博客

  • What we know so far about the US-Iran deal

    What we know so far about the US-Iran deal

    After nearly three months of open regional conflict between the United States and Iran, diplomatic efforts have reached a critical turning point, with former US President Donald Trump confirming that a tentative framework agreement is “mostly finalized”. Should the deal cross the finish line, it would bring an immediate end to months of hostilities that have roiled global energy markets and raised fears of a wider regional war.

    Global financial markets reacted swiftly to the news of a potential breakthrough on Monday morning, with investor sentiment driving a sharp 6% drop in Brent crude prices that pushed the benchmark down to $97 per barrel. While the full text of the proposed agreement remains under wraps, emerging details from anonymous US officials speaking to Axios have shed light on the phased approach being negotiated.

    Under the draft terms, the first step would be a 60-day extended ceasefire between the two parties. During this temporary truce, the Strait of Hormuz – the critical chokepoint through which 20% of the world’s daily crude oil and liquified natural gas shipments pass – would be fully reopened to commercial traffic. No transit fees would be imposed by Iran, and Tehran would clear all naval mines it had placed in waters near the strait as a strategic pressure tactic. Once mine clearance is completed, the US would lift its recent naval blockade of Iranian ports, and Tehran would be allowed to resume oil exports for the two-month period, temporarily pausing some US sanctions to enable the sales. The unnamed US official noted that while the temporary export access would boost Iran’s economy, it would also help cool tight global energy markets and ease upward pressure on energy prices worldwide.

    This 60-day window is intended for the two sides to negotiate long-term arrangements, including the highly contentious issue of Iran’s nuclear program. As part of broader talks aimed at a permanent ceasefire, Iran is demanding the immediate unfreezing of its sovereign assets held around the globe and permanent relief from crippling US economic sanctions. In response, US officials have stated that these major concessions will only be granted in exchange for “verifiable, tangible concessions” from Tehran on nuclear security.

    The still-undrafted memorandum of understanding between the two countries is reported to include a proposed Iranian commitment to never pursue a nuclear weapons program, though there is currently no confirmation that Tehran has accepted this condition. The draft text also proposes negotiations on freezing Iran’s uranium enrichment activities and removing its existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium. A US official told The Washington Post that the two-month ceasefire period will be dedicated to ironing out the verification and implementation mechanism for a final nuclear agreement. However, an Iranian official pushed back on this framing, telling the Post the draft deal only includes a commitment to discuss nuclear issues at a later date, not a pre-negotiated agreement on the terms.

    Over the weekend, Trump faced cross-partisan criticism from US lawmakers over both the ongoing conflict and the terms of the emerging deal. The former president pushed back forcefully against his detractors in a post on his social platform Truth Social, insisting he only negotiates successful agreements. “If I make a deal with Iran, it will be a good and proper one, not like the one made by Obama,” Trump wrote. “Don’t listen to the losers, who are critical about something they know nothing about. Unlike those before me who should have solved this problem many years ago, I don’t make bad deals!”

    By Monday, Trump struck a more optimistic tone, telling reporters negotiations are “proceeding nicely”. He also used the moment to push for an expansion of the Abraham Accords, the 2020 US-brokered normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states that he oversaw during his first term. Trump said he had spoken with leaders of multiple regional nations on Saturday about efforts to end the conflict with Iran, arguing that after US diplomatic work to resolve the crisis, all involved nations should join the accords. “After all the work done by the United States to try and pull this very complex puzzle together, it should be mandatory that all of these Countries, at a minimum, simultaneously, sign onto the Abraham Accords,” he said. He listed the candidate nations as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkiye, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE (already an accords member), and Bahrain (also already a signatory). The original 2020 accords also included Morocco and Sudan, while Egypt and Jordan already hold established diplomatic relations with Israel.

    Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei offered a more muted confirmation of progress on Monday, saying that Tehran and Washington had reached preliminary conclusions on several issues included in the draft memorandum of understanding. But he stressed that this progress should not be read as a sign an agreement is imminent. Baghaei clarified that Iran’s current negotiating priority is ending the ongoing conflict, not addressing nuclear questions. He also reiterated a longstanding Iranian complaint that inconsistent, shifting positions from US officials have consistently complicated efforts to reach a final deal.

  • ‘Failure’: Israel reacts with alarm as emerging US-Iran deal draws criticism

    ‘Failure’: Israel reacts with alarm as emerging US-Iran deal draws criticism

    A reported emerging US-Iran agreement to permanently end ongoing conflict has triggered sharp skepticism and deepening alarm across Israel, with political, military and security leaders warning that the proposed framework fails to address core Israeli national security priorities.

    Early weekend reports outlined that the tentative deal centers on a 60-day preliminary ceasefire captured in a memorandum of understanding, with the draft text notably omitting any provisions targeting Iran’s controversial nuclear program. The preliminary scope of the agreement also calls for an end to hostilities across all regional fronts, including the ongoing conflict in Lebanon.

    Cross-party criticism from U.S. lawmakers, ranging from Democratic members to hardline Republican hawks, has been mirrored by widespread condemnation from Israeli political analysts and security experts. Against this mounting backlash, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a statement Sunday confirming he had reached an understanding with U.S. President Donald Trump that any final, binding agreement with Iran must fully eliminate the nuclear threat posed by the regime. Netanyahu added that Trump had reaffirmed Israel’s sovereign right to self-defense against threats across all fronts, including Lebanon.

    For his part, President Trump has moved to defend the ongoing negotiations in a post on his Truth Social platform. “If I make a deal with Iran, it will be a good and proper one, not like the one made by Obama,” he wrote, referencing the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear agreement signed during the administration of former Democratic President Barack Obama. “I don’t make bad deals,” he added.

    These public reassurances from both leaders have done little to ease concerns among Israeli journalists and military analysts, many of whom frame the emerging deal as a major political failure and strategic retreat for both the U.S. and Israeli governments.

    Amos Harel, veteran military affairs commentator for leading Israeli left-leaning outlet Haaretz, argued Monday that any such deal would amount to a clear American capitulation to Iran, while also highlighting Israel’s eroding leverage within the Trump administration. Harel emphasized that the proposed framework falls drastically short of the explicit goals Netanyahu set when the conflict launched in late February, which included the full collapse of Iran’s ruling government and the complete dismantlement of the country’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

    Danny Citrinowicz, an Iran-focused researcher at Israel’s independent Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), echoed Harel’s critical assessment, noting that the architects of the joint military campaign “did not truly understand Iran”. “The enormous gap between the declarations made at the beginning of the campaign and the agreement that will likely bring it to an end illustrates its failure,” Citrinowicz said Monday. “This war proved that Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategy has collapsed.”

    Fellow INSS researcher Raz Zimmt described the tentative agreement as “very problematic” for Israeli national interests, arguing that Iran has effectively succeeded in reshaping a new regional power order in its favor. “The one who blinked first was President Trump, not the Iranians,” Zimmt told Israeli public radio outlet 103FM.

    Nahum Barnea, veteran prominent political columnist for leading Israeli tabloid Yedioth Ahronoth, wrote Monday that the emerging deal would mark a clear strategic defeat for both Israel and the United States. He noted that neither Netanyahu nor Trump “never imagined” that after nearly three months of conflict, Iran would emerge in a stronger regional position than it held before the war began. Barnea added that Israel is now “subject to the absolute authority of a capricious, hollow, desperate American president” and argued that while confronting Iran remains an existential challenge for Israel, “Netanyahu is the last person” capable of leading that effort.

    This wave of domestic criticism comes alongside growing concern across Israel that the country’s political influence in Washington has diminished significantly in recent months. On Saturday, *The New York Times* reported that the Trump administration had largely sidelined Israeli officials from the direct negotiation process, despite Israel’s role as a core coalition partner in the military campaign against Iran.

    A Sunday report from Haaretz added that senior Israeli security officials are deeply alarmed by the direction of the U.S.-Iran talks, and have privately warned that “Israeli interests were not taken into account throughout the negotiations”. According to the report, officials have expressed significant frustration that despite Israel’s direct participation in joint military action against Iran, the White House has refused to prioritize Israeli core security concerns in the negotiation text. Senior officials now fear that a final U.S.-Iran agreement could impose binding restrictions on Israel’s ability to conduct independent future military operations in both Lebanon and Gaza.

    Leading Israeli news outlet Ynet also reported that senior Israel Defense Forces (IDF) officials view the proposed framework as “a bad agreement for Israel” and have expressed deep disappointment with the reported terms. The outlet noted that the IDF had already begun preparations for a renewed military campaign against Iran, and senior commanders believe the agreement will fall far short of meeting core strategic goals, potentially leaving Iran well positioned to advance to full nuclear weapons capability as a “nuclear threshold state”.

    Even within Netanyahu’s own ruling Likud party, some lawmakers have acknowledged the gap between opening war aims and the emerging deal. David Bitan, a Likud member of the Knesset, acknowledged Monday that Israeli expectations at the start of the conflict had been unrealistically high. Even so, Bitan insisted that Israel had secured significant military gains during the 40-day active conflict phase. When asked about Iran’s remaining ballistic missile capabilities, Bitan said Israel would “have to deal with it again and again”, adding that he expects further rounds of military conflict with Iran to occur every two to three years going forward.

  • In German first, Leipzig students vote for academic boycott of Israel

    In German first, Leipzig students vote for academic boycott of Israel

    On May 19, a landmark vote unfolded at Germany’s University of Leipzig that marks a seismic shift in the national debate over academic collaboration with Israel. Nearly 700 gathered students voted almost unanimously to cut all formal institutional ties between their university and Israeli academic entities, citing allegations of Israeli genocide and systematic educational destruction in Gaza. This outcome carries unique weight given Leipzig’s long-standing reputation as the heart of Germany’s Antideutsche movement, a radical left tradition defined by militant anti-German nationalism and unwavering, vocal support for Israel rooted in anti-antisemitism commitments, where Antideutsche activists have regularly clashed with pro-Palestinian organizers for decades.

    The resolution approved by students lays out three core demands: first, that the university officially recognize and condemn what students frame as the genocidal character of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, including the deliberate destruction of the Palestinian education system — a phenomenon widely termed scholasticide. Second, the university must terminate all existing cooperative agreements with Israeli higher education and research institutions. Finally, students insist the university refuse to participate in, promote, or publicize any joint activities or programs hosted or organized by Israeli academic bodies.

    A collaborative report compiled by Leipzig students and staff alleges that the university’s existing partnerships directly enable what they call Israel’s genocide and repeated violations of international law. Current collaborations include extensive student exchange programs, active joint research initiatives, and formal partnerships with multiple Israeli institutions that have been linked to the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.

    “Leipzig University is completely open about its work with institutions that break international law,” one student who contributed to the report told Middle East Eye. The student laid out three justifications for cutting ties: moral, noting the universal justice of opposing genocide; ethical, arguing universities must uphold the values of life and education while rejecting human rights abuses and scholasticide; and legal, referencing the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion that confirms the illegality of aiding or abetting violations of universally binding erga omnes international law, including violations committed by Israeli educational institutions.

    University administration moved preemptively to block the student assembly, rejecting the vote’s legitimacy. Ahead of the planned gathering, the institution withdrew its permission for students to use university-owned space for the assembly, and the university’s rector Professor Eva Ines Obergfell argued that the event was no longer a legitimate academic debate, but rather a partisan push that aimed to restrict academic freedom. The administration also claimed the assembly was improperly convened, noting it was not organized through the official student council leadership per institutional statutes, and that only around 1 percent of the university’s total student body attended.

    These accusations were immediately rejected as baseless by the Leipzig Student Council. Per the student body’s own governing rules, a general assembly can be called via a public petition signed by at least 3 percent of the total student population. Organizers collected roughly 1,300 signatures, easily surpassing the required threshold to convene the assembly. Ultimately, students held the gathering in an outdoor university courtyard after being denied indoor space. “The signatures we collected make it clear that we as a student body want and need to participate in this critical discourse,” explained Alaska Krakor, a Student Council representative. “The general assembly as a direct democratic outlet for our position must be respected by university leadership.”

    Leipzig is far from an outlier in Germany: almost every major higher education institution in the country maintains formal academic ties to Israel. In June 2025, the German Rectors’ Conference, the national umbrella group for all public and officially recognized German universities, issued a formal statement calling for the expansion and strengthening of academic and research partnerships with Israel. The statement was released in direct response to growing European calls to suspend the EU Association Agreement with Israel, the primary legal framework governing political and economic relations between the bloc and Israel. The conference asserted that Israeli universities and the broader Israeli academic community have long been a core liberal, democratic force in the Middle East, and a central pillar of balanced ethical and academic reflection on the regional conflict.

    Student organizers emphasize that this vote breaks new ground even as past student council resolutions have backed academic boycotts of Israel. Unlike previous measures that were introduced as part of broader general assemblies, this vote came out of a general assembly specifically convened to address the question of institutional academic complicity in Gaza. Organizers with Students for Palestine Leipzig told Middle East Eye that the groundwork for the overwhelming vote was laid months earlier at the start of the academic year, when the group released the complicity report detailing the university’s Israeli partnerships. In the lead-up to the assembly, organizers held educational sessions to walk students through the report’s findings and explain the rationale for an academic boycott, building broad support across the student body.

    “We as students wanted to think globally and act locally,” the SFP Leipzig statement read. “Our university is complicit through its direct ties and cooperation with Israeli institutions that help develop weapons, manufacture bombs, and build knowledge that enables the oppression of Palestinians. We want no part in this complicity. We call on the university to respect the will of the student body.”

  • Iran’s Jews: From ancient roots to the modern day

    Iran’s Jews: From ancient roots to the modern day

    In March 2015, as then-US President Barack Obama prepared to finalize a landmark nuclear deal with Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a high-stakes address to a joint session of the US Congress. Seeking to sway lawmakers against the agreement by framing Iran as an existential threat to the Jewish people and the state of Israel, Netanyahu made a notable factual error when he misrepresented the Biblical story of Esther, claiming that ancient Jews living in Persian-ruled territory were targeted for death by a Persian viceroy. The actual account holds that it was Haman, an Amalekite court official, who plotted the extermination of Iranian Jews, a scheme foiled by Queen Esther and her cousin Mordecai, after which Persian King Ahasuerus ordered Haman’s execution and spared the Jewish community.

    Far less widely reported in Western discourse is the deep, continuous history of Jewish life in Iran that stretches back nearly three millennia. Today, the tomb of Esther and Mordecai stands in the western Iranian city of Hamedan, a site that has drawn Jewish pilgrims for centuries and was designated a national heritage site by the Iranian government under then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2008. This long-standing presence challenges the pervasive Western narrative that frames Iran as a uniformly antisemitic nation, scholars and community members emphasize.

    “Compared to many countries in the region and certainly in the West, Iran has not had a history of anti-Jewish sentiment,” explains Farhang Jahanpour, former dean of the Faculty of Languages at the University of Isfahan. “Most Iranian Jews regard Iran as their home and have a strong feeling of affinity for Iranian culture, literature, music and cooking.”

    For Etan Mabourakh, a member of a centuries-old Iranian Jewish family that left the country during the reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, this cultural connection remains vivid decades after his family’s departure. “There’s a deep pride for Iranian Jews in our cultural heritage, and distinct traditions that we hold on to,” he says. “My father’s side hail from Hamedan, and we have a Hamedani cookbook with traditional Jewish recipes that I still cook dishes from to this day – on Passover we still practice the Jewish Iranian tradition of beating each other with scallions when we sing Dyenu. These traditions are a real source of pride for us.”

    Jews first arrived in what is now Iran following the Babylonian exile of the 6th and 7th centuries BCE, when they were displaced from the ancient kingdom of Judea by King Nebuchadnezzar II. Initial settlements centered in what is now Isfahan, before communities spread across the Iranian plateau. Biblical accounts themselves reference deep ties between ancient Jews and Persian rulers, with many holy sites associated with Jewish prophets still standing across the country today. “The Hebrew Bible speaks very highly of ancient Persians and reveals very close Jewish connections with ancient Iran and its kings,” Jahanpour notes.

    After the advent of Islam in Iran in the 7th century, the Jewish population continued to grow, drawn in large part by opportunities along regional trade routes. “We have testimonies of Jews from the period when Islam came to Iran that they were actually very pleased to see the Muslim army coming,” says Lior Sternfeld, a professor of History and Jewish Studies at Pennsylvania State University. “The message of Islam and the recognition of the people of the book was quite liberating for Iranian religious minorities. They believed it might bring positive change to their status and protections.”

    Between the arrival of Islam and the establishment of Shia Islam as Iran’s state religion in 1501, the community experienced periods of both stability and intermittent repression. By the 17th century, Jews were formally recognized as a protected and tolerated minority under Iranian law. A major milestone came with the 1906 Constitutional Revolution under the Qajar dynasty, which established Iran’s first parliament and granted Jews a guaranteed parliamentary seat, formally placing them on equal legal footing with Muslim citizens. This progress followed years of targeted violence, including a 1839 pogrom in the northeastern city of Mashhad that forced Jews to choose between conversion to Islam and exile.

    Under the Pahlavi dynasty, which took power in 1925, Iran’s new legal protections for Jews drew Jewish migrants from across the region and Europe. In the 1930s, prominent Jewish professionals and intellectuals fleeing Nazi Germany’s race-based purges arrived in Iran, followed by hundreds more Jewish refugees who fled the 1941 Farhud pogrom in Iraq that killed more than 500 Jews. By the mid-20th century, Iran’s Jewish community was a diverse tapestry of Persian, Kurdish, Iraqi, Mountain, and Ashkenazi Jews, with Ashkenazi refugees establishing a still-operational synagogue in Tehran.

    During World War II and the Holocaust, Iran hosted as many as 300,000 Polish refugees, between 5,000 and 20,000 of whom were Jewish, who settled in camps on the outskirts of Tehran, Isfahan, and Ahvaz. While the decision to accept the refugees was driven by British occupying forces and created significant food shortages for local Iranians, Sternfeld notes that contemporary accounts consistently highlight the widespread hospitality ordinary Iranians extended to the displaced Jewish arrivals. Around 780 orphaned Jewish refugees, known as the Children of Tehran, were eventually resettled in Mandatory Palestine.

    By the 1940s, Iran’s Jewish community had become integral to the Pahlavi Shah’s national development project, taking prominent roles in government bureaucracy, trade, and science, and rising to become a core part of Iran’s urban middle and upper classes. By the late 1940s, the community numbered around 100,000 and continued to grow over the next three decades. When Israel was established in 1948, only a small minority of Iranian Jews – between 17,000 and 20,000 between 1949 and 1953 – chose to emigrate, and migration effectively halted by the 1960s. For decades, Iran maintained close diplomatic ties with Israel, supplied the Jewish state with oil, and in return received military training from the Israeli army for the Shah’s brutal secret police force, Savak.

    Life for Jews under the Shah was not without tension, however. “The generation that came of age during Mohammed Reza’s time no longer carried the burden of Jewish persecution on their shoulders and they became much more Iranian,” Sternfeld explains. “They went to universities, became involved in political activism and they shared the grievances of their fellow Iranians about the shah’s dictatorship. They were also over-represented in opposition movements, and the shah didn’t cut slack for Jews in these groups, so many ended up being in exile or prison.”

    Mabourakh’s own family was forced to flee Iran for the US and Israel during the Shah’s rule due to their political activism. “They were treated like second-class citizens,” he says, adding that modern glorification of the Pahlavi dynasty does not align with his family’s experience. “Reza Pahlavi has been reframed as this figure to bring Iran back to greatness, but the more you read about the brutal oppression of the Savak under his father, the more you realise it’s no better than what exists today.”

    After the 1979 Islamic Revolution that ousted the Shah, the execution of prominent Jewish businessman Habib Elghanian, a figure linked to the former regime, sparked widespread fear among Iran’s Jewish community. Community leaders traveled to the holy city of Qom just days after the execution to meet with Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini to clarify the status of Jews under the new Islamic Republic. The meeting resulted in a landmark fatwa that formally drew a distinction between Iranian Jews and Zionism, stating that Iranian Jews are full members of the Iranian nation, while Zionism is a separate political movement opposed to religious teachings. Under the edict, Iranian Jews are guaranteed full protection as a religious minority.

    Despite this guarantee, mass emigration resumed after the revolution, with nearly half of Iran’s Jewish community leaving over the course of the 1980s. Unusually, only a minority of emigrants settled in Israel; roughly 70 percent relocated to the Los Angeles area in the United States. For the community that remained, experiences have varied across successive administrations: former President Hassan Rouhani, who held office from 2013 to 2021, enacted progressive reforms including legislation protecting Jewish inheritance rights and allowing Jewish students to be absent from school on Shabbat, the Jewish sabbath.

    Today, Iran is home to between 10,000 and 15,000 Jews, the third largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel and Turkey. Most reside in Tehran, with sizeable communities in Shiraz and Isfahan. Though the community is a fraction of its mid-20th century peak, it remains an integrated part of Iranian society, with 60 operational synagogues, Jewish schools, kosher food outlets, and other communal institutions, granting Iranian Jews a comparatively high degree of religious autonomy. While community members cannot publicly express support for Israel, they maintain a nuanced relationship with the Jewish state, drawing a distinction between its religious significance to Judaism and its political status relative to Iran. “They make the separation between Israel as a holy place and Iran as their political homeland,” Sternfeld says.

    Most recently, after an Israeli air strike on Tehran damaged the Rafi-Nia synagogue last month, Iran’s Jewish community publicly condemned the attack, reaffirming their loyalty to the Iranian state. “The Zionist regime with its brutal ambitions has not only attacked the Muslim community but also the Jewish community,” said Homayoun Sameh, the Jewish representative to Iran’s parliament. Rabbi Younes Hamami Lalehzar, a leading Iranian Jewish community leader, added: “Beyond being an inhumane and terrorist act, this clearly shows that all the claims made by the Israeli regime about defending Jews are nothing more than a shameful lie.”

    Mabourakh, who works with the National Iranian American Council, echoed that condemnation, noting that the Iranian government’s response to the attack revealed a respect for Jewish life that is rarely acknowledged in Western media. “I felt disgusted that the synagogue had been blown up in a war that my tax dollars are funding. The fact that so much infrastructure has been targeted – these are war crimes and we should call them out,” he says. “The Jewish community asked the rescue mission not to use heavy machinery to clear the rubble, to avoid damaging Torah scrolls and other items, so the teams used their hands to retrieve them. I think there is a genuine respect from Iranian authorities towards people of the book, and this is not communicated in the West.”

  • US and Israel ‘actively working’ to strip Jordan of Al-Aqsa custodianship, sources say

    US and Israel ‘actively working’ to strip Jordan of Al-Aqsa custodianship, sources say

    A controversial covert plan backed by senior U.S. and Israeli figures to dismantle Jordan’s century-old custodianship of Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque complex has been revealed by multiple anonymous sources in an exclusive reporting to Middle East Eye, threatening to upend decades of regional stability and upend the long-standing status quo governing one of the Muslim world’s most revered religious sites.

    Multiple layers of sources—including serving U.S., Jordanian, Palestinian, Western and Gulf Arab officials—have confirmed the proposal is being spearheaded by former White House advisor Jared Kushner, who holds no official role in the current U.S. administration, and current U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. Under the terms of the draft plan, the Jordanian-backed Islamic Waqf, which has overseen day-to-day administration of the site for generations, would be stripped of all governing authority immediately. A new Israeli-created regulatory body would reclassify the 35-acre compound, known to Jews as the Temple Mount, as a multi-faith religious center, granting Jews equal access and formal permission for organized large-group communal prayer on the site, which has been an exclusively Islamic holy site under the long-standing international status quo.

    The plan would also grant the Israeli government significant influence over key personnel decisions at the mosque, including the appointment of imams, senior clerics and preachers, as well as approval power over the content of weekly Friday sermons. Two senior U.S. officials confirmed that Washington has already drafted a policy document outlining this vision for the site’s future, stating the Trump administration’s goal is to erase the site’s exclusive Muslim identity and rebrand it as a cross-religious tourist landmark open to followers of all three Abrahamic faiths.

    According to one proposal that has circulated among regional stakeholders, Arab nations including Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates have already received briefings on the plan and could be offered rotating oversight responsibilities for the complex. Multiple Gulf Arab sources and a source familiar with Jordanian government policy confirmed that Saudi Arabia—Jordan’s close historic ally—has already publicly taken a stance opposing the proposal.

    The idea of altering Al-Aqsa’s governance was first raised by Israeli officials to the U.S. government nearly a decade ago, but gained new momentum after Huckabee took up his post as U.S. ambassador last year. A devout Evangelical Christian and long-time hardline pro-Israel advocate who has openly supported illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, Huckabee has repeatedly pressured Washington to move forward with the plan, sources say. A source familiar with Jordan’s position noted the U.S. has long resented Amman’s frequent use of its custodianship status to file formal complaints against Israeli actions at the compound, most recently this month when Jordan’s parliament formally condemned Israeli seizures of Palestinian property and Islamic endowments in areas adjacent to the mosque.

    The proposal also leaves the future of Jerusalem’s Christian holy sites—for which Jordan’s Hashemite monarchy also holds formal custodianship, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the Ascension, plus a veto over appointments to the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem—unaddressed, a gap that has sparked deep new concerns among regional stakeholders. “This plan says nothing about the Christian sites, which raises a whole new set of concerns,” one senior source told MEE.

    A senior Jordanian government official reaffirmed Amman’s unwavering position on the issue, stressing that Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem’s holy sites is formally recognized under international law and binding bilateral treaties, including Article 9 of the 1994 Jordan-Israel peace treaty. The official added that Jordan is coordinating closely with Palestinian, Arab and international partners to protect the sites’ Arab, Islamic and Christian identity and block any attempt to alter the historical and legal status quo.

    The current governing framework for Al-Aqsa, the status quo arrangement, has been in place for more than half a century. Following Israel’s 1967 seizure of East Jerusalem, the two countries reached a formal agreement that left the Islamic Waqf in charge of all internal religious and administrative affairs at the compound, while Israel retained control over external security. Under the terms of this arrangement, non-Muslims are permitted to visit during set time windows, but are barred from holding prayer services at the site. For Jewish communities, the site holds deep religious significance as the location of the two ancient Jewish temples destroyed in antiquity.

    Jordanian and Palestinian officials warn the proposed new framework closely mirrors Israel’s long-standing policy at Hebron’s Ibrahimi Mosque, also known to Jews as the Tomb of the Patriarchs. Following a 1994 massacre carried out by an Israeli extremist settler that killed 29 Muslim worshippers, Israel imposed a formal division of the site, allocating 63% of the compound to Jewish worship even though the site is equally revered by all three Abrahamic faiths as the burial place of the Prophet Abraham.

    For Jordan’s Hashemite monarchy, custodianship of Jerusalem’s holy sites is a core pillar of its domestic and regional legitimacy. The ruling family’s claim to custodianship dates back to 1924, shortly after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the abolition of the Islamic Caliphate, when the British Mandate administration granted the Hashemites oversight of Jerusalem’s Muslim and Christian holy sites after the family lost control of Mecca and Medina, Islam’s two holiest sites, to the Al Saud dynasty. The custodianship was later reaffirmed in the 1994 peace treaty with Israel, which explicitly recognized Amman’s special role in governing Jerusalem’s Islamic holy sites.

    For years, Palestinian and Jordanian officials have warned that the status quo is being steadily eroded by successive Israeli governments and emboldened far-right nationalist groups pushing for greater Jewish control of the compound. Frequent Israeli police raids inside the mosque, growing numbers of visits by ultranationalist Jewish activists, and repeated calls by senior Israeli cabinet ministers for formal Jewish prayer rights at the site have led to widespread accusations that Israel is incrementally altering the long-standing arrangement. Waqf officials have also repeatedly documented that Israel imposes harsh restrictions on Palestinian worshippers and blocks the Waqf from carrying out critical maintenance and repair work at the site.

    Mustafa Abu Sway, deputy head of the Waqf council, described Hashemite custodianship as an non-negotiable foundation for regional peace. “The Hashemite Custodianship is a cornerstone for stability in the region, undermining it is tantamount to undermining the very principles for peace,” he said, adding that Palestinians view Jordan’s role as a strategic lifeline that has consistently defended the status quo in international forums including UNESCO.

    The Palestinian Jerusalem Governorate said it had not received formal notification of the proposal but rejected it outright, noting that there has already been a dangerous escalation in Israeli interference in the Waqf’s work, including restrictions on Waqf security and staff, and growing incursions into the compound by extremist Israeli settlers.

    Gulf Arab sources say Jordan, which relies on regional support to counter the U.S.-Israeli proposal, can count on Saudi opposition to the plan. Saudi Arabia fully understands that any move to alter Hashemite custodianship would ignite widespread anger across the Middle East and inflame regional conflict, one senior Gulf Arab source said. “The Saudis may have disagreements with Jordan on some issues, but on Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa they understand the consequences of dismantling the existing arrangement,” the source added.

    In recent years, Jordanian Crown Prince Hussein bin Abdullah has built a close working relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, with bilateral ties deepening following the 2020 Abraham Accords that saw a number of Arab states normalize relations with Israel. It remains unclear how Saudi Arabia would respond if the UAE or Bahrain chooses to publicly back the proposal, sources noted.

    Since signing the Abraham Accords, both the UAE and Bahrain have significantly deepened political, economic and security ties with Israel, even as regional anger over Israeli actions in Jerusalem and Gaza has grown. The UAE has positioned itself as Israel’s closest Arab partner, expanding cooperation across trade, technology, energy and defense sectors. Emirati-backed diplomatic and religious initiatives have also promoted a framework of multi-faith coexistence that Jordanian and Palestinian officials fear could be used to legitimize changes to Al-Aqsa’s historical status quo. In 2023, the UAE opened a state-backed multi-faith complex in Abu Dhabi housing a mosque, church and synagogue. Bahrain has similarly built close ties with Israel, framing its engagement as a critical tool to counter Iran, and has generally avoided public criticism of Israeli policy in Jerusalem, stoking fears it is willing to accommodate Israeli demands over the holy sites.

    “They [UAE and Bahrain] understand how explosive this issue is in the Arab and Muslim world,” a Gulf Arab source said. “Given that they are closely aligned with Israel, they should be cautious about publicly supporting changes to the status quo.”

    MEE reached out to the foreign ministries of Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the UAE for comment, but received no response prior to publication. The Jordanian government, which has banned MEE access in the country since May 2025, acknowledged receipt of questions but declined to comment.

  • Resource dominance reshaping Trump’s rivalry with China

    Resource dominance reshaping Trump’s rivalry with China

    The May 2026 Trump-Xi summit held in Beijing has laid bare a profound shift in global geopolitics: commodities have evolved from ordinary traded goods into central pillars of great-power competition, with resource diplomacy now emerging as a defining organizing principle for strategic engagement between the world’s two largest economies. Far from a routine round of trade talks, the meeting brought into sharp focus how energy, food, critical minerals, and supply chain access have become core tools of statecraft in the new geopolitical order.

    Per White House announcements, the summit delivered several concrete trade and resource agreements. China committed to purchasing a minimum of $17 billion worth of U.S. agricultural commodities every year through 2028, expanding on earlier soybean-specific deals reached in 2025. Beijing also agreed to reopen its markets to imported American beef and poultry, addressing longstanding U.S. trade demands. On the energy front, U.S. officials confirmed China has agreed to ramp up purchases of American crude oil, a move driven by ongoing instability in the Strait of Hormuz that threatens Beijing’s critical energy import flows. In exchange, China has pledged to address U.S. concerns over supply shortages of rare earths and other critical minerals that are essential to American industrial and military production.

    The summit underscores a dramatic strategic reorientation in Washington’s approach to global commodities. Where once resources were viewed primarily through an economic lens, they are now increasingly framed as instruments of geopolitical leverage, industrial resilience, and strategic coercion. For the Trump administration, resource dependence on a rival power is treated as a critical national vulnerability, while control over key commodity supply chains is considered a defining geopolitical advantage.

    This strategic shift is most visible in U.S. policy toward China’s dominance of critical mineral markets. For years, American defense and foreign policy strategists have sounded alarms over Beijing’s control of global processing and refining capacity for rare earths, graphite, cobalt, and battery materials—inputs that underpin modern technologies ranging from semiconductors and electric vehicles to advanced weapons systems, renewable energy infrastructure, and artificial intelligence hardware. The Trump administration now views this dominance not merely as an economic challenge, but as an existential strategic threat that could cripple U.S. military and industrial capacity during a crisis.

    In response, Washington has pursued an aggressive policy of critical mineral securitization. Recent executive actions have deployed emergency powers to speed up domestic mining development, expand domestic refining capacity, advance deep-sea mineral extraction projects, and build national strategic stockpiles. The end goal is not just full national self-sufficiency, but strategic insulation from potential Chinese coercive action. Policymakers have also recognized that China’s advantage extends beyond raw resource ownership to its unmatched processing capacity and industrial integration: even rare earths mined outside China are most often refined within its borders before entering global manufacturing supply chains. As a result, the administration’s strategy has taken on the character of a Cold War-era industrial mobilization effort, aimed at rebuilding entire domestic supply ecosystems from ore extraction to finished military and technological components.

    This approach marks a radical break from the post-Cold War consensus on globalization. For decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, deep economic interdependence between nations was widely viewed as a stabilizing, mutually beneficial force that reduced the risk of great-power conflict. The emerging Trump administration doctrine rejects this framing, arguing that interdependence becomes a dangerous liability when rival powers control strategic supply chain chokepoints. In response, Washington has embraced tariffs, targeted industrial subsidies, domestic extraction mandates, friend-shoring of supply chains, and strategic decoupling in all sectors tied to national security.

    Today, critical rare earth minerals hold the same geostrategic importance that oil occupied for much of the 20th century. Rare earth magnets are core components of fighter jets, missile guidance systems, military drones, radar networks, and advanced computing infrastructure. Semiconductor manufacturing also relies on a host of critical minerals that are vulnerable to supply disruptions. In Washington’s strategic planning, potential Chinese export restrictions on these materials are treated as analogous to a 1970s-style oil embargo that could cripple the industrial foundations of American global power.

    The administration’s push for deep-sea mining directly reflects this strategic mindset. Offshore polymetallic nodules, which hold high concentrations of nickel, cobalt, manganese, and rare earth elements, are increasingly framed as strategic assets that can reduce U.S. reliance on Chinese-controlled supply chains. White House policy documents explicitly frame seabed extraction as a tool to break Beijing’s market dominance, pushing the global resource frontier from onshore mining into the deep ocean.

    Hydrocarbons remain equally central to the administration’s geopolitical doctrine. Unlike many European governments, which center climate transition as the core organizing principle of economic policy, the Trump administration continues to view dominance in oil and natural gas markets as an enduring strategic advantage. Abundant cheap domestic energy boosts U.S. industrial competitiveness, expands American export capacity, and gives Washington significant leverage over energy-dependent rival powers.

    This focus on energy leverage targets a key vulnerability for China: Beijing remains heavily dependent on imported hydrocarbons, most of which pass through the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical maritime energy chokepoint. The 2026 Strait of Hormuz crisis, in which Iranian actions disrupted commercial shipping, sent shockwaves through global oil markets and exposed the fragility of Asian energy security, particularly for China and India—the two major powers seen as capable of challenging American global primacy. U.S. naval dominance in the region and growing American energy export capacity are increasingly viewed as interconnected strategic tools that can constrain China’s freedom of action on the global stage.

    This explains Iran’s central role in the administration’s broader commodity strategy. Beyond being a regional U.S. adversary, Iran controls access to the energy routes that are the lifeline of most major Asian economies. Against this backdrop, the oil talks at the Trump-Xi summit carried outsized strategic significance: according to U.S. officials, China’s willingness to increase American oil purchases is driven in large part by a desire to reduce its exposure to Hormuz-related supply disruptions. This creates a striking geopolitical irony: the U.S. positions itself as China’s primary great-power rival, while also seeking to become the reliable supplier of the energy China needs to sustain its economic growth.

    This transactional approach is a defining feature of Trumpian geopolitics. The administration does not aim for full economic decoupling from China; instead, it seeks to restructure economic interdependence on terms that maximize American strategic leverage. Commodity trade flows have become bargaining chips embedded in broader strategic negotiations that span tariffs, sanctions, military tensions, and technological competition.

    Iran remains central to this architecture due to its deepening economic and strategic ties to China. Chinese refiners have continued to purchase Iranian oil despite sweeping Western sanctions, providing Tehran with a critical economic lifeline. Washington’s sanctions pressure on Chinese entities linked to Iranian crude therefore serves multiple overlapping goals: it constrains Iran’s regional ambitions, raises economic costs for Beijing, and reinforces American dominance over global financial and energy systems.

    The summit also highlighted the enduring strategic importance of agricultural commodities. American agricultural production has long been one of Washington’s most underrecognized strategic assets: food dependence on other nations creates inherent political leverage, especially during periods of global supply disruption or food price inflation. China’s renewed commitment to large-scale U.S. agricultural purchases therefore carries strategic weight far beyond its impact on bilateral trade balances. The agreement stabilizes politically influential American farming constituencies ahead of U.S. elections, while also reinforcing Washington’s role as a core guarantor of global food security.

    India occupies an ambiguous position in this emerging resource order. Washington increasingly views New Delhi as a key strategic balancer against Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific, but it also recognizes that India’s rapid economic rise will intensify global competition for hydrocarbons, minerals, fertilizers, and other critical industrial inputs. India remains heavily dependent on imported energy and has refused to fully align with Western sanctions regimes against Russia and Iran. For the Trump administration, integrating India into commodity supply chains that are not controlled by China, while retaining leverage over India’s own resource dependencies, remains a long-term strategic priority.

    The administration’s broader resource strategy also carries clear military implications. Resource-rich regions are increasingly becoming frontlines of great-power competition. Access to lithium reserves in Latin America, cobalt deposits in Africa, rare earth resources in Central Asia and Greenland, and control over Arctic shipping lanes are all now evaluated through a strategic national security lens.

    Ultimately, the Trump administration’s commodity-focused resource strategy reflects the return of classical geopolitics in the 21st-century technological age. Energy, food, minerals, shipping routes, and industrial supply chains are now being redefined as core instruments of national power, on par with military bases and naval fleets. The May 2026 Trump-Xi Beijing summit offered a clear, vivid illustration of this global transformation. Agricultural trade, oil security, Strait of Hormuz stability, sanctions policy, and critical mineral access were all folded into a single, integrated great-power negotiation.

    The Trump administration appears convinced that the global balance of power in the coming decades will depend less on the abstract dynamics of unfettered globalization, and more on which power controls the material foundations of modern civilization: energy flows, strategic minerals, industrial supply chains, and critical maritime chokepoints. In this emerging world order, commodities are no longer just ordinary goods traded in global markets—they are core strategic weapons in an era of intensifying resource-focused great-power rivalry.

  • Huckabee tells Lebanese being bombed to thank Israel for seedless watermelons

    Huckabee tells Lebanese being bombed to thank Israel for seedless watermelons

    A recent controversial speech by U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has ignited widespread anger across the Middle East, as the longtime pro-Israeli hawk called on Lebanese civilians to thank Israel for technological and agricultural innovations amid a brutal ongoing bombardment of southern Lebanon that has killed thousands.

    Footage of Huckabee’s remarks delivered at the 12 May Atlas Awards ceremony in Tel Aviv began circulating widely online after being first published by Chris Menahan of independent news outlet Information Liberation. In the speech, Huckabee rattled off a list of developments he credits to Israeli innovation, ranging from universal serial bus (USB) drives to cherry tomatoes and seedless watermelons.

    Huckabee went on to pose a provocative question to the Lebanese public, claiming that without the existence of Israel, Lebanon would not have modern cellular technology. “I wonder if they understand that every time they use a USB, every time they use car navigation, that every time they eat a cherry tomato or have a delicious bite of seedless watermelon, instead of saying, ‘I can’t talk to those people,’ they should step across the border, shake their hands and say, ‘Thank you’,” he said in the address.

    Huckabee’s comments come at a catastrophic moment for southern Lebanon, where relentless Israeli air and ground bombardment has displaced hundreds of thousands of people and killed thousands of civilians since early March. Even residents who have braved unsafe conditions to return to their damaged homes in border regions have been deliberately targeted by Israeli forces, according to on-the-ground reports. Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health confirmed that Israeli airstrikes have killed at least 3,151 people and injured more than 9,571 since 2 March, with the death toll including 123 medical workers responding to the crisis, 210 children, and nearly 300 women.

    The remarks are not an outlier for Huckabee, an outspoken Christian Zionist who has spent decades openly backing the most expansionist policies of the Israeli government. In a recent interview with conservative U.S. podcast host Tucker Carlson, Huckabee doubled down on his support for Israeli territorial expansion, claiming that the Book of Genesis in the Christian Old Testament grants the modern state of Israel divine right to all land stretching from the Nile River to the Euphrates, forming a so-called “Greater Israel”. When asked directly whether Israel was justified in claiming the entire region, Huckabee replied plainly: “It would be fine if they took it all.”

    Beyond his advocacy for territorial expansion, Huckabee has also pushed aggressively for a direct U.S.-Israeli military confrontation with Iran. The escalating standoff between the U.S.-Israel bloc and Iran has reached a stalemate in recent months, with Tehran moving to block access to the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical energy chokepoint through which roughly a fifth of global oil supplies pass daily.

    This report was originally produced by Middle East Eye, an independent outlet specializing in original, on-the-ground coverage of the Middle East, North Africa, and surrounding global affairs.

  • Malaysia prepares ICJ case against Israel over ‘torture’ of Gaza flotilla activists

    Malaysia prepares ICJ case against Israel over ‘torture’ of Gaza flotilla activists

    Amid growing global outrage over Israel’s interception of a Gaza-bound humanitarian flotilla in international waters, Malaysia has formally announced plans to bring a legal case against Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over documented abuses of detained activists, including multiple Malaysian citizens.

    Local Malaysian media outlets confirm that government legal teams are currently compiling evidence and witness testimonies, with the official filing expected once evidence gathering is completed. The legal push follows last week’s controversial seizure of the 430-person Global Sumud Flotilla (GSF), a mission launched to deliver urgently needed humanitarian aid to Gaza, where Israel’s ongoing military campaign and blockade since 2023 has crippled access to basic necessities including food, clean water, medical supplies and electricity.

    At a welcome ceremony for repatriated Malaysian activists held at Kuala Lumpur International Airport on Monday, ruling party MP Amirudin Shari reaffirmed the government’s dual commitment to pursuing both legal accountability and diplomatic pressure to secure full independence for Gaza. “We will not remain silent, we will not stop,” Amirudin stated, noting that aid mission participants were subjected to kidnapping and systematic abuse while in Israeli custody. Beyond legal and diplomatic action, he added that Malaysia would organize nationwide outreach, host international pro-Palestine conferences, and move forward with preparations for additional future aid missions to Gaza.

    Amirudin also shared firsthand observations of the harm inflicted on detained activists: “I saw quite a lot of injuries to the head, to the ribs, to the legs, to the genital areas as well.”

    Multiple accounts from detainees and rights organizations have detailed severe mistreatment of the captured activists. Detainees report being shot with rubber bullets immediately after boarding, beaten, bound, stunned with tasers, sexually assaulted, and injected with unlabeled sedatives during their detention. Adalah, the Israeli Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights, has confirmed that detainees also endured electric shocks as well as sustained physical and psychological abuse.

    Viral videos circulated online last week further inflamed global public anger, showing Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir personally overseeing the mistreatment of activists. The footage captures Ben Gvir waving an Israeli flag and taunting handcuffed activists as Israeli prison personnel forced them to kneel on the ground. Following their detention, most activists, including the GSF group that eventually traveled to the United Kingdom via Istanbul, have been deported to their home countries.

    Malaysia’s planned ICJ filing marks the latest formal international response to Israel’s interception of the flotilla, a move widely condemned by legal experts, human rights organizations and governments across the globe as a violation of international law, given the seizure took place in open international waters.

  • Pope Leo says AI must be ‘disarmed’ in first major teaching

    Pope Leo says AI must be ‘disarmed’ in first major teaching

    In a historic, wide-ranging address marking the first major teaching document of his papacy, Pope Leo has delivered a urgent call to rein in unregulated artificial intelligence, warning that unchecked advancement of the technology risks creating what he terms “new digital slaveries” while issuing one of the Vatican’s most comprehensive apologies ever for the Catholic Church’s historical role in the transatlantic slave trade.

    Titled *Magnifica Humanitas* (“Magnificent Humanity”), the encyclical — a formal papal document that, in modern times, functions as a global moral message rather than solely a communication to Catholic bishops — was presented personally by Pope Leo at the Vatican, in an unusual break from tradition. He was joined by leading AI sector figures including Christopher Olah, co-founder of major U.S. AI developer Anthropic.

    In the text, Pope Francis defended his sharp, uncompromising language, noting: “The word is strong, I know, but deliberately chosen because this moment needs words capable of attracting attention.” He frames modern AI risks through a direct parallel to historical chattel slavery, arguing that the world is currently at the same kind of moral crossroads humanity faced centuries ago, when the exploitation of marginalized people was normalized and accepted by global institutions.

    He draws explicit connections between historical exploitation and emerging digital harms, warning that both the supply chains that build AI hardware and the real-world applications of advanced algorithms risk normalizing a new wave of dehumanizing exploitation. He also coined the term “digital colonialism,” linking the extractive abuses of 19th-century colonial rule to modern unregulated tech development that exploits vulnerable communities and nations.

    Alongside his warnings about AI-driven exploitation, Pope Leo issued a formal apology for the Church’s complicity in slavery. “It was impossible not to feel deep sorrow when contemplating the immense suffering and humiliation endured by so many,” he wrote, adding that he “sincerely asked for pardon” in the name of the entire Catholic Church. The apology is one of the most sweeping the Vatican has ever issued on the topic of historical slavery.

    The encyclical addresses multiple specific risks posed by advancing AI, going beyond exploitation to condemn the development of AI-augmented weaponry. “No algorithm can make war morally acceptable,” Pope Leo wrote, arguing that reducing human control over weapons not only fails to erase the “intrinsic inhumanity” of war, but also lowers the threshold for armed conflict by making violence less personal and turning civilian casualties into abstract data points. He explicitly warned against the rise of a global AI arms race.

    Pope Leo also criticized the use of AI in political systems, particularly the spread of AI-generated deepfake images and videos that manipulate public perception and expose audiences to biased, misleading content that erodes trust in democratic processes. Echoing past remarks, he compared the current need for AI guardrails to the protections that had to be put in place to protect human dignity during the Industrial Revolution, noting that both the Church and global society were far too slow to condemn the historical scourge of slavery — a mistake he argues must not be repeated with AI.

    In a special direct appeal to AI developers worldwide, the Pope emphasized that creators of the technology carry unique moral and spiritual responsibility: “Developers bear a particular ethical and spiritual responsibility, for every design choice reflects a vision of humanity.”

    Olah, the Anthropic co-founder, echoed the Pope’s framing during the post-presentation remarks, acknowledging that the questions raised by AI extend far beyond the technical research community. “Every AI lab including his operated ‘inside a set of incentives and constraints that can sometimes conflict with doing the right thing’,” Olah said, adding that “the questions raised by AI are bigger than the AI research community, not just in their implications, but also in their nature.”

    To advance the recommendations laid out in the encyclical, Pope Leo has convened a special commission to continue work on AI governance and ethical standards. Still, observers have raised questions about how much impact the papal message will have amid the breakneck pace of global AI development. Analysts point to the 2015 encyclical *Laudato Si* from the late Pope Francis, which called for urgent action on climate change, only for Pope Francis to publicly express disappointment at global inaction on the issue eight years later. Many wonder that, despite his passionate call for AI regulation today, Pope Leo may be forced to issue a similar frustrated warning in years to come.

  • Parts of Europe swelter in record May heat as deaths at amateur sports events spur warnings

    Parts of Europe swelter in record May heat as deaths at amateur sports events spur warnings

    An unseasonal, record-shattering heat wave has swept across Western Europe this May, triggering urgent public health warnings from national authorities following two confirmed fatalities linked to extreme heat during amateur sports competitions in France.

    The fatal incidents, both occurring on Sunday, have underscored the growing risks of out-of-season extreme heat as climate change amplifies the frequency of abnormal weather events. French Sports Minister Marina Ferrari released an official statement mourning the death of a 53-year-old male runner who collapsed from a cardiac arrest mid-race in Paris’ 20th arrondissement. First responders were unable to resuscitate the athlete, per local French newspaper Le Parisien. While a formal cause of death has not been finalized, Ferrari highlighted a probable connection to the extreme ongoing heat.

    “The events that took place during Sunday’s running races serve as a critical reminder that sporting activity in extreme heat demands the highest level of vigilance,” Ferrari wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter. “My deepest condolences go out to the family and loved ones of the runner who lost their life in Paris, as well as to all those who required emergency medical care during Sunday’s events.”

    A second heat-related fatality was reported in the southeastern French city of Lyon on Monday, per local outlet Actu Lyon. A female participant in another Sunday sporting event died after suffering severe heat stroke during competition.

    National meteorological service Meteo France confirmed that this May’s heat wave has broken long-standing monthly temperature records, with thermometers climbing above 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees Fahrenheit) across most of the country, with the unseasonal heat expected to persist through the rest of the week.

    Across the English Channel, the United Kingdom also joined the list of nations facing record-breaking early heat. London’s Heathrow Airport registered a high of 33.5 degrees Celsius (92.3 degrees Fahrenheit) on Monday, beating the country’s previous May temperature record of 32.8 degrees Celsius (91.4 Fahrenheit) — a mark that was first set in 1922 and later matched in 1944. The record high prompted national officials to declare an official heat wave across multiple regions of the UK, as both local residents and holiday travelers crowded into beaches, public parks and shaded spaces to find relief from the sweltering conditions.

    The U.K. Health Security Agency has issued its first amber heat health alert of 2024, warning the public of elevated risks of heat-related deaths, particularly for vulnerable groups including elderly people, during the hottest peak hours of the day.

    Climate scientists have repeatedly warned that extreme, often deadly weather events are growing more frequent as global average temperatures rise from anthropogenic climate change. Unprecedented heat surges that hit outside the typical summer season, and in regions unaccustomed to early extreme heat, are putting increasingly large numbers of people at risk of preventable heat-related illness and death.