Live ingestion is paused. We’re migrating our backend to a new database. The archive is up to date through Sep 20, 2026 (33 days ago). Fresh events will resume once the migration finishes — historical analysis is fully available.
Conflict Events Archive
16,131 documented events · latest Sep 20, 2026 — chronological archive with full summaries and multi-source verification.
France to summon Iran envoy after language centre closure in Tehran
Iran accuses the French language centre of conducting 'illegal acts that violated diplomatic conventions'.
Qatar PM urges Gulf security framework with Iran
Qatar’s PM says, the Gulf won't be the same unless there's a framework ensuring no one is a threat to each other.
Qatar PM describes fallout of US-Israel war on Iran as ‘earthquake’
Speaking before the UN General Assembly, Sheikh Mohammed also announces a key shift in Qatar's investment strategy.
With The Fed Behind Us…
With The Fed Behind Us… By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities With the Fed Behind Us… The 10-year Treasury sold off after the Fed bounced Thursday, only to resume selling, finishing the week just under 5%. Stocks, which seemed to move up and down with Treasuries, decided to move to the beat of their own drum into the close on Friday. Similarly, for the past few weeks, it seems that if you knew oil was up/down, you could predict yields would be up/down. Not on Friday. On this special day we will build on Thursday’s post-FOMC report: Back to Regularly Scheduled Programming. You might be wondering “what makes today special”? Well, for the first time ever, the T-Report has the same access to the White House as CNN, though not quite how we hoped it would happen. The ban definitely seems weird. Not sure what to make of it, and maybe it will be nothing, but it does seem strange at the very least. In Thursday’s report we touched on: Oil and energy prices, which we will focus on more today. Japanese Yen. Support has broken the 155 level solidly (closing at 156.9), which is likely to cause it to weaken further as a lot of people were willing to bet on I Am the House Now Bessent. Compute Build and AI Spend. Increasingly, this is likely to be a focus of this week’s Trump/Xi summit. Space. We need to do more to focus on the opportunities and risks (commercial and national security) for space. Working with some of Academy’s GIG members to more thoroughly assess this, as the national security aspect seems to be gaining more attention. The Houthis and Saudi Arabia Should we be treating what is going on between the Houthis and the Saudis as a subset of the Iran/U.S. war? The Houthis are, after all, a proxy of Iran. The Saudis have been working with the U.S. and the President, so are they merely just an ally? A subset, an extension, or something in its own right? While Iran is likely influencing the Houthis and certainly has given them the tools to cause havoc and mayhem, the Houthis seem to be taking the initiative. Maybe they see the U.S. as distracted with Iran. Maybe they see the U.S. testing the Saudis’ loyalty as an ally. In any case, it seems like they have seen an opportunity and are taking strides to set their agenda in and around the Red Sea. They have seemingly gone out of their way to avoid any attack against U.S. assets. Instead, they are hitting the Saudis where it hurts: their energy industry. And according to reports, that includes jet fuel facilities at the airport. We cautioned about getting excited that the pipeline damage inflicted on the “alternative to the Strait” pipeline would be repaired quickly. One, the damage seemed more extensive than just to the pipeline. Two, and more importantly, there is no evidence that new strikes could be thwarted. It seems like we should start pricing in “disruptions” to the energy complexes that are outside the scope of the U.S./Iran conflict. Will the Saudis be able to defend themselves? Will they “beg” America to get involved more directly? If they do, will the U.S. get involved? Will they try to disrupt traffic through the Red Sea? If so, how much can they do before the U.S. gets involved? I’d ask how much before Europe would get involved, but that seems like it is too unlikely to even think about (they probably should, but it doesn’t seem imminent). Markets seem to only react badly when actual events affecting energy prices occur. Markets seem to react positively to any story, rumor, or hope that is positive. That relationship may need to change… Even My Mother Knows Diesel Prices are High! Usually, by the time my mother knows something is affecting financial markets, it is a pretty good time to fade the trade as it has become totally consensus. I’m not so sure about that this time. Since the war began, we’ve been focused not as much on oil, but more on LNG and Diesel. Both are “tighter” than oil itself. More susceptible to supply chain disruptions. Less flexibility to work around. So rather than “fading” something we’ve argued that people should focus on, we should just embrace that people (including my mother) are now thinking about the dangers of rising diesel prices: for industry, transportation, and agriculture (and maybe the “back up” generators at some data centers). We already busted through the “red circle” that we had in last week’s version of this chart. This is a big deal and has created some chatter about restricting diesel exports from the U.S. As discussed in prior reports, that is not likely to work (even with restrictions, the domestic price isn’t likely to deviate too far from Global Price minus Transportation minus Storage). It is also likely to hurt U.S. companies going forward as customers entering into new contracts need to consider this possibility (plus there are likely to be some legal challenges). Rising diesel prices are high on my list of inflation pressures that are mounting and difficult to control (unless you are in charge of the war efforts). One Path to Victory with Iran Anything could happen. We could all wake up on Monday to find that there is a “deal” that is on the table and close to getting done. We did have an MOU after all (though from day 1, it seemed that although we all saw a written version, there were “unwritten” versions or promises made, that were inconsistent and it seemed like neither side had really listened to what the other side had said or wanted). I won’t discount some sort of “deal” but it seems difficult to believe that it will be one the U.S. can claim as a major victory, if it happens now (given the current news flow surrounding the war). The economic sanctions could pressure Iran into a deal. The blockade has been very successful. Iran seems to be able to “contain” the amount of trade going through the Strait against their interests (some is going through, but Iran is still able to scare many into not trying to run through the Strait). Can the increased focus on sanctions work? Sure, but in a matter of weeks? Hmmmm…I find it difficult to believe that a nation that kills its own citizens on an industrial scale will collapse in weeks, or even a couple of months. They have had experience with evading sanctions for decades, albeit sanctions not being enforced as strictly as they are supposedly being enforced now. It remains unclear how sanctions will work unless the U.S. is willing to go after China (and Turkey) to the full extent of what Bessent has outlined. So far, that doesn’t seem to be happening. It will almost certainly be a discussion point this week for Trump and Xi. Sanctions are helping and might be enough to force a good deal, but that doesn’t seem like a “tomorrow” sort of event. Increasingly, we are being asked about “knocking out” Iran’s infrastructure. Could that happen? Yes, but here is a quick assessment: Anything clearly military focused has already likely been hit and destroyed. That leaves “dual use” facilities. Facilities that have both a military use and a commercial use. Let’s say energy sources close to military facilities that also service communities. Some of these are viable targets as the military usage is enough to justify going after them. Similar for some bridges necessary for moving troops or armaments. But this can be tricky: on a legal and humanitarian level. Global perception, while not necessarily at the top of the admin’s concerns, should still be a concern. This is a possible path for the U.S., but it could be a difficult balancing act of doing enough to force change, without doing too much reputational (or even legal) damage. Taking the Islands that control the Strait: after the midterm elections. One theory that General (ret.) Bellon discussed this week is taking action to secure the islands that control the Strait, culminating possibly with Kharg Island. The rationale is: Wait until after the midterms, because risks to U.S. troops will increase, but it won’t be as politicized as it would be prior to the elections. Prior to the election, IRAN WILL HAVE MORE OPTIONS than after the elections. Basically, if Iran believes the midterms represent a hurdle to Trump, they can take different actions than they can after the midterms have occurred. There is no longer some “deadline” for Trump, giving him more flexibility and changing Iran’s response function. This makes a lot of sense. Sanctions may work to create a deal, but anything resembling a different regime is not likely. Taking the islands that control the Strait, and eventually Kharg Island itself, would cripple their energy industry and demonstrate real weakness on their part. It will be difficult to do without loss of further life, but when so many other options leave us with a “kick the can” option, the President may decide an option that has horrible costs may be better than going through this effort every few years. Signaling the will to do this might be enough to change Iran’s negotiating stance. Taking even one small, relatively insignificant island that is the easiest to defend may also change the calculus for Iran. The U.S. might win not by taking every Island, including Kharg, but the start of turning a threat into reality could be enough. What to watch for: The U.S. moving vessels with top-notch medical facilities into proximity (less than 1 hour by helicopter, say as a guideline) would be a good indication. The military’s commitment to saving each and every life possible, and providing the best care possible, is real. So, they would need to move these vessels that can perform state-of-the-art surgery and operations, close enough to help any soldiers needing aid. Of all the discussions that I’ve heard around a “post-midterm” victory, this path seems reasonable. Maybe the theory would even be that once Iran sees the ships moving in, and knows the President isn’t potentially hamstrung by upcoming midterms, it capitulates and looks for a deal? Maybe a bit optimistic, but it resonates with me. Greenland Deal The President announced a deal. I will reserve comment until we see the terms of the actual deal (so far, as has become the norm, there are all sorts of assertions from a variety of sides, with little documentation). The deal could be a real game changer, as the President implied via Truth Social. It might just be an updated formulation of agreements already in place (never hurts to update something that was written long before the polar ice caps were melting, when computers were the size of a house, and rare earths and critical minerals weren’t required in vast amounts). A win in any case, but how much of a win remains to be seen. And could it have been done without all of the “annex” / “take” Greenland rhetoric? Trump and Xi We will provide a full take on this on Tuesday morning, as we work with the GIG to figure out what is likely the highest priority on both sides. A few months ago, trade, rare earths, and critical minerals would have been high on that list. A few weeks ago, Iran and global energy had to be high on that list. Now, cyber, AI, and compute have to be highest on the list. At first blush, on most of these issues, the U.S. seems to need more from China than they need from the U.S. Never a great way to enter into a summit with China, but we will delve deeper on Tuesday. Bottom Line I’m running out of time in Vermont, and it might be nicer to spend it outside rather than at my laptop (and the Wi-Fi is spotty at best). Diesel and the Middle East are key to rates. For now, I think the path for energy prices (and stocks) and rates (globally) is higher. The news flow has not been positive this weekend, and it is difficult to see that changing quickly as Trump seems to be focused on dealing with Iran from a “stronger” position after the midterms (not stronger in terms of having the support of the House and the Senate, stronger because the perception that he has a deadline is gone). For compute, Cheap Chinese Compute remains a concern. It is difficult to get all “warm and fuzzy” about the outcome of this summit for markets. More choppiness seems to be the order of the day, with a bias to the downside for me on the compute spend story (though good for their credit spreads). We get to bookend this week with a Monday morning appearance on CNBC and Friday morning on Bloomberg to analyze the results of the summit! Should be another interesting week that we all have to navigate. Even with the Fed behind us, we will be paying attention to the data that may determine the next move for the Fed, but Iran, the Houthis, diesel, rates, and the summit are all going to move markets (hopefully in accordance with how we are recommending positioning). Tyler Durden Sun, 09/20/2026 - 15:30
CENTCOM: Over 1 Billion Crude Oil Barrels Crossed Strait of Hormuz
The United States is working to secure navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, as talks between Washington and Tehran remain stalled and the war is in its seventh month. US Central Command (CENTCOM) commander Adm. Brad Cooper said on Saturday that the US military is continuously working to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and secure, adding that US forces supported the transport of over 1 billion crude oil barrels through the Strait of Hormuz “in the last couple of months” despite an ongoing exchange of strikes with Iran. “We’ve reached this significant milestone while assisting over 2000 commercial ship transits through the Strait by providing coordinated protection. Clearly momentum is building,” Cooper said in a video posted on social media. “Thousands of ships have passed through the Strait. Over 1 billion barrels of crude have been shipped from Gulf partners through the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran has exported zero barrels thanks to our ironclad blockade,” he continued. The US commander said CENTCOM is working with regional partners, along with insurance and shipping companies, to increase commercial traffic through the waterway. “We're also working with every partner in the region, enhancing their air defense, forming a new coalition attack drone unit, and keeping the Strait of Hormuz and surrounding waters open and clear,” Cooper said. His comments came as the United States and Iran remain locked in a military conflict following the collapse of both the April and June 2026 ceasefire agreements. The US re-imposed its blockade of Iran's shipping and ports on July 13 in an attempt to cut off oil sales — Tehran's primary source of hard currency — compounding earlier losses from wartime strikes on its energy infrastructure. Iranian-Pakistani Talks Amid growing concerns over the safety of oil supply routes, Pakistan has recently intensified its contacts with Tehran on regional developments. Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi discussed regional developments over the phone on Saturday. Dar emphasized the importance of “uninterrupted energy supplies and the safe and expeditious passage of ships,” particularly given their impact on developing countries and global supply chains, according to a Pakistani Foreign Ministry statement. He stressed that dialogue and diplomacy remain the “only viable means” of ensuring peace and stability in the region. The two sides agreed to maintain close cooperation and meet in New York on the sidelines of the 81st UN General Assembly next week. On Friday, The Financial Times said Pakistan’s army chief has urged Iran to try to rein in Houthi escalation in the region. Field Marshal Asim Munir travelled to Tehran last month to meet Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian and other political leaders and has held multiple phone calls with Araghchi — most recently on Thursday, according to Iranian news agency IRNA. South Korea Does Not Object Meanwhile, South Korea’s presidential office said Saturday that President Lee Jae Myung’s earlier remarks ruling out troop deployments that could involve the country in a war, did not amount to a “refusal of US President Donald Trump’s request for Seoul to send forces” to the strategic Strait of Hormuz, according to the Yonhap news agency. Myung said on Friday he would not deploy military assets to the Middle East in a way that could draw the country into conflict, but Seoul was reviewing whether to play a greater role in safeguarding navigation in the region. According to The New York Times, Myung pushed back against pressure from the Trump administration when he declared that his country would not deploy troops or military assets to support the US-led war against Iran. “Lee did not turn down Trump’s request for South Korea’s cooperation on Middle East-related issues during yesterday’s press conference,” the Yonhap news agency reported on Saturday, citing a presidential official who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity. The official said the government was reviewing “practical ways to contribute” in close coordination with the international community. Seoul will continue to examine concrete options under its stated principle of not intervening in wars or combat, the official added. Trump’s Major Decision In Washington, US President Donald Trump has again raised the possibility of a major new military escalation against Iran while keeping the door open to negotiations. Trump told Axios on Thursday that he was approaching a major decision over whether to restart large-scale attacks against Iran, asking whether he wanted to “go in and annihilate” the Iranian regime. Trump on Wednesday said he hoped an end to the war against Iran was near. But US officials warned that the conflict had entered an “unsustainable stalemate that is neither full-scale war nor stable peace.”
Gaza artists honour Macklemore for supporting Palestine
Artists in Gaza are painting murals on destroyed walls, honouring US rapper Macklemore for his support for Palestine.
Jerusalem Daily: Israel pardons soldier Elor Azaria
Jerusalem Daily: Israel pardons soldier Elor Azaria
Hamas Issues Warning on Gaza: Urgent Call to Mediators as Winter Approaches
Hamas Issues Warning on Gaza: Urgent Call to Mediators as Winter Approaches (machine-translated headline from a Turkish-language source)
Hundreds protest in Tunisia for release of jailed Gaza flotilla activists
Hundreds of Tunisians have protested in Tunis, demanding the release of four Global Sumud Flotilla activists.
State Dept. issues alert to U.S. citizens across the Middle East as tensions rise
U.S. State Department is seen on Nov. 29, 2010. (Nicholas Kamm/Getty Images) President Donald Trump cut short a weekend stay at Camp David and returned to the White House on Saturday evening, hours after the State Department issued a security alert warning that escalating hostilities in the Middle East could worsen rapidly. Trump arrived at the Ellipse aboard Marine One shortly before 8 p.m., according to the White House press pool. His public schedule had called for him to remain at Camp David until Sunday. War Secretary Pete Hegseth, who visited Texas A&M University Saturday and attended the Aggies' football game against Kentucky, also returned to Washington early. The White House did not immediately explain Trump's early return, which came as the State Department renewed a broad travel warning for Americans in or traveling to the Middle East following renewed attacks by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels against Saudi Arabia. At least 11 U.S. embassies in the region also issued warnings about possible travel disruptions, according to The Associated Press. "Due to tensions in the Middle East, the security environment remains complex with the potential for unforeseen escalation," the State Department said in its statement, posted to X on Saturday. The department warned Americans in the region to exercise heightened vigilance and prepare for possible flight cancellations, airspace closures, and other travel disruptions. The advisory did not urge Americans to leave the region. "Iranian-supported Houthis have engaged in hostilities against Saudi Arabia, including civilian airports," the alert said. "This military conflict has the potential to escalate rapidly." Americans outside the Middle East were urged to "seriously reconsider travel to and through the region," while those traveling there were advised to closely monitor airport and airline operations. The State Department also said the potential threat extended beyond the Middle East, noting that U.S. diplomatic facilities had been targeted. "Iran and groups supportive of Iran may target other U.S. interests overseas or at locations associated with the United States and Americans throughout the world, including U.S. businesses and other institutions," the alert said. The heightened warning came four days after the State Department updated its travel advisory for Saudi Arabia, which remains at Level 3, "Reconsider Travel." The Sept. 15 advisory cites the risks of Iranian drone and missile attacks against American interests, armed conflict and terrorism. The Saudi advisory says commercial flights remain operational but have faced significant disruptions since hostilities between the United States and Iran began Feb. 28. It also warns that Iranian attacks have targeted cities, infrastructure, airports, military bases, diplomatic facilities, and energy installations throughout Saudi Arabia. The State Department also noted that the Houthis had threatened renewed attacks against Saudi Arabia and warned that falling debris from intercepted missiles and drones posed a risk. Americans living or working near energy infrastructure and military bases could face heightened danger, the advisory said. The warnings followed a Houthi attempt to strike the Saudi capital of Riyadh with a ballistic missile Saturday. Saudi Arabia said the missile was intercepted and no casualties were reported. Houthi military spokesman Brig. Gen. Yahya Saree said the Yemen-based group launched a "large number of ballistic and cruise missiles" and drones at targets in Saudi Arabia, including Riyadh and facilities belonging to state-owned oil giant Saudi Aramco in Yanbu, The Hill reported. The Houthis' claims about attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure could not immediately be independently verified. The attack prompted Riyadh's first air raid alert since renewed Saudi-Houthi fighting began in July, opening another front in the broader Iran war. The U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem also issued a security alert, saying consular services in Jerusalem and at its Tel Aviv branch continued to operate normally while urging Americans to take additional precautions, Israel Hayom reports. The embassy advised U.S. citizens to verify flight status at Ben Gurion and Haifa airports, identify the nearest bomb shelter or safe room, download Israel's Home Front Command app for real-time alerts, and maintain supplies of water, food, and essential medications. Americans were also advised to avoid demonstrations and large gatherings. © 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.This article originally appeared on Newsmax at https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/middle-east-donald-trump-pete-hegseth/2026/09/20/id/1270025
The pro-Israel censors are starting to lose
The Macklemore controversy demonstrates that the cost of speaking up for Palestine is diminishing.
What’s behind Iranian authorities’ push for a mass mobilisation campaign?
Iran has launched a major mobilisation drive, sparking fears of renewed conflict with the US.
In a world of wars and climate crisis, a new leader could save the UN. But would Trump allow it? | Steve Bloomfield
If all goes to plan, at some stage in the coming weeks 15 diplomats will emerge from a small sound-proofed room deep in the bowels of the United Nations headquarters in New York and announce the organisation’s next secretary-general. The person they choose will face a combination of challenges unlike any that their predecessors have had to deal with. Two of the security council’s permanent members, the US and Russia, are engaged in wars of choice that have no end in sight. A UN commission of inquiry has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, but the UN has effectively been reduced to the role of bystander, pushed out by Donald Trump’s Board of Peace. The climate crisis is creating a cascade of new humanitarian disasters, while every day now seems to bring a new security threat caused by the unregulated rise of AI. All of this is happening in a world in which the very principles of the UN – multilateralism, a rules-based order and international law – are under threat. Secretary-general elections have rarely been this consequential and conversations about who should win will dominate the sidelines of the UN general assembly this week and next, as world leaders gather for the annual summit. The UN, and the world it speaks for, desperately needs a new leader who is both charismatic and competent. Yet the five permanent members of the security council – the US, UK, France, Russia and China – hold a veto. Anyone who wants the job will need the approval of Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and, most importantly, Trump. It is not easy to argue you are best placed to save the UN when the man you need to persuade would rather it fails. Three informal straw polls have taken place so far and no frontrunner has emerged, indeed opposition to the two leading candidates rose in last Friday’s vote. For the first time in the organisation’s 80-year history serious discussions are quietly taking place about what would happen if no secretary-general is chosen at all. Ten years ago, the election of António Guterres of Portugal was widely welcomed as a shot in the arm for the UN after a decade of the low-energy leadership of the South Korean Ban Ki-moon. In his previous role as the UN’s refugee chief he had been an outspoken activist and had pledged to continue speaking up for the world’s most vulnerable people. Then, a month later, Trump took office as the US president. Earlier this year, he announced the US’s withdrawal from 31 UN organisations, including the bodies responsible for dealing with climate change and women’s health, while in July his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, announced the administration’s desire to “dismantle” the international criminal court “brick by brick”. The abrupt closure of the US’s aid and development programme, USAID, led to deaths around the world. Most controversially, the establishment of Trump’s Board of Peace sparked fears that it could be used to supplant the UN itself. The UN meanwhile is in the grip of a financial crisis, with Guterres warning during the summer that it faced “imminent financial collapse” due to unpaid dues, much of it owed by the US. And yet, despite everything, the UN is still standing – and still matters. It is only the UN, through its Framework Convention on Climate Change, that manages to focus international attention on the greatest crisis the world is facing. Despite dramatic cuts in funding, there are still 11 peacekeeping missions staffed by more than 50,000 personnel in some of the most dangerous parts of the world. The UN’s office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs remains the best hope for negotiating access to deliver aid in war zones, including Sudan. This year the general assembly passed two landmark resolutions: one recognising the transatlantic slave trade as a crime, another to adopt a new world map that correctly recognises Africa’s size. We don’t know what the candidates think of these decisions, nor do we know where they stand on the war in Ukraine or what their stance is on Israel’s actions in Gaza. Despite the election’s importance – and despite the relatively recent transparency of “vision statements” and hustings – the candidates’ campaigns have been overwhelmingly cautious. Part of the reason, of course, is that someone standing on an ambitious platform would stand no chance of getting the job. UN experts believe there is a chance that the two current frontrunners, Guyana’s former foreign minister Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett and Costa Rica’s ex vice-president Rebeca Grynspan, might become good secretary-generals. But no one is blown away by the choice on offer. For Andy Burnham and Ed Miliband, both of whom will be in New York this week at the UN general assembly, there is a choice to be made. The UK is yet to express a preference, indeed the UK team at the UN is said to be unimpressed with all the candidates. So far, it’s understood, they have not voted in favour of anyone in the first three straw polls. The UK and France are both hoping another candidate will emerge. Whether they will be any better is an open question. The New York Post reported in July that Trump wanted Fifa president Gianni Infantino to get the job. There is next to no chance that would happen, but European diplomats fear a Trump-backed dark horse – possibly one without a diplomatic background – may emerge in the coming weeks. This is, after all, the man who has outsourced his nation’s diplomacy to his son-in-law and a real estate investor. So far, Trump has said nothing in public, although that may change on Tuesday when he gives his speech at the general assembly. Or a social media post spat out at two in the morning could upend the race entirely. The chances of the “Permanent Five” failing to agree on a name remain slim, but plans are already being drawn up in case the worst happens. Guterres may be asked to stay on, while another possibility is that a collection of senior UN officials is asked to serve in administrative roles until a candidate is found. Either way, it would leave the UN rudderless at a time it needs to be anything but. No one is getting this job without Trump’s say so. But once the new general secretary is in office, the US president will have less sway on their actions. They will potentially serve for 10 years, eight of which will be without Trump in the White House. But even without Trump, this will be an almost impossible job. The UN’s financial crisis is not going away. Severe cuts are coming. There will be no easy return to the 1990s and early 2000s, when the UN was at the heart of world events. A new leader will need to reinvent multilateralism in a world where it’s going out of favour. Depending on the choice they make, we could look back at this decision as the moment that the crumbling international rules-based order began to be rebuilt – or when it slid irretrievably into irrelevance. - Steve Bloomfield is the former international editor of the Observer and a previous winner of the Orwell prize
Netanyahu tours tunnels underneath Al-Aqsa Mosque compound
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, walked through tunnels beneath Al-Aqsa mosque compound.
Iran win Asian Games basketball bronze amid emotional scenes
Players celebrate podium finish that brings exemption from conscription, saying the pressure was 'out of this world'.
Postponing the future: War and inflation redraw marriage terms in Iran
Iran's cost of living crisis is affecting the dreams and everyday life choices of young Iranians.
Gaza’s children return to classrooms after years of Israeli attacks
Palestinian children have returned to classrooms after Israel destroyed Gaza’s schools.
Israeli forces kill Palestinian near Jenin in occupied West Bank
Israeli forces killed a Palestinian man near Jenin and an Israeli settler was fatally shot in separate incident.
Iran claims US mulling new strikes amid new diplomatic outreach
Iran’s military warned Sunday that it will launch "continuous, effective, and painful attacks" against American bases and interests across the Middle East if the U.S. resumes offensive military actions, claiming Washington has decided to launch new strikes with the backing of regional allies. The fresh warnings from Tehran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters came as senior Iranian leadership signaled a willingness to return to a June framework agreement with Washington. Top Iranian officials confirmed Sunday that they have conveyed specific conditions to the U.S. through diplomatic mediators for ending the war and reopening the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a vital maritime choke-point for global oil and gas exports. In a statement broadcast on state-run television network IRIB, Iran's Khatam al-Anbiya central military command claimed that Tehran had received intelligence pointing toward an imminent resumption of U.S. military operations. "According to the information received, the criminal America, has once again decided to resume measures against Iran, with the green light of some regional countries, at a joint meeting in a European country," the military command declared. The Iranian armed forces threatened widespread retaliation against American military assets and cautioned neighboring countries against assisting U.S. operations. "We warn that if the countries of the region – by continuing their dual policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran – align with the Great Devil's aggression against a powerful and sovereign Iran they will all be considered complicit in this evil and can no longer expect restraint or decency from Iran's powerful armed forces," it said. Regional stability has deteriorated since Feb. 28, when the U.S. and Israel launched strikes against Iran. Tehran responded with retaliatory strikes against regional installations hosting American military assets and instituted a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Despite the heightened military rhetoric, Iranian officials indicated that a diplomatic resolution remains possible if the U.S. honors commitments established in earlier negotiations. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, acting as chief negotiator, confirmed that Iran’s terms for ending the conflict had been delivered to Washington via diplomatic intermediaries. "Our messages and the explanation of our conditions have been clearly conveyed to the other party through mediators," Ghalibaf said, according to Iranian state television. "As long as the conditions are not met ... and the U.S. commitments are not honored, it will be impossible to return to the situation from before the negotiations and to an open strait," he added. Clarifying those demands, Mohsen Rezaei, secretary-general of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told Al Jazeera that Tehran’s conditions mirror the terms outlined in the 14-point framework agreement signed by Washington and Tehran in mid-June. "Our conditions are an end to the war on all fronts, the release of our frozen funds and an end to the naval blockade," Rezaei said, adding that Iran is also seeking a formal end to fighting between the Houthi movement in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Diplomatic efforts are set to continue in Tehran Sunday with the arrival of Pakistani Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi, who is traveling to the Iranian capital for bilateral talks in his country's role as a mediator. Qatar has also served as a primary channel for conveying proposals to the U.S. government. The diplomatic initiative follows the collapse of the June framework agreement, which called for a 60-day negotiation period to secure a permanent end to hostilities. Under that agreement, Iran committed to ensuring the safe, toll-free passage of commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, while the U.S. agreed to lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports and unfreeze Iranian financial assets. The temporary accord broke down following sharp disagreements over navigation rights in the Strait of Hormuz and the technical procedures for releasing frozen funds. The initial 60-day timeline expired without an extension or a finalized permanent treaty. Independent analysts observe that Iran is eager to conclude the conflict, provided it can secure strategic concessions. "Iran has no interest in an endless war. There is a clear understanding in Tehran of the importance of bringing the conflict to an end, but only through an agreement that changes the strategic reality in Iran's favour," wrote Danny Citrinowicz, an Israeli Iran analyst, in an assessment posted on X. Citrinowicz said that Tehran remains unwilling to restart diplomatic talks from scratch or offer new concessions beyond the June memorandum. "What Tehran is not prepared to do is renegotiate the agreement from scratch. Iran will not negotiate new terms for the Memorandum of understanding. It will not reopen nuclear negotiations before the memorandum is restored. And it will not offer additional concessions beyond those it already made during its negotiations with Washington," Citrinowicz noted, adding that any progress requires Washington to fulfill its pledges regarding frozen funds and Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz.
Israeli settlers storm Al-Aqsa in latest targeting of East Jerusalem sites
Netanyahu storms Western Wall tunnels amid Yom Kippur settler incursions, drawing fierce condemnation.