war

Iran says it has put forward a plan to the United States to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within seven days, as Qatar passes messages between the two countries at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Speaking on the sidelines on Thursday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the timetable could begin as soon as Washington accepted the proposal.

Both sides have described the indirect contact facilitated by Qatar in New York positively, but neither has indicated any diplomatic breakthrough as the war approaches its seven-month mark.

Analysts have told Al Jazeera a firm peace deal remains unlikely, with Iran still wanting to follow the approach set out in an earlier agreement, which would give it and Oman a main role in managing the strait before moving on to discussing terms for a broader peace deal.

For its part, the US, which has claimed to be “in total control” of the Strait of Hormuz, wants Iran’s nuclear programme to be the subject of discussions straight away.

Iran has previously made clear that it will not engage with broader peace talks, including addressing the issue of its nuclear programme, until the US naval blockade of its ports in and around the Hormuz strait is lifted, sanctions are repealed and the US provides a guarantee of an end to strikes, among other conditions.

Here’s what we know.

What has Iran proposed?

Araghchi told reporters in New York that Iran had presented its plan to the US through intermediaries. “If certain conditions are met, the Strait of Hormuz would be open on the end of the seventh day and [peace] talks would restart,” he said.

He did not give details but said the proposal resembles the June 17 memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by Iran and the US, which briefly eased the conflict before breaking down. “The moment they accept this plan, from the next day, this timetable can start, and after seven days, the strait will be open,” he said.

Under the June agreement, Iran undertook to allow ships to pass through the strait without paying tolls for 60 days – that was the period of time given for peace talks to take place. But the MoU left open what would happen after that period.

Araghchi did not say whether the same arrangement formed part of his new proposal. Nor did he spell out what Washington would have to do before the seven-day timetable began, how either side would verify those steps, or what rules would govern shipping once the strait reopened.

It is highly unlikely Iran would be offering to cede control of the Strait of Hormuz, analysts say.

Urban Coningham, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, told Al Jazeera that Tehran is unlikely to receive the sanction relief it has previously demanded and, therefore, sees the strait as its primary ticket to helping it recover from the war economically.

“Hormuz is a clear Iranian red line,” he told Al Jazeera. “The Iranians will not get reparations for the war, so control of the strait is the only way they can recover economically. I cannot see them backing down from that.”

Why does the June agreement matter?

The MoU signed in June set out an immediate halt to military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, where Israel has launched strikes and occupied part of the country, and triggered a 60-day period for negotiations on a lasting peace settlement. It included US waivers for Iranian oil exports and provisions to restore maritime traffic through the strait.

It deferred other issues, including the future of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, to broader peace talks.

But the agreement unravelled the following month amid renewed confrontation over shipping routes through the strait.

Coningham told Al Jazeera that Iran’s latest proposal follows this earlier model: “Open the strait within seven days, then start talks on the nuclear file.”

But “the US does not want to compartmentalise the issues, it wants them discussed as one package”, he said.

How else does this new proposal place pressure on the US?

Coningham also sees a political calculation in making the offer publicly at the UN as Americans contend with high fuel prices. “By explicitly saying this may be the only chance before the midterms, Iran is putting pressure on Trump over oil and gas prices and the strait,” he said. “It is a tactic to put more pressure on the US.”

The strait, which runs between Iran and Oman, is a vital route for oil and gas exports from the Gulf. Disruption to shipping has driven up energy prices far beyond the region, giving both governments an economic reason to reach an agreement despite their differences.

With the US midterm elections approaching, a deal to get it reopened could give Trump a chance to bring down fuel prices before voters go to the polls – potentially giving the Republican Party a much-needed electoral boost before the midterms.

Trump has presented the electoral calculation differently, however. In his address to the General Assembly on Tuesday, he accused Iran of waiting to see how his Republican Party performs in November and predicted a deal would happen after the vote. He also threatened to “annihilate the Islamic Republic” if there was no agreement.

Trump claimed the election did not affect his own decision-making on Iran: “The only thing that does is that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.”

That leaves an open question about whether the prospect of lower energy prices is enough to persuade his administration to accept Iran’s proposed order of talks. Coningham doubts it. “Trump is prepared for this to go on through the midterms,” he said. “The same problem remains where the proposal does not answer questions about the nuclear file.”

Where do broader US-Iran peace talks stand?

Araghchi met US envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner on Tuesday in talks mediated by Qatar. The Iranian foreign minister described the exchange as productive and said messages continued to pass between the sides.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said it would be wrong to describe the meeting as a major breakthrough, however.

Burcu Ozcelik, a senior research fellow for Middle East security, told Al Jazeera that the major blockage for Washington and Tehran is that each is making different assumptions about how much pressure they can exert on the other. The Trump administration is unlikely to revive the failed MoU, she said, because it assesses its naval blockade and tighter sanctions as working.

“The US appears to believe it can wait this out until Tehran is prepared to make meaningful concessions,” Ozcelik said.

“But Iran remains defiant despite indications that it is hurting economically.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s trade war with Canada could intensify the headwinds Republicans are navigating ahead of the November midterms, with its effects poised to reverberate in northern battleground states with crucial Senate races.

With the election less than six weeks away, Republicans are facing an increasingly bleak outlook, as new polls this week showed voters favoring Democrats by as much as 12 points amid widespread cost-of-living anxiety and low approval for Trump.

The escalating beef with Canada — Trump attacked the country anew on social media Wednesday — stands to heighten voters’ economic worries and add to the GOP’s political challenge in dead-heat races, analysts said.

“It doesn’t make things easier. It’s not helping,” said Rusty Hills, a University of Michigan public policy professor and onetime chair of the Michigan Republican Party.

The president’s unpopular policies on the war in Iran, the economy and data centers have already handed Republican candidates the tough task of appearing responsive to Americans’ frustration with cost-of-living issues without alienating Trump and his voter base.

The trade war, said Lance Dutson, a Maine Republican media strategist, puts “another log on the fire” of the affordability issue.

The tariffs have appeared unpopular in recent polling, including among a majority of independent voters. Though they are not expected to dramatically increase consumer prices, they could affect voters’ perception of the economy — and even small economic impacts on certain industries, such as auto manufacturing in Michigan, could have an effect in very close midterm races, experts said.

Trump’s new import bans on some Canadian goods are set to begin next week, a response to retaliatory tariffs Canada levied earlier this month. Trump argues that Canada has “been ripping off” the United States and that tariffs will help domestic manufacturers.

On Wednesday, the president inaccurately claimed on Truth Social that Canada is allowing “millions and millions” of immigrants into its country.

“It is a Liberal takeover that will end very badly. Already showing up in their numbers. Big unemployment. ‘Oh Canada!” the president wrote on social media Wednesday morning.

Five of the nine states most likely to decide Senate control border Canada — Alaska, Ohio, Michigan, New Hampshire and Maine. Two more, Texas and Iowa, also do substantial trade with Canada.

Democrats must retain their Senate seats including New Hampshire and Michigan and flip four of the other states to win a majority, a tall task. As the landscape worsens for Republicans, however, some are testing how much they can distance themselves from Trump.

“It’s a tightrope, there’s no question,” Hills said. “[Candidates] are looking for some wiggle room on some of these issues like the war and prices and Canada tariffs, because they need every independent and swing voter they can get.”

A majority of Americans oppose raising tariffs on Canadian goods, including 64% of independents, an Economist/YouGov poll found. Only 14% of independents said they supported additional U.S. tariffs on Canada in a late August Ipsos poll.

And in Michigan, 68% of independent voters disapprove of the tariffs, a poll this month from the Washington Post and Schar School found.

“The more we put tariffs on stuff, the more they put tariffs on stuff … prices are just ultimately going to go up for all of us,” said one Michigan swing voter in a Sept. 9 focus group conducted by the firm Engagious, in which 11 of 13 participants said the trade war was bad for the state.

The highest costs of the tariffs will be concentrated within a few industries, including auto and other manufacturing, dairy, and alcohol and spirits, said Alex Durante, a senior economist at the Tax Foundation. The tariffs likely won’t create a major change for consumers, but the general impression that tariffs can contribute to higher prices might turn off voters who are already worried about inflation, he said.

Counter-tariffs imposed by Canada in response to U.S tariffs last year resulted in a 6% increase in the prices of affected goods, researchers found in paper published by the Journal of Monetary Economics.

Canadian lumber products at Gutherie Lumber in Livonia, Mich., in August.

(Paul Sancya / Associated Press)

“This trade war is certainly not helping the president and his party in the midterms,” Durante said. “What’s weighing on the top of people’s minds is this general affordability crisis … and they realize that tariffs are another factor that is impacting affordability.”

The latest escalation of the trade dispute began in July, when Trump threatened new 50% tariffs on some Canadian goods, reinvigorating a conflict that began with tariffs the president imposed in 2025.

The two countries began trade talks, but the negotiations fell apart in late August, and Trump imposed tariffs on about $20-billion worth of Canadian goods. Canada retaliated with tariffs on about $20-billion worth of American goods that took effect Sept. 8. Trump then announced import bans on some Canadian goods, including certain alcohol and dairy products, which go into effect next week.

Construction and farm equipment in Illinois, aluminum and pipe products in New York, and iron and steel products in Ohio are among the goods targeted by Canada’s counter-tariffs, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. reported. In California, about 10.5% of the state’s Canadian imports are exposed to the counter-tariffs imposed by Canada.

Democrats have seized on the issue as another way to tie Republican candidates to Trump’s policies, something that analysts said may have varying degrees of success in different swing states.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins campaigns in August in Kittery, Maine.

(CJ Gunther / Getty Images)

In Maine and New Hampshire, where the Republican Senate nominees have criticized Trump’s move, the tariff issue may be less likely to stick. Efforts to tie Republicans to Trump have historically been less successful in the region because of its independent streak, said Jim Merrill, a veteran Republican strategist in New Hampshire.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins warned the White House against imposing tariffs and successfully pushed for the administration to exempt road salt and cement this month. She told Politico that the Trump administration had “very much underestimated” the effect of the tariffs on Maine residents.

Republican John Sununu, a former senator who is running to retake the seat in New Hampshire, has also criticized the tariffs, saying a trade war with Canada “doesn’t make any sense.” He indicated he would support legislation in Congress to restrain the president’s tariff powers.

Elsewhere, Senate nominees have walked a careful line on tariffs. In Alaska, Sen. Dan Sullivan has largely avoided the issue, even as Democrats there have used it to ramp up attacks on his record in recent days. In Ohio, former Sen. Jon Husted told the National Review in August that the public “would like to understand the strategy behind what the president’s trying to do.”

Former Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan, the Republican Senate nominee, told reporters over the weekend that he was in favor of “good” tariffs that would help Michigan and opposed to “bad” tariffs that would hurt the state.

Focusing on issues other than tariffs may be the right strategy on the campaign trail, Hills said.

“He’d much rather be talking about the Republican plan for affordability,” Hills suggested. “There’s interesting things we need to be talking about in order to win this election, and this isn’t one of them.”

Actors Hannah Einbinder and Susan Sarandon were among scores who were arrested Thursday in New York City as they protested an appearance by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before the United Nations General Assembly.

According to an Instagram video by Jewish Voice for Peace, one of the organizers of the demonstration, more than 100 individuals were arrested for blockading the U.N.

“Netanyahu out of New York!” Einbinder shouted as officers took the “Hacks” star into custody.

The 31-year-old Jewish actor has been a critic of Israel’s war in Gaza; last year, when receiving the Emmy Award for supporting actress in a comedy series, she concluded her speech by saying, “Go Birds, f— ICE and free Palestine.” “Birds” was in reference to the Philadelphia Eagles. Einbinder is a big fan.

Other well-known faces were spotted among demonstrators. Actors Cynthia Nixon, Elliot Page and Indya Moore were there, as well as comedians Mary Beth Barone, Caleb Hearon and Sarah Sherman and musicians Lucy Dacus and Julien Baker, according to multiple online reports.

In Netanyahu’s appearance before the General Assembly, he was met with a mix of cheers, boos and mass walkouts, according to the Associated Press.

As numerous delegates exited the room, Netanyahu called out: “If there are any other moral cowards who have not yet left the hall, please do so now.”

In his defiant speech, the Israeli leader denied allegations that the country was committing a genocide in Gaza, calling it “the biggest lie of the century,” and he asserted Israel’s right to wage war against Iran.

The Israel-Hamas war began on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas-led militants attacked Israel, killing around 1,200 people and kidnapping 251. Israel’s military operations have since killed at least 73,922 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.

In October, Israel and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire. However, Israel continues to carry out airstrikes in Gaza near military-held zones.

Ahead of Netanyahu’s visit, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani labeled the world leader a “war criminal” in a public video, stating that his office looked into enforcing a 2024 arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court if Netanyahu visited the city.

However, in that same video, Mamdani acknowledged that the city did not have the authority to enforce the warrant, instead calling on the federal government to act.

In his U.N. speech, Netanyahu addressed Mamdani, saying: “You tried to stop me from coming here. You tried to silence me. Well, you can’t silence me, you can’t silence the truth. Here’s the simple truth, Israel didn’t commit genocide. Israel prevented genocide.”

Stars, local lawmakers and activists protesting outside the U.N. chanted “Free Palestine” and “Netanyahu, you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide.” While police arrested some members in the crowd, individuals called out: “The whole world is watching.”