博客

On Thursday, United States Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced plans to roll out what he calls the most sweeping economic sanctions ever imposed on Iran, doubling down on Washington’s campaign of maximum economic pressure against the Islamic Republic even as the ongoing conflict in the region fuels mounting global economic fallout.

Speaking in an interview with CNBC, Bessent framed the US pressure campaign as a coordinated one-two combination of a naval blockade and unprecedented punitive measures. “It is a one-two punch. We have the blockade [on Iran], and we are going to have the toughest sanctions in history,” he said. The Treasury chief added that the new restrictions would achieve Washington’s core goal, stating bluntly: “It is going to work in Iran, and we are going to collapse this regime.” Full details of the new sanctions package are set to be released publicly this coming Monday, according to Bessent.

Bessent’s hawkish comments came just 24 hours after former President Donald Trump, who currently leads the administration, framed the latest escalation as an “economic D-Day” for Iran. Trump issued a stark warning to third-party nations, stating that ANY country that permits its financial institutions, commercial enterprises, airports, or government agencies to provide any form of economic support to Iran will itself face severe economic retaliation.

The administration’s latest threats come amid a key strategic shift: Washington has so far failed to establish full military control over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint, and a brief ceasefire between US and Iranian forces has effectively collapsed entirely. The escalating tensions have already triggered renewed volatility in global energy markets, creating a major policy headache for the Trump administration as it works to bring down elevated borrowing costs amid persistent domestic inflation.

On Thursday alone, Brent Crude, the global benchmark for oil prices, climbed 2% to trade at $93.41 per barrel. Beyond energy pricing, the conflict has severely disrupted global maritime shipping, sending tanker charter rates soaring over the past month. BWET, an exchange-traded fund that tracks global shipping rate movements, has surged by 98% in just 30 days as shipping companies pass on elevated risk and security costs to customers.

When pressed to explain the sudden jump in oil prices, Bessent offered little clarity, telling reporters: “We have asymmetric information, and I’m not sure why oil has popped up on this.”

Tensions in key waterways remain high: Iranian forces have continued to target commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, while the Houthi movement in Yemen, a key Iranian ally, has enforced a maritime blockade of Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea. For Saudi Arabia, which depends on Red Sea shipping for a large share of its oil exports, the blockade has forced the kingdom to reroute crude shipments via a pipeline through Egypt to Mediterranean export terminals.

This is not the first round of harsh US sanctions on Iran: Washington already has extensive punitive measures in place that have severely weakened Iran’s economy. The two sides reached a temporary ceasefire extension in June that included a waiver allowing Iran to sell oil without facing new sanctions, but those restrictions were reimposed just one month later in July.

Oil exports by sea represent Iran’s single largest source of foreign revenue, and Trump has repeatedly claimed that the existing US-led naval blockade is “extremely effective” at cutting off that revenue. China stands as Iran’s most critical economic partner, purchasing more than 80% of Iran’s seaborne crude oil exports. Middle East policy analysts widely note that for the US to fully cut Iran off from global markets, Washington would have to impose secondary sanctions on Chinese entities that continue to purchase Iranian oil.

When asked whether the administration planned to target China with secondary sanctions, Bessent struck a confident tone, arguing that Beijing shares Washington’s interest in de-escalation. “We are confident that everyone wants the Strait reopened, and for energy prices to come back down,” he said. He went on to frame compliance with US policy as beneficial for China, adding: “Keep in mind that the Chinese get 50 percent [of their] energy from inside the Gulf. So it would do them a big service to get with the programme.”

The United Arab Emirates, a key Gulf ally of the United States that has long served as a major financial hub for Iranian trade, announced this week that it would suspend all commercial and financial transactions with Iran. The policy shift came shortly after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio held a high-level phone call with UAE National Security Advisor Tahnoon bin Zayed al-Nahyan this week.

On a frigid winter morning years ago, officers from London’s Metropolitan Police arrived at the West London home of Anas Altikriti, a veteran Iraqi-born British anti-war and pro-reform activist. Altikriti was traveling abroad at the time, and only learned of the visit when one of his sons called to alert him that police were searching for him. The seasoned political activist, confused by the unexpected visit, initially brushed off the news—until officers returned two days later, this time with far more insistence.

When Altikriti followed up and called the police back, he received a chilling revelation: the force had issued him an Osman Notice, a formal alert to individuals when authorities judge their life is at imminent risk. Shaken by the news, he pressed for critical details: should he move his family to safety? Was he facing a targeted plot? Who was behind the threat? To every question, police had no answer. They told Altikriti they could share no further information, leaving him only with an ominous, unsubstantiated warning and no official protection.

It would take a full decade for Altikriti to uncover the full scope of what was happening. A British news team showed him a leaked dossier that laid bare a prolonged, granular foreign intelligence surveillance operation tracking his every movement. The files included photographs of his London home, his personal vehicle, and detailed internal WhatsApp messages from the surveillance team documenting his daily routine: from his daily commutes and school runs with his children to his scheduled lectures at a local mosque. The foreign government behind the operation, the documents confirmed, was the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

For Altikriti, the UAE’s hostility toward him came as no surprise. A prominent public voice who founded the London-based Cordoba Foundation think tank, formerly led the Muslim Association of Britain, and served as a senior official with the Muslim Council of Britain, Altikriti has long been an outspoken critic of authoritarian rule across the Gulf region. He publicly supported the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings, condemned autocratic governance in Gulf states, and repeatedly advocated for imprisoned Emirati political reformers, stoking official anger in Abu Dhabi.

While suspicion of UAE interest had lingered for years, seeing concrete evidence of a sustained surveillance operation on British soil hit Altikriti with unexpected force, he told Middle East Eye in an interview. As the initial shock faded, one overriding question pushed to the forefront of his concerns: what did British authorities know about this operation?

Altikriti says he has no trouble accepting that the UAE would target him for his political views. What he cannot reconcile is how a foreign government could run an extensive surveillance campaign inside the United Kingdom without British knowledge—or with British knowledge that was kept hidden from him. “If they knew, why is it that they didn’t tell me or at least warn me or protect me?” he asked. “Or if they didn’t know, that in itself would be a catastrophe in its own right.”

As a British citizen who has never been charged with a crime, questioned by authorities, or broken UK law, Altikriti says he holds a clear expectation that the British state will protect his basic rights. “I expect that my civil liberties would be protected, my freedom would be guaranteed,” he said. That core freedom, he argues, includes the right to criticize foreign governments and voice political opinions without being targeted by a foreign power on UK soil. “I would be guaranteed safety, at least, if nothing else, to air my views, to criticize whomever I wish to criticize whilst constantly throughout my entire life abiding by the law.”

The alleged surveillance, he argues, raises far broader questions about the unregulated scope of foreign influence in British public life. “A rogue, dictatorial, authoritarian regime such as the United Arab Emirates could actually reach into our society and infringe upon the civil liberties and freedoms and rights of citizens as well as organisations,” he said. Altikriti notes that the UAE has also targeted other British organizations, including his own Cordoba Foundation, through defamation and coordinated attacks, meaning his experience is not an isolated incident. The core systemic question, he says, is whether foreign governments can freely target British citizens and groups inside the UK—and what accountability the British state will demand in response.

Looking back to the 2010s Osman Notice he received, Altikriti says the vague, incomplete warning was deeply inadequate, particularly when he was raising two young children at the time. Police told him his life was at risk, but offered zero details about the source of the threat or what precautions he could take to stay safe. “Besides just handing me this Osman notice, as though this is a box that we’ve ticked, nothing whatsoever,” he said. That experience has gained new gravity in light of the leaked surveillance documents, he says, noting it is now clear British police were aware some threat was active. If the threat was severe enough to issue an Osman Notice, he argues, it is unacceptable that he was given no further context or protection. “The police not telling me that there is an actual threat, there is someone who is actually plotting against my life, I think is just absolutely unbelievable.”

Altikriti says he has never doubted why he drew the UAE’s attention: his long-held political views put him in direct conflict with the Gulf state’s ruling leadership. When the Arab Spring swept the Middle East and North Africa in 2011, Altikriti emerged as a high-profile supporter of pro-democracy movements across Egypt, Tunisia and other regional states, a stance that represented a direct threat to the political standing of Gulf monarchies including the UAE. “They found that extremely threatening to their own standing,” he said. The UAE made its displeasure clear in the years that followed, withdrawing invitations for Altikriti to visit and having embassy officials warn him against returning to the country. “So the fact that I’m in their bad books is of no surprise to me.”

What did shock him, he says, was the extreme extent of the UAE’s alleged actions on UK soil. For more than a decade, dozens of Emirati pro-democracy reformers have remained imprisoned in the UAE, and Altikriti’s public advocacy for their freedom further angered Abu Dhabi. “The fact that I have stood by them, the fact that I’ve spoken up for them as much as I can has angered the United Arab Emirates,” he said. “And apparently they want to silence me at any particular cost.”

Altikriti’s concerns ultimately circle back to the deep existing alliance between the UK and the UAE. The two countries maintain extensive economic, political and security ties, and the UAE has built a substantial public and economic footprint across the UK, with major investments in British football clubs, major sporting events, cultural institutions, financial markets and banking. Altikriti argues the question is not whether the UK should cut ties entirely with the UAE, but whether Britain should set clear boundaries for that relationship that protect the rights of its own citizens.

“The fact that the United Arab Emirates is one of our strongest allies is unbecoming of our own government, of our own society,” he said. He argues that the UK’s close relationship with Abu Dhabi should not come at the cost of British citizens’ fundamental rights. “If the government truly believes in freedom and civil liberties and human rights and the like, then they should take a different stand.”

That different stand, he says, must start with a full public investigation—one that examines not just the specific surveillance operation targeting him, but the full extent of UAE influence over British politics and foreign policy. Altikriti acknowledges his own experience is minor when compared to far more severe human rights abuses the UAE has been accused of committing against dissidents at home and abroad. “My story… pales in comparison to the crimes committed by the UAE regime,” he said. But that, he insists, is no reason to dismiss what happened on UK soil; it is all the more reason to examine the case closely.

Altikriti says he hopes UK political leadership will confront the issue head-on, and he has specifically called on Prime Minister Keir Starmer to challenge the status quo of the bilateral relationship. “We could be friends,” Altikriti said. “But friends do not come without conditions.” Those conditions, he argues, are straightforward: the UAE must respect British citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms, and end all covert interference in British domestic life.

For years, claims that the UAE targeted Altikriti could be dismissed or debunked, he says. But the leaked documents, which include direct photographs, internal correspondence, and surveillance team communications, have proven the operation was real. The reason for the targeting is no longer a mystery; Altikriti already understands why he was in the UAE’s crosshairs. The only question that remains unanswered is what the British government knew—and what it will do now. “Either they support the United Arab Emirates in its dictatorial ways, and as such they should come forth and say so,” he said. “Or if they truly believe in freedom and civil liberties and human rights and the like, then they should take a different stand.”

The United Kingdom has issued a sharp rebuke of extreme, violence-inciting comments from Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, labeling his calls for the nightly targeted killing of 30 to 40 Palestinians in Gaza as “abhorrent” and “dehumanizing” in an exclusive statement to independent news outlet Middle East Eye (MEE).

In public remarks made earlier this week, Ben Gvir not only advocated for mass nightly assassinations in Gaza, he expanded the scope of his call to include Palestinians who do not pose an immediate security threat. “There are people there who are not worthy of life. They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people,” the far-right Israeli cabinet minister added. He also openly boasted about constructing a purpose-built facility to execute Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, claims MEE brought to the attention of the British Foreign Office for comment.

A senior Foreign Office spokesperson responded to MEE’s inquiry making clear that the UK views language that dehumanizes an entire people and open calls for violence from a sitting Israeli government minister as completely unacceptable. “These remarks… serve only to further inflame an already catastrophic situation,” the spokesperson added. The UK is calling on the Israeli government to take formal action against ministers who use rhetoric that fuels intercommunal violence, and to crack down on rising violence perpetrated by Israeli settlers against Palestinian communities in the occupied territories.

This is not the first time Ben Gvir has faced British repercussions for his anti-Palestinian incitement: he is already one of two sitting Israeli cabinet ministers, alongside far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, to be sanctioned by the UK for inciting violence against Palestinians. The spokesperson reaffirmed the UK’s ongoing commitment to working toward a long-term sustainable peace between Israelis and Palestinians, including an urgent end to the widespread humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza and equal security for all people living in the region.

The condemnation of Ben Gvir comes as the UK government prepares to roll out a package of new policy measures targeting Israeli settlement activity in September, MEE has previously reported. Senior UK officials, particularly Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, are pushing for stronger punitive action, and Miliband has held extensive consultations with civil society groups to shape the upcoming policies. One of the most anticipated measures is a ban on imports of goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements built on occupied Palestinian land.

Miliband publicly confirmed this week that the UK will announce formal measures against Israel over its latest settlement expansion plan in the E1 corridor, a strategically sensitive area east of Jerusalem that, if fully developed, would cut the occupied West Bank geographically in half and make the creation of a contiguous, independent Palestinian state impossible.

On Tuesday, Israeli authorities opened public tenders for the construction of 1,234 new settlement housing units in the southern portion of the E1 plan, moving one of the most controversial and long-delayed settlement projects out of the planning phase and into active implementation. Miliband said he directly conveyed to Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar that the Israeli government must immediately halt the E1 development, withdraw the construction tender, and end all settlement expansion across the occupied West Bank.

“The impact of settler violence and terrorism has been catastrophic for Palestinian communities. Settlement expansion and attempts to create irreversible divisions on the ground threaten peace, security and the prospects for a viable Palestinian state,” Miliband said.

In a dramatic reversal of its previous Middle East foreign policy, Colombia’s new far-right administration has implemented a series of swift, pro-Israel policy changes headed by a mutual visa waiver agreement that will take effect for citizens of both nations starting September 1. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs made the announcement public this Thursday, following high-level discussions between Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and Colombian Foreign Minister Omar Bula Escobar.

The visa liberalization deal comes at a moment when Israeli travelers, including large numbers of active-duty Israeli soldiers, are facing growing international scrutiny and public backlash across much of the globe over Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza and its long-standing apartheid regime in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. The agreement removes a key barrier for Israeli visitors seeking entry to Colombia, opening the South American nation to far more Israeli tourism than previous policies allowed.

This visa waiver is just the latest step in President Abelardo de la Espriella’s systematic rollback of the independent foreign policy forged by his predecessor, Gustavo Petro. Under Petro’s leadership, Colombia made international headlines in May 2024 when it severed full diplomatic relations with Israel, with Petro explicitly labeling Israel’s military operation in Gaza as both a genocide and a crime against humanity. Petro’s administration also threw its full support behind international legal efforts to hold Israeli leadership accountable for actions in Gaza, including the ongoing genocide case brought before the International Court of Justice. Currently, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also faces an active arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity stemming from the Gaza conflict.

Since de la Espriella took office on August 7, his government has moved at breakneck speed to reverse every pillar of Petro’s Middle East policy. As early as July, before he formally assumed office, Sa’ar and Bula Escobar met in Washington D.C. to agree on a full roadmap to restore full diplomatic and economic ties, exchange ambassadorial appointments, and expand cross-border cooperation across multiple sectors. The new Colombian administration has also publicly announced plans to open a full Colombian embassy in Jerusalem, a move that deviates from the long-standing international norm of locating embassies in Tel Aviv ahead of a final negotiated resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In a further break with previous policy, Bogota has officially recognized Israel’s claim of sovereignty over the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, making Colombia only the second country in the world after the United States to endorse Israel’s 1981 annexation of the territory. Israel seized the majority of the Golan Heights from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War, and formally annexed the region 14 years later. The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 497 immediately after the annexation, which explicitly declared the move null and void and without any binding international legal effect, a ruling that has been reaffirmed by the global community repeatedly in the decades since.

Colombia has also shifted its position on another long-running territorial dispute, recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over the disputed territory of Western Sahara. This move abandons Petro’s administration’s previous support for the right to self-determination of the Sahrawi people, and aligns Colombian foreign policy with shared priorities of both Israel and the United States.

Taken together, the visa waiver agreement, the plan for a Jerusalem embassy, and the recognition of Israeli and Moroccan territorial annexations add up to a complete foreign policy realignment that has unfolded in less than two weeks. These rapid policy changes have already repositioned Colombia as one of Israel’s closest political allies in Latin America, even as Israel continues its military offensive in Gaza and pushes forward with the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.

This report was originally published by Middle East Eye, an outlet that provides independent, in-depth coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and surrounding regions.

ISLAMABAD – In a development tied to the legal and medical status of imprisoned former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, a senior cabinet official confirmed Thursday that the ruling government stands ready to comply with a Supreme Court order mandating a formal medical evaluation for the jailed ex-leader, and is open to moving Khan to a private medical facility or even abroad for treatment if sufficient care cannot be provided through public government institutions. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Tariq Fazal Chaudhry outlined the government’s position, noting that officials had submitted a request to the Supreme Court seeking clarification on whether the medical accommodations granted to Khan would apply exclusively to the former prime minister, or if similar provisions could be extended to other incarcerated individuals across the country. Chaudhry also emphasized in a post on the social platform X that the government’s clarification request was not an act of defiance or an attempt to delay the court’s order, and that the administration remained committed to full compliance with the ruling. The minister’s public statement came just hours after security forces were reinforced at a major Islamabad hospital, as political observers and media outlets anticipated that Khan would be transferred to the facility imminently. Dozens of reporters have gathered at the hospital site, waiting to capture visual footage of the former leader, who has not made any public appearance since he was first imprisoned on corruption charges in 2023. This latest exchange between the government and the Supreme Court follows a request from Pakistani authorities Wednesday to review or fully withdraw the court’s order requiring Khan to undergo a medical examination at a private hospital selected by Khan himself. The Supreme Court rejected the government’s request on procedural technical grounds, instructing officials to complete all required formal documentation before resubmitting any application. Per the terms of the original Supreme Court ruling, Khan must be transported to the designated hospital by midnight Thursday, where a multi-doctor medical board that includes Khan’s own personal physician will conduct the evaluation. The Pakistani government’s longstanding policy holds that incarcerated people receive routine medical care directly within prison facilities, and are only transferred to public government-run hospitals when their condition requires more advanced intervention. Public concerns about Khan’s overall health first surged in late January, when members of his family announced that he had lost approximately 85% of his vision in his right eye. The claim was immediately disputed by government officials, who later released a statement asserting that Khan had recovered roughly 70% of the vision in the affected eye and that his medical status was steadily improving. A former international cricket star who pivoted to national politics, Khan was removed from office via a parliamentary no-confidence vote in April 2022. He has remained behind bars since 2023 after being convicted on multiple corruption-related charges stemming from investigations launched following his ouster.