What happened

Israel’s parliament on Monday gave final approval to legislation that makes death by hanging the default punishment for West Bank Palestinians convicted of murdering Israelis. The Knesset approved the bill 62-48 amid condemnation from human rights groups, Palestinians and several European governments.

Who said what

“From today, every terrorist will know, and the whole world will know, that whoever takes a life, the State of Israel will take their life,” far-right National Security Minister Ben-Gvir, the driving force behind the bill, told lawmakers. Capital punishment was already legal in Israel, but only two people have been executed in 78 years, most recently Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in 1962.

“In theory, Jewish Israelis could also be executed under the law,” the BBC said, but the law’s language precludes that in practice. “The intent is clearly for the law to apply to Palestinians and not to Jewish terrorism at all,” Yoav Sapir, the former head of Israel’s public defender’s office, told The New York Times.

What next?

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel has already asked the Supreme Court to annul the law. The court will likely strike it down over its discriminatory provisions, Sapir told the Times.

What happened

President Donald Trump on Monday claimed “great progress” in his administration’s “serious discussions” with Iran’s “NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME.” But if a deal is “not shortly reached,” he added in a social media post, and “if the Hormuz Strait is not immediately ‘Open for Business,’ we will conclude our lovely ‘stay’ in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating” all its power plants, oil wells and “possibly all desalination plants!”

Who said what

“Deliberate attacks on desalinization plants” would “be a major escalation that could constitute a war crime under international law,” Politico said. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday the Trump administration “will always act within the confines of the law,” but Trump “is going to move forward unabated” to achieve his objectives in the war.

The “biggest danger” for the region “may not be what Trump could do to Iran, but how Tehran could retaliate,” The Associated Press said. Iran isn’t as reliant on desalination as its Gulf Arab neighbors, who “depend on it” to “sustain their current populations.” After Trump’s post, Iran “attacked and set ablaze a fully loaded crude oil tanker off Dubai,” Reuters said, and Kuwait said Iran hit a key power and water desalination plant.

What next?

An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson said Tehran wasn’t negotiating directly with the U.S. but had received a 15-point proposal filled with “excessive, unrealistic and irrational” demands. Trump claims a “new government is in charge in Iran,” The New York Times said, but the killing of its previous leaders makes it “more difficult” for the “fractured” leadership that remains to “negotiate with American envoys or make significant concessions.”

Israel and the US went into this war together, said Katy Balls in The Sunday Times. But as the conflict drags on, some members of Maga’s “isolationist wing” are starting to complain that Israel “led” the US into it, in pursuit of its own agenda.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio lent credence to that theory some weeks ago, when he said that the US had struck Iran because Washington “knew that there was going to be an Israeli action” that would prompt a retaliation. And only last week Tulsi Gabbard, the US intelligence chief, told Congress that Iran had abandoned its pursuit of nuclear weapons, undermining any claim that Iran posed an “imminent threat”.

Convenient claims

It is pretty clear that it posed no such threat, said Donald Macintyre in The Independent – and it is well known that Benjamin Netanyahu had been trying to persuade the US to join in such a war for 25 years: successive US presidents blocked it. But that doesn’t mean that Donald Trump was lured into a war by Israel, even if he sometimes finds it convenient to claim that the Israelis are acting without his knowledge.

For Netanyahu, this war is not just about destroying a hostile regime, said Emma Graham-Harrison in The Guardian. This autumn, he will face his first electoral test since the 7 October attacks. For the past two years, his poll ratings have been “stubbornly below levels that would return him to power”. Victory for Israel in this conflict – which has the support of 90% of Israelis – would do much to turn that around.

‘Draining support’

But in going to war with Iran, the PM is gambling with his country’s long-term security, said Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times. For decades, the single biggest guarantee of that security has been the “strong bipartisan support” Israel commands in the US. “But the Netanyahu government’s actions – first in Gaza and now in Iran – are draining that support away.”

If this war turns into a costly “quagmire”, it’s “entirely conceivable” that both the Democratic and Republican candidates in the 2028 presidential race will propose curtailing support for Israel – an outcome that would be a “strategic disaster for the Israelis”.

What happened

Tehran on Wednesday rejected a 15-point U.S. proposal to pause the increasingly costly Iran war and offered its own maximalist demands while insisting the country was not in negotiations with President Donald Trump. The U.S. plan, as described by Pakistani intermediaries, included Iran agreeing to abandon its nuclear program, hand over its enriched uranium, curb its missile arsenal and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian officials said on English-language state-run Press TV they wanted war reparations, an end to hostilities and assassinations, safeguards against future attacks and recognition of Iran’s “exercise of sovereignty” over the strait.

Who said what

The passing back and forth of “warnings” and “positions” is not negotiation, just “an exchange of messages,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Wednesday to state broadcaster IRIB. “We have no intention of negotiating,” and “that they are now talking about negotiations is an admission of defeat.” The Iranians “are negotiating, by the way,” Trump said at a fundraiser Wednesday night, “and they want to make a deal so badly, but they’re afraid to say it because they figure they’ll be killed by their own people.”

Trump “can’t stop talking about how much his administration is negotiating with Iran,” and Iranian leaders “can’t stop denying” it — “almost as if they’re trying to troll him,” The New York Times said. And both “strategies make sense.” Trump is “raising hopes that the war might end soon” because rising gas prices and other costs have made it increasingly “unpopular with the American public.” Iranian leaders want to “keep oil prices high” and “would also like to stay in power,” and defying Trump “might help them do that.“ These “competing incentives are probably pushing both parties toward more serious negotiations.”

What next?

Trump “appears increasingly interested in finding an off-ramp with Iran,” the BBC said, but the recent “head-spinning developments” did not ease “growing concern inside the administration that Trump doesn’t have a concrete plan for what comes next.” Of course, “ending the war isn’t up to Trump alone,” The Wall Street Journal said, as Iran and Israel are showing no interest in pausing the fighting. “Iran will end the war when it decides to do so,” an unidentified Iranian official said on state TV, “and when its own conditions are met.”

“Amid the fog of war and the propaganda being pushed by all sides”, it’s hard to tell what’s going on with the Iran conflict right now, said Abubakr Al-Shamahi on Al Jazeera. On Tuesday, Donald Trump claimed that Washington was speaking to the “right people” in the Iranian regime, which wanted a deal “so badly” and had given the US a “very big present worth a tremendous amount of money”. Tehran, however, insisted that the talks were “fake news” and accused the Trump administration of negotiating with itself. This confused picture followed days of conflicting messages from the US.

Last Saturday, Trump talked of “winding down” the war, but also threatened to attack every power plant in Iran in 48 hours unless Tehran fully reopened the Strait of Hormuz. The regime responded by vowing to strike power plants in Israel and across the Gulf region. On Monday morning, shortly before US markets opened, Trump declared that he would postpone the power plant strikes for five days, citing his claimed diplomatic progress.

‘Trump’s evaporating credibility’

It’s “a measure of Trump’s evaporating credibility” that even Washington insiders were sceptical about whether talks with Iran had taken place, said Simon Marks in The i Paper. The postponement of the ultimatum looks like another case of what Wall Street investors call “Taco”, or “Trump always chickens out”. It could be that, said Jonathan Sacerdoti in The Spectator. But it may indeed be a response to backchannel negotiations, or a piece of “dislocation” designed to sow doubt and confusion within Iran’s leadership. Trump likes to keep people guessing.

Some sort of diplomatic effort does now appear to be in motion, led by Pakistan, said Andrew Roth in The Guardian. The reported interlocutor of the US is Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s parliament. But this process may just be another way for Trump to buy time before launching commando raids in Iran: the US is “still moving marines and airborne soldiers into position”.

There’s no mystery here, said Edward Luce in the Financial Times. “The truth inside Trump’s tornado of piffle is that he wants to get out of the mess he created.” He never expected the attack on Iran to lead to this desperate standoff, despite everybody warning him that it would. He thought the regime would swiftly collapse in the face of US might. He now wants Tehran to surrender its ability to disrupt energy markets, but it will never do so, no matter how much Trump blusters and rages. “It does not take a seer to guess that at some point he will hint at using nuclear weapons.”

Winding down the war certainly won’t be easy, said William Hague in The Times. The Iranian leadership is now “more hardline” and will “drive a hard bargain”: its officials have reportedly outlined five conditions, including a halt to assassinations, assurances against further attack, and hefty reparations.

To win, Iran needs merely to survive

Tehran appears in no mood to capitulate, said Stephen Glover in the Daily Mail. It’s still launching drones at nearby Gulf states, and last week demonstrated its wider threat by firing two missiles at the British-American military base on the Chagos Islands, some 2,400 miles away.

To win this war, the regime needs merely to survive, said Ilan Goldenberg in Foreign Affairs. Trump should cut his losses, declaring that the US has achieved its main aim of degrading Iran’s military capabilities. The regime may reject such a ceasefire initially, but if the US keeps pushing for de-escalation, Tehran will come under international pressure to follow suit. Admittedly, this will leave the US “entangled in the region, managing a weakened but more aggressive Iran”, but to double down in search of a decisive outcome would risk “a far worse result”.

I’m encouraged by reports that J.D. Vance is involved in Iran negotiations, said James Ball in The i Paper. The US vice-president is a “committed American isolationist” who stands zero chance of succeeding Trump if the Iran war doesn’t end soon. If he’s surfacing now, he must think there’s a chance of a deal.

The warring parties will have to reach a settlement at some point, said Sean O’Grady in The Independent. Iran’s regime can’t sustain an indefinite conflict. There must be some within it who are “rational enough” to realise this and understand the potential rewards of striking a deal with America. As things stand, Trump is demanding the freezing of Iran’s missile programme, zero uranium enrichment, and the decommissioning of Iran’s main nuclear facilities. The irony is that the US had all but secured agreement on these demands before Trump launched his “stupid, chaotic” war a month ago.

The targeting of Iranian missiles at the Diego Garcia UK-US military base on Friday has sent alarm bells ringing in Europe. Diego Garcia is over 2,500 miles (4,000km) from Iran and, if a missile from Tehran can reach there, it could also reach Paris, Berlin or even London.

“Previously, we thought Iran’s missiles had a range of 2,000km (1,245 miles),” General Sir Richard Barrons, former commander of Joint Forces Command, told BBC Radio 4 on Saturday.

One of the missiles fell well short of its target and the other was shot down, said Defence Secretary John Healey. But “the launch, however unsuccessful” has “fuelled fears” about the range of Iran’s ballistic missile programme, said the BBC’s defence correspondent Jonathan Beale.

What did the commentators say?

Israel has claimed Iran is developing weapons capable of travelling 2,500 miles (4,000km). “We have been saying it,” the Israel Defence Forces posted on social media. “The Iranian terrorist regime poses a global threat. Now, with missiles that can reach London, Paris or Berlin.”

This could “put continental Europe and possibly even Britain under threat”, defence analysts told The Telegraph’s Paul Nuki. Every European capital “now lies within credible Iranian reach”, Ran Kochav, former commander of the Israeli air and missile force told the paper.

Yes, it’s “conceivable” that an Iranian rocket “could reach London”, Sidharth Kaushal, of the Royal United Services Institute think tank, told the BBC’s Beale. But “so what?” We’re talking about “a small number” of conventional missiles over “well-defended airspace”, and they are “quite inaccurate at very long ranges”. The risk to London is “pretty low”, research analyst Decker Eveleth of the CNA Corporation told Beale. A missile could travel the distance but it wouldn’t be “particularly aim-able”. It would also be spotted quickly. Using a network of satellites and powerful radars, the US Space Force can track the trajectory of “any missile fired across the globe”.

“Various sources” agreed that it was unlikely that missiles launched from Iran would be able to hit London, said Jamie Grierson in The Guardian. Britain is protected by Nato’s ballistic missile defence, a shield “designed to detect, track and intercept” weapons in flight, bolstered by two Aegis Ashore defence sites in Poland and Romania.

The UK government is “not aware of any assessment at all” that Iran is “even trying to target Europe, let alone that they could if they tried”, said Communities Secretary Steve Reed on the BBC’s “Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg”. And “even if they did, we have the necessary military capability” to defend ourselves. “The UK is not going to be dragged into this war.”

What next?

Britain has “very little in the way of” independent “ballistic missile defences”, said the BBC’s Beale: “a glaring gap” acknowledged by the government’s recent Strategic Defence Review. But it’s “unlikely” that Iran has “large numbers of intermediate or even long-range ballistic missiles”. The fact that it only fired two towards Diego Garcia “suggests its long-range missile capability is limited”. For now, “the threat seems remote”.

Even if it were able, Iran is unlikely to single out the UK for a missile attack, according to a recent paper from the European Centre for Counterterrorism and Intelligence Studies. More likely would be “precision strikes on Nato logistics hubs, and economic disruption” through attacks on Mediterranean ports or liquefied natural gas terminals in Italy, Greece and Romania.

“Nato does have what it takes to defend alliance territory, to defend our one billion inhabitants,” said Colonel Martin O’Donnell, spokesperson for Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. Europeans “should rest easy at night”.

What happened

President Donald Trump on Monday paused until the end of the week his ultimatum for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or see its energy facilities “obliterated.” He said he was holding off because his envoys were making progress in “very, very strong talks” with a “respected” Iranian leader. Iran denied Trump’s claim, posted shortly before markets opened. “No negotiations have been held with the U.S.,” Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said on social media. “Fakenews [sic] is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the U.S. and Israel are trapped.” Markets did rally, but oil prices, which dipped on Trump’s suggestion of peace talks, rose again after Iran’s rebuttal.

Who said what

It wasn’t clear which Iranian official Trump was casting as the U.S.’ negotiating partner, but Trump envoy Steve Witkoff has reportedly “had direct communication” with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi “in recent days,” said The New York Times, citing American and Iran officials. An Israeli official and two other sources told Reuters the interlocutor was Qalibaf, though European officials said there have been “no direct negotiations” between the U.S. and Iran.

The White House is “quietly weighing” Qalibaf as a “potential partner — and even a future leader,” Politico said. Some White House allies viewed Trump’s kingmaking aspirations as “premature, even naive,” but his “interest in pinpointing a negotiating partner signals a desire to find some way out of the quagmire that Iran has quickly become.”

Trump “seized on initial contacts” with Iranian officials to “buy time to try reopen the Strait of Hormuz and to extract himself from a box of his own construction,” the Times said. But even as he “retreated from one military option, U.S. and Israeli officials said they were continuing to carry out other strikes against Iran,” and some 5,000 Marines are still headed to the region.

What next?

A “spate of diplomacy in recent days” carried out “through Middle Eastern intermediaries” has given U.S. officials “hope an agreement to settle the conflict was possible,” The Wall Street Journal said. And it “prompted early discussions about an in-person meeting in Pakistan or Turkey later this week.” Witkoff, Jared Kushner and Vice President J.D. Vance “were expected to meet Iranian officials in Islamabad this week,” Reuters said, citing a Pakistani official.

While the world is distracted by the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, another conflict is erupting between Iran’s neighbours.

Pakistan has declared “open war” on Afghanistan after fighting intensified over recent weeks. In a dangerous escalation from cross-border skirmishes, Pakistan launched air strikes at the end of February, targeting major cities including Kabul. Afghanistan’s Taliban regime responded with drone attacks. Both sides blame the other for the conflict.

More than 1,000 people are estimated to have been killed or injured, and 100,000 displaced. In one air strike on a Kabul drug rehabilitation centre last week, 400 people were killed, according to Afghan officials. With a ceasefire to mark the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr set to expire, there are no signs of a desire for de-escalation.

What’s the background?

This is “not a sudden rupture of relations”, said Rabia Akhtar on The Conversation. It’s the “intensification of long-simmering, historical security concerns” along their disputed 1,600-mile border: the Durand Line.

Afghanistan has never formally recognised the border, drawn in 1893 through ethnic Pashtun areas. That’s caused “sustained and persistent tension” since Pakistan’s independence in 1947. The countries also took opposite sides in the Cold War, with Pakistan “embedded” in the US-led framework and Afghanistan maintaining “closer ties” with the Soviet Union (until it invaded). All of this “entrenched cross-border militant networks”.

When the Taliban retook power in 2021, Pakistan “anticipated a more cooperative security environment” than the series of US-backed Afghan governments. It hoped the Taliban, which it had covertly supported all along, would help “rein in” several militant groups, said The New York Times. This was a “strategic miscalculation”.

Instead, terrorist attacks within Pakistan increased, particularly by the Tereek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP, or Pakistan Taliban). The group took advantage of Pakistan’s political chaos to further entrench its power in the border lands and threaten the country’s all-powerful military. The TTP also took a share of the US military equipment left in Afghanistan when America withdrew. This, and the release of hundreds of its fighters from Afghan prisons, erased much of Pakistan’s efforts to defeat it.

What triggered this outbreak?

The TTP has been increasing its attacks in Pakistan as it grows in power, killing 4,000 people in the last four years according to Pakistani authorities. Last year was the most violent for militancy in a decade, according to the Islamabad-based Center for Research and Security Studies. The separatist Balochistan Liberation Army also claimed attacks that killed almost 50 people. Islamabad has long accused the Taliban of harbouring such groups, allegedly allowing them to operate from sanctuaries within Afghanistan.

Pakistan launched air strikes against alleged TTP hideouts in Afghanistan last year, warning it would no longer tolerate “safe havens” for fighters. It also accused its historic foe, India, of supporting the Taliban, allegedly with Indian-made drones used in recent attacks. India then effectively normalised relations with the Taliban.

Both India and the Taliban “vehemently deny” Pakistan’s accusations, said the BBC. They say the TTP is “an internal matter” for Islamabad: a “Pakistan-created problem”. That’s “done little but to further infuriate” Pakistani leaders.

Violent clashes erupted on the border in October, and Pakistan carried out air strikes before suspending trade with landlocked Afghanistan. A truce didn’t last long; after years of diplomatic efforts, Pakistan “now says that there is nothing to talk about”.

What’s the significance?

Middle Eastern powers that have been mediating between Afghanistan and Pakistan for years currently have “limited bandwith” to de-escalate, said Chietigj Bajpaee on Chatham House. Despite Pakistan’s “superior military”, the Taliban has “a significant capacity for asymmetric warfare”. And if Pakistan “perceives an Indian hand behind Kabul’s actions”, there could also be renewed hostilities between India and Pakistan – two nuclear-armed states.

Exacerbating tensions is “the forced repatriation of Afghan refugees” from Pakistan and Iran; an estimated 2.7 million Afghans were returned last year, further straining Afghanistan’s “stretched public services” and economic woes.

Pakistan has been “taking advantage of the West’s disengagement” and regional powers’ distraction, said the Financial Times. It is “enraged”. But all-out war “threatens stability” across Asia. There is “the very real risk” that Afghanistan becomes “an incubator for terrorism” again.

For the “shaky truce” to endure, the intervention of the US and China is required. Although “precedents for a settlement are not inspiring”, the stakes are “too high for the world to keep looking away”.

What happened

President Donald Trump over the weekend gave Iran until Sunday to “FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz” or the U.S. would “obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!” Trump later announced he was temporarily postponing these attacks, telling reporters Monday he had held “very strong talks” with Iranian officials. Iran said if Trump followed through with his threats, it would retaliate by destroying critical regional infrastructure used by the U.S. and its allies and sending soaring oil and gas prices even higher.

Who said what

If Iran’s power plants are eventually targeted, “vital infrastructure and energy and oil facilities” across the Gulf region “will be destroyed irreversibly, and oil prices will rise for a long time,” Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said on social media. An Iranian military spokesperson said “fuel, energy, information technology and desalination infrastructure” would be attacked, and the Strait of Hormuz would be “completely closed” until damaged Iranian power plants were rebuilt.

Trump is “cycling through an increasingly desperate list of options” as he seeks a solution to the “crisis in the Strait of Hormuz,” The Associated Press said. His latest threat just “fueled criticism that he is grasping for answers after going to war without a clear exit plan.” It was a “dramatic reversal from just a day earlier,” when Trump said he was considering “winding down” the war without reopening the strait, Axios said.

Trump’s threats are “the only language the Iranians understand,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told NBC News on Sunday. “Sometimes you have to escalate to de-escalate.” Attacks on power plants could “hurt Iran,” Reuters said. But “they would be potentially catastrophic for its Gulf neighbors,” which use roughly “five times as much power per capita” to make “their gleaming desert cities habitable” and desalinate nearly all of their drinking water.

What next?

Trump’s energy infrastructure threat and “surge” of 4,500 more U.S. troops to the region “have set the stage” for “the war’s possible endgame: a battle for control of the Strait of Hormuz,” The Washington Post said. Reopening the strait to ship traffic now appears to be Trump’s “paramount objective,” but such an operation “could take at least weeks, put U.S. sailors and other forces at risk, and expose U.S. warships to attacks” for “an unknown duration.”

As the Iran war enters its third week, there is a divergence between how the United States and Israel conduct its operations against Tehran and what each nation hopes to accomplish. While President Donald Trump and his administration struggle to articulate an overarching goal for the war, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pushed ahead with expanding the front lines of his army’s assault not only on Iran but across Lebanon and Syria as well. With little end to the fighting in sight, is this still a single war of unified purpose, two separate conflicts being fought concurrently or a bit of both?

What did the commentators say?

The war on Iran may have been launched by Israel and the U.S. “at the same time,” said CNN, but it’s “becoming clear” the two nations have “some differences in how they see the war proceeding.” The pair enjoys a “number of overlapping objectives,” said former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro to the outlet. But there remains “some divergence” between Israel and the U.S., which is only likely to increase “as time passes.”

The longer the conflict lasts, the more likely their “endgames and risk tolerance” may differ, said Axios. Trump, in particular, currently stands “more aligned” with the Israeli government’s “maximalist objectives” than many among his own staff. Israeli and American armed and intelligence services are “moving in concert,” although “their targets vary,” with the U.S. focused “almost exclusively” on military targets, while Israeli assassinations and other operations are “intended to lay the groundwork for regime change.”

Netanyahu may appear to be “flying high” after finding an American president “willing to go all the way” with his long-telegraphed war on Iran, but Israeli analysts are “increasingly aware of where the two countries’ strategies” may bifurcate, said The Economist. Netanyahu has been “blunt” about his nation’s wish for regime change in Tehran, even as Israeli leadership has come to feel that Trump’s goals rest “primarily on controlling the flow of oil from Iran.” Israel is “willing to use the war to inflict deeper damage” on Iranian state infrastructure, while Washington “shows little sign of a clear political endgame,” said Bloomberg. Netanyahu is thus “far more likely to favor a drawn-out campaign” than Trump, given the “growing economic and political pressure” the president faces domestically.

At the onset of this war, both Israel and the U.S. “stated their desire to lay the groundwork for regime change,” The New York Times said. But as the war goes on, Trump has acknowledged that a popular uprising “didn’t seem imminent.” Israel would “prefer” to extend their war “for as long as possible, potentially for weeks, to weaken the Iranians,” said Israeli policy analyst Ahron Bregman to Turkey’s Anadolu Agency. Trump, meanwhile, will “seek a way to end this war, especially as oil prices continue to rise.” His goals “did not include regime change,” said CIA Director John Ratcliffe at a House Intelligence Committee meeting.

It is within this context that Israel’s “related but separate agenda” of concurrent attacks on Hezbollah is taking place, said Shapiro to CNN. Netanyahu is waging an “ulterior campaign to try to do significantly more damage to Hezbollah” in the hopes of spurring a “diplomatic process” with, or within, the Lebanese government. Trump generally supports dismantling Hezbollah infrastructure, yet Israel’s operations in Lebanon are “not of the same level of priority for U.S. interests.”

What next?

For the time being, the Trump administration seems publicly comfortable with the U.S. and Israel’s parallel-and-diverging strategies in Iran. The Trump regime “holds the cards” and has “clear” objectives, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Thursday in a press conference. Israel is “pursuing objectives as well.”

Q: Why are we helping Israel prosecute this war if they're going to pursue their own objectives?HEGSETH: We hold the cards. We have objectives. Those objectives are clear. We have allies pursuing objectives as well.

— @atrupar.com (@atrupar.com.bsky.social) 2026-03-20T19:47:25.485Z

Netanyahu, for now, “appears to be operating on the assumption that Trump shares his goals,” said William Usher, a former CIA Middle East analyst, to Bloomberg. That may be true “regarding the total elimination of [Iran’s] nuclear program, but perhaps not much beyond that.”

What happened

Israel on Wednesday struck Iran’s part of the massive South Pars/North Dome natural gas field it shares with Qatar, prompting two Iranian ballistic missile strikes on Qatar’s main energy hub, Ras Laffan Industrial City. Qatar condemned both Israel and Iran, while Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps warned other Gulf Arab neighbors that the U.S.-Israeli strikes on South Pars made their refineries and gas fields legitimate targets as well.

The attacks and counterstrikes, combined with Iran’s ongoing blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, sent oil and natural gas prices soaring on global markets. The U.S. and Qatar “knew nothing about this particular” Israeli attack, President Donald Trump said on social media, but if Iran strikes again, the U.S. “will massively blow up the entirety of the South Pars Gas Field.”

Who said what

“NO MORE ATTACKS WILL BE MADE BY ISRAEL” on South Pars “unless Iran unwisely decides to attack a very innocent, in this case, Qatar,” Trump said. His comments “seem to be an effort to de-escalate the situation,” but Trump “green-lit the Israeli strike,” Axios said, citing U.S. and Israeli officials. “While Qatar didn’t know about the Israeli strike in advance, Trump did,” having coordinated it with Israeli leaders.

“Trump approved of the strike” to “pressure Iran to unblock the Strait of Hormuz,” The Wall Street Journal said, citing U.S. officials. But Israel “struck at the crown jewel of Iran’s energy industry” to quash “an important source of revenue” for the country. While Israel hit oil tanks in Tehran earlier, striking South Pars was “orders of magnitude more alarming,” the Journal said. And Gulf Arab states, which had “aggressively lobbied the Trump administration” to prevent escalatory strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure, were “furious about Israel’s attack and the U.S. failure to head it off.”

What next?

Iran’s ongoing ability to damage U.S. interests “evokes a decades-old pattern of unrealized expectations for American interventions” in the Middle East, The New York Times said. “Air power is the U.S. drug of choice — we love to believe that it can achieve big political effects and also big military effects,” Caitlin Talmadge, a Gulf security expert at MIT, said to the Times, but the “historical record doesn’t support that.” Trump is reportedly “considering deploying thousands of U.S. troops to the region,” Reuters said, as the Pentagon “prepares for possible next steps” against Iran.

When the US and Israel attacked Iran, many turned to China to see its response.

For decades, Beijing had been the Islamic Republic’s most important economic ally, maintaining close diplomatic ties with Tehran through years of Western sanctions and international isolation.

But China’s relatively muted response to the US-Israeli strikes, its lack of military intervention and calls for de-escalation on both sides, has led many to question whether leader Xi Jinping is a fair-weather friend – or whether there’s a bigger game afoot: its delicate truce with the US, and their battle for global supremacy.

What is the background between China and Iran?

China was once “an important supplier of arms to Iran” before joining UN sanctions in 2007, said The Wall Street Journal. US officials say Chinese companies continued to be “a critical supplier of goods with potential military applications”, such as motors for Iran’s Shahed drones.

When in 2002 George Bush declared Iran part of an “axis of evil”, Beijing “saw an opportunity”, said Richard Spencer in The Times. It “began signing multibillion-dollar oil and gas deals” with Iran, culminating in a 25-year economic cooperation agreement in 2021 that centred on the sale of Iranian oil to China, reportedly worth $400 billion.

About 90% of Iran’s crude exports are sold to China every year, at a steep discount. In return, Iran “kept Washington bogged down in the Middle East”, said Geoffrey Cain in The Spectator. Its regional proxies “added just enough chaos to stop Washington focusing on China”. That was “extraordinarily useful” and cost Beijing “almost nothing”.

In 2023, China helped Iran restore diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia, among its other mediation efforts in the Middle East. It denounced what it called “unilateral” US sanctions and brought Iran into Beijing-backed diplomatic alliances. Beijing’s ties with Iran “blunted America’s efforts” to isolate Tehran, said Michael Schuman in The Atlantic. China has held regular joint military drills with Iran, and Chinese firms have even supplied chemicals used in Iran’s missile programme, according to Reuters.

How has China responded to the US-Israeli attacks?

Iran says China is helping in various ways, including with “military cooperation”. According to its foreign minister, China is a strategic partner in the war. But so far, China hasn’t provided any direct military support, or deployed any forces, or provided “new weapons assistance to any party involved”, said The Diplomat. It has “primarily engaged through diplomatic channels”.

China has expressed opposition to the US-Israeli strikes, emphasising that they could undermine regional stability. But that has been “notably more restrained” than after the strikes on Iran last year. Beijing has also criticised Iran’s retaliatory attacks on its Gulf neighbours, and its de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

But it is also not willing to assist the US. Trump has demanded that China send warships to the Gulf. In response, the Chinese foreign ministry said Beijing called on “all parties to immediately cease military operations”.

Why has China’s response been so muted?

For Xi Jinping, “a hard-nosed pragmatism is at play”, said CNN. Iran “ranks below his top priorities”, including China’s fragile détente and trade truce with the US, ahead of the upcoming summit with Donald Trump in Beijing. China “sees no benefit in heightening tension with the US over Iran,” said International Crisis Group analyst William Yang.

Iran’s “strategic importance” to China is far more limited than many assume, as trade and investment flows are “eclipsed” by those with Saudi Arabia and the UAE. China might even appreciate Washington’s resources being diverted from the Indo-Pacific. A sustained campaign could “deplete America’s weapons supplies”.

Trump this week announced that he is delaying the summit, as he pressures China to send warships to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. But a delay could also be in China’s interests. “If the war drags on, added pressure on Washington could mean more leverage for China,” said The New York Times.

China also “gains diplomatically from the worldwide perception that America is an out-of-control bully”, said Spencer. It does not lose much “whatever happens to Iran” – except oil.

Despite its massive investment in renewables, China is heavily reliant on crude from the Gulf. And as much as 40% of its imports are shipped through the Strait of Hormuz.

China is better placed to weather the storm than most. It had “long braced for a Gulf oil supply shock”, stockpiling one of the world’s biggest oil reserves and diversifying its supply, said the BBC. Still, disruption is “putting its resilience to the test”.

What happened

Israel assassinated Ali Larijani, the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, and Gholamreza Soleimani, the commander of the feared Basij plainclothes militia, in overnight airstrikes Tuesday. Iran confirmed the deaths and vowed revenge, especially for the killing of Larijani, the country’s de facto leader since Israel killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the opening hours of the Iran war.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday slammed U.S. allies for declining to send warships to free up the oil languishing on tankers as Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz. But he also faced domestic dissent as his National Counterterrorism Center director, Joe Kent, resigned, saying in a letter posted to social media that Iran “posed no imminent threat to our nation” and he “cannot in good conscience” back Trump’s war.

Who said what

The deaths of Larijani and Soleimani were the “most damaging blow to the Iranian leadership” since Khamenei’s assassination, said The New York Times. It also “highlighted how heavily Israel is relying on targeted killings to achieve its war aims,” a strategy that “carries a risk of backfiring in unforeseeable ways.” Larijani’s death “will deprive the Iranian leadership of one of its most astute and powerful voices,” said CNN. But losing such an influential pragmatist “may make any negotiations to end the war more difficult,” prolonging the conflict.

Israel’s targeted killings of “thousands of regime members” has fueled a mounting “sense of disorder” in Iran, The Wall Street Journal said. In the short term, the “likely outcome” of Larijani’s death is “a more volatile situation: a harder military posture in the war and harsher repression at home,” said the BBC. But over time, “a system that continues to lose senior figures may find it increasingly difficult to function effectively.”

What next?

Kent’s “stunning defection” highlights how much Trump’s Iran war has “divided some of the most loyal corners of his administration,” Politico said. It also “raises questions” about the status of Kent’s boss, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, another “outspoken critic of U.S. wars in the Middle East.” Gabbard and other top U.S. intelligence chiefs are scheduled to testify before Congress this week on the Iran war and threats to the U.S.

Dubai is known for being one of the world’s most opulent cities, as well as a bastion of safety in a region under the perpetual threat of violence. But the recent start of the Iran war has shattered the image of peace in the United Arab Emirates’ largest city. Iranian drone attacks and missile launches against the Persian Gulf have turned Dubai into a place where its residents must walk cautiously.

‘Built itself this image’

The war in Iran has “punctured the notion that towering skyscrapers, financial clout and the embrace of luxury and diversity in the Persian Gulf can act as impenetrable shields against the region’s turmoil,” said The Wall Street Journal. Since the war broke out, Iran has launched over 1,900 missiles and drones toward the UAE, according to the country’s defense ministry, with Dubai bearing the brunt of these. Iran is largely attacking the city in an effort to disrupt global trade routes.

Iran’s attacks have been “shutting down the airport, striking the iconic Burj Al Arab hotel and Dubai’s deep-water port, and killing several people across the UAE,” said the Journal. This marks a significant change for Dubai, as its wealth and status as a financial hub have largely made it “impervious to conflict — a haven of stability untouched by the wars, corruption and upheaval around it.”

Dubai has “built itself this image that people aspire to,” Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a political science professor from the UAE, told The Washington Post. And publicly, leaders in the region say Dubai is still safe and have “projected confidence in their defense capabilities,” said the Post. The UAE’s anti-missile system has had a “94% overall intercept success,” the Emirati embassy in Washington, D.C., said on X. This system has “largely kept” the “country safe from Iranian attacks.”

‘The shine has definitely been taken off’

Despite the public confidence in Dubai’s safety, many residents seem to feel differently, especially in a city where “more than 90% of its roughly 4 million residents are foreigners,” said the Post. There are “tens of thousands of residents and tourists that have fled Dubai” since the shelling began, said The Guardian, though the city’s “large population of migrant workers largely don’t have that privilege.”

“The shine has definitely been taken off,” John Trudinger, a British teacher and resident of Dubai for 16 years, said to The Guardian. Many of his colleagues in the city are “deeply traumatized and really struggling to cope.” Zain Anwar, a taxi driver from Pakistan, had a similar story. “I don’t want to be in Dubai anymore, there is no business, we are earning nothing since this war and I don’t see the tourism coming back,” he told The Guardian.

Life is going on in certain ways for those who do remain. The situation in the city is “functioning but tense,” Nick Rowles-Davies, a lawyer who moved to Dubai in 2022, said to CNBC. There is “visible vigilance in some areas, particularly at night when interceptions have been audible.” Those living in Dubai are not in a “panic, but there is a clear recognition that this is no longer distant geopolitics.”

What happened

President Donald Trump on Sunday said he was “demanding” that “about seven” countries reliant on Middle East oil help force Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has effectively halted traffic through the narrow, heavily trafficked strait, sending oil and gas prices sharply higher.

Trump, speaking to reporters on Air Force One after a weekend of golf and fundraising in Florida, did not identify the seven countries. But in a social media post Saturday, he said “many” countries “will be sending War Ships” to help the U.S. “keep the Strait open and safe,” and “hopefully” that list will include China, France Japan, South Korea and Britain. “If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response, I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO,” Trump told the Financial Times. “Whether we get support or not,” he said on Air Force One, “we will remember.”

Who said what

Trump and his top aides “spent the weekend framing their Iran operation as a resounding military success while imploring other countries to join” a Hormuz escort coalition they plan to unveil “as soon as this week,” The Wall Street Journal said. Trump’s call for help in this “costly and risky” campaign was “notable because it was the first time he had sounded eager to build a broad coalition to counter Iran,” The New York Times said. And notably, “he was asking for backup from allies who were largely not consulted about the decision to plunge into the war.”

Trump has “grown more agitated with news coverage and has failed to find a way to explain why he started the war — or how he will end it — that resonates” with a U.S. public worried about mounting deaths and soaring gas prices, The Associated Press said. “Iran wants to make a deal,” Trump told NBC News on Saturday, but “I don’t want to make it because the terms aren’t good enough yet.” Iran “never asked for a ceasefire, and we have never asked even for negotiation,” Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told CBS News. “We are ready to defend ourselves as long as it takes.”

What next?

U.S. allies have “responded to the idea of sending warships to the strait with caution, if at all,” the Times said, and Beijing has “little incentive” to participate because “Iran is allowing Chinese ships through the strait.” It is in the European Union’s “interest to keep the Strait of Hormuz open,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said Monday morning. “We have been in touch with the U.S. colleagues,” but this “is out of NATO’s area of action.”

With the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran now two weeks old, Iranians are coming to terms with the new normal of daily conflict. But the war has not only affected those living in the country currently under attack, as Iranians living overseas also find themselves caught in the middle of a geopolitical storm. While the Trump administration views the war as a net positive for the world, many of the Iranian diaspora say their feelings are more complicated.

‘Attacking each other on social media’

With the death of Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and the installation of his son as his successor, media outlets have “rightly focused on trying to understand how the conflict came about, where bombs have fallen and how many have died,” said The Guardian. But what can “easily get lost are the voices of the people directly affected,” including Iranians living abroad, whose views are “far from uniform.”

In the United States, various factions of Iranian emigrants are “attacking each other on social media, bullying shopkeepers and restaurant owners to promote their political agenda,” Kowsar Gowhari, an Iranian-born attorney living in Maryland, said to The Christian Science Monitor. Despite the new Iranian supreme leader coming to power, there are “some who believe this government is done, finished,” but others “don’t want [President Donald Trump] to destroy the place and to put in place a puppet government.”

Iran has always been a “melting pot with diverse views,” Mohamad Machine-Chian, an author and researcher at the University of Pittsburgh who is a native of Iran, told the Monitor. When the first ayatollah, Ruhollah Khomeini, took over Iran in 1979, Iranians “thought that the Islamic revolution was the way to go. Forty years later, they can see the disaster that has been created.”

The cultural divide has been especially prominent in California, where “half of all Iranian-Americans live,” said The Economist. And many of the “American-born children of Iranians who left after the revolution are now in their 30s and 40s.” Their memories of Iranian politics are “not of the regime but of America’s forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Many fear that the current situation in Iran could “bring continued conflict rather than liberation.”

Other countries

It is not just the U.S. where Iranians have mixed feelings about the war. Since the conflict began, Iranians abroad feel like they are “living in a parallel universe,” Hosnieh Djafari-Marbini, a council member in Oxford, England, who previously lived in Iran, told The Guardian. This parallel world is one where “life carries on normally — looking after patients, talking to colleagues — while at the same time you open your phone and see the destruction of places that mean so much to you.”

But it isn’t just the emotional toll of the war that could have an impact; Iranians living overseas have been threatened with the seizure of their property and could “face other legal penalties if they express ​support for the United States and Israel,” said Reuters. Those who do “will be met with the confiscation of all their properties,” Iran’s prosecutor general said in a statement.

This hasn’t stopped Iranian emigrants from speaking out. No “Iranian outside, ​in the diaspora, is really and truly worried about themselves and their properties and equity ‌and belongings ⁠when people inside Iran, they go out, barehanded, without anything, they will stand in front of live ammunition, and they actually get killed," Meyam Aghakhani, an Iranian living in London, told Reuters. “So my war and my fight continues without any hesitation.”

What happened

Iran’s secretive new leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, vowed vengeance on the U.S. and Israel on Thursday for their ongoing strikes and said Iran would continue throttling the world’s oil shipments. The statement, Khamenei’s first since being named supreme leader earlier this week, was read on state TV. He has not been seen publicly since the war began.

Who said what

“We will not refrain from avenging the blood of your martyrs,” Khamenei warned. Iran will “continue” to use “the leverage of closing the Strait of Hormuz” and is considering “opening other fronts in which the enemy has little experience and would be highly vulnerable.” Iranian attacks have left the strait “littered with damaged tankers, charred and abandoned,” said PBS “News Hour,” and Khamenei’s statement “dismissed any hope of Iran backing down from its unrelenting attacks in the Gulf.”

With Khamenei still hidden, the “central question remains unanswered,” CNN said: “Who is truly calling the shots?” According to Israeli officials, “Khamenei was in the compound that was attacked on the first day of the war,” where “his father, mother, wife and daughter were killed,” Axios said. “He was wounded but survived.” Khamenei is “likely in a secure, secret location to avoid a threatened Israeli operation to kill him,” The Associated Press said.

What next?

“Iran’s Navy is gone, their Air Force is no longer, missiles, drones and everything else are being decimated,” President Donald Trump said on social media Friday morning, and it is “a great honor” to be killing their leaders. “Watch what happens to these deranged scumbags today,” he added. As the war enters Day 14, oil prices are once again above $100 a barrel and “stocks sank worldwide over fears that the conflict could drag on longer than hoped,” the AP said.

A power struggle in the Middle East is rippling across the Red Sea and fuelling Sudan’s bloody civil war.

Fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces has “torn the country apart” since 2023, said The Times. Each side is backed by different Gulf countries and “their network of African allies”. Now, growing tension in the Gulf is causing the Sudan conflict to spread.

Violence on Sudan’s borders with Chad and Libya, increased fighting in South Sudan and massive troop mobilisation in neighbouring Ethiopia have been “raising the spectre of more conflicts”, ones marked with “the fingerprints of foreign actors”.

“The war is getting worse, and way more complex because of regional dynamics,” said Sarra Majdoub, a former UN security council expert on Sudan. “I don’t think it’s a civil war any more.”

How are Gulf states involved in Sudan?

“Gulf states have become increasingly prominent in the squabbles, civil wars and inter-country tensions in the Horn of Africa over the past decade,” said Brendon J. Cannon, professor at Khalifa University, on The Conversation.

The UAE has long been accused of supporting the RSF with weapons and funds. Experts believe it uses its ties to neighbouring countries, such as Ethiopia, South Sudan, Libya and Chad, to support the paramilitaries. But Saudi Arabia and Qatar back the SAF, along with Turkey, Egypt and Eritrea. Even Iran has played a role, allegedly supplying Sudan’s army with drones and missiles.

What is their motivation?

The UAE has been “funding proxy groups and wars in Yemen, Libya and Sudan as a way of securing strategic influence and gold assets”, said Nesrine Malik in The Guardian. It has established itself as a “global trading hub in gold”, said Middle East Eye, and Sudan offers “untapped” gold reserves; it is already Africa’s third-largest producer.

Access to Sudan’s ports is also an advantage in the “contest for control of the Red Sea”, Ahmed Soliman, from the Chatham House think tank, told The Times. Almost a third of global container shipping flows through the Suez Canal.

Sudan’s “geostrategic location” explains why “outside powers remain deeply invested”, said Shewit Woldemichael, International Crisis Group’s analyst for Sudan, on Al Jazeera. Sudan is “at the crossroads of the Red Sea, the Horn of Africa, the Sahel and North Africa”. For some countries, Sudan’s war is an opportunity to advance their own interests “in a rapidly changing and contested regional order”.

How is the conflict spreading?

The frontier with Chad is “the border to watch”, Majdoub told The Times, “because of cross-border communities and how heavily everyone is militarised”. Chad has closed the border, which experts say has been a major entry point for weapons and foreign fighters for the RSF.

South Sudan, which gained independence in 2011, is also deteriorating back into civil war. Many suspect Sudan’s army has been supplying the breakaway state’s anti-government militias, according to the International Crisis Group.

But “the most worrying theatre for future conflict” is between Ethiopia and Eritrea, said The Times. The two signed a peace agreement in 2022, but Ethiopia has recently sent “tens of thousands of troops” north. Alliances have “crystallised” along the same lines as in Sudan: the UAE and Israel back Ethiopia, while Saudi Arabia and its allies have “thrown their weight behind Eritrea”.

What might happen?

Mounting tensions between Saudi Arabia and the UAE “overshadow” their joint peace proposal for Sudan and risk “merging multiple regional conflicts, with Sudan at the epicentre”, said Woldemichael

On the other hand, the crisis in the Middle East could also “create an opening”. Faced with the “unprecedented security threat” of Iran, the UAE and Saudi Arabia could "find reason to set aside some of their differences, including over Sudan” in the name of regional unity. This could “help revive stalled diplomatic efforts to end the war”.

Gulf states will “likely begin focusing inward on their own security” as the situation in the Middle East deteriorates, said Cannon on The Conversation. ”Sudan’s civil war may last even longer now that Gulf states are focused elsewhere. Neither side in the civil war will have the ability to land a knock-out punch.”

Why are Saudi Arabia and the UAE at odds in Africa? How will a new president change Chile? And why did Meta just buy a social network built for AI?

Olly Mann and The Week delve behind the headlines and debate what really matters from the past seven days.

A podcast for curious, open-minded people, The Week Unwrapped delivers fresh perspectives on politics, culture, technology and business. It makes for a lively, enlightening discussion, ranging from the serious to the offbeat. Previous topics have included whether solar engineering could refreeze the Arctic, why funerals are going out of fashion, and what kind of art you can use to pay your tax bill.

You can subscribe to The Week Unwrapped wherever you get your podcasts:

• Spotify
• Apple Podcasts
• Global Player

What happened

A preliminary Pentagon investigation has determined that the U.S. was responsible for the deadly Tomahawk missile strike that destroyed a school in the opening hours of the Iran war, killing at least 175 people, most of them children, several news organizations reported Wednesday. The Feb. 28 strike on Shajarah Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab was provisionally found to be the “result of a targeting mistake” by U.S. Central Command, which used “outdated data provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency,” The New York Times said. It is “sure to be recorded as one of the most devastating single military errors in recent decades.”

Who said what

The findings are preliminary but “consistent with what had become increasingly obvious as new evidence continued to emerge,” CNN said: “The U.S. military conducted the strike.” President Donald Trump initially blamed Iran for the attack, and his “attempts to sidestep the blame” have “already complicated the inquiry,” the Times said. Asked earlier this week why nobody in his administration was supporting his claim that Iran was culpable, Trump said, “Because I just don’t know enough about it.”

It is not clear why the school “was on a U.S. target list,” The Washington Post said, or who signed off on the strike “just as parents were hurrying to the two-story schoolhouse to take their kids home to safety.” But until 2015, the school grounds were part of a neighboring Iranian naval base. Publicly available satellite images showed playgrounds and other civilian markers. The school was also “clearly labeled as such in online maps,” The Associated Press said, “and has an easily-accessible website full of information about students, teachers and administrators.”

Congress “created a special Pentagon office to prevent the accidental targeting of civilians” in 2022, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “dramatically” downgraded it soon after taking office, NPR said. The staff and budget cuts meant Central Command “had only one staffer assigned to civilian casualty mitigation operations” when the war started.

What next?

The investigation is “expected to take months and will include interviews with all those involved, from planners and commanders to those who carried out the strike,” NPR said. Investigators “do not yet fully understand” how the DIA’s “outdated data was sent to Central Command,” the Times said, or why it wasn’t verified multiple times before the school was targeted.

What happened

The Pentagon on Tuesday night said the U.S. had destroyed several Iranian naval vessels, “including 16 mine layers near the Strait of Hormuz,” during another day of market turbulence triggered by the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran. CNN, citing U.S. intelligence sources, reported Tuesday that Iran had already begun laying mines in the strait, the shipping chokepoint through which a fifth of the world’s oil usually passes. Iran has effectively shut the narrow route with threats to attack any ship attempting to pass through.

Who said what

“If Iran has put out any mines in the Hormuz Strait, and we have no reports of them doing so,” President Donald Trump said on social media Tuesday afternoon, “the Military consequences” will be “at a level never seen before” unless the mines are “removed forthwith.” The mining “is not extensive yet, with a few dozen having been laid in recent days,” CNN said. CBS News said U.S. intelligence reports indicated Iran was “taking steps to deploy mines” in the strait, and likely had “roughly 2,000 to 6,000 naval mines” in stock.

The uncertainty about Iran’s mining efforts “came on a day when the Trump administration officials sent mixed messages about the war, including about oil transport,” The New York Times said. The “confusion was typified” by Energy Secretary Chris Wright saying on social media that Navy warships had “successfully escorted” an oil tanker through the strait, then quickly deleting the post after the Pentagon said it had not happened. Wright’s deleted post was “enough to wipe out million-dollar trades,” The Wall Street Journal said, as oil prices dropped then rose above $90 a barrel again, leaving investors “struggling to see through the fog of war emanating from the Trump administration itself.”

The U.S. Navy “has refused near-daily requests from the shipping industry for military escorts through the Strait of Hormuz,” Reuters said. At least three merchant ships — two cargo ships and a tanker — were hit by projectiles near the strait Wednesday morning, according to the British military’s United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center.

What next?

Tehran’s threats and attacks may be keeping most ships out, but Iran’s own tankers are “exporting more oil through the Strait of Hormuz than before the war,” throwing it a “financial lifeline” amid the “blistering attack from the U.S. and Israel,” the Journal said.

What happened

Iran announced Monday morning that Mojtaba Khamenei has been chosen to succeed his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as supreme leader in a “decisive vote” by the Assembly of Experts.

Elevating the younger Khamenei “cements hard-line theocratic rule” in Iran and “sends a strong message of defiance against President Donald Trump” as the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran enters its 10th day, The Washington Post said.

Oil prices rose above $100 a barrel Sunday for the first time since 2022, and stocks fell sharply in Asia ahead of expected losses when U.S. markets open. The Pentagon said a seventh U.S. service member died from wounds sustained in the war. Israel announced its first two military deaths of the war, and Saudi Arabia its first two civilian deaths. U.S. and Israeli strikes had killed at least 1,332 Iranian civilians as of Friday, according to Iran’s United Nations ambassador.

Who said what

A week into “Trump’s war on Iran, the most severe shock to energy markets since the 1970s is cascading through the world economy,” The Wall Street Journal said. Iranian attacks have shut down oil and gas production in Gulf Arab states and throttled shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the “superhighway for about a fifth of global supplies of oil and liquefied natural gas.” Oil prices climbed above $119 a barrel Monday morning, and benchmark Brent crude “was on track for its biggest one-day gain ever in both percentage and ​absolute terms,” Reuters said.

Anything above the “psychologically important $100-a-barrel mark is going to increase pain for consumers, many of whom don’t support the war,” Axios said. It’s also a “political setback” for Trump. Higher “short term oil prices” are “a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and World, Safety and Peace,” Trump said on social media Sunday. “ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY!”

Iran’s new supreme leader “is believed to hold views that are even more hardline than his late father,” The Associated Press said. Khamenei, 56, “has been an influential figure in the shadows of power” and has “very close ties to the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps,” The New York Times said. But he is “something of a mystery even within Iran.”

What next?

A classified February report from the U.S. National Intelligence Council “found that even a large-scale assault” on Iran “would be unlikely to oust the Islamic republic’s entrenched military and clerical establishment,” the Post said. With “no obvious offramp in the escalating ⁠Middle East conflict,” IG market analyst Tony Sycamore said in a note, the “risk of more lasting economic damage continues to build by the day.”

What happened?

President Donald Trump on Thursday said he needed to be involved in picking the next leader of Iran after Israel assassinated Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the opening strikes of the U.S.-Israeli war. Mojtaba Khamenei, the slain leader’s 56-year-old son, is widely viewed as the frontrunner as a panel of Iranian clerics votes on a successor. Trump told Axios the younger Khamenei was a “lightweight” and “unacceptable to me.”

Who said what

“I have to be involved in the appointment, like with Delcy [Rodríguez] in Venezuela,” Trump told Axios. “We’re going to have to choose that person along with Iran,” he said to Reuters. Trump told reporters on Tuesday that “most of the people we had in mind” to become supreme leader were killed in airstrikes.

Trump’s comments “represent an extraordinary claim of American power over Iran’s political future, further muddying the objectives of the massive U.S. military campaign he launched,” Axios said. Iran has “delayed the naming of a successor” due to “security concerns following American and Israeli comments that the new leader could also be targeted,” The New York Times said. U.S. and Israel have “decimated the highest ranks of political and military leadership,” The Washington Post said, but six days of airstrikes have “not threatened the Iranian regime’s grip on power.”

What next?

Mojtaba Khamenei would represent the “continuity of hard-line conservative rule,” the Times said. But it isn’t clear that “the Revolutionary Guards, who are the real power in Iran,” will “defer” to the 88 elderly clerics choosing the next supreme leader, Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told NPR. “And I think that the next supreme leader of Iran is not going to be the incredibly powerful figure that Ayatollah Khamenei came to be.”

What happened

Europe Tuesday was drawn further into the U.S.-Israel war against Iran, as the conflict continues to spread in the Middle East, roiling global markets and sending oil and gas prices higher. French President Emmanuel Macron said he was sending the Charles De Gaulle nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean to protect French and allies’ assets from missiles and drones from Iran and its proxy militias. President Donald Trump Tuesday threatened to “cut off all trade with Spain” after Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the U.S. could not use air bases in Spain for its “unjustified and dangerous military intervention“ in Iran.

Who said what

France’s flagship aircraft carrier will join “Rafale fighter jets, air-defense systems and airborne radar systems” deployed to protect Cyprus, an EU member already hit by a Hezbollah drone, and help uphold “binding” defense agreements with Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, The Associated Press said. France, Britain and Germany “previously said that they weren’t involved” in the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran. But Macron said Tuesday that France had already shot down Iranian drones “in legitimate self-defense.”

Sánchez, meanwhile, has become the “chief EU critic of Trump’s strikes on Iran,” Politico said, and Trump “has certainly noticed.” Spain “has been terrible,” Trump told reporters Tuesday during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. “All business having to do with Spain, I have the right to stop it. Embargoes — do anything ⁠I want with it — and we may do that with Spain.”

What next?

The French carrier deployment is part of Macron's effort toward “building a coalition” that will pool resources — including military assets — to “resume traffic in the Strait of Hormuz,” said The Wall Street Journal. It will also focus on “securing the Red Sea and Suez Canal.”

What happened

President Donald Trump Monday said his military operation in Iran was projected to last “four to five weeks” but could “go far longer than that.” In the Trump administration’s first press conference on the war, Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine said the U.S. was sending more troops and fighter jets to the Middle East. Amid Iranian drone strikes that damaged the U.S. embassies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the State Department urged Americans to immediately leave 14 Middle East countries due to “serious safety risks.” The Pentagon said two more U.S. service members had been killed, bringing the U.S. death toll to six. Caine said he expected “additional losses.”

Who said what

In the 72 hours since the U.S. and Israel began bombing Iran, “the war has already consumed nearly the entire Middle East, reached the gates of Europe and raised new fears of attacks on American soil,” Axios said. With at least 11 countries now directly involved, the “sheer geographic scope of the war is staggering.”

“This is not Iraq,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at Monday’s press conference. “This is not endless.” But the “intensity” of the strikes and counterstrikes and “the lack of any apparent exit plan set the stage for a prolonged conflict with far-reaching consequences,” The Associated Press said. “Places deemed safe havens in the Mideast like Dubai have seen incoming fire,” energy prices have “shot up” and, highlighting the “chaos of the conflict,” the Pentagon said Kuwait had “mistakenly shot down” three U.S. F-15 fighter jets.

In just over a year, Trump has “authorized military action in seven nations,” Tyler Pager said in a New York Times analysis. But authorizing war against Iran is the “biggest gamble of his presidency.” Trump and his aides have “come up with an astonishing array of different, even contradictory, rationales” for the war, Susan Glasser said at The New Yorker. So “perhaps the most urgent question thus far” is whether the U.S. can “win a war of its choosing when it cannot explain why it chose to fight or what, exactly, victory would mean?”

What next?

The U.S. and Israel are causing extensive damage in Iran, but Tehran’s “waves of missile and drone attacks” are testing America’s ability to defend U.S. bases, embassies and allies “across a huge swath of the Middle East,” said The Wall Street Journal. The “depth of Iran’s stockpiles,” including cheap drones, “point to one area where it could try to outlast the U.S., which is facing a shortage of munitions” for its missile defense systems.

What happened

The war on Iran that the U.S. and Israel launched early Saturday had spread into a regional conflagration by this morning, with Israel also bombing Lebanon while Iran sends missiles into neighboring Arab nations as well as Israel. America’s European allies said they would not join the war but would aid in defending their Mideast bases and other interests under attack from Tehran.

U.S.-Israeli airstrikes killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior military and political leaders. Three U.S. service members were killed and five others were seriously injured in “Operation Epic Fury,” the Pentagon said. “And sadly, there will likely be more before it ends,” President Donald Trump said in a video on social media. The Iranian Red Crescent Society said this morning that the U.S.-Israeli strikes had killed at least 555 people in Iran, including 115 at a girls’ elementary school near a naval base.

Who said what

Trump is “publicly bracing” the U.S. for an “open-ended war with a rising human cost,” Axios said. He told The New York Times the U.S. planned to keep up its attack on Iran for “four or five weeks.” But his administration “has yet to explain to the public or to Congress what Iranian threat prompted the massive attacks” that “could draw the U.S. into another Middle East war,” Politico said. A Reuters/Ipsos poll Sunday found that 27% of Americans approved of the strikes on Iran, 43% disapproved and the remainder were unsure.

Pentagon briefers Sunday “acknowledged to congressional staff” that “Iran was not planning to strike U.S. forces or bases in the Middle East unless Israel attacked Iran first,” CNN said, “undercutting” the White House’s initial rationale. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) told CNN that Trump had “started a war of choice.” Longtime Trump backer Tucker Carlson told ABC News the war was “absolutely disgusting and evil.”

What next?

Trump told The Atlantic Sunday that Iran’s new leadership “want to talk, and I have agreed to talk.” But Iran’s top national security official, Ali Larijani, called that “wishful thinking,” saying on social media that the country’s interim governing council “will not negotiate with the United States.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine will brief reporters on the war this morning. Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal said, “oil prices were sharply higher and U.S. stock futures pointed to sizable losses on Wall Street as investors brace for the economic fallout of an extended regional war.”

Donald Trump expects the conflict in Iran to continue for “four to five weeks” and says “it won’t be difficult” to maintain the US joint operation with Israel in the region.

But “what happens in Iran doesn’t stay in Iran”, said the Atlantic Council. The consequences of US and Israeli-led military campaigns “will radiate across the region and the world”.

What did the commentators say?

The lack of an obvious plan and failure of diplomatic talks could lead the US into a “long-lasting” and “open-ended” conflict, said Robert Tait in The Guardian. Trump has opened the door to more negotiations and said “I will be talking to them”, but Iranian representatives “waited too long” and “should have given what was very practical and easy to do sooner”. However, considering recent attacks and Iran’s “retaliation” across the Middle East, “that might not be easy” now, said the paper.

The president has offered several “contradictory visions” of a new regime and the means of achieving it, said Zolan Kanno-Youngs, David E. Sanger and Tyler Pager in the The New York Times. Despite warnings from his advisers that there are “vast differences in cultures and history” between the two nations, Trump “appears enamoured of using a Venezuela-like model in Iran”. He told the NYT that “what we did in Venezuela, I think, is the perfect, the perfect scenario”.

Attacking Iran – which has three times the population of Venezuela – is considered “far more complex and risky” than the kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro. Unlike Venezuela, “Iran has sustained an active nuclear programme”. Trump’s comments “reflect the degree to which his administration remains uncertain about how the next few weeks will unfold, both on the battlefield and in the creation of a replacement government in Tehran”.

The killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has “left the regime reeling” in Iran, said Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times, but it “does not answer the question of what comes next”.

Trump believes it would be “folly” to put US soldiers on the ground, as happened in both Afghanistan and Iraq. So the US and Israel is seeking to bring about regime change by “air power alone”: a decision without “real precedent”. The hope is that by removing the Iranian regime’s leader, the nation will spark into “organic and spontaneous transition to a new political system”, without “further US intervention. But there is little reason to believe that will work.”

Iran’s response to the attacks “may expand beyond the ballistic missiles it has used in the past to retaliate”, said Nancy A. Youssef and Jonathan Lemire in The Atlantic. Its navy has demonstrated in recent operations in the Strait of Hormuz that it could “shock global markets”, and its drones could “try to damage nearby US warships”. How long the war lasts is “not up to just Trump or Israel”: it is “in the hands of both the regime and the people inside Iran”.

Though there may be doubts over Iran’s “missile-launching capability” after the 12-day war with Israel last year, it is “not the only side with limitations that could dictate the length of the latest conflict”, said Joe Barnes in The Telegraph. The retaliation from Tehran has “raised questions” over the “fragility” of US and allied air defences in the region. Trump’s reluctance to put boots on the ground could also be a “limiting factor” as aerial campaigns alone “rarely achieve successes” in terms of regime change.

The president’s main constraints may lie at home, however, with a “largely isolationist” Maga base that “hates the idea of becoming entangled in foreign wars”. But his vanity dictates that Trump “must also deliver a moment he can sell as a win back home”.

What next?

The Foreign Office has “mounted an unprecedented operation to support British citizens in the Middle East”, said Sky News. It is considering plans for “mass evacuation” working on potential routes to transport tens of thousands of Britons “should airspace in the Gulf remain off-limits”.

In the Gulf, countries face an “impossible choice”, said Urooba Jamal in Al Jazeera. Either they “strike back” against Iran “and risk being seen as fighting alongside Israel, or remain passive while their cities burn”.

While the U.S. and Iran have been ratcheting up threats against each other, a simmering conflict in two neighboring countries just boiled over: Afghanistan and Pakistan devolved into armed conflict on Friday, with the latter declaring the countries in a state of “open war.” Tensions between the two sides have been increasing for months, and experts fear the fighting could represent a breaking point for the broader region.

Taliban began the conflict

The fighting started when the Taliban, the ruling government of Afghanistan, launched “what it called retaliatory attacks on military installations in northwest Pakistan,” said NBC News. As residents were forced to flee their homes, Pakistan hit back, announcing it had “struck military targets in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, as well as Kandahar and Paktia provinces.” A death toll has not been confirmed, but Pakistan said at least 70 people were killed while Afghan officials reported that “dozens of civilians were killed, including women and children.”

In all, Pakistan bombed more than 20 locations in Afghanistan. Following the initial combat, Pakistan “showed no willingness to stop the most expansive fighting in years,” said The New York Times. Pakistan “made every effort to keep the situation normal, directly and through friendly countries,” said Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif in a translated post on X. “Our cup of patience has overflowed. Now it is open war between us and you.”

This “marks one of the biggest escalations in outright hostilities between Pakistan and Afghanistan since 2021 and could be the start of more violence,” said Time. The two countries had a shaky ceasefire deal since October 2025 and were historical allies. But tensions emerged over a border dispute; the Taliban does not consider the Durand Line, a boundary established by the colonial British, to be the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, but Pakistani officials do. Relations also devolved because the Taliban is getting “closer to India, with which Pakistan has fought over the disputed region of Kashmir.”

‘Further escalation could compound instability’

When Pakistan and Afghanistan have fought before, other countries often enter via diplomacy, with “mediation by foreign governments including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar,” said CNN. But while the fighting has typically only lasted several days, many fear that “further escalation could compound instability.” This comes as tensions in nearby Iran are also increasing.

Experts believe the war this time could be worse. Any “retaliation by the Afghans will be in Pakistan’s urban centers,” said Abdul Basit, a senior associate fellow from the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, to CNN. “This is a recipe for chaos and chaos is what terrorist networks seek to flourish.” But the Taliban has warfighting methods Pakistan may be unprepared for. “The Afghan Taliban have drones, they have suicide bombers, they are innovative.”

Afghanistan’s retaliation could also “come in the way of raids on border posts and more cross-border guerrilla attacks to target security forces,” said Reuters. But there is also a “wide mismatch between the military capabilities” of the two sides. The Taliban’s reported fighting force of 172,000 is “less than a third of Pakistan's personnel,” and Pakistan is also known to possess nuclear weapons. The United Nations is urging both sides to “continue to seek to resolve any differences through diplomacy,” the organization said.

President Donald Trump appears to be on the cusp of ordering an attack on Iran, but some Pentagon insiders are warning of potential risks of a new war in the Middle East. Any escalation could bring significant long-term conflict.

The possible downsides of attacking Iran include “U.S. and allied casualties, depleted air defenses and an overtaxed force,” said The Wall Street Journal. Trump is considering a range of options from a quick-hit strike to a longer aerial bombing campaign. While all the scenarios “carry risks,” an extended attack lasting multiple days “could incur significant costs to U.S. forces and munitions stockpiles” and has the “potential to pull the U.S. into a broader war in the Middle East.” Depleting American weaponry against Iran could also “impact preparations for a possible future conflict with China.”

What did the commentators say?

There is “no low-cost, easy, clean military option available in the case of Iran,” said Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group to The New York Times. Iran’s government has command of “extensive military abilities” as well as a “network of regional proxy forces” that could attack U.S. forces in the region, said the Times. An Iranian counterattack could strike Israel, as well as American allies like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Iran’s goal would be to “quickly escalate and export instability” to spread the pain of a conflict, said Sanam Vakil, the director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House.

“The risks of escalation are grave,” said Rosemary Kelanic, the director of the Middle East Program at Defense Priorities, at The Hill. Iran is weak compared to the United States, but history offers numerous examples of “weak countries prevailing over stronger ones.” Weak countries “just need to not lose, to outlast their opponent” until the stronger country decides the costs are not worth it anymore. Iran’s leaders have incentives to take the retaliatory gloves off this time around. Trump’s “regime-toppling rhetoric” about Iran’s government makes this an “existential” crisis for Tehran. That gives the U.S. a “clear imperative” to avoid a “pointless war.”

Americans can “reasonably hope” for the downfall of the Iranian regime, said Thomas Wright at The Atlantic. And the United States could “defeat Iran quickly and decisively.” But an “open-ended regional conflict” is also possible. A “cornered” Iranian regime “could prove more resilient than expected,” leading to a drawn-out war that leaves Americans to “deal with the consequences for years to come.” The June 2025 attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities “bought time” for the U.S. to consider its options. Trump should use that time instead of attacking now.

What next?

The president is “increasingly frustrated” with his military options, said CBS News. Trump wants a “singular, decisive blow” that would force Iran’s leaders to make nuclear concessions at the bargaining table, but Pentagon planners have told him “such an outcome cannot be guaranteed.” What happens next will depend on “how much risk Washington is prepared to bear.”

What happened

Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine has been privately cautioning President Donald Trump that attacking Iran carries significant risks and could embroil the U.S. in a prolonged regional conflict, multiple news organizations reported Monday. The U.S. has amassed its largest military force in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and Trump has suggested he is considering anything from limited airstrikes on Iran to a prolonged air campaign aimed at toppling Tehran’s theocratic leadership if ongoing nuclear talks don’t produce satisfactory results.

Who said what

Caine “expressed his concerns at a White House meeting last week with Trump and his top aides,” noting that “shortfalls in critical munitions and a lack of support from allies will add significant risk to the operation and to U.S. personnel,” The Washington Post said. Arab countries have “informed Washington that they would not allow their bases to be used for a strike against Iran,” making any campaign more difficult. As Trump’s “highly respected” top military adviser, “Caine’s position could be particularly influential,” Axios said, “though some sources think Trump himself is leaning toward a strike.”

Responding to the “100% incorrect” reports, Trump said on social media that Caine “would like not to see War” with Iran but believes “it will be something easily won” if necessary. That is “not what General Caine has told Mr. Trump” in “recent high-level White House meetings on Iran,” The New York Times said. “Caine’s thinking directly contradicted Trump’s optimistic characterization,” the Post said, citing multiple sources. Caine provides the president with a “range of military options” and “associated impacts and risks,” Joint Chiefs spokesperson Joe Holstead said, and he “provides these options confidentially.”

What next?

Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are scheduled to meet Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Geneva on Thursday for a next round of talks.

President Donald Trump’s consistent prodding of Iran hasn’t developed into armed conflict, but some foreign analysts are fearful it could be on the horizon. The White House has been pressuring Iran over its nuclear program and recently dispatched a second aircraft carrier to the Middle East as military tensions heighten. Despite this, other experts say the prospect of war with Iran remains unlikely.

What did the commentators say?

Trump has long hinted at the idea of a strike against Iran, and his administration did attack the country’s alleged nuclear weapons armaments in 2025. But White House officials have “discovered that the U.S. could not conduct a major offensive as quickly as they had hoped without real risks to American forces, support from allies, and regional stability,” said The Atlantic. The administration also doesn’t appear to have a plan of attack, as it has “yet to outline to military commanders what it would want to achieve through strikes.”

This likely suggests that the “use of force is not imminent” in Iran, said The Atlantic. Trump has “no good options when it comes to using force,” said CNBC, largely because the U.S. does not have the troop presence built up near Iran to mount a full-on war. While American forces in the region are growing, they are “not adequate to support a significant long-term military operation in Iran which would be necessary to achieve any major military objective,” said Alireza Ahmadi, an executive fellow at the Geneva Center for Security Policy, to CNBC.

But Trump has never shied away from conflict, and things could continue to devolve if negotiations between the U.S. and Iran break down. If he did decide to go to war, or even launch a targeted attack, it would be “something much larger, likely” than “what the Israelis did in the 12-day war,” retired U.S. Army Gen. Jack Keane said on “The Cats Roundtable” radio show. The conflict could create “something that would be quite formidable, that would put the regime clearly on a pathway to regime collapse.”

What next?

Despite “ongoing diplomacy to ease tensions with Iran,” said Al Jazeera, the Trump administration appears to be moving ahead with shoring up its Middle East forces. Recent moves by the White House “put two carriers and their accompanying warships in the region.” This occurred just hours after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Trump in Washington, D.C., and “reaffirmed his preference for a diplomatic deal with Iran.” Trump “insisted that negotiations with Iran continue to see whether or not a Deal can be consummated,” the president wrote on social media.

Diplomatic negotiations have largely been positive, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said. But Iran also temporarily closed the Strait of Hormuz to “conduct military drills in the waterway,” causing concern since the “strait is the world's most vital oil export route,” said Reuters. And Iran may already be resigned to the fact that a U.S. attack is coming. The country is “preparing for the possibility” of an offensive move by the U.S., The Jerusalem Post reported; satellite images have shown a “larger push to create defensive layers to [Iran’s] nuclear and ballistic missile facilities,” said Jonathan Hackett, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, to the Post. This is likely in “anticipation of a possible U.S. strike.”

It’s a turbulent time for the monarchy, as fresh revelations in the Epstein files continue to increase scrutiny of the King’s brother. And now Prince William is walking a fine line – with a controversial visit to Saudi Arabia and an audience with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the man said to have ordered the brutal murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The Prince of Wales arrived in Riyadh yesterday, on a three-day visit aimed at strengthening relations with a key allied power in the Middle East, despite its infamously poor human rights record. Kensington Palace said the trip was timed to mark 100 years of diplomatic ties between the UK and Saudi Arabia, and would “celebrate growing trade, energy and investment ties”.

What did the commentators say?

The fact that the UK government requested the trip is a sign of confidence that “a visit from the heir to the throne will help burnish ties”, said Megan Specia in The New York Times. William had met the Saudi prince, and de facto ruler of the kingdom, when he visited Britain in 2018, and has seen him fashion himself into a “major geopolitical power player” in the years since Queen Elizabeth II’s death. If William and MBS can “strike up a positive diplomatic rapport, this could lead to a meaningful future relationship between the countries”, royal historian Ed Owens told the paper.

After all, MBS is 40 and William is 43: the millennial princes will in all probability “reign in tandem, on opposite sides of the world, for decades”, said The Telegraph’s royal editor Hannah Furness. If William succeeds in “winning over” the leader of a country where political decision-making rests in the hands of a dozen men, it could have “profound” consequences for the British economy. The Gulf state has invested an estimated £15.3 billion in the UK since 2017, and British politicians have been working to increase that.

As a monarchy, Saudi Arabia is “instinctively more comfortable dealing with fellow royalty rather than elected politicians”, royal historian Robert Hardman told Politico’s Sophie Inge. A foreign secretary or ambassador “cannot open the sort of doors and generate the sort of mood music that a senior member of the royal family can”. The royals’ longevity, compared to “here today, gone tomorrow” politicians, enables the formation of valuable long-term relationships, said Eddie Lister, director of the Saudi British Joint Business Council. And, in the Middle East, “relationships are more important in business than anything else”.

But does Realpolitik mean that “the heir to the throne must cosy up to his murderous Saudi counterpart?” said Middle East expert Malise Ruthven in UnHerd. William has carefully “cultivated an image as a thoughtful, socially conscious public figure”. It “does not befit that persona” for him to associate with a regime implicated in “murderous violence, and repression”.

The British embassy described “the human rights picture as nuanced”, and it’s true that William is visiting a Saudi Arabia that “looks very different to the one his grandmother travelled to”, said the BBC’s royal correspondent Daniela Relph. But its criminalisation of same-sex relationships, oppression of dissent, “enormous limitations” on women’s freedom, and the lingering memory of Khashoggi's murder in 2018 mean that images of William with MBS “will be hard to stomach for many”.

What next?

This royal visit comes “hot on the heels of Trade Minister Chris Bryant’s tour of the Gulf last week”, said Politico. He reportedly said a trade deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council, which includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the UAE, as well as Saudi Arabia, was “97.5% done”. William “may now be asked” to “work his royal magic” and “nudge it the remaining few percentage points”.

But the British prince should “decline any invitations to inspect MBS’s yacht, Serena”, said Ruthven in UnHerd. An anonymous Saudi activist claims Khashoggi’s fingers are “kept on board as a trophy”.

What happened

The U.S. on Tuesday shot down an uncrewed Iranian drone in the Arabian Sea and intervened when two Iranian military vessels intercepted a U.S. merchant ship in the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. Central Command said. The incidents occurred amid heightened tensions in the region as President Donald Trump ramps up the U.S. military presence in the region and both countries prepare for bilateral talks later this week.

Who said what

A U.S. Navy F-35C fighter jet shot down an Iranian Shahed-139 drone that "aggressively approached" the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln with “unclear intent,” about 500 miles from Iran’s southern coast, U.S. Central Command spokesperson Capt. Tim Hawkins said in a statement. Several hours later, the guided missile destroyer USS McFaul intervened and escorted the Stena Imperative to safety after Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps forces, backed by another drone, “harassed” and attempted to board the U.S.-flagged and U.S.-crewed ship.

Trump threatened to attack Iran last month “after its government brutally crushed anti-government protests,” killing thousands of demonstrators, The New York Times said. “As the protests have ebbed,” he “shifted his focus to demanding a deal that would end Iran’s nuclear program,” among other stipulations. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said on social media Tuesday his envoys would “pursue fair and equitable negotiations” with the U.S., but only in a “suitable environment” that is “free from threats and unreasonable expectations.”

What next?

Tuesday’s skirmishes strained but did not derail “already tenuous negotiations over the staging” of the upcoming meeting, The Washington Post said. Multilateral talks were scheduled to begin Friday in Istanbul, but Tehran “requested a new format and location for the meeting,” and now just Iranian and U.S. envoys are expected to meet in Oman.

What happened

The death toll from nationwide protests in Iran surpassed 500 on Sunday, with at least 503 protesters and 48 security personnel killed since the demonstrations broke out Dec. 28, according to the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency. More than 10,600 people have been detained. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claimed Monday morning that “the situation has come under total control” after the protests “turned violent and bloody to give an excuse” for President Donald Trump to intervene.

Who said what

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One Sunday night that Iran was “starting to” cross the red line he drew of not killing protesters. “The leaders of Iran called” on Saturday “to negotiate,” he said, and a “meeting is being set up, but we may have to act because of what’s happening before the meeting.” Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf said Sunday that if the U.S. “takes military action,” its military bases and “shipping lanes will be our legitimate targets.”

An internet and phone blackout has made it difficult to assess the situation in Iran, but authenticated footage seeping out shows mass protests, violent crackdowns and rows of body bags. “Things here are very, very bad,” a source in Tehran told the BBC Sunday. “They were firing live rounds. It’s like a war zone, the streets are full of blood. They’re taking away bodies in trucks.”

What next?

“The military is looking at it, and we’re looking at some very strong options,” Trump told reporters. He is scheduled to meet with senior administration officials on Monday to discuss the options, “which could include boosting antigovernment sources online, deploying secretive cyber weapons,” military strikes and new sanctions, The Wall Street Journal said.

What happened

Iranians took to the streets across the country Thursday and protested through Friday morning, but the “full scope of the demonstrations couldn’t be immediately determined” due to “Iran’s theocracy cutting off the nation from the internet and international telephone calls,” The Associated Press said. At least 62 people have been killed since protests over Iran’s ailing economy broke out on Dec. 28 and then “morphed into the most significant challenge to the government in several years.”

Who said what

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a brief televised address Friday morning that protesters are “ruining their own streets to make the president of another country happy,” a reference to President Donald Trump. Trump said on Fox News Thursday night that “the enthusiasm to overturn the regime has been incredible” and if Iranian authorities “do anything bad to these people, we’re going to hit them very hard.”

Videos from Iran filmed on Thursday night “showed government buildings on fire across the country, including in Tehran, as protests grew,” The New York Times said. Exiled former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late shah, called for mass demonstrations at 8 p.m. these past two days, and that “turned the tide of the protests,” said Holly Dagres with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “The internet was shut down” to “prevent the world from seeing” that “Iranians had delivered and were taking the call seriously” to “oust the Islamic Republic” through protests.

What next?

Trump claimed in his Fox News interview that Khamenei was “looking to go someplace” because “it’s getting very bad” in Iran. But asked if he would meet with Pahlavi, Trump said he was “not sure that it would be appropriate at this point to do that as president.”

The peregrine falcon faced near-extinction in the UK in the 1950s before it was rescued by the banning of the pesticide DDT and stronger legal reinforcements.

Today, following booming interest from buyers in the Middle East, modern falconry has taken a darker turn, being “fed by a shadow industry of the smuggling and illegal capture of wild birds”, said The Guardian.

‘Booming appetite’

A “troubling pattern” is emerging in the UK, said The Guardian. Peregrine falcon chicks are “vanishing” from their British cliff-edge nests, which are only accessible to people with “specialist climbing gear”, and turning up in the Middle East with “fabricated” documents.

The UK is a lucrative breeding ground for the raptors. The colder climate produces “tough, fast birds”, and those from “established lines carry additional prestige”. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, birds cannot be taken from the wild and only falcons bred in captivity can be traded.

UK exports of falcons are “soaring”, as are nest raids, though experts are keen to point out that the two aren’t necessarily linked. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds recorded 126 nests raids between 2014 and 2023, and “all are believed to be linked to the peregrine falcon trade”. In 2024, 4,000 peregrines and hybrids were exported from the UK, with the number rising to 5,000 last year, according to UK police, with nearly 90% of them heading to the United Arab Emirates.

The gyr peregrine, which has a peregrine falcon mother and a gyr falcon father, is the “most valuable falcon for export”. Many buyers chase its desirable balance between “speed and strength”, but the gyr peregrine’s female offspring are infertile, which means female peregrine falcons are in high demand to “feed a booming appetite for hybrid falcons and legally exportable, captive-bred birds”.

The “cruelly exploitative crime” of nest theft is becoming “more prevalent”, said the Daily Mail. Falcons can reach diving speeds of up to 200mph, and “the only thing faster, seemingly, is the rise in popularity of racing them”. Wild Scottish falcons in particular are “especially prized in the Middle East”, as they are considered “stronger, fiercer and faster”, and “tend to be genetically larger than Mediterranean examples”.

The gamekeepers, as well as the poachers, are to blame. Unlike the birds themselves, legislators “move slowly”, which means there is a “dark shadow hovering over Scotland’s surviving wild peregrines”.

‘Spectacle of wealth and prestige’

Traditional falconry “is more popular than ever”, said The Telegraph. The “universal reverence” for peregrines has ballooned into a “highly lucrative business”, and there are “few greater status symbols” in the Middle East than owning one. As of 2021, the President’s Cup falcon competition in the UAE “offers prizes of up to $9 million”, with other competitors winning “fleets of cars”.

The Bedouin practice has morphed into a “spectacle of wealth and prestige to meet the tastes of the modern Gulf elite”, said The Guardian. Despite the most “prestigious” birds travelling in “Range Rovers and Bentleys fitted out with a perch between the front seats”, many rarely have the chance to fly. Many kept in captivity are “treated like battery chickens” and “fed supplements to produce up to 14 eggs a season”, an expert told the paper.

The Middle East’s “appetite for wild falcons risks killing the sport they love”, said The Economist. Buyers and sellers in the Middle East have always “found ways around the rules” and bans, which has already led to the endangered status of the saker falcon – a “favoured local species in the Gulf”. Attempts to curb the market in the region often have the opposite effect, causing “prices to spike”, with the finest birds costing “more per gram than gold”.

What happened

Protests sparked by the collapse of Iran’s currency have spread to 26 of the country’s 31 provinces, and the death toll has reached at least 19, the Human Rights Activists News Agency reported Monday.

The protests have “convulsed Iran for a week,” The New York Times said, and while not yet as large as the “last two major uprisings — one in 2022 led by women and another in 2019 set off by gasoline prices — they have rattled senior officials.”

Who said what

The protests “began first with merchants in Tehran before spreading” and becoming increasingly political, The Associated Press said. And the demonstrations “do not appear to be stopping, even after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday said ‘rioters must be put in their place.’” President Masoud Pezeshkian took a more conciliatory tone than Khamenei, saying that “we must listen to the people” and any “unjust” policy is “doomed to fail.”

Iran’s theocratic government is facing “growing domestic unrest combined with an external military threat,” the Times said, and it “appears at a dead end in addressing both.” President Donald Trump said Friday that if Tehran “violently kills peaceful protesters,” the U.S. is ”locked and loaded and ready” to “come to their rescue.“ He reiterated his warning Sunday night. Trump’s threat “has taken on new meaning after American troops captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, a longtime ally of Tehran,” the AP said.

What next?

Iran’s protests “could still spread and turn more violent,” the Times said, and officials “appear to have few tools at their disposal to deal with either the pressing challenges of a tanking economy” or the “threat of further conflict with Israel and the United States.”

What began as dissatisfaction over a downtrending economy among Tehran-area store owners blossomed into a full-fledged protest movement across Iran this week, with Iranians taking to the streets to decry the broader state of their nation. On campuses in multiple cities, students have clashed with security forces as slogans decrying Iran’s acute economic anxiety give way to calls for regime change and wider national progress. After years marked by destabilizing regional violence and domestic unrest, is Iran on the brink of major change?

What did the commentators say?

Beginning as a strike by “shopkeepers and bazaar merchants” over the rampant devaluation of Iran’s rial currency, the growing protests have since become an “outcry of political anger,” said DW. The Tehran bazaar is seen as a “political early warning system and a potential multiplier,” and demonstrations there affect “not just the food supply but also the conservative backbone of the Islamic Republic.”

While Iran has for years grappled with “raging inflation, anemic economic growth and international isolation,” the situation there has recently “grown acutely worse,” said The Washington Post. The fact that these protests were “sparked by the country’s ‘bazaari’ merchant class” signals that “severe economic distress had spread beyond the poor and to those relatively better off.” The student protesters have “added a youthful contingent” to the growing demonstrations, “increasing domestic pressure over a sinking economy alongside mounting foreign threats,” said The New York Times.

“Peaceful livelihood protests are part of social and understandable realities,” said Iranian Prosecutor General Mohammad Movahedi-Azad, according to Al Jazeera. However, any attempt to “turn economic protests into a tool of insecurity, destruction of public property, or implementation of externally designed scenarios” will be met with swift consequences.

Iran’s depreciating currency is “not the only challenge” facing Iranians who live with inflation levels at around 50%, “consistently one of the highest in the world for several years,” said Al Jazeera. The nation is also “facing an exacerbating energy crisis,” and dams leading to all major cities are at “near-empty levels amid a severe water crisis.”

But while the growing demonstrations “mark the latest chapter in growing discontent” in a country where the population “quietly reclaims public spaces and personal freedoms through uncoordinated acts of defiance,” the reaction from Iran’s theocratic leadership has been conspicuously muted, said CNN. Instead, it appears to be “overlooking the growing civil disobedience” to “focus on its own survival.” With “limited options” available, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has adopted a “cautious waiting game” and is “avoiding major decisions and drastic strategies despite the mounting domestic challenges.”

What next?

The “widening demonstrations” have since spread from population centers into Iran’s “rural provinces,” resulting in seven of the “first fatalities reported among security forces and protesters,” said NPR. The deaths may signal a “heavier-handed response” moving forward by the government over protests, which have slowed in the capital but “expanded elsewhere.”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who ran on “promises of good governance,” has agreed to meet protest representatives to “show he’s cut from a different cloth than his hard-line predecessor,” said The Atlantic. But he “doesn’t control the security forces.” So his statements supporting the right to peaceful protest “ring hollow.” To achieve the economic and social stability sought by protesters, the Khamenei regime would need to reach an agreement with the Trump administration that “lifts the sanctions or at least keeps Iran safe from war.”

The Trump administration and Iranian government have “exchanged dueling threats” over the protests, “further escalating tensions” between the two nations, said The Associated Press. The U.S. is “locked and loaded and ready to go” to defend protesters against state violence, President Donald Trump said on his Truth Social platform. But Trump should understand that “interference in this internal issue” would be “equivalent to chaos across the entire region and the destruction of American interests,” said top Khamenei adviser Ali Larijani on X.

Ultimately, if there is to be change, it “cannot be imposed on Iran from the outside,” said Scott Lucas, a professor of American studies at University College Dublin, to DW. Anything seen as endorsing violence against the regime will “give them the pretext to strike back and strike back hard.”

Iraq’s election has been closely watched from way beyond its borders, as the young democracy finds itself in a power struggle between the US, Israel and Iran.

The parliamentary vote, the seventh since the US-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, ended last night. Although marred domestically by voter disillusionment, the vote could have far wider implications. Israel and the US are increasingly pressuring Iraq to dismantle the powerful Iran-backed groups that hold sway there. Meanwhile, as Iran’s influence “wanes” across the Middle East, its network of proxies decimated by Israel, it hopes to “preserve its power in Iraq”, said Al Jazeera. Iraq is its only close ally that has, since the war in Gaza began, “remained out of Israel’s crosshairs”.

What is the backdrop?

After the US-led 2003 invasion, Iraq suffered years of bloody civil war, sectarian conflict and the rise of Islamist extremist groups. The country adopted a power-sharing agreement: the prime minister is always a Shia Muslim, the speaker of Parliament a Sunni Muslim, and the president (a largely ceremonial role) is a Kurd.

Elections were still often mired in political violence and clashes between supporters of different blocs. But under the tenure of Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, Iraq has become relatively stable. He came to power in 2022 with the backing of a group of pro-Iran parties, but sought to “balance Iraq’s relations with Tehran and Washington”, said The Independent.

Now, he is struggling to maintain that balance, as tensions grow between the US and Iran. Israel is also threatening strikes, amid fears of another deadly war with Iran.

What does Iran have to do with Iraq?

Iraq represents a “vital sphere of influence” for Iran, which has been severely weakened by Israeli strikes, Western sanctions and the Trump administration, said the Middle East Council on Global Affairs.

In Iraq, a coalition of Iran-aligned militias known as the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) dominates parliament. The PMF “forms part of a region-wide network of Iran-aligned armed groups” across the Middle East, including Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. This network is “central to the survival” of Iran.

But since Israel declared war on Gaza in 2023, it has “wiped out” Hezbollah’s leadership in Lebanon and “decimated its rank and file”, as well as “decapitating” the Houthi government in Yemen. In Syria, the regime of key Iran ally Bashar al-Assad has been toppled. Israel’s campaign “could now turn to the PMF” in Iraq, especially if there is a “sequel” to its 12-day war with Iran in June. Against that backdrop, this election “could not be more critical to maintaining Iraq’s status as the lung through which Iran breathes”.

Where does the US come in?

The US still “holds significant sway” in Iraq, said Al Jazeera. Its forces are deployed across the country and are regular targets for pro-Iran groups. The PMF, for example, has a long track record of attacks on US bases in the country.

Washington designates these as “terrorist groups” and is pressuring Baghdad to disarm them. US envoy Mark Savaya recently called for Iraq to be freed “from Iran and its proxies’ ‘malign’ interference”.

How do Iraqis feel?

Voter turnout has been dropping steadily over the past decade, hitting a record low of 41% in the last election in 2021. Citizens have become disillusioned with high unemployment, poor infrastructure and endemic corruption, erupting into mass anti-government protests in 2019.

The popular Sadrist Movement, led by Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, won the largest number of seats in 2021 but withdrew after failed negotiations over forming a government. He boycotted this election. Pollsters and analysts predicted a record-low turnout after widespread allegations of vote buying. But actually, turnout was reportedly over 55% of the country’s 21 million registered voters. Still, few believe these elections will bring meaningful change. The growing young electorate sees the elections as a “vehicle for established parties to divide up Iraq’s oil wealth”, said Reuters.

What’s going to happen?

Sudani’s bloc is forecast to win the most seats but fall short of a majority. That could mean months of negotiations between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Given the “fragmentation” and divisions within those blocs, Kurdish parties could “play kingmakers”, said Al Jazeera.

However, Sudani is “seen as unlikely to remain prime minister”, said Chatham House. The outcome of this “bargaining could test Iraq’s stability” and shake its “fragile equilibrium”.

“Iraq has so far avoided the worst of the regional upheaval caused by the Gaza war”, said Reuters. But if the next government fails to break Tehran’s grip and dismantle the Iran-backed militant groups, it will face both US and Israeli “wrath”.

Decades of mismanagement and environmental exploitation, and an unprecedented drought have left Iran teetering on the edge of a water crisis.

The reservoirs are nearly empty following record-low rainfall, and officials are “pleading with citizens to conserve water”, said the BBC. The 10 million inhabitants of Tehran are “facing the real possibility of their taps running dry”. Authorities warned this week that the five main dams supplying the capital were at “critical levels”.

With no rain on the horizon, the president has warned that citizens might have to start rationing water. “If rationing doesn’t work,” said Masoud Pezeshkian, “we may have to evacuate Tehran.”

A crisis ‘decades in the making’

The crisis has been “decades in the making”, said the BBC. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader, has “repeatedly acknowledged the looming threat”. “Yet little has changed.”

Water scarcity is “a major issue throughout Iran”, said Al Jazeera. Authorities blame shortages on “mismanagement and overexploitation of underground resources”, exacerbated by the climate crisis. The situation reached its current breaking point after the worst drought in decades. Tehran has had no significant rain since May, a situation one official said was “nearly without precedent for a century”. A heatwave also drove temperatures above 40C in the Iranian capital, and above 50C in some parts of the country, causing widespread power cuts.

Authorities warned citizens over the summer to “cut back on water and energy consumption”, said Agence France-Presse. But by October, 19 major dams – about 10% of Iran’s reservoir supply – had effectively run dry.

The crisis is also fuelling conspiracy theories: some Iranians are claiming on social media that neighboring countries are “stealing” their rain clouds, said Forbes. Authorities have made similar claims, accusing Turkey, the UAE and Saudi Arabia of “diverting clouds away from Iran to their own skies”. Iran’s Meteorological Organisation, and other entities, have had to clarify that “stealing clouds and snow” isn’t possible.

Cloud seeding, cloud stealing

The energy minister, Abbas Ali Abadi, has blamed water leakage caused by Tehran’s century-old water infrastructure, and has also cited the 12-day war with Israel in June as a factor. Strikes on northern Tehran are believed to have led to heavy flooding.

But over-extraction of groundwater in Tehran has left the city sinking, said researcher Sanam Mahoozi on The Conversation. Across the country, more than 90% of Iran’s water is extracted for agricultural use. “Many of Iran’s iconic lakes have turned into a bed of salt.”

Studies also point to “decades of mismanagement, including excessive dam construction, illegal well drilling and unsustainable agriculture”, said The New York Times. The Ministry of Energy recently announced the practice of “cloud seeding”, which involves “dispersing particles like silver iodide into existing clouds to encourage rainfall”. But clouds need to contain at least 50% moisture for it to work. “With no relief in sight, some officials have called on the population to pray for rain.”

What happened

Israeli authorities on Monday detained the military’s former top lawyer, accusing her of “serious criminal offenses” tied to the leak of a video that appears to show Israeli soldiers sexually assaulting a Palestinian detainee at the notorious Sde Teiman detention center. Maj. Gen. Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi resigned as advocate general of the Israel Defense Forces on Friday, saying she had authorized the release of the video last year to “counter false propaganda” against army prosecutors.

Who said what

Five IDF reservists were charged with severely beating the Gaza detainee and sodomizing him with a knife, leaving him with life-threatening injuries. By leaking footage of the assault to an Israeli news station, Tomer-Yerushalmi “aimed to expose the seriousness of the allegations her office was investigating,” The Associated Press said. “Instead, it triggered fierce criticism from Israel’s hard-line political leaders.”

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on Friday accused Tomer-Yerushalmi of spreading “blood libels against IDF troops.” On Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the “incident” in Sde Teiman was “perhaps the most severe public relations attack” Israel had ever experienced. “As Israel’s right-wing establishment has tried to paint Tomer-Yerushalmi as a traitor for impugning Israeli soldiers,” The Washington Post said, “human rights advocates pointed out that she had failed to respond to other abuse allegations against the military.”

What next?

A judge in Tel Aviv ruled that Tomer-Yerushalmi remain in detention until at least Wednesday on charges including obstruction of justice, fraud and abuse of office. “The fury over the leaked video reveals the depth of polarization in Israel,” the AP said, “and at least for the moment, keeps the media and the public focused on the leak and not the allegations of abuse.”

China and the United States are widely seen as the top two countries making artificial intelligence advancements, but there’s another nation looking to get in the game: Saudi Arabia. The wealth of Saudi businessmen is attracting outside investors to the Gulf kingdom as it tries to entice American tech companies to expand AI operations. But many are skeptical of what Saudi Arabia’s AI push could mean for the tech world and beyond.

How is Saudi Arabia making a play for AI?

The nation wants to expand its tech influence by using AI, as “few nations can match the kingdom’s cheap energy, deep pockets and open land,” said The New York Times. All of these things are “ingredients that tech firms need to operate the vast, power-hungry data centers that run modern AI.” The kingdom’s de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, is “seizing a chance to turn Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth into tech influence.”

Saudi officials have been trying to woo American tech companies to the desert, with “executives from OpenAI, Google, Qualcomm, Intel and Oracle” all set to meet at an upcoming Middle Eastern investment summit, said the Times. Many of these executives “will be keen to seek out the opportunities that change tends to bring,” said Bloomberg, and will look to “divine the kingdom’s plans for the more than $200 billion it earns each year from oil exports.” The country is additionally building several AI data centers that may further entice U.S. brands.

Riyadh is also looking to strengthen its own AI development through Humain, a state-owned AI company backed by the Saudi sovereign wealth fund. The company believes it can eventually be the “third-largest AI provider in the world, behind the United States and China,” Humain CEO Tareq Amin said to CNBC. Humain is looking toward U.S. moguls in an effort to boost itself; Blackstone and BlackRock, two of the largest investment companies on Wall Street, are “already vying to invest billions of dollars with the firm,” said Bloomberg.

What does this mean for the tech world?

Saudi Arabia is well on its way to building this AI groundwork, as Humain “offers AI services and products, including data centers, AI infrastructure, cloud capabilities and advanced AI models,” and is also developing a computer operating system that “enables users to speak to a computer to tell it to perform tasks,” said Reuters. But not everyone is happy about Saudi Arabia’s rapid development of AI, largely due to the country’s various human rights abuse allegations and treatment of women.

Other experts don’t believe the hype around Saudi tech. Saudi Arabia has a notably “shallow pool of AI expertise,” and many “warn of a global glut in computing capacity as governments and companies race to build data centers faster than they can profit from them,” said the Times. Crown Prince bin Salman has said that Humain’s goal is to handle 6% of the global AI workload — but this could be a stretch. Tech experts “can never say never,” John Dinsdale, a senior analyst for Synergy, said to the Times. “But I can’t imagine any circumstances that would enable Saudi Arabia to achieve 6% of the world’s AI compute capacity.”

What happened

Israel and Hamas completed the first phase of President Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan Monday, with Hamas freeing the final 20 living Israeli hostages it seized two years ago and Israel releasing about 1,700 Palestinian detainees and some 250 serving life sentences. Trump flew to the region Monday to speak before Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, and meet with Arab and European leaders at a Gaza “peace summit” in Egypt that neither Israel nor Hamas attended.

Who said what

“This long and difficult war has now ended,” Trump told the Knesset. “You know, some people say 3,000 years, some people say 500 years — whatever it is, it’s the granddaddy of them all.” This isn’t “only the end of a war,” he added. “This is the historic dawn of a new Middle East.” Most of his speech “drew raucous cheers from Israeli lawmakers,” The Associated Press said, but his suggestion that Israel pursue a peace deal with Iran “elicited a muted response.”

The release of prisoners and hostages prompted "cheering, hugging and weeping” among waiting crowds in Tel Aviv and Gaza, Reuters said. Yet “even as Israelis and Palestinians reveled in split-screen scenes of tearful reunions with pale and frail-looking loved ones, many pitfalls and questions remained over the future of the Gaza Strip,” The New York Times said. Notably, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “did not join” Trump in “declaring that the war in Gaza was over.”

The Gaza agreement “represents a significant diplomatic triumph” for Trump and a “vindication of his unorthodox” brand of diplomacy, The Wall Street Journal said. But now that Monday’s whirlwind “victory lap” is over, his “ability to pursue a broader regional settlement will be tested by his own instinct to move on now that the fighting in Gaza has been halted.”

What next?

The “fragile ceasefire in Gaza” may have been the “easiest part” in the “long and tortuous” process, the AP said. “Key details of the peace plan” remain unclear, including “how and when Hamas is to disarm,” when Israel will withdraw from Gaza and what the proposed security force and future government will look like.

Benjamin Netanyahu has hailed the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas as “the beginning of a new path” but it’s not at all clear where it will lead the Israeli prime minister himself.

The peace plan agreed last week “delivered a jubilant moment in one of the darkest periods of the decades-old conflict between Israelis and Palestinians” but, for Netanyahu, it could be “the poison pill” that spells his downfall, said the Los Angeles Times.

What did the commentators say?

“To a greater extent than most, this war has been tied to the political fortunes of one leader,” said Joshua Keating in Vox. Netanyahu’s political opponents, and the families of hostages, have repeatedly alleged that he was deliberately prolonging the war in order to maintain his grip on power and delay a long-running corruption trial that could see him sent to prison for 10 years.

Having secured the release of all remaining living Israeli hostages held by Hamas, “ambiguity” around the next phase of the peace plan is what has kept Netanyahu’s nationalist coalition together up to now, said Tal Shalev at CNN. Despite the protestations of hard line ministers and “far-right threats to overthrow the government”, Netanyahu has been able to spin the deal into “a win: hostages returned; IDF holding ground, Hamas weakened”. He “may have been cornered” into the ceasefire but he’s “engineered enough wiggle room to claim that he hasn’t”.

This should be a moment of triumph for Israel’s longest serving prime minister but, in truth, he is now “stuck between a Trumpian rock and an extremist hard place of his own making”, said Paul Nuki in The Telegraph. His supporters on the right “may worry that Israel is becoming little more than a US protectorate” but, “worse than that, the wider Israeli population, which for two long years was wrapped up in the trauma of 7 October” will now have the headspace to comprehend the country’s shattered reputation among its allies in the West. To an electorate keen to signal a break from a traumatic and contentious recent past, Netanyahu could be the perfect “fall guy”. And, “if that happens, it may not be a great victory that awaits Netanyahu but a terrible defeat – one that could see him jailed or seeking exile in Miami”.

What next?

Israel must hold new parliamentary elections no later than October 2026 but few expect the prime minister to wait that long. Even though he’s facing criminal charges in his own country and is the subject of an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court, “the very fact that Netanyahu is still in power, retains Donald Trump’s support and has presided over two years of war in which regional foes have been decimated might yet work in the prime minister’s favour”, said Neri Zilber in the Financial Times.

Right now, Trump “reigns supreme” in Israeli public affections, said CNN, and, by putting the US president front and centre of his upcoming election campaign, Netanyahu “will try to carry out political alchemy, converting the deal into political gold”. Whether it’s enough to “rewrite Netanyahu’s legacy as the prime minister who presided over Israel’s worst security failure and longest war will become an ultimate test of Israeli voters’ memory”.

Israel confirmed today that the proposed Gaza ceasefire – the first of the 20 points in the agreement – has gone into effect, with the Israel Defense Forces beginning its withdrawal from parts of the strip.

If the peace plan is successful, it would be a “massive blow to Joe Biden’s legacy”, said The Independent. Few Democrats still defend his administration’s “hug Bibi closer” strategy, and recent developments appear to have validated Donald Trump’s “brash, demanding approach” towards Benjamin Netanyahu.

What did the commentators say?

If this agreement holds, it could stand as the “signature achievement” of Trump’s second term, said the BBC. Where Biden’s relationship with Netanyahu was more “tenuous”, Trump’s friendship with Israel’s prime minister and popularity with Israeli voters allowed him to put “pressure” on Netanyahu after the strikes on Iran and Qatar. Trump’s close ties to the Gulf states, business agreements with Qatar and the UAE, and presidential visits to Saudi Arabia have all won favour with leaders in the region.

Though much of the diplomacy has been conducted far outside the US, near-unconditional party support at home played a significant part, said Gerard Baker in The Times. In the last 50 years, no Republican president has “enjoyed such a level of trust” from his administration. With the party becoming something of a “personality cult”, if Trump “wants to move diplomatic mountains, he faces no resistance” from within.

That was an advantage certainly not shared by his Democrat predecessor, said the BBC. While Trump’s “solid Republican base” has allowed him “room to manoeuvre”, “every step Biden took risked fracturing his own domestic support”, due to split opinion on the Gaza conflict within the Democratic Party and voter base.

Trump’s diplomacy skills may even be evolving, said David Ignatius in The Washington Post. In addition to his familiar “imperious”, “go-it-alone” personality, the president arguably displayed “more flexibility and cooperation than are typical of him” by involving Middle Eastern partners like Turkey, Egypt and Qatar in diplomatic discussions.

The “boldness” of the president’s recent tactics left little room for “interagency”, Joel Braunold, managing director at the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, told Lawfare. But Trump’s “just try and get it done” attitude – “there’s something to be said for that”. Of course, Trump is no stranger to an eye-catching announcement, so the “proof will be in the pudding” as to whether his unique brand of diplomacy creates fair and lasting change.

“There are many unresolved details” and a degree of scepticism is in order, said Baker in The Times. The recent past is “littered with too many ceasefires, accords and peace deals” in the Middle East, and it would be misguided “to express any confidence now that this latest one will endure”.

What next?

The history of political turbulence in the region suggests that there is a long road ahead, said The New York Times. Questions over the proposed interim “technocratic” leadership in Gaza overseen by the US, and the extent of Palestinian Authority involvement, have yet to be answered satisfactorily.

Working out peace deals in the region is “a little like cleaning up after volcanic eruptions: There is a certainty it will happen again. It is just hard to know when, or how ferociously.”

What happened

Israel on Tuesday attacked Hamas’ political headquarters in Doha, Qatar, as the militant group’s top leadership was meeting to discuss a Gaza peace proposal from President Donald Trump. Hamas said five lower-level members were killed in the surprise airstrike, including the son of its top negotiator, Khalil al-Hayya, but its key leaders all survived. Qatar said a member of its Internal Security Force was also killed.

Who said what

Attacking Qatar, a key U.S. ally, was a “stunning escalation” by Israel that “risked upending talks aimed at winding down the war and freeing hostages,” said The Associated Press. Trump “gave what appeared to be conflicting accounts” of whether the U.S. had been notified of the attack beforehand, The New York Times said, but he insisted on social media it was “a decision made by Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu” and “not a decision made by me.” Trump told reporters he was “very unhappy” and “not thrilled” about Israel’s strike, but added in a statement that “eliminating Hamas” was a “worthy goal.”

The president’s response “amounted to an acknowledgment that Israeli leaders felt sufficiently unbound from obligations to Washington to undertake military action that might complicate Trump’s goal of ending the Gaza conflict,” The Washington Post said. The strike marked a “new frontier in what Israel believes it can get away with,” Al Jazeera said, and Israel will “keep escalating if the global powers don’t stop it.”

Netanyahu said “Israel takes full responsibility” for the Doha attack, and “the days are over that terrorist leaders will have immunity anywhere.” Qatar, considered neutral ground, knew it was “not completely off limits” from Israeli attacks, Cinzia Bianco, a fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told Al Jazeera. But the “defiance and unhinged recklessness” of Israel’s attack surprised “everyone.”

What next?

Qatar’s prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani, said Doha would continue mediating the Gaza talks but Israel was clearly trying to “sabotage every attempt to create opportunities for peace.” Netanyahu’s “barbarism” was “dragging the region to a place where it unfortunately cannot be repaired,” he said, and “there must be a response from the entire region to such barbaric actions.”

When Volodymyr Zelenskyy meets Donald Trump today, Keir Starmer and the other European leaders who are in Washington to support the Ukrainian leader will be keen to "avoid a repeat" of the two men's "spiky" Oval Office encounter in February, said the BBC.

That clash came just a day after a "diplomatic triumph" for the UK, when Starmer met the US president for the first time, said The Telegraph. Since then, Britain has made a concerted effort to "teach the Ukrainian leader how to 'speak Trump'". And the key figure behind this strategy is Jonathan Powell, Starmer's national security adviser, "one of the most influential figures in British foreign policy".

What did the commentators say?

Powell was appointed to his post in November 2024, and "has been central to everything Labour has done on the global stage" since then, said Chris Smyth and Aubrey Allegretti in The Times. As well as helping to shape UK efforts to bolster Ukraine, he was also "at the heart of a delicate diplomatic balancing act that saw Britain shift towards recognising a Palestinian state".

His decade of previous experience as Tony Blair's chief of staff and his role as chief negotiator in the Northern Ireland peace talks, in particular, have given him a deep feel for high-level diplomacy. "He is a world class operator," a government source told the paper. He has "made a career out of always being in the right room, but never at the centre of attention".

Powell's appointment was seen as "controversial". Traditionally, the role of national security adviser is filled by a civil servant; as a political appointee, Powell has been able to "evade the scrutiny put on his predecessors, with the Cabinet Office refusing to let him be grilled by Parliament's joint committee on national security".

First brought in to oversee the handover of the Chagos Islands, Powell is now "a near ubiquitous figure in UK diplomacy", said Lemma Shehadi in the UAE-owned The National. In the Middle East, his reputation "borders on the mythical". It's said that "he persuaded the PKK to dissolve" and that he "whispered the values of western governance" to Ahmad al-Shaara, now the president of Syria, when he was still an "obscure Islamist rebel". Powell "is like a foreign minister," a Turkish source told the paper. "In the Middle East, Powell plays a more important role than David Lammy."

Those who have worked closely with him say Powell can be "blunt and even abrasive, and sometimes talks like a machine gun", said The Economist. But he is also calm under pressure, "often persuasive", and, crucially, "prepared to sit through lengthy negotiations".

In Northern Ireland, Powell learned the importance of "shuttle diplomacy", keeping up constant personal contact with key figures on both sides of a situation. He has been travelling back and forth to Washington to keep in close touch with Trump's national security adviser, Michael Waltz, and to Kyiv to meet Zelenskyy's chief of staff, Andriy Yermak. "If a ceasefire deal is eventually agreed over Vladimir Putin's initial objections, it will bear Mr Powell's fingerprints as much as anybody's," said the magazine.

What next?

Powell is also likely to play a key role in the next round of diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire in Gaza. He shared an eight-point peace plan, quietly drawn up by British diplomats, among European nations last month. "A day after Mr Powell began circulating the British plan, 22 Arab nations signed on to a declaration that mirrored its main goals at a United Nations conference", said The New York Times. That declaration "included for the first time a demand from the Arab League that Hamas disarm and give up power in Gaza".

"Assassination," wrote George Bernard Shaw, "is the extreme form of censorship." This truth was brought home to the world this week, said Binoy Kampmark on Middle East Monitor, when a prominent Palestinian journalist, Anas al-Sharif, was killed along with three of his Al Jazeera colleagues by an air strike on a press tent in Gaza City.

An Israel Defence Forces (IDF) spokesman confirmed that Sharif had been deliberately targeted, claiming that intelligence obtained before the strike proved he was "an active Hamas military wing operative". Sceptics dismissed that claim, asking how Sharif could have led a rocket-launching squad while reporting in front of a camera all day.

A different IDF spokesman had levelled the same accusation at Sharif last month, prompting calls from the Committee to Protect Journalists for the "international community" to safeguard the life of the 28-year-old father of two.

Journalists targeted

This is just the latest horror to hit journalists in Gaza, said Fiona O'Brien in The London Standard. Israel has banned all foreign reporters from entering the enclave, leaving only local ones like Sharif to tell the world what's going on there.

Almost 200 have been killed since the war began in 2023, "at least 46 of whom were directly targeted". Others have died of hunger. "Several correspondents have collapsed live on air."

In a statement last month, the outgoing board of the AFP press agency said it was the first time since the agency's founding in 1944 that it had seen colleagues dying "not from bombs or bullets, but from starvation".

A shameful assault

Sharif was "never likely to be an impartial witness" to the Gaza War, said the Daily Mail. He was born and raised in northern Gaza's Jabalia refugee camp. His father was killed by an Israeli bomb. And like all local journalists, he could "work only with the tacit approval of the Hamas-run authorities".

But even if he was a Hamas sympathiser, that in itself wouldn't justify killing him, still less the other members of his film crew, about whom no such claims have been made. If Israel has direct evidence that Sharif was engaged in terrorism, they should produce it. In the absence of such material, this killing looks like a shameful assault on press freedom.

For much of the 21st century, American political support for Israel has been a bipartisan exercise, cutting across the aisle to become one of the few universally agreed-upon subjects in Washington, D.C. However, as Israel's siege of the Gaza Strip nears the two-year mark, that broad support has eroded significantly.

Not only are Democrats increasingly willing to criticize Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ultranationalist government, but certain conservative circles are, too. While President Donald Trump had made the vociferous backing of Israel a key feature of his administration, some members of his MAGA coalition have begun publicly breaking from the party orthodoxy and speaking out against Israel's conduct in Gaza.

'Growing skepticism' over Israel from the right

While the Trump White House has been "measured" in its criticism of Israel, its "cautious approach" contrasts with the "ascendance of a loud wing of the president's base that has sharply criticized Israel," said Politico. While "plenty" of Republicans, including "MAGA loyalists," are still "backing Israel," the party's right flank is growing "increasingly frustrated" with support for a war they see as "politically noxious" and a "moral stain on the country's reputation."

Writing on X that the situation in Gaza amounted to "genocide, humanitarian crisis and starvation," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) became the "first Republican in Congress" to describe the situation in Gaza as a "genocide" — an "indication of growing skepticism on the right about Israel's conduct of the war," said The New York Times. That Trump himself broke with Netanyahu recently by affirming mass starvation was happening across Gaza is "creating space for a GOP realignment on Israel," Axios said. While "America First" MAGA supporters have been historically skeptical of U.S. foreign aid, Trump had "carved out an exception for Israel," the consensus for which has "eroded at a stunning rate" recently.

While the majority of mainstream Republicans still support Israel's war on Gaza "virtually unconditionally," conservatives willing to speak against the Gaza war are "becoming more influential online and outside Washington," said Responsible Statecraft. That's true "particularly among conservatives under 30."

Republicans willing to speak out about Israel's wartime conduct are likely "reading the tea leaves in terms of public opinion," said Northeastern University Political Scientist Costas Panagopoulos at Newsweek. Lawmakers have been "getting pressure from constituencies about what's going on in Gaza" and are being asked to "hold Israel to account."

Violence that hits 'significantly closer to home'

MAGA's "increasing unease" about Trump's Gaza policy has both put "a spotlight on the administration's close ties with Israel" while raising "additional questions" about Trump's plans moving forward, said The Hill. Escalating violence in both Gaza and the West Bank "hits significantly closer to home" for many of Trump's more "traditionally" conservative supporters who may be "less swayed by flashy controversies" than they are by "harm to Christians" living in those communities, Haaretz said.

"My people are starting to hate Israel," Trump reportedly told a Jewish donor recently, according to a "Middle East expert who speaks regularly with the administration," said the Financial Times. Even so, it's important to avoid "overstating the impact of critics on the far right."

"I don't think" the MAGA frustrations will lead to a "blow-up with Israel and Trump," said the expert, who spoke on condition of anonymity. But "there are people in the White House who are watching this narrative develop in the right wing, in the MAGA world, that is very anti-Israel, very anti-Jewish.”

Tehran is running out of water. Residents of Iran's capital city are working to "stave off catastrophe" brought by climate change and resource mismanagement. The crisis could threaten an Islamic regime already struggling in the aftermath of conflicts with Israel and the United States.

The city of 10 million people could be "weeks away" from a "day zero" in which "taps run dry for large parts of the city," said CNN. Authorities are "scrambling to reduce water consumption" and sounding the alarms. Urgent decisions are needed, or "we will face a situation in the future that cannot be solved," said President Masoud Pezeshkian on Monday. The country is in the midst of a terrible drought, but the water supply crisis has been compounded by "excessive groundwater pumping, inefficient farming practices and unchecked urban water use," said CNN. The result "can only be described as water bankruptcy," said Amir AghaKouchak, a civil engineering professor at the University of California, Irvine.

"Water shortages and collapsing public trust" are creating a "perfect storm" for Iran, said AL-Monitor. The government is taking emergency action to deal with the shortages, but many Iranians see those moves as "signs of panic, not planning" from what is already regarded as a "'broken' system." That has "domestic implications" and could even "inflame regional tensions."

What did the commentators say?

Iranians find themselves in a "daily struggle against a regime that has failed them for decades," said Dana Sameah at The Jerusalem Post. The country's social media channels have been "flooded" with images of "desperate farmers and business owners" in distress over the "loss of their livelihoods" as "vital services have ground to a halt" thanks to shortages of both water and electricity. Does that mean regime change is in sight? There is no "organized political force" capable of leading a revolt. But a regime that cannot get water to its citizens "knows deep down that its time is running out."

"A thirsty Iran provides an opening for the U.S.," said Janatan Sayeh at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The scarcity of water has previously "triggered unrest" throughout the country, including a 2021 uprising in Khuzestan province and again the next year in Hamadan province. There have been more protests since then. Washington has an opportunity to "demonstrate alignment with the Iranian people" against a government that is responsible for the country becoming "increasingly uninhabitable."

What next?

The water crisis comes as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader, is "fading into the shadows," said The Economist. The 86-year-old leader has largely receded from public view since Israel's 12-day bombing campaign earlier this summer. That leaves "actors inside and outside the regime jostling for position" when Khamenei leaves the scene. But time is running out, said Reuters. Without cooperation from Iranians to conserve water, Pezeshkian said on Thursday, "there won't be any water in dams by September or October."