US-Israel war on Iran

Trump says he is considering a ‘massive attack’, as Iran’s Araghchi says ‘mindless aggression’ won’t help a deal.

America’s war on Iran has already cost the US nearly $110 billion. Now, the Trump administration wants another $67 billion, even after declaring victory. Al Jazeera’s Emma Withrow breaks down the growing price tag.

The US president’s threat comes after another day of Iranian attacks on Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan.

United States President Donald Trump says he may launch the largest strikes on Iran yet after Tehran carried out another wave of retaliatory attacks on US allies in the Gulf, including hitting a telecommunications tower in Kuwait.

In remarks to US news website Axios on Thursday, Trump said he was “considering a massive attack” that would be “bigger than ever before”.

“I am close to making a decision. We are all set for it,” Trump said.

The threat raises the stakes yet again in a weeks-long military confrontation in which the US has attacked Iran for 12 straight nights, including hitting bridges and tunnels, according to Iranian media reports.

Iran’s retaliatory attacks have rippled throughout much of the Gulf, sparking fears of a worsening energy crisis.

The spiralling conflict has all but destroyed an interim peace deal signed by the US and Iran last month.

‘Eye for an eye’

Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi warned on Wednesday that Tehran would retaliate “an eye for an eye” against any future attacks, including those on Iran’s infrastructure.

After another night of US attacks on Wednesday, Iran responded with missile and drone attacks on Jordan, Bahrain and Kuwait on Thursday.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said the attacks in Jordan and Kuwait targeted and hit US military assets.

The IRGC also acknowledged attacking a telecommunications tower in Kuwait, saying it was in retaliation for US attacks on telecommunications towers in Iran.

In a statement addressing the Kuwaiti people directly, the IRGC insisted that the US, not Iran, had breached the Gulf state’s “territorial integrity and sovereignty”.

Later on Thursday, Kuwait said that its Abdali border crossing with Iraq had also come under attack by “hostile drones”.

“The armed forces’ retaliatory attacks will continue as long as the US attacks on the country’s infrastructure and coastal areas continue,” said the Iranian army’s spokesperson, Mohammad Akraminia.

Houthis attack Saudi tankers

Meanwhile, Yemen’s Houthi rebels further expanded the confrontation on Thursday by firing at two Saudi tankers in the Red Sea, leading to broad international condemnation and a spike in global oil prices.

“The situation is getting out of control. It is teetering on the edge of the unimaginable,” United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told a meeting of the Security Council. “One crisis feeds another. One escalation triggers the next.”

The Houthis have declared a blockade of Saudi Arabian ports, destabilising a second key global shipping route: the Bab al-Mandeb Strait.

The Strait of Hormuz has been effectively shut since the US and Israel launched the war on Iran in late February.

Reporting from Sanaa, Yemen, Al Jazeera’s Yousef Mawry cited Houthi sources as saying that the facilities of Saudi Arabia’s national oil company Aramco “could become a future target” of the Houthis if Riyadh does not lift its own blockade on Houthi-controlled ports.

The international oil benchmark Brent crude surged past $100 a barrel on Thursday for the first time in May, in what analysts said could have an even greater impact on the global economy.

“Much of the world’s spare production capacity has already been used, while strategic and commercial oil inventories are lower than when the war began, leaving the market with fewer buffers against a prolonged supply disruption,” said Janiv Shah, vice president of the Rystad Energy consultancy.

Ali al-Zaidi will hold talks with senior Iranian officials on bilateral cooperation, shared interests and security.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi is in Iran on his first official visit since assuming office in May.

The Iraqi News Agency (INA) on Thursday said al-Zaidi and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian oversaw the signing of several agreements and memoranda of understanding (MoUs) pertaining to foreign affairs, finance, the economy and energy in Tehran.

Speaking at a joint meeting of senior Iranian and Iraqi delegations in Tehran, al-Zaidi thanked Iran for helping Iraq in its fight against the ISIL (ISIS) group, and reaffirmed his country’s commitment to security cooperation with Tehran, saying that Iraq would not accept hostile action against Iran by any party.

“Iraq will never forget Iran’s support in the fight against the [ISIL/ISIL] terrorist group,” he said, according to Pezeshkian’s office.

Pezeshkian said a comprehensive strategic cooperation plan would serve as a roadmap for expanding relations between Tehran and Baghdad, stressing that the security of the two neighbouring countries was closely linked.

Over the course of the two-day visit, al-Zaidi will hold talks with other senior Iranian officials on bilateral cooperation, shared interests and regional security, he said on X.

“We will meet with senior officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran to discuss issues of mutual interest, bilateral cooperation, regional developments, and ongoing efforts to consolidate security and stability across the region,” he said.

“Iraq and Iran are bound by historic and civilizational ties, shared borders, and common interests. These enduring bonds call for continued engagement in a spirit of dialogue, cooperation, and mutual respect in a manner that promotes sustainable development and prosperity for the peoples of both countries, while contributing to security and stability at the regional and international levels.”

Iraq remains heavily reliant on Iranian natural gas and electricity, while bilateral trade exceeds $12bn annually, making it one of Iran’s largest trading partners.

A deep religious bond also exists between the two countries, as millions of Iranian Shia pilgrims cross the border to visit Iraq’s holy sites every year. During the week-long funeral held for Iran’s slain Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei earlier this month, the procession travelled through the Iraqi Shia pilgrimage cities of Najaf and Karbala.

The Iranian government has also cultivated close ties with influential Shia parties and armed groups in Iraq that form the backbone of Iraq’s security forces.

Political analyst Ghaleb Al-Daami told Al Jazeera that al-Zaidi’s visit came as Baghdad tries the difficult task of maintaining relations with both the warring parties, the United States and Iran.

Al-Daami said the main objectives of al-Zaidi’s visit were to tell Iran to stop its support for armed groups in Iraq and to deliver a message from the US, which has expressed support for Iraq acting as a mediator amid the US war on Iran.

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

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

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

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

Here’s why some are concerned about the agreement:

Could this spur a nuclear arms race in the region?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could Saudi Arabia have access to sensitive material?

That’s unclear for now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Senate was also expected to vote on War Powers resolution, in largely symbolic move attempting to reign in Trump.

Four Republicans in the United States House of Representatives have again joined Democrats in voting to constrain President Donald Trump’s power to wage war against Iran.

The resolution passed on Thursday, nearly a week after three US military personnel were killed by an Iranian attack on a base in Jordan, with a 214-208 vote. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has said Democrats will also force a War Powers vote in the Senate on Thursday.

Both the House and Senate had previously passed a resolution in June that called on Trump to seek congressional approval before launching further attacks. However, because the resolution was passed as a so-called “concurrent resolution”, it was not sent to Trump’s desk.

Even if the measure had been passed as a joint resolution, requiring it to be sent to Trump for approval, the president could veto it. Overriding such a veto requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers.

Democrats have said the latest resolution sends an important message that lawmakers oppose Trump’s approach to the war, which has re-escalated after a ceasefire broke down in early July.

Both the US and Iran have traded 12 days of consecutive attacks, with some analysts warning an even greater US escalation may be on the horizon, as Trump has repeatedly threatened attacks on civilian infrastructure and a possible ground invasion.

“This is a vote that requires us to find the strength to do what is right for the American people, and to send the clearest, even stronger message to this president of the United States that the United States Congress, the House of Representatives, is reasserting our authority over war,” Representative Pramila Jayapal said from the House floor on Wednesday.

“This war must end,” she said.

Under the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war, something it has not done since World War II, although presidents can commit forces in instances of pressing self-defence.

Trump has argued that the culmination of Iran’s actions since 1979 represents such an imminent threat, a claim many constitutional law experts have rejected.

Under the 1973 War Powers Act, presidents must receive congressional approval within 60 days of committing troops. While the US-Israel war with Iran began on February 28, the Trump administration claimed that hostilities had “terminated” following a temporary pause in fighting reached in April.

War powers experts and some members of Congress have said the attempted workaround flouts the law. The administration again notified Congress that fighting had resumed before the most recent round of attacks.

In a statement on Thursday, David Janovsky, acting director of The Constitution Project at the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), said the House vote “reaffirmed what people across the country have been saying all along: We want no part in an illegal war”.

“Contrary to the administration’s claims, the latest hostilities are not a new war. We’re now months past the constitutional deadline for the administration to end this unauthorised war,” he said.

He also noted that the House on Tuesday approved a sprawling $1.15 trillion defence bill that includes tens of billions more in funding for the war. The Senate has not yet voted on the package.

“If Congress is serious about bringing an end to this prolonged conflict, it must also refuse the administration’s request to fund it,” he said.

The conflict in Yemen has entered a new chapter with a declaration by the Houthis that they are imposing a maritime siege on all shipping to Saudi Arabia.

The Yemeni rebel group, also known as Ansar Allah (or supporters of God), has attacked a number of Saudi tankers in the Red Sea.

This development has placed the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, the strategic waterway that connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and the wider Indian Ocean, at the heart of the war between the United States and Iran, and amplifies pressure on global trade routes.

The Iranian-backed Houthis, who seized Yemeni capital Sanaa in 2014, have threatened to close the strait, the route through which much of Europe’s energy supplies pass. It is also a key passage for imports to Saudi Arabia.

The Houthis’ decision to announce a maritime blockade cannot be separated from the turmoil created by the ongoing war between Washington and Tehran, which erupted on February 28 when the US and Israel attacked Iran.

Houthis raise stakes for Saudi’s support

On Monday, Yemen’s internationally recognised government claimed responsibility for an air strike on Sanaa airport, saying that it was a measure to prevent an Iranian plane from landing in Yemen’s Houthi-controlled capital. But the Houthis blamed Saudi Arabia for it.

The Houthis responded by firing missiles into Saudi Arabia – a key backer of the Aden-based Yemeni government – and later upped the stakes by announcing a naval blockade on the kingdom.

These developments mark a major escalation in Yemen’s civil war. Saudi Arabia, which has sought in recent years to avoid a new war on its southern borders, is facing a more complex equation with the threat shifting from land to sea, and the targeting of one of the most important alternative routes for its oil exports.

All of this raises the question: will this escalation cause a new confrontation between the Yemeni government and the Houthis? And if so, what does the balance of power look like between the Houthi and government sides after more than a decade of war? Has the balance changed enough to increase the odds of a military resolution to the conflict?

There has been talk of potential escalations in recent years, but this now seems more likely, especially since it intersects with local, regional and international events and the return of the US-Iran war.

The Yemeni government has restructured its military with a single decision-making centre, and regional messages suggest the military option has not been shelved, as was once thought.

So, will retaking Sanaa return to the table as a military objective to be thought of seriously, and what does that mean practically? And how ready are the parties, especially the Yemeni government, for battle?

The structure of government-affiliated forces

The anti-Houthi camp today comprises the National Army as the official framework of the Ministry of Defence, in addition to new formations with independent commands, such as the Giants Brigades, and the Guardians of the Republic forces in al-Makha, or Mocha, in the west.

These different groupings – all on the anti-Houthi side in the conflict – have emerged over the years due to the weakening power of the central government, the growth of independent figures, and the backing of regional countries.

The number of National Army personnel in the field is estimated at about 400,000, according to recent statements by the Defence Ministry. Its organisational structure includes Yemen’s seven military regions, but troop deployment is concentrated in Marib, Taiz and the country’s southern and eastern governorates, as a result of Houthi control over vast parts of the country’s northwest, including Sanaa.

Also backing the army are the Emergency Forces, comprising between 30,000 to 40,000 personnel, and the Homeland Shield Forces, created in 2022 with between 30,000 and 40,000 recruits, and tasked with taking over camps in Hadramout and the southern governorates in December 2025, following the defeat of separatist forces who previously controlled those areas.

Fighting late last year between the Yemeni government and affiliated forces on one side, and United Arab Emirates-backed separatists on the other, has led to changes in Yemen’s south and west.

After the defeat of the 75,000-strong separatist Southern Transitional Council, following a Saudi intervention on the side of the government and the withdrawal of the UAE from Yemen, the group’s organisational cohesion has been impacted. But they have not been disarmed, and remain in many locations in the south, with some elements absorbed – even if nominally – into government structures.

Another formerly-UAE backed force, the Tariq Saleh-led Guardians of the Republic, is estimated to number about 20,000 fighters. They are stationed primarily on the Red Sea coast and are considered among the most heavily armed formations, due to the past Emirati support.

The Giants Brigades are among the most prominent combat formations in the anti-Houthi camp, with an estimated 20,000 fighters and a presence on the Red Sea coast, in Aden, and in some southern areas.

Consequently, the total size of the forces affiliated with the government and the anti-Houthi camp is estimated at more than 500,000 personnel, albeit with a clear disparity in levels of training, discipline and institutional integration.

Quality of armament and military equipment

The types of weapons held by these forces do not differ as significantly as the level of their operation and management. The National Army relies on conventional weapons inherited from the Yemeni army pre-war, including light and medium weapons, armoured vehicles, tanks and field artillery, alongside various communication and transport capabilities.

The Homeland Shield Forces, backed by Saudi Arabia, are considered among the most relatively well-equipped modern formations. They rely on tactical vehicles, light armoured vehicles, and superior communication systems suited for rapid deployment missions and the protection of institutions.

The Emergency Forces rely on light to medium armament focused on urban operations and rapid deployment missions, more akin to a field military force with rapid intervention duties, combining a security character with combat capability.

The Giants Brigades rely on medium and heavy armament, armoured vehicles and fire support units, and they are recognised for their capability to conduct offensive ground operations compared with other forces.

As for the formations affiliated with the Southern Transitional Council, they rely on diverse weaponry, though readiness varies as a result of the organisational changes they have undergone.

In recent years, the majority of government forces have also developed their drone capabilities, both within regular units and some irregular formations. These assets are now used for reconnaissance and surveillance missions, and occasionally for limited tactical support.

Balance of power with the Houthis

Official military records in Sanaa indicate that Houthi-affiliated army units comprise more than 200,000 fighters and can also mobilise tens of thousands of members from their volunteer Popular Committees for rapid intervention and support.

However, these figures, much like the military rosters in the government camp, may not accurately reflect the actual combat strength on the ground due to the inclusion of reserve or inactive names in registries.

Although government-affiliated forces may possess more manpower, the balance of power in Yemen is not determined solely by numbers.

Despite sustaining significant damage to its forces and assets from US and Israeli strikes over the past few years, the Houthi side benefits from a more centralised command structure and possesses experience in managing asymmetric warfare.

This is in addition to possessing missile, drone and maritime threat capabilities that have proven their impact in the Red Sea and the Bab-al-Mandeb Strait. It appears that the military balance in Yemen is more a balance of organisational and war management rather than a balance of weaponry and numbers.

Readiness of government forces for a major battle

Indicators suggest government forces are capable of engaging in defensive battles, holding territory or managing extensive security deployments. However, they face significant challenges should they consider launching a large-scale offensive.

The most prominent of these challenges was the multiplicity of military decision-making centres – before Saudi Arabia assumed control of this decision-making following the UAE’s withdrawal – and the varying levels of training and discipline, compounded by the difficulty of operational coordination.

Geography is also a factor, as the Houthis’ control over the mountainous northwest grants them a defensive advantage, whereas government forces are dispersed across multiple fronts, limiting their ability to mobilise at a decisive point.

The scenario of entering Sanaa

So far, there are no clear public indications that any international power, including the US, has adopted a declared plan to support a large-scale military operation to take Sanaa.

Although Houthi attacks in the Red Sea have elevated the level of international interest in the Yemeni file, the international strategy has been focused on degrading Houthi capabilities related to the sea and smuggling, rather than on a ground offensive. However, reports have emerged from sources within the Yemeni state regarding a possibility of waging a war against the Houthis with US support.

If an operation towards Sanaa is considered, its success would require complex conditions, most notably unifying the government’s military command, providing broad domestic and regional political cover, and ensuring the ability to manage the city after seizing control of it. Some of these conditions may have already been met.

Has Saudi Arabia provided cover to confront the Houthis?

The Yemeni government’s military decision-making is largely tied to Saudi political and military support, and any broad move against the Houthis remains contingent upon Riyadh. But Riyadh has preferred to focus on protecting the kingdom’s southern borders, securing shipping lanes and preventing the expansion of the Houthi threat deep into Saudi territory.

It seems that Saudi strategy has previously leaned towards managing the conflict rather than resolving it, by combining limited military pressure, diplomatic moves and de-escalation tracks to reduce the security and economic costs of the war.

The Saudi position may have shifted recently in light of international and regional events, particularly concerning the security of navigation in the Red Sea. Riyadh may be pushed to re-evaluate its options regarding the Yemeni file, and the one currently on the table may be a military one.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says Iran will continue to ‘pay the price’ for what he said was the failure to stick to agreements, telling reporters that President Trump’s policy is ‘a head for an eye’.

The United States continued to hit Iran for a 12th consecutive night early on Thursday, and Iran retaliated, striking targets across the Gulf, particularly in Kuwait and Jordan.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Thursday that an explosion set a tanker ablaze in the Strait of Hormuz after it attempted to navigate the southern route off the coast of Oman.

Here is a recap of what happened on Wednesday night and Thursday.

Where did the US attack Iran?

US Central Command (CENTCOM) said at 02:30 GMT on Thursday that it concluded the latest round of strikes against Iran.

It targeted Iranian military targets, including maritime capabilities, missile and drone storage facilities, coastal surveillance sites and air defence assets, CENTCOM said, without specifying what areas in Iran were struck.

A local official told the Mehr news agency that US missiles struck the area around a passenger terminal in Shalamcheh, a western city near the Iraqi border. Two people were killed in the attack, the deputy governor of Iran’s Khuzestan province told the state broadcaster IRIB on Thursday. Local media also reported that 11 people were injured.

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Assidi reported from Iranian capital Tehran that overnight strikes targeted at least three cities in the southwestern province of Khuzestan. This included the city of Ramshir, where an asphalt facility was reported to have been targeted.

In Hormozgan province, explosions were heard in the city of Sirik, which overlooks the Strait of Hormuz, Assidi reported.

He added that the governor confirmed an overnight attack in Bushehr on a power substation near the city’s nuclear power plant. This resulted in a few hours of power outage in the city.

IRIB also reported that explosions were heard in Iran’s Jask.

The Tasnim news agency reported that a US missile hit a location on the outskirts of the city of Andimeshk.

Two naval search and rescue vessels were hit and seriously damaged in a US attack on Iran’s Hormozgan, the ISNA news agency reported, citing the province’s Ports and Maritime Administration.

Where did Iran hit back?

Kuwait

The IRGC claimed attacks on US assets in Kuwait on Thursday.

It said it had “attacked and destroyed a large warehouse of military equipment, a Patriot missile defence system, and a hangar of American MQ9 drones” at Ali Al Salem airbase.

Addressing the Kuwaiti people, the IRGC insisted that it was the US, not Iran, that had “violated your territorial integrity and sovereignty”.

It said its attacks were aimed at US bases, territory it described as beyond the control of Kuwait’s own border guards.

“So it is America that has violated your territorial integrity and sovereignty, not us. We are attacking lands occupied by the American army, an army that knows nothing but crime,” the IRGC said.

Jordan

Later on Thursday, the IRGC claimed attacks on US assets in Jordan, saying it had “destroyed a radar of the American THAAD missile defence system with lightning strikes”.

“A Patriot system and a C-RAM radar were also targeted and destroyed, and the fuel tanks of the American base were set on fire,” it said.

The IRGC added that “a large helicopter equipment warehouse and a helicopter repair and maintenance shed were also set on fire and destroyed”.

Addressing the Jordanian people, it insisted that its actions did not violate Jordanian sovereignty, arguing that the US military presence infringes on local authority and that targeting US forces was a legal and necessary response.

What happened in the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea?

The IRGC said an explosion set a tanker on fire in the Strait of Hormuz.

In a statement carried by Iranian media, it said two other vessels quickly turned back following the explosion.

The IRGC claimed the three ships were acting under US orders and had “intended to pass through the mine-laid route south of the Strait of Hormuz”.

“The powerful IRGC Navy emphasises that the Strait of Hormuz is under our control and that as long as America’s evil deeds in the region continue, it is completely closed and no oil tanker will enter or exit [the strait],” it warned.

“Any ship that is deceived by America and intends to pass through without coordination with the Islamic Republic of Iran will suffer the same fate.”

The UK Maritime Trade Operations Centre said a ship was targeted 70 nautical miles (130km) off the Saudi coast, causing a fire on board. There was no mention of casualties among the crew.

The Houthis, meanwhile, claimed a major operation against two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea, called the Encelia and the Layla. The Saudi SPA news agency confirmed the Encelia was hit.

The Houthis said they targeted those two tankers with cruise and ballistic missiles as well as drones, causing huge balls of fire and devastation.

The Houthis framed the attack as part of a tit-for-tat campaign against Saudi Arabia. They are calling it a “siege-for-siege”. They said it has been 12 years since Saudi Arabia has been imposing a siege on the Yemeni people, and that it is now time for Yemen and the Houthis to respond in kind. Riyadh has rejected Houthi claims that it had besieged Yemen.

US and Iran trade new threats as more explosions are reported in Iranian cities, including Sirik, Ahvaz and Bushehr.

Tehran, Iran – Iran’s judiciary has announced several executions this week linked to unrest over recent months, as part of a campaign against those accused of trying to “create divisions” during the war with the United States.

The judiciary’s official news outlet on Wednesday announced the execution of Mehdi Khanaki, who was identified as an “active element of a terrorist group” arrested during nationwide protests in January.

State television showed security forces raiding a home in Karaj near Tehran, where several handguns, ammunition and explosives were allegedly found. A “revolutionary court” in the city tried him for “operational action in favour of the Zionist regime, the United States and hostile groups”, among other things.

On Sunday, two more men were executed in connection with a 16-defendant case arising from deadly protests in Isfahan, in central Iran, on January 8. The authorities said the men played a role in the killing of several police officers, but foreign-based activists have countered the state narrative and alleged a lack of due process and the use of torture.

The protests started last December 28 in central Tehran over economic issues but quickly morphed into nationwide expressions of frustration at the establishment, as in previous rounds of demonstrations.

The authorities refer to the unrest, when thousands were killed across the country, mostly on the nights of January 8 and 9 , as a “coup” orchestrated by the US and Israel.

They also reject findings by Amnesty International and other international human rights organisations that security forces carried out “mass unlawful killings on an unprecedented scale” during a total internet and communications shutdown.

Tens of thousands have been arrested in the aftermath of the protests, as well as the US-Israeli war that started on February 28 .

The Coordinating Council of Iranian Teachers’ Trade Associations, a non-governmental body inside Iran, last week condemned what it called “intensified prison sentences and continued pressure on teachers’ guild activists” by the authorities.

Security-related offences follow a law passed after the 12-day war with Israel in June 2025, which aims to more severely punish “espionage” and other actions perceived to be cooperating with “enemies” and undermining national security.

Hundreds of Iranians, including businessmen and celebrities based in Iran and abroad, have also had their entire assets confiscated by the state.

State TV also periodically airs “confessions” from people arrested or executed for those charges.

The latest was broadcast on Monday, when a young man with a blurred-out face could be seen saying he posted Instagram stories that opposed the Islamic Republic during the current war. Tehran’s police force said the unidentified man released “norm-breaking and anti-homeland content” online in an attempt to “damage the psychological security of the society”.

“I made a mistake and I will not repeat it. I am now sure that we must all now stand together to build Iran, nobody else has a right to commit an aggression against our country,” he said.

On July 13 , Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence released a list of “hostile media” that included dozens of media networks, 61 individual “human-media” figures and 310 accounts or online pages. It warned that sending photographs, video or information to a listed outlet, person or account can trigger a prison sentence and permanent exclusion from public employment, unless authorities invoke a more serious charge.

‘Infiltrators’

The message goes along with rhetoric of steadfastness and togetherness that has been repeatedly emphasised by Iranian authorities during the war.

Earlier this week, Mojtaba Khamenei, who was selected as Iran’s new supreme leader in March after his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in the opening salvo of the war, called for a “sacred unity” among the people and political factions.

Speaking during a televised meeting on Monday with President Masoud Pezeshkian and senior clerical judges in the judiciary, Chief Justice Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei doubled down on the same message – complete with heavy religious undertones.

“We must not allow devils among humans and jinn to infiltrate the ranks of believers and our people to create division and schism,” he said.

The judiciary chief said these “alarmists, rumour-spreaders, hypocrites and infiltrators” would not all declare themselves as such, instead disguising themselves as insiders who would set people against each other.

This comes as the US increasingly points to alleged rifts among Iranian authorities, and categorises them into a faction that wants to keep fighting, especially over the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, and another group that wishes to reach a negotiated resolution soon in order to stop the country from being destroyed.

Iranian authorities have rejected such classifications.

US Secretary of State says Iranian control over Strait of Hormuz sets ‘dangerous precedent’, as attacks continue.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio says his country is willing to negotiate an end to the war on Iran but accuses Tehran of not being “serious” about talks.

“The United States remains open and willing to engage in positive and constructive negotiations and discussions, provided that the commitments made are honoured,” Rubio said about Iran at an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meeting in Manila on Wednesday.

“The problem we’re having right now is that they’re not serious about talks. If they’re serious, we’re serious. If they’re not, then we will do what’s necessary to protect our interests and also the interests of our allies,” he added in the Philippine capital.

This comes as the US launched attacks against Iran for an eleventh consecutive night, with explosions heard in several parts of the country.

As the war continues to disrupt two of the world’s most important routes for the transport of energy, Rubio stressed that he was against Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz.

“If we create a precedent in the Middle East where a nation state can decide that they are going to control an international waterway, charge a toll, and if you don’t pay them blow up your ships, we have created a very dangerous precedent, which will repeat itself in other parts of the world, including in this region,” he said.

“At its core, it’s very simple. Iran demands the right, which they do not have under any existing legal mechanism, to control the transit of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz,” he said.

“There is a fundamental principle about freedom of navigation that is threatened,” he added. “That cannot be allowed to happen.”

Rubio also discussed the US’s relationship with ASEAN member states, saying it is a matter of national interest for Washington and that the security and prosperity of the US and Southeast Asia are closely interconnected.

“I believe very much that the future and the story of the 21st century will be written in this region and by how events unfold here,” he said.

On Tuesday, US President Donald Trump renewed his threats to, again, attack Iran’s nuclear facilities at Natanz “pretty soon”. Iran promised it would retaliate.

Iran’s Khatam Al-Anbiya military command said in a statement on Tuesday that it would “consider it as an expansion of war in the region” if such an attack were carried out. The statement said it could lead to strikes on “all the interests of America, its allies and supporters”.

Fifty people have been killed and 500 wounded in the recent US attacks on Iran, a health ministry official said.

A former Biden official tells Al Jazeera that Lebanon’s pilot zones will only create an environment for Hezbollah to continue its armed resistance. Former State Department official, Jennifer Gavito, says she has a difficult time imagining Israel fully withdrawing from Lebanon.

Latest cost comes as Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Caine ask for $1.5 trillion budget, including $70bn for Iran war.

United States Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has put the latest official price tag on the US-Israel war on Iran at $37.5bn.

Hegseth confirmed the figure during a hearing before the Senate appropriations committee on Tuesday, in which he and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine were questioned about their request for a $1.5 trillion US defence budget, including nearly $70bn for the war with Iran.

Still, the number is significantly lower than other estimates, especially those that include knock-on expenses for US consumers. For instance, Moody’s Analytics has estimated the domestic cost of the war to be up to $150bn, accounting for factors such as higher US energy prices.

“The estimate we have as of today is $37.5bn,” Hegseth said upon questioning from Democratic Senator Dick Durbin.

Hegseth added that the price includes some operations and maintenance costs extending through the end of September, but did not provide specifics.

The latest quote is about $8bn higher than the previous figure released by the administration of President Donald Trump of $29bn in May.

Hegseth appeared before the committee as fighting between the US and Iran continued to rage, after a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that had seen a halt in attacks since June 17 collapsed last week.

On Monday, ahead of the 10th consecutive night of US strikes, Trump said Iran would “pay” after two more US soldiers were killed over the weekend.

Over the last week, Trump has threatened to target energy plants and bridges in Iran; send ground forces to seize Iran’s Kharg Island; and bomb a deep-underground nuclear-linked site known as Pickaxe Mountain.

Attacks have so far targeted sites Iran uses to assert influence over the Strait of Hormuz, its key point of leverage in the conflict.

Iran, meanwhile, has pledged to continue to strike US assets in the region. The latest round of strikes saw desalination and power plants set ablaze in Kuwait, as well as other sites hit in Bahrain and Jordan. The Houthis in Yemen, close allies of Iran, have also declared a maritime blockade against Saudi Arabia.

During his opening statements, Hegseth referenced strains on the US weapons stockpile from the war, which the US and Israel launched on February 28.

He said funding was needed “to expand production lines and accelerate delivery of high-demand munitions. We’re talking about solid rocket motors, JDAMs [Joint Direct Attack Munition], hypersonics, and counter-drone capabilities”.

The Pentagon chief also pointed to a pending budget crunch amid the war, saying that “training in the future would have to be curtailed if we do not get our budget needs met and met urgently, and yes, some of that has to do with the current budget cycle and how things come together”.

Democratic Senator Patty Murray questioned the sprawling budget request, which also included funding requests for the National Guard deployment in Washington, DC, US operations against alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean, and military patrols of the US border.

“So I’ll be blunt,” she said. “The truth is, your request does not make a lot of sense.”

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

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

The Houthis have become the principal instrument of that strategy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is why the current trajectory is so dangerous.

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

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

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

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

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich says Israel has “no interest” in joining the renewed US military campaign against Iran, arguing the current US-Iran conflict and sustained economic pressure on Tehran benefits Israel.

Southeast Asian countries are highly affected by oil supply shortages caused by the Iran war and the Strait of Hormuz closure.

Southeast Asian nations are “deeply concerned” about the impact of blockades of key maritime trade routes in the Middle East, their top diplomats have said.

Foreign ministers from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and their key ⁠partners met in the Philippines on Tuesday against a backdrop of instability due to the global impact on trade and energy supplies caused by the US-Israel war on Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, as well as territorial disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea.

Southeast Asian countries have a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of $3.8 trillion but are highly exposed to supply limitations caused by the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, as they are heavily dependent on Gulf countries for their oil imports.

At the ongoing ASEAN summit in Manila, heads of state and top diplomats from the region are seeking to agree on an oil-sharing mechanism to mitigate the impact of the war on Iran.

Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis announced a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia on Monday, opening a potential new front in the war and risking aggravating the threat to global energy supplies and trade beyond the Gulf.

“We are deeply concerned that these ‌developments severely undermine the ongoing efforts of key mediators and diminish the prospects for a peaceful resolution through dialogue and diplomacy,” ASEAN ministers said in a statement.

Top diplomats from the United States, Russia and China are also attending the ASEAN summit, another reminder of how the war on Iran is reshaping international diplomacy and the global energy supply.

Reporting from Manila, Al Jazeera’s Barnaby Lo said the war has driven up oil and gas prices in Southeast Asia while also stalling manufacturing and exports, causing countries from the region to find new trade partners.

“Southeast Asia is thousands of kilometres away from the Middle East, but it has been one of the most impacted regions by the conflict because of how dependent many of its member nations are on oil from the Middle East,” Lo said.

“Take, for example, the Philippines: it’s the first country in the world to declare a state of national energy emergency, and it still is in this state, so it is fighting problems on two fronts. One on supply, the other on skyrocketing fuel prices,” Lo said. “On supply, it’s gotten oil from non-traditional partners, such as Russia and China, but on skyrocketing prices it has very little it can do because the prices here are driven by market forces.”

Other key issues to be discussed at the ASEAN summit include the civil war in Myanmar, as the bloc’s peace initiatives falter, five years after a military coup plunged the country into a conflict that has killed an estimated 100,000 people.

“Ahead of the summit, ASEAN foreign ministers held an in-person meeting – the first since 2021 – with the foreign minister of the military-backed government in Myanmar in Bangkok,” Lo reported. “This was criticised for legitimising the military junta in Myanmar.”

Top diplomats are also likely to discuss ⁠tensions in the South China Sea, with ASEAN countries and China still trying to conclude a code of conduct to ⁠prevent disputes after nearly 10 years. In advance of the summit, China and the Philippines were engaged in a feud after a confrontation between their vessels in disputed waters left a Filipino sailor injured.

The US Department of State condemned what it described as China’s “dangerous and aggressive” actions, and its “troubling pattern of provocation against lawful Philippine maritime operations”.

Washington vows revenge for US military casualties, while Iran claims attacks on US sites across the region.

The United States is carrying out its 10th consecutive night of attacks against Iran, with Iranian media reporting explosions in Sirik, Bandar Abbas, Qeshm Island, and Isfahan.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced the operation on Monday evening, claiming that the strikes are “designed to further degrade Iranian military capabilities used to attack commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz”.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a statement claiming to have retaliated by launching ground-to-ground missiles at “US HIMARS missile systems” stationed at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait.

Two Greek-owned oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz were struck earlier on Monday, while the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations, which monitors attacks on ships, reports that another tanker has been hit off the coast of Oman’s port city of Limah.

Shortly before the night’s bombing began, US President Donald Trump took to social media to warn that Iranian attacks on US military personnel would be paid back “many times over”. On Friday, two US soldiers were killed, and a third was reported missing when an Iranian missile struck a military site in Jordan, while another US service member was killed in northern Iraq.

Trump also reiterated earlier warnings that continued Iranian attacks on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz would be met with a stronger response.

Meanwhile, Yemen’s pro-Iranian Houthis have declared a blockade on Saudi Arabia, escalating tensions and sparking fears that the Yemeni conflict, which had been relatively quiet for four years, may be about to reignite and threaten shipping in the Red Sea.

The US intensifies air strikes on Iran, targeting critical sites after the deaths of American soldiers in the region.

US President Donald Trump says Iran will “pay” for killing United States soldiers after multiple service members were killed in action over the weekend.

“Every time Iran kills an American Soldier they will pay for that killing many times over!” Trump said on Monday on social media. “This directive has been passed on to Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Daniel Caine, and every Leader in the Military. President DONALD J TRUMP.”

Trump’s warning came after the US earlier on Monday launched its ninth night of air strikes on Iran after announcing the death of a US service member, killed in Iraq during the “controlled detonation” of a downed Iranian drone.

The US military also identified two soldiers who were killed in Jordan on Friday while defending against Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks. Seventeen US troops have been killed since the start of the five-month US-Israel war on Iran.

The renewed exchanges of fire, now in their second week, have seen the US target Iranian bridges and electrical facilities as the countries appear to inch closer to a return to full-scale war. Iran on Monday retaliated with attacks on US allies Kuwait and Bahrain, home of the US Navy’s 5th Fleet.

Roughly 430 US troops have been injured in the conflict so far.

The White House said Trump would attend dignified transfer ceremonies at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware for the service members killed.

It is unclear what specific “directive” Trump passed to the Pentagon. But a US official told Reuters that prior to the deadly attack in Jordan, the US had already started moving additional military aircraft, including fighter jets and refuelling tankers, to the Middle East.

In the past week, Trump has threatened to expand the targets being struck in Iran to include energy plants and bridges, sending ground forces to seize Iran’s Kharg Island oil hub and bombing a deep-underground nuclear-linked site known as Pickaxe Mountain.

Sources have told Reuters that recent waves of US strikes on Iran aimed at forcing open the Strait of Hormuz are also targeting Iranian military capabilities the US would want to destroy before executing more complex operations against the country.

The war, including its monetary cost, is set to dominate a US congressional hearing on Tuesday with Hegseth and Caine.

For the ninth consecutive night, the United States mounted attacks on Iran’s defence facilities and maritime capabilities into the early hours of Monday, with Tehran hitting back in tit-for-tat strikes as warning sirens blared in neighbouring Gulf countries and Jordan, home to US military bases.

Both sides have accused each other of violating the memorandum of understanding (MoU) they had signed in Islamabad, Pakistan, on June 17. US President Donald Trump has said he views the truce as over, while Iran has said it no longer intends to adhere to the MoU.

Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz — through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas passed during peacetime — is shut again, sending crude prices shooting up yet again. On Sunday, the US military said another American service member had been killed late last week, bringing the total number of deaths to 17.

So, what has changed in the last two months for the US, Iran and the Gulf countries as the MoU has unravelled in terms of economic impact, widening of military targets, and how they view the war?

Economy

The Strait of Hormuz — the kill switch of the global economy — has been closed down by Iranian authorities, warning that not even a drop of oil shall pass through the waterway amid US attacks and a naval blockade against Iran’s ports.

The MoU had paved a path for the reopening of the strait. And that had briefly pulled oil prices to par with pre-war levels.

The GCC

The strait is of critical importance, especially for Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, which saw their economic security and energy strategy severely affected by export curbs. The war on Iran has brought about the largest disruption to global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies in modern history.

The costs go beyond just energy revenue losses, noted Mohammad Reza Farzanegan, an economist at Germany’s Marburg University.

“The conflict also threatens the GCC countries’ diversification strategies. Tourism, aviation, logistics, construction, real estate and foreign investment all depend on perceptions of regional stability,” he told Al Jazeera. “Continued war increases insurance and transport costs and encourages investors and tourists to reconsider their exposure to the region.”

Iran

For Iran, the MoU lifted the naval blockade against Iranian ports and offered oil and banking sanctions waivers, and Tehran rushed to export tens of millions of barrels of crude oil.

The earlier US blockade had curbed Iranian exports, with Iran’s parliament speaker and chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, telling Iranian state TV in an interview last month that “we did not export even one barrel” during the blockade.

However, as fighting resumed, the US disabled a vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, reported to be carrying Iranian crude. Tehran has also hit commercial vessels in the waterway, and the US has been bombing Iran’s coastal areas since then.

“[The renewed US naval blockade] is more damaging than conventional sanctions because the restrictions are now enforced physically,” said Farzanegan. “Iran therefore has much less room to use intermediaries, alternative flags and informal shipping arrangements to maintain oil exports.”

“The immediate consequences are lower foreign-exchange revenues, further depreciation of the rial and stronger inflationary pressure,” the economist told Al Jazeera.

Iran’s economy has been suffering from one of the world’s highest inflation rates. The rial touched nearly 1.9 million against the US dollar this week, a new all-time low. The Tehran Stock Exchange’s main index lost another 120,000 points or 2.4 percent on Saturday to stand at 4.77 million.

The US

Trump’s war has been widely unpopular in the US. The president recorded a 60 percent disapproval rating on the economy, as per the latest CNBC polling, with a net approval rating of -22, reported to be the lowest of his political career.

As per the poll, 61 percent of respondents said they are pessimistic about the state of the economy, the highest percentage since December 2023.

“The effects are most visible in energy prices and consumer purchasing power. This increases household costs and complicates the political position of President Trump and Republican candidates ahead of the November 2026 congressional elections,” said Farzanegan.

Military

The US

The US military has had 17 personnel killed in the war with Iran so far. Three of them have been killed since the resumption of the war about 10 days ago.

“We hit them very hard again tonight,” Trump said on Sunday, adding, “We did that in honour of the – probably three – it’s probably three great patriots.”

Two US personnel were killed in an Iranian attack on an airbase in Jordan on Friday, and a third is missing. Another soldier was killed last week in Iraq while defusing unexploded ordnance from an Iranian drone.

Tehran has claimed to have hit several US military facilities in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan, including an aircraft at Aqaba airport.

Al Jazeera could not immediately verify the extent of damage to any facilities.

The Gulf

The renewed attacks from Iran on most Gulf countries, as well as Jordan, have forced them to deploy their interceptors. GCC countries had already used hundreds of expensive interceptors during the first phase of the US-Israel war on Iran in March and April.

But the Iranian military’s attacks have also hit civilian infrastructure in Gulf countries. The bombing of power and desalination plants in Kuwait has drawn widespread regional condemnation.

“What is happening is a severe shock to the GCC countries,” Nader Habibi, an Iranian-American economist, told Al Jazeera. “Now, after the disruptions of the past seven months, even as they have tried to avoid getting involved, the civilian population is indirectly impacted.”

Iran

The US insists that it has focused its attacks on Iran’s military infrastructure, especially on the country’s southern islands — some of which act as forward military or surveillance posts, and others that are believed to host missile bunkers.

But Tehran has accused the US of targeting civilian infrastructure as well in recent days, including bridges and tunnels, ports and dock facilities, power stations and water plants. Iranian officials have said more than 50 people have been killed and about 500 wounded in US attacks in the past three weeks.

Narrative

More than the war itself, a significant part of the messaging from the US and Iran has been over the control of the Strait of Hormuz.

The US

Washington says its renewed attacks are aimed at degrading Iranian capabilities to disrupt maritime traffic in the waterway, with Trump saying last week that “the US controls the Strait”.

Iran

Tehran has pushed back on Trump’s claim.

Farzanegan said Iran’s “ability to influence shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains a unique source of bargaining power”. “Tehran is therefore prepared to bear considerable costs to preserve this leverage.”

He added that Iran may also calculate that extending part of the economic costs to neighbouring oil-exporting countries will encourage these governments to use their political influence in Washington and push the US towards negotiations.

“This appears to be one reason why Iran is prepared to maintain pressure in the Strait despite the considerable costs to its own economy,” the analyst added.

Aniseh Tabrizi, an associate fellow on the Middle East and North Africa Programme at think tank Chatham House in London, said the significant change since the MoU unravelled “is that there is less optimism than before about diplomacy being feasible”.

“For all the sides,
it is difficult to foresee a scenario in which another deal is not only reached, but also implemented successfully,” she told Al Jazeera. “And that makes it particularly concerning for all the parties involved.”

Tabrizi noted that there appears to be “no imminent drive” from the Iranian side to sign a deal. “They are still maintaining escalatory attacks, but also reciprocating the kind of attacks that are conducted against the country,” she said.

The Gulf

GCC countries have continued to condemn Iran’s attacks on the regional countries, while calling for diplomacy to dial down the escalation. They have made it clear that Iran’s unilateral control over the Strait of Hormuz would not be acceptable to them.

Tabrizi added that, like the weeks before the Islamabad MoU, regional countries, especially Qatar, are still batting for talks.

If anything, Farzanegan said, the economic losses can bring all the sides to the table again for talks.

“Higher economic losses increase the incentives for negotiations,” he said. “A return to negotiations becomes more likely when both sides conclude that continued escalation cannot improve their bargaining position.”

Economist Habibi agreed that if an agreement is reached again, “it would be primarily because of the stability of the economic pressures on both sides”. However, he added that the probability of escalation in the next couple of weeks is higher than the probability of negotiation.

Iranian strikes have targeted Kuwait’s power and water desalination plant. Al Jazeera’s Victoria Gatenby explains what that means for Kuwait and the rest of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries.