Libya's central bank on Thursday said unidentified individuals raided its headquarters in Tripoli, hours after parliament said it had accepted a request from its governor to resign.

The incident comes more than two months after bank governor Naji Issa first announced his resignation, which the parliament rejected at the time.

Beset by instability since the 2011 overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya is divided between a UN-recognised government in Tripoli and a rival administration in the east backed by military commander Khalifa Haftar.

Earlier this month, a new speaker took the helm of parliament, which sits in the eastern city of Benghazi under Haftar control.

The legislature said on Thursday it had belatedly accepted Issa's resignation "in principle" and appointed central bank board member Fauzi Abokhzam to be interim governor pending a final decision.

The central bank said the raid on its headquarters took place while Issa was away, adding that it held responsible for the incident "all parties that participated in this act".

It singled out "the defence ministry, which is tasked with protecting the bank's headquarters", without providing further details on its involvement.

The government in Tripoli did not issue a comment on the reported raid.

Issa's 2024 appointment by parliament as central bank chief had followed a political standoff that saw a halt in oil production amid a deep financial crisis.

It remains unclear why he had presented his resignation in August of this year.

Malaysia’s government has urged users of the navigation app Waze to uninstall the platform amid concerns that personal and movement data could fall under Israeli jurisdiction. 

Malaysia, which does not have diplomatic relations with Israel and has consistently supported Palestinian rights, has also encouraged motorists to switch to TuJu, a locally developed navigation app, as an alternative. 

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim ordered a ban on civil servants using Waze for official duties, citing the need “to protect government information and users' personal data from the threat of misuse by the Israeli regime,” his office said in a statement. 

The restriction applies to civil servants using the app for official purposes, amid warnings that location data collected through the platform could be misused and pose risks to personal and national security. 

However, Malaysia’s National Security Council director-general for National Security, Raja Datuk Nushirwan Zainal Abidin, stressed that the government had stopped short of imposing a blanket ban, seeking to balance security concerns with fundamental rights, freedom of expression and individual choice. 

“We always need to strike a balance between security and human rights consideration and freedom of expression, freedom to choose,” Nushirwan said during a press briefing. 

He added that the concerns extended beyond technology to the legal framework governing the collection and use of personal data. 

Nushirwan pointed to Waze Mobile Ltd’s terms of use, which reportedly stipulate that the agreement is governed by Israeli law. 

On Thursday, Waze rejected Malaysia’s claims, saying allegations that the platform collected sensitive information or allowed any entity to exploit users’ personal data were entirely false. 

“Waze operates under strict privacy policies that protect user data and comply with global legal data protection standards,” a company spokesperson said. 

Founded in Israel, Waze uses satellite signals and crowdsourced data from drivers to provide real-time traffic information.  

Google’s parent company, Alphabet, acquired the platform in 2013. 

The latest developments follow Iraq’s announcement earlier this month that it would ban Waze from next year because the app was developed in Israel.  

Iraq, like Malaysia, does not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. 

Malaysia has consistently opposed normalisation with Israel and has previously restricted engagement with companies perceived to support the Israeli government.  

Amid the genocide in Gaza and ongoing Israeli military operations and settler violence in the occupied West Bank, Kuala Lumpur has continued to advocate for Palestinian statehood and criticise Israeli policies. 

“I think that everything that Israel has done since the 7th of October is justified. Israel should not suffer.”

These words were spoken last month by Milorad Dodik, the de facto leader of Republika Srpska, the Serb-majority entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH).

This statement was hardly surprising. In recent years, Dodik has been outspoken in his support for Israel and its genocidal war on Gaza at a time in which relations between Republika Srpska and Israel are growing.

From high-level political endorsements and the opening of an Israeli Chamber of Commerce office in Banja Luka to increasingly explicit expressions of mutual solidarity. Such growing alignment speaks to how both leaderships are seeking to bolster their international legitimacy amid mounting political pressures.

For Dodik, deep relations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could strengthen his access to Washington and bolster his long-standing ambitions to expand the Bosnian-Serb entity’s autonomy, while Israel may see the relationship as an opportunity to cultivate new allies and increase its diplomatic leverage in Europe.

The implications, however, extend beyond bilateral cooperation. In BiH, where the fragile constitutional order rests on the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement, the growing alignment raises questions about the international legitimisation of separatism, the resurgence of ethnic and religious nationalist narratives, and Brussels’ ability to preserve stability in Europe’s “Inner Courtyard.”

Political calculations

Republika Srpska’s mounting tensions with some Western European governments and international institutions provide some of the necessary context for understanding the significance of Israel’s growing engagement with the Bosnian-Serb entity.

According to Dr Asim Mujkić, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Sarajevo, the sharp decline in international support for Israel’s government has made Tel Aviv more open to unconventional partnerships. 

By engaging with Dodik publicly, Israel demonstrates its ability to maintain existing partnerships while forging new ones. At the same time, Israel’s ties to the Republika Srpska government may provide Tel Aviv with greater leverage in its dealings with European powers.

“I would say the ever-growing lack of international support for [Netanyahu’s] government, the rise of criticism and even boycott by traditionally amicable countries and organisations made Netanyahu open to political adventurism of this kind. For [the] domestic public it is surely advantageous to be able to show that some political leaders in fact visit Israel,” he told The New Arab.

Giorgio Fruscione, a research fellow at the Milan-based Italian Institute for International Political Studies, sees a related but broader set of motivations. He holds that Netanyahu’s government seeks international legitimacy via relationships with political actors that have strong connections to Washington and Moscow.

Fruscione also understands disputes over the interpretation of the Srebrenica genocide as part of the political context shaping Israel-Republika Srpska relations.

Viewed at a regional level, the expansion of Israel’s partnerships with actors in the Balkans serves to counter the influence of Iran, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, which have their own networks in southeastern Europe.

Put simply, while Israeli officials will frequently stress the importance of commercial cooperation, trade, and investment with Republika Srpska, Albania, and other players in the Balkans, there is no denying that the significance of these partnerships goes beyond stated economic objectives.

Dodik’s search for political leverage

Above all these considerations, Dodik’s main motivation for establishing closer ties with Israel seems to be his desire to enhance his access to Washington.

Although Dodik was officially removed from the Republika Srpska presidency last year, he remains the de facto leader in Banja Luka, and the Bosnian-Serb strongman is determined to continue advancing his political agenda at the expense of BiH’s fragile stability. International support, therefore, remains valuable to Dodik as he pursues his political ambitions, even if full independence is not necessarily his ultimate goal.

In terms of cultivating deeper ties with the Trump administration, Dodik has relied on conventional lobbying. But that alone might not suffice for the Bosnian-Serb leader, who can probably count on Netanyahu as a key intermediary in Washington.

Support, or at least accommodation, from the United States and Russia has benefited Dodik’s political position. With an Israeli Chamber of Commerce office opening in Banja Luka and officials from Republika Srpska and Israel increasing their public engagement, Dodik has an easier time presenting his leadership as globally connected instead of isolated.

At the heart of Dodik’s desire to bolster ties with the United States, Russia, and Israel is his interest in obtaining greater bargaining power when dealing with other actors in BiH and internationally. By invoking independence without necessarily attempting to establish Republika Srpska as an independent state (a process that would be extremely challenging and messy in practice), Dodik can gain such leverage.

There are important economic and security dimensions to Israel and Republika Srpska’s deepening ties. Dodik wants greater cooperation with Israel in technology and investment, while Netanyahu’s government is focused on energy and security as key areas of this bilateral relationship.

Yet, given the lack of concrete details available to the general public, the scale and scope of this envisioned economic cooperation remain unclear.

Nonetheless, with Republika Srpska under financial pressure, it is understandable that the leadership in Banja Luka would welcome Israeli capital alongside any political advantages that could come from this growing partnership.

Belgrade's role

Republika Srpska’s growing ties with Israel should be understood in the context of Belgrade’s relationship with Tel Aviv, given Serbia’s influence in Banja Luka. Particularly in the area of defence, Serbia has strengthened its relationship with Israel, underscored by the establishment of a drone assembly plant involving Israeli defence company Elbit Systems and Belgrade’s arms exports to Tel Aviv.

Fruscione holds that Republika Srpska’s foreign policy is not entirely independent and that Banja Luka’s international relationships remain closely connected to Serbia’s priorities on the international stage.

“Republika Srpska does not have an autonomous foreign policy. Although it may appear so, it is aligned with, if not even piloted by Belgrade. Therefore, relations between Israel and Republika Srpska must be understood within this framework,” he explained to The New Arab.

This perspective places Republika Srpska’s growing partnership with Tel Aviv within a broader network of political and economic relationships linking its leadership with Belgrade, Moscow, and Washington.

These relationships reflect overlapping, and at times competing, efforts to secure external support and advance political interests. The relationship with Israel also intersects with political cooperation between Milorad Dodik’s Alliance of Independent Social Democrats and the Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina, BiH’s principal Croat nationalist party.

Both parties have sought changes to aspects of BiH’s political arrangements, particularly those affecting entity autonomy, political representation, and the distribution of power, although their objectives and interests are not identical.

According to Dr Mujkić, the Netanyahu government’s engagement with Serb and Croat nationalist leaders risks reinforcing political forces that challenge BiH’s Daytonian balance. Taken together, these relationships could increase pressure on the institutions in Sarajevo and complicate efforts to develop a coordinated Bosnian foreign policy.

They also create a regional dynamic in which developments involving Tel Aviv become increasingly intertwined with Belgrade’s ambitions, internal divisions within BiH, and competing US and Russian interests amid an era of intensifying great-power competition.

"Netanyahu’s government has supported [the Croat nationalist hard-liners of the] ethnic party in Bosnia, HDZ, even economically through the presence of Amir Kabiri, [an] Israeli businessman who not only supported Croat nationalism but also distorted [the representation of the] Bosnian Jewish community. It has supported Serb nationalist hard-liners as well, so of course, such a policy [threatens the] Dayton equilibrium,” he told The New Arab.

According to Dr Mujkić, both nationalist movements have increasingly incorporated Christian nationalism and claims of an “Islamist danger” posed by Bosniaks into their political rhetoric.

The irony of history is that contemporary Croat nationalism is heir to the ideology of the Nazi-allied Independent State of Croatia, which sought to exterminate local Jews. Meanwhile, contemporary Serb nationalism draws on a radical nationalist tradition that, under Milan Nedić’s collaborationist regime in 1941, proudly declared Serbia the first Judenrein country in the ‘new Europe’

"Yet today, these are - and not, for example, [the] Jewish Community of Bosnia and Herzegovina - [who] are the ‘allies’ of [Netanyahu],” Dr Mujkić told The New Arab.

The Dayton order and Bosnia's fragile stability

Republika Srpska’s strengthening relationship with Israel stands to reinforce a political environment in which there is greater acceptance of serious challenges to BiH’s territorial dignity.

This development, as Dr Mujkić explains, fits into a wider geopolitical pattern in which Moscow’s support for local nationalist movements and shifts in Washington’s foreign policy during the Trump 2.0 era risk weakening the European Union’s capacity to respond to instability in the Western Balkans.

As Fruscione told The New Arab, Israeli support is not creating a new secessionist dynamic in BiH. Yet, it might accelerate one already underway, particularly as the EU’s internal divisions serve to complicate Brussels’ engagement with the Balkan country.

The challenges surrounding the appointment of a new High Representative, whose office provides a critical international safeguard for the Dayton framework, highlight the serious issues facing the existing system of oversight.

However, the eventual consequences of the strengthening Republika Srpska-Israel relationship remain uncertain. Tel Aviv’s growing engagement may help Dodik bolster his international standing and bargaining power, but how far Washington or Tel Aviv would go to support him remains unclear.

Giorgio Cafiero is the CEO of Gulf State Analytics

Follow him on X: @GiorgioCafiero

Edited by Charlie Hoyle

A Tunisian military court sentenced opposition politician Olfa Hamdi to four years in prison on charges of plotting against state security and inciting the military to disobey orders, her lawyer said on Wednesday, the latest move against opponents of President Kais Saied.

Hamdi, the leader of the Third Republic Party who holds US citizenship, was detained at Tunisia's main airport after disembarking from a flight in February.

She had been living abroad and previously served as CEO of Tunisia's national carrier Tunisair.

Hamdi has repeatedly criticized Saied’s rule and called for a transitional government and early presidential elections.

The sentence comprises two separate two-year prison terms and total fines of 80,000 dinars ($26,000), her lawyer Akram Moussa told Reuters. Hamdi was sentenced in March in a separate case to two years in prison.

Many opposition leaders, along with activists and journalists, are behind bars, with critics accusing Saied of having turned Tunisia into a prison since 2021.

Saied rejects the accusations, saying he is not a dictator and that the law applies to everyone, regardless of their position.

Thousands of Tunisians joined the largest protest against Saied in years last weekend, accusing him of undermining democracy and mishandling the economy in a growing challenge to his rule.

Syrian authorities have sent court rulings issued in absentia against ousted president Bashar al-Assad and his brother Maher to Interpol as part of efforts to pursue former regime figures accused of serious human rights abuses.

Fakhr al-Din al-Aryan, head of Damascus's Fourth Criminal Court, said on Thursday that the rulings had been referred to the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), Syria's official SANA news agency reported.

Al-Aryan explained that the in absentia judgments were not final and would be annulled if the defendants were arrested or surrendered voluntarily, allowing their trials to begin again in their presence.

He said the ruling against Bashar al-Assad was based on evidence that the court said established his responsibility for violations through the chain of command and orders issued, rather than simply his position as president.

The court is currently examining around 61 cases involving serious abuses, having already ruled on four, according to al-Aryan.

He stressed that the Fourth Criminal Court operates under Syria's Supreme Judicial Council and applies Syrian law, rather than functioning as a special or exceptional tribunal.

The court has issued rulings against several prominent figures from the former regime, including Bashar and Maher al-Assad, senior military and security commanders, and former political and religious officials.

The sentences include the death penalty and life imprisonment. Judgments were issued against defendants who were presnet for their trials, including Assad's cousins Atef Najib and Wassim al-Assad and former mufti Ahmad Hassoun.

Al-Aryan accused the Assad regime of systematically concealing evidence and information about detainees before its collapse, complicating efforts to determine the fate of thousands of missing Syrians, whose families still have no definitive proof of their fate.

Assets confiscated to compensate victims

As part of efforts to secure justice for victims, the court has ordered the confiscation of convicted individuals' assets, with the proceeds to be deposited into a designated account pending the establishment of a compensation fund.

Al-Aryan said the measure was intended to protect the rights of victims who had been unable to appear before the court or submit personal compensation claims.

He added that the court had introduced measures to protect witnesses and evidence, including witnesses called by both victims and defendants.

The judge cited the case of Atef Najib, who was previously sentenced to death, saying the court had agreed to his request to hear testimony from protected witnesses identified only by confidential numbers.

Al-Aryan insisted that Syria's transitional justice process would continue, with authorities pursuing those implicated in abuses during the country's brutal conflict.

Russia refuses to extradite Assad

The chances of Bashar al-Assad appearing before a Syrian court today appear quite low.

The former dictation has been living in Russia, where he fled following the collapse of his regime in December 2024.

On 14 October, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Borisenko reiterated Moscow's refusal to extradite Assad, declaring that its decision to grant him political asylum on humanitarian grounds was "irreversible".

Borisenko added that Syria's current authorities understood Moscow's position.

Russia has repeatedly ruled out handing over its longtime ally.

In April 2025, Russia's ambassador to Iraq, Elbrus Kutrashev, said Assad's extradition was not an option, describing such a possibility as unacceptable under any agreement.

The latest court rulings form part of efforts by Syria's new authorities to hold former regime officials accountable for abuses committed during the country's years of conflict and repression.

However, the transitional justice process continues to face significant challenges, including documenting violations, uncovering the fate of missing and detained Syrians, pursuing suspects living abroad and ensuring victims receive justice and compensation.

Canada, which is in the midst of a trade war with the United States, opened talks with Turkey Thursday on a free trade agreement during a landmark visit by Prime Minister Mark Carney.

Carney, a former central banker, has made reducing dependence on Washington and diversifying Canada's partnerships one of the cornerstones of his term, which began in March 2025.

"We decided to begin negotiations for a free trade agreement, which includes increasing trade and investment, before the end of the year," Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in a joint address to reporters.

Carney is the first Canadian prime minister to pay an official visit to Turkey.

"We hope to increase our trade volume, which is currently around $3 billion, to $5 billion and then $10 billion. We will approximately double direct flights between our countries," Erdogan said.

Carney said Canadian negotiators would come to Ankara next month for the first round of free trade talks.

"Our goal is not self-sufficiency, it is collective resilience," said Carney.

"And that's why Canada is building deeper partnerships with reliable partners that create new opportunities for us both. And in Turkey, we have an exceptional partner."

Carney is due to meet on Friday with Turkish business leaders in Istanbul, in strategic sectors such as energy, aerospace and critical minerals.

Canada and Turkey have also identified potential for cooperation in nuclear energy.

They also announced a partnership agreement in the defence industry.

"Today's new Agreement on Defence Industry Partnership will connect Canadian and Turkish companies to work together, creating good jobs at home, export opportunities abroad, greater security for our citizens, and contributing to a stronger NATO alliance," Carney said.

Carney has multiplied overseas trips, renewing ties with nations such as Saudi Arabia, India and China with which relations had been strained or even broken under his predecessor Justin Trudeau.

Carney has also drawn closer to Europe.

Indonesia should reconsider its involvement in US President Donald Trump's Gaza peace plan because it is being shaped by Israel and the US and lacks a Palestinian voice, the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories told Reuters on Thursday.

The "Board of Peace," of which Indonesia is a key troop-contributing ​member, was unveiled by Trump in January to address global conflicts ​typically handled by the United Nations. The world's largest Muslim-majority nation has also pledged troops to be deployed to Gaza as part of an international stabilisation force.

Francesca Albanese, a prominent human rights lawyer known for her vocal criticism of Israel, said in an interview in Jakarta that Indonesia has historically supported the Palestinian cause, but joining the board was dangerous.

Indonesia's Foreign Ministry said on Thursday that Board of Peace discussions remained on hold, reiterating its earlier position.

Albanese has drawn the ire of a number of Western capitals. The US has imposed sanctions on her, and others, including her own native Italy, have called for her resignation.

"I understand (Indonesia's) good intentions. I still think that it's very dangerous, because it risks to normalise a very abnormal mechanism," she said.

Albanese said that, legally, Israel could not have a role in determining the future of Palestinians.

Rights experts have criticised the board for not including a ​Palestinian representative even though it is meant to supervise the ​temporary governance of a Palestinian territory.

The Board of Peace did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside US business hours.

Indonesia, which backs a two-state solution and has repeatedly condemned Israeli violence, has drawn criticism from domestic Muslim groups for agreeing to join the board, which also counts Israel as a member.

President Prabowo Subianto has vowed to quit if it does not bring benefits to Palestinians, his office has previously said, adding that joining the board would allow Indonesia to push for cessation of violence.

Albanese said Indonesia risked compromising its close ties with Palestinians. "It's very risky to do so when the rules are set by Israel," she said.

Albanese recommended Jakarta join the Hague Group of countries, which includes South Africa and Indonesia's neighbour Malaysia and seeks to uphold international law and processes, including in the International Criminal Court over Israel's actions.

Trump's Gaza plan has stalled. A 2025 ceasefire secured the release of the remaining captives held by Hamas and hundreds of Palestinian detainees, but efforts to disarm Hamas and secure an Israeli withdrawal have faltered, while Israeli forces continue near-daily attacks in Gaza.

A US photojournalist working for The Washington Post has recounted how Palestinian youths helped save her during a brutal attack by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank that left her seriously injured. 

Heidi Levine was attacked by a group of settlers last Friday while covering the olive harvest near Abu Falah, north-east of Ramallah, alongside Palestinian villagers, journalists and activists.

She said local Palestinians formed a “protective shield” to help protect her from the attackers. 

“The Palestinian youth put themselves in front and were trying to keep them [the settlers] away, keep a protective shield, which was amazing,” Levine told British newspaper The Guardian on Wednesday.

She described the scene as being “like a biblical battle”. 

The Guardian cited witnesses who said Palestinian youths drove the settlers back, allowing US journalist Jasper Nathaniel and other reporters to reach Levine and help her to safety. 

Levine said the violence escalated after Israeli forces arrived at the scene.

A group of masked Israeli settlers had appeared on a nearby hilltop, watching the Palestinian villagers, journalists and human rights activists accompanying the harvesters. 

“Then all hell broke loose. Some of the farmers started to gather their tarps and bags of olives that they had picked,” she said. 

“Then all of a sudden I hear a machine gun, and then saw tear gas in the distance. I started to run … It was just like a lot of commotion and then all of a sudden I see a dozen of them and they started charging at me.” 

Levine sustained four fractured vertebrae, two broken ribs and four puncture wounds after being knocked to the ground and repeatedly beaten by the masked settlers.

She said she was kicked and struck with sticks “probably more than a hundred times”, even after attempting to play dead. 

The photojournalist also said she feared she could have suffered brain damage or lost an eye had she not managed to keep her face towards the ground during the beating. 

Despite her injuries, Levine said she intended to resume reporting from the occupied West Bank once she had recovered. 

“My work is important,” she said. “They have bruised me, broken some bones, but they haven’t cracked my spirit.” 

Meanwhile, fellow US journalist Jasper Nathaniel, who helped rescue Levine, wrote on his website that the young Palestinians had been instrumental in saving her life, stressing that they were “prepared to defend the community against the invaders”. 

Nathaniel added that “had the shabab (young men in Arabic) not stepped up to protect her, she might well be dead”. 

“It is no exaggeration to say that young Palestinians armed only with stones risked their lives to save Heidi Levine’s,” he wrote. 

Levine also condemned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office for questioning accounts of the assault in a statement posted on the social media platform X, which referred to an “alleged attack”. 

The statement further claimed that some footage “appears to show Levine knocked down and immediately helped to her feet by the same unidentified individual”. 

"That’s such bullshit. They helped me up because they couldn’t get my things off of me. That’s why," Levine told The Guardian. 

"They robbed me of everything I have – a pouch with my documents, my American passport, credit card, camera disk and a small camera bag with two other lenses. Everything is gone … That’s why [they stood me up], and then they threw me back down and continued to kick and hit me."

Levine, who is Jewish and has lived in Israel for four decades, said Israeli President Isaac Herzog had personally called her to apologise for the attack. She quoted him as saying the settlers responsible were "not representative of who this country is". 

US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee also condemned the assault as a “despicable act of terror” and called for those responsible to be prosecuted. 

Israeli police have since arrested 10 suspects following the incident in Abu Falah.

However, an Israeli court released four suspects in the assault on Levine on Wednesday and placed them under house arrest, citing insufficient evidence to keep them in custody. 

Asked whether she expected her attackers to face justice, Levine rated her confidence at “two out of 10”. 

“I am not very hopeful,” she told The Guardian. “Of course, if the government made the decision to do something and crack down on this and get people arrested, they would do it.” 

Israeli settlers have intimidated Palestinians harvesting olives in the occupied West Bank for decades.

However, this year has seen a sharp escalation in violence, alongside widespread theft of crops, according to Palestinian witnesses, rights groups and the United Nations. 

Israeli rights group Yesh Din reported on Wednesday that it had documented 125 physical attacks on Palestinian olive harvesters during the 24 days since the season began, alongside 168 incidents of crop theft. Israeli military forces were present in at least a quarter of the cases. 

Yesh Din warned that settler violence was "part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing, paving the way for the annexation of the West Bank without its Palestinian population". 

UN bodies, with support from countries around the world, have repeatedly affirmed that Israeli settlements in territory occupied during war are illegal under international law governing military occupation.

The powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC has announced it will stop directly funding and endorsing US congressional candidates, marking a major shift in its electoral strategy amid growing public opposition to Israel over its genocidal war in Gaza.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) announced the decision on Wednesday, saying it would end formal candidate endorsements and direct contributions through its political action committee while continuing to spend heavily on elections through its super PAC, United Democracy Project (UDP).

The move comes as AIPAC faces growing criticism, particularly among Democratic voters, with a leading Palestinian advocacy figure telling The New Arab that the decision amounts to an admission that the lobby's support has become politically toxic.

"They're admitting themselves that their endorsement is a net negative for anyone that they would endorse," Hamid Bendaas, communications director at the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project said.

The decision marks a significant change for one of Washington's most influential lobbying organisations, which established its political action committee and super PAC in 2021, expanding its electoral involvement.

In a letter to members, AIPAC said it would concentrate on mobilising individual donors and developing new fundraising methods, while insisting its objectives remained unchanged.

"Our mission and strategy remain the same," AIPAC spokesperson Deryn Sousa said.

Federal Election Commission filings show that AIPAC contributed nearly $25 million to candidates and political committees through September, while UDP spent more than $53 million on independent electoral expenditures.

Unlike traditional political action committees, super PACs can spend unlimited amounts supporting or opposing candidates, provided they do not coordinate directly with campaigns.

The announcement comes amid sharply deteriorating American attitudes towards Israel following its genocide in Gaza and wider military actions across the Middle East.

An April 2026 Pew Research Center survey found that 60 percent of Americans held an unfavourable view of Israel, including 80 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.

Polling published by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in October found that American favourability towards Israel had fallen to its lowest level since the organisation began measuring attitudes towards the country in 1978.

The changing political climate has complicated AIPAC's efforts to support candidates, particularly in Democratic primaries.

In Michigan, AIPAC's super PAC spent heavily attempting to defeat Abdul El-Sayed, a critic of Israel, during the Democratic Senate primary.

El-Sayed nevertheless secured the nomination against Congresswoman Haley Stevens, who received substantial backing from pro-Israel interests.

UDP has subsequently intervened against El-Sayed in the Senate election campaign, where he faces Republican Mike Rogers, departing from AIPAC's traditional emphasis on maintaining bipartisan support.

Bendaas said the intervention was particularly significant given AIPAC's longstanding preference for influencing primaries rather than general elections.

"They usually stick to primaries, and they stay out of general elections because they want to stay bipartisan," he said.

Such interventions risk alienating Democratic voters whose overriding priority is defeating Republican candidates, regardless of their views on Israel.

Nevertheless, AIPAC's withdrawal from endorsements does not mean it is abandoning its ability to influence elections.

Its super PAC will continue operating, while supporters will still be encouraged to contribute to candidates backing its policy objectives.

Bendaas described the decision as a survival strategy intended to preserve AIPAC's financial influence while distancing candidates from an increasingly unpopular association.

"This is a move that's going to ensure that AIPAC stays relevant and continues to have an influence because they're going to continue to spend money through their SuperPAC," he said.

He also argued that AIPAC could increasingly rely on less transparent electoral spending, including committees whose financial backers may not become publicly apparent until after voting.

The restructuring comes as growing numbers of Democratic candidates reject AIPAC's support, challenging an organisation that has historically enjoyed considerable influence over both major parties.

For Bendaas, the most consequential aspect of the decision may be the loss of AIPAC's formerly privileged position in American politics.

"AIPAC is now just kind of one of those lobbies. But they're still a powerful one," he said, comparing the organisation to other wealthy lobbying groups seeking to influence elections.

"That kind of sheen and that feeling of no one should try to challenge us I think is gone probably forever."

Far-right Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has approved the expansion of gun licence across 11 additional illegal settlements and outposts in the occupied West Bank, despite warnings from Israeli security officials of a potential wave of settler attacks against Palestinians following next week's elections.

The decision, reported by Israel's Channel 14 on Thursday, comes as the Israeli military, Shin Bet security service and police face mounting criticism over their failure to contain settler violence, with security officials warning that extremist groups could attempt to seize more Palestinian land if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu loses power.

Ben-Gvir's move will allow residents of 11 more settlements and outposts in the northern occupied West Bank to apply for firearms licences, provided they meet the criteria set by Israel's National Security Ministry.

"We are continuing the arming revolution and expanding this reform to include the new settlements we have established in the northern West Bank," Ben-Gvir was quoted as saying by Channel 14.

The extremist minister pledged to continue expanding the programme, which his ministry claims is intended to strengthen security within settlements and enable residents to respond to attacks.

The expansion comes amid a campaign of settler violence against Palestinians, including assaults on farmers, land seizures and attacks aimed at forcing residents from their homes.

Yossi Dagan, head of the Northern West Bank Settlements Council, welcomed the decision, arguing that settlers who had served in Israeli combat units or military reserves needed weapons to defend their families and settlements.

He described the northern occupied West Bank as a "strategic defensive line" for Israel.

Fears of settler violence after Israeli elections

The expansion comes just days before Israel's 27 October parliamentary elections, with Israeli security officials warning that extremist settlers could launch a coordinated campaign of attacks against Palestinians if Netanyahu's governing bloc loses power.

According to Haaretz, which cited sources familiar with military assessments, far-right activists could seek to establish new illegal outposts, seize Palestinian land and attack residents in an attempt to prevent a future government from dismantling illegal settlements.

The concern is that extremist settlers may refuse to accept a change in government and instead attempt to impose new realities on the ground before any incoming administration can act.

The growing availability of firearms among settlers could further complicate efforts to evacuate illegal outposts, potentially increasing the risk of armed resistance to any future government seeking to remove them.

Israeli military officials are reportedly reinforcing troop deployments in the West Bank and seeking additional Border Police personnel in areas where violent settler groups operate.

Yet sources familiar with the security assessments have acknowledged that the army, Shin Bet and police are struggling to contain attacks, particularly when settlers strike several locations simultaneously.

"Anyone who tells you there is control is lying. The army, Shin Bet and police have lost control of the area," a security source familiar with the situation told Haaretz.

"They are running from one location to another chasing rioters. The problem is that no real effort is being made to regain control."

The remarks reflect growing frustration within Israel's own security establishment over the authorities' failure to stop settler terrorism, despite knowing where violent groups operate and the identities of prominent perpetrators.

Military officials have reportedly questioned why no effective preventive plan has been developed, rather than relying on forces to respond after attacks have already taken place.

Israeli security chiefs meet but take no action

Israeli military chief Eyal Zamir convened a meeting on Tuesday with senior security officials to discuss the escalating attacks and the risk of further violence surrounding the elections.

Despite the warnings, the meeting ended without significant new decisions, according to sources familiar with the discussions.

Officials within the military's Central Command reportedly criticised the absence of representatives from Netanyahu's office, Defence Minister Israel Katz and the National Security Council, arguing that the situation required direct political intervention.

One source described the meeting as little more than an exercise in recording a security assessment, with no meaningful steps agreed to prevent further attacks.

The failure to act comes as Katz has discontinued the use of administrative detention against Israeli settlers, removing a measure previously available to security forces dealing with extremist violence.

Instead, the military, Shin Bet and legal authorities are reportedly preparing exclusion orders that would bar individuals involved in incitement or attacks from entering the West Bank.

Security officials have acknowledged, however, that such orders would do little to prevent other settlers from establishing illegal outposts, seizing Palestinian farmland or carrying out attacks.

Ben-Gvir's drive to arm settlers

Ben-Gvir has made expanding access to firearms a central policy since becoming national security minister in early 2023, easing licensing requirements and widening the categories of Israelis eligible to carry weapons.

The programme accelerated following the start of Israel's genocidal war on Gaza in October 2023, alongside an intensification of Israeli military raids and settler attacks across the occupied West Bank.

On 21 January 2026, Ben-Gvir approved the addition of 18 settlements in the occupied territory to the list of locations whose residents could apply for firearms licences.

According to Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom, more than 200 cities, towns and other localities had been included in the expanded eligibility programme during 2026.

Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank are illegal under international law, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into occupied territory.

US Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed has hired a Jewish liaison as he seeks to win over Jewish voters amid his continued criticism of US-Israel ties.

He is currently running in a closely contested Senate race in Michigan ahead of the November midterm elections. 

Veteran political consultant Lenore Goldman, who has worked with Jewish organisations such as the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, as well as the One Fair Wage movement, which campaigns for higher minimum wages in the US, was selected by El-Sayed.  

Goldman confirmed her appointment in an interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) on Wednesday. 

Goldman told the news outlet that she had been working with the campaign since September, although El-Sayed’s team had not publicly announced her appointment.  

The development follows local reports in August that the campaign was seeking to hire a liaison to Michigan’s Jewish community. 

El-Sayed backs ending all US military assistance to Israel amid its genocidal war on Gaza, which began in October 2023. 

During the final televised debate in Michigan’s Senate race on Wednesday, Republican candidate Mike Rogers alleged that some “Jewish Democrats” were “literally afraid” of El-Sayed.

“We’re doing exceptionally well with Jewish Democrats who are literally afraid,” Rogers said during the debate in Detroit. 

 “I’ve talked to ones with tears in their eyes about the future of their kids and grandkids, because [of] the anger and division that he is laying out on the street.” 

In his closing statement, Rogers further claimed that Jewish voters were among several groups of Democrats switching their support to him because they considered El-Sayed “too extreme”. 

Rogers, a vocal supporter of Israel, was then accused by El-Sayed of being “bought off” by special interests, including pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC.  

El-Sayed cited a recent New York Times report that the group’s super PAC intended to spend $9 million to support Rogers. 

AIPAC announced on Wednesday that it would stop endorsing candidates and making direct campaign contributions through its PAC, while its affiliated super PAC would continue independent election spending. 

Rogers responded by accusing El-Sayed of being “bought off by the Muslim Brotherhood” and alleged that his campaign had received funding from the Palestinian group Hamas. 

Amid attempts to conflate El-Sayed’s criticism of Israel’s actions in the Middle East with antisemitism, Rogers also targeted his opponent’s ethnicity and Muslim faith.  

The accusations followed repeated Islamophobic attacks from Republicans, including President Donald Trump, over alleged family ties between El-Sayed and the Egypt-founded Muslim Brotherhood. 

“If you are going to go to the United States Senate, we need to know: Are you for America or are you for these terrorist groups overseas?” Rogers said. 

El-Sayed, who has denied any association with the Muslim Brotherhood, condemned the remarks as a “shameful” attack. 

“To bring into question my commitment to the Constitution is really beneath you. I am proud of America. I’m proud to be an American. I’m proud of our Constitution that guarantees all of us the right to pray as we choose to pray,” he said. 

If elected, El-Sayed would become the first Muslim to serve in the US Senate. 

A Marist public opinion poll released on Wednesday showed El-Sayed leading Rogers by 50 per cent to 48 per cent among likely voters. 

However, the two-point difference falls within the poll’s 4.3-percentage-point margin of error. 

Syrian authorities have arrested a former brigadier general accused of ordering attacks on civilians under Bashar al-Assad's regime, alongside five other suspects, as the country's new government continues efforts to prosecute those implicated in atrocities during the civil war.

Brigadier General Abdul Hakim Wanous, former chief of staff of the 35th Special Forces Regiment, was detained by military police in the central province of Hama on Wednesday, according to local judicial authorities.

Wanous is accused of ordering artillery attacks, carrying out arbitrary arrests and participating in military raids and operations targeting civilian areas in the Damascus countryside and the Ghab Plain in Hama province.

Ahmed al-Sheikh Khalil, head of the transitional justice prosecution office in Hama, said the former officer was suspected of involvement in serious violations and crimes against humanity committed during the Syrian uprising.

The five other detainees, whose identities have not been disclosed, are also suspected of involvement in abuses against civilians under the former government.

Judicial authorities said preliminary investigations were continuing before the suspects are referred to Hama's specialised transitional justice investigation chamber.

Hama's attorney general, Mohammed Ahmed al-Naasan, stressed the importance of pursuing those implicated in abuses through legal proceedings that ensure accountability, justice for victims and compensation for those affected.

The arrests come amid a broader campaign by Syria's new authorities to locate former military and intelligence personnel accused of atrocities during Assad's rule, which ended in December 2024.

In a separate operation on Wednesday, security forces reportedly detained around 12 former regime officers and personnel in the Masyaf area of Hama province.

A security source told Lebanese newspaper Al-Modon that the operation involved internal security and counterterrorism units, and targeted former regime personnel who had previously undergone security reconciliation procedures after Assad's overthrow.

The detainees are suspected of continuing to gather intelligence on behalf of Assad loyalist networks despite having formally regularised their status with the new authorities.

Al-Modon also reported the arrest of Younes Mohammed, a former prison official accused of involvement in abuses against detainees at the Balouna prison in Homs and the notorious Saydnaya prison near Damascus.

Mohammed was reportedly arrested in Qadmus, in Tartous province, after security forces tracked him to a business he was operating under his wife's name. The allegations against him have not been independently verified.

Earlier this month, Hama authorities referred 30 suspects accused of crimes including murder, kidnapping, sexual violence and extortion to the transitional justice authorities following investigations in the Salamiyah area.

The arrests form part of Syria's attempts to confront the legacy of decades of repression under the Assad family, particularly the widespread detention, torture and killing of civilians during the civil war.

Following Assad's overthrow, the government of President Ahmed al-Sharaa established a National Commission for Transitional Justice in May 2025 to investigate crimes committed by the former regime, support victims and pursue accountability.

Syria began its first public trial of senior Assad-era officials in April 2026, including Atef Najib, a former intelligence chief and cousin of Bashar al-Assad, whose treatment of detained teenagers in Daraa helped ignite the 2011 uprising.

In August, a Damascus court convicted Najib and several other former regime figures, including Bashar al-Assad and his brother Maher, who were tried in absentia, over crimes committed during the uprising.

However, human rights organisations have raised concerns about the capacity of Syria's judicial system to prosecute the vast number of alleged perpetrators while ensuring fair trials and protecting witnesses.

Human Rights Watch has warned that gaps in the country's legal framework, alongside questions over judicial independence and due process, could undermine accountability for crimes committed during the conflict.

The organisation has also called for investigations into abuses committed by all parties to the civil war, rather than limiting prosecutions to former government officials.

Saudi Aramco reportedly ordered employees to evacuate its headquarters in Dhahran and work remotely on Thursday, amid escalating Houthi attacks on oil facilities across Saudi Arabia.

Reuters, citing six sources familiar with the matter, reported that it was the first time since the resumption of the war in Yemen in September 2026 that the Saudi oil giant had instructed staff to leave its main headquarters.

Aramco did not respond to the news agency's request for comment.

Bloomberg separately reported that the evacuation followed an alarm at the company's headquarters, citing people familiar with the situation.

The cause of the alarm was not immediately known, while neither Aramco nor the Saudi Energy Ministry responded to Bloomberg's requests for comment.

The evacuation comes just over a week after Aramco's headquarters was targeted in an attack on 13 October, which reportedly caused damage to several floors of the complex.

Reuters, citing three people familiar with the incident, reported at the time that the strike caused extensive damage and sparked a fire that spread across multiple floors.

Bloomberg reported that the attack struck a tower within the office complex, damaging approximately three floors.

However, the Saudi Energy Ministry said in a statement on Tuesday that the attack had caused only a limited fire and resulted in no injuries or deaths.

Strategic oil operations centre

Aramco's Dhahran headquarters houses a major operations centre responsible for monitoring and coordinating the company's vast oil and gas infrastructure.

The facility helps oversee onshore and offshore oilfields, refineries, export terminals and thousands of kilometres of pipelines.

Its operations coordination centre plays a central role in monitoring production and distribution networks, coordinating activities and responding to disruptions.

According to Aramco's 2017 annual report, the Dhahran operations centre monitors the company's distribution network to ensure continuity and respond to operational problems.

Dhahran, located between Dammam and Khobar in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, is home to Aramco's main administrative, operational and research facilities.

The company also established a research and development centre in the city in 2000.

The surrounding Eastern Province is the heart of Saudi Arabia's oil industry, containing some of the kingdom's most important energy facilities.

These include the giant onshore Ghawar oilfield and the offshore Safaniya field, as well as major crude processing and export infrastructure.

At Abqaiq, Aramco operates its largest crude oil processing and stabilisation facilities, while Ras Tanura is home to a major oil export port and terminals.

An extensive pipeline network connects the oilfields to processing, refining and export facilities, while the East-West Pipeline transports crude from the Eastern Province to Yanbu on the Red Sea coast.

Houthi attacks target oilfield and airport

Thursday's evacuation followed Houthi attacks on Saudi energy and transport infrastructure the previous day.

On Wednesday, Houthi forces targeted the Shaybah oilfield and King Fahd International Airport in Dammam, in the latest escalation of attacks against the kingdom.

Saudi authorities said the airport attack killed two people and injured eight others.

Airport operations subsequently resumed, with air traffic returning to normal.

Bloomberg, citing the Saudi Energy Ministry, reported that the attack on the Shaybah oilfield had not affected production.

The latest incidents have raised concerns over the security of Saudi Arabia's critical energy infrastructure as the conflict with the Houthis intensifies.

Aramco, one of the world's largest oil producers, operates an extensive network of facilities that are central to Saudi Arabia's economy and global oil supplies.

The evacuation of its main headquarters marks a significant precautionary measure amid the continuing attacks, although there was no immediate indication that Thursday's evacuation had disrupted oil production or exports.

Washington, DC - The midterm elections in the United States are in full swing, with early voting starting in most states.

The results will set the tone of US foreign and domestic policy for the rest of President Donald Trump's term. Control of both chambers of Congress - the Senate and the House of Representatives - is at stake.

If the Democrats flip one of the two chambers, which are currently under the control of Trump's Republican Party, they can thwart Trump's legislative agenda.

And if they can gain control of the Senate, they can block his judicial nominees. The upper chamber is also responsible for confirming cabinet appointees, ratifying treaties and holding impeachment trials.

There are 35 seats in the 100-member chamber up for grabs in this year's election, which will conclude on 3 November.

The current makeup of the Senate is now 53-47, so the Democrats need to flip four seats without losing any to reclaim the majority in the legislative body.

In most Senate races, the results are all but known before the votes are cast due to the political makeup of the states where the contests are playing out.

Barring a miracle, Republicans will win in Alabama, and Democrats will win in Massachusetts. That leaves a handful of competitive states that will determine the fate of the Senate.

The New Arab looks at the candidates in five key close races and where they stand on the issues.

Michigan (open seat): Abdul El-Sayed (Democrat) v Mike Rogers (Republican)

The Senate contest in Michigan is one of the most closely watched races in the election. Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive public health advocate, is taking on Mike Rogers, a Trump-backed former Congress member.

In recent weeks, Rogers and his allies have tried to focus the race on El-Sayed's Muslim identity, smearing him with baseless accusations of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran.

Trump has repeatedly mocked El-Sayed's name. "His name is actually Abduladadalalala. It's Adulbabababababa Mohammed Al-Sayed," the US president said at a rally last week.

El-Sayed has pushed to refocus the race on the issues - particularly the affordability crisis, tariffs and the rise in the price of gasoline linked to the Iran war and his support for universal healthcare.

The progressive Democrat opposes US aid to Israel and argues that Washington should focus on investing in communities at home.

He has accused Israel of carrying out a genocide in Gaza - an allegation backed by leading human rights groups and United Nations investigators.

"I oppose the illegal and unjustifiable war in Iran and demand an immediate end to the hostilities," El-Sayed says on his platform.

Rogers initially supported the war with Iran, calling the decision to launch the conflict the "right thing to do".

But the former Republican legislator curbed his enthusiasm for the conflict as it dragged on and proved unpopular with voters. "The war with Iran needs to end, and end quickly," he said in a campaign ad in September.

Rogers is a staunch supporter of Israel. "When I get to the United States Senate, I will continue to unconditionally support Israel's right to defend itself," he said earlier this year.

Texas (open seat): James Talarico (Democrat) v Ken Paxton (Republican)

In a sign that highlights the declining popularity of Republicans, Democrats are mounting a competitive Senate challenge in deep-red Texas, which has been a Republican stronghold for decades.

Public opinion polls have shown Democratic State Representative James Talarico neck-and-neck with Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Talarico has focused his campaign on fighting corruption, closing tax loopholes and lowering the cost of living. Paxton has presented himself as a defender of Trump's agenda, emphasising securing the southern border against irregular migration.

On foreign policy, Talarico calls for conditioning US aid to Israel. He broadly backs Israel's right to "defend itself", while focusing his criticism of Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"As a former teacher, seeing the death and the destruction in Gaza, seeing what’s happening to children in particular, makes me sick to my stomach," he said at a CNN townhall last week.

Talarico has stopped short of calling the atrocities a genocide, saying that the issue is a legal determination that should be made by international courts.

He has pledged to work to "end the forever war in Iran that’s driving up the cost of gas and groceries".

In contrast, Paxton has backed Trump's military action in Iran, but in a recently leaked audio recording he bemoaned the war's impact on gasoline and diesel prices.

"It's the war, it's gas prices, it's diesel," he said when asked about the issues dragging his campaign, according to Axios, which first reported on the leaked remarks.

Paxton is a strong supporter of Israel. As attorney general, he has defended and enforced laws to penalise companies and individuals that boycott Israel.

Maine: Susan Collins (Republican incumbent) v Troy Jackson (Democrat)

Maine generally leans Democratic in presidential elections, but Republican Susan Collins has won five consecutive elections in the northeastern state, earning her a reputation as one of the most tenacious politicians in the country.

This time, Democrats are hoping to use the mounting anger against Trump to finally topple the 73-year-old senator.

But the Democratic push was off to a terrible start after the party's nominee, Graham Platner, stepped down due to allegations of sexual misconduct.

Platner was replaced by former state Senate President Troy Jackson.

Collins, who has shown willingness to break with Trump, has promoted herself as an experienced and hardworking "common sense" leader.

Jackson has focused on his deep roots in the state as a former logger and supporter of workers' rights.

The Democrat agrees that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. "When I'm in the US Senate, I’ll never vote in favour of US taxpayer-funded military aid to Israel," he wrote in a social media post in July.

Collins is an unflinching advocate for Israel and has backed continuing military aid to the US ally, calling herself a "strong supporter" of the assistance, which totals at least $3.8 billion annually.

On Iran, the Maine senator has been a rare Republican dissenter against the conflict, voting repeatedly with Democrats to curb Trump's war powers.

Jackson, however, has argued that Collins' presence in the Senate tilts the balance in favour of Republicans and enables Trump's agenda, including the Iran war.

"Senator Susan Collins says that she voted against [the war] nine times, but she didn’t have the votes," Jackson said during a debate earlier this month.

"Well that sounds like then we probably ought to have Democrats in charge of the US Senate so that we have the votes."

Alaska: Dan Sullivan (Republican incumbent) v Mary Peltola (Democrat)

Alaska is another traditional Republican stronghold where Democrats are making gains and hoping to stage a big surprise.

The race pits Trump-backed two-term senator Dan Sullivan against former Democratic Congresswoman Mary Peltola. The Democratic candidate's campaign slogan is "fish, family, freedom", focusing on lowering costs in Alaska.

Sullivan is running on his record of helping push large tax cuts and "historic investments" in the US military. The senator has voted consistently against Democratic efforts to restrict Trump's ability to continue the war with Iran.

Last week, he appeared to blame the Democrats' energy regulations for the rising fuel prices in an effort to defend the war with Iran.

"Ladies and gentlemen, the conflict in the Middle East is temporary. The true forever war is the national Democrats’ war against Alaska oil and gas and our jobs. That’s the forever war," he said, according to Alaska Public Media.

Peltola has been overtly critical of the war and Sullivan's votes in support of Trump's military campaign in Iran.

"This war is driving up our energy bills and hurting Alaskans with no end in sight," she said earlier this month.

Both Peltola and Sullivan are staunch Israel supporters. Sullivan has voted repeatedly on pro-Israel measures in Congress, including sponsoring a measure to deepen military cooperation with the US ally.

When she served in the House of Representatives between 2023 and 2025, Peltola was one of the most uncompromising pro-Israel Democrats.

In 2024, she joined Republicans in voting to ban then-President Joe Biden from withholding weapons from Israel. She backed a bill to impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court in response to the arrest warrant against Netanyahu.

Ohio: Jon Husted (Republican incumbent) v Sherrod Brown (Democrat)

Former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown is attempting to make a comeback in the Midwestern state that has been trending in Republicans' favour over the past decade.

He is taking on Jon Husted, who replaced Vice President JD Vance in the Senate after the Trump administration took office last year.

Beyond the single seat, the contest is of symbolic importance. It would restore the Democrats' competitive edge in the Midwestern state and serve as an early dig at Vance, who is expected to run for president in 2028.

Brown has made his opposition to the Iran war a key theme in his campaign.

"Jon Husted has voted 14 times to continue the reckless Iran war as gas and grocery prices continue to rise," he recently wrote in a social media post. "I’ll vote to end the war the first chance I get."

In March, Husted proclaimed that the war was going "much better than anyone thought it would".

But like other Republicans in competitive races, he has tempered his support for the conflict.

"The war needs to come to an end as quickly as possible so that we can lower gas prices," he told Politico earlier this month.

Husted and Brown are more closely aligned when it comes to Israel. Both are strong supporters of the US ally.

Ali Harb is a journalist based in Washington, DC. His work focuses on US foreign policy, elections, and Arab American communities

Follow him on X: @Harbpeace

Edited by Charlie Hoyle

Two days of military talks between Lebanon and Israel at the headquarters of US Central Command (CENTCOM) in Tampa, Florida, appear to have ended without a breakthrough, as Israel continues its attacks on southern Lebanon and rejects Lebanese demands for a third-party mechanism to verify the Lebanese army's operations.

Lebanese military sources told The New Arab on Thursday that no further negotiating session had been scheduled, although concluding bilateral discussions with CENTCOM could still take place.

The sources said the United States was expected to issue a statement on the talks, which have been dominated by disagreements over monitoring the Lebanese army's activities in designated pilot areas of southern Lebanon and Israel's refusal to halt its military operations.

"No breakthrough has been recorded so far. There is intransigence in Israeli positions, while the Lebanese side is holding firm to its demands that steps must be reciprocal," the sources said.

They stressed that Lebanon could not be expected to fulfil its commitments unilaterally while Israel continued its attacks, bulldozing operations, demolitions, explosions and ground incursions.

The Lebanese army has also rejected Israeli demands for direct coordination between the two militaries on the ground.

Instead, Beirut is insisting on an independent verification mechanism involving third parties, potentially including France, the United States and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), similar to the committee established to monitor the November 2024 ceasefire agreement.

"The Lebanese army is fully carrying out its duties, and all Israeli allegations against it are false," the military sources said.

They argued that Israel's continuing attacks and violations were the main obstacles to the army's deployment and the implementation of agreements, as had been the case following the ceasefire on 27 November 2024.

Dispute over Israeli withdrawal and disarmament

Lebanon is demanding that Israel halt its military attacks and operations across the south, which continue to endanger the lives of the area's residents.

Beirut is also pressing for farmers to be allowed access to their land to harvest crops, alongside broader demands for Israel's withdrawal from Lebanese territory, the release of prisoners, the return of displaced residents and reconstruction.

Lebanese authorities are calling for a clear timetable to implement the commitments outlined in a framework agreement signed with Israel in Washington on 26 June.

The agreement is intended to advance Israel's withdrawal from Lebanese territory while the Lebanese state extends its authority across the country through its own security forces and establishes a monopoly over weapons.

However, major disagreements remain over how these commitments should be implemented.

Israel has refused to expand the pilot areas designated for Lebanese army operations beyond a single zone announced in July, which includes the towns of Srifa, Froun and western Zawtar.

Israeli authorities claim the Lebanese army has failed to disarm Hezbollah in these areas and are pushing for direct military coordination through joint operations rooms.

Lebanon has rejected this demand, insisting that any verification must be carried out through an independent mechanism rather than direct cooperation with the Israeli military.

Israel has also refused to suspend its attacks or abandon the security zone it has established in southern Lebanon.

Washington, meanwhile, is attempting to narrow the differences between the two sides and maintain the negotiations, viewing the June framework agreement as the principal route towards stability and security.

Israeli attacks continue across southern Lebanon

The diplomatic deadlock coincided with another day of Israeli military escalation in southern Lebanon.

On Thursday, Israeli forces carried out two explosions in the towns of Tallouseh and Bani Hayyan in the Marjayoun district, according to reports from southern Lebanon.

Israeli aircraft also struck the outskirts of Qantara in Marjayoun and Kfar Tebnit in the Nabatieh district.

Israeli tanks were seen advancing towards the Nabaa al-Khoukh area on the outskirts of Hebbariyeh in the Hasbaya district and artillery shelling tageted several towns in south Lebanon.

The attacks have continued despite diplomatic efforts to secure an Israeli withdrawal and advance arrangements for the Lebanese army's deployment in the south.

Lebanese officials have repeatedly said that the ongoing Israeli military operations are obstructing reconstruction, preventing displaced residents from returning home and exposing civilians to further danger.

Lebanese cabinet faces explosives case

Separately, Lebanon's cabinet was due to meet at Baabda Palace on Thursday afternoon under the chairmanship of President Joseph Aoun, with a politically sensitive explosives case expected to feature on the agenda.

The Justice Ministry has requested that the case involving explosives seized in Dahr al-Baydar on 5 October and in al-Qasr, in Baalbek-Hermel governorate, on 9 October be referred to the Judicial Council, Lebanon's highest court for cases involving state security.

The request also covers any other matters found by investigators to be directly or indirectly connected to the seized explosives.

According to information obtained by The New Arab, extensive political and judicial consultations have taken place, including discussions involving Lebanon's president, prime minister, and Speaker of Parliment, who represent the country's three largest religious sects, over the potential consequences of referring the case to the Judicial Council.

Approval of the request could trigger a confrontation with Hezbollah.

Some political figures have favoured delaying a decision until security and judicial investigations, which remain at an early stage, have progressed further.

However, several ministers, particularly those opposed to Hezbollah, are insisting that the case should be referred to the Judicial Council.

Sources close to Justice Minister Adel Nassar told The New Arab that the seriousness of the case required such a referral.

"The gravity of the case requires its referral to the Judicial Council. This concerns the country's national security, and there can be no leniency or complacency," the sources said.

They stressed that investigations were continuing and that the ministry was determined to pursue the case without granting special treatment to anyone.

"We are determined to move forward with the investigations, without leniency towards anyone. That era is over," they added.

The leader of the UK's largest education union has strongly criticised a recommendation for schools across England to adopt the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, warning that it risks silencing legitimate criticism of Israel and stifling classroom discussions about the Gaza genocide.

Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union (NEU), condemned the proposal as the "wrong approach", arguing that the contested definition could further restrict freedom of expression on Palestine by blurring the distinction between antisemitism and criticism of Israeli government policies.

His criticism followed the publication of Sir David Bell's independent review into antisemitism in schools, which recommended that educational institutions adopt the IHRA definition, despite longstanding concerns from civil liberties groups and academics about its implications for political speech.

The government has accepted all 27 recommendations in the review, with Education Secretary Lucy Powell announcing plans to write to educational institutions urging them to adopt the definition.

In a statement on Wednesday, Kebede warned that the recommendation could exacerbate the very problems it was intended to address, leaving teachers uncertain about how to discuss Israel's actions in Gaza without facing accusations of antisemitism.

"The IHRA’s contested framing risks blurring the line between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and the genocide in Gaza, leaving teachers with uncertainty when they need clarity," Kebede wrote.

"A young person’s opposition to the Gaza genocide and scrutiny of the Israeli government are not, in themselves, antisemitic."

The IHRA definition has faced sustained criticism over its accompanying examples relating to Israel, which opponents argue risk conflating anti-Zionism and legitimate criticism of Israeli state policies with antisemitism.

Many have warned that its adoption by public institutions can create a chilling effect on freedom of expression, particularly when discussions concern Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, its treatment of Palestinians and its military campaign in Gaza.

Kebede warned that promoting the definition in schools could deepen this chilling effect, discouraging teachers from addressing the Gaza genocide and preventing pupils from engaging openly with one of the most contentious political issues of recent years.

He also raised concerns that restricting classroom discussions could push young people towards unsafe online spaces to explore issues they feel unable to raise at school.

"Recommending the IHRA definition risks tightening the chilling grip already stifling classroom discussion of the Gaza genocide. Schools need practical support to confront antisemitism, not a contested framework that risks shutting down legitimate discussion," Kebede said.

He also rejected suggestions that teachers were failing to uphold their responsibilities when addressing politically sensitive issues.

"This report will not tackle antisemitism. It wrongly calls into question the professionalism of teachers. The existing rules on impartiality in the classroom are very clear and teachers take that responsibility very seriously."

While welcoming "a strengthened focus on antisemitism" and acknowledging an increase in antisemitic incidents following the outbreak of the Gaza war in 2023, Kebede urged the Department for Education to "go a step further" by strengthening efforts to tackle all forms of racism.

His intervention highlighted concerns that adopting a disputed definition could undermine efforts to combat antisemitism by creating confusion over the boundaries between racial or religious hatred and legitimate political expression.

Government backs contested definition

The Bell review sets out 27 recommendations aimed at tackling antisemitism in schools, including calls for education unions to establish robust policies and procedures and ensure their members receive adequate training to recognise and respond to antisemitic incidents.

It also recommends that allegations of antisemitism involving trade union officials, representatives or members be addressed consistently under existing union policies on racism and prejudice.

Bell said reports from Jewish organisations and teachers highlighted concerns that some activities within education unions had become increasingly "politicised" on issues including the Israel-Palestine conflict.

However, the recommendation to promote the IHRA definition has brought renewed attention to longstanding objections that its examples concerning Israel could be used to police political speech rather than simply identify antisemitic prejudice.

The controversy centres on the risk that teachers and pupils could feel pressured to avoid legitimate discussions of Israeli government policies for fear that their comments might be interpreted as antisemitic.

Addressing the House of Commons, Powell defended the government's response to the review.

"All children and teachers should be able to go to school or college free from fear," she said.

She added that schools and colleges would receive further support on discussing "controversial and sensitive" issues and geopolitical events in an informed and impartial manner.

Bell, who led the independent review, also acknowledged the importance of allowing pupils to discuss Israel's military campaign in Gaza without experiencing "prejudice or hatred".

In an interview with the Press Association, he said it was "not good enough" that some teachers and pupils felt conversations about the conflict were "too difficult to touch" when the subject arose in classrooms.

He decided against recommending an outright ban on teachers and pupils wearing political symbols or flags, describing such a measure as "unworkable" and "untested legally".

However, he suggested that individual schools and colleges could use existing staff and pupil codes of conduct to establish rules governing what could be worn.

Education leaders, rights groups divided over proposals

Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), told The New Arab that the review had offered "clearer guidance and practical support for schools and colleges".

He said it could help teachers navigate discussions about complex and divisive political issues.

"Antisemitism, like all forms of discrimination, is utterly unacceptable and abhorrent," he told The New Arab.

"Unfortunately, there are differing views on what may or may not constitute antisemitism and what is a legitimate expression of views over the conflict between Israel and Palestine."

He added: "Schools and colleges are often caught in the middle of divisive issues and find themselves having to navigate between strongly held opinions on either side of an argument."

Di’Iasio stressed that "schools and colleges already robustly protect children and young people from all forms of racism, bullying, and harassment".

He said they complied with strict legal obligations prohibiting the promotion of partisan political views and added that "they take this responsibility extremely seriously".

Meanwhile, Felix Jakens, Amnesty International UK’s director of campaigns, said that while it was commendable that the review aimed “to strengthen safeguarding, training and reporting” across the education sector, concrete action was needed to tackle all forms of racism.

Echoing the NEU’s position, Jakens said the latest proposal to adopt the IHRA definition across schools in England was “the wrong answer”.

“Protecting Jewish pupils and protecting free speech are not in conflict. We need both,” he told The New Arab.

“Amnesty and more than 100 organisations have warned that this definition has been used to stifle debate and silence people speaking up for Palestinian rights.”

Citing Amnesty International UK's latest report, published on Tuesday, which documented cases of UK universities allegedly suppressing pro-Palestinian solidarity among students and academics, Jakens warned that “schools must not go the same way”.

The report highlighted restrictions on expressions of solidarity with Palestinians, including chanting, clapping and wearing keffiyehs. Amnesty UK also documented repercussions faced by university students and academics, including suspensions, campus bans and threats to their visa status.

"Young people are already seeing these issues on their phones every day, on platforms that are failing to tackle hate. If they can’t ask questions at school, they’ll find answers in the darkest corners of the internet instead, and that is exactly where antisemitism thrives," Jakens told TNA.

"The answer to hate is education, not silence.” 

Editor's note: This article has been amended to include comments from Felix Jakens, Amnesty International UK's director of campaigns at 18:00 on Thursday, 22 October 2026.

Libya's parliament has unanimously approved a controversial maritime agreement with Turkey, reversing years of opposition and reigniting a regional dispute over territorial waters, energy resources and political influence in the eastern Mediterranean.

The vote on Tuesday by Libya's eastern-based House of Representatives marked a significant shift in the country's divided political landscape, bringing rival authorities in Tripoli and Benghazi into agreement on a deal first signed in 2019.

But the decision has drawn strong objections from Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, the European Union and Israel, which have challenged the agreement's legitimacy and its implications for maritime sovereignty.

Turkey has rejected the criticism, insisting that the agreement is lawful and protects the rights of both countries.

The dispute goes beyond maritime boundaries, touching on competition for offshore gas, Turkey's growing influence in Libya and the shifting alliances of regional powers.

So what does the agreement involve, why has it caused such controversy, and what happens next?

What is the Libya-Turkey maritime agreement?

The agreement was signed on 27 November 2019 by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Fayez al-Sarraj, then head of Libya's internationally recognised Government of National Accord (GNA).

It establishes maritime jurisdiction zones between Libya and Turkey across the eastern Mediterranean, giving both countries a basis to claim rights over areas believed to contain potentially valuable oil and gas resources.

The deal was signed during Libya's civil war, when Turkey was providing military support to the Tripoli-based government against an offensive by forces loyal to eastern commander Khalifa Haftar.

Turkey subsequently deployed drones and military advisers to help repel Haftar's assault on the capital.

At the time, Libya's eastern-based House of Representatives, which supported Haftar, rejected the agreement.

However, on Tuesday, the parliament unanimously voted to ratify the deal, reversing its previous position.

The decision was welcomed by Libya's Government of National Unity, Presidential Council and High Council of State, as well as Ankara.

Why are Egypt, Greece and the EU opposed?

The agreement has faced longstanding opposition from several eastern Mediterranean countries that argue it infringes on their maritime rights.

Greece maintains that Turkey and Libya do not have opposite or adjacent coastlines that would justify the maritime boundary established under the deal.

Athens argues that the agreement disregards the maritime rights of Greek islands, including Crete, Rhodes and Karpathos.

The Greek foreign ministry has warned that it will take appropriate measures to defend the country's sovereign rights and has raised the issue with the UN Security Council.

Egypt has also rejected the ratification, arguing that the agreement encroaches on its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.

Cairo's foreign ministry said the deal "constitutes a clear infringement upon Egypt's sovereign rights within its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf", insisting that Libya's parliamentary approval has no legal consequences for Egypt.

The European Union has similarly reaffirmed its opposition.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa said in a joint statement that the agreement infringes on the sovereign rights of third countries and is incompatible with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The bloc reiterated its support for Greece and Cyprus, both EU member states.

Turkey, which is not a party to UNCLOS, rejects these objections.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan described the agreement as "entirely legitimate", while Omer Celik, spokesperson for the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), argued that it rested on strong legal foundations.

The dispute also has implications for the planned Great Sea Interconnector, a subsea electricity cable intended to connect Greece and Cyprus, and eventually Israel.

The project, estimated to cost approximately $2.1 billion, has already encountered delays linked to maritime disagreements between Greece and Turkey.

Why is the agreement important for oil and gas?

The eastern Mediterranean has become an increasingly important region for energy exploration, with competing maritime claims affecting access to potential offshore oil and gas reserves.

The Libya-Turkey agreement defines maritime economic zones and creates a framework for exploring natural resources, including hydrocarbons.

Neither country has announced proven reserves in the maritime areas covered by the deal.

However, a 2021 assessment by the US Geological Survey estimated that the wider eastern Mediterranean region contained an average of 286.2 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered, technically recoverable conventional natural gas resources.

Energy cooperation between Ankara and Tripoli has continued despite the political dispute.

In October 2022, Turkey and Libya's Government of National Unity signed a separate hydrocarbons cooperation agreement covering scientific, technical, legal and commercial collaboration.

In June 2025, Libya's National Oil Corporation and Turkish Petroleum signed a memorandum of understanding to conduct geological and geophysical studies in four offshore areas.

The arrangement included discussions over a two-dimensional seismic survey covering 10,000 kilometres.

For Libya, offshore exploration could attract investment and diversify energy revenues beyond its existing production of approximately 1.4 million barrels of oil per day and 72 million cubic metres of natural gas daily.

For Turkey, the deal could strengthen its position in the eastern Mediterranean energy sector and support efforts to reduce its dependence on imported energy.

However, the existence of a maritime agreement does not guarantee commercially viable discoveries or immediate production.

Why has eastern Libya changed its position?

The parliamentary reversal reflects significant changes in Libya's internal politics and Turkey's relations with the country's eastern leadership.

When the agreement was first signed, Ankara was supporting the Tripoli government against Haftar's forces.

Since then, Turkey has worked to improve relations with the eastern authorities, including Haftar and his son Saddam, the deputy commander of the Libyan National Army.

In July, Ankara and the eastern military leadership reportedly reached agreements involving military facilities, surveillance systems and training programmes.

The parliamentary vote also followed a change in leadership.

On 6 October, Al-Salhin Abdelnabi al-Obeidi replaced Aguila Saleh as speaker of the House of Representatives after more than 12 years.

Saleh, who was considered close to Cairo, had long resisted ratifying the agreement.

His successor, who previously chaired the Libyan-Turkish parliamentary friendship committee, oversaw its approval as one of his first major decisions.

Youssef Essaied, an academic and researcher specialising in oil and energy economics, told The New Arab that the timing of the vote was linked to broader political developments, including US-backed efforts to unify Libya's rival authorities.

He pointed to the role of Massad Boulos, US President Donald Trump's adviser, in attempting to bring together the rival administrations in Tripoli and Benghazi.

The shift suggests that Ankara's influence now extends beyond its traditional allies in western Libya.

Does this mean Libya's rival authorities are uniting?

Not necessarily. The approval is significant because both Libya's rival centres of power now support the maritime agreement. However, the country's deeper political divisions remain unresolved.

Libya continues to have competing authorities, while disputes over control of the national budget, armed forces and electoral institutions remain central obstacles to political reunification.

The agreement therefore represents a notable area of cooperation between rival political camps rather than evidence of a comprehensive political settlement.

What happens next?

Despite parliamentary ratification, implementing the agreement could take years and face substantial legal, political and economic obstacles.

Essaied told The New Arab that the agreement was not an operational contract and that commercial energy production would require extensive geological surveys, exploration, financial assessments and negotiations.

He warned that Libya's political instability and unresolved maritime disputes could discourage international investment.

Companies may be reluctant to invest in offshore projects exposed to legal challenges from Greece or Egypt, particularly where competing sovereignty claims remain unresolved.

Essaied also highlighted concerns about corruption, weak oversight and the need for transparent management of Libya's energy resources.

Beyond the economic challenges, there is a risk that exploration activities in contested waters could provoke further tensions.

In August 2020, Turkey deployed the seismic survey vessel Oruç Reis to waters claimed by Greece, bringing the two NATO members close to military confrontation.

For now, the ratification represents a diplomatic gain for Ankara and a significant change in eastern Libya's position.

The UAE has formally nominated veteran diplomat Lana Nusseibeh to become the next UN secretary-general, placing one of its most experienced international representatives in the race to succeed Antonio Guterres.

The nomination was submitted on Wednesday by UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in a letter to the presidents of the UN General Assembly and Security Council.

Nusseibeh, 48, is a former UAE ambassador to the UN who spent more than a decade in international diplomacy, including during the country's 2022-23 membership of the Security Council.

If successful, she would become the first woman to lead the UN and the second person from the Middle East and North Africa to hold the position, following Egypt's Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

Who is Lana Nusseibeh?

Nusseibeh is the daughter of Zaki Nusseibeh, a senior Emirati presidential adviser who has served successive UAE leaders for decades. However, the Nusseibeh family are originally from Palestine and have longstanding connections to Jerusalem.

Her grandfather, Anwar Nusseibeh, was a prominent Palestinian politician and lawyer who served in senior government positions in Jordan.

She studied history at the University of Cambridge before obtaining a master's degree in Israeli and Jewish Diaspora Studies from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London.

Nusseibeh founded the UAE foreign ministry's Policy Planning Department in 2009, becoming its first director, and subsequently served as a joint special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In September 2013, she became the first Emirati woman appointed as the country's permanent representative to the UN, a position she held until April 2024.

During her tenure, she served as president of the executive board of UN Women in 2017 and as a vice-president of the General Assembly. She also co-chaired negotiations concerning UN institutional reform.

Her most prominent diplomatic role came during the UAE's membership of the Security Council between 2022 and 2023, when she twice presided over the body.

During Israel's war on Gaza, Nusseibeh helped secure Security Council Resolution 2720 in December 2023, establishing a UN mechanism intended to facilitate humanitarian assistance to Palestinians.

She was also involved in securing resolutions condemning the Taliban's restrictions on Afghan women working for the UN and addressing the relationship between hate speech, discrimination and international security.

Following her departure from New York, she continued serving in senior positions within the UAE foreign ministry, becoming a minister of state in September 2025.

Can she become UN secretary-general?

Nusseibeh enters the contest as the organisation confronts financial pressures, questions over its effectiveness in responding to conflicts and growing divisions between major powers.

Her campaign programme, titled 'A United Nations for the Next Eighty Years', advocates strengthening conflict prevention, reducing institutional duplication and improving accountability.

Her extensive diplomatic experience could prove advantageous in a contest where leading candidates have struggled to secure the consensus required for appointment.

Costa Rica's Rebeca Grynspan, head of UN Trade and Development, and Argentina's Rafael Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, are among her principal rivals.

However, Nusseibeh's candidacy could encounter geopolitical obstacles.

The UAE has faced serious allegations of supplying weapons and financial support to Sudan's Rapid Support Forces (RSF), whose members and allied militias were determined by the US in January 2025 to have committed genocide.

Amnesty International has documented weapons it believes reached the RSF through the UAE, while Abu Dhabi has consistently denied providing military support to either side in Sudan's war.

The controversy could complicate Nusseibeh's candidacy, although no evidence has been presented implicating her personally in the alleged arms transfers.

Regional rivalries, particularly the UAE's complicated relationship with Saudi Arabia, could also influence the contest, alongside expectations that the next secretary-general should come from Latin America.

Ultimately, her prospects will depend on securing at least nine Security Council votes without facing a veto from any of its five permanent members.

The successful candidate will take office on 1 January 2027, succeeding Guterres after two five-year terms.

Iran's Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has reportedly met parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf to discuss the ongoing confrontation with the United States and Israel, including preparations to strengthen the country's defences against further attacks.

The meeting focused on the latest developments in "military, economic and cognitive warfare" being waged against the country by the US and Israel, according to Iran's Tasnim news agency on Wednesday.

The two officials stressed the need to strengthen Iran's national capabilities and maintain domestic unity amid continuing tensions with Washington.

They also discussed the role of parliament in preserving social cohesion and national solidarity, as well as the importance of continued public mobilisation and participation in gatherings across the country.

According to Tasnim, Khamenei and Ghalibaf emphasised the need for greater cooperation between the government and parliament to address economic difficulties and the rising cost of living, as Iran continues to grapple with the consequences of the conflict.

The discussions also covered efforts to strengthen relations with Iran's strategic partners.

Ghalibaf briefed Khamenei on parliament's activities since the outbreak of the US-led war against Iran, outlining measures already taken and plans to address the country's political and economic challenges.

The meeting comes amid renewed tensions following months of military confrontation between Iran and the United States.

The US and Israel launched a war against Iran on 28 February, prompting Tehran to retaliate with strikes against Israel and US military positions across the region.

A ceasefire was reached in April, but hostilities subsequently resumed as negotiations between Washington and Tehran quickly broke down, despite the two countries signing a memorandum of understanding in mid-June.

The United States launched further attacks on Iranian targets on 8 July, prompting Tehran to announce the renewed closure of the strategically important Strait of Hormuz on 12 July.

The waterway, through which a significant share of global oil supplies normally passes, has become a major flashpoint in the confrontation, raising concerns about regional security and international energy markets.

Wednesday's meeting highlighted the Iranian leadership's focus on maintaining political unity, strengthening national defences and addressing economic pressures as the confrontation with Washington and Israel continues.