war

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.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announces new sanctions on Tehran to sever financial support for the regime, urging US allies to support the measures.

Washington also rescinded designation of HTS, formerly led by Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, as a ‘terrorist’ organisation.

The United States has removed Syria from its list of “State Sponsors of Terrorism,” the US Treasury has announced.

A statement issued on Monday confirmed the revocation of a decades-old designation placed on the country during the rule of the ousted Assad regime.

The announcement confirms a decision initially revealed last month. It also revoked the designation of al-Nusrah Front – the group formerly led by the now-President Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – as a global “terrorist” organisation.

The move, first announced earlier this year pending a review by Congress, removes a critical impediment to investment in Syria, as the country seeks to reestablish itself in the international community and markets.

It represents a further vote of confidence in al-Sharaa, who has launched what many experts have described as a charm offensive aimed at Western powers, including meetings with President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron.

“Today’s action will help foster additional investment in Syria to promote political and economic stability,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement, adding that it is “in line with President Trump’s promise to deliver sanctions relief to Syria”.

Having lifted sanctions on Syria in June 2025, alongside the European Union, the US announced in July its decision to delist Syria from its “terror” list, citing efforts by al-Sharaa to unify the country.

HTS was once al-Qaeda’s official branch in Syria and was led by al-Sharaa. Under his leadership, the group removed former President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024 following a lightning offensive.

The ⁠designation of the state carried restrictions on US foreign ⁠assistance, defence exports, and ⁠financial transactions, so Syria’s removal from the list is already being celebrated in the country, particularly by financial officials.

The governor of Syria’s central bank, Safwat Raslan, said on X that this is “a historic step that restores the country to its natural place in the global economic system”. He added that the bank is “working to build a modern and reliable financial system”.

Syrian Finance Minister Mohammed Barnieh described Washington’s move as “a major and historic success for Syrian diplomacy”, according to the country’s official news agency SANA.

It “opens a major and long-awaited door to strengthening Syria’s integration into the global economic and financial system, attracting investment and modern technologies, and supporting development opportunities”, he said.

US envoy to Syria Tom Barrack, meanwhile, called the end of the designation a “decisive step in Syria’s remarkable journey from isolation to partnership, and from a source of terrorism to a committed partner in the global fight against it”.

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.

Aug. 23 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday accused Canada of wanting the “benefits of being a state, without being one” as trade tensions between the U.S. and its northern neighbor escalate.

“Canada wants the benefits of being a State, without being one!!!,” Trump posted on social media overnight. “They have also charged our great farmers, for many years, massive amounts of Tariffs. No more!!!”

Trump’s remarks came after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Ottawa next month would impose retaliatory tariffs on the U.S. after the Trump administration’s 50% tariffs on Canada took effect.

Carney told a press conference that his government would “match Washington’s new tariffs dollar for dollar in order to protect Canadian workers, farmers, families and businesses.”

He said further details on the retaliatory tariffs would be released in the “coming days,” with the levies targeting steel, dairy, appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper, and electronics.

Carney said Ottawa is “reluctantly” taking this step.

Trump has previously discussed making Canada the 51st state, which Canadian leaders have rejected.

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’”.

Ukrainians have observed a national holiday meant to instil patriotism during the fifth year of their war against Russia.

On Ukrainian National Flag Day on Sunday, participants raised the flag, observed a minute of silence for those killed in the war, sang the Ukrainian national anthem and listened to patriotic and folk songs performed by a military orchestra.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy attended ceremonies in the capital, Kyiv.

Addressing military personnel, Zelenskyy said the flag “symbolises what is most precious” to the thousands of soldiers defending “our entire Ukraine”.

Ukraine’s National Flag Day was established as a national holiday on August 23, 2004, one day before its Independence Day.

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.

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced retaliatory tariffs on the United States after Washington imposed a 50 percent levy on $20bn worth of Canadian goods.

Carney, speaking in Ottawa on Saturday, said the new Canadian tariffs would target US steel, dairy and electronics industries among others and take effect on September 8.

“Canada will match Washington’s new tariffs dollar for dollar in order to protect Canadian workers, farmers, families, and businesses,” Carney told reporters.

The announcement came after days of intense negotiations broke down late on Friday, worsening a delicate relationship between the longtime trade partners and allies.

US President Donald Trump’s new tariffs hit sectors including wine, furniture, dairy products, cement, clothing, fishing rods and hockey equipment, and cover some $20bn worth of goods, or 5.5 percent of Canadian exports to the US.

Carney said Trump set conditions that were ultimately unacceptable even though earlier talks had been positive.

“In recent days, the United States proposed new terms that were uneconomic, unfair and undermined the net benefits for Canada, and called into question the reliability of any deal,” Carney said, adding these demands included curtailing Canada’s ability to forge new trade deals.

“We cannot accept what they’ve offered, and we will not give what they’ve asked.”

He added that US negotiators also made unacceptable “threats” to the French language and “Quebec culture”, referring to the French-speaking province in eastern Canada.

No new talks planned

Carney is one of the few global leaders to retaliate against US tariffs and has pledged to forge new trade and military alliances, despite Canada’s dependence on the ‌US for nearly 70 percent of its exports.

Canada will impose tariffs on US steel, dairy, appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper, and electronics, along with some products the US previously targeted in Canada, Carney said from Ottawa’s Parliament building. The government will release details on its response in the coming days, he said.

Carney said Canada would announce support measures next week for industries hit ⁠by the new US duties, adding these measures could last years.

There was no immediate comment from the White House.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told Fox News on Saturday that no new ⁠talks are planned with Canada.

“We’re moving forward with measures that respond to Canadian retaliation,” Greer said. “They’ve always had the best deal, and they still would have an even better deal, but they didn’t want that.”

The new US tariffs are expected to have a major impact on Canada’s economy.

“Costs are going to go up, prices are going to go up, unemployment is going to go up as well,” said Al Jazeera’s David Mercer, reporting from the Canadian city of Calgary. “And it’s been warned that business owners – small [and] medium-sized businesses – some of those will have to declare bankruptcy,” he said.

At the same time, Mercer said, Carney is selling the trade war as an opportunity for Canada to strengthen its trade relations with other countries.

“He’s been around the world, he’s been talking to countries in Asia, in Europe, shoring up new trade relationships, wanting to diversify Canada’s economy and Canada’s trade relationships with other countries around the world just to get away from that dependency that Canada has traditionally had on the United States,” he said.

Public opinion surveys in Canada show most Canadians back a “tougher approach” to the US in the trade talks. A poll by Leger last week said 56 percent of Canadians favoured a hard line and making no more concessions.

‘Bad deal’

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, one of the most vocal ⁠opponents of US tariffs, supported Carney’s decision to retaliate.

“I’m glad he didn’t sign that deal because it was a bad deal. It was a bad deal for Ontario. It was a bad deal for the auto sector, the steel sector, and manufacturing sector,” Ford told reporters on Saturday.

In Port Colborne, Ontario, resident Stuart Edwards said the trade war was going to “hurt everybody” and “it’s just sad”.

“We have a bully in Washington, and he’s just hitting us all with the big stick all the time,” he said. “And we’re not going to put up with it; Canada isn’t. We’ll fight back.”

But Pamela Coulis, from Fort Erie in Canada, was worried about rising prices.

“I think probably the gas will go up even more, and all products, from food to, I don’t know, wood, everything else,” she said.

Diamond Isinger, who served as a special adviser to former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, said both countries will suffer from the trade war.

“It’s going to cause pain and challenge for Canadians and Americans alike, in terms of the actions that, unfortunately, the US has taken as well as Canada’s retaliation. But ultimately this was the way forward; this was the only realistic next step,” she said.

“Because the US administration responds best, of all the responses that they could have, to all the actions that a government like Canada could take, to strength,” Isinger added.

“So, we could not simply accept 50 percent tariffs going forward. We had to move forward with our own retaliatory package.”

In the US, the escalating trade war was met with anger by Democratic lawmakers and governors from border states including Minnesota, New York and Washington, who blamed Trump for triggering chaos that would raise costs for US businesses and families.

“Needlessly picking fights with our allies and raising prices here at home. That’s Trump’s economic policy in a nutshell,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul posted on X.

The Business Roundtable, a group of 200 chief executives of leading US corporations, also warned the new tariffs “risk raising costs for American businesses and families”, and urged both governments to resume negotiations.

Iran security chief Rezaei says any state joining US would be considered an enemy and Tehran would target their interests in retaliation.

The warning comes as US President Donald Trump threatens to isolate Iran economically, to weaken its government.

Iran has threatened to treat nearby countries as enemies and target their interests if they join a United States campaign to cripple its economy.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, issued the warning in a Saturday interview with state broadcaster IRIB.

“We’re telling all nearby countries not to join the US economic war. Otherwise, we will consider them as enemies,” Rezaei told IRIB.

His remarks come on the heels of escalating economic threats from the administration of US President Donald Trump.

On Wednesday, Trump announced his government would undertake the “most crushing economic operation” yet against Iran, as part of ongoing hostilities between the two countries.

The US and Israel have been locked in a war with Iran since February 28, when the two allies launched an initial volley of attacks against Tehran.

In addition to threatening Iran’s economy this week, Trump pledged “tremendous economic consequences” for any country that gives Iran “any type of lifeline”.

His Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, echoed his threats the following day, saying, “You’re either with us or against us.”

In Saturday’s interview, Rezaei described Iran’s regional strategy as a three-stage sequence, which would start with efforts to de-escalate tensions with neighbouring countries.

“First we negotiate. Then, we try to separate them from America with pleasant language, because we are not really looking to expand the war,” he said.

Any countries that continue to side with the US would then be given time to reconsider, he said. “But in the third stage, we will definitely act.”

While the US has not stopped its military operations against Iran, Rezaei suggested that the Trump administration was betting that economic pressure would fracture Iranian society, forcing the war to come to an end.

“They hope that, if possible, they can break our unity with economic pressure and a group of protesters will take to the streets, and in a way, they will come to the aid of American F-35s,” he said, referring to a kind of military aircraft.

Negotiations to end the conflict have stalled in recent months, following the failure of a June 17 memorandum of understanding (MoU) that called for an “immediate and permanent termination of military operations”.

Control over the Strait of Hormuz, a major shipping lane off the coast of Iran, has become an enduring sticking point between the US and Iran.

Iran quickly moved to shut down traffic through the strait early in the war, sending the price of goods like oil and fertiliser skyrocketing.

Countries in the Middle East that were previously reliant on the strait for exports have started to pursue substitute trade routes.

But Rezaei warned that Iran would target those alternative oil-shipping routes out of the Gulf if regional states took part in the US’s plans of economic warfare.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Saturday also decried the incoming US measures as an assertion of “extraterritorial sovereignty” over United Nations member states.

Tehran has also reportedly considered widening its target list beyond the Middle East, with media outlets reporting it could strike US allies in Europe who have supported Trump’s operations.

Tehran, Iran – The Iranian military is looking at how to respond to the United States’s planned implementation of economic measures that are designed to “collapse” the government in Tehran.

It comes as US President Donald Trump announced this week the “most crushing economic operation” against Iran, saying Tehran would face “economic warfare and isolation on an unprecedented scale”.

Iranian commanders are reviewing new military strategies to counteract the new US threats.

“The only intelligent and effective solution to navigate difficult historical junctures and neutralise the enemy’s plots today and in the future,” Ahmad Vahdi, commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), warned on Friday.

Marking National Day of Defence Industry in Iran on Saturday, Ali Abdollahi, chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, hailed a “deterrent defensive industrial revolution” in the domestic production of weaponry.

But as happened last year, authorities opted not to exhibit new arms.

“We have limited unveilings of weapons and equipment in order to surprise the enemy and safeguard the country’s defensive information and secrets,” Ministry of Defence spokesman Reza Talaei-Nik told state media on Saturday.

However, he claimed that in the 12 months after the 12-day war with Israel and the US in June 2025, Iran doubled its production of weapons and defensive equipment.

Since the start of the current war with the US and Israel on February 28, manufacturing of some “strategic and prioritised products” has more than tripled, he claimed.

Talaei-Nik also said more than 9,300 companies in Iran are involved in producing weapons, which means US and Israeli strikes would not be able to destroy this sector.

Acting Defence Minister Majid Ebn-e Reza said on Friday that compared to last year’s war with Israel and the US, the Iranian armed forces were able to achieve deeper penetration of enemy bases, greater strike accuracy, and more successful air defence interceptions.

In another future war, the IRGC will deploy new generations of warheads for its ballistic and cruise missiles, as production and development never stopped, IRGC spokesman Hossein Mohebbi said on Thursday.

The truce between the US and Iran, which took hold on April 8, followed nearly 40 days of intense bombing and involved thousands of flight sorties.

The White House claimed that more than 85 percent of Iran’s defence-industrial base had been destroyed, including the majority of its ballistic missiles, mobile launchers and long-range drones.

It also said that more than 150 Iranian warships were destroyed, every submarine sunk, and 97 percent of Iran’s naval-mine inventory eliminated.

But a confidential US intelligence assessment reported by media in May found that Iran retained approximately 75 percent of its mobile launchers and 70 percent of its pre-war missile inventory.

Even after an additional two weeks of intense bombardment by the US in July, the IRGC and the Iranian army continued to launch missiles and drones at US bases and international shipping in the Strait of Hormuz – although at a slower pace compared with the start of the war.

Iranian commanders have said the July strikes by the US signalled potential planning for ground operations in southern Iran, and the military was ready to counter any such efforts by Washington.

Experts have said Iran has continued to produce weapons in geographically dispersed underground bases that have stayed out of reach of US bombs, even as many overground manufacturing lines were decimated.

In addition to the more complex and costly ballistic missiles, cheaper and easier-to-make explosive drones have helped Iran consume a large number of US interceptors, reveal radar positions, force airports or energy sites to suspend operations, and create disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran’s air defences and ageing air force largely failed to prevent US, Israeli and Arab breaches of its airspace during bombing runs.

But smaller electro-optical, heat-seeking and man-portable systems have managed some interceptions, including the downing of an F-15 fighter jet.

At least 45 advanced MQ-9 Reaper drones of the US military, about a quarter of the entire fleet at the cost of more than $1.3bn, were either shot down by Iran or were lost through data-link or operational failures, according to US media reports.

In the Strait of Hormuz, which US President Donald Trump declared US territory this week, Washington and its allies have managed to increase discrete oil and energy transfers over recent weeks.

But despite significant damage inflicted on Iran’s naval capabilities, missile, drone and fast boat attacks mean oil flows via the Hormuz are still considerably lower than their pre-war levels.

Disruptions to sea traffic are also happening in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandeb strait, where Iran-aligned Houthis in Yemen have intermittently clashed with Saudi Arabia and its interests.

Iran and the US are not engaged in any meaningful dialogue, so a diplomatic way out of the war is currently not in sight.

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.

“God of War” has a new Kratos.

Dave Bautista will take over as the lead in the Amazon Prime live-action TV series based on the widely revered video game franchise of the same name.

“Sons of Anarchy” alum Ryan Hurst had initially landed the role of one of the most famous dads in video game history, but in June he suffered an injury on-set while performing a stunt.

Hurst was announced as Kratos in January, and in a social media post he said that he used to play as Kratos. “Now I get to be him,” he wrote. “Grateful to pick up the axe, and honored by the fans who made this story legendary.”

Hurst needed surgery after severely tearing his bicep, and the recovery time would push production into 2027, which reportedly conflicted with filming schedules. Earlier this year, Hurst completed filming on four episodes of the first season of the highly anticipated show, but those will be scrapped and reshot with Bautista stepping in, and production resuming in the fall.

“God of War,” based on PlayStation’s ancient-mythology themed video game, follows Kratos — a Spartan by birth who later becomes the Greek god of war — and his son, Atreus, as they set off on a journey to spread the ashes of their wife and mother, Faye. Along the way, Kratos tries to help mold his son into a better god, and Atreus teaches his dad how to be a better man.

Bautista, a WWE wrestling champ turned movie star of Greek and Filipino descent, will join a cast that includes Callum Vinson as Atreus, Mandy Patinkin as Odin, Ed Skrein as Baldur, Max Parker as Heimdall, Ólafur Darri Ólafsson as Thor, Teresa Palmer as Sif, Alastair Duncan as Mimir, Jeff Gulka as Sindri, Danny Woodburn as Brok, Sonya Walger as Freya, Island Austin as Thrud, Ben Chapple as Magni, Louis Cunningham as Modi, and Evelyn Miller as Gna.

Emmy-winning director Frederick E.O. Toye, known for “Shōgun,” “The Boys” and “Fallout,” is helming the first two episodes of the forthcoming series.

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”.

China opposes the US and Western escalation against Iran and insists on condemning the US and Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear targets. China considers the US and Israeli military attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities a blatant violation of international law and the UN Charter. While Beijing officially adheres to nuclear non-proliferation, it will hold the US directly responsible and will oppose the imposition of new international sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council. China will work to hold Washington accountable. Beijing believes that the US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement is the root cause of the current impasse in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) negotiations. The Chinese Foreign Ministry asserts that the policy of maximum pressure and economic sanctions against Tehran will not resolve the crisis but will only exacerbate tensions. China views Tehran’s threat to withdraw from the NPT as an understandable reaction to the maximum pressure exerted upon it, but it consistently prefers diplomatic solutions and supports maintaining the international legal framework to prevent escalation.  The Chinese stance came after Iranian parliamentarians, including Ebrahim Rezaei, asserted that withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the best response to the Trump administration’s escalation of economic warfare.

The main dimensions of the Chinese position regarding the Iranian threat to withdraw from the NPT are embodied in China’s rejection of pressure and sanctions against Iran. China maintains that the escalating US sanctions and policies against Tehran will not resolve the nuclear crisis but rather exacerbate it. Chinese intelligence, military, political, and strategic circles have adopted a strategy of legal consideration versus feasibility. Experts and observers close to Chinese circles argue that Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT is a legitimate legal right for independent states, but Beijing implicitly suggests that such a move could trigger harsher international sanctions against Tehran. Therefore, Beijing is working to (obstruct UN sanctions against Iran). China, along with Russia, has expressed its readiness to block the activation of the snapback mechanism or any harsh international sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council to protect its interests and regional stability, while adhering to a political settlement. Beijing is calling on all parties to return to the negotiating table and maintain regional and international stability, instead of taking radical and escalatory steps that violate international treaties.

In my analysis, China will insist on referring the Iranian issue to international forums, such as the Security Council, using its veto power to condemn and block any resolutions issued against Iran. Here, China is expected to cooperate with Russia to obstruct any Western or American Security Council resolutions aimed at condemning Iran or imposing new, harsh UN sanctions. China will maintain its commitment to dialogue by continuing to call for a return to the political negotiating table, while publicly acknowledging Tehran’s previous assurances that it is not seeking to produce nuclear weapons. Here, we must understand all the strategic parameters of China’s position regarding the escalation against Iran over its nuclear program through the lens of China’s opposition to nuclear armament. Despite China’s understanding of Iran’s motives and its right to peaceful energy, it categorically rejects Tehran’s move towards acquiring a nuclear military arsenal in order to preserve the stability of the international order and prevent a regional arms race. This is coupled with the desire of relevant circles in Beijing to safeguard their interests. Therefore, Beijing will strive to avoid sliding into a direct confrontation with the West and the United States while continuing to provide Iran with as much economic and diplomatic support as possible in order to alleviate Iran’s isolation.

China supports Tehran diplomatically, emphasizing dialogue and rejecting the unilateral sanctions imposed by Washington. Despite the ongoing pressure, the likelihood of direct war remains low, as a major war of attrition is avoided. China’s position is characterized by its call for diplomatic solutions and dialogue based on mutual respect, its rejection of unilateral US economic sanctions against Iran, and its insistence that all parties address the root causes of the tension and resume the nuclear agreement. This is especially relevant given the Iranian threat to withdraw from the agreement, voiced by several members of the Iranian parliament who believe that remaining in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is pointless under continued US pressure.  Intelligence, military, political, and strategic circles in Beijing considered the Iranian parliamentary proposal a political response to the tightened US economic sanctions against Tehran. Chinese intelligence circles are well aware that an actual Iranian withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty requires the approval of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. Should this occur—a slim possibility according to Chinese strategic assessments—it would mean the potential outbreak of a full-scale war. Therefore, strategic assessments in Beijing suggest that the potential confrontation between Washington and Tehran will likely escalate into a protracted war of attrition rather than a full-scale military clash. According to Chinese analyses, both Washington and Tehran prefer economic pressure and the prospect of open negotiations to the option of open warfare. Hence, China seeks to curb any military escalation that could threaten energy security and regional stability.

Accordingly, China supports the continuation of the diplomatic and political track to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. It rejects pressures, escalatory policies, and economic sanctions against Tehran, while simultaneously calling for dialogue based on mutual respect and the preservation of regional stability, without supporting any sudden steps that could fuel the conflict. China’s general position stems from its rejection of sanctions. Beijing believes that the policy of maximum pressure and economic sanctions does not resolve the nuclear issue. Therefore, China consistently calls for adherence to dialogue to resolve differences through peaceful political and diplomatic means and to resume negotiations. China also provides strategic support to Iran. In this regard, China stands with Iran in the face of Western and American pressure. China is working alongside Russia to submit draft resolutions to the UN Security Council to support de-escalation, extend the agreement’s framework, address threats of withdrawal, and avoid mutual escalation. China urges all parties to avoid any unilateral steps or escalatory measures, such as triggering the snapback mechanism or mutual withdrawals from international agreements and treaties, which could lead to a loss of control.  Therefore, Beijing prefers to contain this crisis and the Iranian threats to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty through negotiating frameworks that preserve the basic structure of the non-proliferation regime, while holding the United States and European countries partly responsible due to Washington’s previous withdrawal from the same nuclear agreement that Tehran is now threatening to withdraw from.

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.