The United States has privately warned Middle Eastern allies to prepare for renewed military operations against Iran following the 3 November congressional elections, according to diplomatic sources. Although President Donald Trump has not authorised further strikes, the warnings have heightened concerns about regional escalation, energy infrastructure and the consequences for European economies already facing rising fuel costs.

American officials have advised several governments in the Middle East to prepare for possible new military strikes against Iran after next week’s US midterm elections, raising the prospect of another escalation in a conflict that has already disrupted international energy markets.

According to an Associated Press investigation published on 29 October, two diplomats familiar with the warnings said US officials had urged regional allies to consider the possibility of Iranian retaliation against energy facilities and other critical infrastructure.

The diplomats emphasised that President Donald Trump had not made a final decision to resume military operations.

Nevertheless, Washington’s warnings suggest that preparations are being discussed for a potential campaign extending over several days.

Regional governments are concerned that retaliatory action by Iran or organisations aligned with Tehran could prolong the fighting beyond the duration initially envisaged by the United States.

The White House and American officials declined to comment on the reported communications.

Military Preparations and Political Timing

The warnings come as Trump approaches the final days of campaigning ahead of the 3 November elections.

The president has repeatedly suggested that further military action against Iran could follow the vote, although he has also claimed that the conflict may be approaching its conclusion.

During a campaign appearance in Texas, Trump said the war could end within weeks, while reiterating his insistence that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons.

The timing of possible military action remains uncertain.

The Pentagon has increased its regional military presence, including the deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt and additional amphibious forces.

Approximately 9,000 military personnel were associated with the deployment announced in September.

However, the movement of forces does not establish that an attack has been authorised or that particular targets have been selected.

American military preparations can also serve as deterrence, signalling and contingency planning.

The distinction is important because the political consequences of renewed strikes would depend on their scale, objectives and Iranian response.

Tehran Maintains That Diplomacy Remains Possible

Iran has indicated that it remains willing to pursue negotiations.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on 28 October that Tehran was continuing to consider diplomatic proposals and wanted elements of its earlier ceasefire initiative to form the basis for renewed discussions.

That proposal had previously been rejected by Washington.

The continuing disagreement concerns both the conditions for ending military operations and wider questions about Iran’s nuclear programme.

The United Arab Emirates has urged the parties to seek political solutions and avoid returning to large-scale fighting.

Regional governments face a particularly difficult position because they may be exposed to retaliation even when they are not directly involved in American military operations.

Energy facilities, airports, ports and other infrastructure could become targets during an escalation.

Such attacks would also affect civilian populations and commercial activity beyond the immediate combatants.

The Conflict Has Already Spread

The war involving Iran, the United States and Israel began in late February and has subsequently affected other parts of the Middle East.

Iran-aligned Houthi forces have carried out attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure and airports, prompting retaliatory operations by a Saudi-led coalition against targets in Yemen.

These developments have complicated attempts to contain the conflict geographically.

The United States has not conducted a strike against Iran since early September, according to the reporting available on 29 October.

However, the absence of recent American attacks has not removed the risk of renewed operations.

Regional governments are therefore considering a range of possible developments, including limited strikes, a longer military campaign or retaliatory attacks preceding any American operation.

None of these scenarios should be treated as inevitable.

Europe Faces Another Energy Risk

For the European Union, a renewed confrontation would have implications extending well beyond diplomatic relations with Washington.

The Middle East remains a major source of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies.

The Strait of Hormuz is particularly important to international energy shipping, connecting producers in the Persian Gulf with markets in Europe and Asia.

An increase in attacks on shipping, production facilities or export terminals could place further pressure on global energy prices.

The consequences would not necessarily be confined to countries purchasing oil or gas directly from the region.

European consumers compete in internationally connected markets, meaning supply disruptions can influence prices even where import arrangements have been diversified.

The EU has substantially reduced its dependence on Russian pipeline gas since 2022, but growing reliance on liquefied natural gas creates exposure to fluctuations in international supply and demand.

A further Middle Eastern escalation could therefore complicate Europe’s efforts to rebuild gas reserves and contain industrial energy costs before winter.

Higher fuel prices would also affect transport, food production and household expenditure.

The Strategic Dilemma for European Governments

European governments must balance several interests.

They support efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation, maintain relations with the United States and preserve stability in the Middle East.

At the same time, they have a direct economic interest in avoiding prolonged disruption to maritime trade and energy production.

A new American military campaign could revive debates concerning the legality, necessity and proportionality of military action, particularly if diplomatic alternatives remain available.

European governments may also face decisions about the protection of their nationals, regional diplomatic missions and commercial shipping.

The immediate significance of Washington’s warnings lies in the possibility of renewed hostilities, not in confirmation that such hostilities have been ordered.

With the American elections approaching, governments across the Middle East and Europe are preparing for developments that remain contingent on decisions in Washington and Tehran.

Whether the warnings lead to military action or renewed diplomacy will determine the next phase of a conflict whose economic effects are already being felt far beyond the region.

Photo: Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Kaylianna Genier / US Navy / Wikimedia Commons (Public Domain).

A temporary ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine has held for a third day around the occupied town of Oleshky, allowing preparations for food deliveries and civilian evacuations. The agreement, mediated with the involvement of US First Lady Melania Trump, represents a limited diplomatic development in a war where attempts to establish broader ceasefires have repeatedly failed.

Russia and Ukraine have maintained a localised ceasefire around Oleshky in the southern Kherson region, creating an opportunity to deliver humanitarian assistance to civilians who have spent months effectively isolated from regular supplies of food, medicine and drinking water.

Ukrainian Human Rights Commissioner Dmytro Lubinets said on 29 October that neither side had reported violations of the agreement and that teams were continuing to clear mines from roads intended for humanitarian convoys.

According to Associated Press, the six-day arrangement began on 27 October and is expected to remain in force until 1 November.

The first substantial humanitarian delivery is scheduled for Friday, 30 October.

An estimated 1,700 to 2,000 civilians remain in Oleshky, many of them elderly residents whose health, mobility or personal circumstances have prevented them from leaving.

The town is situated on the Russian-occupied eastern bank of the Dnipro River, opposite Ukrainian-controlled Kherson.

Its geographical position has made it particularly vulnerable to the consequences of the fighting, while damaged infrastructure, mines and military restrictions have complicated access for humanitarian organisations.

Melania Trump’s Unusual Diplomatic Role

The agreement has attracted attention because of the involvement of US First Lady Melania Trump.

In a White House statement issued on 23 October, her office announced that she had worked with Russian and Ukrainian representatives to secure arrangements for a temporary cessation of military activity.

The statement described her as the intermediary in the negotiations, covering the timing of the ceasefire, humanitarian access, evacuation procedures and operational coordination.

Lubinets subsequently acknowledged her involvement and said communication with his Russian counterpart, Yana Lantratova, had helped maintain the arrangement.

The White House originally announced 29 October as the starting date, but Ukrainian officials later reported that the ceasefire had taken effect at 3am on 27 October.

By Thursday, both sides were describing the agreement as holding without recorded violations.

The participation of the American First Lady is an unusual feature of international humanitarian diplomacy, which is more commonly conducted through governments, international organisations or specialist humanitarian agencies.

However, the immediate significance of the agreement will be determined by whether assistance reaches residents and whether those wishing to leave can do so safely.

A Town Cut Off from Essential Supplies

Oleshky has experienced prolonged humanitarian difficulties under Russian occupation.

The town suffered extensive disruption following the destruction of the Kakhovka dam in June 2023, which caused severe flooding across communities along the Dnipro.

Subsequent fighting, damage to infrastructure and restrictions on movement further complicated access to essential goods.

According to Ukrainian officials, normal deliveries of food to the town have been effectively interrupted since late May 2026.

Residents have faced shortages of medicines and clean water, while the presence of mines has made movement beyond residential areas hazardous.

The remaining population is believed to consist largely of older people and residents requiring medical attention.

For these civilians, humanitarian access is not simply a matter of replenishing household supplies.

It may determine whether individuals can receive essential treatment, obtain prescription medicines or leave areas where normal medical and social services have ceased functioning.

The Evacuation Challenge

The ceasefire provides for humanitarian teams to assess residents’ needs and arrange transport for those who wish to leave.

The White House has indicated that residents should be able to choose their destination, including Ukrainian-controlled territory or Russia.

Ensuring that such decisions are genuinely voluntary is particularly important in occupied territory.

International humanitarian law provides protections for civilians under occupation, including restrictions concerning forcible transfers and deportations.

A credible evacuation process therefore requires clear information, freedom from coercion and practical arrangements allowing residents to travel safely.

The presence of journalists accompanying the mission may provide additional documentation, although media access does not replace independent humanitarian monitoring.

Russian and Ukrainian representatives have also been coordinating mine clearance along routes intended for humanitarian vehicles.

Until those routes are confirmed safe, the delivery of assistance and movement of civilians remain dependent on operational conditions.

A Ceasefire That Does Not Extend Beyond Oleshky

The agreement remains geographically limited.

Russian strikes continued elsewhere in Ukraine on 29 October, killing civilians in several cities, including Dnipro.

The continuing attacks demonstrate that the localised humanitarian arrangement does not represent a broader change in Russian military operations or the strategic direction of the war.

Nevertheless, the pause has also brought some relief to residents of nearby Ukrainian-controlled Kherson, where repeated attacks have disrupted daily life.

The absence of reported violations around Oleshky suggests that the two sides retain the ability to coordinate narrowly defined humanitarian measures when political and operational arrangements are in place.

That does not necessarily imply an increased willingness to compromise over territory or broader security questions.

What Happens After 1 November?

The agreement is scheduled to expire on 1 November, leaving only a limited period for delivering aid and facilitating departures.

Its effectiveness will depend on the quantities of assistance delivered, the number of residents reached and whether evacuation arrangements operate as intended.

It will also be necessary to establish what protection, if any, is available to civilians who remain after the ceasefire ends.

A successful operation could provide a model for similarly limited humanitarian arrangements elsewhere along the front.

However, extending such cooperation would require further political consent and practical security guarantees.

For Oleshky’s remaining residents, the immediate question is more urgent: whether several days without fighting can provide the assistance and safe passage that months of war have denied them.

Moscow has indicated that European governments will not participate in the next round of negotiations over the war in Ukraine, despite their central role in financing Kyiv, supplying military assistance and shaping the continent’s security arrangements. The Kremlin’s position raises questions about whether any agreement negotiated principally by Washington, Moscow and Kyiv could be implemented without substantial European involvement.

Russia has ruled out European participation in the next round of trilateral talks with Ukraine and the United States, while suggesting that the negotiations could be delayed by developments on the battlefield and the continuing conflict in the Middle East.

Yuri Ushakov, foreign policy adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin, said on 29 October that Moscow had not agreed to a specific date for further consultations and that European representatives were not being considered for inclusion.

Ushakov maintained that preparations concerned representatives of Russia, Ukraine and the United States.

His remarks followed statements by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky indicating that the next round could take place in Abu Dhabi between 6 and 10 November.

The Kremlin has not confirmed those dates.

The disagreement comes as European governments seek a more substantial role in diplomatic efforts concerning a conflict whose eventual settlement would have direct consequences for their security, defence expenditure and relations with Russia.

Moscow Sets Its Conditions

Ushakov’s position was particularly explicit when discussing European participation.

Speaking to Russian media on 28 October, he suggested that European representatives were free to travel to the proposed venue but would not be invited to join the negotiations.

His remarks were subsequently reinforced by a statement that European involvement was not under consideration.

The Kremlin adviser also linked the timing of the next meeting to developments in the Middle East, where the US-Israeli conflict with Iran has complicated Washington’s diplomatic and military priorities.

Ushakov said that conditions on the Ukrainian battlefield would also influence when negotiations could resume.

These explanations give Moscow considerable latitude over the timetable while leaving uncertainty about the practical arrangements for the next meeting.

They do not, however, establish that Washington and Kyiv have accepted Russia’s preferred arrangements for every subsequent stage of negotiations.

Technical consultations between three parties and broader discussions over a European security settlement are not necessarily the same diplomatic process.

Europe Wants a Place at the Table

The Russian position contrasts with statements from the leaders of Britain, France and Germany, who have maintained that European governments must participate in discussions concerning Ukraine’s future security.

Their argument rests partly on the responsibilities that European countries would be expected to assume after any agreement.

European states have provided substantial financial, military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022.

They have also introduced successive sanctions against Russia, expanded defence expenditure and debated arrangements for security guarantees intended to discourage renewed hostilities.

Any settlement that required changes to European sanctions, military deployments or financial assistance would therefore depend on decisions taken by European governments and institutions.

Neither Moscow nor Washington could independently commit the European Union to lifting sanctions or authorise European states to deploy forces.

This distinction limits the practical significance of excluding European officials from a negotiating session.

An agreement could be discussed without European participation, but implementing provisions that require European action would demand further negotiations.

The Donbas Question Remains Unresolved

The principal obstacle continues to concern territory and the conditions under which military operations would end.

Russia has maintained its demand that Ukraine relinquish territory in the eastern Donbas region, including areas remaining under Ukrainian control.

Kyiv has rejected the surrender of territory as a precondition for ending the war.

The proposed negotiations are consequently expected to concentrate on technical issues where limited agreements may be more achievable.

These include possible arrangements concerning energy infrastructure, maritime security, the exchange of prisoners and the return of Ukrainian children taken to Russia or Russian-controlled territory.

Such measures could produce humanitarian or economic benefits without resolving the central territorial dispute.

However, their implementation would require monitoring arrangements and sufficient confidence that the parties would honour their commitments.

The temporary humanitarian ceasefire around Oleshky, in the Kherson region, offers a narrowly defined example of cooperation between Russian and Ukrainian representatives.

It does not demonstrate that a broader political agreement is within reach.

The American Role

Washington remains the principal external mediator in the current negotiating format.

That position reflects American diplomatic influence and its capacity to engage directly with both Moscow and Kyiv.

However, the United States is simultaneously managing military commitments in the Middle East and domestic political pressures ahead of the 3 November congressional elections.

These competing priorities may affect the pace of diplomatic engagement.

For Russia, a negotiating framework centred on Washington offers the possibility of addressing wider bilateral issues alongside the conflict in Ukraine.

For Ukraine, American participation remains important because US decisions concerning military assistance and security commitments could influence the durability of any settlement.

Europe’s position is more complicated. Its governments possess substantial economic leverage, but their influence over the negotiating agenda depends on coordination with Washington and Kyiv.

Negotiating Without Europe Has Practical Limits

The immediate dispute concerns who participates in the next round of talks.

The longer-term question is which parties would be responsible for implementing a settlement.

A ceasefire might initially involve arrangements agreed by military and diplomatic representatives of Russia and Ukraine, supported by the United States.

A more comprehensive agreement could involve sanctions, reconstruction finance, security guarantees, troop deployments and Ukraine’s future relationship with European institutions.

Those issues cannot be settled on behalf of European governments without their consent.

Moscow’s attempt to restrict participation may therefore succeed at the level of an initial negotiating format while proving more difficult to sustain during discussions about implementation.

For the moment, neither the date nor the outcome of the proposed Abu Dhabi meeting is certain.

What has become clearer is the divergence between Russia’s preferred negotiating structure and Europe’s determination to influence the security arrangements that would follow the war.

 

While Saudi Arabia sits at the negotiating table as a mediator, it also features on conflict maps as a military ally, financier, and patron of regional power blocs.

Between these two roles lies a striking paradox in Saudi policy across the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa. By day, Riyadh calls on warring parties to cease fire; by night, it chooses its allies and backs them politically and militarily, leveraging its financial and security clout to reshape the balance of power in ways that serve its own interests.

From Port Sudan to Mogadishu, by way of Yemen and Eritrea, the question is no longer limited to whether Saudi Arabia can mediate between adversaries. It now extends to the kingdom’s position within the conflicts themselves, and then to its control over the balance of power around the Red Sea and its securing of ports and strategic corridors. Thus the image of the neutral mediator recedes in the face of the reality of a state seeking to build an axis of influence spanning both shores of the Red Sea.

Saudi Arabia sponsored the Jeddah talks between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces in 2023, presenting itself as a party working to end the war and protect civilians. But its subsequent political stance showed a growing bias toward the army led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.

In January 2026, Reuters revealed negotiations over a $1.5 billion Pakistani arms deal for the Sudanese army, covering aircraft, drones and air defense systems, with a Saudi role in mediating it.

In April, the agency reported that Pakistan had suspended the deal after a Saudi objection and Riyadh’s withdrawal of its funding, according to security and diplomatic sources. On the same day, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman received al-Burhan in Jeddah. Here the glaring paradox emerges: how can a mediator maintain an image of neutrality while being tied to a track of military support for one party to the conflict?

If Sudan reveals the overlap between mediation and partisanship, Yemen offers the clearest picture of Saudi military intervention. Since March 2015, Riyadh has led a military coalition, carried out air operations, and supported government forces and local armed groups, in addition to providing economic aid to the internationally recognized government.

Its presence has not been limited to confronting the Houthis. Saudi Arabia has become an influential party in the conflicts within the anti-Houthi camp, particularly as its dispute with the Southern Transitional Council has escalated. In early January 2026, Saudi aircraft struck Transitional Council positions in Hadramawt, while Riyadh-backed forces advanced to retake control of southern areas.

This came at a time when Saudi Arabia was calling on Yemeni parties to engage in dialogue, which reveals the duality of the tools in use: military pressure to alter the balance of control, followed by a political track to arrange the outcomes.

Riyadh’s relationship with the Yemeni Islah Party reveals a further paradox. The Carnegie Center documented Saudi Arabia’s reliance on forces linked to the party in confronting the Houthis, and its provision of military and financial support to them, despite Riyadh’s declared position toward the Muslim Brotherhood, to whose political current Islah belongs.

So in Yemen the picture is clear: Saudi Arabia does not appear to be an observer of the course of the war, but one of the forces that helped shape it, determine its allies, and influence its maps of control.

On the African shore of the Red Sea, Saudi Arabia has built close security ties with Eritrea that date back to the years of the war in Yemen, when Eritrean territory and ports were used within the coalition’s military arrangements. Political and security coordination between Riyadh and Asmara continued through 2025 and 2026, coinciding with rising tensions between Eritrea and Ethiopia over access to the Red Sea. Regional analyses report that Saudi Arabia and Egypt lean toward supporting the Eritrean position against Ethiopia’s maritime ambitions, while Addis Ababa views the rapprochement between Riyadh, Cairo and Asmara with concern.

The irony is that Saudi Arabia had sponsored the 2018 peace agreement between Ethiopia and Eritrea, before its own regional security relationships became part of the balancing calculations between the two sides. This reveals Riyadh’s shift from sponsoring reconciliation to building strategic partnerships with one of the two parties to the tension.

In Somalia, the Saudi presence took a more explicit course during 2026. After Riyadh announced its support for Somalia’s territorial integrity and its rejection of Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, Saudi Arabia and Mogadishu signed a military cooperation memorandum in February, alongside continued Saudi development and humanitarian assistance.

The agreement comes in a region witnessing escalating competition over ports and military influence, especially near Bab al-Mandab, where the interests of Gulf states, regional powers and international powers intersect. Regional studies read the Saudi-Somali rapprochement as part of Riyadh’s efforts to strengthen its security presence on the African shore of the Red Sea.

However, the military agreement in itself does not mean Saudi participation in Somalia’s internal war. Its political significance lies in adding Mogadishu to the network of Saudi security partnerships and strengthening Riyadh’s ability to influence the balance of power in the Horn of Africa.

Any reading of Saudi policy is incomplete without pausing at the historical controversy over the financing of extremist groups through Saudi donors and institutions. Diplomatic cables from the U.S. published by WikiLeaks in 2010 revealed Washington’s concerns about financial flows from Saudi donors to extremist groups. The UN Security Council also placed branches of the Al-Haramain Foundation on sanctions lists linked to al-Qaeda, while Saudi Arabia and the United States took part in measures targeting specific institutions and financiers.

In Syria, we should read the lawsuits brought by the families of the victims of the September 11 attacks with the same eyes. Judicial developments have allowed accusations concerning individuals linked to Saudi Arabia to continue to be heard. The importance of this file is that it keeps past Saudi policies and the financing networks tied to individuals and institutions under continuing scrutiny, even as Riyadh seeks to present itself as a partner in counterterrorism and regional stability.

It is true that Saudi Arabia’s tools differ from one arena to another, but a political thread runs through them all: one meant to secure allies capable of protecting Riyadh’s interests in the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa.

In Sudan, there is political backing for the army and a role attributed to Saudi Arabia in arranging its armament. In Yemen, the intervention takes a direct military form. In Eritrea, the relationship rests on security partnership and regional alignment. As for Somalia, it represents an expansion of the Saudi military cooperation network.

None of these facts mean that Saudi Arabia is fighting five direct wars, but they undermine its portrayal as a neutral party in all of these conflicts. Mediation can coexist with interests, but it loses its claim to neutrality when the mediator becomes part of the balance of power it is trying to manage.

Here the mask of the neutral mediator falls, not because Riyadh has stopped hosting negotiations, but because in a number of arenas it has become an influential party in determining who negotiates, who holds power, and who keeps the territory. From Port Sudan to Mogadishu, Saudi Arabia appears less concerned with standing outside the conflicts and more engaged in shaping their outcomes. A mediator who takes part in making the balance of war cannot ask others to treat him as a mere referee between the disputants.

Main Image: By BroadArrow at the English Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=14683526

 

Sudan’s expanding drone war is killing civilians far beyond the front lines, raising urgent questions about the foreign suppliers sustaining it. Among them is Turkey, whose weapons have strengthened the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) while advancing Ankara’s interests around the Red Sea. The relationship connects a devastating civil war to a wider contest for influence, commercial opportunities and strategic access. 

The immediate concern is the scale of civilian harm. On October 23rd, UN human rights chief Volker Türk condemned an escalation in drone attacks that had killed at least 306 people and injured hundreds during the first three weeks of the month. Strikes attributed to both the SAF and its opponent, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), hit homes, markets, hospitals, displacement sites and essential infrastructure. Drones, Türk warned, already accounted for most conflict-related civilian deaths in Sudan this year. 

The SAF’s operations demand particular scrutiny. Between October 6th and 10th, alleged SAF drone strikes on shelters for displaced people in Ghubeish and El Nuhud, West Kordofan, killed at least 25 civilians and injured 31, including women and children. These were places where people had sought protection after fleeing earlier fighting. 

The danger extends beyond immediate casualties. A UN fact-finding mission reported in September that foreign-supplied drones and loitering munitions had expanded the SAF’s long-range strike capabilities. Both sides could increasingly attack distant civilian areas, while damage to electricity, water and healthcare compounded the consequences for survivors. 

Turkey’s contribution is substantial. A March 2025 Washington Post investigation, drawing on documents, communications and flight records, reported that Baykar supplied the Sudanese army with at least $120 million in weapons during 2024, including eight Bayraktar TB2 drones and hundreds of warheads. Baykar personnel also travelled to Sudan to support the deliveries. The company is co-owned by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s son-in-law. 

The transaction was therefore more than an equipment sale: technical assistance helped turn imported weapons into operational capability. The central question is what suppliers knew about the weapons’ use and whether continued assistance adequately addressed the risks to civilians. 

Ankara’s interest in Sudan predates the war. During Erdoğan’s 2017 visit, Turkey agreed to restore Suakin, a former Ottoman port on Sudan’s Red Sea coast. Sudan’s foreign minister also announced plans for a dock servicing civilian and military vessels. Agriculture and oil-exploration agreements followed in 2018, demonstrating that the relationship combined historical symbolism with economic and maritime ambitions.

Supporting army leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan offers Turkey a route to preserving those interests. Al-Monitor reported this year that Ankara was strengthening engagement with the SAF as battlefield gains created opportunities to consolidate its Red Sea position and deepen alignment with Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This makes Sudan both a bilateral partner and part of a broader regional calculation. 

Somalia illustrates the wider approach. Turkey’s extensive footprint there includes prominent construction projects, while its first overseas deep-sea oil-exploration mission began off Somalia in April. Taken together, these activities suggest a strategy linking security partnerships, commercial investment and long-term political influence across the Horn of Africa and adjoining waters. 

For Sudanese civilians, however, strategic ambition offers little protection. The issue is not whether drones can strike precisely, but whether those using and supplying them respect civilian life. Türk has called for an end to arms transfers used in manifest disregard of humanitarian law. For Turkey, the test of its regional leadership is therefore also one of accountability: whether influence is measured only in access and contracts, or in restraints on the violence its partnerships enable.

Brussels is considering unprecedented restrictions on the rights of future EU members, including the possible suspension of voting rights for serious breaches of European values. France and the Netherlands favour stronger safeguards, while Italy and Austria warn that excessive conditions could undermine enlargement.

European Union governments have begun negotiations over proposals that would allow Brussels to impose additional restrictions on future member states, exposing divisions over how to prevent democratic backsliding without discouraging countries seeking accession.

The discussions, held among EU ambassadors on 28 October, concern draft safeguards proposed by the European Commission for inclusion in future accession treaties.

Montenegro, currently the most advanced candidate in the Western Balkans, is expected to become the first country subject to the proposed arrangements.

The measures would potentially allow the EU to suspend certain membership rights, including voting rights, during a transitional period lasting up to 15 years after accession.

However, the negotiations have revealed disagreement not only over the duration of the safeguards but also over the powers that should be granted to the Commission and the legal thresholds for intervention.

The controversy raises a broader question about the nature of EU membership: whether countries that have completed accession negotiations should immediately enjoy the same institutional rights as existing members.

France and the Netherlands seek stronger guarantees

According to Euronews’ reporting on the ambassadors’ discussions, France and the Netherlands have pressed for stronger guarantees that newly admitted states will continue respecting the rule of law and other EU obligations.

Their position reflects concern that the Union’s existing procedures have proved difficult to enforce against governments accused of undermining judicial independence or democratic institutions.

Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union already provides for sanctions, including suspension of certain membership rights, where a serious breach of European values is established.

However, the procedure involves demanding political and voting requirements.

The Commission’s proposed safeguards are intended to provide an additional instrument specifically applicable to newly admitted members.

They would operate during a defined period after accession and could be activated in response to serious breaches of EU values or the principle of sincere cooperation.

For governments supporting the proposal, the objective is to ensure that reforms undertaken during accession negotiations remain effective after membership has been secured.

Italy and Austria warn against excessive restrictions

Not all member states share this approach.

Italy and Austria, among countries supporting faster integration of the Western Balkans, have warned against imposing conditions that could make EU membership appear provisional or unequal.

Their concern is that candidate countries may face an increasingly complicated accession process even after meeting the formal requirements.

The credibility of EU enlargement depends partly on the proposition that successful reforms will eventually lead to full membership.

If new members are subjected to extensive additional restrictions, political leaders in candidate countries could find it more difficult to justify the domestic compromises required by accession negotiations.

The debate is particularly sensitive in the Western Balkans, where prolonged delays have already generated frustration over the pace of integration.

The challenge for Brussels is to strengthen safeguards without creating a permanent distinction between established and newly admitted members.

A proposed 15-year period

The Commission’s draft institutional safeguard would remain available for 15 years following accession.

This period is intended to permit intervention if a new member reverses reforms after joining the Union.

Yet ambassadors have questioned whether such an extended period can reasonably be described as temporary.

The proposed decision-making mechanism has also attracted criticism.

Under the draft, the Commission could propose restrictive measures that would take effect unless a qualified majority of member states rejected or amended them within two weeks.

This would reverse the usual political dynamic by requiring governments to assemble a blocking majority rather than actively secure support for sanctions.

The proposal could therefore make intervention easier than under the existing Article 7 mechanism.

Critics are concerned that the arrangement would give the Commission excessive influence over the institutional rights of newly admitted countries.

Supporters argue that a more effective enforcement mechanism is necessary precisely because existing procedures have proved difficult to use.

Monitoring could begin before accession

The proposed safeguards are not confined to the period following membership.

The Commission also wants stronger monitoring between the signing of an accession treaty and the date on which a country formally joins.

This period can last several years, during which a candidate government may change and reform commitments may weaken.

Under the draft arrangements, monitoring could include regular assessments, reviews involving existing member states and formal warnings.

As a last resort, accession could be postponed if there were clear evidence that a candidate would not meet the required conditions.

The voting procedure for such a postponement remains unresolved.

These provisions would add another stage of oversight to an accession process that already requires extensive negotiations and the implementation of EU legislation.

Montenegro faces a new uncertainty

Montenegro began accession negotiations in June 2012.

According to the European Commission’s enlargement records, all 33 screened negotiating chapters have been opened and 16 provisionally closed.

Its progress has made the country a leading candidate for the next round of enlargement.

However, its accession treaty may now become the vehicle through which the EU establishes a new framework for future entrants.

The implications extend beyond Montenegro.

Albania, Moldova and Ukraine are also pursuing accession, although they are at different stages of the process.

Any safeguards introduced for Montenegro could influence the terms eventually offered to those countries.

Enlargement becomes a test of EU governance

The Commission’s proposals reflect a wider debate over whether the EU’s institutions can function effectively with substantially more members.

New entrants would participate in decisions concerning the budget, sanctions, foreign policy and the internal market.

Their admission could also affect areas where unanimity remains necessary, potentially increasing the risk of institutional deadlock.

The European Parliament’s research service has identified the proposed safeguards as part of a broader programme addressing decision-making and governance ahead of enlargement.

Negotiations over the draft clauses will continue at the technical level, with ambassadors expected to revisit the matter in November.

The central disagreement remains unresolved.

The EU wants future members to maintain democratic and legal standards, but it must also decide whether those guarantees can be enforced without creating a separate class of membership.

Montenegro’s accession negotiations will provide the first practical test of that approach.