Qatari mediators have presented Iran with a new draft deal to end the war with the US and Israel, an official briefed on the negotiations said, but a senior Iranian official said Doha had only put forward unacceptable ideas that did not amount to an offer.
The official briefed on the negotiations, who is not from Iran, said a new draft peace proposal for the eight-month-old conflict was presented on Sunday and was being considered by Tehran, with a response expected by the end of the week.
Qatar, along with Pakistan, has led mediation to end the war, which has disrupted global shipping and oil supplies and recently spread to Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
The proposal presented by Qatar sets a seven-day timeline addressing both Tehran’s and Washington’s concerns, laying out daily confidence-building steps that each side must take, the official briefed on the negotiations said. The timeline could begin early next week and several countries would act as guarantors of the deal, the official added.
Shortly afterwards, a senior Iranian official involved in the talks said Qatar had presented only “unacceptable ideas and not an offer”, and that Tehran’s policy on showing no flexibility over the nuclear issue remained unchanged.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Wednesday that Tehran remained in close contact with intermediaries to review ideas that could ensure the implementation of its own seven-day proposal aimed at ending the war in the Middle East.
He said Iran continued to give diplomacy a chance to succeed, adding that Tehran’s seven-day plan could be implemented in less than a week.
Washington wants Iran’s decades-long nuclear programme to be part of negotiations to end the war from the outset, while Iran says its conditions — which include an end to the US blockade of Iranian ports and the lifting of sanctions on Iranian oil exports — must be met first. Iran rejects Western concerns that its nuclear programme is military in nature.
In late September, Iran presented its seven-day proposal under which Araqchi said the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy shipping channels, could be reopened if certain conditions were met. US President Donald Trump rejected it, prompting further Qatari mediation.
The draft discussed in Tehran on Sunday was different from that proposal, the official briefed on the negotiations said, though the details of the latest plan were not immediately clear. The official had previously told Reuters that the Qatari mediators had coordinated with Washington before going to Tehran.
Earlier mediation efforts to end the war that the US and Israel launched on February 28 helped produce an interim peace agreement in June, but it quickly unravelled.
In recent weeks, Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi forces have launched repeated attacks against Saudi Arabia — a key US ally and the world’s largest crude exporter — opening a new front in the eight-month-old war.
Oil prices LCOc1 rose more than 1% to more than $115 per barrel on Wednesday after a Houthi attack on Saudi Arabia’s largest oil refinery, Ras Tanura, stoking concerns over supply risks.
Fighting with the Houthis intensified last month as the militant group advanced against Saudi-backed forces towards the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, another important shipping lane on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula from Hormuz.
The official briefed on the negotiations said there were concerns ahead of Sunday’s meeting in Tehran that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, fighting for another term in a general election, could resume attacks on the Islamic Republic this week.
On Friday, Trump repeated threats to strike Iran again, while Iranian security officials told Reuters Tehran had drawn up detailed plans to attack Gulf undersea cables if the US and Israel resumed attacks.
On Monday, top officials from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan also met Iranian officials in Tehran as part of de-escalation efforts. Qatar said on Tuesday that Iran needs to stop threats against Arab Gulf states and open the Strait of Hormuz to show good intentions for mediation efforts to succeed.
Gulf states came under sustained bombardment earlier in the war.
The war also reignited fighting between Israel and the Iran-backed Lebanese armed group Hezbollah. It has eroded Trump’s approval ratings ahead of the US midterm elections that decide control of Congress.
The European Union is reconsidering the strategic importance of its oil-refining industry as disruptions to international energy supplies and growing defence requirements force Brussels to examine whether Europe can afford further reductions in domestic fuel production.
On 28 October, the European Commission convened its first high-level dialogue with the European refining industry, bringing together energy companies, technology providers and representatives of NATO.
The meeting was chaired jointly by Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen and Defence and Space Commissioner Andrius Kubilius.
Its significance extends beyond the immediate increase in fuel prices associated with the conflict in the Middle East.
Brussels is confronting a longer-term problem: Europe intends to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, but its transport networks, industrial infrastructure and military forces remain substantially dependent on petroleum products.
The question is no longer simply how quickly the European economy can decarbonise. It is also how much refining capacity must be retained to guarantee essential fuel supplies during a geopolitical crisis.
Europe’s refining industry occupies an important position in the continent’s energy system.
According to figures published by the European Commission, EU refineries supply approximately 70 per cent of the jet fuel and 85 per cent of the diesel consumed in Europe.
These products are essential not only for civilian transport and logistics but also for military aviation, armoured vehicles and the movement of equipment.
Maintaining adequate production capacity therefore has implications for both economic activity and defence readiness.
Yet European refineries have faced difficult commercial conditions for years.
High energy costs, international competition and declining expectations for long-term fossil-fuel demand have complicated investment decisions.
Refineries require substantial capital expenditure to remain competitive, meet environmental requirements and adapt production processes.
Companies considering whether to modernise facilities must consequently assess the profitability of assets that may be expected to operate in a progressively decarbonising economy.
The resulting uncertainty creates a problem for governments seeking to retain strategically important industrial capabilities.
The immediate catalyst for the Commission’s initiative is the disruption to energy markets caused by the continuing conflict in the Middle East.
Interruptions to supply chains and uncertainty over maritime transport have increased concerns about the availability and cost of refined petroleum products.
Importing crude oil and importing finished fuels are not equivalent from a strategic perspective.
A country with domestic refining capacity can process available crude into the particular products required by its economy.
An economy heavily dependent on imported refined products is additionally exposed to processing capacity, transport availability and commercial decisions outside its jurisdiction.
The distinction becomes particularly relevant when governments must guarantee supplies of diesel and aviation fuel during an emergency.
European policymakers are therefore examining ways to improve output from existing facilities and strengthen the resilience of fuel supply chains.
However, the Commission has not announced a binding production target or a programme to reopen closed refineries.
The 28 October meeting represents the beginning of a policy discussion rather than the adoption of a new industrial strategy.
The participation of NATO gives the initiative a wider security dimension.
Military preparedness requires dependable access to energy products, including during periods when normal commercial supply chains are disrupted.
Aircraft, naval vessels, military logistics and ground operations cannot be reorganised around alternative energy sources at the same pace as some civilian activities.
Furthermore, the ability to sustain prolonged operations depends on reliable industrial production, storage, distribution and transport.
A refinery’s strategic importance may therefore exceed its immediate commercial profitability.
That raises difficult policy questions.
Governments may consider whether critical production facilities require targeted support, whether strategic stockpiles are sufficient and how supply arrangements should function during emergencies.
Any intervention would have to address competition rules, public financing and the risk of subsidising facilities that become commercially unviable.
Brussels has not abandoned its climate objectives.
The Commission has explicitly linked its refining discussions to the development of sustainable biofuels and synthetic fuels, commonly known as e-fuels.
These technologies offer potential alternatives for sectors where direct electrification remains technically difficult, including aviation.
However, their commercial development requires investment, suitable feedstocks, reliable energy supplies and sufficient demand.
Traditional refineries may be able to participate in this transition, although the technical requirements and economic viability vary between facilities.
Jørgensen said the Commission intended to work with industry on a roadmap that would reconcile domestic fuel production with Europe’s longer-term climate ambitions.
The challenge will be translating those objectives into investment decisions.
The initiative illustrates a wider adjustment in European economic policy.
In recent years, the EU has increasingly described industrial capacity as an element of economic security, rather than treating production solely as a commercial activity.
Semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals and defence equipment have all attracted attention because of vulnerabilities in international supply chains.
Oil refining is now entering the same discussion.
The Commission must determine how to preserve sufficient capacity for essential civilian and military requirements while continuing to encourage cleaner technologies.
Those objectives are not necessarily incompatible, but they operate over different timescales and involve different commercial incentives.
For European refiners, the central question is whether governments can provide enough regulatory and investment certainty to support modernisation.
For Brussels, it is whether the energy transition can proceed without creating new strategic dependencies.
The outcome of the dialogue will indicate how the EU intends to balance its climate commitments with the industrial demands of a less predictable security environment.
Turkey said on Wednesday that it is ready to sign an agreement with Egypt on the delimitation of maritime zones, claiming Cairo would gain more than 15,000 square kilometres of extra jurisdiction compared with a deal with Greece.
Turkish defence ministry spokesman Admiral Zeki Akturk made the offer at the ministry’s weekly briefing.
“We are ready to sign an agreement on the delimitation of maritime jurisdiction zones with Egypt, in accordance with mutual interests,” he said.
He estimated that Egypt would acquire “more than 15,000 square kilometres of additional maritime jurisdiction” compared with a potential agreement with Athens.
Akturk also welcomed the approval by the Libyan House of Representatives on October 20 of the 2019 memorandum on maritime jurisdiction between Turkey and Libya.
The ministry called it “an important development” that supports Ankara’s approach, which it claimed “rests on international law” and takes account of “the rights of the coastal states involved”.
It said Turkey “will continue to protect its legitimate rights and interests in the Eastern Mediterranean”.
The memorandum was signed with the Tripoli-based government of Fayez al-Sarraj and draws a maritime boundary between the Turkish and Libyan coasts that disregards the Greek islands in between, including Crete.
Greece, Cyprus and the EU rejected the MOU as “null and void”, and Egypt also objected to the deal.
Egypt signed a partial delimitation agreement with Greece in August 2020, a move seen at the time as a response to the Turkish and Libyan accord.
Egypt has not publicly responded to the latest Turkish offer.
The US has informed several Gulf nations it may launch a “brief but intense” military operation against Iran after the midterm elections on November 3, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.
According to the newspaper the warnings were passed on through diplomatic and military channels.
Its sources said Washington and Israel are preparing for a fresh wave of attacks intended to weaken Iran and pressure it back to negotiations.
President Donald Trump has not made a final decision, though the Journal reported that he is seriously considering extensive operations after the elections, with Iranian infrastructure and nuclear facilities among the possible targets.
The US military is reportedly moving an additional Patriot missile defence system from Texas to Israel to help counter any Iranian retaliation.
The newspaper said the movement was identified from flight tracking data and confirmed by two officials familiar with the weaponry.
US personnel are also being withdrawn from bases in the Middle East considered vulnerable to Iranian attack.
Ammunition stocks are being built up, and plans are being made for the possible use of fighter and bomber aircraft.
There are already 20 warships near the Persian Gulf, and an additional aircraft carrier strike group and a Marine expeditionary unit are expected to arrive.
The war is in its eighth month, and by mid-October its cost was estimated at $47.1 billion, a figure that does not include damage to US military installations in the Middle East.
About $29 billion of the total, almost 60 per cent, has gone on munitions, including Tomahawk and Patriot missiles.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s right wing Likud party accused Arab parties on Wednesday of “stealing the elections”, as vote counting showed them heading for their highest number of seats in the Knesset.
Likud said the election was “stolen by Arab parties that support terrorism and the elimination of the Jewish state”.
It claimed to have evidence of “corruption, threats, violence, fraud, and the use of banned software to induce voters to vote”, though the party did not publish that evidence in the statement.
The central election commission said about 93 per cent of regular ballots had been counted, equal to 85.6 per cent of all votes cast.
On those figures the coalition led by Netanyahu, who is now outgoing prime minister, has 53 seats, while the coalition led by Gadi Eisenkot, head of the Yashar party, has 48.
The Arab parties have 19, a record, and a majority in the 120 seat parliament requires 61.
The commission said the results were not final but expected no change to the seat figures, while the remaining 7 per cent of regular ballots need further verification and will be added in the coming days.
A further 480,000 ballots cast by military personnel, police officers and diplomats are also still to be counted.
The leader of the Joint List said he was “ready to pave the way” for the overthrow of the government.
The Times of Israel reported that the opposition wants to replace Likud’s Amir Ohana as Speaker of the Knesset with the support of the Arab parties.
Israel’s opposition parties appeared to have secured enough Knesset seats in Tuesday’s elections to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from power and end a four-year reign marked by genocidal war in Gaza and escalating terror and dispossession against Palestinians in the West Bank. But will they? With about 86% of ballots counted as of Wednesday […]
The post Will Israeli opposition parties join forces to eject Netanyahu? appeared first on Asia Times.
Israelis voted in record numbers in Tuesday’s wartime election billed as a major turning point in the nation’s history. Others across the Middle East were merely filled with more pessimism after a nationalist veteran prime minister and a former hawkish military chief competed for Israel’s leadership.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, won the support of an unexpectedly clear majority of Israeli Jews in the contest, apparently ensuring he will survive at least in a caretaker role.
In Egypt, the first Arab country to make peace with Israel in 1979, 62-year-old lawyer Outhman Selim said his hopes that a Netanyahu defeat would steer the country away from the far right had been dashed.
With nearly 86% of votes tallied on Wednesday, Israeli media forecast Netanyahu’s bloc of right-wing, hardline and ultra-Orthodox parties winning 53 seats in parliament, surpassing 48 for the opposition bloc of rival Gadi Eisenkot.
The election was the first since the Palestinian militant group Hamas shook Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostage.
The ensuing war in Gaza, which flattened most of the territory and killed more than 74,000 Palestinians, according to health authorities there, has left Israel increasingly isolated on the world stage, with a decisive shift in global public opinion against it, including in its closest ally the United States.
In Gaza, displaced Palestinian Majed Jundia made no distinction between Netanyahu and Eisenkot, a former military chief.
“They want to eradicate the Palestinian people so they do what they want,” said Jundia.
Netanyahu was heavily criticised over security failures leading up to the Hamas assault on Israel’s deadliest day.
Portraying himself as the only leader who could protect the country, the consummate political survivor argued that his assassinations of the leaders of Hamas, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and their ally Iran made Israel, and the world, safer.
Kamel Haddad, an 81-year-old Lebanese man who has witnessed Israel’s conflicts with neighbouring states over decades, expected no changes.
“As for who wins? I couldn’t care less. Let them tear each other apart, what difference does it make to me?” he said. “They might get preoccupied with one another since there are issues between them now. Perhaps they would leave us be for a bit.”
While Netanyahu lost his bloc’s majority in the 120-seat Knesset, as expected, his opponents were left with no hope of unseating him without an unlikely deal to accept broad backing from Arab parties, which many Jewish leaders reject.
Even then, he would remain as caretaker during any coalition negotiations, or until a new election next year.
Addressing his Likud party’s faithful at its election headquarters in Jerusalem, Netanyahu called for the formation of “a strong, right-wing national government”.
PROSPECT OF RENEWED WAR WITH IRAN
He also highlighted Israel’s military successes and raised the prospect of renewed joint military action against Iran alongside his ally, US President Donald Trump.
“If one wins, he wants to strike you; if the other wins, he wants to kill you. That’s it, nothing else,” said Jordanian Tarek al-Kaissy, reflecting on the competition between Netanyahu and his main rival Eisenkot.
Eisenkot emphasized his security credentials on the campaign trail, citing his “Dahiyeh doctrine” of responding to attacks with disproportionate force, which he deployed as a commander during Israel’s 2006 war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
His approach lowered any expectations of change, even before the election began.
In Tehran, banners with images of slain Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reminded Iranians of the early days of US and Israeli strikes at the end of February, which kicked off the war. Just to the right was a poster of late Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who was killed on Netanyahu’s orders.
“I genuinely see the possibility of attack,” said 50-year-old Iranian citizen Abdollah Karimi.
Login