USIsrael

It has been six months since February 28, when the US and Israel shocked the world by launching missile strikes on Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several senior Iranian officials in Tehran, as well as scores of children in a school in Minab, southern Iran.

US President Donald Trump then claimed the conflict would only last “four to five weeks”.

In the months since, the war has erupted on several other fronts, reaching as far as the Caspian Sea. It has triggered a global oil supply crisis as the US and Iran battle for control of the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which more than one-fifth of oil and natural gas cargo transited.

And it has resulted in an estimated 8,000-10,000 deaths, as well as tens of thousands of injuries.

The conflict is also realigning the global order, experts say, as new alliances form and dominant ones show signs of crumbling.

Here’s what we know:

Has the US achieved any of its war objectives?

The US’s goals were not initially clear: officials first claimed the strikes were carried out in preemptive self-defence.

According to demands presented on the eve of the war, and a jumble of sometimes contradictory statements from Trump and senior US defence officials, they include the following:

Iran’s nuclear programme

Despite Trump’s claim that the US had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities when it joined in at the end of Israel’s 12-day war on Iran in June 2025, the US and Israel again claimed in February that Tehran was just weeks away from developing nuclear weapons.

Repeated strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites during the war have likely caused vast damage to the facilities, but it is believed Tehran still possesses 440kg of highly enriched uranium, which could be used to make a weapon.

The Trump administration wanted Iran to hand over this stock to the US and to commit to zero enrichment of uranium going forward. Iran refused to do this, although at one point appeared open to the possibility of handing the stock over to a third country. Iran also insisted on retaining the capacity to develop a nuclear power programme, which requires much lower levels of uranium enrichment.

Later, Trump briefly floated the idea of US troops retrieving the stock by force – a potentially dangerous mission.

In the June 17 memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by both sides, Iran agreed not to pursue a nuclear weapon – something it had always pledged anyway. The MoU unravelled as its vague wording led to disagreements about what it actually stipulated.

Clark Summers, a US military veteran and professor at Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina, said the US “can rightly assert that these ends have been achieved. Although for how long before Iran can rebuild is difficult to assess.”

But Iranian expert and professor at the Australian National University (ANU), Alam Saleh, disagreed, and noted that Iran’s nuclear power programme is still intact. “The US lost even before the war,” he said, adding that the effort also shows that Washington failed in last year’s 12-day war.

Regime change in Iran

On day one of the war – February 28 – the US killed Khamenei alongside several other senior officials. Trump, two days earlier, said regime change is “the best thing that could happen”.

As the US launched missiles, he also called on “Iranian patriots who yearn for freedom to seize this moment to be brave, be bold, be heroic, and take back your country”.

Iran’s political leadership has, however, remained largely the same under the new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei – the late ayatollah’s son.

Summers told Al Jazeera that the goal may have been “ad hoc” or improvised rather than well-planned. But “killing leaders does not mean strategic achievements, even if it’s a tactical success,” Saleh said.

Ending support for regional proxy groups

Iran’s “axis of resistance” is an umbrella comprising a number of armed groups around the region that it funds. This includes Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and several smaller groups in Iraq and Syria.

There are no signs that Tehran’s support for them has ended, and this demand did not appear in the MoU signed by the US.

Hezbollah went to war with Israel in Iran’s defence, and Iran has refused to negotiate an end to the war unless the Lebanon front is included. The Houthis, meanwhile, have launched a blockade on Saudi Arabia in the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, partly in support of Iran.

Iran’s ballistic missiles programme

Washington swore it would “raze” Iran’s missile facilities to the ground when it launched the war on February 28. The US also pledged to destroy Iran’s navy.

Trump has since claimed that about 82 percent of Iran’s missiles are gone and the navy is degraded.

In April, he also said that 158 Iranian naval vessels had been hit, while US Central Command (CENTCOM) has continued to announce dozens of strikes on command centres of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Iran, however, has continued to fire missiles, most recently launching a long-range missile in July that killed three US soldiers in Jordan.

Furthermore, the demand for an end to Iran’s ballistic missiles programme was also absent from the July MoU.

Control of Iranian oil

In June, Trump said the US would seize and control Iran’s Kharg island, the heart of Iranian oil production.

To date, the US does not control any Iranian territory.

What have the US and Iran gained and lost during the war?

Besides the US demands at the start of the war, several other pressure points have emerged during the conflict.

Control of the Strait of Hormuz

Soon after the war began, Iran in effect closed the narrow but critical Strait of Hormuz, which passes through its territorial waters as well as those of Oman. Since then, shipping traffic has slumped from more than 100 ships per day to an average of about five.

To enforce this closure, Iran began striking vessels in the strait, the only route to the open ocean for Gulf oil and gas producers, which had not gained its explicit permission to pass through.

The US responded with its own naval blockade on Iranian ports in and around the strait. This is continuing.

Despite a large number of expletive-laden demands from Trump since then – many of them on social media – that Tehran reopen the strait, Iran has not budged. It is currently negotiating plans for the future of the waterway, through which more than one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas supplies were shipped before the war, with Oman.

As part of these negotiations, Iran announced this week that it has agreed to a shipping route, which it will partially control, with Oman.

While Trump has recently claimed that the US has “full control” of the strait and that it is open to vessels, shipping remains at an all-time low and Iran has continued to fire at any vessels trying to pass without its permission.

Iran sees the strait as its main piece of leverage in the war with the US, which Salah said, Iran views as an “existential threat”.

Economic impact

• Iran: The war’s impact on Iran’s economy has been severe. The Iranian rial has in effect collapsed. Food prices have surged amid the war, and the US blockade and renewed sanctions have hampered Iranian oil exports, with the blockade cutting oil revenue by at least $6bn. Tehran’s economy has long been battered by US sanctions, although the fragile ceasefire provided temporary relief. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said last week that economic pressure is a “rerun we know by heart” and that the country knows how to survive it.
• US: US consumers have also felt the pressure of the war at the petrol pump, making the conflict highly unpopular. A July poll by The Associated Press revealed that two-thirds of Americans are against the conflict. While many tend to forget there’s a war, Summers said, they do remember it acutely when petrol prices rise. In states like California, gasoline prices doubled. That anger will likely translate into a political backlash against Republicans in November’s midterms, experts say.

Relations with allies

• Iran: Iran’s targeting of US military assets as well as both military and nonmilitary infrastructure in neighbouring Gulf states and Jordan has not made it popular regionally, experts note. Iran has hit infrastructure in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain. Those states have called this a violation of their sovereignty. However, Iran’s economic and political ties with China have held, as Beijing has managed a delicate dance by advocating against sanctions on Iran while refraining from becoming fully entangled in the conflict. Trade relations with Russia also remain strong.
• US: The US has faced reluctance from its NATO allies to back it up in this war. Despite being asked directly by Trump, they have refused to join the war. Spain and Italy, in particular, have highly criticised the conflict, while Germany, Israel’s strongest ally in Europe, has done the same. France rejected calls to send warships to enforce the blockade. Gulf allies, Pakistan and Turkiye have all similarly refused, while in Asia, Japan, Australia and South Korea all declined to get involved. Gulf allies are also likely weighing the fact that it is the US’s war on Iran which has caused them to become targets.

Military capabilities

• Iran: US experts say that claims Washington has degraded Iran’s military capabilities are correct. Several army bases have been struck while Iran’s ballistic missile stockpiles are down by about 82 percent, according to Trump. However, Iran is still launching missiles and, while nuclear facilities have been damaged, it still has possession of its enriched uranium stockpile. Experts point out that Iran likely has a bigger appetite for an atomic weapon now than before the war began. Tehran has also continued to produce and deploy its mass-produced, cheap Shahed drones. An estimated 1,221 military personnel were killed by April, although the real toll is likely higher.
• US: The US has lost 18 soldiers and more than 750 have been wounded. That’s “quite low”, Summers said. However, US media reports suggest the Pentagon has severely depleted stockpiles of some of its most powerful and most expensive weapons – particularly its Patriot defence missiles – something Washington denies. Those missiles are only produced in the dozens annually and cost millions of dollars each. In August, the US signed a $22.9bn deal with manufacturer Raytheon to boost Tomahawk cruise missile production from 60 to more than 1,000 annually.

Is there an outright ‘victor’?

Observers say there is not.

“Both of them have not achieved anything,” Saleh of ANU said, noting that the US has failed to translate military superiority to actual gains despite being a “superpower” fighting a “middle power”.

China and Russia are likely observing Washington’s weaknesses, making new military calculations in the event of a future conflict with the US, he said. That has implications for Taiwan, especially as the US has now deployed its last aircraft carrier in the Pacific to the Middle East. The shift leaves the US without an aircraft carrier in the Western Pacific, despite Washington’s previous strategic emphasis on the region.

“Iran surviving also does not mean it’s a winner,” however, Saleh said. “This might be a defeat for the US, but it’s not a victory for Iran either.”

Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani is due to visit Tehran on Thursday for talks on de-escalating tensions and reviving dialogue between Iran and the United States.

A spokesman for Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced the visit in a statement on X on Wednesday.

Majed al-Ansari said Sheikh Mohammed, who is also Qatar’s foreign minister, will meet with “a number of Iranian officials” in Tehran to “discuss ways to de-escalate tensions” and “create the conditions conducive to dialogue”.

“The visit comes in line with the State of Qatar’s firm position that the diplomatic path is the best means of resolving differences & promoting security & stability in the region,” he added.

Iran also confirmed the visit, saying the discussions will cover “the continuation of Qatar’s mediation efforts and initiatives, as well as other regional developments”.

Qatar has served as a back-channel negotiator between Washington and Tehran and helped secure a memorandum of understanding in June that briefly paused hostilities. The agreement collapsed in July, and the conflict is now nearing its sixth month, with fighting largely paused but no diplomatic breakthrough in sight.

The US has, meanwhile, promised to increase economic pressure on Tehran by sanctioning its trade partners.

US President Donald Trump told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that he was in “no hurry” to resume talks with Iran, saying that he believed economic and military action against Tehran were both effective.

“I have no time schedule; whatever it takes,” he said.

‘Economic terrorism’

Iran has continued to denounce the economic pressure campaign.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote to the United Nations on Wednesday calling the new sanctions an “act of state and economic terrorism” and urging member states not to implement them.

“The sanctions deliberately harm civilians by restricting access to food, medicine, medical equipment, energy and other essentials, violating rights including the rights to life, health, food and an adequate standard of living”, he said.

The two sides also remain at odds over the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic waterway that handled one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments before the US-Israel war on Iran began in February.

Iran wants control over the strait, while the US wants it to remain an international waterway that is free for all. That disagreement in part led to the collapse of the memorandum signed in June.

Oil flows through the strait have since fallen to a three-month low, with just 5 million barrels per day (bpd) transiting on Monday. Before the war, the strait carried roughly 20 million bpd of crude oil.

Qatar’s Foreign Ministry said Sheikh Mohammed will also discuss the waterway in his meetings in Tehran on Thursday, focusing on “the need for it to return to the status quo prior to February 28”.

Regional diplomacy

Sheikh Mohammed’s visit comes two days after Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi met his Iranian counterpart, Araghchi, in Tehran.

Following those talks, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, said the two countries had agreed on a new temporary route for shipping in the strait.

But he insisted that the waterway will not reopen until the US fulfils its commitments under the June deal, including the lifting of sanctions and the release of frozen assets.

Pakistan’s army chief, Asim Munir, also visited Tehran earlier in the week in a bid to “end the stalemate” in the conflict, with Islamabad reporting “significant progress” in those talks.

Mostafa Khoshcheshm, a professor at the University of Applied Sciences in Tehran, said that regional countries were pushing for dialogue because “they believe that the situation is moving towards escalation”.

“They know that if war breaks out, it would be a fully-fledged war and the fire would spill over into the entire region and beyond, leaving a detrimental impact on the global economy,” he said. “So there are hectic diplomatic moves on the part of these countries.”

A top Iranian official says Iran and Oman have agreed on a new temporary route for shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, but insisted that the waterway will not reopen until the United States fulfils its commitments under an interim peace deal signed in June.

The remarks by Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, came on Tuesday, after Iran and Oman’s top diplomats held talks in Tehran to finalise the details of a phased framework for managing the strait.

Iran and Oman, both coastal nations on the strait, have been in on-and-off talks for weeks about controlling traffic through the strategic waterway, which handled one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments before the US-Israel war on Tehran began in February.

Most ⁠shipping in the strait has been shut down since then.

Gharibabadi, speaking on state television, said Iran and Oman had agreed the new route’s entry “would be through our territorial waters, and part of the exit route would also be through our territorial waters”.

The transit corridor would be seven miles (11.3km) wide, he said.

“The agreed-upon transit route with Oman is a temporary route,” he added.

Earlier on Tuesday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met with his Omani counterpart, Badr Albusaidi, in Tehran to discuss the temporary navigation corridor as well as a project to clear mines from the strait, according to a joint statement.

Albusaidi said on X he hoped the countries would “soon announce” the corridor, adding that “future management of the strait and a permanent solution will follow in due course.”

Technical talks are planned to develop a long-term arrangement, including mechanisms for information sharing and navigational and security services, according to the statement.

Mines in Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz became a flashpoint after Tehran responded to the US-Israel war by closing the waterway. It then announced a new shipping route through its territorial waters, bypassing the internationally recognised Traffic Separation Scheme adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1968. Tehran said that route had been mined.

Then in June, when Iran and the US signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to end the war, Oman and the IMO announced a new transit corridor in the Strait of Hormuz – backed by the US – that hugged the Omani coast.

Iran said the so-called southern route violated the MoU and launched attacks on ships using the corridor, resulting in the collapse of the interim deal.

Diplomatic efforts towards a broader peace deal have since stalled, and passage through the strait remains dangerous. An oil tanker was disabled by an unidentified projectile on Tuesday near Oman’s Ash Shishah, close to the strait’s entrance, the United Kingdom’s maritime trade watchdog said.

Gharibabadi, in his comments on Tuesday, said Iran would not consider the strait open despite the agreement with Oman.

He also dismissed a claim by US President Donald Trump that all mines had been cleared from the strait’s international waters, saying it was “only aimed at calming the markets”. He warned that US mine-detection vessels would become “very good targets” if they entered the area.

Gharibabadi insisted the US must fulfil its commitments under the MoU – including sanctions relief and the release of frozen Iranian assets – if it wants a return to the diplomatic track.

He also urged countries to resist US pressure over sanctions on Iran.

Trump had announced last week the “most crushing economic operation ever” against Iran, and threatened sanctions against any country that does business with it.

“We are urging countries not to succumb to American pressure regarding the sanctions that Washington wants to impose on us,” Gharibabadi said, adding that Washington was “mistaken about its ability to enforce its sanctions against our neighbours”.

He said an earlier US sanctions campaign under Trump had failed to achieve its goals and predicted new measures would meet the same fate.

“The new American sanctions are doomed to failure, and we have our own methods to counter them,” he added.

Islamabad, Pakistan — Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir spent Monday moving through the power corridors of Tehran: the presidency, parliament, the Supreme National Security Council, and the foreign and interior ministries.

He met Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, as well as Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who is Tehran’s chief negotiator in talks with the United States to end their now six-month-long war.

But amid a deadlock in those peace negotiations, many analysts say that Munir’s true test as mediator will lie in his ability to use his position as one of the region’s most powerful military leaders to convince his Iranian counterparts in olive uniforms to agree to a return to talks with Washington.

Days before Munir’s visit, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told a gathering of doctors in Tehran that it was time to end the war while Iran held the advantage, a message aimed as much at Tehran’s own security establishment as at Washington.

“It is better that we bring the war to an end now as we are in a position of power and dignity,” he said, adding that “the whole world acknowledges our victory”.

Hours later, on August 21, the chief of the general staff of Iran’s armed forces, Major-General Ali Abdollahi, promised “revolutionary, crushing, regret-inducing and devastating” responses to any American miscalculation.

It was a sharp illustration of the gap between Iran’s president and the men now running its military — one that Munir will need to also navigate, analysts say.

And that’s why Munir’s most significant meeting on Monday might have been with General Mohsen Rezaei, a representative of Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei and the newly appointed secretary of the Supreme National Security Council. Rezaei is essentially the bridge between the military and Khamenei.

State of the war

Munir’s visit to Tehran came on a day when the region and the world were bracing for US President Donald Trump’s threatened “economic D-Day” sanctions against Iran, accompanied by a threatened punishment for all countries that continue to trade with Tehran.

Later in the day, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent unveiled “Operation Economic Outcast“, a sweeping sanctions campaign targeting Iran’s digital assets, gold, aviation, technology and shipping networks.

But while warning other countries to sever trade ties with Iran, he held back from actually announcing any penalties for those nations, acknowledging that such a step would “blow up the global financial system”.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking the same day, kept the option of renewed strikes open.

“If we need to use kinetic strikes, we’ll use them. If Iran is foolish enough to overplay their hand or mess with the American military, we’ll do what we need to do,” he said.

It’s unclear whether Munir’s visit helped stave off broader US action against Iran and its trading partners.

But the timing was significant, analysts point out. Munir travelled to Tehran days after taking a phone call from United States President Donald Trump, who reportedly asked Islamabad to use its influence to bring Iran back to the table.

Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) said the one-day visit had produced “comprehensive discussions” on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war.

Iranian officials, the ISPR added, “appreciated Pakistan’s constructive role and sincere efforts”.

Pakistan’s Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi, who travelled with Munir, went further, calling the talks “very positive and productive” and saying “significant progress was made”.

A reshuffled Iranian military

This was his fourth visit to Tehran this year, but his first since Iran’s military hierarchy changed earlier this month.

On August 10, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei installed Abdollahi as chief of the general staff and moved Rezaei into the Supreme National Security Council. Ahmad Vahidi, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has held his post since March, when his predecessor was killed in the war’s opening strikes.

It is these military men that analysts say are now shaping Iran’s war moves, potentially giving a fellow man in uniform an edge over traditional diplomats in convincing Tehran to get back to talks.

“It is increasingly the IRGC and the wider security establishment driving decisions on war and peace during this crisis,” Ahmed Saeed, a former vice admiral in Pakistan’s navy and a defence analyst, told Al Jazeera.

Naqvi, the interior minister, has travelled to Tehran eight times since April without those visits producing a substantial breakthrough.

But unlike him, Munir is not a politician. He’s a general who appears to enjoy the trust of both the Iranian leadership and, crucially, Trump — who has described the Pakistani army chief as his “favourite field marshal”.

“The call [to Munir a few days ago] was initiated by Trump himself, requesting Pakistani leadership use its influence to bring Iran back to the table,” Saeed said.

Warm words, no movement

What Iranian officials actually told Munir, in accounts carried by Iranian state media, differed little from what they have been telling their own broadcasters all week.

“We distrust America, and it must change its behaviour,” Rezaei told Munir, according to IRNA.

Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker, was blunter.

“We are pursuing the implementation of the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, and it is America that must adhere to its commitments based on the Memorandum of Understanding,” he told Munir, according to IRNA.

Pezeshkian, meanwhile, pressed Munir to tell Washington to “correct its tone and approach”, warning that “relying on force and bullying will only complicate the process”, according to Tasnim, another Iranian outlet.

Two tracks, one strait

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Albusaidi is also expected in Tehran today for a separate round of talks focused specifically on the Strait of Hormuz, a track that has run alongside Pakistan’s mediation for months.

Oman’s involvement is not new. Albusaidi has held recurring talks with Tehran on the strait’s navigation rules.

Ejaz Haider, a Lahore-based defence analyst, said the Omani and Pakistani diplomatic tracks complement each other.

“Oman and Islamabad channels complement, because clause 5 of the Islamabad MoU stresses a bilateral understanding on the strait [between Oman and Iran],” he told Al Jazeera. The Strait of Hormuz passes through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman.

“This [a deal between Iran and Oman to jointly manage the strait] is not in the interest of the US, which is why Trump has threatened to bomb Oman,” Haider said, referring to remarks Trump made on August 17, when he told Fox News he would bomb Oman if it “gets in the way” of reopening the strait, the second time he had threatened the US ally over Hormuz.

Where Islamabad’s advantage as a mediator lay was in its “direct access to Vahidi, Abdollahi and Rezaei, the actual architects of Iran’s decision-making”, Saeed, the former naval official, said.

An Iranian official close to the negotiations, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Albusaidi would be in Tehran “primarily to hear what Iran has decided and what it has discussed with its Pakistani mediator”.

Who holds the leverage?

Andreas Krieg, an associate professor of defence studies at King’s College London, said the differences that had emerged between the Iranian military and civilian leaderships demonstrate a gulf between their understanding of where the war stood.

Pezeshkian and Ghalibaf, Krieg said, were “essentially warning that Iran cannot live indefinitely in this condition”, while “parts of the IRGC believe the opposite and think time is working against Washington”.

But ultimately, he said, “Mohsen Rezaei, Ahmad Vahidi and the IRGC are central to whether any political understanding [to end the war] can be implemented”, referring to Iran’s top military leadership.

“[Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas] Araghchi can negotiate something, and Qatar can broker it, but none of that matters if the security apparatus does not accept the operational consequences.”

For now, Munir appears to be the candidate mediators believe has the best shot at getting Iranian generals from their war room to the board room.

Netanyahu’s claim comes after US and Israel killed Iran’s supreme leader and four of his family members in a strike on Tehran.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that Iran tried to kill one of his sons, but gave no details on when or where the alleged plot took place or which of his sons was targeted.

Netanyahu’s allegation on Monday came as his coalition trailed in opinion polls ahead of the general election in October, in the wake of the United States and Israel’s war on Iran.

The war began with a joint US-Israeli strike on Tehran that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and four members of his family, including his daughter, Boshra, and his 14-month-old granddaughter, Zahra.

According to The Jerusalem Post, Netanyahu made the claim about the alleged Iranian plot against his son during a phone interview with Channel 14, a conservative Israeli outlet known for favourable coverage of the government.

“This is an unbelievable case. Iran targeted one of my sons. Iran tried to murder him, tried to murder one of my sons,” Netanyahu said.

He was responding to reports that one of Israel’s security agencies had declined to provide a security detail for Gadi Eisenkot, the former army chief who is running neck and neck with Netanyahu for the next prime minister ahead of elections.

Netanyahu voiced support for around-the-clock protection for Eisenkot, saying it was “not a luxury”.

“Without that, [the Iranians] will succeed,” he said.

Netanyahu has two sons and a daughter. Both of his sons and his wife were granted extended personal protection by Israeli authorities in July, according to The Jerusalem Post.

His elder son, Yair, 35, has spent extended periods in the US city of Miami since early 2024, drawing controversy in Israel over the cost to taxpayers of protecting him.

Iran, meanwhile, has promised revenge for the killings of Khamenei and his family.

Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, was named the new supreme leader a week after Ali Khamenei’s death.

Mojtaba Khamenei has not been seen in public since his appointment, but in a message published on the occasion of funeral ceremonies for his father, he pledged to “avenge the blood” of the former supreme leader.

Falling Republican support, rising gas prices, and fears of a long conflict drive a decline in backing for the Iran war.

Support in the United States for the war on Iran has fallen as President Donald Trump’s approval remains at a record low, a Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests.

Public backing for the war has dropped to its lowest level since the early stages of the conflict, with declining Republican support contributing to the shift, according to the poll released on Monday.

Just 31 percent of Americans surveyed said they support US military action against Iran, down from 37 percent in March and 34 percent earlier this month. Support among Republican respondents fell to 69 percent, compared with 77 percent in March.

The war is also continuing to weigh on Trump’s standing with the public, the poll suggests. For the second consecutive Reuters/Ipsos survey, 33 percent of respondents said they approved of Trump’s performance as president, matching the lowest approval rating recorded in the polling series across his first and second terms.

Trump has defended the military campaign as necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The conflict began on February 28 with US and Israeli attacks on Iran.

But the economic effects of the war remain a concern for Americans. Iran has maintained a de facto blockade of oil exports from the region, contributing to a rise in US petrol prices to near record highs.

The Trump administration has also announced recent pledges to increase economic pressure on Iran. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said on Monday that the US would target all of Iran’s sources of revenue, including oil, with the aim of preventing other countries and companies from doing business with Tehran. The campaign is dubbed “Operation Economic Outcast”.

A growing majority of Americans expect the war to continue for some time, the poll suggests. Eighty-three percent of respondents said they believe the conflict will last for an extended period, up from 80 percent earlier this month.

The prospect of a lengthy war presents a challenge for Trump, who campaigned for the presidency in 2024 on promises to bring down inflation and to adopt an “America First” strategy of avoiding foreign military engagements.

Six months into the conflict, petrol prices are more than $1 per gallon (3.8 litres) higher than they were before the war, adding to economic pressure ahead of November’s midterm elections.

The higher fuel costs could also create difficulties for Republicans defending narrow congressional majorities.

The poll suggests that independent voters favour Democrats over Republicans when asked which party they would support in a congressional election held today. Among independents, 33 percent said they would vote for a Democrat, compared with 19 percent who said they would choose a Republican.

The Reuters/Ipsos survey questioned 1,215 adults across the United States over four days and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points in either direction.

US President Donald Trump’s administration has said it aims to sever “every” economic lifeline sustaining Iran in what officials have warned will be the toughest sanctions campaign ever seen.

The threat, if followed through, would mean putting China, Iran’s biggest trade partner, squarely in the crosshairs of US sanctions.

That would be a risky proposition for Washington due to the likelihood of severe blowback from Beijing – so much so that some analysts doubt that the Trump administration’s measures, set to be announced on Monday, will match its rhetoric in scope or severity.

While the Trump administration has yet to provide details about what it has dubbed “economic D-Day”, US officials have made it clear that Iran’s trade partners are in their sights.

In an op-ed in the Financial Times on Sunday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that countries fearful of breaking ties with Iran should not “discount the cost of testing Washington”.

“The president has created the conditions to leverage every agency, every authority and action many assumed we would never summon,” said Bessent, who is scheduled to unveil the sanctions in a news conference at 17:00 GMT.

Brett Erickson, a sanctions expert and managing principal of Obsidian Risk Advisors, said the Trump administration’s willingness to target China will be an indication of its resolve to mount a sustained economic offensive against Tehran.

“That is not a relationship you degrade lightly. If the United States decides to really bring China into the ring, it will be a serious indication that the United States plans to wage this economic war for a prolonged period of time,” Erickson told Al Jazeera.

“If they do not, it will be a tacit admission from the Trump administration that they do not believe economic hardship can seriously bring about a change in the Iranian position,” Erickson said.

Any US pressure campaign that excludes China would be necessarily limited in scope given the outsized importance of Beijing and Tehran’s economic ties.

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.

China’s purchases of Iranian oil have been a particularly crucial lifeline for Tehran, accounting for about 90 percent of its oil sales, according to the US Treasury Department.

Until now, the Trump administration’s Iran sanctions regime has targeted only a handful of relatively minor China-based entities.

In April, the Trump administration sanctioned Hengli Petrochemical (Dalian) Refinery, one of China’s largest independent refineries, commonly known as “teapots”, over its alleged purchases of Iranian oil.

The Trump administration also imposed sanctions on four firms in Hong Kong in May, followed by measures in August targeting six China and Hong Kong-based shipping lines.

Washington has so far left Chinese financial institutions, widely viewed as a key node in Iran’s oil trade, untouched.

“Cutting off Chinese economic ties will be key to the success of any attempt to increase pressure on Iran. However, the United States won’t do it,” Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities, a Washington-based foreign policy think tank, told Al Jazeera.

“If it does, China will retaliate and has the leverage to impose costs on the US,” Kavanagh said.

China has vigorously opposed US sanctions against Iran, arguing that economic pressure will not resolve the nearly six-month-long war.

In a statement on Sunday, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that Beijing remained “committed to promoting peace talks” and willing to “continue making efforts for the early restoration of peace and tranquility in the region”.

Iran, for its part, has threatened to retaliate against countries that support the US measures.

Mohsen Rezaei, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, warned on Saturday that any country that participated in sanctions would be considered an “enemy” and that “not a drop” of oil would leave the Gulf if Iran’s neighbours joined the US campaign.

Wang Wen, dean of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China, said Beijing would inevitably take countermeasures in response to any US sanctions and their intensity would depend on the “severity of US actions”.

“China maintains its desire to avoid conflict, but its bottom line cannot be crossed,” Wang told Al Jazeera.

For Trump, invoking Beijing’s ire would risk not only economic retaliation, but also unravelling efforts to stabilise US-China relations only weeks before the US president is due to host Chinese leader Xi Jinping at the White House.

Trump’s scheduled summit with Xi on September 24 would be their second face-to-face meeting aimed at lowering the temperature in US-China relations since Washington launched its war on Iran in late February, following Trump’s visit to Beijing in May.

Zichen Wang, deputy secretary-general of the Center for China and Globalization (CCG) think tank in Beijing, said neither Beijing nor Washington were likely to want Iran to define the upcoming summit.

“Unless the US measures become very broad or directly target major Chinese interests, both sides are likely to try to keep this dispute from overwhelming the wider agenda,” Wang told Al Jazeera.

“That said, Chinese restraint should not be read as an absence of response,” Wang said.

“Beijing has often avoided immediate rhetorical escalation, but when unilateral US actions have materially affected Chinese companies or other Chinese interests, it has shown a growing willingness to answer with practical countermeasures.”

While the Trump administration could potentially make it more challenging and expensive for China to continue its economic support of Iran, it is unlikely to be able to stop Beijing outright if it is determined to maintain ties, said Erickson of Obsidian Risk Advisors.

“US sanctions can absolutely force companies to de-risk in order to avoid exposure, but there will always be an entity willing to fill this role,” Erickson said, adding that Xi is unlikely to “merely stand by while Trump flexes the powers of American economic statecraft without flexing Beijing’s own in return”.

Though US officials have stated their intention to “collapse” Iran’s government with ramped-up sanctions, Erickson expressed doubt that the Trump administration will be able to achieve its war goals through economic pressure alone.

“Unless the Trump administration is willing to burn serious bridges and employ all remaining levers of economic warfare simultaneously, there is no reasonable assertion that can be made that it will be able to produce the victory that kinetic warfare could not,” he said.

EXPLAINER

At least 145 countries have reported increases in petrol prices since the attacks on Iran by the US and Israel began on February 28.

Since the United States and Israel launched their war on Iran six months ago, petrol prices have risen in at least 145 countries, adding to the burden on consumers worldwide.

The figures are based on data from GlobalPetrolPrices, which tracks fuel prices in 170 countries and territories. Petrol prices in Myanmar rose the most, increasing by 56 percent from $0.77 per litre of 95-octane fuel on February 23 to $1.20 on August 17. Bhutan recorded the next-largest increase at 55 percent, followed by Cuba at 51 percent, the UAE at 50 percent and 48 percent in Nigeria.

In 25 other countries, most of them oil producers with heavily subsidised fuel, prices have either remained unchanged or fallen by single digits.

The table below lists the 145 countries where petrol prices at the pump increased over the past six months.

How higher fuel costs shrink your driving range

Before the war, the US national average for a gallon [3.78 litres] of regular petrol was $2.94. It now costs $4.09, an increase of 39 percent, according to AAA Fuel Prices, which tracks retail fuel prices for the American Automobile Association (AAA).

The extra cost directly affects how far people can travel. Before the war, $50 worth of fuel in the US could take a family sedan roughly 718 km (446 miles). Today, the same amount takes you about 536 km (333 miles) – 183 km less, a 25 percent reduction in driving distance.

That gap varies depending on where you live.

Set your country, car and budget below to see how far your money takes you. If you’re filling up in the US, you can also select a state and fuel grade.

How high oil costs drive up the price of food

Oil prices and food prices move in lockstep, with energy prices affecting every stage of the food supply chain, from the fertilisers used in the fields to the trucks that carry food from field to supermarket shelf.

Rising oil prices also directly impact shipping and the cost of transport.

“The lifeblood of the global economy is transport,” economist David McWilliams told Al Jazeera. “It’s getting stuff from A to B – it’s a logistics problem, a supply chain problem and ultimately transportation is the energy of the global economy.”

In lower-income countries, where populations spend a far greater share of their earnings on food and import large quantities of grain and fertiliser, rising oil prices could rapidly translate into food shortages.

What products are made from oil and gas?

Oil and gas are used for far more than just fuel. They are raw materials for thousands of everyday products.

Plastics, including water bottles, food packaging, phone casings and medical syringes, are all derived from crude oil.

Crude oil is also the hidden ingredient in synthetic fabrics, such as polyester, nylon and acrylic, which are used to make everything from sportswear to carpets. It also underpins the cosmetics industry, as it is used to make products such as petroleum jelly (Vaseline), lipsticks and concealers.

Household items also rely on oil-based ingredients, with laundry detergents, dishwashing liquids and paints all derived from petroleum products.

The global food supply is essentially built on natural gas in the form of fertilisers, used to enhance crop yields and ensure that food production can meet demand.

Islamabad, Pakistan — Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff and Chief of Defence Forces, Field Marshal Asim Munir, is traveling to Tehran on Monday for talks with senior Iranian officials, Iran’s Foreign Ministry announced on Sunday.

It will be Munir’s third visit to Iran this year as Islamabad continues its push to mediate an end to the United States and Israel’s war on Iran.

Pakistani officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed to Al Jazeera that the trip would take place but declined to elaborate on its agenda.

The Pakistani military’s media wing, the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), as well as the Foreign Ministry and Information Ministry, did not respond to Al Jazeera’s requests for comment on the visit, which was unusually announced by Tehran rather than Islamabad.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said the trip would build on Pakistan’s efforts to “help strengthen peace and security in the region”.

Munir will hold talks with senior Iranian officials during his stay, Baghaei told reporters in Tehran.

The visit follows two phone calls between Munir and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi within four days, on Wednesday and Saturday.

The two officials discussed “regional developments” and ways to strengthen “peace, stability and security” in West Asia, according to Iranian state media.

A third trip this year

Munir’s first visit to Tehran this year came in April, days after the Islamabad Talks, the first direct US-Iran negotiations in more than four decades, ended without a breakthrough.

He returned in May, arriving hours after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said there had been “slight progress” in talks between Washington and Tehran.

His latest visit comes as the diplomatic track underpinning the Islamabad MoU has all but stalled, while Washington prepares a new round of sanctions.

The discussions are also expected to touch on this month’s announcement of the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkiye, which Munir attended in Mecca.

Yemen’s Houthi fighters, whose attacks on shipping lanes have repeatedly threatened to widen the conflict, are also likely to feature in his conversations with Iranian officials. The Houthis are widely believed to receive support from Tehran.

The issue carries particular weight for Islamabad.

Three Pakistani sailors were killed and several others wounded when Houthi forces struck a Tanzania-flagged commercial vessel in the Bab al-Mandeb Strait on August 11.

Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar called the attack a violation of international law and “strongly condemned” it at the time.

Munir is expected to meet Iran’s newly appointed senior military leadership during the visit, according to Reza Afzal Samir, an Iranian journalist tracking the talks.

“He is well positioned to meet Iran’s newer senior military leadership, the new IRGC chief, the new Chief of General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, and the new Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council,” Samir told Al Jazeera, referring to Munir’s expected meetings with Major-General Ahmad Vahidi, Major-General Ali Abdollahi and Mohsen Rezaei respectively.

The officials were all appointed earlier this month.

A lapsed deal

The visit comes at a fraught moment for Pakistan’s mediation effort, which it has led after the war began six months ago.

The 60-day window set out in the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), signed by Pakistan, Iran and the US on June 17, lapsed in mid-August without either side agreeing to extend it.

Iran has kept the Strait of Hormuz shut, insisting that Washington first lift its naval blockade, end oil sanctions, unfreeze Iranian assets abroad and halt military threats. Tehran says the US has not met those conditions.

Munir’s trip also coincides with a fresh round of US economic pressure.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is due to detail on Monday what American officials have called the “toughest sanctions in history” against Iran, a package he has said is intended, alongside the continuing naval blockade, to “collapse” the government in Tehran.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry has called the plan “economic warfare”.

The trip also follows a month of regional realignment. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkiye signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement on August 7, a mutual defence pact under which an attack on one signatory would be treated as an attack on all three.

Pakistan’s Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi travelled to Tehran earlier this month to revive the stalled mediation push but returned without any concrete results.

Tensions elsewhere in the region have sharpened too.

The United Arab Emirates suspended trade and financial transactions with Iran last week after saying it had come under fire from two ballistic missiles launched from Iranian territory, a claim Baghaei denied.

But Munir’s visit, analysts say, signals that key regional mediators have not given up on efforts to revive talks, either direct or indirect, between Iran and the US, even as they try to balance their own relations with Tehran and Washington.

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Albusaidi, who, like Munir, has held recent telephone conversations with Araghchi, is scheduled to visit Tehran on Tuesday, Iran’s state-owned IRNA news agency has reported.

What leverage does Islamabad have?

Analysts remain divided on what Munir’s visit can realistically achieve, given Pakistan’s limited ability to enforce any understanding it helps broker.

“Both sides see Pakistan as a country that has helped facilitate dialogue without any personal stake in the outcome, nothing to gain for itself,” said Qamar Cheema, a political analyst and head of the Islamabad-based Sanober Institute. “That gives it a certain clarity, and the ability to offer an off-ramp to everyone involved.”

Javad Heiran-Nia, director of the Persian Gulf Studies Group in Tehran, said Pakistan’s persistence was driven partly by self-interest.

“Pakistan is concerned about escalating tensions and the outbreak of another all-out war between Iran and the United States, which would further destabilise the region,” he told Al Jazeera, pointing to Islamabad’s reliance on energy imports from the Gulf and the risk of disruption to remittances from Pakistani workers there if instability spreads.

Zahid Mehmood, a retired two-star general and Pakistani defence strategist, went further, describing Munir as still carrying Washington’s own offer to Tehran.

“Pakistan is still carrying, in effect, Washington’s off-ramp to Tehran,” he told Al Jazeera. “The country remains the most trusted conduit available.”

Not every analyst sees Pakistan’s role as this central.

Andreas Krieg, an associate professor of defence studies at King’s College London, said Qatar, not Pakistan, remained the primary channel.

“Qatar is leading the political mediation and remains the essential communication bridge between Washington and Tehran,” he told Al Jazeera.

Munir’s contribution, he said, was narrower, a “military-to-military channel into an Iranian system in which the IRGC and wider security establishment have become increasingly important to decisions about war and peace”.

What Munir can deliver, and what he can’t

Iranian journalist Samir said Pakistan had a significant role in Iran’s calculus because of what it could do.

“Why should Iran listen to Pakistan? Because Pakistan still retains the leverage to actually do something and create a real opening for peace, rather than remaining silent and doing nothing,” he said.

Samir also predicted the Munir visit could be followed quickly by movement on Hormuz negotiations. “I think the timeline for a final agreement between Iran and Oman on the Strait of Hormuz is also drawing near,” he said. “If [Munir] succeeds in bringing Iran back to the table, I anticipate a new announcement from Oman and Iran on the strait shortly after.”

Krieg was more cautious about what Munir’s visit could deliver. The most meaningful outcome, he said, would be “confirmation that Iran’s security establishment would abide by a specific Hormuz deconfliction arrangement and restrain escalation through Yemen or Iraq if Qatar can secure reciprocal American movement”.

Without that, according to Krieg, “the communication bridge remains open, but the two sides continue moving towards another coercive cycle”.

Mehmood, the retired Pakistani general, was less equivocal.

“Pakistan is really the only exit card available to either side for their off-ramp,” he told Al Jazeera.

United States President Donald Trump’s unpredictability isn’t strengthening the US position in the Iran war, as “the Iranians have no reason to believe anything Trump tells them”, argues Stephen Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Walt tells host Steve Clemons that the war is now in a “hurting stalemate” where “neither side really wants to escalate; they’re just waiting for the other side to crack”.

On the Palestinian-Israeli front, Walt doesn’t see an opening for a genuine political solution, as neither US party is willing to exert pressure on Israel, where “there’s still a very strong commitment to ‘Greater Israel’”.

Iran has threatened to retaliate against any country that joins the United States’ “economic war” against it, as diplomatic efforts to end the months-long war have stalled and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has drastically decreased.

The warning from Iran’s top security official on Saturday came as the US plans to announce new sanctions on Monday that could further strain the struggling Iranian economy.

So, how can Tehran retaliate?

Here’s what we know:

What has Iran said?

On Saturday, Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told the IRIB state broadcaster that Iran was appealing to all countries around the world, including its neighbours, not to join the US’s “economic war”.

“Any country that takes part in imposing economic restrictions on us will be regarded as an enemy,” he said, warning of “seismic” retaliation.

Rezaei also warned Iran’s neighbours that if they participated in Trump’s economic warfare, “not even a drop of oil” would leave the Gulf region, including by alternative export routes away from the Hormuz chokepoint through which a fifth of global oil and gas exports pass in peacetime.

Iran has attacked US military installations and civilian locations since the war began on February 28 , on the pretext that Tehran was on the verge of having nuclear bombs. That claim was debunked by the US intelligence agency, as well as the UN’s IAEA nuclear watchdog.

The US operates military facilities in more than a dozen locations across the Middle East and North Africa, including in Gulf nations, such as Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Thousands of US soldiers are also stationed across the region, including in Jordan.

Rezaei’s remarks came days after US President Donald Trump announced that his government would undertake the “most crushing economic operation” yet against Iran. He also pledged “tremendous economic consequences” for any country that gives Iran “any type of lifeline”.

The US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, echoed his threats the following day, saying, “You’re either with us or against us”. He also urged cooperation from China, which buys more than 80 percent of Iran’s oil shipments.

On Sunday, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian said: Iran is “in a full-scale economic, military and security war” with the US. He said Washington falsely predicted before the war that it would fall amid US aggression and become like Venezuela.

“The enemy had assessed that if Iran falls, it will become Venezuela,” he said in a televised speech.

“Not only did it not happen, but it became a power that amazed the world with its resistance, solidarity and cohesion.”

How can Iran retaliate?

Rezaei described Iran’s strategy as a three-stage sequence, starting with talks with countries cooperating with the US to de-escalate tensions.

“Of course, we will first negotiate with them. We will hold talks and tell them to step aside and distance themselves from the United States.”

“But if they do not act, we will strike. We will target that country’s interests,” he added.

Rezaei’s warning that alternative export routes outside Hormuz could be targeted, probably points to the Bab al-Mandeb Strait gateway to the Red Sea. Saudi Arabia has used it to export its oil following the blockade of Hormuz. Tehran imposed a blockade on Hormuz in response to the US war and has since used it as leverage in negotiations with Washington to end the war. The US has put Iranian ports under a naval blockade, impacting Tehran’s international trade.

Hamidreza Azizi, a researcher on Iran at the Clingendael Institute, said in a post on X on Saturday: “Tehran appears to be trying to establish deterrence at an earlier stage, by signalling that even preparations for an attack could trigger an Iranian response.”

Azizi said two elements in the new “offensive doctrine” are emerging: preemption, which is aimed at preventing a perceived threat from materialising; and disproportionate retaliation, which is aimed at raising the cost of any attack that does occur.

Iran’s warning to Gulf states joining Trump’s economic war is “essentially an ultimatum” to the Gulf states, he said, adding that Iran’s military-security establishment “is increasingly preparing for another round of escalation”.

Will Iran’s neighbours join the US in its economic warfare?

Gulf countries, which are Iran’s neighbours and also US allies, have increasingly been finding themselves caught in the middle of the war. So it is unclear if they will join Washington in economically threatening Iran further.

Iran’s attacks on Gulf nations have impacted their economies, which use Hormuz for most of their exports, including oil and gas.

While Gulf nations have condemned Iranian attacks on their territories, analysts say Gulf states closely aligned with Washington recognise that a functioning political relationship with Iran is necessary due to its close proximity.

The UAE restored diplomatic relations with Iran in 2022 but imposed a trade embargo last week after accusing Tehran of a missile attack. Iran denies responsibility.

Saudi Arabia and Iran agreed to normalise ties in 2023 under a deal brokered by China, both likely a calculation that engagement with Iran was safer than permanent confrontation.

While the Iranian attacks on Gulf states have tested this idea, they have not necessarily shattered it.

“Ultimately, Gulf countries can’t change geography. They have to live and work alongside Iran,” Simon Mabon, a professor of international relations at Lancaster University told Al Jazeera in an interview last month. “They don’t want the instability that would come from the fall of the Islamic Republic. I think some Gulf states have pushed for harder strikes – not to precipitate its collapse, but to weaken the more hardline elements of the IRGC.”

Also last month, Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Al Jazeera that confidence in diplomacy to end the crisis remains low but, at the same time, no nation in the region “can afford another long war”.

As a result, that “will keep them away from a completely uncontrolled level of escalation”, and depleted global oil inventories will make a prolonged confrontation between the US and Iran unattractive.

“All inventories have not been able to be replenished” during the ceasefire, Parsi added. “We are at a much lower level globally.”

What we know about international sanctions against Iran over previous decades?

Since 1979, Iran has faced sanctions from the US and other nations in the West. The United Nations has also imposed sanctions on Tehran.

The US first imposed sanctions after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled the pro-Western ruler Reza Shah Pahlavi. Washington said that was in response to Iranian students taking Americans hostage at the US embassy in Tehran.

Washington also halted oil imports from Iran and froze $12bn in Iranian assets following the revolution. Iranian products were banned from import into the US, apart from small gifts, informational material, foodstuffs and some carpets.

In 1995, President Bill Clinton issued executive orders preventing US companies from investing in Iranian oil and gas and trading with Iran. He banned US trade with Iran and investment. A year later, the US Congress passed a law requiring the US government to impose sanctions on foreign firms investing more than $20m a year in Iran’s energy sector.

Then in December 2006, the United Nations Security Council, whose members include China, Russia, the UK and France, imposed sanctions on Iran’s trade in nuclear-energy-related materials and technology and froze the assets of individuals and companies involved in related activities.

The sanctions were mainly an effort to curtail Iran’s growing nuclear capacity, but while programmes to enrich uranium were stopped in 2002, they restarted in late 2005. In subsequent years, the UN toughened the sanctions and imposed more. The European Union also followed suit.

In 2015, Iran signed a nuclear deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – with the US, EU, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom. The deal put a cap on Iran’s nuclear programme in return for the complete lifting of sanctions.

However, in 2018, during his first term, Trump announced the US withdrawal from the nuclear treaty and reimposed all sanctions on Iran that were lifted under the treaty as part of his “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran.

In 2019, the Trump administration designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a ‘Foreign Terrorist Organisation’. Additionally, he imposed sanctions targeting petrochemicals, metals (steel, aluminium, copper) and senior Iranian officials.

During Trump’s first term, Qassem Soleimani, the head of the IRGC’s elite Quds Force, was assassinated in a drone strike in Baghdad in 2020. The US also imposed additional sanctions on Iran.

The Biden administration, in power from 2021 to 2025, kept in place most US sanctions.

Last September, UN sanctions were reimposed due to Iran’s nuclear programme when the UNSC voted against permanently lifting economic sanctions.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei slams Trump’s latest threat as a return to ‘full-scale classic colonialism’.

Iran has decried impending United States sanctions as a “complete erosion of sovereignty” following US President Donald Trump’s threat to punish any country doing business with Tehran.

In a post on X on Saturday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the US announcement was “an assertion of extraterritorial sovereignty” against the United Nations’ member states.

No state can compel foreign banks, enterprises or airports to renounce commerce with Iran, he said.

“The end result would be the complete erosion of sovereignty as the foundational basis of the UN-based inter-State system, and a recipe for an abysmal return to full-scale classic colonialism,” Baghaei said.

Trump announced on Wednesday the “most crushing economic operation” yet against Iran and said any country whose institutions interface with Tehran would face “tremendous economic consequences”.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent doubled down on the president’s words on Thursday, saying the new sanctions regime would “collapse” Iran and that other countries are “either with us or against us”.

Iranian state media was quick to point out that Tehran has faced US sanctions for decades. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the new measures were “bound to fail”.

“We have seen this movie before,” Araghchi wrote on X, alongside a screenshot of a tweet from former President Barack Obama referencing earlier sanctions in 2012. “Same bull. Different bullies.”

The latest rhetorical back-and-forth comes as peace talks with Tehran have sputtered out. The US Navy has maintained its blockade against Iran’s ports, while oil shipment traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has virtually ceased.

Trump told reporters Friday that his government is “seeing what happens” in the conflict.

“They would love to make a deal, but they’re not ready to make the right deal in my opinion,” the president said.

While the US has blockaded Iranian vessels in their ports, the Strait of Hormuz remained bottled up with thousands of seafarers stranded on hundreds of vessels.

Only four commodity ships sailed along the strait on Thursday, none of them large crude carriers or liquefied natural gas tankers, ship-tracking data showed.

However, Iran has granted permission for several Iraqi oil tankers to pass through the strait following repeated requests from Baghdad, Iran’s state news agency IRNA ⁠reported on Saturday.

IRNA said obtaining special permission for Iraqi tankers was one of Baghdad’s main requests during Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher ⁠Ghalibaf’s visit to Iraq.

Omani and Iranian foreign ministers hold a call as Washington prepares economic sanctions amid ongoing shipping disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has called for an end to the months-long war with the United States, stating that Tehran holds a position of strength as diplomatic talks remain stalled.

“It is better that we bring the war to an end now as we are in a position of power and dignity,” Pezeshkian said in a meeting with doctors on Friday. “The whole world acknowledges our victory and emphasises that America has attacked our schools, hospitals and infrastructure in violation of all regulations and is hated around the world.”

Pezeshkian – whose authority as president is ultimately subordinate to Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei – also defended the June memorandum of understanding agreed with Washington against hardline domestic critics in parliament, who accused his administration of giving concessions to the US.

“They cannot find even a single clause in this agreement that indicates capitulation. All the commitments concern the other side,” he said.

However, days after the memorandum of understanding expired, Iran’s military leadership has warned that the country remains ready to strike back against any new threats.

“With preparedness across land, sea, air, air defence and cyberspace, Iran’s armed forces will respond to the enemy’s new threats with crushing, punishing and devastating responses,” Major-General Ali Abdollahi, chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, was quoted as saying by Iranian media.

Strait of Hormuz

Meanwhile, Omani and Iranian foreign ministers discussed in a phone call on Friday ways to create suitable conditions for resuming dialogue and negotiations, as well as developments affecting navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, according to Oman’s state news agency.

Tehran continues to keep the key waterway partially shut while Washington persists with a naval counterblockade. Reports in US media indicate the US navy has been organising and protecting secret convoys of tankers through the southern sector of the strait, enabling between five and 10 million barrels a day of oil to be exported.

In Washington, President Donald Trump expressed scepticism over Tehran’s willingness to negotiate, telling reporters when asked if US military options with Iran were limited: “It just means that we’re seeing what happens.”

“We have total control of that entire region having to do with the Strait of Hormuz, and that means well into it, the land areas. So, they would love to make a deal, but they’re not ready to make the right deal, in my opinion,” Trump added.

He has also warned of economic consequences against any country that provides “any type of lifeline to Iran”.

The comments came as US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that Washington would “collapse” the Iranian government with a sanctions campaign.

Bessent will hold a news conference at the Department of the Treasury on Monday, where he is expected to outline planned sanctions against Iran, marking a shift by the Trump administration towards economic rather than military pressure as the war nears the six-month mark.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has already condemned the US plan, accusing Washington of “economic terrorism” and stating that “the instigators of these sanctions are deserving of trial and punishment”.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Lin Jian also criticised the US measures, stating that “sanctions and pressure will not help resolve the issue” and urging all parties to “take responsible measures and resolve the problem through political and diplomatic means”.

London, United Kingdom – The United States and Israel’s war on Iran was largely unexpected, given the repeated warnings from most US allies, as well as their lack of enthusiasm for a potential conflict.

Iran’s retaliation, too, has been unexpected, particularly Iranian missile strikes on several countries not party to the conflict, in the Gulf, and more recently, Jordan.

Beyond the immediate regional sphere, the Iranian military has reportedly attempted to hit targets as far as the joint US-UK military base on the island of Diego Garcia, 2,350 miles (3,780 kilometres) away from Iran.

And Tehran has recently threatened southeastern Europe – in particular, Bulgaria.

Bulgaria’s Bezmer airfield

In July, Bulgaria’s parliament approved the use of its Bezmer Air Base for refuelling US military aircraft, an agreement that functions as a support mechanism for the US military operations in the Middle East and against Iran.

Speaking to his Bulgarian counterpart, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned that any country aiding US “aggression” against Iran would be considered a legitimate target of retaliatory attack by Tehran.

According to a recent report in the Financial Times, citing unnamed Iranian sources, Tehran will consider attacking Europe if Washington escalates the conflict.

According to Armida van Rij, a senior fellow at the Centre for European Reform, southeastern Europe could be seen as an attractive target.

“[The region] is the soft underbelly of Europe as it is strategically important, hosting a number of NATO bases and key supplies to Ukraine and being on the Black Sea”.

In Bulgaria, the Iran war is perceived as something “remote”, Angel Petrov, a Sofia-based journalist who covers southeast Europe and the Middle East for the news website, Dnevnik.bg, told Al Jazeera.

Bulgarians do not view the Iran war “as important as Ukraine, and whose implications in terms of oil prices seem bearable, given general inflation”.

According to Petrov, Sofia lacks the institutional capacity to defy a brash administration in Washington while managing the war in Ukraine and an increasingly active Russia. So it was not surprising when Bulgarian leaders obliged the Trump administration’s request for the use of the Bezmer Air Base.

By firing missiles at Bezmer Air Base, Iran might hope to raise the costs of that cooperation and possibly drive a wedge between Bulgaria and the US. Bulgarians would find themselves under threat from the Iran war, to which they are indifferent, at the behest of a US ally that has shown increasing reluctance to support them in the war in Ukraine that they consider more important.

Could Iranian missiles reach Europe?

While Iranian missiles could indisputably reach parts of Europe, whether those attacks would further Iranian goals is less clear.

Ali Bakir, a senior non-resident fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, said an Iranian attack on Europe would play into Trump’s hands and intensify Iran’s isolation.

In the event of an attack on countries such as Bulgaria, Iran would effectively force an additional front on Europe to a conflict that many European leaders have resisted joining, much to the irritation of the US leader.

According to Bakir, engaging Europe in the Iran conflict would likely benefit Russia’s war in Ukraine, aided by further straining Europe militarily, “potentially triggering a much wider and more dangerous war with serious international economic and security consequences”.

It may be that, for Tehran, the threat of an attack on a less powerful European country is worth more than missiles actually fired towards Europe.

The threat could shape domestic politics in Europe, keeping focus alive on a conflict that is farther than the immediate war in Ukraine and making European leaders and populations more hesitant to give passive support to the US military effort against Iran.

Iran’s declared aim is to prise Europe away from the US campaign.

However, an actual strike on a member of both the European Union and NATO would turn Europe from a hedging bystander into a belligerent party, trigger Article 4 – which quite possibly results in military retaliation, and hand Washington the European coalition it has so far failed to assemble.

For now, a reasonable conclusion is that Iran has held back by calculating that an Iranian missile attack on Europe could hand Washington a strategic victory.

However, several factors keep the risk of an attack on Europe above zero.

The first is the credibility trap. Having declared that any base used to attack Iranian territory is a legitimate target, Tehran has threatened to extend its retaliation beyond the Middle East if pressed further by the US, but that threat will only remain effective as long as US allies believe Iran is actually willing to do so.

Another factor is that Iran would not consider itself to be attacking Europe at all, but US assets that happen to stand on European soil. Tehran has used a similar distinction in missile attacks against other countries in the region, such as GCC countries. Gulf nations have rejected that notion, saying their nations, populations and infrastructure should not be assaulted amid a war they did not launch, but have not thus far retaliated against Iran directly.

Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, the cohesion of the command and control mechanisms in Iran matters deeply. If the decision to attack is not made by those who devise political strategy, retaliation could be unpredictable. The desire to respond to renewed US attacks by attacking a perceived weak point could result in disastrous overreach.

The longevity of the conflict is arguably a greater threat to Europe than Iranian missile capabilities that NATO defences over Europe could well protect against.

As the war drags on, the real danger for Europe is a prolonged US-Iran war that Washington treats as dormant, with financial effects being felt in European streets and support diverted away from Russia and the Ukraine war.

Iran denies launching missiles at the UAE, suggesting the incident was a ‘false flag operation’.

The United Arab Emirates has imposed an indefinite trade embargo on Iran after accusing Iranian forces of firing two ballistic missiles at the country, an allegation Tehran denies.

In a statement early on Wednesday, the UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the decision was made in “light of escalations that undermine peace and security in the region”.

“All trade, commercial exchanges and financial transactions with Iran have been halted until further notice,” it added.

The statement came after the UAE’s Ministry of Defence said its air defences detected two ballistic missiles launched from Iran, with one falling outside the country’s territorial waters and the other landing within them.

In a follow-up statement, the ministry said the missiles had been “targeting maritime traffic” and promised to “resolutely confront any attempt to undermine the security of the nation or maritime navigation in the region”.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected the accusation as “baseless”, with spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei suggesting it was a “false flag operation” amid the war launched by the United States and Israel against his country.

Baghaei warned the claim “contradicts the principle of good neighbourliness” and urged regional parties to steer clear of what he called unfounded claims against Tehran, and argued that any honest assessment of the situation must also weigh the “malicious actions” of the US and Israel.

US naval blockade

Tuesday’s attack came a day after a 60-day window for US-Iranian peace talks expired without a breakthrough in the more than five-month-old conflict.

In the war’s first six weeks, Iran targeted the UAE with retaliatory strikes more than any other Gulf country, launching more than 530 ballistic missiles, dozens of cruise missiles and over 2,200 drones at what it described as US assets. Tuesday’s strike is the first targeting the UAE since May, and comes days after Abu Dhabi accused Tehran of attacking two of its state-owned ADNOC (Abu Dhabi National Oil Company) vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran has not claimed responsibility for the ADNOC attacks.

The trade embargo comes as the US maintains a naval blockade on Iranian ports, with President Trump signalling a pivot towards economic pressure, rather than military pressure, to compel Tehran into accepting US demands.

Mark Kimmitt, a retired US general and former assistant secretary of state, told Al Jazeera the UAE’s trade embargo could hit Iran harder than anything Washington has imposed, with Dubai having quietly become Iran’s most important trading partner, edging out both China and Turkiye to supply roughly a third of everything Iran imports each year.

The UAE had suspended direct cargo shipping between the two countries in early March, just days after the war began, and resumed trade only in late June via Dubai’s Jebel Ali Port.

“I don’t think that you can overstate or understate the importance of the trade, both financial and goods trade, between Dubai and Iran,” Kimmitt said.

That reliance runs deeper than goods on ships, given Dubai’s standing as a global financial hub, which Kimmitt said has long given Iran a discreet way to move money around international sanctions, cutting off a route Tehran has long relied on for years. “In many ways, the embargo being put on by the UAE is even more significant than the embargo being put on by the United States,” he said.

The former general said he doesn’t expect other Gulf states to follow suit immediately, predicting a “wait-and-see” approach even if Iranian attacks continue.

But he said the UAE’s move is significant enough that Tehran could interpret it as bordering on an act of war, likening it to the near-total embargo the US imposed on Japan after World War II.

Amid trade embargoes, asset freezes and attacks on ships as part of a naval blockade, Washington has announced a plan to enact a new wave of restrictions on Iran, targeting its economy.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said last Thursday that the United States was planning to inflict more economic damage on Tehran as early as this week. The US would apply measures that have “never been seen in the history of economic isolation on a country”, Bessent said.

A day later on Friday, President Donald Trump echoed Bessent and said that Iran would be hit hard economically.

As the memorandum of understanding (MoU) expired on Monday, Trump called on Tehran to hold up the “white flag of surrender” but insisted that he was in no rush to end the war.

Since February 2025, following the start of Trump’s second term in office, Washington has sanctioned “more than 1,000 Iran-related persons, vessels, and aircraft”, the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) said in May.

Remaining defiant, Iran’s authorities have said they could shift to offensive operations, and are simultaneously prepared to counter a potential ground invasion.

According to Mohammad Reza Farzanegan, professor of economics of the Middle East at Philipps-Universitat Marburg in Germany, the naval blockade creates a new situation in which traditional sanctions packages are combined with the use of military force to generate a physical shortage of goods in the Iranian economy.

“This is an additional burden that raises new questions for policymakers in Tehran: Should they choose a deal whose terms are dictated by the Trump administration, or should they continue the armed conflict to break the blockade of the ports? It currently seems that Iran is leaning toward the second option,” he told Al Jazeera.

Farzanegan said that for the US to achieve its goals, namely changing the behaviour of the Iranian government, it should also “open a diplomatic exit and offer it as an option”.

If armed conflict does fully resume, he said “the costs will not be confined to the target of sanctions; the global economy will also pay a price” through continued disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and attacks across the region.

Iran emphasises MoU commitments

Meanwhile, talks have stalled in finding a way out of the war, although Iran’s negotiations have been ongoing with Oman and other mediators over a potential temporary arrangement in the Strait of Hormuz, where one-fifth of the global oil and natural gas used to flow before the war.

Iran’s parliament speaker and top negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, told state media on Tuesday that the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed until the US meets the conditions of the now-expired MoU.

“Let me state clearly: Until the commitments made by the United States in the memorandum of understanding, including the lifting of the blockade, the release of frozen assets, the lifting of oil sanctions, the end of threats and military operations on all fronts, and other conditions to which America agreed in the memorandum, are implemented, the strait will not be opened,” Ghalibaf said.

With tensions soaring before the war, Iran’s government delegated some authorities to border provinces to import essential goods and build up inventories.

To survive the blockade over recent months, Iran has also focused more on rerouting imports of food, consumer goods and industrial inputs through land borders with Pakistan, Turkiye and others, as well as through the Caspian Sea with Russia and Central Asia.

During the brief ceasefire period established under the MoU, the blockade was lifted for several weeks in late June and early July, enabling the rapid export of oil stored on board supertankers and giving the military time to regroup.

But Iran’s oil exports have stopped once again since the breakdown of the deal, and US and Israeli authorities have discussed disrupting Iran’s inland imports to ramp up the pressure.

The mounting pressure has only exacerbated Iran’s structural economic issues, rooted in decades of domestic corruption and mismanagement, as well as sanctions and international isolation.

For the country’s roughly 90 million people, the consequences include persistent inflation, insecure and poorly paid work, declining purchasing power and growing uncertainty about the future.

Against this backdrop, President Masoud Pezeshkian’s administration this week named stabilising markets, protecting livelihoods and strengthening national resilience as its priorities for the next two years.

However, Mahdi Ghodsi, a senior economist at the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, said Iran’s prolonged stagnation over most of the past 15 years suggested that government policy had not been aligned with those objectives.

He told Al Jazeera that to guarantee sustainable economic growth, the Islamic Republic would have to reduce confrontation with the US, the West and Israel while pursuing meaningful domestic reforms that would involve moving away from coercive social controls to restore some public trust.

“Without both external de-escalation and domestic political reform, the government may be able to slow the deterioration in living standards and market conditions, but it is unlikely to deliver durable stability, stronger livelihoods or genuine national resilience,” Ghodsi said.

Energy in the crosshairs

US media outlets have reported that Washington’s forthcoming measures against Iran could include sanctioning additional independent Chinese refineries – known as “teapots” – that buy or process Iranian crude.

OFAC has already imposed secondary sanctions on smaller China- and Hong Kong-based entities processing Iranian oil money, but it could go a major step further by following through on its threat of designating larger Chinese banks if they touch Iran-linked funds.

That move risks prompting a response from China, at a time when Washington is concerned about curtailed exports of critical minerals.

Economist Ghodsi said energy remained the most powerful source of US leverage over Iran, particularly after US and Israeli attacks damaged the country’s infrastructure.

“If the blockade persists into autumn and winter, the country risks severe supply shortages. Iran was already struggling with electricity, gas and water imbalances before this shock; further constraints would mean deeper rationing and temporary shutdowns in industry to preserve household supply,” he said.

The government has also reduced some subsidised petrol quotas for personal vehicles and has been considering raising fuel costs – after an earlier increase last December. Necessary but costly fuel imports amounting to several billion dollars per year have stopped as a result of the war and blockade.

Ghodsi said that is why the US would likely target Iran’s external energy trade, involving maritime transport, shipping services, insurance, payments and the foreign buyers and intermediaries that keep those flows operating.

“In practice, that means tighter enforcement against entities in China and elsewhere that facilitate sanctioned energy transactions, together with closer scrutiny of trans-shipment and payment routes through neighbouring countries and other trade partners,” he said.

United States President Donald Trump has threatened to bomb Oman if it “gets in the way” of a peace deal between the US and Iran.

Oman is currently negotiating with Iran over the reopening of the critical Strait of Hormuz, while Iran has repeatedly stated that it will not speak directly to the US.

On Monday, as Iranian officials said they were close to announcing an agreement with Oman, a 60-day Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Washington and Tehran – which had provided for a period of peace talks but largely fell apart early on – expired with little hope for renewal.

This is not the first time Trump has threatened Oman, a US ally which has never entered into any direct conflict with the US. Oman, through whose territorial waters the contested Strait of Hormuz also flows, has positioned itself as a neutral party in the US-Iran war. Despite that, it has suffered a number of strikes by Iran, which has targeted US military assets and infrastructure around the region in retaliation for US-Israeli attacks.

Now, Trump is threatening to strike it as well.

Here is more about what Trump has threatened, and why.

What did Trump threaten Oman with?

Trump told US broadcaster Fox News on Monday that Iran should surrender, and claimed that his administration had opened a direct backchannel for talks with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

During the interview, he threatened to bomb US ally Oman if it “gets in the way” of US talks with Iran.

“If Oman gets in the way, we’ll bomb the s*** out of them,” he said.

An IRGC spokesman denied Trump’s claim of direct talks, telling Iran’s semi-official Tasnim News: “There are no talks taking place between IRGC officials and the Americans, and this lie by Trump is merely fantasies caused by the delusions and nightmares he has suffered as a result of defeat and desperation in the war.”

Has he threatened Oman before?

Monday was not the first time Trump threatened Oman over the course of the five-month war between the US and Iran. In May, he made a similar threat.

At a cabinet meeting on May 27, a reporter asked Trump what he thought about the idea of Oman and Iran jointly overseeing shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

“ Would you accept a short-term deal that allows Iran and Oman to control the strait?” the reporter asked.

Trump replied with a seemingly offhand threat. “Nobody is going to control it. It’s international waters, and Oman will behave just like everybody else, or we will have to blow them up.”

While there was initial speculation that Trump might have misspoken and said “Oman” instead of “Iran”, the US State Department later shared the comment on social media, with a transcript of the quote that referred to the Arab country.

What is the context for all this?

For the past few weeks, Iran and Oman have been engaged in direct talks, facilitated by mediators in Qatar, to reach an agreement over how to manage maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz in the future.

While Iran had agreed to keep the strait open to shipping without charge for 60 days following the signing of the MoU with the US on June 17, this quickly fell apart as the two sides disagreed over who had ultimate control over the strait – in particular which routes ships should take. Towards the end of June, Iran launched strikes on a number of ships which had followed an Oman-issued route, approved by the US, rather than its own route, and the US restarted strikes on Iran for nearly two weeks.

Following that, Iran refused to talk directly to the US, saying it had violated the terms of the MoU which included a cessation of hostilities on all fronts, and began talks with Oman over the future of the strait instead. Iran also issued a list of new demands relating to the lifting of sanctions and a permanent end to US strikes before it would resume talks, it said.

On Monday, Tehran said the two countries have reached an agreement on a new shipping route in the strait and are now preparing a joint declaration.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said the proposed mechanism for control of the strait seeks to protect the interests of both Iran and Oman while allowing commercial shipping to pass through.

“This is the first time that a mechanism is being developed to simultaneously safeguard the sovereign rights of the two littoral states and ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels,” said Baghaei.

The Strait of Hormuz is a critical waterway through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies were shipped before the US-Israel war on Iran began on February 28. Roughly 130 ships sailed through the strait each day.

Iran closed the strait in early March, allowing only a few ships it deemed “friendly” to pass through the strait until it signed the MoU with the US on June 17. Since then, it has become the key issue holding up talks for a lasting peace plan to end the war on Iran.

The US, meanwhile, has established its own blockade on Iranian ports in and around the strait. Last week, it fired on a Panama-flagged cargo vessel it accused of attempting to reach Iranian ports and which, it said, had failed to follow orders to change course.

The crisis has triggered global energy shortages and the price of oil has soared. The price of Brent crude, the global benchmark, was about $66 a barrel just before the Middle East conflict began. Over the course of the war, the price has surged past $100 on several occasions, most recently on July 23. In March, the price rose as high as $119.

Global benchmark Brent crude futures rose to $91.22 a barrel on Tuesday, inching close to a three-week high.

What is Oman’s position on the Iran war?

Oman, which is known for its neutrality, has not publicly stated that it intends to join Iran in controlling the Strait of Hormuz. The US and Oman are close partners with a relationship stretching back nearly 200 years.

The two countries have multiple cooperation treaties, including security partnerships, a free trade agreement and a science and technology deal.

During the war, Iran launched multiple strikes on US military assets and energy infrastructure in neighbouring countries, including Oman.

Oman previously acted as a key mediator between Washington and Tehran as they sought a resolution to the war that began on February 28, when the US and Israel attacked Iran.

So, why is Trump threatening Oman now?

A potential Iran-Oman understanding covering the Strait of Hormuz could cut against one of Washington’s core demands: that Iran relinquish control of the strait as a condition of ending the war. Rather than curbing that control, such a deal would lend it greater legitimacy by formalising Iran’s position.

But experts say Trump is also likely angry that the US has seemingly been cut out of the deal relating to the strait.

“In part, a solution mediated without US intervention and which in fact allows Oman and Iran to manage passage through Hormuz, which lies entirely within the two countries’ territorial waters, would show how impotent the United States is and has been,” Laleh Khalili, a professor of Gulf studies at the University of Exeter, told Al Jazeera.

The US and Iran have also strongly disagreed about whether Iran should be allowed to charge fees to shipping companies using the strait. Under international law, tolls for passing through natural waterways such as Hormuz are forbidden, even when they are not technically in international waters. However, fees for services such as insurance, environmental protection and docking can be charged. It has yet to be seen whether this issue will be addressed in an Iran-Oman agreement.

In late July, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that Iran should not be allowed to charge tolls on vessels traversing Hormuz. Days earlier, Trump himself pledged there would be no tolls for passage through the strait, unless they are collected by his own country.

On August 14, Trump went a step further, telling his supporters in New York that he had plans to declare the Strait of Hormuz a “territory” of the US. “After we finish defeating Iran, which is being very badly defeated, pretty soon I’ll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States,” Trump said.

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, responded to that threat on social media with defiance.

“Trump said that, after Iran’s defeat, he will soon declare the Strait of Hormuz as American territory,” Gharibabadi wrote.

“The Strait of Hormuz cannot be taken over by a tweet, nor by an aircraft carrier, nor by issuing a decree, nor by an election speech. Iran is neither afraid of threats nor intimidated by a show of force.”

The nearly nine-month extended deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Middle East has triggered a mental health crisis among the crew so intense that some sailors have tried to jump overboard, according to some US media reports.

Family members of the exhausted military crew on board the flagship aircraft carrier, reportedly located in the Gulf region, say there are food shortages, while broken toilets and showers have contributed to unsanitary conditions and poor health.

More than 5,000 staff members have been on board the vessel, which has been conducting maritime security and blockade operations at present around the Strait of Hormuz, for that time. It set sail on November 21, 2025 from its homeport of San Diego for an extended deployment to the Asia Pacific and the Middle East.

Since then, the ship has made just one single-day port stop at Naval Base Guam from December 11-12. The lack of port stops is a major issue for a ship the size and complexity of the USS Abraham Lincoln, experts say.

As US President Donald Trump and his defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, declare the United States is ready to continue an “indefinite” blockade on Iranian ports in the Gulf, we look at how this compares with other lengthy aircraft carrier deployments.

What is happening on board the USS Abraham Lincoln?

Reports by two US publications that cover military affairs, the Navy Times and Stars and Stripes, last week quoted family members of military personnel on board the vessel who said they were suffering from declining mental health and morale, and cases of suicidal ideation.

The Navy Times spoke on record with one sailor’s wife, identified as Annabelle Loma, who said he had attempted to jump overboard amid what she described as “severe burnout”.

The reports prompted urgent questions from US lawmakers. On Sunday, Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM), reportedly visited the USS Lincoln.

He praised the crew and stated on social media that “service at sea for long periods isn’t for everyone, while claiming the ship has the lowest number of mental health-related cases of the navy’s 11 active aircraft carriers. “It is uniquely challenging and tough, and every single one of us, including me, reacts to stressors in different ways,” he said.

But there is growing concern among Republican and Democratic lawmakers over what they see as a lack of accountability after Hegseth dismissed mental health reports last week as “completely misrepresented”.

When Trump was asked last week whether the USS Lincoln had been at sea for too long, he told reporters: “No, not nearly long enough.”

The USS Lincoln mission was supposed to end in May but has been extended repeatedly since then.

Last week, it emerged that another ship, the USS George Washington, has been rerouted from its position in the Pacific and will arrive in the Gulf within a week to take over duties from the Lincoln.

How long can US aircraft carrier deployments be?

The longest aircraft carrier deployment since the Vietnam War was the USS Gerald R Ford’s 326-day mission, which began in June 2025, under Trump’s second term in the White House.

That mission included NATO exercises in the Mediterranean, support for the US military operation that captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and operations in the Red Sea during the US-Israel war on Iran.

After beginning its mission as a routine deployment to the Asia Pacific region, the Ford then moved into the South China Sea for security operations, before being deployed to the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Oman to help the US enforce its naval blockade of the Iranian ports.

During this time, the USS Ford met several technical problems, including an onboard fire, which also triggered congressional scrutiny back home.

Lengthy deployments during the Vietnam War

Some of the longest aircraft carrier deployments in US history took place in and around the Gulf of Tonkin during the Vietnam War, with the USS Midway operating for 332 days, the USS Coral Sea operating for 329 days and the USS Saratoga operating for 308 days.

Similar to the USS Lincoln, they faced issues as well. Reports said the intense flight schedule of the active air combat during the Vietnam War pushed crew and operations to their limits.

While there are a number of lengthy aircraft carrier deployments from other countries, they pale in comparison to the US Navy’s record.

Russia’s Admiral Kuznetsov conducted a five-month mission to the Syrian coast which began in October 2016, but suffered several technical breakdowns, including aircraft losses.

The United Kingdom’s HMS Queen Elizabeth completed a seven-month deployment in 2021, which included combat strikes on targets in Iraq and Syria, despite significant breakdowns due to engineering issues.

Why is this issue so critical?

Many lawmakers have raised questions over whether the US can maintain an “indefinite” blockade in the Gulf if conditions on board a flagship aircraft carrier are so dire.

In a letter to Hegseth last week, Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal raised the alarm over reports of deteriorating mental health on board, as well as shortages of basic supplies, water contamination, an increase in safety incidents and even disruptions to mail services, through which those on board receive care packages.

“These reports warrant immediate attention, but they also raise a broader question: whether the Navy can sustain the operational tempo now being demanded of its carrier force, particularly as this administration repeatedly commits US forces to conflicts of its own choosing and increasingly relies on aircraft carriers to sustain those operations,” Blumenthal wrote.

Experts say the lack of port stops is a major issue for the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Harlan Ullman, a retired senior naval officer and chairman of the strategic advisory firm Killowen Group, told Al Jazeera that ships require onshore care to keep advanced technology operational over long periods.

“Ships need maintenance, particularly ships that are extremely complicated with very advanced weapon systems such as nuclear-powered carriers with very advanced systems, and there are things that you cannot do in terms of maintenance under way,” Ullman said.

“There are lots of things that you can do at sea, but there are far more things that can only be done in port,” he pointed out.

Ullman noted that extended deployments “erode the readiness and capability of that ship the longer it’s at sea, and it lacks the ability to repair and extend maintenance”.

He added that the Trump administration must prioritise naval readiness over politics, saying “this is a national issue, not a local one; and the administration should not be so defensive. It should say, ‘OK, we’ll see what’s going on, and then if there are some issues, we’ll take care of them.’”

What are the drawbacks of deploying aircraft carriers?

Aircraft carriers are built to be on deployment for many months at a time. However, that comes with a high cost, as extended cruises increase the risk of technical breakdowns and can also lead to reduced staff morale and mental health concerns.

Large aircraft carriers are expensive. The USS Abraham Lincoln cost $2.2bn to build in 1989, and it costs tens of millions of dollars to operate on a daily basis.

Recent conflicts in the Red Sea have also underscored the vulnerability of large aircraft carriers. Houthi rebels, who do not possess a formal navy, have nevertheless managed to put significant pressure on large US Navy aircraft carriers operating near the limits of their missile range.

At one point during the US-Israel war on Iran, the USS Gerald Ford was forced to sail hundreds of miles away from the Iranian coast to reduce the risk of being hit by missiles, limiting its effectiveness.

Israel kills 11 in deadliest attacks on Lebanon since June truce as Iran and Oman continue talks on Hormuz.