作者： admin

In a sharp escalation of tensions between the United States and Iran that has sent ripples across global maritime security, three Indian crew members have been confirmed dead following a U.S. military strike on a Palau-flagged oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman, India’s federal shipping minister announced Thursday.

The attack on the MT Settebello unfolded late Tuesday, after U.S. Central Command (Centcom) accused the vessel of repeatedly ignoring instructions from American forces while violating Washington’s ongoing blockade on Iranian ports by carrying Iranian crude oil. Of the 24 Indian nationals on board the tanker, 21 crew members have been pulled to safety, but three initially reported missing were confirmed dead after search teams recovered and identified their remains, said Union Minister Sarbananda Sonowal.

Calling the deaths a devastating loss for India’s broader maritime community, Sonowal confirmed that the Modi administration is extending full support to the bereaved families of the deceased. “I have directed officials to prioritize immediate repatriation of the rescued crew and the swift return of the mortal remains of the deceased so their final rites can be carried out,” the minister added. In direct response to the fatal strike, New Delhi summoned the deputy chief of the U.S. mission in India to register its objection.

This attack marks the third U.S. strike on commercial vessels off the Omani coast in less than a week, as Washington ramps up enforcement of its blockade of Iranian maritime trade. Just one day before the strike on the MT Settebello, U.S. forces targeted another Palau-flagged tanker with an Indian crew, the Marivex, in the same region, also citing non-compliance with U.S. instructions. All 24 crew members of that vessel were rescued by Omani military forces, and all Indian personnel were confirmed unharmed. On Thursday, India confirmed a third suspected U.S. strike hit the asphalt tanker Jalveer off Oman’s coast; the Royal Navy of Oman is coordinating the evacuation of all crew to the port of Shinas, with no reports of Indian casualties as of Thursday evening.

The surge in U.S. maritime operations comes against a backdrop of rapidly escalating cross-border hostilities between Washington and Tehran, which reignited earlier this week following the downing of a U.S. military helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz—a critical global chokepoint through which 20 percent of the world’s crude oil and 20 percent of its liquefied natural gas transit daily. Since the outbreak of the latest conflict in late February, Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, prompting the U.S. to impose a full naval blockade on Iranian ports that launched on April 13. Centcom reported Wednesday that since the blockade began, U.S. forces have disabled eight non-compliant vessels, redirected 134 compliant ships, and allowed 42 vessels carrying humanitarian aid to pass through the restricted area.

In the wake of the helicopter downing, U.S. President Donald Trump launched new strikes on Iranian military infrastructure across the country overnight Wednesday into Thursday, with Iranian media reporting explosions in key areas including Bandar Abbas, Qeshm, and Minab near the Strait of Hormuz, as well as multiple locations near Tehran. Iranian media reported at least three people were wounded in Tehran province. Trump defended the strikes Wednesday, accusing Tehran of dragging out ceasefire negotiations and claiming Iran had “played us for suckers,” saying the country “will have to pay the price.”

Iran’s foreign ministry issued a sharp condemnation of the U.S. strikes Thursday, saying the attacks had rendered the nearly two-month-old ceasefire “practically meaningless” and holding Washington fully responsible for any “extremely serious consequences” of the escalation. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) retaliated within hours, launching strikes on U.S.-linked military targets in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Jordan, extending the cycle of violence across the Middle East.

On September 1, 2025, a low-profile administrative ruling from the financial regulator of one of Europe’s smallest nations ignited an escalating legal and political firestorm that continues to gain momentum across the continent. The Luxembourg Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) greenlit a prospectus for Israel’s diaspora bond program, clearing the way for the sale of “Israel Bonds” to retail investors throughout the entire European Union.

This approval came after the program was forced to relocate its regulatory base from Ireland, where sustained cross-party and civil society pressure – rooted in accusations that the bonds fund Israeli military operations in Gaza – pushed the US-based issuer, the Development Corporation for Israel (DCI), to seek a new host within the bloc. Under existing EU financial rules, issuers are permitted to request that prospectus approval authority be transferred to the financial regulator of another member state, a mechanism DCI exploited after departing Ireland. What followed this transfer has been widely described as procedurally irregular: the CSSF opted not to consult Luxembourg’s Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs before signing off on the controversial prospectus, even amid fierce global political backlash against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

Addressing an Amnesty International-organized conference in Luxembourg last May 2026 focused on the grand duchy’s potential legal liability, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese issued a scathing rebuke of the approval. “The sale of these bonds is illegal under international law because it goes directly to funding the genocide,” Albanese stated. “International law demands that all financial actors must abstain from direct links to human rights crimes. Those who authorized the bond sale are complicit. This is morally and legally indefensible.”

To contextualize the growing outcry, it is critical to distinguish DCI’s Israel Bonds from standard Israeli sovereign debt. Unlike conventional government bonds sold almost exclusively to large institutional investors, Israel Bonds are marketed directly to retail buyers, religious institutions, and municipal public funds, often leveraging transnational diaspora networks and appeals to political solidarity. DCI’s own marketing material, released around the time of the CSSF approval, made no attempt to obscure the bonds’ core purpose: funding Israel’s wartime state budget. According to DCI’s official website and Instagram account, the program has raised $7.7 billion for the Israeli government since the October 7, 2023 attacks.

All proceeds flow into Israel’s general treasury with no spending restrictions at a time when the country’s military spending has surged from roughly 20% to more than 30% of total government expenditure. Unlike typical war-time sovereign debt, which demands high risk premiums from investors, Israel Bonds carry a yield of only around 4%, despite Israel running a fiscal deficit equal to nearly 7% of its GDP. As a detailed new report prepared by a multi-disciplinary team of legal scholars, economists, and financial regulation experts explains, this gap is filled by what the authors term a “patriotic premium”: buyers motivated by solidarity rather than rigorous financial analysis accept below-market returns, while remaining largely unaware of the full legal and financial risks they are taking on.

The report, presented at the same Amnesty conference where Albanese spoke, outlines severe legal and reputational risks for Luxembourg, as well as unaddressed dangers for retail investors. Its legal argument is anchored in three 2024 provisional measures orders from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which have all confirmed the plausibility of claims that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, alongside the ICJ’s July 2024 advisory opinion that requires all UN member states to refrain from providing assistance to Israel’s unlawful occupation of Palestinian territory.

“The processing of Israel Bonds in EU markets is undeniably a grave violation of international law,” Shahd Hammouri of Law for Palestine, a keynote speaker at the conference, told Middle East Eye. “This act cannot be justified by appeals to financial or bureaucratic proceduralism.” Hammouri emphasized that Luxembourg’s regulator already held discretionary authority under EU prospectus rules to reject approval on public interest and peace and security grounds, and its failure to exercise that power amid clear risks of complicity in international crimes constitutes a direct breach of legal duty. She went further, noting that decision-makers who approved the prospectus could even face personal criminal liability for aiding and abetting acts of genocide.

The report draws a striking historical parallel to Luxembourg’s own financial history: between 1967 and 1975, Luxembourg’s Kredietbank issued approximately $625 million in loans to apartheid South Africa, and European loans to the apartheid regime were processed through the Luxembourg Stock Exchange before global pressure eventually led to widespread sanctions. Today, the report notes, the international legal framework binding Luxembourg is far stronger, anchored in binding ICJ rulings rather than incremental political pressure.

The contradiction at the heart of this controversy is amplified by a key timeline detail: Luxembourg formally recognized the State of Palestine on September 22, 2025, just three weeks after the CSSF approved the Israel Bonds prospectus.

The May 2026 Amnesty conference, which gathered more than 200 attendees including legal experts, activists, and parliamentarians from across Europe, produced five concrete actionable demands to be implemented over the next 6 to 12 months, with the most urgent deadline falling this coming September, when the annual prospectus renewal is due. Irish Senator Alice-Mary Higgins, who helped lead the campaign that forced the bond program out of Ireland, stressed that neither Ireland nor Luxembourg should facilitate the upcoming renewal. “If no EU member state agrees to approve the prospectus after Luxembourg rejects renewal, these bonds will effectively be barred from the entire European single market,” she explained. Higgins also pushed back against the common government tactic of hiding behind regulatory independence, arguing that “claims that the government cannot intervene because regulators are independent are not an acceptable excuse.”

Franz Fayot, a Luxembourgish MP from the centre-left LSAP party, told the conference that his team has commissioned two independent legal opinions – one from the University of Luxembourg and one from Utrecht University in the Netherlands – both of which concluded that Israel’s violations of international law are undisputed, and that Luxembourg cannot remain inactive. “It is very clear that Luxembourg still has the power to act, through economic sanctions and through regulation of its financial sector, which is our biggest leverage,” Fayot said. He added that an upcoming cross-party parliamentary debate organized with the Greens and Left party will produce concrete policy proposals, including motions and potential draft legislation to hold the current government accountable.

To date, Luxembourg’s centre-right coalition government has responded to mounting pressure with deliberate evasion. When questioned in parliament in late May 2026, ministers refused to comment on whether the CSSF’s approval triggered Luxembourg’s international legal responsibility, repeatedly citing the regulator’s statutory independence. When asked whether the government would intervene to block a renewal, ministers repeated the same position: the CSSF acts with full autonomy, and the executive cannot interfere with its decision-making. This same line was repeated by officials during street protests organized by the newly launched Stop Israel Bonds campaign outside the finance ministry, and in earlier press briefings in early 2026.

The CSSF for its part has insisted its role is purely procedural: it only assesses whether the information contained in the prospectus is complete, consistent, and comprehensible, and that approval does not constitute an endorsement of the economic merits of the bonds or the solvency of the issuer. Critics argue this technicalist framing is legally untenable. “Hiding behind procedural technicality does not erase responsibility,” Anas Obeidat, a Luxembourg-based activist and co-author of the report, told Middle East Eye. “Legal and financial distancing mechanisms cannot be used as a shield against accountability for facilitating the financing of war crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.”

The controversy also carries uncomfortable implications for Luxembourg’s broader financial branding. The small country has invested heavily in positioning itself as Europe’s leading hub for sustainable finance and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investment. While Norway’s massive sovereign wealth fund – a global benchmark for ESG investing – has already divested from companies linked to Israel’s unlawful occupation, alongside a growing number of other European financial institutions, Luxembourg’s own public pension fund remains invested in multiple companies listed on a UN database of businesses supporting Israeli settlements. The report notes that the CSSF’s approval of Israel Bonds places Luxembourg’s carefully cultivated ESG reputation under significant reputational and political strain.

A lawsuit against the CSSF is already being prepared in Luxembourg, challenging the regulator’s failure to force adequate disclosure of risks to investors, mirroring a similar case already filed against the Central Bank of Ireland before the program’s transfer. The cross-border Stop Israel Bonds campaign, launched at the May conference, is coordinating civil society pressure across Luxembourg, Ireland, and the broader EU to prevent the program from simply relocating to Germany or another willing host if Luxembourg rejects renewal.

With the September 2026 renewal deadline fast approaching, the core question remains: will Luxembourg’s government continue to insist its hands are tied by regulatory independence, or will pressure from its own parliament, civil society, and international legal experts force a policy shift before the prospectus comes up for a new vote. As Martina Patone, another co-author of the report, put it: “The findings in this report are not unknown to European governments. But putting them on the record reminds future generations of what was done, and hopefully holds accountable those who chose to look away in the present.”

On the eve of the October 2023 outbreak of war in Gaza, Palestinian mother Samar Hammad welcomed her youngest daughter into the world. She named the baby Nour – Arabic for “light” – a name filled with quiet hope for a new life. What Hammad could never have foreseen in that moment was that just hours after her daughter’s birth, this tiny child would be thrown into a fight for survival, caught in the collapse of Gaza’s healthcare system under Israeli military advance.

Nour was born perfectly healthy, Hammad recalled in an interview with Middle East Eye from her displacement tent in central Gaza City. Barely hours after the new mother and baby returned home, Israeli bombardment hit near their neighborhood, damaging a nearby building. Within a day, Nour began slipping into unconsciousness. With her condition worsening by the minute, Hammad rushed the newborn to al-Nasr Children’s Hospital in Gaza City. Doctors quickly delivered a grim diagnosis: Nour was suffering life-threatening complications from inhaling toxic gases released by the nearby bombing, and she was dying.

As Israeli forces pushed deeper into Gaza, intense fighting closed in around al-Nasr, one of the first medical facilities targeted by the Israeli military. For more than a month, Nour lay in a hospital incubator, repeatedly losing oxygen as constant shelling cut off power and supplies to the facility. “The shelling was relentless,” Hammad said. “Nour was in an incubator with several other newborns. She repeatedly lost oxygen and had to be resuscitated.” At one point, doctors told Hammad there was nothing more they could do – the life support machines keeping Nour alive were only postponing the unavoidable.

In her desperation, Hammad begged staff to let her hold and breastfeed her dying daughter. After repeated requests, the medical team relented. Within minutes of being held in her mother’s arms, Nour’s vital signs began to improve. “The machines started showing a response,” Hammad said. “The doctors were shocked. They told me it was like a miracle.”

As Israeli forces surrounded the hospital, staff ordered all parents of incubator newborns to evacuate, assuring them their infants would remain protected. Every other mother fled south, leaving their babies behind. But Hammad refused. “I told the doctors I couldn’t leave my daughter behind,” she said. After more urgent pleas, doctors agreed to release Nour into Hammad’s care, warning that Israeli troops were advancing rapidly and the choice put both their lives at risk. “They gave her to me at my own responsibility,” Hammad recalled. “I carried her and walked out.” She fled al-Nasr on 9 November 2023.

Later that same day, Israeli forces struck the hospital and cut off oxygen to the neonatal intensive care unit. The following day, all staff were ordered to evacuate, forcing them to abandon non-transferable infants who relied on incubators and life support to survive. Israeli troops occupied the hospital for roughly three weeks. When medical workers returned during a temporary ceasefire on 28 November, they found four incubator babies dead. Nour was the only known survivor from the neonatal ward – saved by her mother’s refusal to leave her behind.

But survival only marked the start of a new, endless ordeal for Hammad and Nour. After escaping al-Nasr, Hammad carried her limp newborn from one damaged medical facility to the next seeking care, before becoming trapped in a school-turned-shelter for displaced people amid intensifying fighting. “She cried constantly,” Hammad said. “People would tell me to make her stop because the tanks were surrounding us, and they were afraid soldiers would hear her.”

Eventually, the pair reached al-Ahli Arab Hospital (commonly called Baptist Hospital), where a CT scan revealed Nour had developed brain calcification. Doctors told Hammad the condition was most likely caused by inhalation of phosphorus gas from the bombardment, and that Nour would require ongoing, intensive physiotherapy to recover. For six months, Hammad brought Nour for daily treatment at Gaza City’s al-Wafa Hospital, clinging to the hope that therapy would reverse the damage.

Securing medical care was only one layer of the daily struggle. Like tens of thousands of Gaza families trapped under siege, Hammad faced the constant threat of hunger and thirst. After the 7 October 2023 attacks, then-Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant announced a “complete siege” of Gaza, promising “no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel” would enter the enclave. While Gaza had been under an Israeli blockade since 2007, this total restriction cut off all essential supplies, triggering catastrophic shortages that pushed the region’s already crumbling healthcare system to total collapse and worsened an already catastrophic humanitarian crisis. Multiple human rights organizations have concluded that Israel has used mass starvation as a weapon of war and a tool of forced displacement, designed to push civilians out of northern Gaza. By late 2025, the Palestinian Ministry of Health recorded at least 453 Palestinian deaths from severe malnutrition in Gaza – 150 of them children.

“I would walk for hours, sometimes up to seven hours every day, searching for water,” Hammad said. On one of these treks, carrying an empty bottle across bombed-out streets, an elderly displaced man saw her desperation. Three hours later, he found her again and secretly filled her bottle from his own family’s limited reserve. “Water was extremely scarce and almost unavailable; the man had to hide the water bottle in his clothes to secretly fill it,” Hammad said. “As soon as I got the water, I prepared her milk. She drank it and finally fell asleep after hours of crying and inability to sleep.”

Despite the constant danger and deprivation, Hammad refused to flee south. Reports of systematic abuse against displaced Palestinians at Israeli military checkpoints left her too terrified to attempt the journey, and she feared Nour’s fragile health would not survive the trip. Slowly, as Nour began to move her limbs and grasp small objects, Hammad allowed herself a sliver of hope. “She was improving, but the doctors told me she needed to be urgently evacuated for treatment abroad, which was nearly impossible at the time,” she said.

In December 2024, Hammad heard that a respected paediatrician at northern Gaza’s Kamal Adwan Hospital might be able to help Nour. She risked her life to travel to the facility, only to find the doctor was overwhelmed by a flood of injured patients. Staff told her to return two days later for an appointment – but when she came back, Israeli forces had stormed the hospital and detained the doctor, Dr Hussam Abu Safiya. According to his legal team, Abu Safiya has been subjected to repeated torture in detention, lost 40 kilograms, suffered severe health decline, and has recently been moved to solitary confinement.

Hammad has continued to fight to secure Nour a spot for evacuation for specialist treatment abroad, but Israel’s strict blockade keeps almost all Palestinians trapped in Gaza. Nour was officially approved for medical transfer to Italy, but like tens of thousands of other critically ill Gaza patients, she has spent months stuck on a waiting list. The Palestinian Ministry of Health reports that at least 17,757 people requiring urgent life-saving care abroad have received official medical referrals, including roughly 4,000 children. Severe Israeli restrictions mean the vast majority will never leave.

Though Israel agreed to a limited reopening of the Rafah crossing with Egypt in February 2026, allowing up to 50 patients per day to exit Gaza, only 1,204 patients had been evacuated through Rafah and the Kerem Shalom crossing by 20 May. After more than two and a half years of fighting for Nour’s life, Hammad says her daughter’s future now hinges on a decision she can never control.

“I have managed to rescue Nour from imminent death in the incubator, found water and milk for her during the harshest times, and took her to hospitals for physiotherapy throughout two years of genocide,” Hammad said. “Now her health is hanging on an Israeli permit that would determine whether she can improve or remain disabled for the rest of her life.”

This week, the United States has launched a new wave of airstrikes targeting Iranian assets, a sharp escalation of military pressure that comes as former President Donald Trump has lost patience with months of stalled negotiations to end the broader Middle East conflict. The move marks a stark shift from the fragile ceasefire that had held between Washington and Tehran since early April, a truce both sides had initially signaled they wanted to preserve even as talks dragged on.

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth left little room for ambiguity following the strikes, warning that additional military action would continue if peace negotiations remain deadlocked. “If we need to negotiate with bombs, we’ll negotiate with bombs,” he stated. The airstrikes were launched in retaliation for the downing of a US helicopter by Iranian forces, an incident that followed days of cross-border missile exchanges between Iran and Israel that had already tested the truce.

Even as military tensions spike, Trump continues to publicly insist that a comprehensive peace deal is imminent. To understand the sudden breakdown of the calm that held for months, analysts have put forward several overlapping explanations for the current escalation.

The most widely cited framework is the strategic doctrine of “escalate to deescalate”, a common tactic in interstate conflict where a power ramps up military force to intimidate the opposing side into making concessions. Both Washington and Tehran have leaned into this approach, seeking to demonstrate their willingness to use force to push the other side to accept an agreement aligned with their core non-negotiable interests.

To date, however, the two sides remain fundamentally at odds on the issues that matter most. The United States is demanding that Iran fully capitulate on its nuclear program, agreeing to dismantle all nuclear infrastructure and end all uranium enrichment activities, and reopen the Strait of Hormuz – a critical global chokepoint for energy trade – to unconstrained commercial shipping. For its part, Iran is demanding the immediate release of billions of dollars in frozen sovereign assets and a permanent ceasefire between Israel and the Iran-aligned militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon.

With talks stuck in this stalemate, both sides see limited downside in demonstrating their willingness to escalate, even as neither seeks to collapse the ceasefire entirely and trigger a return to full-scale war. Yet this mutual pressure tactic carries major risks: when both sides pursue the same strategy simultaneously, it can easily lead to an uncontrollable “escalation trap”, where each side is forced to ramp up attacks to avoid appearing weak, leaving no path to de-escalation.

A second, alternate explanation frames the current escalation as an unintended consequence of the tense, militarized status quo that has prevailed under the ceasefire, particularly the ongoing live military blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. It remains unclear to this day whether the Iranian drone that downed the US helicopter – the incident that directly triggered the US airstrikes – was a deliberate act of aggression or an accidental mistake amid heightened military alertness.

Compounding these dynamics is the deeper regional complexity that the Trump administration has largely failed to account for: this is not merely a bilateral conflict between the US and Iran. Israel is currently conducting a large-scale military offensive against Hezbollah, Iran’s key regional ally, in southern Lebanon, an operation that has already upended the existing geopolitical order and put enormous strain on the US-Iran truce.

For both Israel and Iran, the conflict is not a temporary dispute over terms of a peace deal – it is an existential struggle that predates the current war by decades. Iran’s Islamic regime has long rejected Israel’s legitimacy and place in the Middle East, while successive Israeli governments have repeatedly identified a nuclear-armed Iran as the single greatest threat to Israeli national survival. Against this backdrop, Iran cannot be expected to respect a ceasefire with the US while Israel wages war on its closest ally; Tehran views itself and Hezbollah as part of a single unified front in this regional struggle.

On the Israeli side, the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israeli territory triggered a fundamental shift in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s regional strategy. Netanyahu’s far-right government has since adopted an aggressive expansionist military doctrine, seeking to seize territory in neighboring Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza to establish permanent security buffer zones, and has vowed to eliminate all threats posed by Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

This approach faces a fundamental structural flaw: non-state militant groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Yemeni Houthis cannot be eliminated through conventional military force. These organizations are deeply embedded within civilian populations, able to disperse, regroup, and reemerge months or even years after major military offensives. As a result, even with massive military firepower that has left wide swathes of Gaza and southern Lebanon in ruins, Israel has not come close to eliminating Hamas or Hezbollah, and the fighting will continue.

Trump’s approach to Middle East diplomacy has centered heavily on bilateral, personal diplomacy between leaders, and has consistently shown little patience for unpacking the deeply rooted ideological and political drivers that motivate the multiple actors involved in this layered conflict. This oversimplification has left the administration unprepared for the spillover from Israel’s campaign in Lebanon that is now unraveling the ceasefire.

Looking ahead, the future of the truce depends heavily on how Trump defines a ceasefire itself. During a press conference this week, Trump offered a revealing framing, noting that in the Middle East context, a ceasefire often means “shooting in a more moderate manner.” It is clear he has no interest in returning to full-scale open war, which is why he publicly called for an immediate halt to exchanges between Iran and Israel earlier this week.

The most likely outcome in the coming weeks is that limited strikes will continue across all three fronts even as formal negotiations proceed. While a preliminary memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran could be reached in the near term, it would almost certainly do no more than commit both sides to keep talking, rather than resolving the core sticking points that have deadlocked talks for months. Israel, meanwhile, is highly unlikely to withdraw its troops from southern Lebanon or end its asymmetric campaign against Hezbollah.

As analyst Jessica Genauer, academic director at the Public Policy Institute of UNSW Sydney, argues, the current dynamics are already laying the groundwork for a long-term “frozen conflict”: an unresolved, low-intensity war that remains below the threshold of full-scale open combat but continues indefinitely. Unless the deeper structural and ideological roots of the conflict are addressed, any ceasefire between the US, Israel, and Iran can only ever be a temporary pause, not a lasting resolution.