US-Israel war on Iran

United States President Donald Trump has said that he does not intend to bomb Iran again until the November midterm elections, even though several US media outlets have reported that the Pentagon has drawn up plans to relaunch attacks before that vote.

Trump has been accused of misdirection on the issue in the past. The US launched its initial attacks on Iran on February 28, as talks with Iran were ongoing and despite Trump saying just the day before that he had not made any decision. One year previously, the US struck Iran towards the end of Israel’s June 2025 12-day war, despite Trump saying he would announce a decision about attacks “in two weeks”.

Still, striking Iran ahead of the midterm elections would be risky for the administration as the war remains deeply unpopular with Americans.

Resuming the war afterwards may have less of a negative impact on Trump, who is not eligible to run for another term as US president anyway.

Here’s what we know about Trump’s plans.

In the past two days, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and other publications have reported claims by unnamed officials that the Pentagon has drawn up plans to attack Iran before the midterms, if authorised to do so.

On Wednesday, US publication Axios cited US and Israeli officials saying the Pentagon has instructed US Central Command (CENTCOM) to prepare for imminent major combat operations. The Atlantic also reported along similar lines.

What has Trump said?

On Thursday, Trump posted on his Truth Social media platform that he will not order a resumption of strikes on Iran before November 3, when the US midterm elections will be held.

“I want to make it clear to everybody that, while Iran is in very bad condition…we will not be attacking Iran at any time prior to the Midterm Elections to be held in the United States on November 3rd,” he said.

The president added that the US is presently “having productive discussions” with the Iranian side. However, that was also the case on February 28, the day the US and Israel first struck Iran, triggering the war.

Trump did not make any reference to preparing for potential military operations, nor did he provide more details on the state of talks.

Why might Trump be hesitant about resuming bombing before the midterms?

Trump and Republicans are worried about a voter backlash against the war at the polls. The US war on Iran is intensely unpopular domestically as Americans have had to grapple with surging prices of gas, food and other basic commodities because of the crisis in the Middle East.

Since the start of the war, surveys have shown that large numbers of Americans did not approve of striking Iran.

Now, about 65 percent of Americans say they “disapprove” of the way in which Trump has handled the Iran war overall, according to a Pew Research Center poll released on Thursday. Trump stated at the start of the war that it would go on for just a few weeks, however, it is now into its eighth month.

According to Pew, most Americans now believe the war will continue for at least another year. Even Republican or more conservative-leaning voters are growing more negative about the war, its poll found.

The conflict has also severely affected Trump’s personal ratings and eroded support for Republicans. A Reuters/Ipsos poll on Thursday found that only 30 percent of his supporters were enthusiastic about voting in the midterms, compared with 48 percent of Democratic voters.

About 13 percent of those who voted for Trump in 2024 say they are not sure who to vote for in the congressional elections.

Delaying attacks until after the elections could potentially shield Republican candidates from voter backlash, analysts say.

While analysts say Trump will see a good performance at the polls as approval for renewed strikes, a Republican defeat at the polls could equally further incentivise him to hit Iran again as he will calculate that he has little to lose at that point.

While that could further affect Trump’s ratings, the president is not eligible to run in the next presidential election in any case.

Will the US restart the war after the midterms?

In recent weeks, the US president has threatened to “end” the war with force after the elections as talks with Iran have dragged on.

At a Republican convention in September, he accused Iran of trying to affect the outcome of the midterms and said that conflict “is going to end immediately after the elections”.

In an interview with Time magazine two weeks ago, he also said it would be “possible” to ramp up bombing in Iran after the elections, but declined to elaborate. Analysts say his comments were designed to calm voters, while at the same time warning Iran of potential aggression after the vote.

Last week, the US military dispatched about 7,000 sailors and 2,000 Marines aboard several ships now sailing to the Middle East amid threats of new attacks from Trump. The vessel formation included the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group.

The deployment increases the number of US troops in the region to 20,000, alongside hundreds of aircraft and at least three carrier strike groups.

In the past, US troop build-up in the Middle East and the Caribbean has subsequently resulted in military action.

In June, Washington and Iran signed a ceasefire agreement that quickly broke down over control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump has repeatedly said that the US has the upper hand in the strait, citing more oil exports and Iran’s weakened economy. He has also voiced aversion to a deal with Tehran over management of Hormuz, but said he might consider it because “they’re willing to offer us anything to stop”.

Washington rejected a recent proposal from Iran to reopen the strait based on certain conditions it wants the US to meet, including the lifting of sanctions, unfreezing Iranian assets and guaranteeing an end to attacks. Last week, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran was considering a counterproposal from the US.

Iranian media reported “massive explosions” in the southern Strait of Hormuz, with Fars citing unnamed military sources as Trump says US won’t strike Iran before midterms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both sides agree on ending the Iran war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rogers calls immigration crackdown ‘not appropriate’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Candidates debate Canada trade war and tariffs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Russian and Iranian presidents met in Turkmenistan ahead of regional summit.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has told Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian that Russia will “do everything” to help end the United States-led war on Iran, Russian news agencies reported.

The two leaders met in Turkmenistan on Thursday ahead of the summit of the Commonwealth of Independent States, a group of former Soviet nations.

“You know our position. On our part, we are ready to do everything we can to help you resolve this situation,” Interfax news agency said Putin told Pezeshkian.

“We know that Iran is making real efforts to end the conflict, which broke out through no fault of its own, no fault of Iran’s,” Putin said, according to Russian media.

Putin also noted what he called a “positive evolution” in Iran-Russia relations.

In a call on Wednesday, Putin told Pezeshkian that Moscow is prepared to mediate efforts to end the war in the Middle East, Iran’s IRNA news agency reported.

Putin and Pezeshkian also met on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Kyrgyzstan last month.

Strategic partnership

The two countries, which are under heavy Western sanctions, have reinforced diplomatic and military ties.

Last year, Moscow and Tehran signed a “comprehensive strategic partnership treaty” that covers areas from trade and military cooperation to science, culture and education.

Ukraine and Western countries have accused Iran of supplying Russia with Shahed drones and short-range missiles for use in the Ukraine war. Russia has also been accused of supplying data to Iran for its attacks on US targets in the Middle East.

The meeting came as Iran-US talks stand at an apparent impasse.

US President Donald Trump said on Thursday that the US will not launch an attack on Iran before the November 3 US midterm congressional elections, saying the two countries are ‌‌holding “productive” talks about ending the ongoing war.

Diplomatic efforts to resolve Russia’s offensive in Ukraine also appear deadlocked, even as both sides intensify attacks.

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

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

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

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

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

US not a protector

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

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

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

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

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

Alliances

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

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

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

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

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

Clogged arteries

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

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

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

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

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

Islamabad, Pakistan – More than 9.5 million people have received subsidised petrol under a special fuel relief scheme launched by Pakistan’s prime minister, Federal Minister Shaza Fatima Khawaja told Al Jazeera on Wednesday.

The initiative, aimed at lower-income citizens, comes as the government attempts to help households deal with fuel price increases tied to the war on Iran.

The scheme, launched in September, offers 100 rupees ($0.36) off every litre of petrol to owners of motorcycles, rickshaws and small cars, through a text-message system.

Petrol prices have risen by nearly 50 percent since the war began on February 28, adding to Pakistan’s economic hardship and putting further pressure on consumers already grappling with rising inflation.

How the scheme works

Explaining the process, Khawaja, the minister for information technology and telecommunications, said applicants text their national ID number, vehicle registration, and province to 9771. A second message, sent before each visit to a pump, generates a token redeemable anywhere in the country.

Two- and three-wheelers get 500 rupees ($1.80) a week, capped at four tokens a month. Cars with engines of up to 800cc get 1,000 rupees ($3.60) every 10 days, for three tokens monthly.

After complaints, registration, once a paid service, was made free, and a five-litre minimum purchase was scrapped for the same reason.

Khawaja told Al Jazeera the system had been redesigned based on experiences of users on the ground.

Riders no longer need the vehicle to be registered in their own name, as long as they can supply the exact registration date shown on the documents.

“Even in my own house, there’s a bike registered in our name that our cook uses for daily errands,” Khawaja said, explaining why the ownership requirement for two- and three-wheelers was dropped on September 20.

An earlier cash-transfer scheme in April had reached just over a million bike owners, she said, largely because disbursement required a bank account most riders did not have.

‘The relief is decent’

Government officials say that the scheme has been expanded to include wider sections of society, especially those who depend on their vehicles to generate income.

“There’s a benefit; it’s not like there’s nothing,” Shakeel Ahmed, 45, an electrician in Islamabad, told Al Jazeera. “The relief is decent for people who use it normally, for local trips. But for people like us, who put in 1,000 to 1,500 rupees [$3.60-$5.40] of petrol a day, it’s not enough.”

Safiya Aftab, an economist, told Al Jazeera the scheme has reached the people it was meant to.

“The scheme has indeed reached low-income segments of society, people who typically use two-wheelers and 800cc cars. So yes, it’s a good thing that they are subsidising the poor,” she said.

Aftab, however, also pointed to a levy – 114 rupees ($0.41) for every litre – that the government charges. This, she said, was helping the government raise revenue. She said the government is now earning more than 100 billion rupees ($361m) a month from the levy, which is fuelling inflation.

“The levy was originally meant as a sort of environmental tax, to discourage the use of petrol. Now it has become a full revenue earner for the government, one that helps keep the fiscal deficit down,” the economist said.

What it costs and for how long

The Pakistani government has approved 75 billion rupees ($271m) for the scheme’s first three months, through November.

Petroleum Minister Ali Pervaiz Malik put the running cost at 25-30 billion rupees ($90m-$108m) a month at launch. By late September, he said, it had risen to 35-40 billion rupees ($126m-$144m).

Malik has said the government is prepared to run the scheme for up to 10 months, or “until the end of the war”, if needed.

Pakistan is currently under a $7bn International Monetary Fund programme, and an IMF team is in Islamabad this week for talks with the government as it seeks to keep its fiscal commitments on track while responding to the fuel shock.

Officials familiar with the government’s talks with the IMF say the Fund wants relief capped at three months and routed instead through the Benazir Income Support Programme, the country’s main cash-transfer scheme.

Khawaja said the IMF’s position from the outset was that relief had to be targeted, not universal, which was why the scheme was built around actual token use rather than a blanket price cut.

Who it leaves out

But there are claims that the relief is not reaching all. Cars with engines larger than 800cc, diesel vehicles and public transport are excluded entirely, leading some experts to suggest that the subsidy scheme risks missing the most vulnerable sections of Pakistani society.

“A poor household that uses public transport, walks to work, or relies on diesel-powered transport may receive nothing while still facing higher food and transport costs,” Khaqan Najeeb, a former adviser in Pakistan’s Ministry of Finance, told Al Jazeera.

More than 8.1 million tokens had gone to two- and three-wheelers by late September, compared with fewer than 380,000 for cars, Malik said. A November 2024 Gallup Pakistan survey found that 79 percent of respondents, in rural and urban areas alike, said they use public transport such as buses or wagons.

Does the relief go far enough?

At 100 rupees a litre, the maximum monthly saving is 2,000 rupees ($7.20) for a motorcycle user and 3,000 rupees ($10.80) for an eligible car owner, Najeeb said, calling it “useful household relief, but not enough to offset the broader cost-of-living shock”.

Petrol has climbed from 266 rupees ($0.96) a litre before the war to nearly 395 rupees ($1.42), despite a partial rollback in April. Inflation rose to 10.3 percent in September from 7 percent in February, Najeeb said.

Sajid Amin Javed, a senior economist at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute in Islamabad, said the relief was “minimal”, but added that this was understandable given the IMF constraints on Pakistan.

“The relief is minimal, and that is understandable as we are in an IMF programme,” Javed told Al Jazeera, arguing that cutting the petroleum development levy, which still adds 114 rupees to every litre, would deliver broader relief than a capped subsidy.

“The government is using the petroleum development levy to fill its revenue gap, but that comes at a significant cost in terms of inflation, growth and household welfare,” Javed said.

Najeeb, however, argued the scheme should not become a permanent fixture of Pakistan’s energy policy – and should be used only to make oil price shocks “less damaging”.

Countries in Central Asia have begun buying oil from Iran as the Russian fuel supplies they have long depended on run dry amid Ukraine’s mounting attacks on Russian energy infrastructure to degrade Moscow’s war effort.

In August, Tajikistan announced it was receiving oil and petroleum products from Iran as Dushanbe faces uncertainty over its fuel supply from Russia. Tehran also agreed to establish a joint refinery in Kyrgyzstan in August, and supply the country with crude oil.

Moscow has been facing fuel shortages due to Ukrainian drone strikes on its refineries as Russia’s war on its neighbour continues to rage.

Can the Russian fuel crisis give Iran a new oil opening in Central Asia?

Here’s what we know:

Which Central Asian countries have been affected by Russia’s fuel crisis?

Ukraine’s offensive against Russian energy infrastructure has caused panic across Central Asian countries like Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, which are dependent on Moscow for oil and petroleum products.

Tajikistan has traditionally sourced up to 80 percent of its petroleum products from Russia. Kyrgyzstan also relies on petroleum product imports, sourcing more than 90 percent of its petrol from Russia.

“They’ve been hurt the most,” Galiya Ibragimova, a Moldova-based expert on Central Asia with Carnegie Politika, which has its headquarters in Berlin, told Al Jazeera in an interview in August.

Kyrgyzstan is a member of the Eurasian Economic Union, the free trade bloc of five former Soviet nations dominated by Russia and the Kremlin’s political decisions.

Tajikistan is not a member of the group, but it bought discounted Russian fuel as “payment for political loyalty, not because [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is so kind”, Ibragimova added.

Kazakhstan, meanwhile, boasts three giant, Soviet-era oil refineries. Still, fuel prices in the country have increased by 15.6 percent this year, the UlusMedia website reported on July 10.

Uzbekistan, on the other hand, is less dependent on Russian energy, with domestic production capable of reaching 100,000 tonnes of petroleum products per month, satisfying most of the country’s needs. But due to the increase in oil demand from its regional neighbours, Uzbekistan has also been forced to diversify its imports and has begun striking deals with countries like Georgia and Iraq.

Why is there a fuel crisis in Russia?

Russia has been facing a severe fuel deficit as Kyiv’s drone strikes – launched in an effort to degrade Moscow’s ability to maintain its ongoing invasion of Ukraine – have knocked out an estimated quarter to half of its total oil refining capacity.

To tackle the problem, Russia has imposed fuel rationing. Sales are often limited to about 20-30 litres (about 5-8 US gallons) per vehicle, and drivers must pump fuel strictly into vehicle tanks. Filling jerry cans is largely prohibited.

Earlier, the government banned petrol and jet fuel exports. Officials are now weighing a ban on diesel exports, too. Authorities have loosened fuel-quality regulations, temporarily allowing lower-grade fuel for the domestic market.

A state of emergency has also been declared in Russian-occupied Crimea, which Moscow annexed from Ukraine in 2014. A Russian-owned oil firm in India, Nayara Energy, has reportedly sold petroleum to Russia.

While Russian President Putin acknowledges the crisis, he appears reluctant to end the war on Ukraine and insists the situation is under control.

“These attacks on our facilities certainly create problems – that is obvious. We are currently seeing a certain shortage, though I would say it is not critical,” he said earlier this year.

“First and foremost, we have to rapidly and significantly increase production of air defence systems that are most in demand. We must also continue to improve them… Repairs at refineries must be completed more quickly.”

So, how is Iran helping Central Asia?

Amid Russian fuel shortages, Central Asian countries like Tajikistan have begun striking deals with Iran.

In August, Tajikistan’s Energy and Water Resources Ministry told the Asia-Plus news agency that the country is receiving oil and petroleum products from Iran. The ministry has not disclosed the route used to transport the products, but Tajikistan expects to receive 2.55 million tonnes of oil and petroleum products from Iran.

Besides Tajikistan, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian welcomed a proposal from Kyrgyzstan in August to establish a joint refinery in the Central Asian country, according to a report by Iran’s Tasnim news agency,

Under the agreement, Pezeshkian said, “The crude oil needed by the refinery can be supplied by Iran, and the products can be divided between the two sides.”

Will exporting oil to Central Asian countries help Iran?

The United States and Israel’s war on Iran has affected Tehran’s oil revenues. Data released by the government-administered Statistical Center of Iran in September showed that gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 10.1 percent year-on-year between March 21 and June 20, the first quarter of the Persian calendar.

Tehran’s ability to sell crude has also been dramatically curtailed by the US naval blockade of Iran’s ports, imposed for most of the war, which began in late February.

Iranian crude and condensate loadings collapsed from about two million barrels per day (bpd) in March to roughly 740,000bpd in July and just 220,000-255,000bpd in August, according to estimates from Kpler and Vortexa.

TankerTrackers.com told the Reuters news agency in September that 29 tankers, carrying 36.11 million barrels of crude, were trapped in the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Vortexa estimated that total Iranian crude afloat had fallen from 135 million barrels at the end of July to 107 million barrels by late August.

Amid these challenges, Iran has been scrambling to find new countries to trade oil with. Russian fuel shortages have opened up new opportunities for Iran in Central Asia, at least in the short term, according to analysts.

How does Iranian oil reach Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan?

Iran does not share a border with either country.

To get to Tajikistan, Iranian “oil and refined products have to cross Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan by rail”, said Frederic Schneider, a nonresident senior fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs.

To get to Kyrgyzstan, Iranian oil would also need to pass through Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

Is trading oil with Iran logistically sustainable for Central Asia?

It is unlikely, Schneider said.

“This opportunity [for Iran] depends on Ukraine continuing to hit Russian refineries, which seems unlikely, both given the waning of Ukraine’s strike capability and the US government’s demand to stop the attacks as they put too much strain on global oil markets,” he told Al Jazeera.

He noted that US President Donald Trump has pressed his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, repeatedly in September for an “energy truce” with Russia, since diesel prices have become a political problem for Trump ahead of the November midterm elections in the US.

“Those truces have so far collapsed within hours, but the direction is clear. Once the strikes stop, or once Russia repairs its plants, Russian fuel will come back to Central Asia duty-free under Eurasian Economic Union arrangements, and Iran will struggle to compete on price,” he said.

Logistics also favour Russia with respect to importing oil to countries like Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, he said.

Unlike Iran, Russia shares a border with both.

“Tajikistan’s own request [for oil] would need around 51,000 rail tank cars, and its main refinery at Dangara has never operated commercially at scale. Russia, by contrast, has decades’ worth of logistics infrastructure, pipelines, rail links, and supply contracts into the region,” Schneider said.

Is Central Asia a big enough market to compensate for Iran’s Hormuz losses?

No, according to Schneider.

Tajikistan’s total demand, Schneider said, was about 50,000bpd.

That is a drop in the ocean compared with the 1.7 million bpd Iran exported by sea a year ago. China reported $9.96bn in two-way trade with Iran in 2025, a figure that does not include some $31.2bn in Iranian oil shipments, according to the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

“This suggests that Central Asia can be a useful outlet for Iranian diesel and gasoline, but it cannot replace the Chinese market,” Schneider said.

For Tehran, Central Asia’s importance depends on how the US-Israel war on Iran develops, he said, adding that Tehran also needs to stay on good terms with Russia, with which it has a deep strategic partnership.

“Iran cannot afford to be seen as poaching Russian customers too aggressively, so it will present itself as a stopgap supplier, which, again, limits how much it can earn there,” he said.

What other risks does Central Asia face in buying Iranian oil?

Schneider warned that Central Asian nations could be hit with Washington’s secondary sanctions on Iran.

“Legally, US secondary sanctions apply to any foreign company or bank that conducts a significant transaction in Iranian petroleum, wherever it is based, and the Treasury expanded the list of sanctionable conduct in August. A Treasury official has already warned publicly that anyone in this trade ‘incurs that risk themselves’,” he noted.

But Schneider said that, politically, the US sanctioning Central Asian governments is unlikely.

“Central Asia is the arena of a new ‘Great Game’ between Russia, China and the United States, and Washington is courting the region harder than at any point since the 1990s, chiefly for its critical minerals. Kazakhstan alone holds about half of the minerals the US classifies as critical, including uranium and tungsten,” he said.

“Sanctioning a Central Asian government for buying fuel from Iran would push them straight back into closer ties to Russia and China,” he noted.

“What I would expect instead are targeted designations of individual traders, rail and logistics operators and smaller banks, combined with quiet pressure on the region’s correspondent banks. That alone is enough to raise the cost and slow the trade, but will come at the price of these countries redoubling their efforts to decouple economically and financially from the US.”

Yemeni government says one of the missiles hit Aden airport’s runway minutes before a flight from Cairo was due to land.

Yemen’s internationally recognised government has accused the Houthis of firing ballistic missiles and drones at the main international airport under its control, as Saudi Arabia said it had intercepted another missile north of its capital, Riyadh.

In a statement on Wednesday, the Ministry of Transport said the Houthis targeted the runway and passenger terminal at the airport with at least two ballistic missiles and several drones.

“One of the missiles landed near the runway minutes before the Yemeni flight from Cairo was to land,” it said. “We cancelled the landing of the incoming flight from Cairo [in Egypt] and diverted its route to Jeddah [in Saudi Arabia] to protect the passengers.”

The ministry also said it evacuated the airport terminal and removed two planes from the tarmac during the attacks.

It added, “This incident could easily have turned a civilian flight into a horrific humanitarian disaster, claiming the lives of dozens of innocent people in an instant.”

Aden airport is the main international gateway for parts of Yemen outside Houthi control in the city that has been the seat of the government since the takeover of the capital, Sanaa, by the Iran-supported group in 2014.

The Houthis said in a statement they targeted “Saudi military supplies” arriving at the Badr camp near the airport with ballistic missiles. Saudi Arabia backs Yemen’s government.

Separately, the Saudi-led military coalition fighting in Yemen said it intercepted and destroyed a ballistic missile, launched by the Houthis, north of Riyadh.

In a social media post, Major-General Turki al-Maliki, the spokesperson for the Saudi-led coalition, said it was tracking the launch platform used in the attack via an intelligence system over Sanaa, and promised to destroy it.

The Houthis said in statements on Tuesday and overnight into Wednesday that they had targeted Saudi international airports in Riyadh and Abha.

The intensified fighting in Yemen comes amid mounting regional tensions set off by the US-Israel war on Iran. The Saudi-backed government forces launched a counteroffensive against the Houthis to retake the Red Sea port of Mocha and areas around the Bab al-Mandeb strait.

Fighting has concentrated in the southwestern province of Taiz.

Al Jazeera’s Yousef Mawry, reporting from Sanaa, described “all-out battles to take over the ground, the highlands and the mountains east of Bab al-Mandeb”.

“It’s a battle to take over the strategic western part of Taiz, and whoever controls the wider vicinity will overlook the region and have dominant military control,” he said.

“For the Yemeni government to take control of Mocha and the strategic bases and locations along the Red Sea coast, it first has to drive the Houthis off the mountains east of Mocha.”

Pakistan and Turkiye on Monday agreed to activate “deterrence measures” under their mutual defence pact with Saudi Arabia and rapidly deploy forces to the Gulf kingdom to counter Houthi attacks.

Over the course of Sunday, a dozen B-1B bombers took off from Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford in western England and flew home to the United States. Their departure abruptly ended the base’s role as a launchpad for US strikes on Iran, which began on February 28.

The base, roughly 160km (100 miles) west of London, is the US Air Force’s only European airfield for heavy bombers and a key forward operating location for deployed bombers.

Over the past two weeks, six people were arrested on suspicion of “terrorism”. They were all released on bail.

US President Donald Trump said on Monday the bombers were moved because “there were some threats”, which he believed were linked to Iran. “So we moved them around a little bit, not very far,” he told reporters at the White House.

Hours earlier, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio played down any link to the alleged plot, saying it was “not unusual to see rotations happen” and that he had confidence in the security of US bases.

What happened at RAF Fairford?

On September 27, police arrested five men on suspicion of plotting to plant explosives near Fairford in the United Kingdom. They were released on bail a day later.

Investigators found petrol but no explosive devices in their vans, though UK officials say the men remain under investigation. On Thursday, police arrested a 25-year-old UK-Iranian dual national in London on suspicion of plotting an attack on the airbase. He was also released on bail on October 3.

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham suggested that “Iran played a part” in the alleged plot but declined to give details. Iran has denied any such scheme and summoned the UK ambassador in Tehran in protest at the arrests.

What bombers does the US have?

The US Air Force flies three types of bombers, with a fourth on the way.

The B-52 Stratofortress is the oldest. The B-52H model currently in service was built in the early 1960s. With a wingspan of 56 metres (185 feet), it is the largest US bomber and can carry about 31 tonnes of weapons, including nuclear bombs and cruise missiles.

The B-1B Lancer, which entered service in the mid-1980s, is the fastest of the three. It can reach 1.2 times the speed of sound and has a swing-wing that sweeps back for high-speed flight. It carries the largest conventional payload, about 34 tonnes, but no longer carries nuclear weapons. These were the aircraft that left Fairford.

The B-2 Spirit is a flying-wing stealth bomber designed to slip past air defences. Only 20 were built, of which 19 remain in service. It can carry both nuclear and conventional weapons, including the 13,600kg (30,000lb) “bunker buster” bomb used in US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites in June 2025.

The B-21 Raider, a smaller stealth bomber, is still in flight testing, and it remains on track for delivery in 2027. Over the next decade and a half, the air force plans to replace the B-1B and B-2, leaving a future fleet of B-21s and upgraded B-52s.

Where do these bombers fly from?

All US bombers are permanently based in the US, at five main airbases:

• B-52H: Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana and Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota
• B-1B: Dyess Air Force Base in Texas and Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota
• B-2: Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri
• B-21: Due to arrive at Ellsworth in South Dakota in 2027

All of these bases have long, wide runways, typically exceeding 10,000 feet (3,048 metres).

That makes bomber runways about as long as those at a big international airport. What limits where bombers can operate is not tarmac but security, weapons storage and support.

For missions abroad, the US rotates bombers through a handful of forward bases. Other important overseas operating locations include Andersen Air Force Base in Guam and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

Beyond these, the air force sends small groups of bombers to allied airbases for a few weeks at a time, in what it calls Bomber Task Force deployments. Recent rotations have included B-52s at Moron in Spain, B-1Bs at Orland in Norway and Misawa in Japan, and B-52s at Tindal in northern Australia, which arrived in September.

The bombers can also go on a strike mission from the US with the help of aerial refuelling. Bomber missions during the US-Israel war on Iran lasted more than 30 hours there and back. Each group of three bombers needed six to nine tanker aircraft to refuel them along the way.

Last week, a British bomb disposal robot roamed the area near the Royal Air Force (RAF) base at Fairford and 85 homes were evacuated as the threat of an attack appeared imminent.

Days later, the United States speedily sent B-1 bombers stationed there, which were used to strike Iran in its ongoing war, back home. About a dozen had been stationed at the air base.

The foiled incident resulted in no charges and the release of five suspects, and subsequently a separate British-Iranian suspect. But the US cited concerns about more potential attacks for its decision to withdraw its fleet. Tehran has denied any link to the alleged plot to target the base.

RAF Fairford was a pit stop for US bombers during the war – but more importantly, it allowed Washington to rapidly unleash intensive strikes on Iran, say analysts.

They added that their withdrawal reduces Washington’s ability to rapidly generate and sustain bombing missions, but it will not prevent the US from continuing to strike Iran.

“The United States has lost a convenient launchpad, not its underlying strike capability,” Dania Thafer, executive director of the Gulf International Forum and a lecturer at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera.

Long bombing campaigns made more demanding

The analysts were in agreement that the British base gave the US a faster and more efficient way to sustain strikes on Iran.

The bombers at the Fairford base were officially stationed there for defensive strikes – at the behest of the UK government – and likely had a modest targeting list, said Christoph Bergs, an analyst at the world’s oldest defence and security thinktank, the Royal United Services Institute.

“Their withdrawal reduces the capacity to quickly surge sorties against Iran, reducing the threat level somewhat,” Bergs told Al Jazeera.

Thafer explained that while the loss of the bombers does not remove the US’s ability to strike or escalate, “depending on where other assets are positioned, it could make a prolonged bombing campaign more demanding”.

The removal of B-1 bombers imposes a number of tactical costs, says Arun Dawson. He is a PhD candidate at King’s College London’s Freeman Air and Space Institute and a researcher with the UK Nuclear Deterrence Network.

Unlike the more modern B-2 stealth bomber designed to make enemy tracking difficult – which has also previously been stationed at RAF Fairford – “the B-1’s principal advantage is its conventional weapons payload – the largest of any aircraft in the US military”, Dawson told Al Jazeera. The B-1 carries at least 34 tonnes of ordnance, he said.

“This makes the B-1 particularly effective at delivering large volumes of precision-guided weapons against multiple targets during a prolonged air campaign,” said Dawson.

“In the Iran war, those targets may include air-defence infrastructure, ballistic missile sites and IRGC facilities,” he added, referring to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

With the B-1s withdrawing, the US may now have to rely more heavily on longer-range missions from the US or other distant bases, increasing flight times, crew fatigue and the need for aerial refuelling, he explained.

Still, the US may have made the withdrawal decision based on an examination of risks, said Dawson.

“Their abrupt departure suggests that specific threats may have been directed at the aircraft, their crews or the base itself,” he said.

Washington may have also calculated that temporarily withdrawing the bombers could protect it for future operations, especially if the US does not expect the Iran war to intensify any time soon, said Dawson.

For David Des Roches, a professor at the Thayer Marshall Institute and a former Pentagon official, the B-1 withdrawal suggests that the risks outweighed the benefits of keeping the jets at the UK airbase.

The security incident last week “exposed a vulnerability” as the aircraft were “out in the open” and only about 300 yards (275 metres) from where the public could see them.

“So they were very vulnerable to, say, drone attacks or other kind[s] of mortar attacks,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Just a small drone or any kind of a drone with explosives on board could conceivably cause significant damage,” said Des Roches.

The former Pentagon official acknowledged that the deployment of the US bombers means “you lose a little bit of operational ability,” but said that given the threat seen at Fairford, “we should have had overhead cover for all of our aircraft, globally, years ago”.

Can the bombers go elsewhere?

The US has two potential options if the bombers are to be redeployed: to Diego Garcia, the remote coral atoll in the central Indian Ocean hosting both a US and UK military base; or to its many US bases in the Gulf.

Thafer pointed out that Diego Garcia offers greater protection from potential Iranian attacks, but requires longer flight distances.

Rerouting the bombers to Diego Garcia will also depend on how quickly additional aircraft can be folded into the local basing infrastructure, pointed out Bergs.

Stationing them in the Gulf closer to Iran would give them the advantage of shortened transit times, reduced tanker requirements and the ability to generate sorties more rapidly, said Dawson.

But basing in the Gulf region, the analysts agreed, will require more deliberate negotiations around risk mitigation, given that these countries have taken the brunt of Iranian counterstrikes throughout the war. They also want to avoid being seen as direct participants in a US campaign against Iran.

Fairford had therefore offered a “useful” middle ground between the two options, said Thafer.

But with Fairford no longer an option, Diego Garcia would be the more obvious choice, Dawson said, offering not only greater distance from Iran but also a more secure operating environment. It has infrastructure designed to support large-scale US air operations, he said.

US capabilities in the war ahead

For now, the withdrawal appears to blunt rather than eliminate US bombing capacity against Iran.

However, the practical impact on US military options will depend largely on whether the administration sees a need for such strikes now, or whether the threat posed by similar aircraft stationed at Diego Garcia is sufficient for the time being, said Bergs.

The expected arrival of the Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group and the Makin Island Marine Expeditionary Force to the Middle East by November, meanwhile, will add significant US carrier-based air power in the region, said Dawson.

“Aircraft for aircraft, carrier fighters cannot substitute for the B-1’s enormous payload, but there are many more of them, giving commanders additional options for shorter-range strikes,” he said.

What this episode highlights, said the researcher, is the importance – and the vulnerability – of the US’ alliances and overseas basing.

Washington has long enjoyed access to a global network of military facilities – which has been key for its ability to project power rapidly and at scale, he said.

But if those bases face attacks or political restrictions – the implications would extend beyond the Iran war, warned Dawson.

They would affect “how the US military structures its forces, distributes its assets, generates combat power and sustains operations overseas”.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry says reopening the strait has been its main goal, while the US continues to focus on nuclear talks.

The Strait of Hormuz is going to remain closed until the United States accepts Tehran’s seven-day plan to reopen the waterway, Iran’s top negotiator and parliament speaker has said.

Iranian state-linked news agency Nournews, quoting ⁠Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, reported on Sunday that Washington made “some proposals through a mediator” days after the US replied ⁠to Iran’s diplomatic proposal.

The US should know “that the era of wasting time and dictating unilateral demands is over”, Ghalibaf said, adding Iran’s position remains “clear and definite”.

He emphasised that “the Strait of Hormuz will not open until our seven conditions based on the Islamabad memorandum are met”, and that Iran is “present on the military battlefield and will confront them with new surprises”.

He added that Iran was neither “excited” nor “intimidated” by the latest US proposals and would “both fight and negotiate”.

US President Donald Trump ruled out an Iranian proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz last week, hours after Iran put forward a roadmap to reopening the strait, through which one-fifth of global oil and natural gas is shipped during peacetime.

Last month, Trump threatened to “annihilate” Iran in his speech on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).

On Sunday, Iranian Foreign ⁠Minister Abbas Araghchi also said Iran is “serious about finding diplomatic solutions just as we are serious about defending ourselves”.

Speaking to foreign ambassadors and diplomats in Tehran, Araghchi said Iran had clearly explained ⁠its conditions for reopening the strait and ⁠that Tehran hoped Washington would choose diplomacy and accept its proposal.

However, Araghchi warned that if the US takes military action again, Iran is “more prepared than before and will take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves”.

Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei added that Tehran used the UNGA platform last month to provide world leaders with its position on ending the US-Israel war on Iran.

He said the US has continued to focus on nuclear talks, while reopening the strait has been Iran’s main goal.

“We are at this stage mainly focusing on the strait, and our principal concern is to reach a solution and to have peace and stability restored within this waterway,” Baghaei said.

The Strait of Hormuz has been largely blocked and disrupted for more than seven months, since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28, driving one of the worst maritime shipping disruptions in decades.

Israeli journalists asked coach Hallgrimsson about the Flydubai attack and alleged racist abuse by Ireland’s players.

Members of an Israeli media contingent heckled Republic of Ireland head coach Heimir Hallgrimsson’s news conference prior to the UEFA Nations League football match, causing it to end abruptly amid growing political tensions and protests against the fixture.

During the media event on Saturday, an Israeli journalist asked Hallgrimsson about his views on an incident onboard a Flydubai flight to Israel earlier this week.

According to the prosecutor general of the United Arab Emirates, the Flydubai co-pilot “attempted to carry out a terrorist act”, using an axe against the pilot to take over the aircraft’s controls.

The plane carrying 174 passengers was on its way from the Dubai in the UAE to Tel Aviv in Israel on Wednesday when the copilot wounded Indian pilot Smit Machchhar, who opened the cockpit door to seek help.

The aircraft briefly plunged about 17,000 feet (5,180 metres) before it was brought back under control.

The attacker was not officially identified, but media reports quoting unnamed sources said he was an Omani national, Hamam al-Hammami.

“What do you say about the people that you support? Their ideology is based on murder,” the journalist asked, purportedly hinting at Ireland’s stance on Palestine and attempting to link it to the aviation incident.

Before the Irish team’s coach could answer, the Football Association of Ireland’s communications manager Kieran Crowley stepped in and asked the journalist to refrain from asking questions not linked to the match.

The journalist persisted, carrying on with her question before Crowley stopped her again.

“We respected your questions at the last press conference, but we are doing football questions today,” he said, referring to Israeli journalists’ pointed questions about the calls to boycott the first leg of the European match.

Icelandic coach Hallgrimsson later termed the incident a “verbal attack”.

‘You’ve just broadcast a lie’

The first leg of the fixture was played on September 27 and the FAI faced strong calls for a boycott from the Irish public and former players. The match went ahead and Ireland beat Israel 3-0 amid a tense atmosphere on the pitch.

Following the match, Israeli supporters were accused of directing racist chants towards Ireland player Adam Idah and were filmed raising military slogans, but evaded disciplinary action from the competition’s organisers.

However, another Israeli journalist turned the incident on its head during Saturday’s news conference and accused the Irish team of calling Israel’s players “monkeys” during the match.

FAI’s Crowley was quick to shut out the accusation and ended the media event.

“That’s a lie. You’ve just broadcast a lie,” Crowley said before getting up to walk away.

According to Irish media reports, the FAI is continuing to investigate allegations that Irish players Adam Idah and James Abankwah were racially abused by Israeli fans.

An Israeli supporter also led chants about his country’s military from the stands as he attempted to brush aside the team’s drubbing on the football pitch.

The day before the first leg, goalkeeper Gavin Bazunu publicly withdrew, saying he felt “it would be wrong to participate in the upcoming fixtures against Israel”.

The second leg will be played at the TSC Arena in Backa Topola in Serbia on Sunday.

Ireland’s Hallgrimsson termed it “a game with a lot of emotions attached to it”.

He said the team was focused on winning the second leg as well.

“There’s been a lot of emotions from the people in Ireland about this and obviously that affects the players as well. We want to do good, but it’s always going to be a challenge when the environment is as noisy as it is.”

The Group of Seven countries has agreed to release 100 billion barrels of crude oil and diesel from emergency reserves over several months in an effort to reduce soaring energy prices after pressure from US President Donald Trump.

The US and Israel’s war on Iran, as well as Russia’s war on Ukraine, have triggered a spike in global oil and diesel prices.

Oil prices ‌jumped on Thursday and settled up more than $4 a barrel. Global diesel prices also hit a record high last Friday with the average price for a gallon (3.79 litres) of diesel at $6.50, up from $5.61 a month earlier, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA).

In a statement on Thursday, G7, which includes the US, UK, Canada, Japan, Germany, Italy and France, with the EU also represented, said there will also be a “substantial diesel release within the first 20 days” and discussions over “additional diesel releases as necessary” will be held in the coming days.

Will the G7’s energy release stabilise the global energy market?

Here’s what we know:

What has the G7 announced?

After a video conference of G7 leaders chaired by French President Emmanuel Macron on Friday, the group said in a joint statement: “Taking into account commitments that have already been fulfilled, we will implement our commitments with a coordinated release through the IEA of 100 million barrels.”

Earlier this week, the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Executive Director Fatih Birol said that members had released about two-thirds of the 400-million-barrel agreement.

The G7 energy release will begin immediately and last for four months and will include a substantial diesel release for 20 days. It is not clear how many oil and diesel stocks each member of the group will release.

“We will convene in the context of the IEA in the coming days to discuss the possibility of additional diesel releases as necessary,” the statement said.

“We will coordinate maintenance schedules across G7 refineries to prevent simultaneous capacity shutdowns and temporarily increase utilization rates where feasible,” it added.

The G7 also urged member countries to refrain from imposing export restrictions on energy products among themselves.

Earlier this week, the Trump administration had threatened to impose a ban on US diesel exports and also pressured Europe to release its emergency diesel stocks to help ease soaring diesel prices.

Why are oil and diesel prices so high?

Global energy prices have been soaring due to the US and Israel’s war on Iran, which has disrupted energy exports from the Gulf. Meanwhile, the Ukraine attacks on Russian energy installations have also disrupted global energy supplies.

Former head of the International Energy Agency’s Oil Industry and Markets Division Neil Atkinson told Al Jazeera that there are three key factors contributing to the decline in global diesel supply.

First, “there isn’t diesel coming out of the Middle East to Europe, and Europe took quite a lot of diesel from Saudi Arabia and from Kuwait.”

Second, “Russia has now ceased to export diesel at all” due to “the attacks by Ukraine on Russian refineries”.

“And China is no longer exporting diesel,” he added.

“We’re in a situation where demand remains relatively high and is likely to stay high because of the agricultural harvesting season.”

According to data from the Joint Organizations Data Initiative (JODI) and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the United States is the world’s largest producer and exporter of diesel. It produces around 240.5 million tons and exports around 1.26 million barrels of diesel per day.

Russia is the world’s second-largest exporter of diesel, supplying 783.4 thousand barrels per day to the global market. Saudi Arabia is the world’s second-largest producer of diesel at 58.4 million tons, but it consumes large portion of its diesel domestically.

Will the G7 energy release bring prices down?

After the G7 announcement, French President Macron, who had co-chaired the meeting, said the group’s move to release the oil will “bring down the prices of petroleum products, particularly diesel.”

The price of Brent crude oil, the international benchmark, briefly dropped below $100 a barrel after the G7 announcement, but rose to around $102 in the evening.

Naeem Aslam, Chief investment Officer at Zaye Capital Markets, told Al Jazeera that the G7 energy release was “very much needed”, but the group’s announcement was just to ease off the pressure on the energy market.

“The actual structure changes about who is going to release [the energy stocks] and what and where the bans will be lifted, remains an important component in terms of the market,” he said.

Aslam added that by Sunday night especially before the markets open, the added pressure on energy prices will come off. “But going into Monday morning…we could potentially see the reversal in the market,” he added.

Atkinson, the energy expert, said the G7’s fuel release is welcome but “doesn’t deal with the fundamental problem that the global supply remains lower than normal”.

Atkinson told Al Jazeera that “seven months after this war started in the Middle East, we are still in a situation where the global supply of crude oil or products remains significantly below pre-war levels.”

“We are now in a situation where the focus is on end use of products, mainly diesel, which is what we’re talking about here,” he added.

What has Trump said?

Soaring diesel prices have been a source of tension for the Trump administration and Republicans who fear this will cost them votes in the upcoming November midterm elections.

Last week, Trump pressured Ukraine to stop attacking Russian diesel facilities amid the war.

Then, on Thursday this week, the US president told reporters that his administration “may” ask European countries to release diesel stocks, shortly after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged Europe to “immediately” tap its reserves.

Trump also threatened to impose a ban on US diesel exports if Europe did not release emergency diesel stocks.

But on Friday, Trump told reporters at the White House that Washington would not impose a diesel export ban. He said the plan was never really on the table.

“Europe has a lot of diesel, and they’re going to be making a major world contribution, and so are we. And we’re not going to be doing the export ban. We’re going to be doing what we’re supposed to do,” Trump said.

“Trump is scared by diesel prices above $6, which is a price jump of 70 percent compared to before he started the war. This is likely to get worse with US diesel inventories at their lowest seasonal level since records began in 1982. So if there is not enough diesel being produced because of the US-Israeli war on Iran, and diesel reserves have been used up, the only way to bring more diesel to the US market is by exporting less,” Frederic Schneider, a nonresident senior fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, told Al Jazeera on Friday.

After the G7 announcement, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform: “Europe has just agreed to release a massive amount of their heavily stocked Diesel Oil. The process will begin immediately.”

The White House is also reportedly preparing an executive order to tackle record-high US diesel prices that could be unveiled as early as next week, two people familiar with the process told the Reuters news agency.

Schneider noted that countries are also concerned about high energy prices since diesel and gasoline are important for economies and fulfil different roles.

“While gasoline fuels cars, diesel fuels anything from trucks, freight trains, ships, tractors, harvesters, construction machinery, mining equipment and backup generators. This means gasoline is used more by consumers while diesel is mostly used by producers, meaning a diesel price shock spreads into the price of almost everything else, most prominently food, building materials and anything delivered by truck,” he added.

Farmers are hit twice because diesel prices are rising at the same time as fertiliser prices, both of which have been pushed up by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

“A higher diesel price therefore acts like a tax on production and logistics, while higher gasoline prices act like a tax on consumers directly. Like higher gasoline prices, higher diesel prices risk stagflation by pushing up inflation while simultaneously squeezing margins in transport and agriculture, meaning central banks find [themselves] in a dilemma between cutting rates [helping producers] and raising rates [cutting inflation],” he said.

Mahan Air is excluded from the agreement as Baghdad says Washington granted its request for a waiver.

Iraq has agreed to let Iranian airlines, except Mahan Air, operate up to 40 flights a day to and from Najaf International Airport, saying the United States granted an exemption from its sanctions.

Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s office announced the agreement on Friday, a day after Tehran urged Baghdad to lift restrictions that it said hurt pilgrims, patients, students and business.

The deal eases the links between the two Shia-majority neighbours since Washington sanctioned Iran’s aviation sector last month.

Al-Zaidi welcomed the “positive response shown by the US government to Iraq’s efforts and its cooperation in granting the necessary exemption”, the statement from his office said.

“Air travel does not merely represent transportation between two airports, but rather a bridge of communication between peoples,” it added.

Separately, Iraq’s Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein said the return of flights supports an Iraqi-US partnership premised on mutual respect.

Hussein also welcomed what he described as US understanding of the importance of respecting religious freedom and facilitating access for visitors to holy sites.

Flights suspended

The US Treasury announced sanctions on September 8 against 36 entities linked to Iran’s aviation sector.

Foreign ground-handling companies then refused to service Iranian aircraft for fear of falling foul of US sanctions, and flights stopped at four Iraqi airports.

Soon after, Iraq’s government held direct talks with Washington, seeking an exemption.

Iraq’s ambassador to Tehran, Yasser al-Hajjaj, told Iran’s IRNA news agency that Baghdad had not ordered the halt in flights. The suspension also led to demonstrations outside Najaf airport and in Nasiriya, Karbala and Amarah, according to Iran’s Press TV.

Najaf is the main destination for Iranian flights in Iraq. Flights to and from the city carry Iraqi Shia Muslim pilgrims to Iran’s holy cities or Iranians visiting sacred sites in Iraq.

Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad, Mohammad Kazem al-Sadegh, told the Iranian news agency ISNA that there were “roughly 25 daily flights from Iran to Najaf and about 15 flights to Baghdad” before the ban.

“Around 12,000 to 13,000 people travel between Iran and Iraq and vice versa on Iranian airlines, which is not a small number,” he added.

In a statement shared on Thursday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said that Washington’s “illegal and inhumane” extraterritorial enforcement of sanctions was disrupting Iran’s trade and air transport.

Restrictions remain

Flights between Najaf and Iran restarted late on Monday, according to the Iraqi News Agency.

However, flights with Iran are still suspended at Baghdad, Erbil and Sulaimaniyah airports, forcing passengers into land journeys of at least 12 hours and disrupting pilgrim traffic.

Al Jazeera has not verified the exemption with representatives in Washington.

United States President Donald Trump has said Europe has agreed to release a “massive amount” of their diesel stockpile, although no European parties have confirmed the claim.

Trump made the statement on his Truth Social account on Friday as he has heaped pressure on European countries to release diesel stockpiles to ease soaring prices caused by the US-Israel war with Iran and the resulting constriction of traffic via the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump had previously floated banning US diesel exports if European countries did not comply. The European Union had earlier on Friday said it “fully rejects” the threat.

More to come…

United Kingdom police have arrested a 25-year-old British-Iranian man in relation to a security incident at a Royal Air Force (RAF) station near Fairford, England, this week

The man, described by police as a “dual UK/Iranian national” and detained on suspicion of preparing “terrorist” acts, is the sixth person to be arrested in what British authorities said was potentially an Iran-backed plot. The five other people arrested earlier were released on bail on Monday.

The investigation began when British authorities were alerted early on Sunday about unusual activity near the airbase, including oddly parked vans and a group of masked men. After searching the vans, authorities found no weapons or explosives but did recover a “quantity of petrol”.

The RAF station has been used by the United States for military operations, including by bombers during the US-Israel war on Iran.

Here’s what we know about the latest development in the case:

What’s happened?

British counterterrorism police announced the arrest of a 25-year-old British-Iranian dual national in Westminster, London, on Thursday. Iran, however, does not recognise dual citizenship, and treats Iranians with a second passport solely as Iranian.

The man was detained on “suspicion of preparation of terrorist acts under Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006”, the same offence cited in the arrests of the five other suspects. In line with standard police practice, none of the suspects has been named ahead of any charges being made.

Police said they also conducted searches of two properties in the London area. They appealed to the public for any information that could assist the investigation.

What do we know about the suspect in custody?

The Times newspaper reported that the British-Iranian suspect is being investigated as a possible “recruiter” in the still-opaque plot or as someone otherwise believed to have played a significant role.

The media reported that the man was placed under surveillance after the arrest of the first five men. He has not been named.

What evidence is there that this was an Iran-linked plot?

The UK has pointed to an Iranian connection but has so far kept the reason for that assessment under wraps.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Andy Burnham said there are “strong indications” of Iran’s involvement in the incident and an “ongoing, complex and serious police investigation” is continuing.

He did not give information on what the suspects may have been planning or what intelligence has led the UK to suspect the involvement of Iran, saying only that he would “update people more in due course”.

In the US, President Donald Trump said the case “might be” Iran-linked and the US had been keeping tabs on the suspects “for a long time”. Trump criticised the UK’s decision to release the first five suspects on bail.

In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his government had forewarned the UK about a potential “Iranian-sponsored attack” but did not specify if that was related to the same RAF base incident.

Iranian officials have firmly denied any connection to the incident. Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Majid Takht-Ravanch called the claims “false and ridiculous”.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned British Ambassador Hugo Shorter on Thursday to protest against the allegations.

What happened at RAF Fairford?

Authorities received two early-morning calls on Sunday alerting them to suspicious activity near the Fairford airbase, including three vans parked strangely and a group of hooded, masked men.

Unusually, the first call to the UK’s emergency line was made by one of the suspects who would later be arrested.

Police responded and arrested five British men in their early 20s in the nearby Whelford area, saying they were suspected of explosives offences. Counterterrorism police later took over the investigation and said the men were suspected of preparing “a terrorist act”.

The suspects were released on bail on Monday but remained subject to “stringent conditions on their movement and contact with others”, according to the UK’s head of counterterrorism policing, Laurence Taylor.

After searching the vans located near the airbase, police said they found no explosives but did retrieve a “quantity of petrol”.

Why were the men arrested at the scene given bail if this is a major incident?

That’s one of the big unanswered questions.

Under British “counterterrorism” law, police may hold suspects for up to two weeks before charging them. However, if authorities find little evidence to support their initial suspicion of “terrorism”, they have far less time – usually 24 to 36 hours, Chris Phillips, a former head of the UK’s National Counter Terrorism Security Office, told Al Jazeera.

Other security experts told Al Jazeera that police likely released the first five suspects because they did not deem them to be an imminent security risk or found that their potential involvement in any plot was unwitting.

“In cases involving terrorism, suspects can still be released on bail when the authorities feel relatively confident that these individuals do not pose an imminent danger of either carrying out or organising a terrorist attack,” Andrew Silke, professor of criminology at Royal Holloway, University of London, told Al Jazeera.

“Individuals may have been involved unknowingly or in a peripheral manner to potential terrorist activity. This seems possible in the current case,” he added.

Afzal Ashraf, a visiting fellow in international relations and security at Loughborough University and a former senior RAF officer, agreed that police likely have assessed that the five released suspects do not pose “any immediate danger”.

“We can reasonably assume that police judged that these individuals did not present any immediate danger nor did they have any credible means or intention of creating further danger to the public or to government installations,” Ashraf told Al Jazeera.

However, he said their release on bail should not necessarily be taken to mean the incident in question “was minor or that the Iranian-involvement hypothesis has been rejected”.

What happens next?

British authorities said they are continuing to investigate all aspects of the case, including the possibility of it being a foreign-backed “plot”.

Silke said authorities will likely be thoroughly analysing all suspects’ communications and interactions, looking for information on contacts who may have organised their involvement and for any payment the suspects may have received.

“The authorities can investigate all of these links to establish if they lead back to foreign government sources or agencies,” he said.

Silke added that authorities will also look into any links between the RAF airbase incident and previous plots carried out on British soil.

Phillips said he believes the suspects could have been recruited online by foreign actors to carry out some type of malicious activity, such as “setting fire to something”.

He said both Russia and Iran have allegedly paid “stooges” to carry out such acts in recent years. “At first glance now, it seems that that may be the case, but time will tell,” Phillips added.

Iran and Russia have also previously been accused of orchestrating plots in the UK. Those plots have involved “surveillance, sabotage, arson or physical violence”, MI5 Director General Ken McCallum said last year.

United States President Donald Trump has kicked off a 32-day campaign tour ahead of the November midterm elections that could see his Republican Party hurt by his handling of the war on Iran and the economy.

On Thursday, Trump travelled from Washington, DC, for back-to-back rallies in Texas and Oklahoma.

At his first stop in Denton, Texas, Trump sought to shift the narrative around his drooping approval ratings, offering a personal assessment of his administration’s performance.

“I give us an A+ on the government, on economics, on everything,” Trump told a crowd of supporters at the Peterbilt Motors Company, a truck manufacturer.

The president also blamed unfair media coverage for his growing unpopularity, arguing that his pre-election rally blitz was necessary to set the record straight.

“We’re doing an extremely poor job of promotion and an extremely great job of running the country,” Trump said.

But Trump’s poll numbers have raised concerns about Republican prospects ahead of the November 3 midterm election.

Trump himself is not on the ballot, but Republican candidates across the country are seeking to defend the right-wing party’s majorities in both chambers of Congress, as well as key state and local offices.

The economy and Trump’s war on Iran are expected to weigh heavily on the election outcome.

On Thursday, The Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research released new poll results showing that 71 percent of Americans disapprove of the war, which has driven up the price of fuel.

About half of survey respondents also said they were worried they would not be able to afford food and petrol. Only 26 percent approved of Trump’s handling of the economy.

Taking centre stage

Still, despite record low approval ratings, Trump has positioned himself as key to the Republican midterm strategy.

At a first-of-its-kind Republican midterm convention in September, Trump encouraged voters to consider his record while at the ballot box. “I’m asking you to pretend that I’m on the ballot,” he said.

During Thursday’s tour, he touted the impact of his tariff campaign, which he credited with creating thousands of manufacturing jobs.

“For decades, you were heartlessly betrayed by politicians, lousy politicians, who let foreign trade cheaters plunder your wages, loot your factories, close up your jobs,” Trump told Peterbilt workers. “They’d still be doing it if I wasn’t here, believe me.”

Trump’s tariffs, however, have been highly controversial, prompting a series of court challenges. Critics have argued that the sweeping import taxes surpass the president’s constitutional powers.

Trump also used his stump speech to ease concerns about the US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28. Both sides have declared victory, though a ceasefire remains elusive.

“Just as I promised, I’m ensuring that Iran will be very quickly ended. I will tell you the energy prices are going to be rapidly, rapidly coming down,” Trump said.

“We’ll win very easily right now,” he added. “I believe right after the election we’ll win, but maybe before the election.”

The war, however, resulted in Iran stopping commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway for the global fuel trade.

The price of diesel — the fuel the trucks built at the plant use — soared to record highs of more than $6 per gallon (3.8 litres) last week. Petrol prices have similarly skyrocketed.

Hurting or helping his fellow Republicans?

Trump, however, has acknowledged that the stakes are high for his presidency in the upcoming midterms.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for grabs, as are 35 seats in the 100-member Senate.

Losing Republican control of either chamber could create roadblocks for Trump’s legislative agenda during the final two years of his second term.

But Trump has also expressed concern that he could be impeached for a third time, after two prior impeachments during his first presidency.

At Thursday’s second stop, in Durant, Oklahoma, the Republican leader repeated that fear. “Pretend I’m running, please,” he told the crowd. “If we don’t win, they’ll end up impeaching me.”

Many of the places Trump is scheduled to visit this month are perceived as reliably Republican voting districts. Following his stops in Texas and Oklahoma on Thursday, Trump will be heading to Alabama, Ohio and Nebraska in the coming days.

Still, some elections that ordinarily would be considered shoo-ins for Republicans have grown more competitive in recent months.

In Texas, for instance, no Democrat has won a statewide race since the 1990s. But this year, Republican Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general, is struggling to win a Senate contest against Democrat James Talarico.

During both of Thursday’s stops, Trump sought to bolster Paxton’s prospects. At the Peterbilt factory, for instance, he called Paxton “the greatest attorney general in the United States of America”.

“We gotta get this guy elected,” Trump said, before pivoting to criticisms of Talarico, whom Republicans have sought to paint as out of touch with Texas’s large beef industry.

“He’s a vegan,” Trump said of Talarico, repeating an unsubstantiated rumour. “And vegans don’t do well in Texas.”

But leaked audio appeared to show Paxton lamenting the negative impact Trump had by holding the Republican midterm convention in Texas last month.

“It dropped our numbers. Everybody’s numbers dropped,” Paxton reportedly said.

Trump touts social conservatism

Trump has nevertheless used his pre-election tour to highlight social issues he feels will help rally voters to the Republican cause.

On Thursday, he returned to familiar subjects like immigration and transgender rights, which he depicted as a part of the Democrats’ “radical” agenda.

“They want women in men’s sports. They want open borders. They want transgender mutilation for your children,” Trump said. “What the hell are you thinking about, you liberals?”

The president also used his Texas appearance to push back against critics of data centres, despite bipartisan concern.

Critics worry that the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) has fuelled the proliferation of data centres, which require large amounts of electricity and water to process mass data quantities.

While Trump has dismissed fears about AI as largely unfounded, a poll last month found 53 percent of Americans are “extremely” or “very” concerned about the technology’s environmental impacts.

Even fellow Republicans in Texas are responding to public pressure about the growing number of data centres, more than 300 of which are operational, with hundreds more in progress.

In August, Governor Greg Abbott called for an audit of all data centres to map their water and electricity usage, and the following month, Paxton in his role as state attorney general launched an investigation into whether they were complying with water reporting requirements.

Trump nevertheless used his Texas rally to tout the expansion of such enterprises.

“It’s a huge thing. It’s bigger than the industrial revolution,” he said, dismissing the concerns as part of a “scam”. He then explained he had urged AI companies to “take care of the people”.

“They’re making a fortune for the communities,” he added.

President Masoud Pezeshkian says Iran “has never avoided” dialogue with the US, even though it’s been attacked three times during negotiations.