united states

The leading candidates in Michigan’s heated Senate race have faced off in their first televised debate, with less than a month remaining before the United States midterm elections.

Thursday’s hour-long debate was a microcosm of how tense the toss-up race has become.

Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed, formerly the health director for Wayne County, repeatedly sought to paint his Republican adversary Mike Rogers as a yacht-owning millionaire out of touch with ordinary voters.

For his part, Rogers, a former member of the US House of Representatives, lobbed accusations at El-Sayed that he was soft on “terrorism” and had foreign sympathies.

The Michigan-born El-Sayed has repeatedly faced Islamophobic attacks while on the campaign trail, with Republican President Donald Trump labelling him an “extremist, terrorist sympathizer” whose history “goes back to the days of the Jihad”. If elected, El-Sayed would be the first Muslim member of the US Senate.

The two candidates spent much of their hour onstage together speaking over one another, as they exchanged pointed barbs.

“He can’t condemn a terrorist act that happened on our soil in the state of Michigan. He can’t bring himself to condemn –,” Rogers began, referencing a March attack on a synagogue.

“I did condemn it,” El-Sayed said, jumping in. “No, you did not,” Rogers replied, with El-Sayed quickly responding, “You make stuff up. You make stuff up.”

The Senate race in Michigan is considered key to the battle for control of the US Senate. Democrats are seeking to flip both chambers of Congress, but shifting control of the Senate will be a tougher prospect, given that only a third of its 100 seats are on the November 3 ballot.

Host Rick Albin at times struggled to keep the debate on track, as tensions rose.

“We’ve got dozens of questions we want to get to. You can’t litigate all of these with 14 different rebuttals, so please work with me,” Albin told the two candidates at one point.

Here are the key takeaways from the evening’s debate.

Rogers insinuates El-Sayed family ties to ‘terrorism watch list’

The ferocity of the debate was underscored by the high volume of ad hominem attacks the candidates deployed against each other.

But Rogers repeatedly pushed a series of attacks that seemed to centre on El-Sayed’s identity as a Muslim.

In response to a question about healthcare, Rogers said that El-Sayed has “taken money from individuals on his campaign who openly support Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda”.

Later, when asked about his position on surveillance by Flock cameras, Rogers argued that such technology has helped catch people suspected of terrorism. He then implied that El-Sayed’s concerns about the cameras were suggestive.

“Why would that bother you?” Rogers asked El-Sayed. “Well, if you have somebody in your family that might be on the terrorism watch list …”

El-Sayed interjected, seeming to dare Rogers to continue his thought.

“Are you going to go ahead and say that I’m a – go ahead and say it,” El-Sayed said. “You’ve been tiptoeing about it the whole time. Just say it. Just say it. Go ahead and say it.”

Muslim and Arab candidates in the US have frequently been subjected to Islamophobic attacks on the campaign trail, accusing them of support for “terrorism” and Islamic fundamentalism.

Both sides agree on ending the Iran war

There were issues, however, on which both candidates found a measure of common ground.

Both Rogers and El-Sayed agreed the US-Israeli war against Iran should end, but they had opposite views on Washington’s relationship with Israel and its role in the conflict.

High gasoline prices and inflation, El-Sayed said, were directly caused by the Iran war, and he blamed the Trump administration for Iran’s decision to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a critical trade route.

“This is what happens when you start wars you never should be fighting,” El-Sayed said. “We literally taught the Iranian regime that they have a choke on the Strait of Hormuz, and now we’re living in that reality.”

Rogers agreed that “we need [the war] to come to an end”, but he also justified the conflict, saying that Iran’s uranium enrichment programme had been “set back twenty years”, echoing a frequent White House talking point.

The Trump administration has argued that the war was necessary to prevent Iran from creating a nuclear weapon, a goal Tehran has long denied.

Rogers’s position led El-Sayed to accuse him of “cheerleading” for the war and the Trump administration.

Rogers backs continued Israel aid, El-Sayed calls for end

As part of the debate about US foreign policy, the candidates were also pressed on their positions about the US alliance with Israel.

The country is considered the largest overall recipient of US aid since World War II. From the start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza in October 2023 through September 2025, experts estimate that Israel received nearly $21.7bn in military aid.

El-Sayed has openly called for ending aid to Israel, and he has repeatedly denounced the conflict in Gaza as a genocide, in line with evaluations from United Nations experts and human rights watchdogs.

During the debate, he indicated he preferred US taxpayer dollars to be spent on domestic concerns like education and healthcare, rather than Israeli aid.

“He wants unconditional support for a foreign government,” El-Sayed said of Rogers. “I want unconditional support for kids in our schools, unconditional support for our healthcare, childcare.”

He also blamed Israel for the US military action in Iran. “I don’t want to be pushed into war by Israel, and I don’t want to be in war with Iran,” El-Sayed said.

Rogers, meanwhile, has joined most of his fellow Republicans in continuing to support aid for Israel. He argued that the country had “the right to defend itself in a very difficult neighbourhood”.

“Is there anything Israel could do that would lose your support?” the debate host asked.

“Listen, if they’re talking about using nuclear weapons, they would definitely lose my support,” Rogers replied.

Rogers calls immigration crackdown ‘not appropriate’

Another hot-button issue during the debate was Trump’s crackdown on immigration.

The Republican leader has pledged to carry out the largest mass deportation effort in US history, and his campaign has spurred human rights concerns.

When asked how they would approach the crackdown, both Rogers and El-Sayed agreed on tempering the militarised nature of the campaign.

In several cities, including Minneapolis, Minnesota, immigration authorities have been accused of racial profiling and using excessive force against immigrants and protesters, as well as violating their rights to due process.

Multiple fatal shootings have occurred during immigration enforcement operations, including the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in January.

Rogers indicated he would not have supported such confrontational operations, but he repeated a Trump claim that the raids were taking dangerous criminals off the streets.

“I think the public efforts in Minnesota were probably not appropriate,” Rogers said. “You always want to go in quiet, get the bad guy, get out of the neighbourhood for less problems. So that, to me, was something that they could have done differently.”

He later claimed that, under Trump, the country had seen “the largest decrease in murders ever recorded”.

El-Sayed, meanwhile, has previously voiced support for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a key agency in Trump’s deportation campaign. He defended that stance on the debate stage.

“ICE right now is not about immigration enforcement. ICE is about terrorising our streets,” he said.

Candidates debate Canada trade war and tariffs

Donald Trump’s trade war with Canada, felt acutely in neighbouring Michigan, was another key topic of conversation.

El-Sayed depicted Rogers as an uncritical backer of Trump and his tariffs and tied him to past free trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which paved the way for companies to shift manufacturing facilities out of the US – though Rogers did not enter Congress until 2001, eight years after NAFTA passed.

“You did that, man. That was your policy. NAFTA, that was your policy,” said El-Sayed.

Rogers sought to distance himself from the current trade war but expressed support for a deal with Canada that would loosen some of Ottawa’s tariffs on US goods.

“I would like to see the deal made,” said Rogers, adding that high Canadian tariffs for US goods “should be eliminated”.

Both candidates tried to strike a balance between criticism of the economic fallout of the trade war and qualifying their support for more selective tariffs, favoured by some industries and labour unions as a means of protecting domestic jobs.

Crew members express relief upon return from record-breaking deployment of 265 days that strained conditions on board.

The United States aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln has returned to its home port after a 322-day deployment, including a record 265 consecutive days at sea, during which it helped wage the US-Israel war on Iran.

The vessel returned to Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego, California, on Thursday, where members of its crew were greeted by family and friends.

“It feels amazing,” 20-year-old Abel Ramirez told The Associated Press news agency, adding that his parents had driven from Texas to meet him. “There was a certain point when I never thought I would come off.”

The record-setting deployment of the USS Lincoln became a symbol for larger criticisms of the US war effort, which has dragged on since February with no clear end in sight and has strained US military stockpiles.

The prolonged deployment prompted a series of news reports calling attention to deteriorating conditions, food shortages and a series of reported suicide attempts by crew members.

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth praised the sailors on Wednesday in remarks that accused the media of trying to turn the ship into “a symbol of dysfunction or a symbol of low morale or a symbol of a failed mission”.

President Donald Trump and members of his administration have frequently lashed out at the news media for critical reporting on the war on Iran. Trump himself has called the reporting about the USS Lincoln “fake news”.

“The Lincoln has been out there for a period of time, a good period of time,” he said at an Oval Office meeting on August 17. “I know people on the Lincoln, and they say it’s beautifully maintained and beautifully taken care of.”

Earlier that month, when confronted with the amount of time the USS Lincoln had spent at sea without a port stop, Trump quipped that its deployment was “not nearly long enough“.

The reports of mental health strain on the USS Lincoln come as public opinion polls show low approval ratings among US voters for the war against Iran.

On Thursday, the Pew Research Center released a poll that found 65 percent of Americans disapproved of Trump’s handling of the war, compared with 33 percent who approved.

The war has also fuelled concerns about the cost of living ahead of the upcoming midterm elections. Since the war began, Iran has hindered commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for the trade of fuel, fertiliser and other goods.

Sailors returning home on the USS Lincoln said that they were looking forward to fresh meals and spending time with their families.

Alma Solano Velez said that her husband, one of the US service members on board, shared a list of foods he had been craving over his 10-month deployment: oxtail, barbecue chicken, broccoli and shrimp empanadas, among others.

She added that he had spoken about “the lack of food and showers” and was looking forward to seeing their four-year-old daughter.

Oct. 8, 2026 9:48 AM PT

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday that he will not order a resumption of military strikes on Iran before the Nov. 3 midterm elections in the United States.

Trump, while stumping for Republicans this week, has hinted that he was confident that an endgame to the war could come in the days before or after the election, while also hinting that he remained open to resuming full-scale military operations against Iran.

For weeks, Trump has been threatening that a post-midterm election escalation in the seven-month-old war remains a viable option, despite his initial promises to Americans of a military campaign that would last a matter of weeks.

But Trump in a social media post on Thursday said the U.S. “will not be attacking Iran at any time prior to the Midterm Elections to be held in the United States on November 3rd.”

Trump added that his team has been “having productive discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Negotiations had appeared at a standstill since Trump late last month publicly rejected Iran’s proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within seven days if the U.S. met certain conditions.

Iran, however, said last week it had received a U.S. counterproposal. And Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Thursday said he expected Tehran would offer a formal reply within days.

Trump’s post comes as the military has dispatched more resources to the region. U.S. officials have said a third aircraft carrier, the USS Theodore Roosevelt, and thousands of troops aboard it and accompanying ships could arrive as early as the end of October.

Trump’s announcement was made the same day the USS Abraham Lincoln was due to arrive to its home port in San Diego after a record-long deployment in support of the Iran war. There have been reports of crew stress and poor mental health, as well as supply shortages, including food and hygiene products.

The USS George Washington, which is usually based in Asia, relieved the Lincoln in August. The other aircraft carrier in the Middle East, the USS George H.W. Bush, has been deployed for about six months, but it pulled into Phuket, Thailand, for a port visit several days ago.

Boak and Madhani write for the Associated Press.

Colombian President Abelardo De la Espriella had promised closer ties with Israel on the campaign trail.

Israel has announced that Colombia will open an embassy in Jerusalem, becoming the latest country to establish a diplomatic mission in the disputed city claimed as a capital by Israelis and Palestinians. Most countries have their embassies in Israel in Tel Aviv.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said Thursday the Latin American country’s embassy would open next week as he touted expanding relations with the region.

“Next Wednesday, we are going to inaugurate … the Colombian embassy,” Saar told attendees at a conference in Jerusalem.

An official at the Colombian Foreign Ministry in Bogota told AFP news agency the country’s Foreign Minister Omar Bula Escobar would travel to Jerusalem on Sunday ahead of the opening.

Colombian President Abelardo De la Espriella, who was sworn in as president in August, promised close relations with Israel during his election campaign. When he came into office, he restored diplomatic ties between Colombia and Israel. Colombia had previously severed ties with the country over Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza.

The announcement comes as a small but growing list of countries has opted to route their diplomatic ties with Israel through Jerusalem.

Since 2018, the US, Guatemala, Paraguay, Kosovo, Honduras, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Nauru and Somaliland, which has been recognised as an independent entity only by Israel, have opened embassies in the city.

Other countries that have diplomatic relations with Israel have located their embassies in Tel Aviv, as Jerusalem is not recognised by the international community as Israel’s capital.

“We will work hard because this is the diplomatic battle over the truth. And the truth is, Jerusalem was always the capital of one nation,” Saar said, dismissing Palestinian claims to the capital.

The Israeli minister said the Democratic Republic of the Congo would open its embassy in Jerusalem “very soon” and hinted at another opening.

“I think that with the possible results in Brazil, they might have the same move,” he said after right-wing Senator Flavio Bolsonaro won the first round in the country’s presidential election.

Protesters in Colombia took to the streets of Bogota on Wednesday to rally against the new far-right government’s policy towards Israel, including the decision to open the Jerusalem embassy.

“When diplomatic relations with Israel were broken off, the message was that we would not be a nation complicit in their atrocities,” Nicolas Isaza, who took part in the protest, told Al Jazeera.

“Today our government is no longer drawing a line against the atrocities being committed in Palestine,” he added.

Visa probe also targets universities for allegedly exploiting international students to reduce US wage costs.

The United States government is suspending several major tech companies, including Adobe and Microsoft, from a programme that gives skilled foreign workers a path to permanent residency amid allegations of fraud.

This comes amid pressure by the White House on companies to hire more Americans. “Our message to Microsoft is: You’re a great American company, but you’ve got to hire great American workers,” US Vice President JD Vance said at a news conference on Thursday.

Vance added that the Redmond, Washington-based tech giant laid off 6,000 American workers, while obtaining 6,300 H-1B visas and almost 3,000 green cards.

“You cannot lay off American workers and replace them with foreign indentured servants,” Vance said.

“When someone comes in, they are completely subordinate to that company. If they lose that job, they have to leave the country.”

Across the tech sector, there have been more than 131,000 layoffs in 2026 alone, according to Layoffs.fyi, which tracks job cuts across the tech and startup industries.

Neither Adobe nor Microsoft responded to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Secretary of Labor Keith Sonderling also said that several major information technology firms will be suspended from the programme as well. Among them are Indian tech giants Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services.

The Department of Labor also said it had uncovered $22bn worth of visa fraud.

“Today we are protecting something far more valuable than any dollar amount. We are protecting the American worker,” Sonderling said.

During the news conference, officials also announced a crackdown on alleged J-1 visa fraud involving nine universities, including MIT, Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Cal State, amid allegations that they brought in international students to undercut US wages. A J-1 visa allows foreign nationals to enter the US temporarily for education or cultural programmes. Universities use these visas to bring in international PhD candidates or scholars.

Vance claimed that when schools employ an American as a researcher, that person earns $20,000 more than someone brought in under a J-1 visa.

Al Jazeera asked for data supporting this claim, but the White House did not respond.

Microsoft’s stock slumped 7.5 percent on the heels of the news, while Adobe was up 4 percent in midday trading on Thursday.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

The new US charge adds to the existing drug trafficking case against Venezuela’s former president and first lady.

Former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were charged in the US state of New York with conspiring to commit torture in connection with allegations that they tortured political opponents to maintain their power.

The charge announced on Thursday in a Manhattan federal court adds one count of conspiracy to commit torture to the drug trafficking charges the couple already faced.

Maduro and Flores pleaded not guilty to the drug charges and have been held at Brooklyn’s Metropolitan Detention Center since their capture. Their trial is scheduled for June 1.

The charges pile on an ongoing criminal case against Maduro and Flores. A superseding indictment accuses Maduro of working with cartel groups to move cocaine through Venezuela toward the United States.

This is a developing story…

Ukraine says it has received proposals from India, Turkiye, Egypt and the United States to broker talks with Russia. The offers come as the two adversaries escalate attacks on each other’s energy and port infrastructure with their war now in its fifth year.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha revealed the four proposals at a briefing in Kyiv on Friday and singled out New Delhi’s. “The most comprehensive is India’s proposal,” he said, adding that India had signalled a willingness to play a role for the first time.

None of the proposals aims to end the war. Each seeks a narrower truce, covering energy facilities, ports or commercial shipping in the Black Sea.

Here’s what we know:

What is India proposing?

India has not made its plan public. Quoting unnamed sources, however, Indian media have reported it has three parts. According to the Hindustan Times, it would aim to protect infrastructure, keep grain and energy supplies moving through Black Sea ports, and ensure the safety of commercial shipping.

The first part – mutually halting strikes on energy facilities and ports – matches what Kyiv has been demanding. Sybiha said any deal must be a complete energy truce that covers port infrastructure as well.

The second part builds on the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which Turkiye and the United Nations mediated in 2022 but Russia abandoned in 2023.

The third part, protecting merchant ships and their crews, is particularly important to India because Indian sailors have been killed or harmed on Black Sea routes.

The sources were quoted as saying India’s plan goes further than the other three proposals because it covers infrastructure and shipping together. A Ukrainian official told the Kyiv Independent that it incorporates elements of the Turkish, Egyptian and US initiatives. The Kyiv Post reported that Sybiha also described the plan as addressing a possible ceasefire along the front lines, although other accounts said he gave no specifics.

The proposal likely took shape during Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar’s first visit to Ukraine last month and in a later meeting with Sybiha at the UN General Assembly in New York, also in September. Jaishankar said New Delhi was “trying to be helpful, starting with the Black Sea safety of shipping issue”.

What do we know about the Turkish and Egyptian proposals?

Very little. Neither Ankara nor Cairo has published details. Both reportedly focus on keeping Black Sea grain supplies moving by suspending attacks on commercial shipping. Some reports said the two countries proposed a grain truce jointly while others described two separate plans.

Turkiye has done this before. With the UN, it steered the 2022 grain deal, one of the few narrow truces of the war to hold for any length of time. Ankara and the UN are now organising new Black Sea talks with a round planned for October.

Beyond its Black Sea focus, almost nothing is known about Egypt’s proposal. Its interest, however, is clear: Egypt relies on Ukraine for nearly one-third of its grain supplies.

What is the US pitching?

According to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Washington has proposed three steps: a mutual halt to energy strikes, a reopening of the grain corridor and a trilateral meeting with Ukraine and Russia, possibly in Abu Dhabi.

The latest effort began in early September when US President Donald Trump’s envoys visited Kyiv and Moscow and secured an agreement in principle for a trilateral meeting. Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on September 5 while Kremlin envoy Kirill Dmitriev visited the US twice in September.

The trilateral meeting has since been pushed back. It had been expected to take place in the United Arab Emirates in early October. Washington now wants it in late October, and people close to the talks blamed the delay on Russia.

Washington has also invited Putin to the Group of 20 summit in Miami, Florida, in December. “We hope that’s an invitation he’ll accept,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said. The Kremlin said no decision has been made.

At the same time, the US is applying pressure to try to end the war. Trump recently signed a law giving him sweeping powers to sanction buyers of Russian energy.

He has also called on Ukraine to stop targeting Russian diesel facilities amid a diesel prices crisis in the US, where Trump faces tricky midterm elections next month. “Mr Zelenskyy has to do one thing,” he said on September 13. “He has to stop knocking out diesel fuel in Russia.” This drew much criticism that Trump instead should focus his comments on Russia, which began the war with its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

He is reportedly sceptical about his own government’s latest diplomatic initiative. People familiar with his thinking have told US media that he doubted Putin would agree to an energy truce before winter.

How have Russia and Ukraine responded?

Sybiha said Ukraine would agree to a truce but with conditions. It would accept an energy and Black Sea shipping ceasefire, but only as a combined package, he said.

He added that Kyiv is also open to an unconditional ceasefire along the current front lines. Zelenskyy backs the US-proposed meeting but stressed it needs “not only Ukraine but also the Russian side” to support it.

Moscow has been warm in tone but has committed to nothing. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Russia would welcome India’s peace efforts while Putin said Modi has “very good ideas aimed at finding mutually acceptable solutions”, but he did not elaborate.

In private, Moscow appears to have said no. A Ukrainian official told the Kyiv Independent that Russia has rejected India’s proposal although this has not been confirmed publicly. Ukraine’s agriculture minister said Russia had rejected every Black Sea ceasefire option the mediators have presented.

Why are Global South countries becoming more involved?

Food supplies, the lives of their citizens and fuel prices are all at stake.

“I think it’s clear to many countries that this war is not a localised war, but it’s a war that has these global consequences,” Fredrik Wesslau, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told Al Jazeera.

Russia and Ukraine account for more than a quarter of global wheat shipments, and their attacks on each other’s ports helped push wheat futures to a three-year high in August.

Sailors from countries with no links to the war are being killed. At least five Indian seafarers have died in strikes on Black Sea shipping in recent months along with seven Azerbaijani crew members since June. On Saturday, a Russian strike on a Liberian-flagged ship in a port in the Odesa region killed a crew member. Ukraine, for its part, has targeted tankers it links to Russia’s shadow fleet since July.

The energy war is also being felt in global markets. Ukraine reported more than 194 drone attacks on Russian refineries this year, hitting all 11 of the largest. Bloomberg News estimated that Russia’s fuel output has fallen by more than 30 percent. With Middle East supply already down as a result of the US-Israel war on Iran, global diesel markets are more exposed to the loss of Russian supplies.

Maximilian Hess, a nonresident senior fellow in the Eurasia Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, said energy is at least as important as grain in driving the diplomatic efforts. He pointed to a “clear frustration” among many countries over high oil prices, which reflect both the Russia-Ukraine war and the crisis in the Middle East.

“Of course, Ukrainian grain is important for them, but the oil-price factor is important there as well,” he told Al Jazeera. “I think it is those commodity-shock concerns that are pushing them to re-embrace this rhetoric, rather than anything else.”

What are the challenges ahead?

Every previous attempt at diplomacy has failed to end the Russia-Ukraine war. A US-brokered, 30-day energy truce in early 2025 collapsed amid accusations of violations on both sides. At talks in Istanbul in May 2025, Zelenskyy complained that Russia had sent a junior delegation with no authority to sign a ceasefire.

In August 2025, a meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska yielded no results despite Trump claiming to be close to a deal ahead of it.

Wesslau said Washington’s efforts have faltered partly because Trump – who had boasted he would end the war within 24 hours of taking office in January 2025 – has appeared unwilling to put real pressure on Moscow. “The Russians see this, and they conclude that they can continue this war,” he said.

Deep distrust remains. Oleksandr Merezhko, head of the Ukrainian parliament’s foreign affairs committee, said: “Putin never keeps agreements.”

Moscow’s actions on the ground suggest it is in no hurry, Wesslau said  “They’re trying to strangle Ukraine, strangle the economy, and make it unliveable ahead of the winter,” he said. He added that Moscow’s occasionally softer rhetoric was aimed mainly at the Trump administration and “has always proved to be a bluff”.

Russia’s terms are another obstacle. Hess said Moscow’s demands have not softened at any point since it launched the war and at times have grown. Putin has demanded all of Ukraine’s Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions, including territory Russian forces have never controlled, as well as a buffer zone in northern Ukraine. Moscow is also seeking sanctions relief and military concessions for any Black Sea deal.

“I don’t think it’s a question of who actually mediates. I think it’s really a question of the calculation in Moscow,” Wesslau said. “Fundamentally, the problem is that Putin doesn’t want a ceasefire or a peace agreement. He wants to continue the war. He believes that he can win.”

Analysts said only greater economic pressure is likely to change that calculation.

Wesslau said if Europe can close down Russia’s shadow fleet of oil tankers, “this would be a massive blow to Russia’s war economy.” Hess said the country best placed to shift things quickly is China, rather than the US, by cutting its purchases of Russian oil. However, he added: “I don’t think Beijing is interested in doing so.”

Hess said that unless there is an outside shock, the war “is much more likely to last another four years than another four months”.

In the past three years, following the October 7 attacks and the start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, the wider region has been marked by conflict, economic turmoil, and a shattering of the balance of power.

The network of alliances maintained by Iran, long central to its regional power, has been hit hard and severely weakened. Yemen’s Houthi rebels remain one notable exception.

Israel has made gains. Many of the leaders of the Lebanese group Hezbollah and the Palestinian group Hamas have been killed, while Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was also assassinated in February. Israel occupies most of Gaza, where it has also killed more than 74,000 Palestinians and reduced much of the enclave to rubble.

Its military aggression has come at a cost, isolating it from its traditional allies and making it globally unpopular, including in the United States. The potential for more normalisation deals with Arab countries seems unlikely, at least in the short term.

Instead, Israel continues to launch attacks across the region, crossing previously held red lines – such as the 2025 attack on Doha, Qatar – and making many governments around the world view it as the primary source of unrest in the Middle East.

US not a protector

“Before October 7, the US’s entire policy in the Middle East rested on normalising Israel’s presence in the region through its so-called Abraham Accords,” HA Hellyer of the Royal United Services Institute said, referring to the normalisation deals with several Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates. “Israel’s response to the October 7 attack ended that.”

Instead, rather than a stable Middle East with Israel at its centre, the US entered into a war with Iran this year, and has since looked on as Tehran targeted US allies across the Gulf, shattering the perceived security of the US security umbrella.

Drones and missiles hit Qatar’s Ras Laffan gas hub and started fires near Dubai airport and at Fujairah’s oil zone. In September, the Houthis surged down Yemen’s Red Sea coast, taking the port of Mocha and nearby islands. Their gains tightened their grip on the Bab al-Mandeb strait, threatening a key route for global trade and energy supplies that had become even more important amid disruption in the Strait of Hormuz.

“There’s been a loss of faith in the US as a singularly sufficient security guarantor,” Hellyer continued.

“This is why you’re seeing many in the region talk to other external actors, in addition to continuing, and in some cases deepening their US ties, as well as initiatives such as the Mecca security pact as states in the region look elsewhere for ways to safeguard their security,” he said, referring to the defence agreement between Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan, signed in August, agreeing that an attack on one was to be regarded as an attack on all.

Alliances

Alongside the loss of confidence in the US as a security guarantor has come a dramatic reordering of alliances and rivalries. Much of Iran’s network – most notably Hezbollah, whose reputation had long served as a deterrent against Israeli attack – appeared to buckle under Israeli pressure.

That, in turn, emboldened an Israeli military push that saw troops invade Lebanon in October 2024 and again in March 2026, and seize Syrian territory during the brief power vacuum that followed Bashar al-Assad’s ouster in 2024.

“The Middle East has always been multi-aligned. However, now it’s even more so,” Sanam Vakil, the director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, said of the increased leverage given to external actors, such as Turkiye in Syria and China’s involvement in negotiations over the end to war on Iran, as Beijing finds its own energy supplies under threat.

“It’s ironic, since October 7, it’s Israel that has emerged as the revisionist power and Iran almost as the status quo power,” she said of the apparent reversal in status of the two belligerents, with Tehran seemingly more focused on regaining the ground it has lost in the last three years rather than advancing beyond them.

However, none of this was to overstate Israeli influence, or liken it to a regional superpower, Vakil cautioned. “Israel may currently be the preponderant military power in the Middle East, but real power is typically classed as being able to project stability, which Israel hasn’t shown itself able or willing to do,” she said.

Clogged arteries

While Israel and the US hoped February’s attacks would swiftly topple Iran’s government, they have instead opened a new front. Tehran now wields economic leverage over Israel, the US and their partners through the Strait of Hormuz, which borders Iran and typically carries about a fifth of the world’s oil and gas, and through Bab al-Mandeb, which is now threatened by its Houthi allies.

Whatever Tehran’s intentions, the economic pain has been uneven. The West, cushioned by emergency reserves, record US oil production and supplies from countries such as Norway, has so far avoided the turmoil of the 1970s oil shocks, when US drivers queued for petrol, even though the current disruption is on a greater scale. In April, the International Monetary Fund trimmed its 2026 global growth forecast only slightly, to 3.1 percent from 3.3 percent.

Gulf exporters, in contrast, have fared far worse. The same assessment cut its forecast for Saudi Arabia from 4.5 to 3.1 percent, and turned Qatar’s from growth of 6.1 percent into a contraction of 8.6 percent.

“It’s curious, in many ways the West’s reduced need for Gulf oil has increased the degree to which Israel has become a liability for the US,” Israeli political economist Shir Hever told Al Jazeera, referring to a diplomatic alliance between the two states long underpinned by Israel’s strategic position in an oil-rich region central to US interests.

“There’s a train of thought in Israel that the current crises may push the Gulf states into allying with it,” he said, while noting the irony that Israel had been the main aggressor in the conflicts that followed October 7. “Though that seems fairly unlikely.”

The State Department has accused the official of paying bribes to Fijian citizens to advance Chinese interests.

The US Department of State has publicly designated a Fiji-based man for his involvement in corruption on behalf of Chinese actors.

Zhao Fugang, the director of the Overseas Chinese Service Center, “abused his public position by paying bribes to Fijian citizens to advance China-based government, business, and criminal interests”, the State Department said in a press release on Wednesday.

“His actions constituted significant corruption and adversely affected U.S. interests in Fiji.”

The designation renders Zhao and his immediate family members “generally ineligible for entry into the United States”.

The US embassy in Suva, Fiji’s capital, said Zhao’s actions left the Pacific nation open to “malign foreign influence facilitated by Chinese government, business, and criminal actors”.

The embassy also said, “Public reporting shows an established trend of criminals operating across the Pacific with ties to China.”

Beijing says Overseas Chinese Service Centers help its nationals with administrative issues abroad, such as renewing driving licences. However, rights groups have alleged they are fronts for Beijing to push interests abroad, including the targeting of dissidents.

In February, the Trump administration sanctioned two leaders of Pacific island nations for alleged corruption tied to China. The US Department of State issued a notice alleging that Hokkons Baules, the president of Palau’s Senate, and Anderson Jibas, a former mayor in the Marshall Islands, had created openings for China to increase its influence in the region.

The Democratic National Committee has filed a lawsuit against United States President Donald Trump over television advertisements that were publicly funded and allegedly used to promote his political policies.

Ken Martin, who heads the Democratic Party’s leadership body, suggested in a statement on Wednesday that the ads were designed to bolster Republican odds in the upcoming November 3 midterm elections.

“Donald Trump is misusing millions of taxpayer dollars to fund pure propaganda ads in a last-ditch attempt to save Republicans in November,” Martin said.

Later that day, Common Cause, a democracy watchdog group, filed a second lawsuit over the same set of ads.

It argued that the ads were “overtly political” and therefore ran afoul of laws that bar public funds from being used for political propaganda.

“These ads are not public-service announcements,” Common Cause said in its lawsuit, citing a justification Trump has offered for the television spots. “They are personal publicity and political propaganda through and through.”

Both lawsuits argue that, to create the ad campaign, Trump directed the White House to repurpose $20m in funds that Congress allocated for commemorative activities related to border security, including for those killed in the line of duty.

That manoeuvre, they argue, violates the separation of powers established in the US Constitution.

“The founders made clear more than 200 years ago that the executive can spend money only according to Congress’s direction,” Common Cause’s lawsuit said.

The two lawsuits also point to a provision Congress includes in its appropriations bills barring the use of taxpayer funds for “publicity or propaganda purposes”.

Both complaints seek to have the ads declared illegal, and the expenditures stopped. They also call for steps to be taken to recover any money already spent on the ads.

The Democrats’ lawsuit was filed in Washington, DC, while the Common Cause complaint will be heard in the Southern District of New York.

Trump has faced mounting criticism over the ads, which began airing in September.

So far, the advertising campaign has cost more than $12m to run, according to the media tracking firm AdImpact.

The $20m Trump tapped for the ads comes from a $175m package Congress assigned to the Department of Homeland Security as part of Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda.

Critics have pointed out that one of the ads appears nearly identical to a television spot Trump used in his 2024 re-election campaign.

Three ads have aired so far. In one, a choir sings “love me” over a montage of Trump as he declares the US will “never be a communist country”. Another uses images of Mount Rushmore as Trump heralds a new “golden age of America”.

The third is darker: Trump walks towards the camera in black and white, warning of a “final battle” against the “deep state” and other perceived enemies.

On Wednesday, the news agency Reuters and the research firm Ipsos released a poll showing the ads are highly unpopular. Some 86 percent of the Americans surveyed, including four out of five Republicans, said it was inappropriate for Trump to have used public money for them.

Trump has defended the ads as “promotion for the country”, and he has argued they were similar to public outreach campaigns put out by previous administrations.

But after a bipartisan backlash, Trump said on Monday that taxpayer funds would no longer be used for future ads.

He did not, however, commit to paying back the money already spent on the existing ads.

Members of Trump’s Republican Party have been among those speaking out against the ad campaign.

Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, said the advertisements resembled something former Hungarian leader Viktor Orban would put out.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, meanwhile, indicated he agreed with the message in one of the advertisements, but he emphasised that “it shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars”.

Saudi civil aviation authorities say Houthi attacks on Abha and King Khalid International airports have killed three civilians, including two women, and injured 36 others.

A Gallup survey highlights a deep – and historic – partisan divide over confidence in the country’s elections.

With less than a month to go before the United States’ pivotal midterms, a new survey found that most independent voters and supporters of President Donald Trump’s Republican Party do not believe the elections will be honest.

Polling from Gallup, released on Wednesday, found 37 percent of Republicans and 35 percent of independents have confidence in the country’s electoral system, significantly lower than US Democrats (63 percent).

Overall, 49 percent of Americans said they were confident in the honesty of elections, while 51 percent said they were not. Those figures are unchanged from the country’s last midterm election in 2022.

This “marks a change from 2025, the first year of Trump’s second term, when confidence was nominally higher among approvers (51 percent) than disapprovers (45 percent)”, Gallup wrote in a statement highlighting the results of the survey.

The numbers highlight a deep, historic partisan divide over confidence in US elections.

“Since 2025 and Trump’s return to the White House, the relationship between leadership approval and confidence in elections has disappeared,” Gallup wrote.

Gallup said that the US is the only country out of more than 100 polled annually over the past 15 years to show this pattern – trust in US election integrity is markedly higher among those who disapprove of the country’s leadership under Trump (52 percent) than those who approve (41 percent).

In more than 100 countries where the polling organisation tracks views of national leadership and confidence in elections, people who approve of their governments have generally been more likely to trust their country’s elections.

In 2025, 70 percent of people globally who approved of their national leadership expressed confidence in the honesty of their elections, compared with 30 percent among those who disapproved.

“The current US pattern is highly unusual compared with the rest of the world,” Gallup wrote.

Under former US President Joe Biden, 81 percent of Americans who approved of the government expressed confidence in elections, compared with just 30 percent of those who disapproved, according to Gallup.

Gallup said the unusual divide could have implications for the November elections, raising questions about whether some voters will view the results as legitimate.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Rising borrowing costs have pushed mortgage applications to lowest level since February 2025.

Mortgage rates in the United States have hit their highest level in nearly three years, as cost-of-living concerns weigh on Americans less than a month before the midterm elections.

The average cost for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage jumped 19 basis points to 7.49 percent for the week ending October 2 , according to the Mortgage Bankers Association’s weekly report released on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, applications for mortgages tumbled 4.2 percent from the previous week, according to the report. Applications are at their lowest level since February 2025 and have fallen by almost half since the beginning of the year.

“Very few homeowners have an incentive to refinance at these rates, and the jump in borrowing costs has caused many potential borrowers to step back from the purchase market,” Joel Kan, vice president and deputy chief economist at the Mortgage Bankers Association, said in a press release.

Mortgage rates are closely tied to US 10-year Treasury notes. Earlier this week, those hit a 24-year high of 5.3 percent amid surging oil prices tied to ongoing tensions with Iran.

Meanwhile, the yield on 30-year Treasury bonds rose to its highest level since 2002, at 5.7 percent on Wednesday.

Mortgage rates have jumped since late February, when the US and Israel first struck Iran. Since the strikes, mortgage rates have climbed 1.4 percent. Inflation, which has risen by 3.4 percent from a year ago, is also putting pressure on mortgage rates.

It comes as the cost of living is top of mind for voters as they approach the congressional midterm elections that could decide the balance of power in Washington, DC. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll in late August, 47 percent of voters said that the cost of living was the single most important issue ahead of the midterms.

In a separate Reuters/Ipsos poll in September, 17 percent of voters said they approved of US President Donald Trump’s handling of cost of living-related issues.

European football leaders meet on Wednesday with the aim of shaping strategy to oust Gianni Infantino as FIFA president.

European football leaders were gathering Wednesday with time pressing to find a candidate and shape their strategy for trying to oust Gianni Infantino as president of FIFA.

UEFA has called its 55 member federations to a previously scheduled summit on Thursday in Berlin that arrives in the midst of European efforts to get a new leader for football’s world body.

Infantino’s divisive World Cup private investment plan – that failed within days of being revealed in July – pushed UEFA to act on longstanding mistrust of its former employee’s increasingly executive presidency at FIFA.

UEFA’s longer-term plans include preparing a criminal complaint against Infantino in Switzerland for possible financial mismanagement in the World Cup sell-off deal. It has asked courts in the United States to authorise discovery of evidence.

“Somewhere along the way things went too far with FIFA, and we’re looking to put things back where they belong,” UEFA general-secretary Theodore Theodoridis said last month.

Europe’s 55 count for more than a quarter of FIFA’s 211 member federations that can vote in the election on March 18 in Rabat, Morocco. Research by The Associated Press news agency suggests Infantino already has about 90 votes pledged – albeit before any potential opponent is known.

Still, UEFA is not a united bloc. Infantino has support promised from Azerbaijan, the home country of a close aide, and Latvia. On Wednesday he met with football and government officials in the Czech capital Prague.

First, UEFA and its allies worldwide need to agree on at least one candidate to challenge Infantino by the November 18 deadline to enter the race.

UEFA President Aleksander Ceferin was joined in August by his fellow FIFA vice presidents from Asia and North America in denouncing Infantino for deception and breach of trust over the World Cup sell-off plan.

Still, neither Ceferin nor his counterparts at the AFC and CONCACAF, Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa of Bahrain and Victor Montagliani of Canada, currently look set to be on the FIFA ballot.

Ceferin has long dismissed any talk of himself running to lead FIFA, though he said last month at UEFA meetings in Greece there were “many, many” potential candidates.

Montagliani is expected to focus on his own re-election at CONCACAF in February.

Sheikh Salman has been Infantino’s FIFA election opponent before. He had been favourite in a five-man campaign that Infantino eventually won in February 2016.

Speculation has often pointed to Paris Saint-Germain president Nasser Al-Khelaifi, a close ally of Ceferin. The Qatari member of UEFA’s executive committee ruled himself out last week at a meeting of the influential European Football Clubs group he leads.

Infantino is part of UEFA’s focus in Berlin for the biennial business meeting of top executives from its member federations, which can debate policy, strategy and international football competitions.

The meeting is expected to discuss proposals for a more transparent FIFA and a presidential candidate willing to commit to those reforms.

Paramount Skydance has completed its takeover of Warner Bros Discovery, bringing CNN and CBS News under the same corporate ownership, in a deal that has raised concerns about editorial independence and freedom of speech.

The acquisition, worth about $110bn including debt, combines two of Hollywood’s biggest studios after months of legal challenges lodged by state attorneys general and unions.

The new company, Skydance Corporation, brings together HBO, CBS, Nickelodeon, Showtime, Comedy Central, DC Studios and Food Network, alongside streaming services Paramount plus and HBO Max.

But its control of two major US news organisations has drawn particular scrutiny. David Ellison, Skydance’s chairman and chief executive, has promised to preserve their editorial independence, but his father, Oracle cofounder Larry Ellison is a major financial backer of the deal, and has previously donated funds to US President Donald Trump and Israel.

Asked about the takeover on Tuesday, Trump welcomed it. “They’re terrific people, and it’s going to be a great company,” he said.

Why was the merger challenged?

The takeover faced initial opposition from Hollywood workers, politicians and state prosecutors concerned about the mounting concentration of power in an industry already dominated by a handful of companies.

Netflix initially reached an agreement to buy part of Warner Bros Discovery. Paramount then launched a competing bid, prompting a bidding war before Netflix walked away.

A California-led coalition of 12 state attorneys general sued to block the deal, saying that it would reduce competition and raise prices. The Writers Guild of America brought a separate challenge.

Both cases were settled in September when Paramount agreed to commitments relating to film production, support for displaced workers and protections for the news networks, including the creation of a new editorial independence board.

But the settlement did not end opposition to the deal. “This merger will stifle creativity, weaken free speech and cost people their jobs,” actor and activist Mark Ruffalo has said.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren linked the takeover to Trump’s efforts to restrict media access. “As Trump tries to ban CNN from the White House, it would be a massive mistake to cave on the Paramount merger,” she said, referring to the US president’s so-far thwarted attempt last month to bar reporters from several news organisations, including CNN, from accessing the White House.

Can an editorial independence board protect CNN and CBS?

One condition of the settlement requires Skydance to establish a “News Editorial Independence Board” within 180 days of completing the takeover.

The five-member body is to include active or retired journalists with at least 10 years of experience. It is intended to establish editorial principles and address disputes involving the news networks and corporate management.

However, its members will be appointed by, and will report to, Skydance’s board of directors, which Ellison chairs. Two members can belong to the same political party, and there is no requirement to publish its findings.

The condition has left critics with a multitude of questions, including: How can a member of an independent editorial board be a member of a political party? How can there be scrutiny if its findings are not public? How can it be independent if it is appointed by a board of directors, themselves appointed by the CEO of the company?

Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said, “A Paramount-appointed editorial independence board for CNN and CBS is worthless. The fish rots from the head, and this particular fish is headed by a compromised oligarch with a history of throwing journalists under the bus to advance his business interests.”

Stern also questioned whether government enforcement of the settlement could itself threaten press freedom. “The editorial board creates the same First Amendment problems it’s supposed to solve – the government meddling in the news.”

The First Amendment provides constitutional protection for freedom of speech and the press.

Ellison argues that the two networks will continue to operate independently. “We’re going to make sure that CNN and CBS News are completely editorially independent,” he said on Tuesday.

On Monday, Skydance announced that Mark Thompson would remain CNN’s chairman and editor-in-chief, while Bari Weiss will continue as CBS News’s editor-in-chief, easing previous fears that Weiss would immediately take charge of both networks.

Why are there fears for editorial independence?

The takeover gives the Ellison family control of CNN less than a month before the November 3 US midterm elections, and follows Trump’s repeated attacks on the network as it seeks to hold the US president to account.

Shortly after Paramount launched its bid in December, Trump accused CNN of spreading “poison and lies” and said it was “imperative” that it be sold, while the Trump administration has moved to bar CNN from reporting in certain areas of the White House.

Ellison donated roughly $45m to a political nonprofit group supporting Trump’s election efforts in 2024, while he donated $16.6m to Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, a charity supporting Israeli soldiers – its largest single donation at the time.

Earlier this year, the White House criticised CNN’s coverage of the US-Israeli war on Iran, while Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters that “the sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better.”

Sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates also hold indirect financial interests in the combined company. They have no voting stakes, although their involvement adds another layer of scrutiny over its funding.

Concerns about the future for editorial integrity, however, intensified after Skydance acquired Paramount in 2025, and layoffs followed, alongside the closure of CBS News Radio and changes to CBS News flagship investigative programme 60 Minutes.

High-profile firings enacted under CBS News Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss and Skydance Media CEO David Ellison included correspondents Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega, as well as 60 Minutes executive producer Tanya Simon.

The programme’s September season premiere attracted about 21 percent fewer viewers than a year earlier.

In 2025, Paramount also agreed to pay Trump $16m to settle a lawsuit over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

In a June 2 letter, nine advocacy groups, including Reporters Without Borders, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and the Committee for the First Amendment, warned that CNN could face similar upheaval and firings.

“Bari Weiss’ shameless actions fulfil the Ellisons’ commitment to President Trump to remake CBS to his liking,” they alleged, referring to the firings and changes at 60 Minutes.

“Larry Ellison has reportedly promised to do the same at CNN if allowed to take control through the pending Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger. Not because it makes any business sense, but because they seek to control the public discourse.”

The groups described the proposed takeover as an “existential threat to the free press, independent media, and free speech in this country and beyond”.

The best big city in the US has been crowned for the tenth consecutive year – and it’s not where you might think

The finest major city in the US has been crowned for the tenth year in a row – and it might surprise you. When considering American cities, New York typically comes to mind first.

However, according to a Condé Nast Traveler’s survey of over 800,000 respondents, Chicago takes the top spot. It’s the first and only city to claim the accolade for 10 consecutive years, initially securing the honour in 2017.

Since then, the city has experienced a decade of evolution that has seen it triumph time and time again.

Kristen Reynolds, President and CEO of Choose Chicago said: “This historic recognition belongs to the entire city of Chicago.

“From the hospitality professionals who welcome guests each day to the chefs, artists, musicians, entrepreneurs, and cultural leaders who create remarkable, only-in-Chicago experiences, it takes an entire city to sustain this standard for a decade.

“We do not stay at the top by standing still. Chicago is always evolving, always creating, and always giving visitors new reasons to come back”.

According to Condé Nast Traveler it’s “no wonder” the city has triumphed once more.

The article reads: “A world-class destination known for its impressive architecture, first-rate museums, brilliant chefs, and massive brewing scene, it’ll take several repeat visits to get through your list of must-dos.”

Mayor Brandon Johnson added: “This historic recognition reflects the creativity of our residents, the strength of our neighborhoods, and the excellence of the local institutions and businesses that welcome visitors from around the world.

For 10 consecutive years, travellers have recognised what Chicagoans already know: there is no place quite like our city.

“This remarkable milestone is a testament to everything Chicago has to offer and one our entire city can celebrate with pride.”

While Chicago claimed the top spot, New York failed to even crack the top three.

The Big Apple landed in fourth place, trailing behind Boston in third and San Francisco in second.

The United States stock market has hit an all-time high as excitement around artificial intelligence continues to fuel a buying frenzy on Wall Street.

The S&P 500, the benchmark stock index, closed 0.58 percent higher on Tuesday, topping the previous peak reached in mid-August.

The Nasdaq Composite, which is more heavily weighted towards tech stocks, also hit a record high, finishing up 0.45 percent.

Tech stocks were among the top performers, with each of the “Magnificent Seven” apart from Meta closing higher.

Amazon led the pack with a 1.95 percent gain, followed by Microsoft and Tesla, which rose 0.78 percent and 0.51 percent, respectively.

Apple and Alphabet both rose 0.22 percent, while Nvidia gained 0.14 percent.

Meta, which has risen more than 20 percent since the launch last month of its new AI assistant, Muse, fell 0.41 percent.

Other big movers in tech included Marvell Technology, which rose 5.81 percent, and Cisco, which gained 4.54 percent.

Technology, AI

Keith Lerner, chief investment officer and chief market strategist at Truist Advisory Services in Atlanta, Georgia, said the market rally should be seen as a “technology and AI surge”.

“Every bull market has a dominant theme, and technology and AI remain this market’s dominant theme,” Lerner told Al Jazeera.

“Technology and communication services were the only two S&P 500 sectors to rise last month, while the other nine declined.”

Wall Street has shrugged off a host of challenges facing the US economy amid hyperscalers’ multibillion-dollar investments in AI.

Despite the energy crunch caused by the US-Israeli war on Iran and a sell-off of US government bonds partly driven by ballooning government debt, the market is well on track to record its fourth consecutive year of double-digit returns.

The S&P 500 has risen 14 percent so far in 2026, while the Nasdaq Composite is up 18.78 percent.

Lerner at Truist Advisory said the market rally had the potential to continue through the end of 2026 given historical trends and expectations for strong corporate earnings.

“We do not expect a straight line higher for markets,” Lerner said.

“Still, the fourth quarter of midterm-election years has produced an average gain of 7 percent and has been positive 84 percent of the time since 1950.”

Lerner said that rising interest rates posed the biggest risk to the upward trend.

“Still, on balance, the weight of the evidence suggests this bull market still has more upside potential,” he said.

Asian stock markets fell on Wednesday, with key indexes in Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong slumping in morning trading.

The Nikkei 225 in Tokyo, Kospi in Seoul and Hang Seng Index in Hong Kong were down 0.79 percent, 1.36 percent and 0.71 percent, respectively, as of 02:30 GMT.

Oil prices, which have been elevated since the start of the war on Iran, rose on Wednesday as traders weighed the fallout of fighting between forces aligned with Yemen’s internationally recognised government and the Iran-aligned Houthis.

Brent crude futures for December delivery stood at $101.45 a barrel as of 02:30 GMT, up 0.87 percent.