博客

  • Israel trying to ‘eliminate’ living conditions for Palestinians in occupied West Bank, says report

    Israel trying to ‘eliminate’ living conditions for Palestinians in occupied West Bank, says report

    A damning new report from prominent Israeli human rights organization B’tselem has accused the Israeli government of pursuing a deliberate, state-backed campaign to eliminate livable conditions for Palestinians residing in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Titled *The Elimination Project*, the investigation frames ongoing violence by Israeli settlers and military forces not as isolated incidents or a temporary crisis, but as a core component of a long-running political project operating within what B’tselem terms an Israeli apartheid regime rooted in settler-colonial ideology.

    The report details a widespread intensification of harm that touches every sphere of daily Palestinian life, from basic access to employment, education, and medical care, to the ability to maintain social connections, cultivate agricultural land, and participate in cultural and community life. In its analysis, B’tselem defines “elimination” not solely as mass physical violence, but as the systematic erosion of the conditions that allow Palestinians to exist as a cohesive people with their own territory, institutions, culture, language, collective history, and political future. The campaign, the report argues, is designed to restructure the region’s geography and social order: it consolidates contiguous, permanently institutionalized Jewish control across the territory while fragmenting Palestinian communities, rendering their existence precarious and dependent on Israeli goodwill. For Palestinians in the West Bank, B’tselem outlines only three stark outcomes under this project: surrender national claims to live under permanent Jewish supremacy, leave the occupied territory entirely, or face violent military crackdown for resistance.

    The release of B’tselem’s report coincides with a rapidly shifting international landscape, as a growing coalition of Western nations have recently announced new trade restrictions or bans on goods originating from Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Last week alone, 12 countries including Canada, Denmark, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom confirmed they were either implementing new bans or considering formal sanctions on settlement trade, a move that aligns with longstanding international legal consensus that Israeli settlements built on occupied Palestinian territory violate the Fourth Geneva Convention.

    Top European Union foreign policy official Kaja Kallas has thrown her weight behind an EU-wide trade ban on settlement goods, drawing a parallel between the international response to Russian occupation of Crimea and the need for a unified European stance on Israeli settlements. Speaking to *The Irish Times* on Friday, Kallas argued the EU’s credibility on global rule of law is at stake as long as member states remain divided, urging nations to adopt a unified principled position. While the total volume of EU trade with settlements is currently small, Kallas emphasized that the policy would carry significant symbolic weight. Crucially, Kallas has proposed advancing the ban as a trade measure rather than a formal foreign policy sanction, a procedural change that would only require a majority vote of EU member states to pass — avoiding the unanimous approval requirement that has stalled past action due to opposition from countries including Germany, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovenia.

    In the United Kingdom, the new government’s recent sanctions announcement has already drawn criticism from more than 130 British lawyers, former judges, and legal academics. In a formal six-page letter sent to Prime Minister Andy Burnham this week, the legal experts welcomed the government’s decision to align with international partners but argued the measures announced by Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband fall far short of the UK’s legal obligations under a 2024 International Court of Justice ruling ordering states to oppose Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory.

    Last week, the UK government formally declared Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory illegal, with Miliband telling parliament he agrees that ethnic cleansing is currently unfolding in the West Bank. Government sources have confirmed that the UK’s new restrictions will not be limited to the West Bank, and will also cover Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem.

    Since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war in October 2023, at least 1,107 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli soldiers and settlers in the occupied West Bank, according to on-the-ground casualty tallies, underscoring the escalating violence documented in B’tselem’s new report.

  • Top Democrat opposes US sale of heavy bombs to Israel

    Top Democrat opposes US sale of heavy bombs to Israel

    A top congressional Democratic leader has formally announced his opposition to a proposed $2.8 billion arms package for Israel, throwing a spotlight on growing divisions within U.S. politics over American military support for the country amid ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

    Gregory Meeks, the ranking member of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee and a New York congressman, confirmed he will not back the planned transfer of 2,000-pound (900kg) bombs to Israel. His objection is rooted in deep concerns that the powerful munitions could be deployed in violation of international humanitarian law, according to his public statement.

    Meeks’ opposition comes on the heels of emerging reports that the Trump administration is preparing to send roughly 40,000 of these heavy bombs to Israel — weapons that Meeks described as some of the most destructive munitions held in the U.S. military arsenal. Even with the high-ranking lawmaker’s rejection of the deal, however, his objection alone lacks the legal weight to block the transfer. Current U.S. arms sale rules allow the sitting presidential administration to bypass congressional objections and move forward with the deal unimpeded.

    In his statement, Meeks emphasized that he remains steadfast in his commitment to Israel’s security, but stressed that the proposed transfer raises grave, unresolved questions about how these massive weapons would be used in the densely populated civilian regions of Gaza and southern Lebanon. He noted that Congress holds a core responsibility to guarantee that U.S. taxpayer-funded arms are used lawfully, responsibly, and with robust protections for innocent civilian life. The BBC has reached out to the Israeli Embassy in Washington for comment on the controversy, and no response has been publicly released as of yet.

    J Street, a liberal pro-Israel advocacy organization based in the U.S., offered a sharp rebuke of the planned transfer in a statement obtained by Israeli newspaper Haaretz, arguing that, “You cannot rebuild Gaza with 2,000lb bombs.”

    Under longstanding U.S. policy, the State Department is required to notify Congress of all arms sales that exceed a specific monetary threshold, which gives lawmakers the ability to place an informal procedural hold on the deal. To override a presidential push for the sale, however, Congress would need to pass a veto-proof resolution with the support of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate — a high bar that is unlikely to be met in the current political climate. The current administration can also move forward immediately if the president declares a national emergency that requires an urgent transfer of arms.

    This is not the first time the transfer of these specific bombs to Israel has sparked political controversy. Israel’s past use of General Dynamics-manufactured 2,000-pound bombs in Gaza has drawn widespread international condemnation, due to the extreme, widespread civilian harm they cause in densely populated urban areas. In 2004, then-President Joe Biden paused a scheduled shipment of these same bombs over humanitarian concerns, a policy that was immediately reversed when Donald Trump took office for his second term last year.

    The reported arms transfer would be funded through the U.S. Foreign Military Financing program, an initiative backed by American taxpayer dollars that allocates billions of dollars annually to Israel and other U.S. allies to purchase American-made military equipment.

    While broad bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel security relationship has remained a longstanding staple of American politics for decades, that backing has softened noticeably among Democratic lawmakers in recent years amid growing public concern over civilian casualties in Gaza. Just months ago, in July, Republican Representative Thomas Massie forced a full House vote on an amendment that would cut $3.3 billion in annual security aid to Israel. While Massie was the only Republican to support the measure, an unprecedented 103 House Democrats backed the cut, signaling a dramatic shift in the party’s approach to military aid for Israel.

  • Trump picks anti-Islam, pro-Israel Republican Wesley Hunt as next ambassador to Saudi Arabia

    Trump picks anti-Islam, pro-Israel Republican Wesley Hunt as next ambassador to Saudi Arabia

    In a Monday announcement that has sparked significant controversy, former U.S. President and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has named Wesley Hunt, a hardline anti-Islam Republican and close personal ally, as his nominee for the next U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. The nomination arrives at an extraordinarily tense juncture for U.S. relations with Gulf nations, coming months after the outbreak of ongoing U.S.-Israeli military operations against Iran that have sent shockwaves through the Middle East, disrupting regional stability and sending ripples through global energy and economic markets.

    Hunt brings a background deeply tied to the region through his U.S. military service. In 2006, he served as an Apache helicopter pilot in Baghdad, Iraq, completing 55 combat missions, before going on to two diplomatic liaison deployment postings in Saudi Arabia. He has repeatedly drawn on his time in the Middle East to justify his sweeping anti-Islam rhetoric.

    Speaking last November, Hunt argued that he had direct experience living under Islamic legal systems, saying, “I’ve lived in Saudi Arabia for two years. I’ve deployed to Iraq. I have seen firsthand what it looks like to live in countries governed under systems like Sharia law.” He doubled down on these incendiary claims in January, pushing back against critics who label his comments fearmongering by saying they “have never lived under it.” During his time stationed in the kingdom, Hunt claimed, “Public beheadings happened there not long ago. Women couldn’t even drive when I was there.”

    In a January 2026 appearance on the conservative program *Stakelbeck Tonight*, Hunt escalated his rhetoric further, claiming Americans should be “extremely concerned” about Islamic influence in the U.S., asserting that “the mandate that’s been given to Islam is to basically go to other countries and infiltrate them.” He went on to peddle the conspiracy theory that Muslim communities would grow their populations in Western countries and eventually “take over” governing control.

    Media coverage of Hunt’s past electoral campaigns in Texas has repeatedly called out his anti-Muslim framing. A *New Yorker* report on Texas congressional elections noted that Hunt and his fellow Republican opponents centered anti-Muslim rhetoric in their campaigning. Houston Chronicle opinion writer Chris Tomlinson has accused Hunt and other state-level Texas Republicans of deliberately “stoking fears of Islam” to mobilize conservative voters. Edward Ahmed Mitchell, a representative of the Council on American-Islamic Relations Action (CAIR Action), echoed this criticism, noting that Republican candidates in the state have openly competed “who can be more anti-Muslim” to drum up anti-Muslim anxiety among Texas voters ahead of elections. Hunt has also framed immigration to the U.S. as a risk, warning that new arrivals could “import systems that destroy communities.”

    Beyond his anti-Islam views, Hunt is a well-documented staunch supporter of Israel, with deep ties to leading pro-Israel lobbying groups in the U.S. Speaking at a 2022 event hosted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Hunt claimed the U.S. only has “really one true ally” in the Middle East, “and it’s Israel,” tying this exclusive loyalty to what he called Israel’s shared “Judeo” cultural background with the U.S.

    While Hunt has expressed public support for the Abraham Accords normalization agreements between Israel and Arab states and has called for additional regional normalization deals, he has also warned that Washington should maintain a posture of suspicion even toward partners that have signed the accords. “Just because we have something set up like the Abraham Accords – which I think is good for the entire world, especially for the region – we cannot let our guard down,” he told the AIPAC audience.

    Data from TrackAIPAC, a non-profit organization that tracks the political influence of the pro-Israel lobby in U.S. politics, shows Hunt has received a total of $139,862 in campaign contributions from leading pro-Israel lobbying groups, including AIPAC, Americans for Prosperity (AMP), the Republican Jewish Coalition, and the United States Israel Political Action Committee (USI). As recently as May 2024, Hunt reaffirmed his unwavering support for Israel during an interview on Fox News, arguing, “Keep in mind, Israel put the Judeo in the Judeo-Christian.”

    As of publication, Saudi Arabian government officials have not issued any public response to the announcement of Hunt’s nomination. The appointment will also require a formal confirmation hearing and vote by the U.S. Senate before it can take effect.

  • Watch: How will higher interest rates impact US consumers?

    Watch: How will higher interest rates impact US consumers?

    As the Federal Reserve navigates persistent inflationary pressures and a shifting labor market, the decision to raise interest rates has once again put household financial stability under the microscope. In a recent on-the-ground reporting piece, BBC correspondent Samira Hussain breaks down the complex economic drivers that have pushed the central bank toward higher borrowing costs, while exploring the ripple effects that will touch every corner of consumer finance across the United States.

    The Federal Reserve has long relied on interest rate adjustments as its primary tool to cool overheated economic growth and rein in runaway inflation. When rates climb, borrowing becomes more expensive for everything from mortgages and auto loans to credit card balances and small business lines of credit. This dynamic is designed to slow discretionary spending, which in turn eases upward pressure on consumer prices. But for everyday American households, the transition to a higher rate environment does not play out evenly, with variable impacts depending on individual financial circumstances.

    For consumers looking to purchase a new home or refinance an existing mortgage, higher interest rates translate directly to steeper monthly payments, pricing many entry-level buyers out of a market already strained by limited housing inventory. Existing holders of adjustable-rate mortgages also face growing payment obligations as their rates reset to reflect the new benchmark. Credit card users, most of whom carry variable rates tied to Fed benchmarks, will see their interest charges jump almost immediately, increasing the burden of carried balances. Even consumers saving for retirement or large purchases can face mixed outcomes: while high-yield savings accounts and certificates of deposit start offering more attractive returns, the value of existing bond holdings often drops as new bonds come with higher interest payments.

    Hussain’s reporting also contextualizes the Fed’s balancing act: policymakers are walking a fine line between taming inflation and avoiding tipping the overall economy into a recession. A sharp enough slowdown in spending could trigger job cuts in interest-sensitive sectors like housing, construction and retail, which would ultimately feed back into consumer financial health. By speaking with economists, industry analysts and everyday households, the report lays out both the intended consequences of the Fed’s policy move and the unexpected risks that could hit consumers who are already grappling with lingering price increases from years of high inflation.

  • Two Britons among three killed in Swiss Alps light aircraft crash

    Two Britons among three killed in Swiss Alps light aircraft crash

    A tragic small plane crash in the Swiss Alps has claimed three lives, with two British nationals among the deceased, local law enforcement confirmed this week. The single-engine Cirrus SR22T aircraft, which departed from Sion Airport located in Switzerland’s Rhône Valley, went down in high-altitude mountain terrain near the resort town of Leukerbad in the southern canton of Valais on Tuesday, just 10 minutes after takeoff.

    For reasons still undetermined, the aircraft collided with a steep mountain slope. Eyewitnesses at the scene reported seeing flames and thick smoke billow from the wreckage immediately after impact. In response to the incident, a large multi-agency emergency response was mobilized quickly: teams from the Valais Rescue Organisation, cantonal police, and local fire services were deployed to the remote crash site, supported by three rescue helicopters to access the high-altitude location.

    Following the recovery operation, multiple official investigations have been launched to determine the cause of the crash. The Swiss Transportation Safety Board, the agency responsible for probing aviation accidents across the country, has opened a formal investigation. Parallel inquiries are also being conducted by Valais Cantonal Police and the Swiss Office of the Attorney General.

    As of Thursday, authorities are still working to complete formal identification of all three victims. The UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) has confirmed it is supporting the families of the two British citizens killed in the incident. “We are providing support to the families of two British nationals who died in Switzerland, and our officials are in close contact with local authorities,” an FCDO spokesperson said. “Our thoughts remain with the families during this incredibly difficult time.”

  • Photos show charred wreckage from deadly crash of news helicopter in LA

    Photos show charred wreckage from deadly crash of news helicopter in LA

    A devastating news helicopter crash in Los Angeles that claimed three lives has left the local media community and broader public in mourning, with federal investigators now launching a thorough probe into what caused the Tuesday night tragedy.

    On Wednesday, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the independent U.S. government agency leading the investigation, released stark new photographs documenting the charred aftermath of the collision. Images show the burned-out hull of the helicopter and a scorched nearby storage container, as investigators worked through the day to collect evidence at the crash site. Once on-scene documentation is complete, the wreckage will be transported to a secured facility for continued detailed forensic analysis.

    The three victims have been formally identified: two employees from NBC Los Angeles – veteran pilot George Marciniw and photojournalist Eliana Moreno – and 29-year-old Edy Gutierrez Mejia, a pedestrian on the ground. According to NBC News reports, Mejia was a Guatemalan national who had only arrived in Los Angeles earlier that week. Two additional people were injured in the crash and transported to local hospitals for treatment.

    At the time of the crash, the helicopter, NewsChopper4, which also served NBC’s sister Spanish-language outlet Telemundo 52, was on assignment covering a separate deadly bus crash in a Los Angeles suburb that had already killed two people. Multiple other news helicopters were also operating in the same airspace covering the bus crash, which has already resulted in the arrest of the bus driver on suspicion of murder.

    Investigator-in-charge Fabian Salazar told reporters during a Wednesday press conference that a preliminary public update on the crash will be released within 30 days, but a full final report pinpointing the root cause of the crash could take as long as 18 months to complete. When asked about widely circulated social media video that appears to capture footage from the helicopter’s on-board camera in the seconds before the crash, Salazar confirmed the clip is currently considered “probably the most important evidence” in the ongoing investigation.

    Officials have emphasized that no definitive cause has been determined at this early stage. Those close to the case have noted that Marciniw was a highly experienced pilot, ruling out inexperience as an obvious contributing factor. The tragic loss has also drawn renewed attention to Los Angeles’ unique reliance on helicopter news coverage: unlike many other major U.S. metro areas, local LA stations regularly deploy aerial crews to cover everything from high-speed police chases and wildfires to accidents, protests, and holiday traffic, making constant use of unscripted live aerial broadcasting a staple of local news.

  • No fire alarms or sprinklers at Pakistan neonatal unit where fire killed 14, report finds

    No fire alarms or sprinklers at Pakistan neonatal unit where fire killed 14, report finds

    Last month, a devastating blaze that broke out in the neonatal intensive care unit of Pakistan’s largest public hospital, the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) in Islamabad, claimed the lives of 14 newborns, most of whom were premature or medically fragile. Now, a government-ordered official inquiry has exposed a cascade of preventable systemic and institutional failures that turned a small electrical spark into an unconscionable catastrophe.

    The investigative committee, led by a retired senior civil servant, confirmed that the blaze most likely originated from an overheated electrical cable connected to a faulty air conditioning unit in the ward, matching initial accounts from authorities released on the day of the fire. While the exact electrical defect remains unconfirmed, the report documents how the fire spread rapidly through flammable plastic medical equipment and waste containers unchecked, amplified by a complete lack of basic fire safety infrastructure.

    Most alarmingly, the inquiry confirmed the neonatal unit had no functioning smoke detectors, fire alarms, or automatic sprinkler systems to suppress the blaze or alert staff and visitors in its earliest stages. Back in 2018, the hospital received official approval to replace and upgrade all outdated air conditioning units across the facility, but eight years later, the critical upgrade was never carried out. The unit had recently undergone routine maintenance, but the report emphasizes that general maintenance does not replace mandatory electrical safety inspections.

    Witnesses and first responders described chaotic conditions that compounded the danger. The first sign of trouble was recorded on corridor CCTV at 6:38 a.m. on August 26, when a nurse was spotted fleeing the neonatal ward to call for help, returning just 20 seconds later with a security guard. Another nurse, Razia Noreen, rushed into the smoke-filled ward immediately and emerged seconds later with the only infant who survived the disaster. Within one minute of the first alert, dense smoke completely obscured the CCTV camera feed.

    For many patients and visitors inside the hospital that morning, the only warning of the fire came from shouted alerts from staff, not official alarms. Abdul Ghafoor, who was in a nearby ward with his hospitalized mother when the fire broke out, told the BBC he ran upstairs to help after hearing the warnings. “The entire ward was filled with smoke, we could not see anything,” he recalled. Hivsa Walid, who was in an adjacent ward with her sister-in-law and newborn niece, added that widespread panic left no coordinated response: “There should have been fire extinguishers and protocols, but no one was doing anything. Everyone was just running.” Ghafoor and a small group of civilian bystanders broke glass corridor panels to vent toxic smoke before emergency crews arrived, the only proactive response to the emergency.

    The inquiry also confirmed multiple critical failures that delayed and blocked rescue efforts. Emergency services were not notified of the fire until 6:54 a.m., nearly 16 minutes after the first staff member spotted the blaze. First responders arrived on scene at 7:01 a.m., but encountered locked and blocked escape routes and entry points, the report found. A serving firefighter, who spoke to the BBC on condition of anonymity, said rescue teams had to break through glass windows to enter the building because all access doors were locked. “Even after getting inside, the doors leading towards the ward were locked,” he explained. The firefighter, who arrived after the blaze was extinguished, described a horrific scene: “It was difficult for me to even describe what we saw. The medical equipment above the babies had melted and collapsed onto them.”

    Hospital leadership previously defended the locked ward door, claiming access was restricted for security reasons following past incidents of infant abduction from Pakistani public hospitals. However, the inquiry rejected this justification, noting that “ordinary access restrictions may be legitimate for security purposes… they cannot render designated emergency routes inaccessible when needed.”

    Beyond infrastructure and access failures, the report found no evidence that neonatal unit staff had received any fire safety training or participated in emergency evacuation drills for the ward, which houses medically vulnerable newborns many dependent on continuous oxygen support. Staff also had no training to shut off oxygen supplies in an emergency, and while oxygen likely intensified the heat of the blaze, the inquiry found no evidence it facilitated the fire’s spread.

    The inquiry also highlighted that PIMS management ignored explicit prior warnings about fire safety gaps. Just one month before the neonatal unit fire, a separate blaze broke out at the hospital’s on-site nursing hostel, which already exposed major deficiencies in smoke detection, alarm systems, and overall emergency preparedness. The report concludes that PIMS and its senior leadership “bear the principal institutional responsibility for failing to convert known risks, prior warnings and assigned duties into an effective safety system.”

    In response to the inquiry’s findings, Pakistan’s Prime Minister has ordered that all short-term fire safety reforms outlined in the report be implemented within three months, and mandated comprehensive fire safety audits for all public and private buildings across the country. Eight senior PIMS officials have already been suspended from their posts, and the prime minister has directed that criminal proceedings be initiated against the officials held responsible for the failures that led to the deaths. Funeral services were held for the 14 newborn victims in the weeks following the tragedy. PIMS has not yet issued any public comment on the inquiry’s findings.

  • Watch: Leaked photos reveal extensive damage at US bases in Gulf

    Watch: Leaked photos reveal extensive damage at US bases in Gulf

    Newly leaked photographs obtained from an active-duty U.S. military service member have pulled back the curtain on the full scale of destruction inflicted on American military installations located in the Persian Gulf region in the wake of recent Iranian strikes. The visual evidence, which has not been previously released to the general public, offers an unvarnished on-the-ground look at the aftermath of the attack that escalated tensions between the two nations dramatically.

    Among the most striking damage documented in the imagery is a military radar aircraft that has been completely severed, its structure split apart by the impact of ordnance from the strikes. The photos also show multiple mobile trailer facilities that have been completely flattened, crushed under the force of blasts that hit the base compounds. Permanently constructed buildings on the installations are also depicted with extensive structural damage, with compromised load-bearing walls, collapsed roofing, and shattered infrastructure throughout the affected areas.

    The leak comes at a moment of already heightened geopolitical friction across the Middle East, with the release of the images raising new questions about the actual extent of damage from the strikes, which had previously been the subject of conflicting official accounts. The authenticity of the photos has been confirmed by the source, who is currently deployed to the region and provided the materials on condition of anonymity to protect their identity and military standing. Military analysts note that the level of damage shown in the images indicates that the strikes were more powerful and accurately targeted than some initial assessments suggested, with potential implications for future military positioning and regional security strategy.

  • ‘Few cards to play’: Saudi Arabia faces limited options against Houthis with allies out

    ‘Few cards to play’: Saudi Arabia faces limited options against Houthis with allies out

    For months, Saudi Arabia managed to avoid direct fallout from the escalating regional conflict triggered by the war against Iran, even as smaller neighboring nations became engulfed in rising tensions. The kingdom’s state-owned oil giant, Saudi Aramco, even posted record-breaking profits over the summer, leveraging its strategic East-West Pipeline to route crude exports away from the high-risk Strait of Hormuz, where Iranian-aligned forces had targeted commercial shipping. That safe position has now collapsed entirely.

    The critical East-West Pipeline is now out of commission following a drone strike carried out by Iran-aligned militias based in Iraq. Simultaneously, Houthi forces in Yemen have unleashed a wave of missile and drone attacks targeting population centers across Saudi Arabia, including an incident where a Houthi drone was intercepted over Mecca—Islam’s holiest site, whose stewardship forms a core pillar of legitimacy for the ruling House of Saud. The Houthis have denied intentionally targeting the city. These concurrent attacks have left Saudi Arabia fighting on two separate, high-stakes fronts.

    On one front, the kingdom’s allied Yemeni forces are scrambling to repel a sweeping Houthi ground offensive across Yemen, while on the home front, Saudi Arabia defends its own territory against non-stop aerial attacks. The timing of the Houthi blitz could not be worse for Riyadh: global stockpiles of the U.S.-made interceptor missiles that form the backbone of the kingdom’s air defense network are running critically low.

    Long reliant on the U.S. security umbrella it accepted after World War II, Saudi Arabia now finds Washington unwilling to step up. U.S. President Donald Trump recently confirmed that Houthi representatives had contacted the U.S. to state they have no interest in conflict with America, and Reuters has reported that U.S. officials held secret talks with Houthi delegates mediated by Oman, a major development that sidelines Saudi interests.

    In response to shifting U.S. commitments and regional instability sparked by the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran, Saudi Arabia moved to expand its own security alliances, most notably through the Mecca Pact with Turkey and Pakistan. But like the U.S., these new partners have shown zero willingness to enter direct conflict with the Houthis, a movement that has already proven its ability to sustain heavy battlefield losses and continue fighting. Today, neither Turkey nor Pakistan have deployed any support to Saudi Arabia, leaving the kingdom isolated.

    “Saudi Arabia is in a huge bind right now. They are pretty alone,” explained Neil Quilliam, a Gulf research expert at London-based Chatham House, in an interview with Middle East Eye. “The U.S. isn’t there. The Mecca Pact states haven’t showed up. They have few cards to play.”

    The Houthi advance along Yemen’s Red Sea coast has already placed the strategically vital Bab el-Mandeb Strait firmly under the group’s control. This waterway is the primary chokepoint for Saudi oil shipments bound for Asian markets. Combined with the disabling of the East-West Pipeline, which fed crude to European markets through the Red Sea, the Houthi advances now threaten both major Saudi export routes. The group is currently advancing on two key Yemeni inland cities, Taiz and Marib; if these fall, the Saudi-backed, internationally recognized Yemeni government faces collapse.

    On the ground, Saudi Arabia—which refuses to deploy its own ground troops into Yemen—has no reliable local partners to back. The National Resistance Forces, a militia previously funded by the United Arab Emirates that held the Red Sea coastline, disintegrated almost immediately during the Houthi advance. The only Yemeni faction with proven combat capability is the Southern Transitional Council (STC), which is committed to restoring an independent state in southern Yemen. The UAE’s open support for the STC earlier this year sparked a major rift between Abu Dhabi and Riyadh, and the STC’s demands for major concessions in exchange for fighting the Houthis run directly counter to Saudi Arabia’s core regional interests.

    “The UAE knows how to fight in Yemen, but they want concessions to come back in. Saudi Arabia views those demands as anathema to its national interest,” a anonymous diplomat familiar with bilateral talks between the two nations told Middle East Eye.

    The economic damage of the recent attacks is already tangible: Saudi Arabia was forced to cancel multiple crude oil shipments to Europe this week, and all loading operations at Yanbu, the Red Sea terminal that serves as the endpoint of the disabled East-West Pipeline, have been suspended. More broadly, the escalating conflict threatens to derail Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s flagship Vision 2030 initiative, which aims to diversify the Saudi economy away from oil dependence. The kingdom is set to host a major global investment conference next month, where it hopes to attract billions in foreign investment for new projects including AI data centers and tourism infrastructure.

    Saudi and allied Yemeni forces have launched limited retaliatory strikes against Houthi targets, but Riyadh has not committed to the large-scale intervention it launched at the start of the Yemen civil war a decade ago. The kingdom spent years working to extricate itself from that protracted conflict, and a 2022 ceasefire between the Houthis and Saudi-aligned forces reduced open fighting. However, Saudi Arabia has maintained a strict blockade on Houthi-controlled Yemeni ports and airports throughout the de facto truce.

    “A return to full-scale ground war offers little that eight years of campaigning failed to deliver,” noted Hesham Alghannam, director general of the Strategic Studies and National Security Programmes at Riyadh’s Naif Arab University for Security Sciences. Western officials based in Riyadh confirm that Saudi leadership has no appetite to re-enter the Yemeni quagmire, mindful of the damage it caused to Saudi Arabia’s international reputation and arms supply chains.

    Analysts widely agree that Saudi Arabia’s hesitation to deploy its own powerful air force to halt the Houthi advance stemmed directly from Riyadh’s reluctance to act without explicit U.S. backing. That indecision, experts say, allowed the Houthis to seize vast swathes of territory in a matter of weeks.

    The dual attacks on Saudi energy infrastructure and regional influence do not exist in a vacuum: the Houthis are a core member of Iran’s “axis of resistance” aligned against U.S. and Gulf interests in the region. While the movement maintains it retains operational independence, Middle East Eye confirmed earlier this summer that Iran has supplied the Houthis with new military equipment and advisory support to ramp up their campaign. This offensive comes as Iran was set to hold talks with Gulf states this week to de-escalate tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, leaving Saudi Arabia as the last major Gulf oil exporter operating at full capacity—now vulnerable on two maritime fronts.

    The current frozen conflict in Yemen dates back to the 2022 UN-brokered ceasefire, which called for lifting the Saudi blockade on Houthi-held territory in exchange for political negotiations. Those talks never gained meaningful momentum, and the Houthis have grown increasingly frustrated under the ongoing economic isolation. Regional diplomats say the current offensive is driven in part by the Houthi goal of imposing shipping tolls in the Red Sea, mirroring the leverage Iran already holds in the Strait of Hormuz. The Houthis have publicly stated their blockade of Saudi shipping will only end when their own ports and airports are allowed to operate without restrictions.

    Military analysts say Saudi Arabia has a range of escalation options available, from calibrated air strikes to a full return to large-scale intervention. The most expedient short-term option would be to pay financial concessions to the Houthis in exchange for a new truce, but experts say that outcome is politically untenable for Riyadh.

    “It would look like complete capitulation. Saudi Arabia sees itself as an emerging middle power. They can’t afford to lose face and just give in to Houthi terms,” Quilliam said.

    This leaves Saudi Arabia with the path of gradually increasing military pressure, though the kingdom is determined to avoid being dragged back into a years-long ground war that would derail its economic transformation plans. Many Saudi security experts argue for a measured approach: incremental military action to raise the cost of Houthi attacks, paired with negotiations that offer the Houthi leadership a face-saving political resolution.

    Other analysts argue a return to large-scale air campaign, modeled on the 2015 Decisive Storm offensive, is the most likely outcome, particularly as no genuine Yemeni political dialogue appears possible in the near term. One key proposal being discussed is an effort to internationalize control of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, to draw greater support from the U.S., European nations, and other Arab partners for Saudi Arabia’s campaign.

    In the end, the future of the conflict and Saudi Arabia’s next move will depend largely on whether its key international and regional allies choose to step in—and for now, that support remains missing in action.

  • US interest rates raised for first time in three years

    US interest rates raised for first time in three years

    In a historic, unanimous policy shift that marks the first increase to U.S. benchmark interest rates in more than three years, the Federal Reserve has raised its key policy rate by a quarter percentage point to a new range of 3.75% to 4%, pushing back against repeated public demands from former President Donald Trump to cut borrowing costs instead.

    The decision, announced Wednesday, comes as U.S. policymakers grapple with persistent, elevated inflation that has pushed household cost-of-living concerns to the top of the political agenda ahead of November’s midterm elections. Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh framed the rate increase as a necessary, measured response to months of above-target price growth. “Inflation is too high and has been for too long,” Warsh told reporters during a post-meeting press conference, describing the move as a “sober” and “responsible” step to stabilize the economy. He emphasized that low-income households, which bear the brunt of rising prices for essentials like food and energy, stand to benefit the most from bringing inflation under control.

    The rate hike comes against a backdrop of soaring global energy prices, triggered by the outbreak of the US-Israel war with Iran that has disrupted energy markets and pushed diesel prices to all-time records in the U.S., with average gasoline prices climbing above $4 per gallon. Warsh acknowledged that the Fed cannot directly control individual price pressures such as oil or grocery costs, but argued that the central bank’s role is to prevent broad-based, sustained inflation from embedding itself across the entire economy.

    The decision puts the independent central bank on a direct collision course with Trump, who has repeatedly lashed out at Fed policy in recent years and made his opposition to the rate hike public ahead of the announcement. Trump argued that U.S. interest rates “should be 1%, or less, because we are the Best Credit in the World – BY FAR.” Following the announcement, he doubled down on his criticism in a post on social media, writing: “LOWER THE INTEREST RATES FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND FAST!”

    White House press secretary Kush Desai told Fox News that the administration has “reiterated our commitment to the independence of the Federal Reserve on numerous occasions,” but added that Trump retains the right to publicly share his views on monetary policy. When pressed by reporters to respond to Trump’s criticism, Warsh deflected all questions about the president’s remarks. “I have got nothing for you on a discussion with the president,” he said, chuckling before repeating the response to follow-up questions. “Part of the independence of the Federal Reserve is we stay in our lane,” Warsh added.

    This rate increase is the first change to Fed policy in any direction since the central bank cut rates in December 2025, with the last previous rate hike occurring in July 2023. Trump had previously criticized Warsh’s predecessor, Jerome Powell, who stepped down at the end of his term earlier this year, for refusing to cut rates as Trump demanded.

    Higher interest rates work to cool inflation by making borrowing more expensive for consumers seeking mortgages, personal loans and credit cards, which discourages discretionary spending and encourages saving. While this eases upward pressure on prices, it also carries risks: higher rates can prompt businesses to pause investment plans, dragging on overall economic growth. For consumers, the rate hike will immediately translate to higher borrowing costs: major U.S. lenders including JPMorgan, KeyCorp and BNY Mellon moved quickly Wednesday to raise their prime lending rates from 6.75% to 7%, a shift that will push up rates for credit cards and consumer loans.

    Mortgage rates, which already climbed over the past year, have also moved higher as a result of the policy change. Current Freddie Mac data puts the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate at 6.76%, with the average 15-year fixed rate at 6.09%, still below the peak rates recorded in 2023. Most existing U.S. homeowners with fixed-rate mortgages will not see any change to their monthly payments, but prospective homebuyers and those seeking to refinance existing home loans will face higher borrowing costs.

    Looking ahead, Warsh declined to offer his personal outlook for future rate moves, but Fed policymakers’ collective projections point to additional rate increases on the horizon. A majority of policymakers expect the Fed will raise rates once more before the end of the year, pushing the benchmark rate into a range of 4% to 4.25%. A small majority of policymakers project rates will climb further to 4.25% to 4.5% in 2027, before the central bank begins cutting rates between 2028 and 2029. Projections also show inflation is expected to steadily decline over the coming years, hitting the Fed’s longstanding 2% target by 2029.

    The U.S. is far from alone in tackling inflation driven by Middle East conflict energy shocks: the European Central Bank raised its own interest rates last week, with the Bank of England set to announce its own monetary policy decision on Thursday.