Iraq’s Kurdistan Region on Monday accused Iran of carrying out overnight drone strikes targeting the personal office of Prime Minister Masrour Barzani and the residence of the region’s intelligence chief. Kurdish authorities said there were no casualties in the attacks.

Barzani said an investigation by the Kurdistan Counter-Terrorism Unit had confirmed that Iran was responsible for the two strikes. The reported attacks come amid longstanding tensions between Tehran and the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region, which Iran has repeatedly accused of harbouring Iranian Kurdish opposition groups.

Barzani Condemns Attacks

Barzani condemned the reported strikes in a post on X, calling them “reckless and unacceptable” and describing them as a dangerous escalation and a direct threat to the security and stability of the Kurdistan Region.

He said the attacks would not deter the regional government from carrying out its duties and protecting citizens.

The Kurdish Counter-Terrorism Directorate said two Hadid-110 type explosive-laden drones were launched from across the Iranian border. The drones were reportedly directed towards the private office of the Kurdistan prime minister and the residence of the director of the Parastin Agency.

Authorities did not report casualties in either attack.

Iran-Kurdistan Tensions

The latest incident adds to a long history of tensions between Iran and Iraqi Kurdistan.

The Kurdistan Region is a semi-autonomous area in northern Iraq with a large Kurdish population. Iran has frequently accused the region of allowing Iranian Kurdish opposition groups to operate from its territory.

Tehran regards several of these groups as security threats. Iran and Iran-backed groups have previously carried out attacks against targets in the Kurdistan Region.

The presence of Iranian Kurdish opposition groups in northern Iraq has remained a sensitive issue in relations between Tehran and the Kurdistan Regional Government.

Previous Attacks on Energy Sites

Iraqi Kurdistan has also faced attacks on important energy infrastructure.

In July 2025, a four-day wave of drone attacks on oilfields in the region reportedly halted nearly half of Iraqi Kurdistan’s oil production. The attacks were blamed on Iran-backed militias.

Earlier, in April 2024, a drone attack targeted the Khor Mor gas field, one of the region’s major energy facilities.

Four Yemeni workers were killed and two others injured in that attack, according to the supplied report. Gas supplies to regional power plants were subsequently suspended.

The attacks demonstrated the vulnerability of the Kurdistan Region’s energy infrastructure amid wider regional tensions.

Kurdish Question in West Asia

The latest confrontation is also linked to the broader Kurdish question in West Asia.

Kurds live primarily across Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey and are considered one of the world's largest stateless ethnic groups. Iraq and Syria have semi-autonomous Kurdish regions, while Iran has a province called Kurdistan that does not enjoy the same level of autonomy.

Kurdish political and armed movements have historically sought greater autonomy or self-determination in different parts of the region.

Some of these movements have pursued their objectives through armed insurgencies, contributing to longstanding tensions with national governments.

Regional Security Concerns

The reported drone attacks come at a time of heightened tensions across West Asia, where conflicts and rivalries have increasingly involved drones and other long-range weapons.

For the Kurdistan Region, the reported targeting of locations associated with senior officials raises concerns about the security of its political and intelligence leadership.

The absence of casualties may limit the immediate impact of the incident, but the reported strikes could further strain relations between Iraqi Kurdistan and Iran.

The Kurdistan Regional Government now faces the challenge of responding to the alleged Iranian attack while managing its security relationship with Baghdad and its broader regional partnerships.

What Happens Next

Kurdish authorities have identified Iran as responsible for the attacks based on their investigation, while the incident highlights Tehran’s longstanding concerns over Iranian Kurdish opposition groups operating from Iraqi territory.

Any further escalation could have implications beyond the Kurdistan Region, particularly given its location near Iran and its importance to Iraq’s energy sector.

For now, the reported drone strikes represent another escalation in the already tense relationship between Iran and Iraqi Kurdistan, with the security of the region’s political leadership and energy infrastructure remaining key concerns.

 Iran and Oman have reached an understanding on a transit route map for vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said on Monday. The two countries are now working to finalise the arrangement as part of a broader package that will include the agreed route map and a joint statement.

Baghaei said the understanding on the transit route had already been reached, but formalisation was still pending. The development comes amid continuing tensions surrounding the strategic waterway, through which a major share of global energy shipments normally passes.

Iran-Oman Deal Takes Shape

According to Baghaei, Tehran and Muscat had planned to finalise the arrangement in the form of a package rather than as a standalone agreement.

“An understanding has been reached regarding the map of the transit route,” Baghaei said, adding that the two sides still planned to complete the understanding through the route map and a joint statement.

The Iranian spokesperson did not disclose further details of the final arrangement. However, earlier reports on the proposed Iran-Oman understanding indicated that vessels could be required to enter the Strait through the northern route along the Iranian coast and leave through the southern route along the Omani coast.

How the Route Could Work

Before the current conflict, commercial vessels could generally use either side of the Strait for entering or exiting the waterway.

The proposed arrangement would introduce a more clearly defined transit pattern. Ships would reportedly use the northern route for entry and the southern route for exit, creating separate directions for maritime movement.

The details remain subject to the final joint statement, meaning the precise operating arrangements will depend on what Iran and Oman formally announce.

Hormuz at Centre of Crisis

The development is taking place against the backdrop of a wider US-Iran conflict that has severely affected shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

The waterway has become a major point of confrontation, with both Iran and the United States imposing restrictions on maritime traffic, according to the supplied report.

Iran has previously insisted that some vessels follow designated routes along its coast. The United States, meanwhile, has been enforcing restrictions on maritime traffic approaching Iranian waters.

The uncertainty has raised concerns for commercial shipping and energy markets because of the Strait's importance to global oil and gas transportation.

Could Deal Help Reopen Strait?

The emerging Iran-Oman arrangement could potentially provide a framework for restoring a degree of regular maritime movement through the Strait.

Any reopening would depend not only on the agreement between Tehran and Muscat but also on how the United States responds to the proposed transit mechanism.

The supplied report suggests that US President Donald Trump could view an acceptable Iran-Oman arrangement as a possible route towards de-escalation. A workable transit mechanism could create space for negotiations aimed at reducing the confrontation surrounding the strategic waterway.

However, the agreement is not yet fully formalised, and its broader implications remain uncertain.

Oman’s Diplomatic Role

Oman has traditionally maintained channels of communication with different sides in regional disputes, giving Muscat a potentially important role in efforts to reduce tensions.

The latest understanding with Iran places Oman directly at the centre of discussions over maritime movement through the Strait.

For Tehran, an agreement with Oman could help establish a defined framework for commercial shipping. For Muscat, it could provide a mechanism to reduce the risks associated with disruption in a waterway located close to its territory.

What Happens Next?

Iran and Oman are expected to finalise the agreement and issue a joint statement outlining the arrangement.

The key question will be whether the agreed route can be implemented safely and consistently and whether other parties involved in the Strait's security will accept the framework.

For global shipping and energy markets, the development will be closely watched. Any reduction in uncertainty around the Strait could ease concerns over maritime disruption, while a failure to reach a broader understanding could leave shipping companies facing continued risks.

For now, Tehran's announcement signals progress, but the final outcome will depend on the formal joint statement and the response of other countries involved in the crisis.

Differences are emerging between the United States and some of its Gulf allies over President Donald Trump’s approach to negotiations with Iran, with regional governments reportedly concerned that prolonged talks have yet to produce a firm agreement.

According to a report cited from The Washington Post, some Gulf countries are disappointed with Washington’s efforts to reach a settlement with Tehran. The report said these governments believe the negotiations have failed to deliver a meaningful outcome despite continuing diplomatic engagement.

The White House has rejected suggestions that Gulf leaders are unhappy with Trump, saying the US president maintains strong relationships with leaders across the region and that Washington has remained in close contact with its allies since the conflict began.

Trump Rules Out Immediate Attack

Trump has also indicated that the United States is not currently preparing for another military strike against Iran.

According to Axios, Trump said last week that Washington was engaged in what he described as “half-hearted talks” with Tehran while closely watching Iran’s worsening economic situation.

The US president had previously cancelled a planned military operation against Iran, saying that a diplomatic agreement could make further military action unnecessary.

The uncertainty surrounding the negotiations has nevertheless kept military escalation as a possibility, particularly if discussions fail to resolve the major issues separating Washington and Tehran.

Hormuz Becomes Key Dispute

One of the biggest obstacles in the negotiations is the Strait of Hormuz, a strategically important waterway between Iran and Oman through which a significant share of global oil and gas shipments passes.

Trump has demanded that the strait be reopened fully and immediately. Iran, however, has linked the reopening to the lifting of what it describes as a US naval blockade and the withdrawal of American forces positioned near Iranian territory.

The dispute has broader implications because any prolonged disruption in the waterway could affect global energy supplies and push up international oil prices.

Iran and Oman Hold Separate Talks

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said that Tehran is separately holding discussions with Oman regarding the Strait of Hormuz.

The talks reportedly involve practical and technical questions, including the establishment of safe routes for commercial vessels using the waterway.

Araghchi has stressed that these discussions are separate from the wider negotiations between Iran and the United States.

Oman has previously played an important role in facilitating communication between Washington and Tehran, making its involvement particularly significant as both sides seek a way through the current impasse.

Gulf States Take Different Positions

Despite being close US partners, Gulf countries are not taking a uniform position on how Washington should deal with Iran.

The United Arab Emirates is reportedly more supportive of increased military pressure on Tehran. The UAE's position is based on the assessment that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could be forced to make concessions if Washington increases pressure and establishes greater control over the Strait of Hormuz.

Saudi Arabia, by contrast, has favoured dialogue and de-escalation. Riyadh had previously opposed a US plan to use military force to reopen the waterway.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman also reportedly urged Trump by telephone not to pursue further military action.

Qatar Pushes Mediation

Qatar has emerged as one of the key regional mediators in discussions involving Iran, the United States and Oman.

Qatari officials have reportedly been communicating with Trump and conveyed that Iran had accepted a proposal concerning the Strait of Hormuz.

Qatar's role reflects the wider Gulf concern that a prolonged confrontation between Washington and Tehran could have serious consequences for regional security, trade and energy markets.

Iran Accuses US and Israel

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has meanwhile accused the United States and Israel of attempting to turn Gulf countries against Tehran.

Speaking to Iranian state television, Pezeshkian said Washington and Tel Aviv were exploiting Iran's internal difficulties and attempting to weaken its relationships with neighbouring countries.

At the same time, he stressed the importance of improving ties with Gulf states, signalling Tehran's interest in preventing the current tensions from developing into a broader regional confrontation.

Energy Markets Remain at Risk

The disagreement over the Strait of Hormuz remains particularly sensitive because of its importance to global energy trade.

A prolonged closure or restricted movement through the waterway could disrupt oil and gas supplies from Gulf producers and create additional volatility in international markets.

For Washington's Gulf allies, the priority is therefore not limited to the outcome of the US-Iran negotiations. The security of the waterway, avoidance of a wider war and stability in regional energy markets are also major concerns.

With Washington and Tehran still divided over the terms of a possible agreement, Gulf governments are likely to continue balancing their security relationship with the United States against the economic and geopolitical risks of further confrontation with Iran.

 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing a stronger political challenge ahead of the country's upcoming elections, with a new opinion poll showing former military chief Gadi Eisenkot's Yashar party ahead of Netanyahu's Likud.

According to a survey published by Zman Israel on Thursday, Yashar is projected to win 25 seats in the 120-member Knesset, while Likud is estimated to secure 21 seats.

The four-seat gap marks a notable change from several recent surveys, in which Eisenkot's party had maintained only a narrow advantage over Likud. In some polls, the two parties had been tied or separated by just one or two seats.

The election is scheduled for October 27, leaving both camps with roughly two months to consolidate support and build potential governing alliances.

Majority Still Out of Reach

Despite Yashar emerging as the largest individual party in the latest survey, Eisenkot would still face a difficult path to forming a government.

Israel's Knesset has 120 seats, and a governing coalition requires at least 61 seats for a parliamentary majority.

The poll projects that the broader anti-Netanyahu Change Bloc could win around 58 seats, leaving it three seats short of the majority mark.

Parties supporting Netanyahu are projected to collectively secure approximately 50 seats, while Arab parties could hold around 12 seats.

The Ram Party and Hadash-Ta'al are each projected to win six seats, according to the survey.

The figures indicate that neither major political camp currently appears capable of forming a government independently, making coalition negotiations likely to play a decisive role after the election.

Eisenkot Pushes Largest-Party Claim

Eisenkot has previously argued that the leader of the largest party within the anti-Netanyahu bloc should receive the opportunity to form the next government.

His position could become important if Yashar maintains its lead and emerges as the largest opposition party after the election.

The question of who would become prime minister has already created tensions within the opposition camp.

Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid has indicated that it would not stand in the way of efforts to establish an alternative government to Netanyahu. However, when asked whether his party would support Eisenkot as prime minister, Lapid did not provide a definitive answer.

Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett is also considered a potential contender for the top post.

Bennett Example Remains Relevant

The debate over who should lead a coalition has historical significance in Israeli politics.

Bennett became prime minister in 2021 despite his party holding only seven seats in the Knesset. He led a broad coalition involving parties with significantly different political positions before his government ended in 2022.

Eisenkot's argument that the leader of the largest party should get the first opportunity to form a government is therefore significant in the context of the opposition's current political calculations.

Whether other anti-Netanyahu parties would ultimately support an Eisenkot-led government remains uncertain.

Security Concerns Grow

Alongside the political contest, security concerns surrounding Eisenkot have also emerged.

A report by Channel 12 said there were indications of Iranian efforts to target Israeli political figures. While Netanyahu already receives government-provided security protection, Eisenkot does not currently have the same formal entitlement.

His growing political profile has therefore raised questions about his personal security as the election campaign intensifies.

Israel's internal security agency, Shin Bet, is reportedly considering providing Eisenkot with armed protection.

Election Campaign Set to Intensify

The latest polling has added uncertainty to an already competitive political landscape.

A four-seat lead for Yashar over Likud could strengthen Eisenkot's position within the opposition, but the figures also show that the anti-Netanyahu camp remains below the 61-seat threshold required to govern.

For Netanyahu, retaining Likud as the largest party would remain crucial to his efforts to build another governing coalition.

With the election approaching, the contest is likely to focus not only on which party wins the most seats but also on which political groups can assemble the alliances required to cross the majority threshold.

The final outcome could therefore depend as much on coalition arithmetic as on the performance of individual parties.

Yemen’s Houthi group has claimed responsibility for a drone attack targeting an Aramco facility in Saudi Arabia’s Najran, saying the strike was carried out in response to what it described as a violation of Yemeni airspace by Saudi military aircraft.

The claim was reported by the Houthi-run SABA news agency, which cited a Houthi military source. However, there was no immediate independent confirmation from Saudi authorities or Saudi Aramco regarding the alleged attack.

Houthis Cite Airspace Violation

According to the Houthi military source quoted by SABA, Saudi military aircraft allegedly entered Yemeni airspace over the northeastern part of Saada governorate.

The Houthi group described the alleged incident as a violation of Yemen’s sovereignty and said the reported drone operation was carried out in retaliation.

The group did not provide detailed information about the alleged Saudi aircraft activity or explain whether any prior military engagement had taken place.

Aramco Facility Targeted

The Houthis claimed that their drone targeted an Aramco facility in Najran, a Saudi city located close to the Yemen border.

The group did not disclose the type of drone reportedly used in the operation, the direction from which it was launched or other operational details.

It also did not provide evidence establishing whether the drone actually struck the facility.

At the time of the report, it remained unclear whether the alleged attack caused any damage, casualties or disruption to energy operations.

No Immediate Saudi Confirmation

Saudi authorities had not immediately confirmed the Houthi claim.

There was also no immediate statement from Saudi Aramco regarding an attack on one of its facilities in Najran.

The absence of an independent confirmation means key details of the reported incident, including whether a drone reached the facility and whether any damage occurred, remain unclear.

Rising Regional Tensions

The reported claim comes against the backdrop of continuing tensions between the Houthi movement and Saudi Arabia, with Yemen's conflict having wider implications for security across the Arabian Peninsula.

The Houthis, who control large parts of northern Yemen including the capital Sanaa, have previously carried out drone and missile operations against targets in Saudi Arabia.

The group has also become a major regional security actor following its attacks on shipping in and around the Red Sea, linking its military actions to the wider conflict in the Middle East.

Energy Infrastructure Remains Sensitive

Any confirmed attack on an Aramco facility would carry wider significance because Saudi Arabia is one of the world's largest oil producers and Aramco operates critical energy infrastructure across the kingdom.

Saudi energy facilities have previously been targeted by drones and missiles, raising concerns about the vulnerability of regional oil infrastructure and global energy supplies.

However, there was no immediate evidence in the reported claim that Saudi oil production or exports had been affected.

Details Await Independent Verification

For now, the reported drone strike remains a Houthi claim that has not been independently verified.

Further information from Saudi authorities, Saudi Aramco or other independent sources would be required to establish whether the alleged attack took place, whether the Aramco facility was actually hit and whether it resulted in casualties or material damage.

The incident, if confirmed, could add to concerns over renewed military tensions along the Saudi-Yemeni border and the broader security situation in the region.

 US President Donald Trump has threatened to declare the Strait of Hormuz as United States territory, as tensions between Washington and Tehran continue to escalate over the strategically important waterway.

Speaking at a rally in New York on Friday, Trump said the move could come after what he described as the defeat of Iran. His remarks drew a strong reaction from the crowd.

“After we finish defeating Iran, which is being very badly defeated, pretty soon I'll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States,” Trump said.

The statement represents a dramatic escalation in rhetoric surrounding one of the world's most important shipping routes.

Why Strait of Hormuz Matters

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. At its narrowest point, the waterway lies between Iranian and Omani territorial waters.

The strait is a critical route for global energy supplies, with a significant share of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas shipments passing through it.

Any prolonged disruption could affect international shipping, energy markets and crude oil prices.

Iran Claims Key Position

Iran has repeatedly emphasized its strategic position around the waterway. Amid the ongoing confrontation with the United States and Israel, Tehran has sought greater control over shipping movements through the strait.

There have also been reports of demands that some vessels obtain permission and travel closer to the Iranian coastline before crossing the waterway.

Iran has previously considered imposing charges on vessels using the route, while the Trump administration has opposed the idea of Iranian-controlled tolls. Trump himself has also discussed the possibility of US-imposed charges.

Trump Comments on USS Abraham Lincoln

Trump also addressed questions about the prolonged deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln in West Asia.

The US aircraft carrier has reportedly been deployed in the region for several months and has played a role in American military operations connected to the conflict with Iran.

Asked whether the deployment had lasted too long, Trump rejected the suggestion.

“Not nearly long enough,” he said at Joint Base Andrews before travelling to New York.

When a reporter raised concerns among family members of US service personnel about conditions aboard the carrier, Trump dismissed those concerns.

Carrier to Be Replaced

Trump said the USS Abraham Lincoln is in the process of being relieved and will be replaced by another similar carrier.

“That ship is moving right now, or very shortly, and it's being replaced with another very similar ship,” he said.

The comments come as the US military continues to maintain a significant presence in the region amid heightened tensions with Iran.

Potential Global Impact

Trump's comments about declaring the Strait of Hormuz US territory could have major geopolitical implications if translated into policy.

The waterway is not under US sovereignty, and its status is governed by international law and the territorial rights of the countries bordering it. Any attempt to alter its status could trigger a major diplomatic confrontation with Iran and potentially other regional actors.

For global markets, developments around the Strait of Hormuz are closely watched because disruptions to shipping through the waterway can quickly affect energy prices and transportation costs.

The latest remarks therefore add another layer of uncertainty to an already tense situation between Washington and Tehran, with the future of the strategically vital waterway likely to remain a major issue in the coming days.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sparked a fresh controversy after describing the United Kingdom as the “Islamic Republic of Britain” and claiming that it could become the “first Islamic republic” to possess nuclear weapons. His remarks came amid already strained relations between Israel and Britain over the Gaza war and London’s increasingly critical position on Israel’s military campaign.

Netanyahu made the comments during a podcast-style interview for Israel’s Army Radio, where he was discussing Britain’s changing political landscape and its relationship with Israel. The remarks were reported by The Guardian and have since triggered debate over the Israeli leader’s characterization of British society and politics.

Netanyahu’s ‘Islamic Republic’ Remark

While discussing Britain and referring to the legacy of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Netanyahu contrasted the country's past relationship with Israel with what he described as its present political environment.

He referred to modern Britain as the “Islamic republic of Britain” and later said that someone had described it as the “first Islamic republic with nuclear weapons.”

The statement appears to draw on a far-right narrative that portrays Britain as being increasingly influenced by its Muslim population. Muslims, however, remain a minority in the United Kingdom, which is not an Islamic republic.

Reference to Pakistan

Netanyahu’s comments also appeared to reference Pakistan, whose official name is the Islamic Republic of Pakistanand which has possessed nuclear weapons since the 1990s.

By describing Britain in similar terms, Netanyahu appeared to suggest a hypothetical future in which Britain could become an Islamic republic while retaining its nuclear capabilities.

The remarks have attracted attention because they came from the Israeli prime minister at a time when relations with one of Britain’s historically important Western allies are already under pressure.

UK-Israel Relations Under Strain

Relations between London and Jerusalem have deteriorated over Israel’s military operations in Gaza, Britain's position on Palestinian statehood and its criticism of Israeli policies in the region.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has adopted a more critical approach towards the Israeli government. Before becoming prime minister, Burnham had acknowledged that Labour had not handled its initial response to the Gaza conflict correctly and said the party needed to take a different approach.

In July, Burnham said Britain would do more to put pressure on the Israeli government. He also indicated that London could consider additional sanctions against individuals and organisations and restrictions related to goods produced in Israeli settlements.

These developments have contributed to growing diplomatic tensions between the two countries.

Remarks Echo JD Vance

Netanyahu’s latest comments also resemble remarks made by US Vice-President JD Vance during the 2024 US presidential campaign.

Vance had previously warned that Britain could become the first “truly Islamist country” to obtain nuclear weapons. Netanyahu’s description of Britain appears to follow a similar line of argument about the country’s changing demographics and politics.

Such comments have repeatedly faced criticism from British political figures and Muslim community representatives, who argue that they contribute to Islamophobic narratives.

Criticism Within Israel

The remarks have also drawn criticism inside Israel.

Avi Dabush, a candidate from Israel’s opposition Democrats party, accused Netanyahu of attacking an important Western ally at a time when Israel is already facing increasing international isolation.

Critics have argued that Netanyahu’s comments could further complicate Israel’s diplomatic position, particularly as the country seeks continued political and strategic support from Western governments.

No Official Response Yet

According to The Guardian, Netanyahu’s office did not immediately respond to questions about whether the description of Britain represented the official position of the Israeli government.

The UK's Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office also had not immediately issued a response to the remarks.

Netanyahu’s comments are likely to add another layer of tension to an already difficult relationship between Britain and Israel, especially as London continues to reassess its position on the Gaza conflict and its broader Middle East policy.

The United States has enough naval resources to maintain its blockade of Iran indefinitely, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Thursday, signalling that Washington is prepared to continue military and economic pressure on Tehran as efforts to end the war remain stalled.

Hegseth said the US Navy could sustain the operation by rotating ships in and out of the region as required, suggesting that Washington does not currently face an immediate shortage of naval assets for the blockade.

“Indefinitely the United States Navy can maintain a blockade like that because we’ll rotate ships in and out,” Hegseth told reporters in Panama.

Hegseth Defends Blockade

Hegseth made the remarks after speaking with the crew of the USS Gridley, a guided-missile destroyer that had previously operated in the Middle East.

His comments underline the administration's intention to maintain pressure on Iran while negotiations aimed at ending the conflict remain unresolved.

The blockade has become a central component of the US strategy against Tehran, particularly because of the importance of the Strait of Hormuz to global energy markets.

Trump Claims Hormuz Control

Hegseth's remarks came a day after President Donald Trump claimed that the United States had complete control over the strategically important waterway.

Trump said on his Truth Social platform that the US naval blockade had become a “wall of steel” and asserted that Iran had little ability to challenge the American presence.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most important energy transit routes. Before the conflict, roughly one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments passed through the waterway.

Conflict Disrupts Energy Routes

The war began with US-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28, according to the account provided by US officials and the source material.

Iran subsequently moved to restrict access through the Strait of Hormuz, severely disrupting commercial shipping and energy flows.

The United States then established a naval blockade targeting Iranian shipping and ports while maintaining that it would protect freedom of navigation for vessels travelling to and from non-Iranian ports.

Washington has deployed tens of thousands of military personnel to the wider Middle East since the conflict began, including more than 20 warships.

Commercial Ships Intercepted

The US military has said it has redirected more than 55 commercial vessels attempting to breach the blockade.

According to US officials, three vessels have been disabled and two others boarded since the blockade began.

The confrontation has also involved direct military action against individual ships.

Earlier this week, a US Navy MH-60 helicopter fired two Hellfire missiles at the engine room of a Panama-flagged vessel after the ship allegedly ignored warnings from US forces, according to the US military.

Iran Continues Retaliation

Despite months of US military strikes against Iranian targets, Tehran has continued to challenge Washington's efforts to control the strategic waterway.

US strikes have targeted Iranian leadership and damaged significant parts of the country's military infrastructure, including elements of its navy.

Iran has responded with missile and drone attacks against US allies in the region and has also targeted commercial vessels attempting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz without Iranian permission.

The continuing confrontation has kept maritime security and energy supplies under pressure.

Pressure Mounts on Trump

The prolonged conflict is also creating political pressure on the Trump administration.

Trump has alternated between warnings of further escalation and statements suggesting that a potential peace agreement could be reached.

At the same time, the administration has so far avoided some of the most escalatory measures, including deploying large numbers of ground troops or carrying out attacks on strategic islands and desalination infrastructure.

Trump is facing pressure to bring the conflict to an end ahead of the November midterm elections, while elevated fuel prices have emerged as a major concern, particularly among voters in rural areas that have traditionally supported him.

For now, Hegseth's comments indicate that Washington is prepared to sustain the naval blockade for as long as necessary, even as diplomatic efforts to end the war remain uncertain.

Iranian state media has mocked US President Donald Trump following reports that he was secretly moved from Air Force One to a smaller government aircraft during his visit to Turkey last month after US authorities received an alleged threat involving a shoulder-fired missile.

The reported security operation has been portrayed by Iranian media as evidence of Tehran's military reach and has become the latest point of tension between Washington and Tehran amid the ongoing conflict.

Trump Aircraft Switch Reported

According to US media reports, Trump and a small group of aides were secretly transferred from the presidential aircraft to a smaller C-32A government jet while preparing to leave Ankara on July 8.

The transfer was reportedly carried out using a catering truck in an effort to conceal the president's movements.

Air Force One later departed separately, carrying senior administration officials, White House staff and members of the travelling press corps.

The unusual arrangement was first reported by The Washington Post and subsequently drew attention in Iranian media.

Security Threat Behind Move

The reported aircraft switch followed what US authorities considered a credible and imminent threat that Trump's presidential aircraft could be targeted by a shoulder-fired missile.

According to reports, the US Secret Service launched the operation to protect the president and prevent potential attackers from determining his movements as he left Turkey.

The New York Times reported that US officials were particularly concerned after allegedly learning that Iranian operatives knew where Trump was staying in Ankara, including the floor of his hotel.

Neither the White House nor Tehran had officially commented on the reported threat or the aircraft switch at the time of the reports.

Iranian State Media Mocks Trump

Iranian state television seized on the episode to ridicule the US president.

A presenter described the incident as a source of embarrassment for Trump and suggested that the security measures demonstrated the extent of concern over Iran's military capabilities.

The episode has provided Iranian hardliners with an opportunity to portray Trump as vulnerable despite Washington's continued military pressure on Tehran.

Iran's embassy in South Africa also joined the criticism on X, posting a meme depicting Trump inside a catering box.

The post mocked the reported use of a catering truck during the aircraft transfer and suggested that Trump could eventually be hidden in a trash container.

Tensions Between Washington and Tehran

The incident comes against the backdrop of continued confrontation between the US and Iran.

Washington and Tehran remain involved in efforts to find a lasting settlement to the conflict, while attempts to revive an interim agreement reached earlier have reportedly made little progress.

The latest reports have also revived attention around previous allegations of Iranian plots against Trump.

In 2024, the US Justice Department charged an Iranian national over an alleged plot to assassinate Trump, who was then president-elect. US authorities said the alleged operation had been ordered by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Iran rejected the allegations at the time.

Iranian Hardliners Welcome Reports

Analysts said the reported security measures were likely to be welcomed by Iranian hardliners who have repeatedly called for retaliation following the deaths of senior Iranian political and military figures.

Ali Vaez, deputy programme director for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group, said Iranian hardliners were likely to view the episode as evidence that Washington was concerned about Trump's safety.

The incident has therefore taken on significance beyond the aircraft transfer itself, becoming part of the wider information and propaganda battle between the two countries.

Trump’s Earlier Iraq Experience

Iranian commentators have also linked the latest episode to Trump's previous visit to Iraq in 2018.

During that trip to the Ain al-Asad air base, Trump travelled under extensive security precautions. He later described the flight as unusually secretive, recalling that the aircraft's windows were covered and the cabin was kept dark.

Iranian commentators have used those remarks to draw parallels between Trump's earlier security arrangements and the reported aircraft switch in Turkey.

For now, the reported threat and aircraft operation remain the subject of media reports, with no detailed public confirmation from the White House or Iranian authorities.

Iran has rejected US President Donald Trump’s claim that the United States has “total control” over the Strait of Hormuz, insisting that the strategic waterway remains blocked and will not be reopened until Tehran’s conditions are met.

The latest exchange comes amid heightened tensions between Washington and Tehran over the strategically important maritime passage, through which a significant share of global oil and petroleum trade traditionally moves.

Iran Says Blockade Continues

In a statement posted on X, the Persian Gulf Strait Authority dismissed claims by Trump and other US officials that the Strait of Hormuz was no longer blocked.

The authority said that statements from American officials had not changed the situation on the ground and reiterated that the waterway would remain closed until Iran’s demands were accepted.

The Iranian position was reiterated hours after Trump claimed that Washington had established “total control” over the Strait and intended to maintain it.

Trump Claims ‘Wall of Steel’

Trump said on his social media platform, Truth Social, that the United States had “total control” over the Strait of Hormuz.

He described the US naval presence in the region as a “wall of steel”, asserting that Iran had no ability to challenge the American deployment.

Trump also repeated his claim that Iran’s military infrastructure had been severely weakened during the ongoing confrontation.

The US president further accused Iran of spreading what he described as false information and criticised the country’s economic situation.

Tehran Sets Conditions

Iran’s latest response comes as Tehran continues to link the reopening of the Strait to broader political and security demands.

Mohsen Rezaei, the newly appointed head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said Tehran would not fully reopen the waterway until the United States met what Iran described as its conditions.

According to Rezaei, Iran wants Washington to end the war and blockade, release frozen Iranian assets and agree to a region-wide ceasefire covering Lebanon and Gaza.

He said the Strait would remain closed until all the conditions were fulfilled.

US Naval Presence Increases

The dispute has intensified as the United States has expanded its naval presence around the Gulf.

Washington has maintained that ensuring freedom of navigation through the strategically important waterway remains a key security objective.

Iran, meanwhile, has repeatedly warned that maritime traffic could be restricted if pressure from the United States and other external powers continues.

The conflicting claims have created uncertainty for commercial shipping and energy markets, with the Strait of Hormuz remaining a major focus of international attention.

Major Energy Route

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most important energy corridors. A substantial portion of global petroleum shipments traditionally passes through the narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman.

Any prolonged disruption could therefore have wider consequences for crude oil supplies, shipping costs and global energy prices.

The ongoing standoff has already contributed to concerns in international markets, with oil prices responding to developments surrounding the Strait and US-Iran negotiations.

No Immediate Resolution

For now, Washington and Tehran remain sharply divided over the status of the waterway.

Trump maintains that the United States has established control and intends to keep it, while Iranian authorities insist that the Strait remains blocked and that reopening it depends on Tehran’s conditions being accepted.

With diplomatic efforts yet to produce a breakthrough, the Strait of Hormuz remains at the centre of the wider US-Iran confrontation.

The United States is set to withdraw its remaining military forces from Iraq by September 30, 2026, marking the end of a US military presence that began with the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi announced the deadline on Wednesday following a meeting with US Central Command Commander General Brad Cooper. The move follows an agreement between Washington and Baghdad to wind down the US-led military mission against the Islamic State (ISIS).

September 30 Set as Final Deadline

According to a statement from the Iraqi prime minister's office, September 30 will be the "fixed and final date" for ending the military mission of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS in Iraq and completing the departure of coalition forces.

The statement said October 1 would mark a new phase for Iraq, with the country free of foreign military forces.

The Iraqi government also linked the withdrawal to its objective of ensuring that weapons remain under the exclusive control of the state, describing this as an important condition for the country's next phase of development and stability.

US Confirms Planned Withdrawal

A US official also confirmed to The Associated Press that Washington expects to complete the withdrawal by September 30. However, the official did not disclose how many American troops currently remain in Iraq or where personnel could be redeployed.

The official said the United States, Iraq and coalition partners had made significant progress against ISIS and that Iraqi security forces would now take the lead in counterterrorism operations.

This includes Iraq's national security forces as well as the Peshmerga and other security forces in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region.

From Invasion to Counterterrorism

The US military presence in Iraq has gone through several major phases since the 2003 invasion.

American troop numbers peaked at more than 170,000 in 2007, during the height of counterinsurgency operations. The last US combat troops left Iraq in December 2011.

However, the rise of ISIS in 2014 changed the situation. After the extremist group captured large parts of Iraq and Syria, US forces returned at the request of the Iraqi government as part of an international campaign against ISIS.

Coalition military operations against ISIS eventually ended in 2021, although American personnel continued to remain in Iraq in an advisory and counterterrorism capacity.

US Bases Came Under Attack

The remaining US military presence has faced renewed security challenges in recent months.

American bases in Iraq have been targeted repeatedly since the United States and Israel launched military operations against Iran on February 28. Most US troops had already withdrawn from bases across Iraq last year, but a presence remained in the northern Kurdish region.

The final withdrawal therefore comes amid a broader reshaping of the US military footprint in West Asia.

Focus Shifts to Bilateral Ties

The Iraqi government said its discussions with the United States now point towards a relationship focused increasingly on economic cooperation, security coordination and mutual sovereignty rather than a large-scale foreign military presence.

The announcement represents a major transition for Iraq after more than two decades of American military involvement.

For Washington, the withdrawal reflects the changing nature of its mission after the territorial defeat of ISIS. For Baghdad, it represents an effort to assert greater control over national security while maintaining cooperation with the United States in other areas.

The September 30 deadline will now be closely watched as Iraq prepares for the final phase of the US military withdrawal.

Iran has appointed veteran Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Mohsen Rezaei as the new secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), placing one of the country's most experienced military figures at the centre of its national security decision-making.

The appointment comes at a particularly sensitive moment for Tehran, with tensions involving the United States and Israel continuing and the Strait of Hormuz remaining a major point of contention. Rezaei has also been appointed as Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei's representative on the council, underlining the importance of his new position. (Reuters)

Rezaei, 71, replaces Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, who held the SNSC secretary post for only a few months. Zolghadr has been moved to the position of political adviser to the Supreme Leader. The reshuffle has drawn attention because of Rezaei's long military career and his reputation as a hardline figure in Iran's political establishment. (Reuters)

A Veteran of Iran's Military

Born in Khuzestan in 1954, Rezaei became involved in Islamist opposition groups before the 1979 Iranian Revolution. He later joined the newly established IRGC and, at just 27, was appointed commander of the force in 1981.

He remained in charge of the IRGC for about 16 years, including through most of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War. During his tenure, the IRGC developed from a revolutionary paramilitary organisation into a major military institution with ground, naval and aerospace capabilities.

His wartime record remains a major part of his political identity. Rezaei was associated with Iran's decision to continue military operations after Iranian forces had pushed Iraqi troops back across the border in the early stages of the conflict. Reuters describes him as a seasoned hardliner with decades of military and political experience. (Reuters)

From General to Political Figure

After leaving the IRGC command in 1997, Rezaei moved into senior political and institutional positions.

He served for years as secretary of Iran's Expediency Discernment Council, a powerful body involved in resolving disputes between parliament and the Guardian Council. He later became vice president for economic affairs under President Ebrahim Raisi.

Rezaei has also contested Iran's presidential elections several times, although he never won the presidency. His long career has given him experience across both Iran's military and political establishments.

Why His Appointment Matters

The SNSC is one of Iran's most important national security bodies. It brings together senior political, military and security officials and plays a central role in decisions concerning defence, foreign policy and major strategic issues.

Rezaei's appointment therefore goes beyond a routine change of personnel. His elevation gives a senior IRGC veteran a prominent role at a time when Tehran is dealing with military pressure, negotiations and disputes over regional security.

The appointment is also significant because Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei separately named Rezaei as his representative on the council. Reuters reported that the move reflects Rezaei's extensive military and security experience. (Reuters)

Strait of Hormuz in Focus

One of the most important issues facing Rezaei is the future of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman.

The route is critical to global energy markets because a substantial share of internationally traded oil passes through the region. Any prolonged disruption could therefore have consequences far beyond Iran and the Gulf.

Rezaei has previously taken a strong position on Iranian control over the waterway. His appointment comes while Tehran and Washington remain divided over sanctions, military deployments and arrangements for commercial shipping.

Reuters reported that talks mediated by Oman have been aimed at reopening the waterway, but major disagreements remain between Iran and the United States. (Reuters)

A Harder Line From Tehran?

The appointment has prompted questions over whether Iran is preparing for a tougher security and negotiating posture.

Rezaei has a long record of opposing concessions that he believes could weaken Iran's strategic position. His military background could make him an influential voice in discussions involving the United States, Israel, Gulf states and Iran's regional security interests.

However, his appointment alone does not necessarily establish a completely new Iranian policy. Reuters noted that no official explanation was immediately given for the leadership change or any specific policy shift resulting from it. (Reuters)

What Comes Next

Rezaei's immediate challenge will be to balance Iran's military priorities with diplomatic efforts aimed at reducing tensions.

For Tehran, the issues are closely connected: the future of the Strait of Hormuz, US sanctions, regional military deployments and negotiations over security arrangements all affect Iran's broader strategy.

His appointment indicates that military experience will have an important place in that strategy. Whether Rezaei becomes the face of a tougher Iranian position or helps consolidate a more coordinated approach between the country's political and military leadership will become clearer as negotiations and regional tensions develop.