US-Israel war on Iran

Amid the worsening global energy crisis triggered by the US-Israel war on Iran, European countries, desperate for alternative energy supplies, trade routes and partnerships, have looked across the Mediterranean for solutions.

As a result, governments across North Africa have started to reassess their strategic value. Algeria is in an especially strong position as an established gas supplier, while Egypt can offer infrastructure, refining capacity and access through the Suez Canal.

Libya has also seen its strategic value increase. It has around 48 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the largest in Africa, and produces 1.5 million barrels of oil per day. It also has substantial natural gas reserves.

Its oil reaches international markets through the Mediterranean, while the Greenstream gas pipeline connects its Mellitah complex directly to Europe.

Libya cannot replace the Gulf in terms of oil and gas exports, but it can become a major player in diversification efforts not just in Europe but elsewhere in the world. The challenge the country faces is how to take full advantage amid structural constraints and insecurity.

Energy insecurity at home

Libya is simultaneously a major energy exporter and an energy-insecure state. Although the country possesses vast oil and gas resources, Libyans experience regular electricity blackouts due to an inefficient domestic energy system.

More than 70 percent of Libyan gas production is consumed domestically, mostly for electricity generation. Production has struggled to meet both domestic needs and export commitments. Gas exports consequently fell year on year from around 200 billion cubic feet in 2019 to 35 billion in 2025, the lowest export levels in 22 years.

At the same time, the country is flaring at least 200 billion cubic feet of gas annually due to underdeveloped infrastructure. Gas that could generate electricity, support industry or increase exports is instead being wasted.

The International Monetary Fund has estimated Libya’s total energy subsidy burden at around $17bn, equivalent to roughly 35 percent of GDP – one of the largest in the world.

Much of these funds go into subsidising imported refined fuels, as domestic refining capacity is largely underdeveloped and cannot meet demand.

The domestic energy situation is compounded by political fragmentation, institutional disputes and periodic disruptions to production due to conflict.

Increasing exports without addressing these problems risks improving energy security abroad while neglecting it at home, and that is a recipe for more instability in an already fragile nation.

Opportunity or trap?

The global energy crisis triggered by the Iran war is surely a major opportunity for Libya to increase its revenues from hydrocarbons. But it also carries a risk.

As I pointed out during the 5th meeting of the Mediterranean Energy Experts Circle earlier this month, greater demand for Libyan oil and gas could reinforce the economic model the country has struggled to escape from for decades: producing hydrocarbons, exporting them, distributing the revenues and postponing structural reform.

This model does not allow Libya to capture the full economic potential of its resource wealth. It keeps the Libyan state stuck in the all too familiar “resource curse”, which promotes economic stagnation and inefficiency.

That is why when taking advantage of heightened demand for energy, it is crucial that Libya uses the proceeds to transform its energy system.

That means capturing flared gas, modernising electricity generation and transmission, expanding domestic refining where economically viable, reforming subsidies, investing seriously in renewable energy and participating in sustainable regional energy cooperation.

Libya’s National Sustainable Energy Strategy aims to have 22 percent of electricity generation from renewable sources by 2035, an ambitious target that requires major positive shifts in security and governance conditions. Increased revenue flows can help jump-start the process.

Another important consideration is how the country should approach heightened foreign interest. Libya’s first major oil and gas licensing round since 2007 was concluded in February, with the US’s Chevron, Italy’s Eni, QatarEnergy, Spain’s Repsol, Hungary’s MOL, Nigeria’s Aiteo, and Türkiye’s TPAO securing new licences.

Commercial and geopolitical interests are rarely completely separate in energy. For Libya, this creates bargaining power—if managed coherently by the Libyans. Rather than becoming an arena in which external actors compete for individual assets and relationships, Libya could use diversified partnerships to attract investment and technology while reducing dependence on any single partner.

From energy exporter to Mediterranean energy hub

The transformation Libya seeks should not be confined to its borders. Its strategic objective should be to become an integral player in a Mediterranean energy hub by expanding cooperation with neighbouring states and leveraging existing production capacities and infrastructure.

To Libya’s east, Egypt has a large electricity system and significant refining and processing capacity. To its west, Tunisia provides access towards the wider Maghreb and increasingly towards European markets. Libya sits between them with enormous hydrocarbon resources, considerable solar potential and existing energy connections with both neighbours.

Important steps have already been taken to deepen regional energy integration. In January, Egypt and Libya signed an energy cooperation agreement covering exploration and the development of crude-oil refining. The two countries are also discussing the construction of an 800km pipeline connecting Tobruk to Alexandria. The project is worth $1bn and would carry Libyan crude directly to Egyptian refineries.

Libya and Tunisia are also expanding cooperation. Earlier this month, the Libyan-Tunisian company Joint Oil opened an international licensing round covering around 3,000 square kilometres of shared offshore acreage and development of the cross-border Zarat oil and gas discovery. Formal awards are expected by the end of April 2027.

The risk here is that expanded cooperation could develop into dependence. How to avoid that is the lesson Libya can learn from the Strait of Hormuz crisis. The country still needs sufficient domestic electricity, refining and production capacity to protect itself. Regional integration should add alternatives rather than create new vulnerabilities: more markets, more electricity connections, more processing options and more export routes.

The objective should therefore be specialisation, connectivity and redundancy all achieved in the right sequence depending on needs and conditions.

A moment for strategic redesign

The Iran war has given Libya something potentially more valuable than temporarily higher hydrocarbon prices: renewed strategic relevance. But greater strategic relevance does not automatically make the country a more reliable energy partner.

Converting the former into the latter requires a radically different approach not just to the domestic oil and gas industry, but also to overall economic development and regional geopolitics.

Libya must use this moment to pursue strategic redesign: to increase production while recovering wasted gas, improve electricity infrastructure, develop refining and renewables, strengthen regional connections and cooperation, and use competition among international partners to attract investment.

Libya already has the resources and the geography to become an even bigger player in the energy market. The question is whether it can build the rest.

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

Tehran, Iran – Hours after US President Donald Trump rejected a diplomatic solution put forward by Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, explosions were heard in the waterway, according to Iranian media.

Reports of blasts near southern Iran’s Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz suggested that multiple antiship missiles and drones were fired at vessels transiting the waterway against Tehran’s wishes.

While Iranian authorities did not confirm any attacks in the Strait of Hormuz that day, shipping continues to be attacked in the waters, including an Indian cargo ship last week, which killed a sailor.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) maintains that the strait is closed to any ship that does not coordinate with Iranian authorities. On Sunday afternoon, it released video of what it said was a second US underwater drone seized this month.

Tehran has issued instructions to shipping companies transiting the Strait of Hormuz to use a temporary route approved by Iranian authorities and pay relevant fees. But it has also said the strait will not fully reopen until the US blockade on Iranian ports ends.

Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority announced on Saturday that it would blacklist any shipping charterer company which orders crews to use routes it considers to be unauthorised.

It also published what it described as an apology from an unnamed shipowner blaming commercial pressure from its charterer for trying to pass through the strait.

Washington still insists that its warships are successfully guiding oil tankers out of the strait via a different route. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told Fox News on Sunday that the “running average” of crude oil in transit was nearly 13 million barrels per day.

A September 19 operational update by US Central Command claimed that its forces had helped move more than one billion barrels of crude out of the Gulf over roughly two months.

The US military also says its forces have redirected 122 commercial vessels to enforce the naval blockade of Iran’s ports, halting all Iranian crude exports.

Tehran has claimed that the US is providing false information regarding Strait of Hormuz traffic to project control over the key waterway. Shipping has been severely disrupted since the US and Israel started their war on Iran on February 28.

Andreas Krieg, associate professor at King’s College London, said Iran’s strategy of launching maritime attacks has spread the economic costs of the conflict beyond its borders.

While Iran has suffered economically from war damages, the US naval blockade and sanctions, it would be a mistake “to assume that reaching that threshold produces submission”.

“The next Iranian move is therefore likely to be an attempt to increase the pain experienced by the Gulf rather than simply absorb further American pressure,” Krieg said.

“That could mean more aggressive vessel interdictions in Hormuz, attacks on energy infrastructure, greater Houthi pressure around Bab al-Mandeb and pressure from Iranian-aligned groups against alternative Saudi export routes. We are already seeing how pressure on Hormuz, the Red Sea and Saudi infrastructure can interact.”

More escalation on the way

At the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Iran projected a message of defiance while also proposing to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within a week if its seven conditions were met.

They included lifting the blockade on Iran, the release of frozen Iranian funds and an end to attacks on all fronts, including Israel’s assault on Lebanon. The demands mostly amounted to a return to the June memorandum of understanding between the US and Israel.

Tehran has added that reopening the strait must be undertaken through a bilateral arrangement already finalised with Oman, the only other country with territorial waters in Hormuz.

US President Donald Trump told reporters he rejected the offer, but Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Sunday they were adamant about the conditions and would await an official response through mediators, such as Pakistan, Qatar and Oman.

Abolfazl Shekarchi, chief spokesman of the Iranian armed forces, warned that if the US further intervenes in the Strait of Hormuz, “it will get slapped”.

“The Americans have no way out other than withdrawing from the West Asia region. The sooner they leave, the fewer losses they will incur and the region will certainly become safe after that,” he said.

Iranian army spokesman Mohammad Akraminia  said conditions were deteriorating so badly for the US that it might launch another “military aggression” on Iran.

Krieg said that as the US moves to isolate Iran via sanctions, Tehran, unable to respond with mutual financial measures against Washington, will be forced to rely on continued coercion in the Strait of Hormuz.

“The most likely level remains controlled attrition rather than an immediate return to the massive air campaign of the opening months,” Krieg said.

“Over the coming weeks, I would expect further attacks or attempted attacks on tankers, US-enabled shipping and regional infrastructure, followed by limited US strikes against IRGC maritime assets, coastal missile positions, drones or vessels involved in those operations. That tit-for-tat cycle has already re-emerged around Hormuz.”

US president rejects Iran’s seven-day plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, saying the deal is not ‘acceptable’.

United States President Donald Trump has rejected a roadmap submitted by Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz within a week.

“I reject their proposal,” Trump told reporters outside the White House on Saturday, before departing for Tennessee by helicopter.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that Tehran formally submitted a seven-day roadmap to the US via mediator Qatar, and was awaiting Washington’s response.

“It appears as though the proposal is dead in the water,” said Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna, reporting from Washington, DC.

Late on Friday, US media reports indicated Trump would reject the proposal.

Trump was “privately sceptical” that Tehran would meet his demands, and reportedly told aides that he expects a renewed bombing campaign on Iran after the November US midterm elections, The Wall Street Journal reported, quoting unnamed US officials.

“President Trump has vacillated between extreme optimism, saying that ‘talks are going well’ to ‘I want to annihilate Iran’,” Hanna said about the recent diplomacy between Washington and Tehran.

“There is no consistency in terms of the [Trump] administration’s reaction,” he said.

But “the one thing that has been made clear by President Trump is that he is content to stay in the status of limbo”, Hanna added, despite concerns from much of the American public that the Iran conflict is turning into another “never-ending war”.

The Strait of Hormuz, a waterway key to the world’s oil supply, is central to the conflict between the US and Iran, which is at an impasse after nearly seven months, though new mediation efforts took place this week.

Earlier in the week, Araghchi held talks with Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, and previously set out conditions for ending the war and reopening the vital shipping channel.

On Friday, the top Iranian diplomat said: “Iran has conveyed to the United States, through Qatar, a concrete seven-day plan. If the necessary conditions are met, the strait can be reopened, and normal maritime passage restored within seven days.”

He was speaking at the United Nations in New York, where he and other senior Iranian officials were attending the General Assembly.

Under the plan, Washington would lift its naval blockade of Iranian ports, waive sanctions on Iranian oil sales, release an estimated $12bn in frozen Iranian assets and observe a ceasefire covering the region, including Lebanon and Yemen.

“The choice now rests with the United States. Iran does not accept coercion, threats or intimidation, and Iran will not surrender its sovereign rights under pressure,” Araghchi had said.

On Saturday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told Al Jazeera that Tehran no longer trusts negotiations with the US after previous rounds of talks were followed by attacks and sanctions.

“We have no trust in the American side and do not know on what basis an understanding can be reached with it,” said Pezeshkian, who was also in New York for the UNGA.

He denied that Iran was responsible for blocking the Strait of Hormuz, saying the US “closed the routes before us”. He described the closure as “a natural response when routes are cut off to Iran”.

The Iranian president said the crisis could be resolved through negotiations rather than force, and that the waterway would reopen to commercial shipping if talks ended the war.

US Central Command says they redirected 122 commercial vessels to “ensure strict compliance” with the US blockade against Iran.

Diesel prices have hit record highs as the tensions between the United States and Iran, along with the war between Russia and Ukraine, disrupt key oil and fuel trade routes.

On Friday, the average price for a gallon (3.79 litres) of diesel was $6.50, up from $5.61 a month earlier, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which tracks fuel prices daily.

The spike has prompted the administration of US President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers to consider restricting US diesel exports ahead of upcoming midterm elections.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in August found that 47 percent of voters said the cost of living was the single most important factor in deciding how they would vote in the midterms — more than twice the share who cited the next-most important issue, “democratic values and norms”.

A new Marist poll also found that Americans have more confidence in Democrats than Republicans to handle the economy, with 42 percent choosing Democrats compared with 34 percent for Republicans.

Amid that voter sentiment, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Thursday that he was in touch with major oil refiners to gauge interest in a potential voluntary restriction on diesel exports, according to the Reuters news agency.

That followed remarks by Trump on Tuesday that he supported restricting diesel exports from the US, the world’s largest diesel exporter.

Energy analysts and industry groups have warned that an export ban could have unintended consequences, potentially pushing up fuel prices in the US and abroad.

Why are diesel prices so high?

Even though the US is the world’s largest diesel exporter, diesel is traded on a global market.

Disruptions to refineries in Russia and the Middle East have reduced the amount of fuel available worldwide, putting more pressure on US producers to fill the gap. In Russia, for example, drone attacks have damaged major refineries, forcing a cutback or halt in production.

“While US refineries are running at full tilt and higher than normal, the global gaps remain,” Rachel Ziemba, senior adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Al Jazeera.

It comes as US diesel supplies are also shrinking. As of September 11, inventories had fallen to 107.9 million barrels, the lowest in more than four decades, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

With global supplies tightening, diesel prices have risen around the world — including in the US. Because American producers can sell their fuel into the global market, they are drawn to the soaring global prices rather than simply setting a lower price for domestic consumers.

Why is the US considering an export ban?

In Washington, DC, leaders have flirted with the idea of pushing US companies to stop or slow exporting diesel.

Republicans have been pushing for a slowdown or outright ban of exports in an effort to lower costs for consumers ahead of the pivotal midterm elections, where cost of living is becoming a critical issue.

Such a move, they hope, would reduce local diesel prices, which is significant as diesel is used in trucks to haul food and most products, Ziemba said, adding that US diesel exports are equivalent to about 40 percent of domestic consumption.

On Tuesday, Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, called on the president to put in place a temporary halt on exports.

“I encourage President Trump to put a temporary embargo on diesel exports through executive action,” Grassley said.

Republican Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska made a similar call: “The cost of diesel is just too damn high. I’m calling for a temporary pause of American diesel exports so that we can rebuild our reserves ahead of winter,” Sullivan said in a statement on Tuesday.

In the House of Representatives, Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee introduced two bills that would restrict US diesel exports: One would impose a ban through January 2027, while the other would restrict exports if the national average price reaches $5 a gallon.

The administration has not made any official policy announcements, and the White House told Al Jazeera that the president is evaluating all options.

Oil and gas industry experts say that a ban could drive up prices rather than bringing them down.

“Diesel trades on a world market, just like corn. farmers don’t sell cheaper to Americans, and refiners can’t either since they buy crude at global prices. force a lower price and they’ll make less diesel. less supply means higher prices, not lower,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said in a post on X.

How would an export ban work?

A ban would prevent or restrict US refiners from selling diesel to buyers overseas, theoretically leaving more fuel available in the domestic market.

Analysts at Wood Mackenzie, a research and consulting firm, say that keeping more diesel stateside would ultimately fill up US storage tanks but also force refineries to cut production. That could affect other markets that rely heavily on US fuel, including Latin America and Europe, forcing them to compete with other global buyers for supplies and driving up prices for the global market.

Wood Mackenzie says China is the only major producer with enough spare refining capacity to potentially make up much of the shortfall.

“China is currently the only country with material spare refining capacity that could cover the loss of US refinery throughputs. However, China may well decide it is not in its interest to intercede,” analysts said.

Wood Mackenzie has warned that a ban could quickly fill US diesel inventories, forcing refiners to cut crude runs and potentially increasing US petrol imports.

That was also the view of an S&P Global analysis, which found that a complete ban could also mean that production would be reduced as storage capacity is filled up with unsold diesel. According to the analysis, that could lead to production cuts of as much as 750,000 barrels a day, which could put the US into being a net importer of petrol in the fourth quarter of this year.

Who would an export ban affect?

An export ban would affect US refiners and consumers, as well as countries that rely on US diesel.

“They [export bans] may provide temporary relief, but diesel is a global commodity. Treat one part of the system, and the effects travel elsewhere. Trade-offs are inevitable. Refiners are unlikely to cheer a blanket ban. Voluntary, controlled export reductions would generally be less disruptive in the short term,” Maksim Sonin, visiting scholar at Stanford University’s Precourt Institute for Energy, told Al Jazeera.

Disruptions to US exports could reduce the amount of fuel available on the global market. Wood Mackenzie analysts say countries in Europe and Latin America that rely heavily on US fuel could be forced to compete with other producers for supplies.

“If implemented, it would lead to European and Asian product prices increasing as the buyers of US fuel, mostly in Latin America, scramble to find new supplies, bidding up supplies. European crack spreads could widen, and overall we might see more disruptions,” Ziemba added.

“Given these issues, the US may opt for a mixture of carrots and sticks aiming to incentivise refineries to keep producing, perhaps including penalties if they cut production. There may be voluntary export quotas rather than a formal ban, and there may be exemptions for countries that provide crude oil to the US, like Mexico,” Ziemba said.

That could put pressure on consumers not only at the petrol pump but in the skies as well.

Airlines for America, an airline industry trade group, has also warned that an export ban could lead to higher prices for airlines and travellers, according to the Reuters news agency. The trade group did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

The broader concern from analysts is that restricting exports could reduce US refinery production rather than simply redirecting diesel to US consumers, potentially putting upward pressure on fuel prices both domestically and internationally.

“It’s unlikely to help US consumers much given how it fails to solve underlying problems and could backfire if refineries hold on to production. The best way to address this is to end the conflicts prompting the shortages,” Ziemba said.

Shehbaz Sharif speaks as Islamabad, Riyadh and Ankara army chiefs meet to discuss Mecca pact, closer military ties.

Pakistan’s prime minister has condemned Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia, warning that any “threat to the sanctity” of the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina is a “red line that must never be crossed”.

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Friday, Shehbaz Sharif denounced recent Houthi attacks as “deplorable”.

He added that an attack by the Iran-aligned Yemeni group, which Riyadh says targeted Mecca, “outraged Muslims across the globe”. The Houthis have dismissed the accusations as a “heinous lie”.

Last month, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkiye signed a trilateral defence pact, formally known as the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement. The pact states that an attack on any member will be treated as an attack on all. However, Islamabad and Ankara have refrained from getting involved in Riyadh’s ongoing fight with the Houthis.

The ⁠military ⁠chiefs of all three countries met in Riyadh on Friday and ⁠discussed enhancing intelligence sharing and military ⁠coordination, ‌the Pakistani military said. The chiefs reviewed the security situation and ⁠threats facing Saudi Arabia, ⁠affirmed a commitment to collective defence and ⁠pledged to turn ⁠Mecca Agreement commitments into effective cooperation, the ‌army added.

It is not clear what, if any, support Ankara and Islamabad may provide to Riyadh. In a written interview published by the US media outlet Newsweek on Friday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said support could include “intelligence, logistics or ammunition, with more extensive military assistance possible depending on the scale of the threat”.

Iran and Palestine

In Sharif’s UN address, he also referenced the US-Israeli war that was launched against Iran in late February, as well as Islamabad’s role as a co-mediator.

Pakistan’s efforts culminated in the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, signed by Washington and Tehran, which was intended to help end the conflict.

The accord has since unravelled while regional countries push for a conclusive end to the war, which has caused a global energy crisis and exacerbated tensions across the Middle East.

“Yet amid the roar of missiles, drones and guns, the voice for diplomacy must echo even louder and stronger,” Sharif said.

He added that the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has effectively blockaded, and the Bab al-Mandeb waterway, which is now largely under Houthi control, are “arteries of the global economy” that should remain free and safe.

The Pakistani prime minister also denounced what he described as Israel’s “genocidal agenda” in Palestine, while condemning “Israeli aggression against Lebanon and Syria”. These were sentiments echoed earlier in the day by Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam in his UN General Assembly address.

India, Kashmir, Afghanistan

Closer to home, Sharif’s speech touched on tensions with Pakistan’s neighbours.

Criticising India, he accused New Delhi of weaponising the Indus waters, which both countries have jointly managed for more than six decades. The two neighbours heavily rely on the Himalayan river network.

Sharif warned that “any attempt to stop, impede or divert Pakistan’s share of the waters will be treated as an act of war”.

He also called for what he described as a “just and fair solution” to the Kashmir dispute, which both Pakistan and India claim in its entirety. Sharif alleged that there have been attempts to “alter the legal status” of Kashmir through demographic engineering.

Another pressing issue for Islamabad is the threat posed by the Tehrik-e-Taliban (TTP), or Pakistani Taliban. Sharif said groups operate from “sanctuaries inside Afghanistan, with the aim of destabilising Pakistan”, insisting that attacks launched from Afghanistan “must come to a grinding halt”.

This comes as the latest cross-border fighting left several Afghan Taliban fighters dead on Friday.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Najaf airport

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iran says it has put forward a plan to the United States to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within seven days, as Qatar passes messages between the two countries at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Speaking on the sidelines on Thursday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the timetable could begin as soon as Washington accepted the proposal.

Both sides have described the indirect contact facilitated by Qatar in New York positively, but neither has indicated any diplomatic breakthrough as the war approaches its seven-month mark.

Analysts have told Al Jazeera a firm peace deal remains unlikely, with Iran still wanting to follow the approach set out in an earlier agreement, which would give it and Oman a main role in managing the strait before moving on to discussing terms for a broader peace deal.

For its part, the US, which has claimed to be “in total control” of the Strait of Hormuz, wants Iran’s nuclear programme to be the subject of discussions straight away.

Iran has previously made clear that it will not engage with broader peace talks, including addressing the issue of its nuclear programme, until the US naval blockade of its ports in and around the Hormuz strait is lifted, sanctions are repealed and the US provides a guarantee of an end to strikes, among other conditions.

Here’s what we know.

What has Iran proposed?

Araghchi told reporters in New York that Iran had presented its plan to the US through intermediaries. “If certain conditions are met, the Strait of Hormuz would be open on the end of the seventh day and [peace] talks would restart,” he said.

He did not give details but said the proposal resembles the June 17 memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by Iran and the US, which briefly eased the conflict before breaking down. “The moment they accept this plan, from the next day, this timetable can start, and after seven days, the strait will be open,” he said.

Under the June agreement, Iran undertook to allow ships to pass through the strait without paying tolls for 60 days – that was the period of time given for peace talks to take place. But the MoU left open what would happen after that period.

Araghchi did not say whether the same arrangement formed part of his new proposal. Nor did he spell out what Washington would have to do before the seven-day timetable began, how either side would verify those steps, or what rules would govern shipping once the strait reopened.

It is highly unlikely Iran would be offering to cede control of the Strait of Hormuz, analysts say.

Urban Coningham, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, told Al Jazeera that Tehran is unlikely to receive the sanction relief it has previously demanded and, therefore, sees the strait as its primary ticket to helping it recover from the war economically.

“Hormuz is a clear Iranian red line,” he told Al Jazeera. “The Iranians will not get reparations for the war, so control of the strait is the only way they can recover economically. I cannot see them backing down from that.”

Why does the June agreement matter?

The MoU signed in June set out an immediate halt to military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, where Israel has launched strikes and occupied part of the country, and triggered a 60-day period for negotiations on a lasting peace settlement. It included US waivers for Iranian oil exports and provisions to restore maritime traffic through the strait.

It deferred other issues, including the future of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, to broader peace talks.

But the agreement unravelled the following month amid renewed confrontation over shipping routes through the strait.

Coningham told Al Jazeera that Iran’s latest proposal follows this earlier model: “Open the strait within seven days, then start talks on the nuclear file.”

But “the US does not want to compartmentalise the issues, it wants them discussed as one package”, he said.

How else does this new proposal place pressure on the US?

Coningham also sees a political calculation in making the offer publicly at the UN as Americans contend with high fuel prices. “By explicitly saying this may be the only chance before the midterms, Iran is putting pressure on Trump over oil and gas prices and the strait,” he said. “It is a tactic to put more pressure on the US.”

The strait, which runs between Iran and Oman, is a vital route for oil and gas exports from the Gulf. Disruption to shipping has driven up energy prices far beyond the region, giving both governments an economic reason to reach an agreement despite their differences.

With the US midterm elections approaching, a deal to get it reopened could give Trump a chance to bring down fuel prices before voters go to the polls – potentially giving the Republican Party a much-needed electoral boost before the midterms.

Trump has presented the electoral calculation differently, however. In his address to the General Assembly on Tuesday, he accused Iran of waiting to see how his Republican Party performs in November and predicted a deal would happen after the vote. He also threatened to “annihilate the Islamic Republic” if there was no agreement.

Trump claimed the election did not affect his own decision-making on Iran: “The only thing that does is that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.”

That leaves an open question about whether the prospect of lower energy prices is enough to persuade his administration to accept Iran’s proposed order of talks. Coningham doubts it. “Trump is prepared for this to go on through the midterms,” he said. “The same problem remains where the proposal does not answer questions about the nuclear file.”

Where do broader US-Iran peace talks stand?

Araghchi met US envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner on Tuesday in talks mediated by Qatar. The Iranian foreign minister described the exchange as productive and said messages continued to pass between the sides.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said it would be wrong to describe the meeting as a major breakthrough, however.

Burcu Ozcelik, a senior research fellow for Middle East security, told Al Jazeera that the major blockage for Washington and Tehran is that each is making different assumptions about how much pressure they can exert on the other. The Trump administration is unlikely to revive the failed MoU, she said, because it assesses its naval blockade and tighter sanctions as working.

“The US appears to believe it can wait this out until Tehran is prepared to make meaningful concessions,” Ozcelik said.

“But Iran remains defiant despite indications that it is hurting economically.”

France is sending its military to protect key Yanbu oil terminal; Pakistan and Turkiye to hold military talks with Riyadh.

Saudi Arabia’s allies are rallying to support the country as the Houthi rebels step up attacks.

France confirmed on Friday that it is sending troops to guard the major oil terminal at Yanbu. Meanwhile, Saudi officials are meeting with peers from Pakistan and Turkiye to discuss options under their mutual defence pact.

French President Emmanuel Macron told broadcasters TF1 and France 2 that Paris is to send “soldiers, radars, and defence systems” to the Red Sea port of Yanbu.

“Not to involve ourselves in any conflict, but to protect the site,” he said.

Yanbu hosts major oil storage and refining facilities and is connected by the East-West Pipeline, which can carry up to seven million barrels a day.

The Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah (supporters of God), have repeatedly fired missiles and drones into Saudi Arabia, disrupting oil flows from the world’s largest energy exporter.

On Thursday, the rebel group said it had struck the facilities of state oil firm Aramco in Yanbu, and a “sensitive target” in Riyadh. Saudi forces said they had intercepted six ballistic missiles. Authorities have not confirmed any damage.

The foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye met on Thursday to arrange an “urgent meeting” of their military chiefs of staff under the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, which treats an attack on one member as an attack on all, the Saudi foreign ministry said in a statement.

They also condemned Houthi attacks that they claimed targeted Mecca and other civilian sites.

However, doubt persists over what action Turkiye and Pakistan might take under the pact, which is yet to be officially triggered. Both of the Saudi allies are heavily involved as mediators seeking to bring an end to the conflicts across the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia’s grand mufti called on soldiers to be ready to lay down their lives to fight the Houthis, according to the Saudi state news agency.

The Iran-aligned Houthis have been battling the Saudi-backed government of Yemen for more than a decade. That conflict has been rekindled amid Israel’s wars against the Iran-aligned Hamas group in Gaza and the Hezbollah group in Lebanon, and the United States war on Iran.

At the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Yemen’s Vice President Abdullah Abdulkader al-Alimi-Bawzer warned that the Houthis were using shipping security “as a tool for blackmail”.

“It is taking hostage the entire global economy,” he said.

The US has not renewed military involvement, but Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud said the kingdom was “continuing to work with our partners in the US”.

The Houthi targeting of Yanbu adds to the pressure on Saudi Arabia’s oil exports.

Earlier this month, the Houthis seized the Yemeni port of Mocha and several Red Sea islands, giving them significant control over the Bab al-Mandeb strait, which usually carries about 12 percent of global oil trade.

Strikes have also disrupted the operation of the East-West Pipeline linking Yanbu to export routes. Riyadh had been using it to export crude bypassing the Strait of Hormuz, which is restricted amid the Iran-US war.

However, the Houthis have now forced the Saudis to switch some exports back to Hormuz.

Brent crude rose more than 3 percent on Thursday, briefly topping $108 a barrel, before easing to $105.77 on Friday morning.

June Goh, a senior oil market analyst at Sparta Commodities in Singapore, said oil would likely stay above $100 a barrel as long as the war on Iran continued.

“With no clear resolution in sight, the gap in oil inventories globally is getting wider,” Goh told Al Jazeera.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has used his platform at the United Nations General Assembly to attack detractors and allies alike, and his presence sparked uproar in the chamber.

Speaking before the UNGA on Thursday, Netanyahu attacked New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, critics and Iran’s leadership, as well as allied countries like the United Kingdom and France.

Back home, the prime minister is locked in a tight race to stay in power ahead of an election on October 27, and analysts say his UNGA speech was aimed as much at people back home as it was at international viewers.

Dozens of envoys from around the world walked out as the speech began, some jeering and booing, while Netanyahu’s own team stood and applauded, and the speaker of the session shouted for order.

“If there are any other moral cowards who haven’t left this hall, please do so now,” Netanyahu said to those turning their backs on him.

He addressed the war that the US and Israel launched on Iran in February, saying: “Devastating Iran’s nuclear facilities was hard, was very hard to do.”

“But for me, it was one of the easiest decisions I’ve ever had to make as prime minister”, claiming that if he had not, “we’d all be dead”, he added.

In his own speech before the UNGA on Wednesday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also addressed the nuclear issue and called out the “double standard”.

“The nuclear weapon is in Israel, but the inspectors are in Iran. Israel kills, but Iran is subject to sanctions,” Pezeshkian said.

Netanyahu on Thursday said that Israel was fighting a “seven-front war”, including Gaza, the occupied West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen’s Houthis and militias in Iraq.

“We are going to win. We have no other choice,” Netanyahu declared, repeating the words of his older brother Yonatan Netanyahu, who was killed in 1976 during Operation Entebbe in Uganda.

Criticising allies

The United Kingdom and France, historic partners of Israel, were also in Netanyahu’s firing line. They have become increasingly outspoken in their criticism of the country’s actions and have both imposed limited sanctions on Israeli exports from the occupied West Bank.

“They accuse Israel, tiny Israel, of colonialism – some colonialism. And who’s accusing us? Among them are people in Britain and in France. For God’s sakes, they invented the term,” he said.

But Netanyahu thanked his “friend”, United States President Donald Trump.

“In this battle against the barbarians, we’ve had no greater partner than President Trump,” he said, as the US delegation joined the Israeli one in applauding Netanyahu’s remark.

“I thank him,” said Netanyahu, adding that Israel and the US had acted together as pilots from both countries “flew joint missions over the skies of Iran”.

Netanyahu said the US and Israel also “worked together to bring back our remaining hostages [from Gaza]”, as he defended Israeli actions in the enclave against charges of genocide.

“To all those spreading lies about my country, whether they sit in this hall or in the office of the anti-Semitic mayor of New York, I say this: shame on you,” Netanyahu said as he attacked Zohran Mamdani, who had previously said he would push for the arrest of the Israeli prime minister during his visit to the city.

“Mr Mamdani, you tried to stop me from coming here. You tried to silence me. Well, you can’t silence me,” Netanyahu said as he denied that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.

Reacting to Netanyahu’s comments, Mamdani called the accusations against him “baseless lies” meant to “sanitise his genocide of Palestinians”.

Since October 7, 2023, Israel has faced repeated accusations of genocide in Gaza, as well as systematic war crimes in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

The Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC) said in 2024 it had reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu was responsible for war crimes in Gaza, where over 73,000 Palestinians have been killed. Netanyahu denies the ICC charges.

Netanyahu attended the UNGA meeting despite an ICC warrant calling for his arrest. While he was welcomed, the Trump administration denied a visa for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who addressed the UNGA through a prerecorded video statement from Ramallah earlier in the day.

‘War criminal’

As Netanyahu spoke, activists from US-based organisation Jewish Voice for Peace protested outside, accusing the United Nations of “playing host to a war criminal”.

“All across New York, Jews, Palestinians and people of conscience are rising up to demand an end to US support for the livestreamed horrors, rigged ceasefires and forever wars,” Sonya Meyerson-Knox, the group’s communications director, told Al Jazeera.

Meyerson-Knox said that “solidarity with Palestinian freedom has never been greater, and here in the US we are demanding with one voice to stop arming Israel”.

Adding to tensions, dozens of protesters, some brandishing “stop the genocide” banners, gathered near the UN. Several demonstrators were detained, including prominent actor Susan Sarandon.

Inside the UN, but addressing divisions back home in Israel, Netanyahu said: “Throughout this long war, our goal never wavers – to win with unwavering resolve … What unites us is so much stronger: our history, our values, our courage.”

Ariel Cohen, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, said the Israeli prime minister delivered a “good speech” at the UNGA but that he did so in the “wrong forum”.

“That speech should be given at an election rally in Israel; this is who he’s communicating to,” Cohen told Al Jazeera. “He is making points that should be made to the Israeli audience for his political survival.”

Netanyahu is only making a whirlwind stop in New York before rushing back to Israel, where the election campaign is in full swing. He is not scheduled to meet any top US leaders.

No response by Yemen’s Houthis to a claim by the coalition forces that its missiles targeted Taif and Yanbu.

Saudi-led coalition forces fighting Yemen’s Houthis say they have intercepted six ballistic missiles allegedly fired by the Iran-allied group towards cities in Saudi Arabia.

The missiles were destroyed on Thursday in the direction of the Saudi cities of Taif and the strategically important port of Yanbu, according to Major General Turki al-Malki, the spokesman for the Saudi-backed Coalition to Restore Legitimacy in Yemen.

Saudi air defences intercepted some of the missiles attempting to target the cities, Al-Malki told the Saudi Press Agency (SPA).

There was no immediate claim of responsibility from the Houthis or other groups.

The coalition statement came as the Reuters news agency reported that an ‌‌air defence system operated by Greek ⁠⁠military ⁠⁠personnel in Saudi Arabia intercepted a ballistic missile and a drone on Thursday in ⁠⁠the wider Yanbu region, home to major oil refining facilities.

“Both were shot down,” a Greek security source told Reuters, adding that the Greek Patriot system launched two missiles but did not give details ⁠⁠on the origin of the ⁠⁠drone and the ballistic missile. A second source confirmed the information to the news agency.

Yanbu port is key to Saudi crude when shipments through the Strait of Hormuz are disrupted.

Earlier on Thursday, Saudi Arabia’s General Directorate of Civil Defence issued alerts warning of potential danger in the holy city of Mecca, the northwestern area of Tabuk, the Red Sea areas of Jeddah and Yanbu and the southern area of Taif. They later said the threat had passed and the cities were out of danger.

Last week, Saudi Arabia said it intercepted a drone launched by the Houthis towards Mecca, an accusation the group strongly denied, with Houthi leader Abdel-Malik al-Houthi calling the Saudi claims “a heinous lie”.

It was the first time in nearly 10 years that a security alert had been activated in Mecca, home to the Kaaba, Islam’s holiest site.

The Houthis have largely attacked southern areas of Saudi Arabia.

They stepped up attacks on the kingdom after declaring a naval blockade in July, a second theatre for the US-Iran war. The Houthis also seized the whole of Yemen’s western coast in a lightning offensive nearly two weeks ago that brought them to the shores of the Red Sea’s strategic Bab al-Mandeb waterway.

Forces with Yemen’s Saudi-backed internationally recognised government said on Thursday they repelled Houthi attacks along several fronts in Yemen’s southwestern Taiz governorate.

Colonel Majid al-Nuzaili, spokesman for the Yemeni government forces, said that the Houthis launched coordinated attacks on Wednesday night in a bid to reach positions on a key road connecting the Aden, Lahj and Taiz governorates.

Acting United States Navy Secretary Hung Cao has confirmed that there have been “eight suicide attempts” by personnel assigned to the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group posted in the Middle East – at least two by jumping overboard – during their deployment there.

In a letter to US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on Tuesday, Cao wrote about quality of life on the fleet and morale among personnel. He was responding on behalf of US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to her questions about reports of crew members attempting to harm themselves.

While Cao said no service members had died by suicide during the deployment, there had been attempts to jump overboard.

“This includes the Lincoln crew and sailors from the carrier airwing, strike group and destroyer squadron staff, escorting destroyers and all embarked aviation squadrons,” the letter read.

Here’s what we know:

What is the USS Abraham Lincoln?

It is a nuclear-powered Nimitz-class aircraft carrier that the Navy has referred to as one of the “largest warships in the world”. Nimitz-class vessels include 10 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in the US arsenal.

The carrier, which set off from California in November 2025 for a routine deployment to the South China Sea, was rerouted in January to the US Central Command (CENTCOM) region in the Middle East because of escalating tensions with Iran.

Since the US-Israel war on Iran broke out at the end of February, the USS Abraham Lincoln has engaged in combat efforts and helped enforce the US naval blockade on Iranian ports.

The roughly 5,000-strong crew on board the Lincoln were at sea for 286 days before finally disembarking in Thailand on September 1, setting a record for the longest deployment. Besides one short port stop last December, the crew had no land breaks in that time.

US media reports have tied ship supply shortages to Iranian attacks on US military sites in the Middle East, notably the heavy damage inflicted on the naval base in Bahrain in the early days of the war. The navy was reportedly forced to use the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia instead as its main supply hub, some 3,540km (2,200 miles) from where the USS Lincoln was operating in the Gulf.

According to its website, Naval Support Activity Bahrain provided “services and support to ships at sea, remote sites throughout the region, and military and civilian personnel living in Bahrain”.

Last month, experts told Al Jazeera that the lack of port stops during the ongoing conflict was a major issue for the carrier.

“Ships need maintenance, particularly ships that are extremely complicated with very advanced weapon systems such as nuclear-powered carriers with very advanced systems, and there are things that you cannot do in terms of maintenance under way,” Harlan Ullman, a retired senior naval officer and chairman of the strategic advisory firm Killowen Group, said.

Extended deployments “erode the readiness and capability of that ship the longer it’s at sea, and it lacks the ability to repair and extend maintenance”, he added.

Following media reports of poor levels of morale on board, the USS George Washington was diverted from the Pacific to replace the carrier last month.

What does Cao’s letter say?

“Since the beginning of Lincoln’s deployment, there have been a total of eight suicide attempts across the strike group,” Cao wrote.

In particular, he said one sailor assigned to the air wing jumped overboard in early August but was “quickly recovered”, treated by the medical department and “transferred off ship for follow-on care”.

“Additionally, one sailor attempted to go overboard in March and was stopped by his shipmates. That sailor was also provided with immediate medical care and subsequently returned to homeport,” the letter added.

Cao said the carrier had been deployed with various mental health resources, including one psychologist, three behavioural health technicians, one clinical social worker, one embedded integrated prevention counsellor, one facility dog, and five chaplains.

Cao also acknowledged resupply limitations, however, as the vessel was participating in “major combat operations”, which meant that the number of main course options served during meal times was reduced from two to one.

He said the Navy prioritised the delivery of “hygiene products, fresh provisions and critical repair parts”, adding that while the ship experienced plumbing issues earlier in its deployment, the shipboard engineering team had completed repairs and “portable water supply remains safe and tested daily”.

The Navy chief added that a biparitsan Congressional Delegation was in the “planning stages” of an on-board visit to the carrier once it returns to the US.

Have there been previous reports on the conditions on board the carrier?

Yes.

Before Cao’s letter, a crew member on board the carrier told CNN that morale on the vessel was very low, with suicidal ideation repeatedly heard among crew members.

Last month, the Navy Times, which covers US military news, spoke to the wife of a sailor who, she said, had attempted to jump off the vessel, saying he was “burnt out”.

According to the US news outlet, MSNOW, families of sailors had also attended a meeting with Cao the same month to express their concerns over the sailors’ mental health, exhaustion, and safety on board.

It also reported separately that families told it, on condition of anonymity, that their relatives and spouses on board had described mouldy showers and no hot water for showering for weeks.

Stars and Stripes, a US military news organisation, also reported last month that a spouse told the meeting with Cao that she had received a message from her husband saying “he hopes he doesn’t wake up tomorrow.”

The same month – and following that reporting – the Pentagon fired the Stars and Stripes editor-in-chief and its Middle East reporter.

Since beginning his second term in January 2025, US President Donald Trump has accused news outlets of publishing and broadcasting “fake news”.

Last week, he announced that CNN, Politico and MSNOW would be banned from reporting from the White House.

On Thursday, US federal judge Timothy Kelly ordered the Trump administration to reinstate press passes after finding that the revocation was done without “constitutionally adequate due process”.

What has been the response to reports on the situation of sailors on board?

Following reports of burnout and struggling mental health on the USS Abraham Lincoln, CENTCOM chief Brad Cooper visited the sailors on the ship last month.

Cooper said in a statement afterwards that the team were “standing tall with immense, justified pride”, adding that “history will record this deployment as one of the most operationally intense and consequential of the modern era.”

Last month, Hegseth said reports about low morale and poor conditions on the ship had been “completely misrepresented”.

“We make sure every ship, every crew, every captain has everything we can provide them at every single moment. Some deployments are longer than others, and ⁠I have more respect and gratitude for those sailors than anybody,” Hegseth told reporters during a visit to Panama.

Trump also dismissed reports and said last month that the ship was “beautifully maintained”, saying reports of poor conditions were a “CNN fake news report”.

In a statement on Wednesday to CNN following the letter from Cao, Gillibrand said that what Trump and Hegseth had dismissed as “fake news” was in fact “serious and deteriorating conditions for our service members”.

“Our troops and their families make immense sacrifices every single day, yet the president dismissed them with open disrespect. That this administration can find endless taxpayer dollars for bombs, ballrooms, and billionaires, but cannot take care of our service members, is completely unacceptable.”

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu takes to his feet at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York later on Thursday, he does so at a critical point in both his political career and in his country’s long and fractious relationship with the international body.

Israel has faced repeated accusations of genocide at the UN, as well as systematic war crimes in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. Those criticisms continue to shape the country’s fractious relationship with the body.

For Netanyahu, appearing in front of the UNGA for the 15th time, the stakes have rarely been higher. Addressing a domestic Israeli audience that polls show to be losing faith in him and his Likud party ahead of crucial elections later this year, Netanyahu has already pitched himself as Israel’s primary voice on the international stage.

Nevertheless, analysts say Netanyahu’s address could prove a pivotal moment domestically, amplified by international criticism of Israel and expected to dominate headlines and be carried live across the country’s television networks.

“This is a regular fixture for him,” former Israeli consul general in New York and ex-government adviser Alon Pinkas told Al Jazeera. “It’s his way of being seen in Israel as standing up against the world and of telling members that he will never give up or surrender. He’s also turned the event into some kind of national holiday in Israel, with everyone sitting down to watch the address on television. He’s brainwashed people in Israel into believing his speech is somehow an announcement of policy, stated in defiance of the [rest of the world] who don’t believe a word he says.”

A history of hostility

Israeli leaders have long framed their stance towards the UN as one of defiance in the face of hostility. The UN has long been a platform for critics of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land and repeated attacks on its neighbours. It has included attempts to censure Israel over what UN investigators have described as apartheid in the West Bank, as well as accusations of genocide and pogroms across the occupied Palestinian territory since October 2023.

There have been numerous UNGA resolutions criticising Israel’s conduct — nearly all dismissed by Israeli lawmakers as evidence of institutional bias — culminating in Israel declaring UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres persona non grata and severely restricting the operations of the UN’s agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA.

“Generally speaking, many Israelis tend to see the UN as anti-Israeli,” Nimrod Goren, the president of the Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policy, Mitvim, said.

Against that background, criticism from New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani — already cast as anti-Israel in the Israeli press — has drawn greater public attention to the event. Underscoring the sense of hostility towards Israel are stories within the country’s media suggesting that Netanyahu’s visit to New York has been curtailed due to unspecified security concerns, with the Israeli premier expected to fly out of New York on the same day as his arrival.

In response, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, who has repeatedly accused the organisation of waging “diplomatic terrorism” against the state called for Mamdani’s arrest for what he said was the mayor’s incitement against New York’s Jewish community ahead of Netanyahu’s visit.

“Netanyahu is going into his UNGA speech with not one but both eyes focused firmly on the upcoming Israeli election,” Goren said. “The speech is usually treated in Israel as a major event, receiving broad coverage and dominating the news cycle. Netanyahu will likely try to leverage this to bolster his image as a close ally of the US and to talk up the threat posed by Iran.”

US backing

Some have interpreted US President Donald Trump’s apparent lack of availability to meet Netanyahu during this trip as a sign of waning support. But US backing for Israel at the UN has remained steadfast since the October 7 attack and has contributed to growing frustration within the UN over what they see as Israel’s ability to resist international censure.

Alongside the creation of the Board of Peace, which shifted significant responsibility for Gaza’s future from the UN to the Trump-founded organisation, Washington has repeatedly used its veto at the UN Security Council to shield Israel from resolutions it opposes. The US has vetoed at least six UN Security Council resolutions on Gaza since October 2023, most of them demanding an immediate ceasefire.

“There seems to be genuine frustration within the UN General Assembly over the body’s failure to play a significant political role in Gaza and the West Bank, but also in its failure to protect its own staff and agencies,” Chatham House Associate Fellow Zizette Darkazally, who previously worked with the UN, said.

“However, it’s worth remembering the context the UN operates within in the occupied territories and the important humanitarian role it plays. The UN continues to get aid and medical support into Gaza and the West Bank, which are both areas where Israel has absolute control over access,” she said. “It’s also worth remembering that the UN is only as strong as the commitment of its member states.”

“That, combined with a system of veto that’s more than 80 years old, has left the organisation weaker now than it had ever been,” she said of the confrontations between the UN and Israel. “And we’re seeing the effects of that, not just in Palestine, but in Yemen, Sudan and Iran, where the UN is playing next to no political role.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘A new level’ of sanctions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under pressure from all fronts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a defiant speech at the United Nations General Assembly, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has delivered a sharp rebuke to a threat by US President Donald Trump from the same rostrum the previous day to annihilate the country, but left the door open for diplomacy to end nearly seven months of war.

“The US president called us terrorists but we are the victims of terrorists,” Pezeshkian said on Wednesday.

During his speech, Pezeshkian held up a picture of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – assassinated in a joint US-Israeli strike at the start of the war in February – as well as photos of schoolgirls killed in an alleged US air attack on their school in the southern city of Minab.

“They hit us, but we did not bow our heads or bend the knee,” Pezeshkian added.

As the Iranian president began his speech, an official from the US delegation walked out of the vast hall. The Israeli delegation also boycotted the address.

“[Trump] must know that the resistance of the Iranian people will only grow in the face of sanctions and increased pressure and bullying,” Pezeshkian said.

But Pezeshkian, a relative centrist in the Iranian ruling system, also left the door open for negotiations, saying, “Iran extends its hands towards the world.”

“We invite the world and call to it, not out of weakness, but out of a deep belief in our own power and steadfastness to cooperate and collaborate out of a deep understanding that no one in this region will have security alone,” he said.

‘Very good meeting’

On Tuesday, Trump said his son-in-law Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, who are both leading negotiations with Tehran, had held a three-hour meeting with Iranian officials.

“They had a very good meeting, a very productive meeting,” Trump told reporters at the UN, adding that he believed there was “a lot of momentum” towards an agreement. Trump later said talks were continuing and that he believed a settlement would eventually be reached.

The remarks came after Trump used his speech before UN delegates to again threaten Iran’s destruction.

“Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before?” Trump said. “Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again?”

Strait of Hormuz

Addressing the US naval blockade of Iran and Tehran’s campaign to choke off trade in the Strait of Hormuz, Pezeshkian said Iran would resist what he called US efforts to use the critical sea lane to expand its war on the country.

“In the Strait of Hormuz, we cannot have some free access and gain their independence from that waterway while at the same time use that waterway to impose their aggressions upon us and to impose insecurity upon us; to forbid us access to our own waterways,” he said.

Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow at the US-based Center for International Policy, said the Iranian president’s speech showed usual flashes of defiance, but notably signalled an appetite for a diplomatic off-ramp.

“Iran wants a way out of this war. They’ve kept the door to diplomacy open,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Reading between the lines of the Iranian president’s speech, it seems Iran may even show some flexibility as far as a return to some sort of agreement that may not be exactly along the lines of the June Memorandum of Understanding that US President Trump doesn’t seem interested in returning to,” she said. The memorandum, which has expired, called for a halt to fighting, lifting the US naval blockade and opening the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic.

Compromise still a possibility

Drawing parallels between the US and Israel bombing of Iran and Israel’s attacks in Gaza, Pezeskhian said Israel’s genocide in Gaza “revealed the double standards to which Iran is held by the international community”.

“They kill and we are sanctioned and we are punished,” Pezeshkian added.

Joey Hood, a former US diplomat and ambassador to Tunisia, said the speech leaned heavily into familiar Iranian official rhetoric and represented a lost opportunity to seek compromise.

“Instead of coming to the United Nations with something new and bold, we heard the same things that we’ve heard before,” Hood said, adding that a concrete peace offer or proposal posed to the US in the speech might have focused Washington’s attention.

“That would actually put Donald Trump on the backfoot, and he would have to respond. The Iranian president didn’t do any of that,” Hood said.