and a final deal.

The joint statement painted a rosy picture, yet the council secretary, Gen. Jasem Mohamed Albudaiwi, suggested in a statement that doubts remain.

He said it was emphasized during the meeting that any future understandings or arrangements must incorporate the requirements of the gulf council countries to safeguard their interests and ensure “their security and stability.” His statement, released by the group, hinted that the gulf council members felt snubbed in the earlier talks.

“Such arrangements must be based on the principles of international law, respect for state sovereignty, good neighborliness, and non-interference in internal affairs, thereby contributing to the consolidation of regional security and stability,” he said.

Before Rubio spoke to the group, the meeting host, Bahraini Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani, said that although the memorandum of understanding is welcome, many questions remain outstanding.

“While this progress is encouraging, it is critically important that Iran fully adheres to its obligations,” including under the memorandum, he said.

He said that means preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, preserving freedom of navigation, ending all missile and drone attacks, halting support for proxy groups and abandoning attempts to interfere with Iran’s neighbors.

Lee writes for the Associated Press.

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.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said Iran will not be permitted to charge tolls or fees for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz under any final agreement with Washington, exposing one of the biggest points of friction in negotiations aimed at ending months of conflict across the Middle East.

The dispute comes after Iran announced it would waive planned transit fees through the strait that crosses through its territorial waters for 60 days while talks with the United States continue in Switzerland, suggesting charges could be introduced once the negotiating period expires.

Washington and Tehran signed a preliminary agreement in Switzerland this week to halt hostilities and launched a 60-day diplomatic process focused on sanctions relief, Iran’s nuclear programme and the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz.

Pakistan, which helped mediate the talks alongside Qatar, has said negotiations to end the four-month US-Israel war on Iran are expected to resume early next week, likely on Tuesday.

The future of Hormuz has already emerged as a key sticking point after Iran effectively closed the waterway during the war, severely disrupting maritime traffic through one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints and causing the price of oil to soar.

In peacetime, one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas supplies are shipped for export by Gulf producers through the waterway.

In April, the US imposed a corresponding naval blockade on Iranian naval ports in a bid to stem Iranian oil exports.

While a number of ships have crossed through the strait since the US-Iran agreement was signed last week, uncertainty remains over whether Tehran intends to impose permanent fees or service charges on shipping operators using the route. Here’s what we know – and what else is happening in the Strait of Hormuz this week.

What are the US and Iran saying?

On Friday, Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) said planned fees for ships using the waterway would be suspended during the 60-day negotiation period established under the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed with the US.

Earlier this week, Iran and Oman said in a joint statement that they would study the future administration of the trade route as well as possible charges for services provided there, while maintaining their sovereignty claims over territorial waters bordering the strait.

Speaking at the start of a regional tour in the United Arab Emirates, Rubio rejected the idea of transit fees. “It’s an international waterway. No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway,” he said, adding that he believed “all the countries in this region would agree”.

Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, has signalled that Tehran views the post-war arrangement as fundamentally different from the status quo that existed before the conflict, however. Experts also say that Iran will not give up control of the strait, which has proved to be its greatest point of leverage in the conflict with the US.

“Hormuz will never return” to its prewar status, Ghalibaf said, despite both sides agreeing on Monday to establish “communication mechanisms” aimed at keeping the waterway open.

What does international law say?

International law protects the right of transit through strategic waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz, preventing coastal states from imposing explicit tolls simply for passage through international shipping lanes, even when they are passing solely through territorial waters.

However, countries can charge for specific services, including inspections, navigation assistance, security measures and certain insurance-related requirements, insurance experts say.

Examples include fees associated with transit through the Suez Canal and Panama Canal, as well as some services provided in Turkiye’s Bosporus and Dardanelles straits.

Mohammad Reza Farzanegan, an economist at Germany’s Philipps-Universitat Marburg, told Al Jazeera last month that Iran, like Turkiye, could justify a negotiated mechanism for transit fees or service-based contributions through natural straits as payment for maintaining a safe passageway, reducing environmental risks and providing predictability in a waterway that supports global energy, food and technology supply chains.

A key difference, however, is that while those waterways pass through the territory of a single state in each case, the Strait of Hormuz passes through the territorial waters of both Iran and Oman, while also connecting to waters used by the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states.

“This sort of arrangement is unprecedented, and there would not be such an outcome, unless there is a complete coordination between the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries and Iran, with the approval of major international powers, such as China and the United States,” Nader Habibi, an Iranian American economist, told Al Jazeera.

How many ships are getting through the strait now?

Ship movements through the Strait of Hormuz remain well below prewar levels, when between 120 and 140 ships transited the passage each day, including tankers carrying about 20 million barrels of oil from the Gulf.

As the strait begins to open up, Oman says it is working with the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) on temporary arrangements to facilitate safe transit through the strait, launching an operation to evacuate more than 11,000 sailors stranded in the area after the conflict left hundreds of vessels trapped for months.

Traffic through the strait has also been held back by ongoing concerns about the possible presence of sea mines in the central shipping channels used by international vessels before the war.

The Joint Maritime Information Center (JMIC), which includes representatives from the US and other maritime partners, has warned ships to avoid the area “due to the existence of mines”.

Other countries, including Japan, are currently weighing up whether to send ships to help with efforts to remove mines from the strait.

While Iran has never confirmed the presence of mines in the strait, when it first issued a map of the waterway for vessels it had approved for transit while the conflict was ongoing, it ordered ships to pass close to its coast to avoid possible mines. Ships had previously passed much closer to the coast of Oman.

The graphic below illustrates how much shipping through the strait dropped off as a result of the US-Israel war on Iran.

Could the dispute over strait fees derail a peace deal?

Mostafa Khoshcheshm, a professor at the University of Applied Sciences in Tehran, told Al Jazeera that Iran is unlikely to abandon plans to introduce long-term service fees in the strait.

“According to the MoU, Iran is not going to charge service fees for 60 days, but afterwards, Iran is definitely going to do that,” Khoshcheshm told Al Jazeera.

He said many Iranians were already unhappy that Tehran had agreed to suspend fees for the duration of the negotiating period.

“The money is not the real core of the issue,” he said. “The point here is how to impose your new protocols in the region. This is highly important for the Iranians.”

Cyrus Schayegh, professor of international history and politics at the Geneva Graduate Institute, told Al Jazeera the success of any new administrative arrangement would depend heavily on regional support.

“I think this is a very big question, and the biggest question is whether they will be able to sell it to the Emirates,” Schayegh told Al Jazeera.

“I think the Emirates will need to be involved in a really substantive way for any sort of new authority to actually work.”

More broadly, he said, the future of Hormuz forms part of a wider debate over Gulf security architecture following the war.

“It is only one piece of a much larger puzzle,” Schayegh said, adding that several regional states now accept that Iran has strengthened its deterrence capabilities following the conflict.

What other issues remain unresolved?

Hormuz is far from the only serious obstacle to a peace deal.

Questions also remain over the future of Iran’s nuclear programme, with Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, saying that access for international inspectors to nuclear facilities damaged during the war would only be addressed as part of a final agreement with Washington.

His comments came after US President Donald Trump claimed Iran had agreed to “the highest level” of nuclear inspections.

Iranian officials insist no commitments were made in Switzerland regarding Tehran’s nuclear programme and say they did not meet representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), including Director-General Rafael Grossi.

Regional security remains another major source of disagreement, with Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz insisting Israeli forces will not withdraw from southern Lebanon “even if there is an American demand” to do so.

Meanwhile, Ghalibaf has identified the withdrawal of foreign military forces from the Middle East as one of Tehran’s strategic objectives in the negotiations.

The future of Iran’s frozen assets also remains a sticking point, with Trump indicating Washington is reluctant to release large sums of Iranian funds directly, arguing that money could ultimately benefit the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Instead, he has suggested a mechanism under which some funds would be used to purchase US goods.

“Food is desperately needed in Iran, and we will be purchasing it for them exclusively from the United States,” Trump said. Iran has not confirmed plans to do this.

A CITY said to be an alternative holiday destination to Dubai is getting its only flight route from the UK.

Air Arabia will launch the new flights from London Gatwick to Sharjah in the UAE next month.

The route, starting from July 4, will operate twice a day, with flights from £205 each way.

It will be the first time the airline operates from the UK, and the only direct route to the UAE city.

Jonathan Pollard, Chief Commercial Officer, London Gatwick, previously said: “Demand for flights to destinations across the Middle East has really taken off this year and we have been delighted to offer passengers across London and the South East an increasingly fantastic range of routes and choice of carriers.”

Sharjah is the third biggest city in the United Arab Emirates behind Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

TAKE OFF

UK airline named best in Europe – with new flights to two bucket list destinations

JET SET

EasyJet to launch 13 new flight routes to Europe and Africa

It is often touted as a more family-friendly destination and said to be the cultural capital of the UAE.

Popular attractions includes the UNESCO Cultural Capital of the Arab World and the Al Montazah Parks amusement park

However, it does follow stricter rules than Dubai – such as alcohol being banned a cross the entire city.

But holidays to the UAE are back on the cards after the UK Foreign Office lifted the travel ban.

The ban on holidays to the UAE came after a number of attacks across Dubai due to the Iran War, which included to Dubai Airport.

Here are some other new routes launching from London Gatwick this year.

The first round of talks between high-level officials from Iran and the United States in Switzerland has ended, mediators say, with the two sides agreeing on a roadmap towards a final deal to end their more than 100-day war.

Iran and the US agreed to set up communication lines to keep the vital Strait of Hormuz open and end fighting in Lebanon at the marathon talks that ended on Monday, according to mediators.

The teams, led by US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, opened talks on Sunday as part of a two-month negotiating period set out under a preliminary deal agreed last week.

Mediators Pakistan and Qatar said the negotiators reached agreement on a “roadmap towards reaching a final deal within 60 days” with technical talks to continue for the rest of the week at the Swiss resort of Burgenstock.

“Encouraging progress has been made, including the creation of a mechanism for further technical talks,” they said, detailing a contact channel set up to “avoid incidents and miscommunication” over the Strait of Hormuz.

A “deconfliction cell” between the parties and authorities in Lebanon has also been agreed to prevent fighting from erupting there again, they said.

Al Jazeera’s Osama Bin Javaid, reporting from Lucerne, Switzerland, said mediators hailed the constructive engagement, adding that the working groups formed by the negotiators are to begin work immediately.

“A lot of work still remains to be done, and it is not yet clear how these groups will be formulated, in which capacity they will work or what format any future meeting will take,” he said.

Tehran essentially had blocked the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation against the joint attacks by Israel and the US on February 28 that touched off the war.

Lebanon was pitched into the conflict as Iran-aligned Hezbollah attacked Israel in response to the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, prompting Israel to launch a wide-scale bombing campaign and ground invasion of southern Lebanon.

After a series of false starts, Washington and Tehran last week finally signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the war, which included a provision to end fighting in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah.

But there have been repeated clashes and Israeli attacks in Lebanon since, which prompted Iran to say days after it had reopened the Strait of Hormuz that it would again close the waterway, through which about a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies transited before the war.

“Tireless Pakistani and Qatari mediation has delivered major progress to end Lebanon War,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote on X after the talks in Switzerland.

“Oil and petrochem exports are waived, blockade lifted, some frozen assets released, and major reconstruction & development plan launched for Iran. 1st real test: Lebanon deconfliction cell,” he wrote.

Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas, reporting from Tehran, said Iran achieved most of what it wanted in the talks in Switzerland because it had conditions for starting the technical talks.

“They were saying that the memorandum of understanding – particularly Articles 1, 10 and 11 – had to be initiated and implemented for the technical talks to move forward,” he said, referring to the sections on ending fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon; waiving US sanctions on Iranian energy exports; and releasing frozen Iranian assets.

“So now that they have decided that technical talks in Switzerland are going to continue throughout the whole week, we see that there is progress,” he added.

Trump’s threats

The roadmap was agreed after a shaky start to the negotiations. Iran’s delegation walked out in response to US President Donald Trump’s threats on Sunday to attack Iran over its support for Hezbollah.

“Iran must immediately stop their highly paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble,” Trump wrote on social media, apparently referring to Hezbollah. “If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again, just like we did last week, only harder!!!”

Iran hit back with a warning of its own.

“They would do better to be careful with their statements; our armed forces are ready to respond to them in a different manner. No matter what they say, we are the ones who act,” Iran’s chief negotiator, Ghalibaf, said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, said Israeli troops would remain in southern Lebanon “as long as necessary” and promised that he would “not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons”.

By Sunday evening, there had been no reports of Israeli attacks or continued fighting as some residents of southern Lebanon cautiously returned to their homes.

The fighting between Israel and Hezbollah has repeatedly threatened to derail peace efforts.

On Friday, planned US-Iranian talks were postponed after Israel launched deadly attacks in Lebanon following the deaths of four of its soldiers in combat.

Israel’s military chief visited troops on Sunday in southern Lebanon, where he said Hezbollah was in a “very difficult position”.

“Hezbollah has suffered a severe and significant blow, and we are committed to remaining prepared to continue operating and prevent its rebuilding,” Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir said.

The overall death toll from the fighting in Lebanon has surpassed 4,100 since it escalated on March 2, the Ministry of Public Health said.

‘Historic meeting’

Vance had earlier hailed “a historic meeting” in Switzerland.

Even as Trump was threatening Iran, Vance told reporters the US president had “asked us to turn over a new leaf to transform our relationship with the people of Iran”.

Flanked by US negotiators Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, Vance added: “The question before us now is how much more can we accomplish together?

“Can we turn over a new leaf? Can we change relations in the Middle East permanently?

“Or do we go back to doing things the old way, which is not our preference, but it’s certainly very much something that can happen.”

Lebanon aside, there has been no indication that Iran’s support for armed groups across the region, which has long drawn the ire of the US and Israel, would be addressed in the negotiations.

Speaking on Sunday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian stressed that Tehran would not relinquish its right to enrich uranium although he repeated Iran’s denial that it seeks nuclear weapons.

“We can also state in writing that we have no intention of building a bomb,” he said.

DUBAI holidays can now go ahead as the UK Foreign Office has lifted the travel ban.

All non-essential travel to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was banned back in March.

This was due to the Iran conflict which saw Dubai caught up in the attacks, which included a drone strike on Dubai International Airport.

However, the US and Iran have since signed a peace plan that ends the ongoing war.

In response, the UK Foreign Office has updated their travel advice earlier today.

It now says: “FCDO no longer advises against all but essential travel to UAE.”

BETTER TOGETHER

Multigeneration Dubai holidays save money and simplify childcare

FLIGHT-MARE

Dubai travel warning: How the Israel-Hamas war is affecting UAE flights

It still warns that the situation is “unpredictable and attacks could resume at short notice”.

However, the lifting of the ban means holidays can resume to the region.

Last year, 1.4million Brits visited Dubai alone, which have since massively dropped due to the travel ban.

British Airways and Virgin Atlantic have already suspended flights to Dubai until October 2026 and winter 2027, respectively.

However, Emirates continues to operate flights between the UK and the UAE.

The travel ban being lifted also affects Abu Dhabi, where holidays can also resume.

The UK Foreign Office has lifted the travel ban for Qatar as well, which includes flights going through Doha.

In response, Qatar Airways has increased the number of flights operating between the UK and Doha, including 49 flights a week from London Heathrow and 14 a week from Edinburgh.

This affects long-haul holidays to places like Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Australia, who often use these Middle East hubs as stopover destinations.

Many destinations have seen a drop in tourism because of the war – Thailand predicted as many as 11million long-haul arrivals this year, but has since dropped this to 10million.

US drivers may have to wait until 2027 for gasoline prices to fall below 79 cents per litre, according to Patrick De Haan, Head of Petroleum Analysis at GasBuddy. He says global oil inventories could take more than a year to recover from disruptions linked to the war on Iran.

The United Arab Emirates has agreed to unlock billions of dollars for Iran, pursuing a tactical shift after weeks of Iranian attacks on the wealthy Gulf Arab state amid its ongoing war with the United States and Israel, four sources told the Reuters news agency.

The report on the move coincided with the final stages of broader negotiations between Tehran and Washington to end the war. Diplomats say those talks involve the release of tens of billions of dollars in Iranian oil revenues frozen in foreign banks under US sanctions.

Two regional sources told Reuters that the UAE had agreed to release a total of $10bn, more than $3bn of which had already been delivered.

Two other sources with knowledge of the ⁠arrangement put the total funds involved at $20bn, adding that the move had been agreed in return for a halt to Iranian attacks on the UAE.

One of the sources with knowledge of the arrangement also said a first tranche of $3bn had already been made available.

Reuters could not establish whether the funds earmarked for the transfers belong to the UAE or originate in long-blocked Iranian accounts in the UAE banking system, or elsewhere.

But a UAE official, asked to comment on the transfer, said the country was trying to ease tension and foster peace.

“The UAE’s foreign policy is guided by promoting de-escalation and reducing tensions across ‌the region, while advancing lasting peace and stability,” the official said.

“The UAE supports efforts, including those undertaken by the United States, to protect the peoples of the region from the repercussions of conflict.”

The White House did not immediately respond to Reuters’s request for comment on the move.

‘Red line’ workaround

Earlier on Friday, Vice President JD Vance said that frozen funds would not immediately be released to Iran upon signing a deal with the US.

He said the potential deal is structured to ensure that economic benefits would flow to Tehran if it meets its obligations.

There was no immediate response from Iranian authorities to a Reuters request for comment on the move.

None of the sources cited by Reuters would agree to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter.

The arrangement signals a striking pivot from the open animosity of UAE-Iran relations through much of the war, when Iranian attacks emptied Dubai’s hotels, ⁠drove some expatriates to flee and shook the reputation for safety that is central to the country’s position as a premier business hub.

One of the ⁠sources with knowledge of the arrangement said the move offered a way to help solve the conflict between the US and Iran without either side crossing its red line. Iran can claim it extracted compensation for war damages. Washington can insist it paid nothing.

Abu Dhabi, meanwhile, obtains its own security and protects Dubai’s hub status, while framing the move as an investment in rebuilding regional trust.

The other source with knowledge of the arrangement said that in return for the disbursement, Iran ⁠would halt missile and drone attacks on the UAE, and there would be a rebuilding of bilateral ties, including intelligence sharing and economic cooperation.

The source added that Iran had approached at least two other Gulf Arab countries to make a similar arrangement.

The last known direct attack by Iran on ⁠the UAE was more than a month ago – a May 4 strike on the Gulf state’s Fujairah port on the Gulf ⁠of Oman.

The first source with knowledge of the arrangement said talks had started several weeks ago but quickened pace when officials of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard visited Abu Dhabi last week to meet Sheikh Tahnoun bin Zayed al Nahyan, the UAE’s national security adviser and deputy ruler of Abu Dhabi, and stayed at his guest house.

That trip was followed by a visit by UAE officials to Tehran to negotiate the details of the mechanism.

Frozen funds

Dubai’s banks have long held substantial Iranian-linked deposits, much of them now immobilised under US sanctions that police the global dollar-clearing system and expose any foreign bank dealing with blacklisted Iranian entities to being cut off from the US financial network.

On April 11, a senior Iranian source told Reuters that the ‌US had agreed to release Iranian frozen assets held in Qatar and other foreign banks, although a US official swiftly denied the assertion.

The source, who declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter, said that unfreezing the assets was “directly linked to ensuring safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz”, a key issue in talks aimed at ending the conflict.

As Washington and Tehran move towards a long-term ceasefire agreement, Gulf states will likely look for new long-term security solutions when a war in their region – which they did not start – finally ends.

It comes as United States President Donald Trump cancelled new strikes on Iran saying that a deal with Tehran was imminent, and that a “time” and “place” for signing would soon be announced.

In Tehran, officials appeared more cautious with one senior Iranian official telling Al Jazeera that the government was still reviewing a proposed Memorandum of Understanding with Washington.

Subsequent comments by Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif point to a deal being made, and what follows in the coming days could have important implications for collective regional security.

Attacks on the Gulf

The United States operates military facilities in at least 19 locations across the MENA region, including permanent bases in Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Between 40,000 and 50,000 US troops were stationed across the region before the war on Iran started.

This US-Gulf nexus appeared to insulate states from conflicts engulfing other parts of the region, but over the past four months, Gulf states hosting US military facilities have been targeted by Iran.

“If there is a way to describe the prevailing security model in the region since the 1980s, the concept of security partnerships best encapsulates it,” said Mahjoub Al-Zuwairi, an academic and expert on Middle East politics.

“The countries of the region have chosen to align their security with broad international alliances. For decades, this model has provided a reasonable deterrent and logistical and intelligence depth that is difficult to replace.”

A security umbrella with holes

The war on Iran has exposed a paradox – while Iranian officials have repeatedly referred to their Gulf neighbours as “brothers”, they have also repeatedly targeted them during the war.

Despite the protestations of Gulf states that no attacks on Iran were launched from their soil, they have been repeatedly targeted.

At least 28 people have been killed across the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states in suspected Iranian drone and rocket attacks, since the US and Israel launched their offensive on Iran on 28 February. This has led to questions about the US-Gulf security arrangement.

“Just the war itself has pierced that sense of security, the US security umbrella is moribund at worst, or ineffective at best,” Simon Mabon, professor of international relations at Lancaster University, told Al Jazeera.

“They’ve long relied on it for their own security. Yet the presence of US forces on their territory directly meant they became targets. They can’t escape their geography [and] despite the tensions, despite the hostilities, despite the attacks, Iran isn’t going away. They have to find a way of dealing with this reality.”

The economic cost of war

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has proven be a setback for some Gulf states working to diversify their energy-reliant economies towards tourism, services and finance, but not all have been affected equally.

Saudi Arabia was able to redirect some oil exports through its East-West pipeline to the Red Sea, while Oman – whose main ports are outside the Strait of Hormuz – has also benefited from rising energy prices.

The UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar have been more heavily affected due to their dependence on the waterway for their energy exports, but the war has encouraged new thinking on long-standing security and economic arrangements.

“There are new pipelines being set up, but the capacity of these alternatives is infinitely smaller than the Strait itself,” said Mabon. “It will take enormous investment and years of development before they can come close to replacing it.”

Moving closer to Iran?

One possible lesson from the conflict is that Gulf states may seek engagement with Iran rather than confrontation, something that Gulf states had already made some groundwork on before the US-Israel war began.

The UAE restored diplomatic ties with Tehran in 2022, and a year later, Saudi Arabia and Iran agreed to normalise relations in a deal brokered by China.

Al-Zuwairi says that the conflict could revive plans for MENA-led regional security arrangements, as envisioned in the 2019 Hormuz Peace Initiative, which proposed a Gulf security framework involving Iran, Iraq and the six GCC states.

But the distrust fostered since then – notably Tehran’s strikes on its Gulf neighbours – would make such a formation unlikely in the near future. 

“The recent war has opened the door wide to reconsidering the Gulf security system with its neighbours,” Al-Zuwairi said.

“How can Tehran propose a non-aggression pact while raining missiles on neighbouring cities? The initiative appears theoretically sound but practically bankrupt unless Iranian behaviour changes.”

Looking beyond Washington?

The solution for the Gulf could be a hybrid arrangement where ties with Washington are maintained, but other regional and domestic options are explored, including greater investment in local defence industries.

A possible blueprint for this could be the mutual defence agreement between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan last September, stating that an attack on one country would be considered an attack on both.

Yet previous instances when Gulf states felt abandoned by the US have led to divergent responses, with the UAE and Bahrain deepening ties with Israel, but a new paradigm means that a more collective action to the issue of security might be considered.

“The war has demonstrated that every guarantor, no matter how many banners it flies, primarily protects its own interests,” said Al-Zuwairi.

“The region ends up paying the price for a war it did not choose … The security of the Gulf will not be created in Washington … It will be created when Gulf countries recognise that they must build it themselves, because when fires start, it is always those closest to the flames who pay the price.”

Iranian and US forces have continued to exchange strikes despite an April ceasefire, fuelling tensions across the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, while raising fears the fragile truce could unravel as mediation efforts continue in Doha.

On Monday, the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) said it carried out new strikes on southern Iran, targeting missile sites and boats allegedly attempting to place naval mines. It said the attacks had been carried out in “self-defence” to protect US troops from threats posed by Iranian forces.

On Tuesday, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it had downed a US drone and fired at a jet and another drone that entered Iranian airspace, according to state media. Iran also said it retained the “legitimate and definite” right to respond to any violations of the ceasefire.

Since a temporary ceasefire was announced on April 8, Iran has continued to control shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas supplies are shipped in peacetime, while US forces have enforced a corresponding blockade on Iranian ports. Negotiations for a long-term ceasefire are ongoing, but repeated military flare-ups in the meantime underscore the deep mistrust between the two sides, experts say, as Iran and the US jostle for leverage amid a back-and-forth of peace proposals from both sides.

Here is what has happened since the ceasefire:

April 8: Ceasefire announced after 40 days of war

The US and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28, as negotiations between Washington and Tehran progressed via mediators, amid claims that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. While the US and Israel provided no evidence to support their allegation, Iran continued to deny. It responded with missiles and drones targeting Israel and US military and infrastructure assets in the Gulf region and the wider Middle East.

On April 8, following mediation by Pakistan, the two sides agreed to a two-week pause in fighting to allow for further negotiations. Delegations from both countries met in Islamabad on April 11 and 12, but failed to reach a broader agreement, with draft proposals exchanged through Pakistani mediators in an attempt to end the conflict. The ceasefire was extended to allow for more proposals to be exchanged.

At least 3,468 people – aged between eight months and 88 years – have been killed in US-Israeli attacks on Iran since February 28, according to its Ministry of Health. They included seven infants, 376 children and 496 women.

At least 26 Israelis have been killed and 7,791 wounded in Iranian attacks, while the US military has confirmed 13 combat-related deaths across the region. Dozens of people were also killed in the Gulf countries. Lebanon remains the worst hit in the region, where, despite a ceasefire, Israel continues to carry out attacks amid its ground invasion. More than 3,200 people have been killed, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health.

April 10: Kuwait accuses Iran of drone attacks

The ceasefire faced near-immediate strain when Kuwait said seven drones entered its airspace on April 10. It accused Iran and allied armed groups of the attacks.

Kuwait’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned what it described as violations of its sovereignty and airspace. Separately, the US Department of State accused Iran-linked armed groups in Iraq of launching attacks from Iraqi territory. However, Iran denied any role in the attacks, saying it had not targeted any Gulf country since the ceasefire began.

April 12: US naval blockade deepens tensions

Four days into the ceasefire – and following the collapse of direct talks in Islamabad – the US announced a naval blockade targeting maritime traffic entering and leaving Iranian ports, after talks mediated by Pakistan collapsed. The US argued that Iran had benefitted from continuing to export oil, while the Strait of Hormuz was closed to nearly all other shipping.

The blockade formally came into effect the following day, although Washington said vessels travelling to non-Iranian ports would be allowed past.

Iran condemned the move as “illegal”, warning that ports in the Gulf region would not be safe if Iranian ports were threatened.

The blockade came after Iran tightened its control over shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, restricting some foreign ships while allowing passage to countries it viewed as friendly.

The International Maritime Organization has said no country has the right to block shipping in international transit straits.

April 18-22: Ship seizures, attacks at sea

On April 18, Iranian forces fired on two Indian ships in the Strait of Hormuz, which it said did not have permission to pass.

Maritime tensions escalated further on April 20, when US forces seized an Iranian container ship near the Gulf in a move Iran described as an “act of piracy“. CENTCOM and US President Donald Trump said the vessel, the Iran-flagged Touska, had ignored orders to withdraw from its route through the Strait of Hormuz.

Days later, on April 22, the IRGC fired on three ships in the strait and seized two foreign container vessels, the Panama-flagged MSC Francesca and the Liberian-flagged Epaminondas, saying they lacked authorisation to transit the waterway.

The incident came the day after Trump extended the ceasefire while maintaining the US naval blockade on Iranian ports.

May 4: UAE refinery fire blamed on Iran

On May 4, the United Arab Emirates accused Iran of launching missiles and drones at the country, triggering a fire at an oil refinery in Fujairah and wounding three Indian nationals.

The UAE said its air defences had intercepted 12 ballistic missiles, three cruise missiles and four drones launched from Iran. Abu Dhabi condemned what it described as “unprovoked Iranian attacks” on civilian infrastructure.

The UAE said the attacks were the first on its territory since the ceasefire had commenced on April 8. The strikes came as Trump launched a new effort to escort stranded oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, much of which had remained closed since the war began.

Iran’s military warned commercial vessels against accepting US escorts and threatened to attack if they entered the strait. Trump abandoned the effort after one day.

May 14: Commercial vessels targeted again

On May 14, an Indian cargo ship transporting livestock from Africa to the UAE sank off the coast of Oman, while the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations reported that “unauthorised personnel” boarded another vessel near Fujairah and redirected it towards Iran.

India condemned the attack, saying commercial shipping and civilian sailors continued to be targeted despite the ceasefire.

May 17: Drone strike close to UAE’s Barakah nuclear plant

A drone strike has sparked a fire on the perimeter of the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), raising new concerns over a potential new regional escalation amid a fragile ceasefire between Iran and the United States.

Authorities in Abu Dhabi said the blaze broke out at an electrical generator outside the plant’s inner perimeter in the Al Dhafra region on Sunday. No injuries were reported, and officials said radiation levels remained normal. The UAE did not specifically blame Iran, but said the drones ⁠had been launched from the “western border”.

May 17: Drones intercepted in Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia also said it intercepted three drones fired from Iraqi airspace. The Saudi ⁠defence ministry said it would take “necessary operational measures” in the event of any attempt to violate its sovereignty and security.

Talks continue despite distrust

Diplomatic efforts to secure a broader peace agreement are continuing. Senior officials from Iran travelled to Qatar this week for negotiations aimed at ending the US-Israel war on Iran, with discussions reportedly focused on the release of frozen Iranian assets.

Iran is also seeking sanctions relief for its oil and petrochemical exports during a proposed 60-day period to hold talks about its nuclear programme. A further proposed 30-day timeframe would see the US lift its blockade of Iranian oil ports while Tehran restores commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Tehran is also seeking guarantees related to a ceasefire in Lebanon, where Israel continues to strike and occupy towns and villages in the south of the country. Meanwhile, Trump is reportedly attempting to link the negotiations to efforts for Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan to normalise ties with Israel under the Abraham Accords.

Analysts say any agreement remains politically sensitive, with deep distrust persisting as all sides seek leverage to secure a deal they can present domestically as a victory.

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.