US-Israel war on Iran

Trump says US will wait for economic pressure to mount on Iran, as Israel formally rejects 15-point Gaza peace plan.

Tehran, Iran – Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have expanded their mutual defence pact to add Turkiye, raising questions about the emergence of a new security architecture at a time when the United States and Iran have yet to reach a final deal to end their war.

Under the agreement signed in Mecca on Friday, any external armed attack on either of the three countries will now be considered an attack on all.

The trilateral pact was announced more than five months after the US and Israel launched a bombing campaign against Iran, triggering a conflict that quickly spread to the Gulf and disrupted maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkiye, however, have been careful not to antagonise any regional or international actors while finalising what they said was the result of years of hard work and negotiations. They have stressed the pact, which does not identify a specific threat, is not targeted against any country – particularly Iran – and does not abrogate or replace any existing agreements with others.

In Tehran, the reaction has largely been subdued, with officials mostly focusing on aspects of regional and Muslim cooperation and what they perceive as a declining role for the US.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that when Muslims stand together, “we can face every challenge by malicious outsiders head-on”.

“Time to rely only on ourselves and embrace true brotherhood,” he wrote on X, without directly mentioning the trilateral agreement signed hours earlier.

But Iran certainly sees some reasons to be concerned in the long run, according to Hamidreza Azizi, a researcher and analyst on Iran and Middle Eastern geopolitical dynamics.

The associate at Clingendael Institute told Al Jazeera that the timing is important, since the agreement comes after months of a war in which Saudi Arabia has faced attacks from the Iran-aligned Houthis in Yemen and armed groups in neighbouring Iraq.

“From Tehran’s perspective, the concern is therefore not only that the pact could strengthen Saudi deterrence, but that it could eventually facilitate coordinated pressure on Iran in Yemen, Iraq, and even economically through Turkiye and Pakistan,” he said.

On Sunday, the Houthis claimed another successful drone strike on the Saudi Aramco refinery in Jizan. Saudi Arabia confirmed a fire was extinguished without inflicting casualties, but did not mention the cause.

Separately in Yemen, Houthi missiles and drones struck the Saudi-backed and internationally recognised government’s Red Sea port of al-Makha, with officials reporting at least seven people killed, 15 wounded and severe infrastructure damage. The Yemeni group, which has also been hitting or turning back Saudi-linked ships in the Red Sea over recent weeks, said it targeted weapons depots.

‘A strong bloc’

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not released a formal statement about the Pakistan-Saudi-Turkiye deal, but a senior official outlined Tehran’s diplomatic thinking in an interview with local media on Saturday.

Hossein Noushabadi, a director general for parliamentary and legal affairs, told the state-linked ISNA news service that the ministry predominantly regards the agreement within the context of a diminishing direct US presence in the region.

The pact “is being viewed as the beginning of the collapse of US security hegemony in West Asia and the Persian Gulf”, said Noushabadi.

“It appears that, in the not-too-distant future, a new regional security order based on cooperation among regional states will replace the power structures imposed by extra-regional actors, heralding the end of the prevailing security and geopolitical paradigm and West Asia’s departure from the sphere of vital US interests,” added the official, who is a former Iranian envoy to Oman.

Political scientist Vali Nasr said he does not believe the pact is currently a threat to Tehran.

“For now, these are all elements of a post-American security order in the Middle East,” the professor of international affairs and Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University told Al Jazeera.

“This is also as much a balance to the Abraham Accords as a direct challenge to Tehran,” he added, in reference to the US-pushed regional normalisation effort with Israel, which US President Donald Trump last month tied with a civil nuclear deal sought by Saudi Arabia.

Mehran Kamrava, a professor of government at Georgetown University of Qatar, also agreed that decision-makers in Iran do not immediately feel threatened by the pact, especially since they have maintained cordial relations with both Pakistan and Turkiye even under trying circumstances.

“Ultimately, this pact is not that new, nor is it something that, at present at least, has a great deal of substance beyond its symbolic significance. For example, neither Turkiye nor Pakistan would be willing to get involved in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen despite recent Houthi attacks on the kingdom,” Kamrava told Al Jazeera.

Not all inside Iran are content with the pact, however, with some hardline lawmakers and media arguing that it could ultimately be directed against the “resistance front” of Tehran-backed armed forces across the region, and degrade Pakistan’s credibility as a main mediator between Iran and the US and others.

“It’s clear that Arab states finally understand security cannot be imported; it must be built within the region. However, a roadmap is still missing,” Ebrahim Azizi, a member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said in a more hawkish viewing of the pact.

“Warning: Miscalculation is a historical mistake. Iran has proven that every error comes at a cost. Balance is the only way forward,” he wrote on X.

Ebrahim Rezaei, another member of the commission, also wrote on X that “a paper agreement with Turkiye and Pakistan” will not bring Saudi Arabia security, “just as years of one-sided dependence on the Americans did not bring them security”.

Is Iran missing out?

Clingendael Institute’s Azizi said Tehran’s priority will likely be to avoid turning the pact into an explicitly anti-Iranian coalition amid a war with regional repercussions, and that would mean preserving individual relations with each of the three countries.

He said Tehran can also continue to emphasise its long-standing argument that regional security should ultimately be organised by regional states rather than external powers.

“If those states come to see the pact as providing meaningful protection against Iran or Iran-aligned groups, that would make Iranian membership even more difficult,” said Azizi. “Over the longer term, however, if the arrangement evolves from a balancing coalition into a broader regional security architecture, the question of Iranian participation could look quite different.”

Experts also said it could be a possibility that Iran itself would be seeking potential membership in the pact in a distant future, but that would mean a sustainable end to attacks in the Strait of Hormuz and across the region, while expansion to other regional Arab states seems more plausible in the near term. Egypt has already been floated as a candidate, but that could be a complex decision for Cairo to make.

Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North African Programme at Chatham House, said the trilateral pact reflects both short- and long-term security concerns and opportunities for Riyadh, Islamabad and Ankara.

“They are driven together to forge greater diplomatic and defence cooperation in reaction to US unreliability, Israeli revisionism and Iranian retaliation,” she told Al Jazeera.

Iran says the Strait of Hormuz will remain restricted unless the US meets a series of demands. The UAE accuses Tehran of targeting an oil tanker, while Yemen’s Houthis claim an attack on a Saudi refinery. Al Jazeera’s Nour Hegazy reports.

IRGC sets terms to reopen Hormuz as US seeks commitments to end attacks on ships in the waterway.

US Vice President JD Vance claims Washington has “destroyed” Iran’s nuclear programme and degraded its military, as Tehran demands US compensation and an end to the naval blockade before reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye have signed a joint defence pact.

It is an alliance that analysts say highlights Riyadh’s desire to diversify its defence partnerships, expanding to Ankara and Islamabad.

The pact was announced at a time of increased regional tension.

Yemen’s Saudi-backed government has launched a military operation against the Iran-aligned Houthis following a series of attacks, while Iran and the US have yet to reach a final deal to end the war.

The trilateral Mecca pact raises questions about the effectiveness of the decades-long US military presence in the Gulf. Does this alliance offer a viable alternative to the security umbrella promised by Washington?

Presenter: Anna Burns-Francis

Guests:

Abdulaziz Alghashian – Senior non-resident fellow at the Gulf International Forum

David Des Roches – Professor at the Thayer Marshall Institute

Zaid M Belbagi – Managing partner at Hardcastle Advisory

Gulf and Arab governments condemn Iran over missile strike on Emirati tanker.

The United Arab Emirates has accused Iran of striking a tanker owned by the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) with a missile as it crossed the Strait of Hormuz, drawing swift condemnation from Gulf and Arab governments.

The UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Saturday that the vessel was hit in the early hours of the morning while transiting the strategic waterway, a chokepoint for a large share of the world’s seaborne oil.

Abu Dhabi described the strike as an act of piracy by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and called on Tehran to halt the attacks and reopen the strait fully and unconditionally.

ADNOC confirmed one of its ships had been targeted by a missile while crossing the strait, according to the state news agency WAM. ADNOC did not provide details on any damage to the vessel or its exact location at the time of the attack.

The UAE ministry said using the waterway as a tool for pressure or economic blackmail threatened regional stability and global energy security.

The IRGC have previously threatened action against any vessels transiting the strait if they are linked to Tehran’s adversaries, or if they fail to comply with Iranian directives.

ADNOC said on Friday that it had been significantly affected by what it described as unprovoked attacks on its personnel and assets, while continuing to meet customer requirements in an “exceptionally challenging environment.”

The company said 15 of its vessels had been attacked by missiles and drones while transiting the strait since the start of the conflict, including three this week, killing one crew member and injuring 20 others. ADNOC did not identify those responsible for the attacks in its Friday statement.

Regional governments condemn attack

Gulf Cooperation Council Secretary-General Jassim Mohammed al-Budaiwi condemned the latest attack as a “dangerous and unacceptable escalation”, calling for international action to protect maritime navigation and reaffirming the bloc’s solidarity with the UAE.

Qatar also condemned the attack and rejected the use of the Strait of Hormuz as a bargaining chip, calling for the waterway to be reopened without conditions. Doha’s foreign ministry warned that its continued closure threatened the interests of regional states and the global economy.

Saudi Arabia condemned the targeting of the tanker “in the strongest terms,” saying Iran’s continued attacks constituted a grave breach of international law and Resolution 2817. Riyadh held Tehran responsible for the consequences and demanded an immediate halt to the strikes.

Jordan also condemned the attack as a flagrant violation of international law, affirming its full support for the UAE.

The reported attack marks a sharp escalation in tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, where the UAE and its Gulf neighbours have pressed for the passage to remain open to international shipping.

Tehran, Iran – Iran’s authorities are weighing a finalised arrangement with Oman over the Strait of Hormuz, but top officials maintain that the strategic waterway’s full reopening will hinge on concessions from the United States.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Saturday said the agreement with Oman was “very close”, but cautioned that a full reopening of the strait would depend on the US staying true to commitments given as part of a June memorandum of understanding (MoU) that were violated.

Iran has previously slammed the US for backing a southern Omani route in the waterway without coordination with Tehran, not halting Israel’s attacks on Lebanon, and refusing to unfreeze any of Iran’s money blocked abroad due to sanctions.

Separately on Saturday, Hossein Mohebbi, spokesperson for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), told state media the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz “has its own specific mechanism and has nothing to do with the negotiations between Iran and Oman”.

He added the US will have no choice but to accede to “conditions” set by the Islamic republic to reopen the strategic strait, which Mohebbi said the IRGC views as not just an economic waterway, but a source of power tied to Iran’s geographical position that it intends to leverage.

The IRGC spokesman urged the administration of US President Donald Trump not to “interfere” in the talks with Oman, “which have nearly reached their conclusion”.

On Friday, the spokesperson for the national security commission of Iran’s hardline-dominated parliament also confirmed that the framework of an arrangement with Oman over the strait had been agreed upon, and a deal could be expected soon.

Hassan Qashqavi said the decision was pending a green light from “higher levels”.

In a televised interview, President Masoud Pezeshkian said he would “strongly defend” the MoU signed with the US in June and once again rejected speculation that he would abandon his office, despite claims by hardliners that he has used the threat of resignation as a way of combatting opponents who are against a diplomatic resolution with the US.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said earlier that a joint statement could be expected with Oman if a deal is reached to bring back some traffic to the strait, which has been mostly disrupted since the US and Israel attacked Iran on February 28.

Iran and Oman have agreed on the coordinates of routes to be taken by vessels through the waterway as part of the arrangement. Inbound traffic is to pass through a northern lane through Iranian territorial waters, while outbound traffic will go through a southern lane in Omani waters, coordinated with Iran.

US media have said the interim agreement is envisaged for 60 days and can be extended. They have also reported on discussions concerning naval mine clearance from a central corridor that could be utilised in the future, the passage of military vessels and a potential coordinated fee system for passing vessels.

There are questions over what will happen with a US naval blockade of Iran’s southern ports and a drawback of US military assets, which Iran has said will be necessary on the way to fully reopening the strait, through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil passes in peacetime.

Even more ambiguous are prospects of a broader long-term resolution that will also address the future of Iran’s nuclear programme, as well as years of harsh US sanctions over nuclear enrichment that have exacerbated economic shockwaves imposed against 90 million Iranians.

In the meantime, while military activity has significantly dropped across the region to give space to the Oman talks, tensions remain high and maritime security continues to dominate discussions.

The United Arab Emirates said a vessel belonging to the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) was targeted by a missile while crossing the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, but that there were no casualties.

In a statement, the UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said targeting commercial shipping and using the strait “as a tool of economic coercion or blackmail represents acts of piracy” by the IRGC “and constitutes a direct threat to the stability of the region, its peoples, and global energy security”.

The Iran-aligned Houthis in Yemen also continue to face off against Saudi Arabia and create disruptions for Saudi-linked vessels in the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait.

On Friday, the Houthis launched a deadly attack on an area of Marib controlled by the Saudi-backed, internationally recognised Yemeni government, with the government announcing a military response on several fronts on Saturday.

The Yemeni group also struck southwestern Saudi Arabia’s Najran on Thursday, a day after claiming two separate attacks on Saudi oil tankers.

Traffic in both the Bab al-Mandeb and Hormuz straits was down to just a handful of vessels on Wednesday on the back of the latest escalations, but has relatively rebounded while still far from unobstructed pre-war levels. Some ships have resorted to turning off their transponders to avoid being detected.

Global energy markets have once again welcomed the increasing prospects of a diplomatic agreement that could positively affect the Strait of Hormuz, with Brent crude standing at about $83 per barrel at Friday’s close.

Markets inside Iran also reacted positively on Saturday, the first day of the working week in Iran, with the national currency strengthening to 1.85 million rials against the US dollar, slightly recovering from all-time lows of about 1.94 million reached last week.

The main index of the Tehran Stock Exchange also climbed by 112,000 points or just over 2 percent to reach 5.52 million, near an all-time high.

The Saudi, Pakistan, Turkiye defence pact faces mixed reactions, with some Iranian officials doubting its security guarantees. Iran and Oman agree on a Hormuz framework, while fighting in Yemen escalates between government forces and Houthis.
Al Jazeera’s @Mohammadfff_ reports.

A new mutual defence pact between Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan has raised questions about the shifting geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, where fallout from the US-Israel war on Iran has prompted some countries to seek new arrangements to safeguard their security.

The pact, termed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, was signed in the Saudi city of Mecca on Friday.

“The agreement is intended to strengthen collective deterrence against any act of aggression, and stipulates that any armed attack against any one of the three states shall be regarded as an attack against them all,” a statement from the meeting reads.

“It further provides for the enhancement of all aspects of defence cooperation among the three states.”

While it is not yet clear what such an agreement might look like in practice, analysts say the pact points to growing questions about the durability of US security guarantees.

“Regional states have harbored growing doubts about the reliability of the US security partnership for more than a decade,” Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a Middle East fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, told Al Jazeera over email.

“Both the decision to begin military operations against Iran and the subsequent conduct of the war and the on-off attempts to resolve it have only intensified those concerns and accelerated efforts to diversify security and defence relations.”

But, Ulrichsen added, building new defence pacts is likely not intended “to replace or supplant the US, but to provide additional strategic and policy options”.

Uncertainty over US role

While the administration of US President Donald Trump has yet to weigh in on the pact, analysts say the agreement is an effort by the three countries to reorient themselves after the turmoil of the Iran war.

“This is one of the first major geopolitical signs that the regional order is being reshaped by the US-Israeli war on Iran,” Sina Toossi, an analyst at the Center for International Policy, told Al Jazeera.

“The significance is less about a formal military alliance than about what it says regarding how regional states are reassessing security.”

Toossi pointed to the long-running alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia. For decades, the two countries have enjoyed a strong relationship, hinged on shared security interests. But the pact could be a sign that Saudi Arabia is looking to expand its security alliances.

“Rather than relying primarily on Washington, Saudi Arabia appears to be broadening its security partnerships and laying the groundwork for more intra-regional security arrangements,” Toossi explained. “That is arguably the most important takeaway.”

Media reports have also indicated that US partners in the Middle East were frustrated that the Trump administration had launched February’s war against Iran with little apparent thought to the impact on allies in the region.

Iranian forces have launched waves of missile and drone strikes against US military facilities in the Middle East, causing bystander casualties. Iran has also targeted civilian infrastructure, including energy and desalination plants.

Tehran’s decision to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key conduit for the region’s energy exports, has also imposed a steep cost on local economies.

Despite heavy strikes by the US and Israel, Iran has largely maintained its ability to restrict traffic through the strait, and Washington has struggled to provide partners with sufficient air defence munitions, many of which went to Israel.

‘Normative deterrence’

Under the circumstances created by the war, the longstanding reliance on Washington for security in the region has become more strained.

“It’s a fluid, tabula rasa era in the Middle East,” Brett McGurk, a key architect of Middle East policy under former US President Joe Biden, wrote in a social media post.

But analysts note that Friday’s security pact is best understood as an effort to supplement regional security cooperation with other countries and deter Iran.

“These countries are all US partners, and they recognise that there is no framework that can replace the United States,” Yasmine Farouk, an analyst at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera.

Farouk added that it would also be a mistake to see the pact as a step towards greater confrontation with Iran.

She noted that all three countries involved have generally called for mediation and de-escalation since the US and Israel first launched their attacks on Iran in late February.

“What these countries have in common is that they are not seeking regional escalation,” she said, underscoring that the importance of the agreement might be something closer to “normative deterrence”.

Iran, she explained, has emerged from the war hardened and more confident in its ability to use force to advance its goals.

“There is a long-term perspective here on strategic cooperation, not just a deterrent effect.”

US President Donald Trump expects the conflict with Iran to end “pretty soon”, while Tehran reports that an agreement with Oman to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is “on the verge of being finalised” following a route agreement between both nations.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – facing a crucial election later this year – has hinted that he may be considering taking unilateral action to prolong a costly war with Iran, even as Washington and Tehran appear to be close to an interim deal to open the Strait of Hormuz.

“We heard today the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ahmad Vahidi, declare that Iran intends to continue developing a nuclear weapon,” Netanyahu claimed in an assertion, even though no official statement from Vahidi on the matter has been released by the Iranian government or official media.

Still, Netanyahu saw the opportunity to once again frame Iran’s nuclear threat as existential.

“As Israel’s prime minister, I am determined to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Netanyahu told attendees at a state ceremony in West Jerusalem.

Describing the United States as “Israel’s greatest ally”, Netanyahu nevertheless added that he was prepared to do “whatever is necessary” to guarantee Israel’s security.

Israel has officially struck Iran only once since April’s initial ceasefire between the US and Iran took effect, even after it later broke down and the two sides resumed hostilities in the US-Israel war on Iran.

But observers – including US President Donald Trump – believe that Netanyahu wants to keep the US engaged in the fight against Iran, which began in late February with a joint US-Israeli attack that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Addressing reports that Netanyahu planned to bring fresh intelligence to Washington alleging that Iran was stockpiling uranium at its Pickaxe Mountain facility near Natanz in central Iran, Trump told reporters: “I don’t need Bibi to tell me that. Bibi is telling me that because he wants me to stay involved.”

He then sharpened his criticism of the Israeli prime minister, adding: “Why don’t you just tell it to me? Why do you have to announce it to the world?”

Fight alone

With the US and Israel unable so far to topple the Iranian state or force concessions on the Strait of Hormuz, many analysts believe that the war has been unsuccessful.

Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz – formerly a free waterway – has paralysed much of the world’s economy.

Global oil prices have increased, with shortages in the supplies of liquified gas, fertiliser exports, sulphur supplies, and petrochemical feedstocks all threatening to ripple through international supply lines.

“The war against Iran is a strategic catastrophe,” said Ahron Bregman, an Israeli security analyst and senior teaching fellow in the Department for War Studies at King’s College London. “None of the original aims has been achieved… Trump is desperate for an exit. Almost at any price. He only cares about opening the [strait].”

But in Israel, the focus is less on the world’s economy, and more on the perceived danger posed by Iran and its allied groups across the region.

Netanyahu has consistently pursued a hawkish line on Iran, a power he has repeatedly claimed is on the brink of crossing the threshold to nuclear weapons capability.

He is also thought to have been among the loudest voices that pushed for Trump to withdraw in 2018 from a nuclear deal agreed to by previous US President Barack Obama.

“Israel’s strategy is clear,” said Kobi Michael, a senior researcher at Israel’s Misgav Institute for National Security. “Iran remains close to achieving nuclear capacity and has shown it’s able to continue producing ballistic missiles and supplying its proxy forces in the region.”

The war on Iran was currently a fiasco from Israel’s perspective, Michael added, with both the US and Iran insisting that they had won.

Michael, however, framed the current negotiations as “useless”, and unlikely to produce lasting security in the region, reflecting the sentiment in the Israeli security establishment.

Israel, Michael said, was prepared to fight alone if necessary.

“Israel can only have one strategy,” Michael said, “to strike directly at the head of the octopus that threatens global civilisation and to do that alone, if necessary.”

That might inflame tensions with the US, Michael added, concluding, “I can’t see any other option.”

Inconceivable

However, while some in Israel were confident of the country’s ability to strike unilaterally at Iran in defiance of US wishes, others expressed caution, suggesting that Netanyahu’s talk of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon might simply be little more than rhetoric ahead of an election that could conceivably jeopardise both his legacy and, as a result of his long-running corruption trial, his personal freedom.

The US relationship is important to the Israeli electorate, but relations between Netanyahu and Trump appear to be frostier than normal.

Beyond friction over Israel’s reluctance to accept terms apparently imposed on it in Gaza by the Trump-sponsored Board of Peace, there have also been widespread reports of tensions over Israeli strikes in Lebanon that have repeatedly threatened to derail US negotiations with Iran. Those attacks, however, have stopped far short of the unilateral strikes on Iran hinted at by Netanyahu on Wednesday.

“Israel launching unilateral action against Iran is inconceivable,” the US author and former diplomat Aaron David Miller said. “Something like that might be possible if Iran or Hezbollah struck Israel directly, but talk of Israel striking Iran now, when US negotiations are so close to a conclusion, is impossible.”

Relations between the two allies were entering a unique phase, he said. While the US had never cooperated so closely with an ally militarily since its relationship with the United Kingdom during World War II, diplomatic ties had rarely been so fraught.

“Trump’s leaked, expletive-laden criticism of Netanyahu; his direct negotiations with Hamas over Gaza; his lifting of sanctions on Syria despite Israel’s objections; and his negotiations with Iran without Israel’s involvement all point to a changing relationship,” Miller said. “What that might mean for future US military assistance to Israel – including defence cooperation, intelligence sharing, research and development, and diplomatic support in international forums – remains to be seen.”

However, he added: “Let me be clear. Netanyahu had a hell of a role in how this war started. He’s not going to have a role in how it shifts to its next phase.”

Rear Admiral Abdullah bin Salem Al-Shehri will lead the multinational coalition’s naval defence to protect trade, energy routes.

Saudi Arabia has announced the appointment of a commander for a multinational maritime defence alliance to protect freedom of navigation through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

The Saudi Ministry of Defence said in a statement on Thursday that Rear Admiral Abdullah bin Salem Al-Shehri has been appointed commander of the coalition a week after its establishment.

Al-Shehri will oversee joint naval defence, coordinate with member states and other maritime coalitions, and carry out missions under the coalition’s charter, it added on X.

Bahrain, Bangladesh, the Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Turkiye and Yemen announced the formation of the coalition on July 30.

More countries are completing the procedures to join the coalition with some having already signed the joint declaration and others preparing to sign the declaration and charter before their formal accession as founding members, the Saudi statement said.

The ministry described the coalition as “an open international coalition that welcomes the accession of all countries that align with its goals and principles”, adding that it continues to receive new membership applications.

The coalition will hold a planning meeting August 12-13 to finalise its institutional framework and pave the way for more countries to join, according to the ministry.

The 14 countries that announced the formation of the Multinational Maritime Defence Coalition declared their intent to protect freedom of navigation and secure international trade routes and energy supply routes in the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, which form a strategic maritime corridor linking the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean.

This comes as the United States-Israel war on Iran has become focused on the Strait of Hormuz. The virtual closure of the route, through which about 20 percent of global oil and gas supplies transited before the conflict, is weighing heavily on the global economy.

The Trump administration has repeatedly pushed back on reports of shortages of both offensive and defensive weapons.

United States President Donald Trump has vowed to hunt down “leakers” after several news reports detailing a dangerous depletion of munitions stockpiles amid the US-Israeli war on Iran.

While several reports had previously documented munitions depletions since the war began on February 28, the latest reports painted a more dire picture.

Reuters news agency and CBS News reported that the military had burned through nearly all of its offensive Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMSs) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSMs), which experts said could require relying on more perilous close-range and aerial attacks in the event of a renewed escalation.

A CNN report showing low levels of Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors has caused greater concern, with experts noting there is no viable short-term alternative to the air defence missiles. Replenishments of pre-war stockpiles are expected to take years.

Still, Trump on Thursday again denied that the US faced any strategic disadvantage when it came to weapons stores after five months of war.

“The US has massive amounts of ‘munitions,’ especially of certain types,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social account.

He added that “large amounts are being manufactured and shipped to the U.S. as needed” and that defence contractors are “building the largest number of plants and factories in our country’s history”.

“The ‘leakers’ of these treasonous statements are being hunted down. Long-term jail sentences will be sought!”

The US president did not provide further details on the claims, although experts have warned that even with an influx of funding, it will likely take at least three years to restore Patriot and THAAD interceptors to pre-war levels.

Only Japan and Germany currently have licences to produce Patriot interceptors. No other country produces THAAD interceptors.

CNN’s report, released on Tuesday, said that the US military had depleted 80 percent of the THAAD interceptors it had prior to the war and about half of its Patriot interceptors. Sources described the levels as “dangerously low”.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth described the information as “not true”.

Separately, the Washington, DC-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on July 27 calculated that, as of that date, the military had just more than a third of its Patriot interceptors left and about half of its THAAD interceptors.

Speaking to Al Jazeera on Wednesday, one of the authors of that analysis, retired US Marine Corps colonel Mark Cancian, said current levels of interceptors are already hurting US deterrence capabilities against military powers like China.

A shortage of interceptors has also reportedly led to the military taking a more judicious approach to missile interceptions, increasing the likelihood of miscalculations, he noted. The killing of three US soldiers in an Iranian strike on a military base in Jordan on July 17 has further underscored those concerns.

“We don’t have that many left, and there are no good substitutes,” Cancian said of the interceptors. “If we run out of Patriots, then the missiles get through.”

Despite the latest rhetoric, the Washington Post on Thursday reported that Trump confronted Hegseth during a cabinet meeting at Camp David last week, accusing the Pentagon chief of misleading him on munitions shortages.

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt dismissed the report as “100 percent fake news”.

Eight of the world’s largest shipping associations have urged the United Nations to oppose tolls in the Strait of Hormuz amid reports that Iran and Oman are nearing a deal to manage the critical waterway.

In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and International Maritime Organization Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez, the group said that allowing authorities to charge vessels to transit the strait would violate international norms and harm the global economy.

“Introducing compulsory charges for transit, or service fees that are a toll in all but name, through the Strait of Hormuz would represent a significant departure from established international practice,” the groups representing shipowners and operators said in the letter, which was sent to the UN on Monday but made public on Wednesday.

“Beyond the immediate financial implications for global trade, it would establish a precedent that could undermine the internationally recognised legal framework governing straits used for international navigation and transit passage.”

Internationally recognised rights of navigation should not be “compromised or used as part of broader political negotiations,” the group said, warning that a permanent de facto “toll booth” would lead to higher energy prices, inflation and economic uncertainty.

“Ultimately, these impacts will carry a human cost, affecting livelihoods around the world. It is vital that we continue supporting the preservation of freedom of navigation as the foundation of international maritime governance,” the group said in the letter.

The letter’s eight signatories are the Asian Shipowners Association, the Baltic and International Maritime Council, the Cruise Lines International Association, the European Shipowners Association, the International Chamber of Shipping, the International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners, the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners and the World Shipping Council.

Dominguez, the head of the UN’s maritime agency, previously told Al Jazeera that imposing fees in the strait would violate international law and set a “very detrimental” precedent for global shipping.

“Countries do not have the right to introduce tolls or payments or charges on these straits,” Dominguez said in April.

Deborah Elms, the head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation in Singapore, said the establishment of a permanent toll system would be felt acutely in Asia, which buys the bulk of the Gulf’s energy exports.

“The cost increases from Hormuz disruption can be seen in Asia, particularly in diesel fuel price increases and shortages, in the skyrocketing cost of fertilisers, and in rising costs and shortages of plastics,” Elms told Al Jazeera.

“Much of the oil currently shipped through Hormuz could be rerouted through pipelines, but natural gas remains a problem. This chokepoint is not a major problem for container shipping, but if tolls were applied to other waterways, containers and bulk carriers would be affected much more,” she said.

Iran established a de facto maritime “toll booth” in the strait shortly after the US and Israel launched their war against the country in late February.

Tehran formalised its fee regime with the establishment of the Persian Gulf Strait Authority in May.

Iran’s ability to launch attacks on commercial vessels in the region has granted Tehran effective control over the waterway, giving it powerful leverage in negotiations on ending the war.

Dozens of attacks have been carried out on vessels since the start of the conflict, most of which have been blamed on Iranian forces.

The IMO has confirmed 64 incidents and 17 deaths in the region since the war began.

Shipping across the Gulf continues to be severely disrupted more than five months into the conflict, with at least 6,000 seafarers still stranded in and around the strait as of late July, according to the IMO and UN Human Rights Chief Volker Turk.

In the latest incident on Wednesday, a tanker reported hearing two explosions while transiting the strait, according to the UK Maritime Trade Operations Centre (UKMTO).

Drew Thompson, a senior fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said the IMO and other international agencies have limited ability to influence any deal involving Iran, Oman and the US despite their concerns.

“Despite clear interests in maintaining freedom of navigation in international straits, neither the UN, international organisations or shipowners have adequate leverage or ability to affect Iran’s calculus,” Thompson told Al Jazeera.

“President Trump has the means to continue to use violence to coerce a stubborn and resilient Iran, but he has thus far been ambivalent about international law and freedom of navigation, so it is uncertain if he would use his political capital or military force to prevent Iran from extracting tolls on shipping in the strait,” Thompson said.

A deal between the US and Iran could be signed within 48 hours, according to US officials. The agreement would reportedly focus on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and could mark a first step towards broader negotiations.

Al Jazeera’s Marah Ryan has the latest.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

Progressive advocate overcomes more than $60m in spending to defeat pro-Israel Congresswoman Haley Stevens.

Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive public health advocate, has won the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate, overcoming more than $60m in campaign spending, mostly from pro-Israel groups, NBC has projected.

The result on Tuesday represents an enormous blow to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which led the way in the effort to defeat the pro-Palestinian El-Sayed, backing his opponent, US Congresswoman Haley Stevens, with more than $30m.

El-Sayed will face former Republican Congressman Mike Rogers in November. The race is considered one of a handful of competitive Senate contests in the November midterms and could determine which party controls the chamber for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term.

If El-Sayed – who is of Egyptian descent – wins in November, he would become the first Muslim senator in US history.

Tuesday’s result in Michigan – a swing state that voted for Trump in 2024 – will have major implications for the Democrats’ policies on conflicts in the Middle East.

El-Sayed recognises Israel’s atrocities in Gaza as a genocide and argues that money spent on conflicts that benefit Israel should be invested in local communities in the US to address healthcare, housing and infrastructure problems.

More to come…

Oil prices fall as US officials tout progress in talks to reopen critical waterway.

The US stock market has hit an all-time high amid growing hopes for a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and a flurry of bumper corporate earnings results.

The S&P 500, the most popular gauge of US stocks, surged 1.8 percent on Tuesday to top 7,700 for the first time, blasting past its previous record of 7,620.90 set on June 2.

Wall Street’s benchmark index has risen 12.80 percent so far this year, comfortably beating its historical average of about 10.5 percent.

Palantir Technologies, a data analytics company closely tied to the US and Israeli defence sectors, was among the biggest gainers, with its shares soaring 29.5 percent on the back of forecasting-busting second-quarter revenue of $1.94 bn.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which tracks 30 blue-chip companies, set a new record for a second straight day, climbing 1.7 percent to 54,085.88.

The rally continued in Asia on Wednesday morning, with key indexes in Japan and South Korea making major gains.

Tokyo’s benchmark Nikkei 225 was up 3 percent as of 01:00 GMT, while the Kospi in Seoul was up 4.6 percent.

Brent crude, the primary international benchmark for oil prices, edged lower after falling about 5 percent overnight on hopes for an end to the months-long disruption to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a conduit for about one-fifth of global oil supplies before the start of the US-Israel war on Iran in late February.

Brent futures for October delivery stood at $79.11 per barrel as of 01:00 GMT, down about 13 percent from the previous week.

The growing market optimism came as both US and Iranian officials touted progress in talks between Iran and Oman aimed at restoring shipping in the strait.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Tuesday that while an agreement had yet to be reached, he hoped that a deal would “happen very ‌shortly”.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview with CNBC that an agreement on the strait could be reached as soon as Tuesday or Wednesday.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, said talks with Omani officials on designating safe routes for vessels have been “positive”.

Maritime traffic in the Gulf has been severely constrained since the start of the war amid the threat of Iranian attacks on vessels in and around the strait, as well as a US blockade of Iranian ports.

Just nine vessels transited the critical waterway on Sunday, according to ship-tracking platform MarineTraffic, compared with roughly 130 daily crossings before the start of the war.

The US military said on Tuesday that the strait was “free and open” to all commercial vessels despite Tehran’s repeated insistence that it has the right to control the movement of traffic in the waterway.

“Over the past three months, US forces have assisted more than 1,000 vessels in successfully transiting the strait despite unwarranted Iranian aggression, and these transits continue today,” US Central Command said in a post on social media.

Iran says talks with Oman are proceeding ‘positively’ as US officials say a deal could be possible soon.

A funeral was held for the victims of last week’s US strike on Iran’s Qeshm Island, where a couple and their two-year-old child were killed. Iran’s chief negotiator and parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, vowed the US would “pay the price” for their deaths.

Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh, Lebanon – Every year on August 4 since 2020, families of the victims of a massive explosion at Beirut port gather outside the site of what was one of the largest non-nuclear blasts in modern history.

They continue to press Lebanese authorities for justice and accountability for the explosion of ammonium nitrate that was unsafely stored with highly inflammable materials.

Yet there has been none, despite a change in leadership that promised to support an independent judiciary into the blast that killed more than 200 people.

This year I couldn’t attend the commemorations because I was covering another tragedy – only the latest to devastate Lebanon.

I was in Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh, a small town in southern Lebanon that lies in ruins after weeks of Israeli air attacks, shelling and at times deliberate demolitions of people’s homes amid fighting with the Lebanese group Hezbollah.

Residents are trying to start again – but they can’t.

Israel and Hezbollah have been fighting since October 2023, with different levels of intensity, but the former has twice escalated the conflict – first in September 2024 and then in early March this year, after the start of the US-Israel war on Iran.

People in Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh had not recovered from the first escalation before they found themselves escaping bombing and displaced yet again.

The majority of houses in the town are so badly damaged they are uninhabitable.

I watched a man in his 80s cry as he showed me the mountain of concrete that used to be his home. “I feel humiliated,” he said. “I have no choice but to collect the scrap metal from my destroyed home to sell in order to be able to survive.”

In 2019, Lebanon’s economy, local currency and the banking sector all but collapsed, leaving people unable to access their savings. And little if anything has been done by the political class to carry out required financial reforms to bring in much-needed international funds.

The reconstruction bill for the latest escalation is in the billions of dollars. Officials do not have an exact figure but say it could climb to $20bn.

It might be a conservative estimate. I have been visiting villages across southern Lebanon since the reduction in violence a few weeks ago. The devastation is unprecedented. Basic services are no longer available. In some areas, there are no telecommunication networks.

And then there are the dozens of villages that we cannot access because they are occupied by the Israeli military.

There, homes continue to be demolished, water facilities destroyed, and agricultural land and olive groves torched. The deliberate destruction continues regardless of what is supposed to be a ceasefire, a framework agreement with Lebanon and condemnations by Lebanese officials who took the controversial and divisive decision to engage in direct talks with Israel.

Reconstruction as a card

When hostilities escalated in March this year, reconstruction from the previous round of fighting in 2024 had not even begun. Then, the World Bank estimated losses at $11bn – money the nearly bankrupt Lebanese government did not have.

Then, like now, there was no offer to help by international donors. Reconstruction aid was and continues to be used as leverage to force the disarmament of Hezbollah.

It was not just the lack of funds.

During the 15 months following a November 2024 ceasefire and the latest escalation, the Israeli military maintained pressure by systematically targeting all recovery and rebuilding efforts in southern Lebanon.

They bombed heavy machinery and construction equipment, destroyed factories and prefabricated house units, and attacked workers clearing rubble to prevent displaced residents from returning. Nearly 100,000 people were already displaced before this year’s war that forced more than a million people from their homes.

More destruction

On the sixth anniversary of the port blast, Lebanon has had to face more destruction.

I remember writing the same words last year, on the fifth anniversary. Like in 2025, this year’s destruction came from outside the country – from Israel. Areas where Hezbollah has influence remain covered in rubble following Israel’s attacks.

Yet again, there is a need to rebuild. Yet again, many Lebanese have to pick up the pieces of their lives on their own.

While they try, they live in fear. In the front-line town of al-Mansouri, we met the head of the municipality, Haidar Mudayhi, who told us not to approach the hills around the town’s centre.

“The Israelis drop stun grenades every time someone tries to reach those areas … every day there is machinegun fire around the village … the other day there were air strikes in the hills … there is no stability,” he said.

It is a story we hear time and time again in villages north of the occupation zone.

The relative calm is fragile. No agreement exists that guarantees Israel and Hezbollah will not go to war again.

Israel acts as if there is no ceasefire, while the signed agreement between Lebanon and Israel, which the United States has called “historic”, does not include a commitment or a timeline for an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.