USIsrael

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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

Nearly 70 percent of Americans say the US-Israeli war is not worth fighting, marking a significant spike since July.

Approximately 70 percent of US adults in a new nationwide poll say the US-Israeli war has not been worth fighting, a five-point spike since July.

“Seventy-one percent of adults disapprove of how Trump is handling Iran and 69 percent say the war in Iran has not been worth fighting,” said the survey released on Thursday by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

The poll, which surveyed more than 2,000 adults in the US, also suggested that Americans are deeply frustrated with US President Donald Trump’s handling of the economy and rising prices, with only 17 percent of US adults polled approving of his handling of the cost of living. Just 26 percent approved of his handling of the economy overall, marking a new low.

Public angst over fuel costs has surged, with about half of respondents now deeply concerned about being able to fill their tanks —up from 39 percent in July. Roughly half of respondents are also highly concerned about being able to afford food.

The data comes as Trump kickstarts his midterm campaign trail in an all-in effort to galvanise the Republican base, stumping first in Texas and Oklahoma amid widespread voter anxiety surrounding the war on Iran’s mounting economic fallout.

The poll also indicated that, despite their frustration, two-thirds of Republicans surveyed said that higher than usual prices are due to factors outside of Trump’s control, with about one-third saying it was directly related to Trump’s policies.

The sombre numbers suggest the president remains deeply unpopular nationally, with some Republicans also faulting him for failing to deliver on promised relief.

‘Pollsters are corrupt’

Overall, more than half of adult respondents said the national economy and the country as a whole are worse off since President Trump took office again in 2025.

In an interview with TIME magazine, published on Thursday, Trump was asked if the deeply unwanted war would threaten his party’s chances in November, to which he initially responded, “It’s possible,” before adding that “it should help, because Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.”

Confronted with sliding poll numbers, Trump said that the “pollsters are corrupt” and that the bad polls “are fake”, adding that he would beat anybody running today “by 20 points”.

Trump repeats the claim that the US has “virtually total control” over the Strait of Hormuz during an event marking Hispanic Heritage Month.

As Iran and the United States work with mediators to end seven months of hostilities, the reality in the Strait of Hormuz is shifting in ways that could prove to be a game-changer in ongoing negotiations.

According to the latest data from tanker-tracker websites, traffic through the key waterway has been steadily increasing, with some estimates putting oil and petroleum flow through the Strait of Hormuz at nearly 80 percent of what it was before the US-Israeli war on Iran began on February 28.

This could dent Iran’s leverage in reaching a favourable deal for itself in its attempts to end the fighting, which has seriously hampered its already heavily sanctioned economy, amid the US blockade of Iranian ships and ports.

Despite that, experts believe it would be a mistake to think normality in the Strait of Hormuz is imminent, or that Iran will fold easily despite growing economic hardship.

“The fact that oil is getting through the Strait of Hormuz is encouraging, but flows are not yet regarded as completely secure or guaranteed, particularly while the wider conflict remains unresolved,” Susannah Streeter, chief investment strategist at Wealth Club, told Al Jazeera.

Moreover, oil prices remain high globally, including in the US, where President Donald Trump faces a crucial midterm election that could see his party swept away in both houses of Congress.

Tanker insurance costs also remain elevated and energy flows through Hormuz are still far from secure, suggesting Iran’s leverage may be weakening rather than disappearing.

Oil flows through Hormuz recovering

The latest data from commodity analytics firm Kpler points to a significant recovery in oil exports from the Middle East.

Crude exports reached an estimated 16.328 million barrels per day (bpd) in September – their highest level since the war began in late February, the firm reported this week.

Flows through the Strait of Hormuz itself were expected to reach about 9.719 million bpd during the month. Saudi Arabia has driven much of the increase, with its exports rebounding from 2.446 million bpd in August to about 5.4 million bpd in September.

Kpler said Middle East crude exports have recovered to just under 80 percent of their pre-war level. But the figures remain about 3.2 million bpd below the 19.513 million bpd exported in February.

The data also does not include ships crossing Hormuz with their tracking systems switched off, meaning actual traffic could be higher.

Prior to the war, an estimated 120-140 vessels crossed through the waterway daily, roughly half of them oil tankers moving approximately 20 million barrels per day. At the height of the fighting, traffic through the waterway collapsed to as few as two tankers a day after Iran in effect closed the strait in retaliation for US-Israeli attacks.

Is Iran losing leverage?

The rebound in oil flow presents a challenge for Tehran. Iran has sought to use its ability to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz – one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints – as leverage against Washington’s military and economic pressure.

But if large volumes of oil can continue moving through the strait while Iran itself remains under a US naval blockade, Tehran’s bargaining power could diminish.

Iran, however, rejects any assessment that its control over the strait is slipping.

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps spokesperson Hossein Mohebbi on Tuesday said the ability of vessels to transit the waterway with US assistance did not mean Hormuz had returned to normal.

Oil prices are another indication that Iran has not lost all of its leverage.

Brent crude fell 2.6 percent to $102.59 a barrel on Tuesday as traders focused on recovering Middle East exports. But it was still heading for a roughly 13 percent gain in September.

Chris Beauchamp, an analyst at IG, said markets were beginning to incorporate evidence of recovering flows but remained wary about how durable that recovery would be.

“It takes time for evidence to filter through to markets,” Beauchamp said. “Oil prices came off yesterday as the narrative began to take hold, and should continue to fall.”

But he said concerns persisted over whether the US protection system could withstand a renewed barrage of Iranian missiles and drones.

Streeter of Wealth Club said the market still had a geopolitical risk premium built into crude prices, despite the improving flows.

“Insurance costs for tankers also remain elevated because of the perceived risks of operating in the region, adding to the cost of transporting crude even as more ships make it through the waterway,” she said.

Moreover, Streeter warned that crude figures tell only part of the story. Flows of refined fuels, particularly diesel and gasoline, remain constrained, while damage to infrastructure has placed additional pressure on energy supply chains, she added.

There is another vulnerability, the investment strategist pointed out. Countries including the US have relied heavily on strategic oil reserves to cushion the impact of the disruption and help contain prices.

“With those stockpiles now significantly depleted, there is a thinner buffer if there is another disruption, which is helping to keep a floor under crude prices,” Streeter added.

‘Economic war’ on Iran

There is little doubt that economic pressure on Iran is intensifying, potentially increasing Tehran’s incentive to reach an agreement.

Official data from the Statistical Center of Iran earlier this month showed gross domestic product (GDP) contracting 10.1 percent year on year between March 21 and June 20, while the crucial oil and gas sector shrank 26.4 percent.

Iran has also been battling high inflation and a plunging currency as the US blockade constrains oil exports and foreign currency earnings.

Twelve-month average inflation reached 69.9 percent earlier in September, while the rial had fallen beyond 2.2 million to the US dollar in early September.

In August, the US announced a fresh economic pressure campaign against Iran, promising to target Tehran’s financial interests across the world.

Mohammad Eslami, a research fellow at the University of Tehran, told Al Jazeera that Iran was facing an “economic war” alongside the military conflict.

“There is a US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which affects Iran’s revenues from oil exports and other products such as petrochemicals, which are important to Iran’s economy,” Eslami said. “As a result, Iran’s dollar revenues have been affected by the blockade.”

But he cautioned against judging Iran’s economy solely through the value of its currency.

“The exchange rate is a very important indicator, but it is not the only measure for explaining what is happening or the difficulties and challenges facing Iran’s economy,” Eslami said, adding that Iran has faced US economic pressure for “five decades”.

Can a deal be reached?

Despite the military and economic pressure, negotiations have not collapsed.

At the United Nations General Assembly last week, Tehran and Washington engaged in three hours of indirect talks, as US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

President Trump later described the encounter as “very good” and “very productive.”

Iran also proposed a seven-day roadmap under which the Strait of Hormuz could be reopened and normal maritime traffic restored if Washington meets Tehran’s conditions, a plan Trump categorically rejected.

Those conditions included ending the naval blockade on Iran, easing sanctions and releasing frozen Iranian funds.

However, on Wednesday, Reuters news agency reported that Araghchi had received US feedback on the proposal through Qatari mediators.

An official briefed on the talks said the main disagreement now centred on the sequencing of measures rather than the components of the plan.

US President Donald Trump reiterates that Tehran will not have a nuclear weapon.

Indirect talks between the United States and Iran aimed at ending the seven-month-long war continue – most recently via Qatar as mediator on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York – but the two sides still disagree about the agenda.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi left New York on Tuesday after telling state-run Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) that he expects an official response to Tehran’s proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by the end of the day. The proposal, which Iran said would see the strait reopened within seven days, was first passed to the US via Qatari mediators last week.

United States President Donald Trump was reported to have rejected that offer, under which Tehran would reopen the strait in return for Washington lifting its naval blockade, waiving sanctions, releasing an estimated $12bn in frozen Iranian assets and enforcing a wider regional ceasefire that includes Lebanon.

Under Iran’s proposal, wider peace talks, including discussions of its nuclear programme, would begin only then

Despite Trump’s public rejection, Araghchi says he has not yet received a formal response from Washington. Meanwhile, US media reports that Trump may well be willing to relax sanctions and unfreeze Iranian assets have been strongly denied by the US president.

Instead, US officials say, the US wants a deal that resolves all outstanding issues, particularly Tehran’s nuclear programme, in one go, rather than pursuing a gradual, step-by-step approach.

Here’s what we know about the talks:

Qatari mediators met Araghchi in New York on Monday to discuss how to advance Tehran’s proposal for reopening the Strait of Hormuz and then progressing to wider peace talks.

In a post on Telegram, Araghchi insisted that the talks focused solely on the Strait of Hormuz. He denied that the US had formally rejected the Iranian proposal.

“Despite what the US president said, I said that we were waiting for the official US response through the mediators … They [Qatar] had ideas, and we discussed them. They are going to raise this issue with the American side again, and then the final response from the American side will be conveyed to us through the Qatari mediator,” Araghchi said late on Monday.

Araghchi also said negotiations had become more “serious”, but cautioned that Tehran’s position has not changed.

“I state firmly that there has been no change in Iran’s position. Our conditions for opening the strait are clear. Our position on other issues is also clear. At present, there has been no discussion at all about flexibility,” he added.

Tehran’s proposal includes elements of the Islamabad memorandum of understanding (MoU), which was signed by both the US and Iran on June 17.

Is Trump willing to accept some Iranian demands?

A US official told The Associated Press news agency last week that Trump is not willing to make a final peace deal with Iran until the issue of its nuclear programme is addressed. According to the official, who has not been named, the US president would be willing, however, to grant Iran sanctions relief and release some frozen funds if progress is made on the nuclear file.

Then, on Monday, US-based news outlet Axios also reported that Trump had offered Iran sanctions relief in return for concessions on its nuclear programme. The report also cited US officials, one of whom told Axios that the indirect talks had been “positive and constructive”, adding that Tehran had indicated it was “flexible” on nuclear issues.

Trump, however, angrily denounced the story as a “hoax” in a post on Truth Social, the social media platform he owns. He said the story was “not true” and demanded Axios remove the article.

Iran has been heavily sanctioned for decades. The restrictions have severely affected Iranians’ quality of life, including their access to essential medicines and healthcare.

In August, the US announced yet more sweeping economic sanctions on Iran and countries that trade with it as it sought to apply more economic pressure to isolate the country from the global economy during the diplomatic deadlock in their war.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described the campaign as the “economic asphyxiation” of Iran.

It is difficult to quantify exactly how many Iranians have been killed by what Tehran views as “economic warfare”. However, a study published last year by the highly regarded medical journal The Lancet Global Health concluded that more than 564,250 people worldwide die annually as a result of US sanctions.

What does the US want?

In late February, just before the US launched its first strikes on Iran, the two sides were already holding talks hosted by Oman, which included the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme.

But before those talks could conclude, the US and Israel launched strikes, triggering the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas is shipped in peacetime, by Iran. The closure of the strait has since become the primary point of contention between the two sides, when it had not been an issue before the war began. The strait is currently subject to blockades by both sides.

Throughout the war, Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire to strike a deal with Tehran. However, serious differences between the two sides will need to be resolved first, including the order in which issues are addressed for the purpose of peace talks.

Iran wants to establish its control of the Strait of Hormuz, have sanctions lifted and assets unfrozen, as well as ensure an end to US-Israeli strikes before it will go back to negotiating other issues, such as its nuclear programme. This was the order of events laid out in the MoU agreed between Iran and the US in June, but which quickly fell apart.

The US, however, wants everything to be on the table at the same time – it does not want to agree to anything relating to these Iranian demands before it addresses the other issues.

Scott Lucas, professor of US politics and international relations at University College Dublin, told Al Jazeera that Washington effectively wants Iran to surrender.

“The Strait of Hormuz has become a fundamental issue. The question here is, will both sides give? The memorandum of understanding clearly gave Iran a role in the management of the strait,” Lucas said.

“When the Trump administration pulled away from negotiating on the basis of the memorandum, they effectively went back to the idea of Iran having to completely allow passage through the Strait of Hormuz with no guarantees over it, in terms of not only what it means for Iran financially, but [also] in terms of Iranian security. The Iranian government is not going to agree to that, so we’re stuck in this limbo right now,” he added.

“Are the Trump folks going to come back to the talks on the basis of the memorandum of understanding or something that is a revised version of it, or are they going to try and break the government with economic warfare until at least after the US elections in November? That’s where we are right now.”

What does Iran want?

After half a century of bitter enmity with Washington, Iran wants to consolidate what it sees as the strategic gains it has made during a war it did not start. This specifically includes its newly established ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, sending global energy markets into a tailspin and placing additional pressure on the Trump administration.

Since US-Israeli strikes on Iran began on February 28, Hormuz has dominated talks aimed at ending the war and emerged as Tehran’s greatest point of leverage. Prior to the conflict, Iran did not exert control over the waterway and all commercial shipping passed through freely.

For this reason, Iran will not move on to wider peace talks until it has leveraged its control of the strait to get its demands met. “Our discussion is clear. Right now, it is only about the Strait of Hormuz,” Araghchi said late on Monday.

“The opening of the Strait of Hormuz is also subject to the fulfilment of a series of conditions that we announced to the other side.”

Ali Salehian, director of the Center for Intellectual Diplomacy at the Governance and Policy Think Tank in Iran, told Al Jazeera that Tehran does not believe Washington will honour any future deal as it did not honour what was agreed under the Pakistan-brokered June MoU.

“For Iran, the bottom line of every negotiation with Trump, considering all of his misbehaving and [military] targeting of Iran during negotiations, is the Islamabad MoU,” Salehian said.

“Tehran thinks that if the US doesn’t fulfil its commitments based on the MoU, there is no guarantee that any kind of future deal would be sustainable.”

What is likely to happen next?

It does not look likely that the diplomatic standoff will be eased anytime soon, analysts say.

Both the US and Iran have indicated throughout the war that they would prefer a diplomatic settlement to a continuation of the war. However, Trump has continued to threaten Iran with more strikes if it does not agree to a deal, and Araghchi told US news outlet NBC on Sunday that Tehran is also prepared to resume fighting, even though it has not abandoned diplomacy.

“We are fully prepared for the time for the war to be resumed, and I repeat, we stand firm in the face of any new aggression, even if it comes to a doomsday war,” he said.

Trump said last week that he expects a deal will be reached, but not until after the US midterms on November 3.

“For the moment, the Trump administration is going to try to make the Iranian government capitulate through economic warfare,” Lucas said.

However, a deep sense of distrust remains between the two sides. Senior Iranian officials believe Trump will restart the war after the midterms on a far greater scale and that Israel would also participate.

If that theory proves true, Tehran may well prefer the fighting to resume before November’s elections, as it would allow Iran to impose a greater cost on Trump.

“The reaction of the Iranians to that might be to actually trigger the war themselves, early, right before the midterm elections in order to maximise the pain that [it] will impose on the US president,” Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the US-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Al Jazeera earlier this month.

Tehran, Iran – Iranians are stocking up on food and medicines as fears grow that the country will face dire shortages as the United States tightens an embargo on the country.

The Iranian government had managed to keep household staples flowing during the early months of the war. But a US naval blockade and pivot to draconian sanctions have led to fears that imports will be limited.

More recently, the US announced a ban on Iranian airlines worldwide and is pressing other countries to cut trade ties with Iran in a bid to isolate the country.

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly last week, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian condemned Washington for its blockade on his country, saying it will prevent food and medicine from reaching the Iranian people.

On Saturday, US President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s offer for a seven-day truce that would see it reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for economic relief and other conditions.

As the war enters its eighth month and hopes for a diplomatic solution dim, Al Jazeera looks at how some Iranians are faring under a US embargo.

Consumers

Tehran’s stores remain stocked, but shoppers are keeping an eye on shop shelves. Their anxiety has deepened since a flurry of social media posts urging people to ensure they have several days of food before a possible new round of fighting with the US.

At one shopping centre, Ali, 51, was loading a trolley packed with rice, flour, pasta, pulses, cooking oil and canned food.

He is stocking up because he is convinced that Iran’s adversary is seeking to “starve” the people to push them to turn on their government.

“This is not a war in the traditional sense. It targets the people to put pressure on the authorities,” he said.

With flights to some nearby countries suspended, imports of certain medicines and mobile phone headsets are hard to find. The prices of those still available in shops have been pushed up.

Haj Pasandideh, a 71-year-old grocer, said he believed warehouses were well-stocked with basic goods at the moment. But the problem lies in the daily price increases due to Iran’s weakening rial, prompting him to bulk-buy goods before the expected hikes.

He sometimes caps cooking oil at one bottle per sale to ensure as many customers can purchase the goods as possible.

Exporters crushed

Farmers are also on edge due to the embargo, unable to ship out their produce and forced to sell to local markets.

The war has worsened the economic situation, even after years of sanctions that have pushed the country from being a regional exporter of agricultural and food products to being one of the region’s main importers.

Mehran, an apple grower, told Al Jazeera that due to the difficulties of exporting, he had sold only a third of this year’s harvest, all of it inside Iran.

Some neighbouring countries have halted trade with Iran in recent months, he said, while trucks now spend days at crossings they once cleared in a day, causing fruit to spoil before it reaches buyers.

“The blockade has not only closed the sea and air but also the land routes but in an undeclared manner,” he said.

Pharmaceutical shortages

The war has also deepened an already-dire shortage of medications. Some pharmacies Al Jazeera visited in southern Tehran had run out of infant formula and dozens of other types of medications.

Although officials have assured Iranians that substitute products were available, pharmacy staff expressed concern about the increasing number of customers searching for infant formula in vain.

“Imported medicines are disappearing fast, and lately people have been coming in to buy certain items before they need them for fear they will run out in future,” Mahsa, a 23-year-old pharmacy assistant, told Al Jazeera.

She said the health authorities had introduced “smart systems” to track the quantity and type of medication each person buys.

Breaking the blockade

The prospect of a prolonged siege and deteriorating economic conditions have driven some Iranians to call for a military solution.

On Tehran’s main thoroughfare, several people told Al Jazeera that another round of fighting with the US was unavoidable. Some urged the government to break the blockade by force before it is tightened further.

Mohsen, a 23-year-old economics student, believes Washington’s goal is to strangle the Iranian economy and the cost will ultimately be felt by Iranian citizens.

Iran possesses many strong cards that it must use to break the air and sea blockade before they develop into a land blockade that would completely choke Tehran, he said.

Alireza Taghavinia, an Iranian international relations expert, told Al Jazeera that the gap between Washington and Tehran was too wide to be bridged. “The siege imposed by force will only be lifted by force,” he said.

In a worst-case scenario, falling living standards could bring protesters onto the streets, he added.

“The enemy is counting on stirring up chaos inside Iran because it believes no military strike will achieve its objectives without internal unrest,” he said.

Washington’s top diplomat calls the suspected plot ‘a very serious situation’ after five were arrested over the weekend.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said a “foreign actor” was involved in a suspected bomb plot near an airbase in the United Kingdom used by the US military.

Police arrested five men, all British nationals from London, in their early to mid-20s, on Sunday after being alerted by a local farmer about three white vans driving towards RAF Fairford, a British base that houses US bombers flying missions against Iran.

The counterterrorism police said on Monday they were investigating whether individuals were acting for a foreign state in an apparent plot to attack the airbase. They later said the suspects would be released on bail.

Commenting on the suspected plot and arrests on the Hannity programme on Fox News late on Monday, Rubio said, “What happened, what almost happened, what could have happened in the UK over the weekend is a very serious situation.”

“It’s one that clearly involves the hands of a foreign actor. I won’t get into great detail about that yet,” he added.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had said in July the Fairford base was a legitimate target.

Iran’s embassy in London said in a statement on Monday it “categorically rejects and strongly condemns the recent unfounded and malicious speculations” that it was involved, which it said would fuel “Iranophobia propaganda” in the UK.

Trump said on Sunday the UK and the US had had the suspects “under investigation” for a while and alleged, “They were looking to do big damage to our fort.”

After hearing news that suspects were being released on bail, Trump said on Monday the case “might be” linked to Iran but declined to elaborate.

US bombers

The UK gave the US permission in March to use Fairford for “specific defensive operations into Iran” to destroy Iranian missiles at source.

US bombers and other planes have since been seen taking off and landing at the base – the only one on the British mainland used for this purpose.

Residents in the rural Cotswolds area surrounding Fairford said the site, which hosts a range of US military equipment and personnel, had seen increased activity and security in recent months.

Authorities evacuated about 85 households from a nearby village early on Sunday, but they were allowed to return home the next day.

Tehran has previously warned London against allowing its bases to be used by the US in operations against Iran.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has accused London of “putting British lives in danger” by allowing the bases to be used “for aggression against Iran”.

Iran’s foreign minister says his visit to the UN General Assembly last week was mainly to outline Tehran’s position on regional conflicts and the critical security situation in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Strait of Hormuz remains the most perilous choke point on the global map as Iran continues to disrupt traffic by attacking vessels. A recent proposal by the Islamic Republic to open the waterway within seven days raised hopes that the situation could go back to normal. United States President Donald Trump, however, rejected the offer.

To understand the strategic calculus behind his high-stakes decision, one must look beyond the immediate tactical noise and peer into the deeper logic of deterrence.

On its surface, the rejection of a temporary truce in the world’s most vital energy corridor appears to be a reckless gamble – a provocation inviting the very conflagration the West seeks to avoid. But viewed through the lens of cold realism, the rejection was not only a calculated necessity; it was the right decision.

The Iranian regime’s proposal was a classic exercise in asymmetric diplomacy. It offered a brief window of stability, a transactional pause, in exchange for what would have amounted to a de facto relaxation of American pressure. To accept such terms would have meant embracing the delusional belief that a terrorist power can be bribed into good behaviour by accepting its terms of engagement.

Had Washington accepted, it would have validated Iran’s self-assumed right to turn the spigot of global commerce on and off at will. By flatly rejecting the offer, Trump signalled that freedom of navigation is not a chip to be bartered in a week-long bazaar, but an absolute, non-negotiable prerequisite of international order.

The timing of this gambit – on the eve of the critical midterm elections – has naturally drawn the ire of the domestic political class. Critics argue that risking an energy crisis and a subsequent spike in oil prices weeks before Americans head to the ballot box is an act of political self-immolation. This view, while superficially plausible, misunderstands both the nature of the electorate and the psychology of our adversaries.

The Iranians chose this moment to put forward their proposal precisely because of the midterm elections. They are sophisticated observers of American domestic politics. They calculated that an administration facing an electoral test would be paralysed by the fear of rising fuel prices and would eagerly grasp at any diplomatic lifeline, however flimsy, to keep the peace until November.

Had Trump capitulated to save Republicans a few points at the polls, he would have handed Iran a profound psychological victory. He would have demonstrated that American foreign policy is subservient to the domestic election calendar – a vulnerability that every autocracy from Moscow to Beijing would immediately exploit.

By taking the gamble before the midterm elections, Trump has turned the tables. He has demonstrated that his administration is willing to absorb short-term political pain in pursuit of long-term strategic clarity. This is the essence of credible deterrence.

Deterrence is not merely a function of military hardware; it is a function of perceived will. When an adversary believes you are too weak, too compromised, or too worried about the next election cycle to defend your core interests, deterrence fails. By rejecting the seven-day proposal, the Trump administration proved it could not be blackmailed by the electoral calendar.

Trump’s decision reflects a sophisticated understanding of the regime in Tehran. The Islamic Republic is currently facing an acute internal economic crisis, a direct consequence of the sustained American maximum-pressure campaign.

The seven-day proposal was not a gesture of Iranian confidence; it was a sign of desperation disguised as a diplomatic overture. It was an attempt to buy breathing room, fragment the expanding international coalition against Tehran and project an image of being in control to its own restive population.

To grant Iran that reprieve would have been to throw a lifeline to an antagonist regime on the ropes. Clearly, this offer was only made because US strategy is working and Iran’s economy is cratering.

History teaches us that truces with terrorist regimes are rarely precursors to permanent peace; they are merely opportunities for the aggressor to rearm, recalibrate and choose the next moment of confrontation on more favourable terms. A short-term guarantee of open shipping lanes implied that any day, the threat could return, magnified by the legitimacy Washington would have afforded to Iran’s leverage.

The critics who cry havoc at this decision are the heirs of the foreign policy establishment that spent decades managing decline through endless, inconclusive and failed negotiations. They prefer the comfortable fiction of a temporary deal to the hard reality of a sustained geopolitical contest.

President Trump’s gamble is risky, yes. The potential for miscalculation in the narrow waters of the Gulf is always present. But the risk of inaction, or of a pliant accommodation, is far greater.

By holding the line, the administration has reaffirmed a foundational principle of US global stewardship: the US will not permit rogue states to hold the global economy hostage.

The rejection of the Iranian proposal is the correct path because it chooses clarity of American resolve over partisan political convenience. It signals to the regime in Iran that its leverage is artificial and its economic isolation is permanent unless its behaviour changes.

This November, American voters will decide the composition of the US Congress based on a multitude of domestic and foreign policy factors. But on the global stage, Trump remains steadfast by demonstrating that principle trumps political expediency.

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

Abbas Araghchi’s warning comes after Washington rejected a seven-day roadmap to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

As part of previous negotiations aimed at ending its war on Iran, the United States offered to sell Tehran uranium for use in a civilian programme, but Iran refused, a top US official said on Sunday.

“Heck, our negotiators even offered to sell them uranium,” US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz said on NBC’s Meet the Press. He said the agreement would have been akin to that with the United Arab Emirates, which has “a peaceful programme, right there in their neighbourhood, and they abide by international law and inspection regimes”.

Waltz said the administration of US President Donald Trump was open to allowing Iran to keep a civilian nuclear programme, provided it agreed to its obligations in accordance with international law and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

There were “a number of ways” President Trump was open to dealing with Iran to ensure it did not have access to highly enriched uranium, or the ability to reconstitute highly enriched uranium, including by having Tehran “hand over” any such material it currently has, Waltz said.

The UAE, a signatory to the NPT, generates electricity from a nuclear power plant and signed an agreement with the US in 2009. Under those agreements, the UAE has agreed not to produce enriched uranium domestically, and not to reprocess spent fuel on its own. Trump said Saudi Arabia and the US reached an agreement on civilian nuclear use this year, but details have not yet been made public, and the US president has also claimed the deal is contingent on Riyadh agreeing to the controversial Abraham Accords. Around the region, Egypt and Turkiye also operate civilian nuclear programmes.

Pakistan openly operates a nuclear arsenal, while experts have long believed Israel secretly possesses one of its own. Neither country is a signatory to the NPT.

A key point of contention between Iran and the US has been what should be done with the uranium that Tehran currently has, and how, or even if, to ensure any future supply of the material is not capable of being used for producing a nuclear weapon. Iran has insisted it has no plans to create a nuclear weapon, and any uranium it possesses and enriches is only for civilian purposes, including for generating electricity and use in medical treatments and scientific research.

Iran is estimated to have more than 440kg (970lb) of uranium enriched at 60 percent purity. Uranium enriched to around 90 percent purity is suitable for a nuclear weapon. Enriching uranium is a complex process that involves isolating the most radioactive isotope in a quantity of uranium. Under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran agreed to cap its uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent under strict international supervision in exchange for lifting sanctions against its economy. Trump scrapped that deal in 2018, saying it was too generous to Iran.

On September 10, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said it was concerned over Iran’s “continued noncompliance” with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory. Under the treaty, Iran agrees not to produce nuclear weapons and to meet IAEA safeguards to control its supply of uranium used for civilian purposes. The agency has not had access to key Iranian nuclear facilities since June 2025, when Israel and the US attacked sites in the country as part of a 12-day war.

Iranian officials have responded to the IAEA by saying the finding was made “under political pressure from the US and its allies”, and that they have not stopped respecting their treaty obligations, but could not allow inspections until facilities were safe from US and Israeli attacks.

At times, Trump has said he will destroy the enriched uranium Iran has or retrieve it by force. In April, the US president claimed to have convinced Iran to turn over the enriched uranium it had, which he referred to as “nuclear dust”. Iranian officials quickly dismissed those claims, saying enriched uranium would not be transferred outside the country under any circumstances.

On Saturday, Trump rejected a plan submitted by Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within seven days, as Tehran continued to insist that only diplomacy can solve the conflict between the two countries. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said on Saturday that Iran wants to make a deal to open the vital maritime corridor immediately only “because they are losing so badly”.

In an interview on Meet the Press on Sunday, Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said that Iran is prepared for war to resume, “even if it comes to a doomsday war”.

He added, “If you ask us, there is no reason why we should go back to diplomacy. But I’m still trying diplomacy, because I think we shouldn’t miss any chance for peace.”