USIsrael

Oil prices gain as Houthi strikes hit Saudi Aramco and Tehran vows new tactics against shipping in Hormuz.

US President Donald Trump has accused Houthi rebels of targeting Saudi infrastructure to inflate energy prices before the US midterm elections.

Saudi-led coalition spokesperson Turki al-Maliki says forces intercepted and destroyed two Houthi ballistic missiles targeting Khamis Mushait airbase.

As the United States maintains a naval blockade of Iran’s ports and imposes more sanctions on its oil exports, Tehran is confronting another problem: billions of dollars in revenue from previous oil sales that it says have gone missing.

A spokesperson for Iran’s judiciary said in September that a network of oil intermediaries known as “trustees” owed the Iranian government between 10 billion euros ($11bn) and 11 billion euros ($12bn). That figure was equivalent to half of the total oil revenue projected in Iran’s government budget for the current fiscal year.

US officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, have tied Iran’s struggles to access oil revenues as evidence that its economic pressure campaign is having an effect. In August, Bessent said that “Iran’s shadow banking system was buckling” under pressure from the US campaign against the country, which has been ramped up as Washington seeks a way to force Tehran to capitulate in the war between the two countries, launched by the US and Israel in late February.

So who are the oil intermediaries, why does Iran depend on them, and what has happened to the billions of dollars they owe? Let’s take a closer look.

The debt, and the crisis it has created for the Iranian government, both stem from an oil-sales arrangement Tehran adopted in 2012 in response to US sanctions targeting Iranian oil exports.

American and European sanctions targeting Iranian oil sales and revenue collection began in 2012. The stated rationale behind both sets of measures was that revenue from oil sales helped finance Iran’s nuclear programme and that restricting Iranian oil exports could prevent the programme from advancing.

In response, the Iranian government devised a way to circumvent international sanctions on its oil sales. Unable to sell oil through the Oil Ministry and receive the proceeds through the Central Bank, it began selling oil to domestic buyers or using it to settle outstanding obligations to institutions and organisations owed money by the state.

This arrangement gave rise to a network of oil intermediaries often referred to in Iran as the “trustee network”. Rather than selling all its oil through official government channels, the state entrusted crude oil to institutions, individuals and companies to sell on its behalf. The proceeds were supposed to be transferred to the government’s treasury, with the sellers or recipient institutions subsequently recovering their agreed costs and outstanding claims. Some institutions sold the oil themselves, while others contracted private trading companies to handle the sales.

The Oil Industry Pension Fund, established for retired Oil Ministry employees familiar with the oil-sales process, was among the first institutions to receive crude oil for sale. Other recipients included Khatam al-Anbiya Construction Base, a major hub for large-scale infrastructure projects. Even the municipal police received payments owed to them by the government in the form of crude oil.

Effect of the nuclear deal

Even in those early experiments, discrepancies emerged between the revenue expected from oil sales and the amounts sellers actually deposited into the government’s treasury. These discrepancies eventually gave rise to some of Iran’s largest economic corruption cases.

The accounting discrepancies and the government’s inability to recover money from private sellers entrusted with Iranian oil persisted until 2016, when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal was signed and when sanctions on Iranian oil sales were lifted. The government was subsequently able to regain control over oil sales.

Individuals who had sold Iranian oil but failed to return the proceeds were imprisoned. With the ability to sell oil again through legal and transparent channels, the government was able, for a time, to manage its oil revenues and spending with greater control.

How did money from oil sales go unreturned?

After US President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA in 2018 during his first presidential term, the Iranian government once again had to rely on private oil traders to sell its oil. But the problems associated with selling oil through intermediaries rather than official state channels, including delays in returning revenues, accounting discrepancies, debts owed by oil sellers to the government, and the occasional seizure of Iranian oil shipments at sea, once again constrained the government’s ability to manage its oil revenues.

Moreover, the US expanded its sanctions beyond Iranian government institutions and interests, adding bank accounts involved in transactions with the Iranian government, currency-exchange offices, companies, and individuals to its sanctions lists. As a result, the time between individuals participating in Iran’s oil-trading network and being sanctioned themselves, along with their assets and companies, and having their accounts blocked or frozen grew progressively shorter.

This contributed to an accumulation of debts owed by sanctioned oil traders – no longer able to access their accounts – to the government. It also left Iran with little choice but to expand its private oil-sales network. That meant increasing the number of people involved in trading Iranian oil, reducing the volume of oil allocated to each individual or company and, ultimately, increasing the risk that the proceeds would not be returned.

Iranian officials have also accused trustees of exploiting the sanctions workarounds to enrich themselves.

The billions of dollars owed by private oil sellers to the Iranian government are a combination of outstanding payments, disputed financial obligations and allegations of corruption. Iran’s judiciary chief recently addressed the issue, warning that oil sellers who refuse to return the proceeds from oil sales will face legal action. But such warnings do not change the sanctions environment or remove the obstacles that prevent some oil sellers from returning the money.

Tehran, Iran – Iranian authorities have signalled they intend to disrupt an Arab-operated and United States-assisted shuttle system that has enabled more energy exports through the Strait of Hormuz during the US-Israel war on Iran.

With the US naval blockade of Iran’s southern ports in place and sanctions tightening, Tehran has said it will pursue military and diplomatic efforts to put pressure on Washington to submit to its demands regarding reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

This strategic waterway, through which roughly a fifth of global oil and gas flowed before the war, has been largely closed to shipping following Iranian attacks since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28.

But the US Navy has reportedly opened up a route so Gulf states can export oil and other commodities amid an energy crisis.

Iran’s security chief Mohsen Rezaei responded on Sunday night, saying the shuttle system is now an explicit target for Tehran.

Rezaei claimed that the US Central Command, with the assistance of the United Arab Emirates military, was using smaller vessels to transfer oil to larger tankers. He claimed Iran had been striking five or six participating vessels nightly for weeks.

“You are smuggling, but the strait is under Iran’s control, and we manage it,” he asserted.

This appeared to be a taunt aimed at US President Donald Trump, who has hailed energy exports at times reaching pre-war levels over recent weeks.

Rezaei appeared to give the impression that Iran wants to have lasting authority over Hormuz, and promised a harsh response if Iran’s energy and civilian infrastructure were attacked again.

His threats appeared aimed at Arab regional states, with a warning that digital infrastructure could be targeted. Rezaei threatened US-linked cables, data centres and artificial intelligence facilities in the UAE and around the Strait of Hormuz.

Rezaei also accused Saudi Arabia of helping the US move oil around Iran’s restrictions. But he did not threaten a direct attack against Riyadh – which is currently being targeted by Yemen’s Tehran-aligned Houthis.

In early September, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) threatened tankers at ports and anchorages in Kuwait and Bahrain, citing US attacks on Iranian tankers. It accused both countries of complicity through hosting US armed forces.

Iran has claimed the US accepted some of Tehran’s seven conditions for the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war. But Tehran insists that a deal will only materialise when all its demands are met.

Hamidreza Azizi, a senior Iran analyst at the Crisis Group, said this reflects Tehran’s apparent assessment that it is under no immediate pressure to reach an agreement with the US since its pressure in the Hormuz has a global impact.

“The question, however, is whether Tehran is overestimating its ability to sustain this pressure, given the growing economic costs of the confrontation for Iran itself,” Azizi wrote on X.

Transfer system

The system involves very large crude carriers (VLCCs) and smaller vessels coordinating with the US military to load crude oil at Arab ports and use southern corridors near the coast of Oman to exit the strait.

Vessels often switch off their transponders and travel at night to minimise the risk of being targeted by the Iranians. After ship-to-ship transfers in the Gulf of Oman, some of the shuttles come back to load more.

Multiple vessels were targeted overnight Sunday to Monday, including two outbound tankers and one in anchorage near Oman’s port city of Sohar, where ship-to-ship transfers are allegedly being conducted.

Other vessels were targeted by projectiles last week, indicating that attacks have extended beyond the Strait of Hormuz to target the shuttle system.

The IRGC has also increasingly driven a narrative that naval mines, believed to have been planted across the Strait of Hormuz since the start of the war, pose a serious threat to vessels attempting to navigate the waterway without coordinating with Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority.

The IRGC said three tankers suffered major damage over the weekend after being struck by mines. It also released footage of one ship ablaze that is said to have been struck by a mine, although the footage did not appear to show a mine going off.

‘Cascading impact’

The shuttle system has provided Arab national oil companies with a way out of Hormuz via the southern corridor near Oman.

Michelle Wiese Bockmann, a London-based senior maritime intelligence analyst at Windward, said this system has proven highly effective.

“Under international maritime law, which underpins 11 billion tonnes of seaborne trade annually, vessels have what’s called the right of transit passage,” Bockmann told Al Jazeera. “So, what Oman has done is allow vessels to go through under international maritime law, but they have had US military assistance.”

Tehran says shipping will be disrupted so long as the US continues its choking naval blockade against Iran, which has also stepped up its efforts to counter efforts by Arab states to export oil. At least 15 ships are believed to have been targeted in October so far, according to Winward.

“The more effective the route has become in facilitating the transport of oil and gas, the less leverage Iran has over Hormuz, and more attacks we are seeing on vessels that are using that southern corridor,” Bockmann said.

Windward’s data shows 31 ships transited the Strait of Hormuz daily in the final week of September. This was considerably lower than the 138 before the war.

Eighty-seven percent of the 45 ships targeted by Iran during the third quarter of 2026 were tankers.

Around 47 percent belonged to Gulf Arab energy companies’ national shipping fleets, Windward noted, and 93 percent of the strikes took place in the Strait of Hormuz. Most attacks targeted vessels transiting the southern corridor with their transponders turned off.

These attacks have contributed to a massive increase in freight costs. Freight represented 25-30 percent of Gulf crude’s cost, versus just 1 to 3 percent before the war, according to Windward. National oil companies have resorted to offering discounts of up to $35 per barrel below official selling prices.

The main reason for the rise is a shortage of tankers willing to make the dangerous crossing. Between 15 and 20 percent of very large crude carriers (VLCCs) are tied up with an inefficient logistics system that relies on shuttle transfers, complicated by escalating attacks and exposure at loading ports and anchorages.

“This is having cascading impacts for all vessel classes on freight and values across the world,” Bockmann said.

Iran says US has accepted some of its peace terms but calls the response ‘inadequate’, as one person is killed in a new attack on Riyadh airport.

US military jet strikes stern of commercial cargo ship in the Gulf of Oman ‘without harming the crew’, CENTCOM says.

United States forces have disabled a commercial cargo vessel in the Gulf of Oman after its crew “ignored repeated warnings and attempted to run the ongoing naval blockade against Iran”, according to US Central Command (CENTCOM).

A US military fighter jet struck the stern of the Panama-flagged M/V Ocean Molica, also known as the Arika Sun, with a precision munition on Saturday, “fully disabling the ship’s propulsion without harming the crew”, CENTCOM said in a statement. The vessel was attempting to transit regional waters after “having previously departed an Iranian port”.

CENTCOM said its forces resumed their blockade against all ships “entering or departing Iranian ports on July 14”, disabling four commercial vessels and turning around 135 ships during “three months of strict enforcement”.

US forces also destroyed 10 tankers linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC’s) “multibillion-dollar shadow network” over the same period, CENTCOM said.

Meanwhile, Iran’s IRGC said it struck a vessel in the Strait of Hormuz for attempting to take an “illegal route”, as Tehran seeks to enforce its own blockade on the vital waterway.

In a statement carried by official Iranian media, the IRGC claimed Iranian forces “have taken control of the administration of the strait”.

“In carrying out this mission, a few hours ago, a giant LPG carrier named NV Sunshine, owned by NatWit, which was attempting to transit via the illegal route south of the Strait of Hormuz, was struck,” the statement said.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) agency said on Sunday that an outbound tanker in the strait was struck on the port side by an unknown projectile, causing a fire on board. The UK agency said crew members were reported safe, while the damage and environmental impact remained unknown at the time of the report.

Tehran has attempted to enforce control over the Strait of Hormuz during the US-Israel war on Iran, insisting that ships obtain permission to cross via its preferred routes. However, vessels have increasingly risked taking an alternative route hugging the strait’s southern coast.

The UKMTO said on Thursday that a vessel sailing 94km (58 miles) north of Madinat ash Shamal, off the north coast of Qatar, was struck by multiple projectiles, resulting in a number of casualties.

The agency did not specify the origin of the ship or the number of people killed or injured, adding that authorities were investigating the incident amid a recent rise in attacks on vessels near the Strait of Hormuz.

Ships in the Gulf attempting to cross the strait, which is the sole maritime route in or out of the oil-rich region, have faced repeated attacks since the US and Israel began the war in late February.

The Strait of Hormuz remains vital to the global economy, with about a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas passing through the passage before the war began.

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.