war

Two scenarios for the Yemen war | Houthis

The attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis on Saudi Arabia have pushed the war in Yemen to a new level. The targeting of civilian infrastructure, including airports, which has killed at least a dozen people and injured hundreds, has left no room to maintain the “red lines” that previously outlined the limits of escalation.

This is a reckless gamble by the Houthis which is not in their interest. They are aware that the retaliation will be fierce, yet they continue to attack Saudi Arabia to fulfil Iran’s agenda that seeks heightened tensions before the United States midterms.

Given the motivation to escalate, the present situation has the potential to develop into two scenarios: A major region-wide operation against the Houthis or a war of attrition.

Scenario one: A united front against the Houthis

In response to the Houthi escalation, Saudi Arabia is striving to garner maximum international support while deepening its regional and international alliances. The aim is to come up with a united front capable of taking on what has become a regional threat.

Riyadh is certainly looking to its Gulf neighbours who, themselves, are impacted by the continuing conflict in the region. There is a collective realisation that everyone is in grave danger, not just Saudi Arabia.

Therefore, Gulf states – perhaps with the exception of Oman – will support Riyadh both directly and indirectly in the fighting in Yemen.

Pakistan and Turkiye are also likely to join the front, having signed with Saudi Arabia a defence agreement known as the Mecca Pact. The pact is to be ratified by the Turkish parliament in the next few days, opening the way for Turkish military deployment in support of Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, indirect involvement by Turkiye and Pakistan, along with logistical and intelligence support, appears to be already well under way.

A US intervention is also possible, although it seems unlikely before the US midterms, as military engagements in the Middle East remain unpopular among US voters.

A region-wide coalition can help support the counteroffensive of the forces loyal to the internationally recognised Yemeni government already under way. This could give the necessary push to retake the western coastal region, including areas beyond Bab al-Mandeb and Dhubab.

Such gains could ease pressure on Red Sea shipping and potentially shift the military balance in favour of the government. The opening of additional fronts across other Yemeni cities and governorates could stretch Houthi forces, disperse their resources, and increase the likelihood of further government advances.

Retaking Sanaa could also be on the horizon. The primary obstacle delaying the Yemeni government’s recapture of the city is internal discord among the various factions within the government itself, compounded by negative external interference that exacerbates these rifts and weakens the collective effort to confront the Houthis.

Recent measures taken by the government, specifically efforts to unify its decision-making and consolidate its military operations command, have yielded noticeable progress on the ground. However, achieving the ultimate objective of retaking Sanaa requires sustained effort and focused determination.

If government forces make substantial gains, that could force the Houthis to offer concessions in exchange for a pause in fighting. They have done that before. Their purpose would not be to seek peace but to get enough breathing room to regroup and eventually go back to fighting. Negotiators should keep that in mind when approaching talks with the Houthis.

Scenario two: A war of attrition

If the Saudi-led coalition and the Yemeni government succumb to internal divisions and disagreements, this may slow progress against the Houthis. This would allow the Houthi fighters to hold on to their positions while increasing their pressure on the strategic town of Taiz and maintaining the campaign against civilian targets in Saudi Arabia.

Such a development could further complicate the conflict, increase civilian casualties and displacement, and prolong the war without producing a decisive military outcome.

This will have a significant economic impact on Saudi Arabia and complicate the implementation of its development goals, as it would have to prioritise defence spending.

The rest of the Gulf economies will also be negatively impacted because Saudi Arabia plays such a central role in the region. What is more, losing ground to the Houthis would mean that the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz would also continue, disrupting energy exports from the region.

In this scenario, there will be “no victor, no vanquished” deadlock in Yemen, but Iran would emerge as winner. A war of attrition along the Red Sea coast would provide Tehran with significant breathing room, allowing it to alleviate pressure on its own war efforts.

This would enable Iran to use the Houthi card as leverage in the intermittent negotiations it conducts with the international community, emboldening it to raise the bar regarding its conditions and demands during those talks.

This means that the only way to resolve the crisis in Yemen is decisive military action led by the Yemeni government and supported by a region-wide coalition. For that to happen, the government has to get its internal affairs and its relations with allies in order.

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

Source link

Iran war live: Saudi coalition hits Houthi sites; Aramco office hit in east | US-Israel war on Iran News

Source link

Middle East and Central Asia’s economy to shrink in 2026 amid war, IMF says | Business and Economy News

Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar face double-digit declines in GDP amid the fallout from the US-Israel war on Iran.

The economy of the Middle East and Central Asia is set to shrink in 2026 amid the fallout of the US-Israel war on Iran, with countries such as Kuwait and Qatar facing double-digit contractions, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The region’s gross domestic product (GDP) is forecast to contract by 0.3 percent this year, a sharp downgrade from the 1.9 percent expansion projected in April, the IMF said in its latest economic outlook on Tuesday.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The IMF cited the prolonged disruption to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a conduit for one-fifth of global oil supplies in peacetime, for the downgraded outlook.

Kuwait, Iraq and Qatar are forecast to have the most severe economic contractions, with their GDPs expected to shrink by 16.7 percent, 16 percent and 15.6 percent, respectively.

Bahrain’s GDP is forecast to contract by 11.3 percent, while Iran’s economy is projected to shrink by 7.6 percent.

Saudi Arabia, which has partially offset the hit to its energy sector by boosting oil exports through the East-West pipeline, is projected to record negative growth of 3.3 percent.

Kyrgyzstan is expected to have the strongest growth in the region, with GDP forecast to expand 9 percent.

The Middle East and Central Asia is the only region that is expected to experience negative growth in 2026.

Emerging and developing Asia’s GDP is forecast to grow 5.1 percent, while the economies of Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean are projected to expand 4.5 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively.

The United States and China, the world’s two largest economies, are forecast to register growth of 2.3 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively, while the eurozone’s GDP is estimated to grow 1.1 percent.

The IMF said it expected global GDP to grow 3.1 percent, up from 3 percent in its previous outlook.

The Washington, DC-based institution said while economic activity had proved resilient this year, the global economy faced multiple risks.

“Further escalation in conflicts, a reassessment of expectations surrounding artificial intelligence (AI), renewed trade tensions, and fiscal vulnerabilities could weaken growth,” it said.

“On the upside, stronger momentum in AI investment and productivity gains from AI or a sustained easing of geopolitical and trade tensions could strengthen growth.”

Source link

Trump insists energy ceasefire holds as Ukraine reports new Russian strikes | Russia-Ukraine war News

United States President Donald Trump has insisted that Russia and Ukraine have agreed to stop striking each other’s energy infrastructure, as he called on both sides to end the “ridiculous” war.

Trump’s comments on Monday came even as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Russian forces had struck at least six Ukrainian energy facilities since the US president declared the truce on Sunday.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“Well, they agreed,” Trump told reporters, referring to Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin. “Because I said, ‘You agree’. That’s why they agreed, because I said they agree.”

When pressed about the Russian strikes, Trump said, “Well, I’d have to look at it and see, because there’s been violations on both sides.”

The US president called the war, which began with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a “disaster” and claimed, without offering evidence, that at least 32,000 people had been killed this month alone.

“All I know is that Zelenskyy and Putin have to get together and end that ridiculous war,” he said.

Kyiv blindsided

Trump had blindsided Kyiv and its European allies when he announced the purported energy ceasefire on Sunday. The announcement came two days after he temporarily eased US sanctions on Russian diesel, a move that drew outrage in Europe and Ukraine.

Zelenskyy said it reversed years of Western efforts to isolate Russia’s economy and would only embolden Putin.

Lawmakers from both major parties in the United States have also said the diesel decision appears to violate US law. Several Republicans have objected that it undercuts a law Trump himself signed to tighten restrictions on Moscow.

Zelenskyy said on Monday that Ukraine supported an energy ceasefire and had carried out no attacks on Russian refineries overnight. He said Kyiv was prepared to sign “guarantees to make sure they can be trusted”.

But he said it was “increasingly evident” that Moscow would not comply.

“Today alone, the Russians have attacked 6 energy facilities in Ukraine. 33 people were wounded across the country,” Zelenskyy wrote on social media. “This is what happens when Russia sees the prospect of higher revenues for its war machine.”

Russia, however, has rejected any pause in fighting, with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov promising to press ahead with the military campaign.

“I do not think he deserves a respite,” he said of Zelenskyy. “I don’t think we’ll be buying into assurances and promises again.” Russia, he added, would continue to pursue the goals of what it calls its “special military operation” in Ukraine.

US midterms

Trump, meanwhile, has portrayed Ukraine, rather than Russia, as the main obstacle to peace. He has said that Putin is more eager on a deal than Zelenskyy, and has called on Ukrainians to vote their president out of office – an unusually harsh turn in a relationship that has been strained since Trump returned to the White House in 2025.

Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher, reporting from Washington, DC, said Trump has previously announced agreements between Russia and Ukraine that never materialised.

“He says he wants to protect industries in the US like farmers and ranchers, and to do that he needs the price to go down. But it seems that he thinks there’s a deal, but no one else is sure that there actually is one,” Fisher said.

The latest announcement, according to our correspondent, appeared to be driven by Trump’s desire to bring down diesel prices before the US midterm elections on November 3.

Most polls predict that Republicans will lose control of Congress as voters grow frustrated with rising prices, particularly for petrol.

An opinion survey published on October 1 by the Associated Press news agency and the University of Chicago suggested that 65 percent of US adults blame the White House for the high cost of living, especially Trump’s tariff policies and his new war against Iran.

Ukraine’s European allies, meanwhile, voiced scepticism about the energy ceasefire and approved the largest set of European Union sanctions since Russia’s 2022 invasion.

The bloc’s foreign ministers added some 1,569 people and businesses to the bloc’s sanctions list to maintain the pressure on Moscow.

“Russia will only negotiate seriously under pressure, which is why we are sticking to our sanctions against Russia,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said in Berlin.

Source link

Russia and Ukraine trade strikes amid doubt over ‘energy ceasefire’ | Russia-Ukraine war News

Ukraine’s president says Russian attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure are continuing despite Donald Trump announcing that the two sides had agreed to a so-called ‘energy ceasefire’. Both Moscow and Kyiv are yet to confirm an agreement is in place.

Source link

Ethiopia’s Tigray war: Where do the UAE and Saudi Arabia stand? | News

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia – As renewed fighting in Ethiopia’s Tigray region threatens to destabilise the Horn of Africa, public backing by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of Ethiopia’s federal government and Saudi Arabia’s record of regional diplomacy are drawing scrutiny.

Both Gulf powers have strategic interests in the Horn of Africa, but their roles differ. The UAE has publicly backed Ethiopia’s government while Saudi Arabia has previously helped broker an Ethiopia-Eritrea rapprochement and was reported to have offered to mediate between the two countries in 2025.

The renewed fighting threatens to unravel the November 2022 Pretoria peace agreement, which ended a war between Ethiopia’s federal government and Tigrayan forces. As tensions with Eritrea add to the risks of a wider confrontation, the positions of Abu Dhabi and Riyadh offer a window into the interests of external powers in the crisis.

The UAE: Clear alignment, unproven leverage

On September 25, the UAE condemned attacks by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and its allied armed groups against Ethiopian federal forces, the seizure of airports in Tigray and the escalation in the neighbouring regions of Afar and Amhara.

Sheikh Shakhboot bin Nahyan Al Nahyan, the UAE minister of state, expressed solidarity with Ethiopia’s government and people, reaffirmed support for the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and called for an end to hostilities, the protection of civilians and adherence to the Pretoria Agreement.

The statement made Abu Dhabi’s public position clear: It backs Ethiopia’s federal government while calling for de-escalation and dialogue. It did not establish whether the UAE was providing military assistance or had secured commitments from the parties to end the fighting.

The UAE also has commercial interests across the Horn of Africa. Dubai Ports World (DP World) operates Berbera port in Somaliland, and a shipping route launched in 2025 connects the port with Jebel Ali in the UAE, providing an additional corridor for cargo serving inland destinations, such as Ethiopia. Landlocked since Eritrea’s independence in 1993, Ethiopia relies heavily on Djibouti for access to international trade.

These commercial links help explain Abu Dhabi’s interest in regional stability and its relationship with Addis Ababa. However, they do not establish that the UAE can influence the TPLF, persuade Eritrea to de-escalate or change Ethiopia’s military calculations.

The extent to which Abu Dhabi can use its relationship with the federal government to encourage a political response to the conflict remains unclear.

Saudi Arabia: Diplomatic experience, uncertain engagement

Saudi Arabia has yet to publicly announce its position on the latest fighting in Tigray.

The kingdom has not publicly commented on the renewed war, according to an October 1 analysis by Critical Threats, although it undertook diplomatic efforts earlier this year to reduce tensions between Ethiopia’s federal government and the TPLF.

Saudi Arabia has previously sought to mediate between Ethiopia and Eritrea. In November 2025, Chatham House reported that sources said Riyadh had offered to mediate between the two countries amid rising tensions over maritime access and regional security.

A June 2026 analysis by Germany’s SWP think tank said previous Saudi mediation efforts had failed, partly because negotiations did not address Ethiopia’s interest in the Eritrean port of Assab.

A Royal Saudi Navy frigate sails alongside US 5th Fleet ships during operations to support maritime security in the Red Sea, where rising tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea have raised concerns about wider regional stability. [File: Reuters]
A Saudi navy frigate sails alongside US 5th Fleet ships during operations to support security in the Red Sea, where rising tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea have raised concerns about wider regional stability [File: Reuters]

The kingdom’s broader regional alignment also matters. An August 2026 analysis by the Soufan Center described Saudi Arabia and Egypt as backing Eritrea in opposition to Ethiopia’s ambitions for Red Sea access.

This is an assessment of regional alignment, however, not evidence that Saudi Arabia is directly providing military support to Eritrea or the TPLF in the current fighting.

Saudi Arabia has a strong interest in Red Sea security, a vital corridor for international shipping and its own oil exports. Whether Riyadh will take a more public diplomatic role as tensions escalate remains unclear.

Egypt’s rivalry with Ethiopia adds to regional tensions

Egypt’s role in the crisis is shaped by its longstanding dispute with Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) and its growing ties with Eritrea.

Cairo has also stressed that responsibility for the governance and security of the Red Sea rests with countries bordering the waterway, a position shared by Asmara. The issue has added to regional tensions as Ethiopia seeks reliable access to the sea.

In September, Ethiopia’s army chief, Field Marshal Birhanu Jula, accused Egypt and Sudan of supporting armed groups fighting the federal government, including the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF).

His remarks, reported by Al Jazeera on September 28, did not provide evidence substantiating the accusation. Egypt’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Nader Zaki, subsequently reaffirmed Cairo’s commitment to state sovereignty and non-interference, rejecting suggestions that it had departed from those principles.

He did not directly address the specific allegation of Egyptian support for the TPLF.

Egypt’s relationship with Eritrea has nevertheless become an important part of the regional picture. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi met Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki in Cairo on June 8, 2026.

According to Egypt’s presidency, the talks covered bilateral cooperation, developments in the Horn of Africa and Red Sea security.

The two leaders also stressed the importance of coordination to maintain regional stability. The meeting highlighted closer cooperation between Cairo and Asmara, but did not establish that either country was involved in the renewed fighting in Tigray.

For Cairo, the dispute with Ethiopia extends beyond Tigray to the Nile and the balance of power in the Horn of Africa.

Its relations with Eritrea and its disagreements with Addis Ababa form part of the wider regional context, but they are not evidence of direct Egyptian involvement in the renewed conflict. Whether these regional relationships will affect the course of the fighting remains uncertain.

From Tigray to a wider regional crisis

The risks extend beyond Tigray. Ethiopia’s pursuit of maritime access has become a source of tension with Eritrea, whose Red Sea coastline includes the port of Assab. Addis Ababa argues that reliable access to the sea is a national priority while Asmara rejects any threat to its sovereignty.

Ethiopia has accused Eritrea of sending troops across the border and supporting armed groups. Eritrea denies the allegations and has called on the United Nations Security Council to intervene. The allegations remain contested, but deteriorating relations have raised the stakes of renewed fighting in northern Ethiopia.

A wider confrontation could put more civilians at risk, complicate humanitarian access and disrupt regional trade and security. It would also test whether external partners could encourage restraint without appearing to endorse either side’s military objectives.

The UAE’s close ties with Addis Ababa could provide a channel for diplomatic engagement while Saudi Arabia’s record of regional diplomacy offers a possible opening for renewed talks. However, the available public evidence does not establish that either country is currently leading an initiative to contain the crisis.

Influence must be measured by outcomes

The UAE and Saudi Arabia should not be cast as pursuing opposing strategies simply because one has publicly backed Ethiopia’s federal government while the other’s current position is less visible. Their interests and diplomatic approaches differ, but the evidence does not show that either has decisive influence over the fighting.

Their contribution should be assessed by whether they can help secure concrete steps towards de-escalation, renewed political dialogue and a reduction in tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Public statements, commercial interests and past diplomatic achievements may create opportunities for engagement, but they are not substitutes for progress on the ground.

The Pretoria Agreement remains the framework for a political settlement in Tigray, yet renewed fighting underscores the difficulty of sustaining peace while underlying disputes persist. A durable settlement will depend primarily on the parties themselves. External partners could contribute by encouraging restraint and supporting credible negotiations.

For now, the UAE’s public alignment with Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic record offer different potential channels for engagement. Whether either country can turn those relationships into a meaningful contribution towards de-escalation remains unresolved.

Source link

Iran war live: Trump says Houthis ‘misbehaving’ as Riyadh flights halted | US-Israel war on Iran News

Source link

Why do Iran’s oil ‘intermediaries’ owe the government billions? | US-Israel war on Iran News

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

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

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effect of the nuclear deal

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

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

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

How did money from oil sales go unreturned?

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

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

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

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

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

Source link

Iran sets crosshairs on ‘US-UAE’ oil shuttle out of Strait of Hormuz | US-Israel war on Iran News

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

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

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

epaselect epa13267851 An Iranian woman rides her scooter past Iranian Zolfaghar missiles placed in front of a billboard carrying a picture of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei at Baharestan Square in downtown Tehran, Iran, 28 September 2026. US President Donald Trump turned down Tehran's recent proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. EPA/ABEDIN TAHERKENAREH RESTRICTIONS: NO Access Israel Media/Persian Language TV Stations Outside Iran/Strictly No Access BBC Persian/VOA Persian/Manoto TV/Iran International TV. (As mandated by Iran's Directorate General for Foreign Media) --
A woman rides her scooter past Iranian Zolfaghar missiles placed in front of a billboard of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei at Baharestan Square in downtown Tehran, Iran, September 28, 2026 [Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA]

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

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

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

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

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

Transfer system

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Cascading impact’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source link

Ukraine’s Zelenskyy accuses Russia of violating Trump’s ‘energy ceasefire’ | Russia-Ukraine war News

The EU also announced that it officially added almost 1,600 new sanctions on Russia’s military industrial complex.

Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy has accused Russia of violating the “energy ceasefire” that United States President Donald Trump unilaterally announced at the weekend and promised to respond if the attacks continue.

Speaking at the Warsaw Security Forum via videolink on Monday, the Ukrainian president urged the US to step in to ensure ⁠that Moscow abided by the truce, noting that there have already been “Russian violations of the energy ceasefire announced by ‌President Trump.”

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

“We are waiting for the details of the conditions between the Americans and Russians, ⁠and we are waiting ⁠to see what specific steps the Americans are ready to take,” said Zelenskyy, who expressed surprise at the ceasefire deal.

“This ⁠energy ceasefire, it can work, and it can become a major step toward ending ‌the war if the Americans truly step in now and make ‌sure ‌Russians respect it … If Russia does not agree to an energy ceasefire, we will respond,” Zelenskyy told the Warsaw Security Forum.

Trump’s announcement on Sunday that the two countries had agreed to an “energy ceasefire” caused confusion. It came two days after Trump declared a temporary easing of US sanctions on Russian diesel, prompting outrage from European allies and Kyiv, who said it would only embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Both Ukraine and Russia have been launching mutual attacks on each other’s energy infrastructure for months, adding to upward pressure on global energy prices that have risen amid the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Zelenskyy initially denied any knowledge of the agreement and said it was “news to him,” according to Axios.

Trump has previously taken to his Truth Social account to announce truces or other arrangements before either Kyiv or Moscow confirmed them.

“An energy ceasefire and other steps to reduce escalation and guarantee security are truly needed here in reality, not just on Truth Social,”  Zelenskyy added.

European leaders expressed encouragement at the proposed ceasefire, but agreed with Zelenskyy that it had not taken effect.

“I have not noted, over‌ the last 48 hours, any energy ceasefire coming from the ‌Russian ‌side,” French President Emmanuel Macron told reporters at a Paris autoshow.

At the Warsaw Security Forum, ⁠Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said that “Russia is not interested in ‌a ceasefire, de-escalation, or peace … that is why I will go to Brussels to urge all European partners ⁠to consider increasing ⁠sanctions.”

In Brussels, the European Union announced that it has officially added almost 1,600 new sanctions on Russia’s military industrial complex, including individuals and entities involved in its four-and-a-half-year war, in a bid to maintain pressure on Moscow.

“This is the single largest expansion of our sanctions list since Russia started its war,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas wrote online. “Europe is again showing a united front … We are making it significantly harder, slower and more expensive for Russia to produce the weapons it uses to kill Ukrainians,” she added.

Meanwhile, Russia ⁠attacked Ukrainian gas production facilities belonging to its state ⁠oil and gas ⁠company Naftogaz in the Kharkiv region overnight, which caused a fire, the ‌company said on Monday.

“The attack damaged critical equipment. Our employees are doing everything possible ⁠to repair the ⁠damage as quickly as possible and ⁠prevent risks to ⁠the stable ⁠operation of the energy system,” Naftogaz acting CEO ‌Sergii Fedorenko wrote on Telegram.

A day earlier, Zelenskyy had said that Ukraine was ready to halt attacks on Russian oil refineries if Moscow ceased its own attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

Source link

Iran war live: Riyadh airport hit again; Tehran says US reply ‘inadequate’ | US-Israel war on Iran News

Source link

War and high debt to dominate IMF-World Bank meetings in Bangkok | Business and Economy News

Finance officials from around the world will gather in Bangkok this week under the shadow of a widening war in the Middle East, the biggest-ever energy supply shock and rising interest rates that together pose daunting risks to already-sluggish global economic growth.

The US-Israel war on Iran, now in its eighth month, and its inflationary impact are slated to dominate the agenda and sideline conversations during the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, held outside Washington for the first time in three years.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva told Reuters News Agency that 18,000 people were registered to attend the meetings, 4,000 more than the last off-site meetings held in Morocco in October 2023.

Notably absent will be United States Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who dispatched two senior officials in his stead while he handles some “domestic engagements”, a US official said. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Kevin Warsh will attend and is slated to participate in a public event with Georgieva on October 16.

Several other finance ministers were also staying home due to domestic budget and election duties, but most central bankers would attend, Georgieva said.

Bessent’s decision to skip the high-profile gathering and a meeting of the Group of 20 (G20) major economies, which the US leads this year, may frustrate counterparts amid rising tensions over the Iran war, Ukraine’s battle against Russia’s invasion, and the US move to impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court.

Fossil energy reserve release

The Group of Seven (G7) countries have agreed to release 100 million barrels of diesel and crude oil from emergency reserves under pressure from US President Donald Trump, who is keen to see lower petrol prices before November elections that could see his Republican Party lose control of Congress.

Trump on Friday announced a deal with Russia that would provide even more diesel to global markets and a temporary waiver of US sanctions designed to deprive Moscow of revenues for its ‌‌war on Ukraine. The move drew swift criticism from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

More than one billion barrels of oil have been released, mainly from onshore commercial inventories, since the start of the war on February 28. But industry executives say the amount of oil in storage that is accessible to the global market is running low, making the market more fragile and fuelling pressure on prices.

The IMF has signalled little change in its forecast for three percent global growth in 2026, and may edge its forecast for next year slightly higher. But some countries will see downgrades, including Ukraine, now in its fifth year of war against Russia’s invasion, and Gulf countries hit by Iranian strikes and sharply reduced energy exports.

IMF research released on Tuesday showed that sharp spikes in food and energy prices are an increasingly common source of crises that drive inflation expectations higher for longer, worsen poverty and threaten economic stability.

One headache for policymakers is the growing public debt burden that is sapping growth and adding inflationary pressures. The IMF says public debt is at the highest level since World War II and will exceed 100 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) before 2030.

Advanced economies, led by the US, have the highest debt-to-GDP ratios, but emerging markets and low-income countries are particularly vulnerable, given a perfect storm of challenges: capital outflows in search of higher US rates, weather extremes triggered by the El Nino climate phenomenon, and a lack of investment in artificial intelligence (AI), which has mitigated negative supply shocks in the US and other rich countries.

Developing countries are particularly vulnerable given high public debt levels that will have to be renegotiated at higher interest rates. Together, they face $400bn in debt payments to external creditors in 2026, and interest payments already exceed 10 percent of revenue on average.

Many lower-income countries are worried about new IMF recommendations for loan programmes that call for fewer but deeper reforms as a condition for approving lending, a change that many fear will lead to painful austerity measures.

Source link

Bipartisan group of senators calls for Trump to reverse its Russian diesel plan

A bipartisan group of six senators — four of them Republicans — called Sunday for the Trump administration to “immediately reverse course” on a plan to purchase diesel from Russia as part of an effort to lower high fuel prices.

President Trump shocked lawmakers when he announced on social media Friday that he had struck a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin in a phone call. He said Russia will immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel to the American and global market, followed by an additional 500,000 tons in November and 1 million tons “immediately thereafter.” Russia will deliver an additional 3 million tons “within a short period of time” after that, he wrote.

Four Republican senators and two Democratic senators signed onto the statement released Sunday protesting the deal. They said the administration failed to consult with Congress or submit any explanation to justify its decision as required by statute.

“The United States should not provide Putin with a financial lifeline while Russia continues to kill Ukrainian civilians. The Administration must immediately reverse course,” they wrote.

The Republican senators who signed onto the statement are Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Curtis of Utah. The Democratic senators are Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

Tillis, in an interview that aired Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said there’s a legitimate case for saying the president is not following the law if the administration goes through with its diesel purchase plan.

“We were very clear that Russia is the aggressor. Russia is the one who can end this war by backing out of territory that they occupied,” Tillis said.

Trump’s announcement came just a few weeks after Congress passed legislation that directed Trump to impose substantial tariffs on the top importers of Russian oil or natural gas, with an exception for countries that import less than 15% of Russia’s natural gas exports and have taken significant steps to reduce those imports.

The congressional effort was aimed at cutting the flow of money Russia receives from oil and gas sales to finance its war against Ukraine.

The lawmakers also noted that Congress explicitly banned Russia energy imports in 2022 — after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine — to prevent the United States from financing the war.

“Congress was clear: the U.S. should not import oil from Russia until it ends its aggression against Ukraine and ceases threats against our NATO Allies,” the six lawmakers wrote in their statement. “President Trump’s decision to allow Russian diesel imports to the U.S. runs directly counter to that law.”

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), when asked whether the president’s action would be in violation of U.S. law, said Trump is focused on reducing the cost of energy.

“The president is balancing and has to make tough decisions,” Barrasso said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

He also encouraged Trump to enforce the sanctions law that Congress passed last month.

“This is just another point of leverage for the president to use against Putin in an effort to get a long-term solution in that part of the world,” Barrasso said.

Trump has recently sought to blame record U.S. diesel prices on Ukraine rather than the U.S.-led war in Iran, which has elevated world energy prices.

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Ethiopia, Eritrea ramp up rhetoric: Are they inching towards war? | Explainer News

Ethiopia and Eritrea have exchanged accusations of aggression at the United Nations, raising fears of a new conflict in the Horn of Africa region as fighting intensifies in Ethiopia’s northern Tigray region.

The diplomatic spat comes as Ethiopian troops and allied armed groups advanced across Tigray, where forces from Asmara have allegedly crossed the border to support rebels fighting the government forces.

The two neighbours, which fought a deadly border war between 1998 and 2000, were allies during Ethiopia’s devastating 2020-2022 Tigray war.

However, they have since been at loggerheads over the 2022 peace agreement that ended a two-year civil war between the government in Addis Ababa and Tigray rebels, and over Ethiopia’s demands for access to the Red Sea.

So, what did Eritrea and Ethiopia accuse each other of, and are they inching towards war?

What did Eritrea and Ethiopia say at the UN?

Eritrean troops had advanced as far as 60km (37 miles) into Tigray, Ethiopia told the UN Security Council on Friday, accusing its neighbour of violating its sovereignty.

In a letter, Ethiopian Foreign Minister Gedion Timothewos described the alleged incursion as “a blatant act of aggression that engages Ethiopia’s inherent right to self-defence”.

He invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter, which recognises a country’s right to self-defence, but did not specify what measures Ethiopia was taking.

Eritrea, which won independence from Ethiopia in 1993, rejected the accusations of incursions into Ethiopia, calling them a pretext for an Addis Ababa offensive.

Members of the Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF) gather in front of Mekelle Alula Aba Nega International Airport after federal forces retook control of the facility in Mekelle, Ethiopia, October 6, 2026 [AFP]
Members of the Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF) gather in front of Mekelle Alula Aba Nega International Airport after federal forces retook control of the facility in Mekelle, Ethiopia, October 6, 2026 [AFP]

Eritrean Foreign Minister Osman Saleh, in his own letter to the UN Security Council on Saturday, urged the body to condemn Ethiopia’s “deplorable declaration of war” and take “deterrent measures”.

He warned that an Ethiopian offensive would cause “huge devastation to the peoples of both countries and destabilise the whole region”.

The accusations come amid a broader dispute over access to the Red Sea.

Landlocked Ethiopia has repeatedly argued that securing direct sea access is essential, while Eritrea fears Addis Ababa intends to seize its port of Assab.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed reiterated on Monday that Ethiopia must have access to the Red Sea.

Hossamaldeen Ibrahim, an analyst at Bloomsbury Intelligence and Security Institute (BISI), said the narratives of both countries contain “verifiable elements”.

“The danger lies in the fact that each side now treats the other’s narrative as existential,” he told Al Jazeera.

Eritrea and Ethiopia fought a deadly border war from 1998 to 2000. Relations improved after Abiy came to power in 2018, but have soured again in recent years.

Professor Matthias Rompel from the Institute of Sociology at the Justus-Liebig-University Giessen in Germany, said that both sides have legitimate security concerns, but their accusations need to be distinguished from independently verified facts.

“Ethiopia’s allegations of Eritrean military incursions into Tigray… and …the scale of Eritrean involvement, and particularly allegations that Asmara is orchestrating the rebellion against Addis Ababa, remain difficult to substantiate independently,” he told Al Jazeera.

He added that the latest developments suggest that the confrontation is no longer merely about Tigray. “Ethiopia’s quest for Red Sea access, Eritrea’s concerns about sovereignty, and Egypt’s strategic rivalry with Ethiopia over the Nile are interconnected,” he said.

“The conflict, therefore, has the potential to destabilise the wider Horn of Africa, with repercussions for Sudan, Somalia and Red Sea security.”

What is the latest fighting about, and how is Eritrea allegedly involved?

Fighting escalated on September 23 when a rebel alliance, including the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), launched attacks against Ethiopian government forces across Tigray, Amhara and Afar regions.

The rebels captured Tigray’s capital, Mekelle, and its airport before announcing their withdrawal on October 3. Government-allied forces subsequently entered the city.

In the latest on the battlefront, government and allied forces took Idaga Hamus early Friday and Abiy-Adi, in the Tembien area, on Thursday afternoon, according to Ermiyas Ababu, a commander of the government-allied Tigray Peace Force.

Residents, according to Reuters news agency, also reported the takeover of Idaga Hamus. Gebremedhin Kihishen, a business owner in Tembien, said government-allied forces controlled Abiy-Adi.

It was unclear from those accounts who held the towns immediately before the reported government advance or whether Eritrean troops were involved in the fighting.

Ermiyas previously reported Eritrean personnel entering Adigrat on Tuesday and Idaga Hamus on Wednesday, citing reports from his personnel. Al Jazeera was unable to independently verify the claims.

The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), a United States-based conflict monitor, reported that Eritrean troops crossed into Ethiopia near Zalambessa and came under Ethiopian drone attack while advancing towards Idaga Hamus. Eritrea has yet to comment on the development.

Addis Ababa accuses Asmara of financing, arming and directing armed groups, as well as deploying troops inside Tigray. Eritrea denies the allegations, which have not been independently verified.

The renewed fighting threatens to unravel the 2022 peace agreement.

That conflict began in November 2020 after months of tensions between Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s government and the TPLF, which had dominated Ethiopian politics for nearly three decades before Abiy took office in 2018.

Eritrea fought alongside Ethiopian federal forces against the TPLF, its longtime adversary. The war killed hundreds of thousands of people and was marked by allegations of massacres, sexual violence and widespread hunger.

The November 2022 Pretoria agreement ended major hostilities, but Eritrea was not a party to the deal. Relations between Addis Ababa and Asmara subsequently deteriorated.

Has Ethiopia sent troops north towards Eritrea?

Multiple media reports say Ethiopian government troops and allied militias entered Adigrat, a strategic city roughly 30km (19 miles) from the Eritrean border, on Saturday.

Three residents confirmed their presence to Reuters, while verified footage showed government-allied militia members walking through the city.

Associated Press news agency footage also showed Ethiopian military vehicles entering Adigrat as some residents welcomed the troops.

Government-allied forces have reported capturing Idaga Hamus and Abiy-Adi, while explosions and alleged drone strikes have been reported near Adigrat.

Are Ethiopia and Eritrea inching towards war?

Analysts warn that Ethiopia and Eritrea may already have moved beyond threats and into a dangerous phase of possible military confrontation.

BISI’s Ibrahim said the two countries have moved beyond “inching” towards war, noting that “The situation has entered a high-risk phase of limited but direct military confrontation with a real possibility of rapid escalation into interstate war.”

 

He warned that the severing of diplomatic ties removed the “last formal mechanism for crisis management”, while Ethiopian military advances towards the Eritrean border increased the risk of “miscalculation”.

Tom Gardner, a correspondent for The Economist, said the current tensions should be understood in the context of decades of hostility between the neighbours.

Their brief alliance during the 2020-2022 Tigray war was an exception and was driven by a shared hostility towards the TPLF, Gardner told Al Jazeera.

“The Ethiopian government’s strategic goal number one is access to the Red Sea, but also removing Eritrea’s government from the picture,” he noted.

“It’s very much looking like the most dangerous moment for the region since that 1998 to 2000 war.”

Rompel from Justus-Liebig-University Giessen said that the current situation is evolving. “The danger of a wider interstate conflict is real, and the situation has already moved beyond a purely diplomatic confrontation,” he said.

“The central danger is not necessarily that either government has decided to launch a full-scale war, but that military miscalculations, mutual distrust and domestic political pressures could trigger a further escalation neither side can easily control.

“A wider conflict is not inevitable, but the space for diplomatic de-escalation is rapidly narrowing,” he said.

Source link

Saudi Arabia vows response over Houthi ‘war crime’ attack on Riyadh airport | Houthis

A Houthi attack on Riyadh airport killed at least 12 people and injured more than 300. The Saudi-led coalition fighting the Houthis in Yemen called the missile strike a ‘war crime’, which has been condemned by the UN, Qatar, Pakistan, Canada and others.

Source link

Russia’s Yandex says data centre in Vladimir shut down after drone attack | Russia-Ukraine war News

Third strike on Yandex facilities in a week comes as Russia and Ukraine escalate attacks on tech infrastructure.

A Russian data centre run by technology and AI company ⁠Yandex has been shut down after it was hit in a drone attack.

No injuries were reported in the attack on the facility in the city of Vladimir, east of the capital, Moscow, the company said on Sunday.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Emergency services were at the site and several of Yandex’s services were unavailable ‌to users, the company said, as it evaluated ways to restore its systems.

“Operations at the data centre have been completely suspended,” Yandex said in a service alert on Telegram, advising users to activate disaster-recovery plans as the platform operated in emergency mode.

“The remaining resource configuration is considered unstable,” it added, warning that technical support communications could also be disrupted as teams assessed the damage.

It is the third attack on the company’s data centres in the last week, as Russia and Ukraine continue to escalate attacks on each other’s technology infrastructure.

On Friday, Yandex, which ⁠is heavily involved ⁠in Russia’s AI development and is sometimes referred to as “Russia’s Google”, said its data centre in the Kaluga ⁠region southwest of Moscow was struck by ⁠Ukrainian drones and partly ⁠put out of action.

A day earlier, a Ukrainian attack shut down Yandex’s data hub ‌in Sasovo, southeast of Moscow, where two of the three supercomputers used ‌to ‌develop the company’s AI model are housed.

“We always respond in mirror-like fashion,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Thursday, following the Sasovo strike. “You all know, they have been hitting and continue to hit our data centres. We are responding. I can’t share all the details.”

Russia has struck several Ukrainian data centres and telecommunications infrastructure facilities over the past month, including targets in central Kyiv, in an apparent effort to disrupt the country’s connectivity and digital commerce.

Source link

US bombs cargo vessel in Gulf of Oman ‘trying to run Iran blockade’ | US-Israel war on Iran

A US fighter jet bombed a commercial cargo ship in the Gulf of Oman, according to CENTCOM. The US military says the ship’s crew ignored repeated warnings and attempted to ‘breach its blockade’ of Iranian ports.

Source link

How genocidal war on Gaza is shaping Israel’s election | Israel Election 2026 News

As Israel entered the final month before its October 27 election, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a chilling warning to share.

Israel’s enemies, he said on September 29, were plotting an attack on the country before the vote. Without providing any evidence, he then quickly referred to continuing attacks by Israeli troops in the Gaza Strip, where he said they had killed more than 100 “terrorists” in recent weeks.

That link drawn by Netanyahu – between the genocidal war on Gaza that began after the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attacks, the upcoming elections, and Israel’s national security – was not coincidental, say analysts.

Netanyahu’s insistence that he alone can secure Israelis from a range of threats they face from across the country’s borders, they say, lies at the heart of his re-election campaign, even as his alleged failures during the attack three years ago and in securing the quick release of captives have offered his opponents ammunition.

When a Flydubai flight packed with Israeli passengers on their way from Dubai to Tel Aviv a day after his recent warning nearly crashed after a co-pilot attacked his pilot with an axe in the cockpit, Netanyahu was quick to seize on the incident to argue that he is still man for the country’s top job.

Polls suggest that he faces a stiff test in what is the first general vote since the 2023 attacks, which led to the killing of 1,139 people in Israel and triggered the genocidal war on the Gaza Strip, where Israeli have attacks have since killed more than 74,000 Palestinians.

Three years later, the war has become inseparable from the domestic debate over Israel’s direction while also accelerating a political shift to the right – with once-fringe positions on Palestinians now very much the mainstream view.

Few embody this transformation more than Israel’s far-right financial Minister Bezalel Smotrich, sanctioned by a number of Western countries and known for his incendiary and racist language and policies towards Palestinians.

In one of his characteristically inflammatory statements, Smotrich told Israeli outlet Ynet late last month that the Israeli army should “go to war” in the occupied West Bank and “do there what we did in Gaza”.

Less than two weeks later, Smotrich’s electoral ally Moshe Feiglin added fuel to the fire.

“The enemy is Gaza, not Hamas”, he told the Jerusalem Post, calling for the annexation of the besieged territory after the election. “The baby that will be born tomorrow in Gaza will do exactly the same,” he said, in reference to the 2023 attacks.

Palestinian political analyst Ahmed Najar said these are not “stray comments” from marginal figures but an electoral message from power-seeking politicians aimed at portraying Palestinians as “not a people with rights, but a demographic and security problem to be expelled, conquered or destroyed”.

He added: “The frightening reality is that the coming election risks becoming a competition not over whether Palestinian life should be protected, but over who can promise to erase it most aggressively.”

‘This is madness’

Following October 7, the younger generation in particular slid rightwards, said Ahron Bregman, an Israeli security analyst and senior teaching fellow at King’s College London.

He said the forces driving Israel to the right had been gathering for decades.

“The trend toward the right began after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, but it has intensified dramatically since October 7,” Bregman told Al Jazeera, referring to the bloody 19-day October War, or the 1973 Arab-Israeli War – a conflict between Israel and a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria.

More recently, the far right has been emboldened through electoral politics as part of Netanyahu’s government since 2022 – the most right-wing government in Israeli history.

Another outspoken cabinet member alongside Smotrich is Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right provocateur who has previously been convicted of inciting racism and of supporting a terrorist organisation.

“Netanyahu’s greatest mistake – among many – was bringing figures like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich into his coalition,” said Bergman. “By doing so, he legitimised them as influential forces in Israeli politics.”

Ben-Gvir has been so cemented into Israel’s political system, he has hopes pinned on becoming the next Israeli defence minister, the analyst pointed out.

“This is madness. But that’s contemporary Israel,” said Bergman.

TEL AVIV, ISRAEL - OCTOBER 5: Attendees listen and applaud during an election campaign meeting on October 5, 2026 in Tel Aviv, Israel. The leadership of the Arab-majority joint list parties is announcing their Hebrew-language election campaign to appeal to Jewish voters. Last week, the country's high court overturned a temporary ban on Arab candidates by the Central Elections Committee. Israel is holding legislative elections on October 27th. (Photo by Erik Marmor/Getty Images)
Attendees listen and applaud during an election campaign meeting on October 5, 2026 in Tel Aviv, Israel [Erik Marmor/Getty Images]

Analysts also pointed out that several parties running, including ones that are currently in power and a number that are challenging the current coalition, all advocate for the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza, as one of the examples of the shift to the right.

Omar Baddar, director of Palthink for Strategic Studies, said the messaging from across the Israeli political and military spectrum in the lead-up to the election shows that there is “a consensus” to continue the attacks on Gaza, where nearly 1,500 have been killed since a “ceasefire” last year.

“They’re using the threats to get more votes,” he said, pointing out to what he described as the radicalisation of the society.

With the election approaching, added Baddar, Israeli leaders are seeking to undo one another: “Who[ever]’s more radical is more likely to get more votes.”

As Ehab Jabareen, a Palestinian political analyst and researcher from inside Israel, writes, “what it means to be ‘right-wing’ in Israel today is above all to take a harder line on Palestinian national claims, security and territorial control.”

He adds: “On security and the Palestinians, a large part of Jewish Israeli politics already works from assumptions that would have been treated as right-wing a generation ago: Deep suspicion of a sovereign Palestinian state, a high tolerance for prolonged military control, and a stronger insistence on Jewish sovereignty as the starting point rather than one value among others.”

Observers and rights groups say the disparity is even evident in the electoral process. A prominent politician and Palestinian citizen of Israel, Sami Abu Shehadeh, has been forced to withdraw from the election over his remarks about the Gaza war, while Israeli far-right leaders have remained untouched despite their violent rhetoric against Palestinians.

Netanyahu’s security credentials endure

Recent polling indicates that the events of October 7 are top of mind for Israelis, who also have questions about who was responsible for the security failures of that day.

Just last month, reports surfaced indicating that Netanyahu had received two separate warnings about an imminent Hamas attack in 2023, from Egypt’s intelligence chief, Abbas Kamel, and United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

Netanyahu’s two main rivals in the race for prime minister have cited the alleged warnings to call the prime minister “unfit” to remain at the helm of the country.

But Netanyahu has denied suggestions that he had been forewarned about the attack, and the reports do not appear to have had a significant effect on opinion polls.

While October 7 represents a profound rupture in Israelis’ sense of security, public trust in the Netanyahu government had already been badly shaken by its controversial judicial overhaul, introduced when the prime minister’s current coalition first came to power, said Mairav Zonszein, an Israel-Palestine analyst at the International Crisis Group based in Tel Aviv.

Despite these breaches of trust, the Israeli leader retains support.

“Israelis in general still see Netanyahu as kind of the guy on security. And more to the point, they don’t really see an alternative,” Zonszein told Al Jazeera.

A June survey by Mitvim – the Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies found that the Israeli public supports its government’s military and security solutions, and rejects resolving the Palestinian issue and ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. This is the case even while it has been concerned about international isolation and the decline of Israel’s international standing since the beginning of the genocidal war on Gaza, the survey reported.

Yet Israelis are also increasingly war-weary, even as they back the use of more force. Its troops – stretched between six fronts of war in the last few years – are bearing the brunt of this fatigue in Israeli society.

Israel’s Ministry of Defence said on Tuesday that nearly 30,000 soldiers and security personnel are facing psychological trauma since the war.

The ministry said its rehabilitation department’s budget has increased by 88 percent over the past three years to 10 billion shekels ($3.3m), with the majority supporting treatment for mental health conditions and post-traumatic stress disorder.

As Israel expands, the two-state solution fades

Still, Israel in recent months has been more and more vocal about its expansionist vision, with officials brazenly stating the goal of “Greater Israel”. The claim for the conquest is based on a biblical verse (Genesis 15:18-21).

For decades, Israel has ignored international law in its continuous occupation of Palestinian and Syrian land, and has shown little respect for its neighbours’ sovereignty, occupying more land in Syria, as well as in Lebanon in more recent years.

According to Najar, the political economist, the “complete dehumanisation” of Palestinians as evidenced during the campaign reveal that Gaza “is being presented to Israeli voters not as a catastrophe or a crime for which there must be accountability, but as a blueprint to be repeated elsewhere”.

In southern Lebanon, where Israel has been carrying out near daily attacks and and has occupied large swathes of land, residents have told Al Jazeera they expect little to change even if Netanyahu is defeated in the election.

Netanyahu’s main political challenger, Gadi Eisenkot – head of the Yashar party and former army chief of staff – is the father of the so-called Dahiyeh Doctrine, and is just as hawkish about expansion. That doctrine, since Israel’s war with the Lebanese group Hezbollah in 2006, calls for the use of huge force, even against civilian infrastructure, as a deterrent against enemies and was deployed in Israel’s recent wars, particularly in Beirut’s southern suburbs.

If it were up to Eisenkot, the Lebanon front of war would have never scaled down: He has accused Netanyahu of bowing to US pressure to halt operations in Beirut, and has insisted that the military should be able to attack Hezbollah anywhere in Lebanon.

For Israelis still reeling from the events of October 7, Eisenkot could fill the security void many are feeling, said Zonszein.

“They really … see the world as kind of very hostile towards them, the world not understanding what they went through on October 7, and [therefore why] the need to have these security buffer zones in Lebanon, in Syria, and Gaza,” she said.

A two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is therefore out of the question, said the analysts – and has not even made a blip of an appearance in campaigning before the election.

The idea first emerged during the Oslo Accords more than 30 years ago, which set out a negotiating process aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, predicated on the belief that the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel was imperative to forge peace.

But since the Oslo process began in 1993, the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank has ballooned from about 260,000 to more than 700,000, embedded deep inside West Bank areas that would be needed for a contiguous Palestinian state.

“The concept of a two-state solution is currently irrelevant and likely will remain so for another decade or two, if not longer,” said Bergman. “It is unlikely to become a reality in the foreseeable future, as no Israeli leader can propose it to the Israeli public after the events of October 7.”

The only way it could regain prominence is if there is substantial international pressure, including severe sanctions on Israel, and a non-violent intifada, or an uprising by Palestinians, he said.

The outright rejection of Palestinian statehood has simply become much more “acceptable”, said Zonszein.

“There’s several parties who advocate these views, whereas there isn’t a single Jewish Zionist Party that puts the need for a two-state solution or a Palestinian political process at the forefront,” she said.

Taken all together, Israel’s election appears less a demand for change than a further entrenchment of the jingoism that surged after October 7, 2023.

“[There’s] more and more movement towards more military force, more need for pushing the borders … out of a lot of fear that another October 7 could happen,” said Zonszein.

Source link

From Depression to Enormous Wealth : War Turned Impoverished U.S. Into a Superpower

In September of 1939, just a week after World War II had erupted in Europe, The American Home advertised why a housewives magazine like itself mattered in a time of distant trouble. “Hitler threatens Europe,” the ad proclaimed, “but Betty Havens’ husband’s boss is coming to dinner–and that’s what really counts.”

The ad fixed an awful truth: World War II, the most fearsome and bloody cataclysm of world history, caught America napping and unawares. An enervated giant, the United States in 1939 was weak, poor, isolated and ignorant of the rest of the world. Eighteen other countries–even Turkey–had more soldiers than the United States. The American Army outnumbered the Bulgarian army, but only by 23,000.

Americans were so oblivious of events abroad that James McClure Clarke and his roommate left for a bicycle trip through Europe in the summer of 1939 just after their graduation from Princeton University.

“That was the sort of thing a lot of young men did,” Clarke, now a 72-year-old Democratic congressman from North Carolina, recalled in his Capitol Hill office recently.

Unaware that war was imminent, they cycled into Germany.

“On every train, at every station,” he said, “there were German soldiers. And if you greeted anybody, they would ‘Heil Hitler.’ And even when we climbed in the mountains, you would see young people, Boy Scout age, groups of them, and they would raise their hands, ‘Heil Hitler.’ When we were in the Black Forest, I remember seeing a big sign put up there by Hitler saying the Jew is our enemy and then talking about the Jew in North America, listing Franklin D. Roosevelt and Henry Morgenthau and so forth.”

That sign, of course, told a lie. Aside from its virulent anti-Semitism, it was wrong about Roosevelt, although correct about Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau’s Jewishness. But for Clarke, it hit home: Morgenthau’s son was a Princeton classmate.

War was declared before Clarke and his friend could return to the United States. They boarded the British liner Antonio during the first week of the war. The Antonio’s sister ship, the Athenia, leaving only a few days earlier, had been stalked by a German U-boat and torpedoed. More than a hundred people died when the ship sank in the Atlantic.

Did these experiences make Clarke and others like him more vitally concerned about events in Europe?

“Not much, I’m afraid,” Clarke replied. “I think it took a while for America to wake up. It took Pearl Harbor.”

Yet, once America woke up, it somehow transformed itself swiftly into an enormous, engulfing and astounding dynamo that would shake and cow the world. By the end of World War II, a nation once bereft of military strength had turned itself into the most awesome military power ever seen; a nation once contemptuous of entangling alliances had turned itself, however reluctantly, into a natural leader of grand alliances, and a nation still impoverished and reeling from the Great Depression had turned itself into an Olympus of wealth.

Moreover, mobilization for war altered society in quiet but profound ways that would not make themselves obvious for two decades or more. Rural blacks migrating to the cities or fighting in American armies would never go back easily to sharecropping and oppression.

“Rosie the Riveter,” the popular song heroine working in a war factory while her boyfriend fought in the Marines, would return to the kitchen after the war, but her legacy would lead to the women’s liberation movement.

400,000 Lost Lives

Compared to the carnage suffered elsewhere, U.S. casualties in World War II were, relatively speaking, light. More than 400,000 military personnel lost their lives–about 292,000 in combat–a tragic and bitter waste, but no more than a small statistic when measured against the 50 million Europeans and Asians slaughtered. There were more American civilian deaths from pneumonia and tuberculosis during the war than deaths on the battlefield. The wartime population of the United States, in fact, increased by a healthy 6%. The enemy inflicted negligible damage on the American mainland in a handful of incidents, and the United States was the only belligerent to end the war richer than before.

Americans owed the relative comfort and low cost of their victory to geographic distance, natural resources and a good deal of luck. But many preferred to believe that God-given American pluck and ingenuity had counted far more. While many Europeans agitated for radical changes in the political systems that had driven them to Fascism and war, Americans felt more pride in their own system than ever before. An era of great self-confidence came after the war.

“American experience,” wrote Henry R. Luce in a Life magazine editorial, “is the key to the future.”

Looking back, the year 1939 now seems like a last, lost age of innocence in America, undarkened by the clouds in Europe. The Hit Parade was led by a song that asked:

Jeepers Creepers, where’d you get those peepers?

Jeepers Creepers, where’d you get those eyes?

A 23-year-old vocalist named Frank Sinatra joined the Harry James band. Only 3% of Americans earned enough money to pay income tax. Almost 50 million people glimpsed the wondrous sleek highways and blight-free cities of the future in the General Motors Futurama pavilion at the New York World’s Fair. New Pontiacs sold for $862 and Florsheim shoes for $8.75.

Shirley Temple and Clark Gable were the biggest box office stars of the year. Hoping to do something about what it called “our national shame,” Standard Plumbing Fixtures reported in its advertisements that 15 out of 100 homes in 213 American cities still had no indoor toilets. Lou Gehrig retired from the Yankees, and Ted Williams joined the Red Sox.

The New York Telephone Co. explained that it did not hire Jewish women as operators because their arms were too short to operate phone equipment. Two new products–DDT and nylon stockings–were introduced. “Gone With The Wind” premiered in a banner movie year that included “Stagecoach,” “Wuthering Heights,” “Four Feathers,” “The Wizard of Oz” and “Ninotchka.” Pepsi-Cola challenged Coca-Cola with a catchy jingle:

Pepsi – Cola hits the spot, 12 full ounces that’s a lot ;

Twice as much for a nickel too, Pepsi – Cola is the drink for you.

The war probably left the United States with no more dramatic legacy than its transformation from unabashed isolationism to eventual guardian of the Free World. The day war erupted in Europe, Washington correspondent Phelps Adams asked President Roosevelt in his crowded White House office, “Mr. President, can we stay out of it?”

The President, who had been awakened at 2:50 a.m. with the news of the war, sat silently, his eyes cast downward, for several long moments, and then replied solemnly, “I not only sincerely hope so, but I believe we can, and every effort will be made to do so.”

Later, Roosevelt, sounding more firmly convinced that America could avoid war, warned on radio, “Let no man or woman thoughtlessly or falsely talk of America sending its armies to European fields.”

As far as many Americans were concerned, Europe had botched the peace cemented for them by American intervention in World War I. They were in no mood to get involved again. Sen. Hiram Johnson of California admonished Americans against heeding the echoes of the First World War. “Beware the words ‘We cannot keep out,’ ‘Our entry into the war is inevitable,’ ‘We must fight to preserve democracy’ and all the Devil’s messages we heard 20 years ago,” he said.

Sen. Arthur Vandenburg boasted: “My passion is to keep America out of other people’s wars.”

Feted in Germany

Charles A. Lindbergh, who had touched the romantic fancy of both Europe and America with his solo flight across the Atlantic in 1927 and had been feted in Nazi Germany, told Americans at many isolationist rallies that a Nazi victory in Europe would not hurt the American way of life.

The isolationist mood was so strong that Roosevelt, accused by Republican candidate Wendell L. Wilkie of dragging America into war, pledged in a 1940 presidential election rally: “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”

Many skeptics believed that he never intended to keep that pledge. But the attack on Pearl Harbor in December, 1941, demolished the issue. With their infamous bombing of American territory and ships and citizens, the Japanese had turned World War II into an American war, not another people’s war, not a foreign war.

At the end of the war, no one could deny the United States the status of a superpower, bristling with more military and economic strength than any other country. It had led its allies to victory over Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and militaristic Japan, and it now had the power and influence to lead much of the world in peace as well. It was reluctant to do so at first, but it finally faced the reality wrought by World War II: a world divided into two hostile camps led by superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, once allied against the Axis.

“In 1945,” recalled Don Cook, the 69-year-old retired foreign correspondent who wrote “Forging the Alliance,” a recent history of the founding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “you could never have gotten a two-thirds majority in the Senate for entering an alliance with Europe. The rump element of isolationism in the United States was still extremely strong and still had electoral appeal.

“I knew most of the isolationist senators because I had covered the Senate in the prewar period. The extent of their conversion from isolationism was a reluctant readiness to get into the United Nations. They weren’t going to repeat the mistake after World War I of not joining the League of Nations. But the United States had no intention of using military force in its role in the world. The senators had not reached the point of committing our power.”

Yet, in five years, the United States learned to commit its power and entangle itself in Europe and elsewhere. The Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Airlift, the NATO treaty and the Korean War followed swiftly. By 1950, isolationism was dead.

“This may have been the first real major sweeping change in foreign policy since the founding of America,” said Cook.

World War II also swept the United States into the terrors of the Nuclear Age, for much of America’s immense new power came from its monopoly of nuclear bombs, the kind that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 and brought the war to a close.

Refugee Scientists

That short-lived monopoly–the Soviet Union developed its own atomic bomb four years later–came out of the prescience of refugee scientists living in the United States in 1939. Unlike other Americans, they could not ignore the awful horror of Adolf Hitler, for they had fled from him. These scientists knew that scientific research had made an atomic weapon feasible and that, though Hitler had driven many scientists away in his obsession for ethnic purity, enough scientists remained in Germany to create a bomb that might ensure his infernal domination of this planet.

Three Hungarian refugee scientists–Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner and Edward Teller–met with German-born Albert Einstein, probably the world’s best-known physicist, in Princeton in 1939 and urged him to write Roosevelt about the need for an American program to build an atomic bomb.

In a now famous letter, dated one month before the outbreak of the war in Europe, Einstein told Roosevelt that recent scientific research indicated “that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated.”

“This new phenomenon,” Einstein went on, “would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable–though much less certain–that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed.”

It is unclear exactly what role Einstein’s letter played in the President’s decision, but Roosevelt finally ordered an all-out program known as the Manhattan Project in 1942 to develop an atomic bomb. American scientists, many of them refugees from Hitler, won the race with the German scientists but not in time to use the terrible weapon against Nazi Germany. The first and, thus far, only nuclear devastation in history, came in the American bombing of the two Japanese cities in August, 1945. The precarious reality of the Nuclear Age has governed American foreign policy ever since.

Most Americans now are too young to remember how poor their parents and grandparents were half a century ago. It was no accident that John Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath,” a long novel about impoverished Oklahoma farmers trekking to California, selling for $2.75 a copy, led the best-seller list in 1939. The Great Depression of the 1930s had weakened the United States far more than any country in Europe.

Despite all Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, 10 million people were unemployed in 1939, more than 15% of the work force. The American share of world manufacturing was lower than it had been at any time since 1910. At least one-third of Americans lived in or near poverty.

But the United States had enormous productive potential. In 1938, for example, two-thirds of its steel plants were idle. In 1939, it was spending less than 2% of its gross national product on defense. If Americans had the will to harness the potential, they could create a colossus of fearful military might and of enormous wealth. Once the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Americans showed that will.

At the end of the war, the American economy overshadowed the economies of the rest of the world in a show of relative wealth never seen before. Americans had a higher standard of living than any other people in the world and produced more goods per capita than anyone else. Half of the world’s manufacturing now took place within the United States. Practically any American who wanted a job had one.

Some Americans feared that unemployment and depression would return after the demobilization of the armed forces. But, though the economy would experience ups and downs and though thick pockets of poverty would persist, especially for blacks, most Americans have lived for the last 50 years in an era of bounding prosperity.

World War II changed the United States in other, less obvious ways as well. In 1939, the Daughters of the American Revolution, citing the local customs of Washington, refused to allow the reknowned black opera singer Marian Anderson to sing in the DAR’s Constitution Hall in Washington. The blatant refusal struck many Americans as scandalous, and the federal government let Anderson sing instead, with Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt and other prominent white Americans in attendance, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

Yet the shame of the DAR refusal did not change most American attitudes toward blacks. Benny Carter, the 82-year-old black jazz saxophonist and composer, recalls what it was like taking his big band around the United States during World War II.

‘No Black Hotels’

“We weren’t interested in getting into any serious incidents, but it was the same old thing,” Carter said recently. “My bands were mostly black. There might be two out of 17 who were not minority musicians. We had problems about where to stay in the South. We stayed mainly in the homes of people–what they would consider bed and breakfast places now. There were no black hotels, and we weren’t welcome in the others.”

As industries girded for war, they tried to hire as few blacks as possible. In 1941, for example, Douglas Aircraft had only 10 blacks among its 33,000 employees. Under the threat of black demonstrations, Roosevelt created a Fair Employment Practices Committee in 1941 to ensure some kind of fairness in hiring.

The committee had little power, but its creation was looked on later as a significant first step toward civil rights. As the war progressed, blacks were drafted into the army or lured to jobs in the North. That began the enormous migration of blacks out of rural America into the cities of both the South and the North, making the problems of this repressed minority national rather than regional. Rioting soon erupted in Detroit. By 1945, the status of American blacks had not improved very much, but the war had laid the seeds for the civil rights movement that followed.

For women, the war offered, but only briefly, an immense opportunity. The Great Depression had made it even more difficult for women to work. With millions of men unemployed, a working woman was looked on by many as a usurper–snatching a job out of the hands of some family’s breadwinner. Public opinion polls showed that most Americans in 1939 would support laws to prohibit the employment of women whose husbands earned more than $1,600 a year.

The war changed all that.

Factories needed women to replace the millions of men drafted into the armed services. The number of women in the labor force increased during the war to 19 million from 14 million. Nearly half of all American women worked at some time from 1941 to 1945. Many took jobs once typed as masculine: riveting, welding and operating cranes.

There was a good deal of male anxiety about this. Columnist Max Lerner complained that the war may have created “a new Amazon” who could “outdrink, out-swear and out-swagger the men.” Social workers and journalists began to blame an increase in juvenile delinquency on absent, working mothers.

When the war ended, millions of women left or lost their jobs to make room for the returning men. In Los Angeles, for example, the proportion of women working in the aircraft industry dropped from a high of 40% during the war to 18% in 1946. The sexual division of labor reasserted itself, and many women were forced back into lower paying “women’s work.”

Yet, as Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes predicted in a magazine article in 1943, the role of women would never be the same.

“I think this is as good a time as any . . . to warn men,” he wrote, “that when the war is over, the going will be a lot tougher, because they will have to compete with women whose eyes have been opened to their greatest economic potentialities.”

After the war, the numbers of working women never dropped to the levels of the Depression and, in a decade, started to increase to levels well beyond what had been reached during the war. There is little doubt that the ground for the women’s liberation movement was set during World War II.

When the war ended, a nation that had produced 71,000 naval craft, 300,000 aircraft and 2.5 million military trucks now hungered for more ordinary goods. Radio still dominated popular culture, but television, delayed by the war, would come swiftly. New products such as dishwashers, garbage disposal units and aerosol sprays reached the market. Teen-agers, whose families could hardly afford to buy them toys five years earlier, now had loose change in their pockets and wanted records. By 1945, the sales of records had increased tenfold in a decade.

No one expected the United States to return to 1939. No one wanted to.

“For those of us like myself who came out of high school in the Depression,” said Cook, “the war offered us a sense of adventure and change. . . . I think practically anybody of my generation would say that the war was decisive in framing one’s life and one’s future. And, in varying degrees, a considerable majority would say these were the best years of our lives. They gave us momentum. . . . It was tragic for a number of people . . . but there was an exhilaration to those times.”

“One of the best things you realized (serving in the wartime military) was the great diversity of the country. Gosh, here you are thrown in with guys from Georgia Tech, Louisiana State, Iowa–it just made you realize what a big country it was and how a relatively small percentage of the world the Ivy League was. . . . And it was also good for making some of us more confident in being able to stand on your own.” North Carolinians returning from the war “realized there was a world beyond the mountains. They went all over the place. They went to the Pacific, they went to Europe, they were prisoners of war. It was an eye opener to them.”

— Rep. James McClure Clarke (D-N.C.), 72, a Princeton graduate who served as a naval officer on Guadalcanal during the war.

“Our soldiers were not fighting to make the world safe for democracy like in World War I. This was much more of a crusade of our own. . . . The war took over everyone’s life whether you were drafted or not. It had this sense of adventure. I don’t like the word ‘purity,’ but the war had an uplift about it, because we were fighting Nazis and fighting for ideals. It had an idealism about it.”

— Don Cook, 69, author and journalist, who covered World War II in Europe and spent 43 years as a foreign correspondent for the New York Herald Tribune and Los Angeles Times.

U.S. ACTIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL

Army Navy Marines Total 1939 189,839 125,202 19,432 334,473 1940 269,023 160,997 28,345 458,365 1941 1,462,315 284,427 54,359 1,801,101 1942 3,075,608 640,570 142,613 3,858,791 1943 6,994,472 1,741,750 308,523 9,044,745 1944 7,994,750 2,981,365 475,604 11,451,719 1945 8,267,958 3,380,817 474,680 12,123,455

Source: World War II Almanac

Source link

US forces disable ship ‘attempting to run’ Iran blockade in Gulf of Oman | US-Israel war on Iran News

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

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

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

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

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

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

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

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

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

Vessels in the Strait of Hormuz near the beach of Bandar Abbas, Iran, October 6, 2026. Amirhosein Khorgooi/ISNA/via WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS PICTURE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY. ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS PICTURE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY. ISRAEL OUT. NO COMMERCIAL OR EDITORIAL SALES IN ISRAEL. NO ACCESS FOR ISRAELI MEDIA. NO USE BBC PERSIAN. NO USE VOA PERSIAN. NO USE MANOTO. NO USE IRAN INTERNATIONAL. NO USE RADIO FARDA. DIGITAL: NO USE BBC PERSIAN. NO USE VOA PERSIAN. NO USE MANOTO. NO USE IRAN INTERNATIONAL. NO USE RADIO FARDA.
Vessels in the Strait of Hormuz near the beach of Bandar Abbas, Iran, October 6, 2026 [Amirhosein Khorgooi/ISNA via WANA/Reuters]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source link

Taiwan president says defence spending boost aims to ‘deter war’ | Conflict News

President Lai emphasises peace and freedom, vows not to tolerate aggression in Taiwan Strait.

Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te has said the island “cherishes peace” and will “not give up our freedom” in a National Day speech outside the Presidential Office in Taipei.

Lai made the remarks on Saturday before thousands of people, including foreign diplomats.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“We are open to exchanges, but will not accept subordination,” he said. “Our aim by increasing investment in national defence is not to provoke; rather, it is to deter war.”

Taiwanese fighter jets and two Chinook helicopters carrying giant Taiwan flags flew over the capital ahead of the speech.

The holiday marks the 115th anniversary of a 1911 uprising that toppled China’s last imperial dynasty and led to the founding of the Republic of China.

Pressure from China

Taiwan’s 23 million people live under the constant threat of an attack by China, which insists the island is part of its territory, has never renounced the use of force to take it, and calls Lai a “separatist”.

Beijing has rebuffed his offers of talks.

Lai said China continued to “apply pressure through military and grey-zone activities in an attempt to alter the status quo across the Taiwan Strait”.

Grey-zone tactics are actions that stop short of open war. “Peace cannot rely solely on wishes, and tolerance cannot become a pretext for aggressors to encroach ever further,” he added.

Lai’s government has set aside a record 1.1 trillion New Taiwan dollars ($34.5bn) for defence in 2027, more than 3 percent of gross domestic product.

China held war games around the island shortly after Lai’s first National Day speech in 2024, but not last year. Its last drills near Taiwan were in late December, after news of an $11bn arms deal with Washington, the largest ever US weapons package for the island.

Lai said he welcomed talks between the United States and China, but insisted “there must be respect for the right of the people of Taiwan to exist”.

He urged democracies in the Indo-Pacific to join forces to preserve peace and stability in the region.

The US switched official diplomatic relations from Taipei to Beijing nearly 50 years ago but remains Taiwan’s most important security backer.

Officials in Washington and Taipei have repeatedly said US policy on Taiwan has not changed under President Donald Trump.

In May, after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, Trump suggested arms sales to Taiwan could be a bargaining chip with China, which set off alarm across the world.

Taiwan is now waiting for Trump to sign off on $14bn worth of weapons, including the US-made Patriot air defence system.

The dispute dates back to China’s civil war, when the nationalist forces of Chiang Kai-shek retreated to Taiwan in 1949 after defeat by Mao Zedong’s communists.

The Republic of China remains the island’s formal name.

Source link

Putin tells Trump peace talks are unlikely, cites Ukraine drone attacks | Russia-Ukraine war News

Negotiators aim to present a proposal to Russia in the coming weeks, meanwhile Putin says resumption of talks unlikely.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said an immediate resumption of peace talks with Ukraine is unlikely, citing drone attacks on Moscow during parliamentary elections last month.

In a phone call with US President Donald Trump on Friday, Putin said Moscow was ready to resume negotiations with Kyiv after the parliamentary elections. However, the drone attacks on the capital made the resumption of trilateral peace talks between Russia, Ukraine and the US unlikely.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“By launching a large-scale drone attack on Moscow, other cities and polling stations on the most important day of the elections, and by targeting some people involved in organising the elections, the Kyiv regime has, in reality, interrupted the possibility of an immediate resumption of the negotiation process,” said Kremlin foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov about the call with Trump.

“As the president said, we will now assess when these negotiations can resume,” he added regarding the trilateral talks.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Thursday that Russia’s war in Ukraine is at a dangerous stalemate and the United States will keep working towards a deal to end the war.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said earlier this week that the country was ready to hold trilateral talks with the United States and Russia this month.

US-Russia diesel deal

Earlier on Friday, Donald Trump announced after the call with Putin that Russia agreed to deliver more than 300,000 tonnes of diesel to American and global markets.

The deal was criticised by US lawmakers, Zelenskyy and European allies.

Zelenskyy called the agreement a “gift to Putin”.

“All that money goes toward the war against people, against Ukraine, against all of us. I believe our team is simply being used as a smokescreen. And that is certainly not fair,” he said in a statement.

In response to the US-Russia diesel deal, a government spokesperson said the United Kingdom would continue to “maintain pressure on Russia through the toughest sanctions regime ever imposed by the UK.”

Source link