Israel under siege, diplomatically

Israel is facing a perilous moment and cannot afford the luxury of petty feuds and personal vendettas at the highest levels. Differences of opinion are inevitable; what’s not acceptable is airing them in ways that erode deterrence, morale, and the perception of competence. 

Israel is under siege diplomatically, with several allies announcing plans to recognize a Palestinian state in September. At home, the war’s continuation without a hostage deal and the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) conscription crisis are tearing the country apart.

A nationwide strike on behalf of the hostages is planned for Sunday, and there are haredi protests seemingly every time a haredi youth is arrested for draft evasion.

Add to this the constant speculation over whether the government will fall – and which party might bring it down – and the atmosphere is combustible.

And that’s to say nothing of the other fronts demanding Israel’s constant vigilance: Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and the Houthis.

Yet, with all this to address, leading ministers are spending valuable time and energy on personal score-settling: Defense Minister Israel Katz with Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir, Justice Minister Yariv Levin, and Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara.

Katz, in what appears to be little more than an effort to show Zamir who is boss, froze high-level IDF promotions that Zamir recommended, implying in a social media post that the days when the IDF could act without government oversight ended with its failures on October 07, 2023.

Levin, locked in a battle with the judiciary since the current government came to power in December 2022, changed the locks on his Tel Aviv office to bar the attorney-general – with whom he is engaged in a prolonged and bitter dispute and whom the government has fired, pending Supreme Court approval – from entering.

At a time when Israel’s leaders should be razor-focused on the enormous challenges ahead, diffusing their energy into petty disputes undermines public trust and the confidence that they can steer the country out of its precarious situation.

That dysfunction sends exactly the wrong message – both inside and outside the country – at exactly the wrong time.

A public spat between the defense minister and the chief of staff, amid rumors that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to fire Zamir and just a week after a public clash over whether to occupy all of Gaza (Zamir opposed but was overruled), gives Israel’s many enemies reason to smile.

It signals weakness in the decision-making process, suggesting that orders will be slower to form and harder to implement. It also invites exploitation, giving adversaries material to magnify through propaganda, feeding the perception that Israel is too busy fighting among itself to fight them.

The lock-changing episode – undermining a Supreme Court ruling that nothing should be done to impair Baharav-Miara’s ability to do her job until the court rules on a petition regarding her firing – only deepens the impression of dysfunction.

At a critical moment, this broadcasts to Israelis that the government is distracted by internal battles rather than focused on pressing threats.

That’s a sobering reality for everyone – the families of hostages; the soldiers and reservists in Gaza, Judea and Samaria, Lebanon, and Syria; as well as their concerned families who need to believe the country’s steering wheel is firmly in capable hands.

It’s also true for the broader public, which must trust that the government can solve problems rather than worsen them through self-inflicted “own goals.”

Blue and White Chairman Benny Gantz captured the sentiment in a biting social media post: “Who said there are no kindergartens in August? A justice minister changing the locks in the attorney-general’s office, and a defense minister busy playing power games with the chief of staff and holding up key military appointments. This is not how a government is run; this is what a kindergarten looks like.”

It would be easy to dismiss this as the usual sour musing of an opposition leader eager for the government’s downfall. But this time, Gantz’s words seem more apt than the routine criticisms of a frustrated politician.

Courtesy: The Jerusalem Post

US-Pakistan strategic cooperation

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Washington looked forward to exploring cooperation with Pakistan on critical minerals and hydrocarbons, with his comments coming in a statement issued by the State Department on Pakistan's Independence Day.

Washington and Islamabad hailed a trade deal last month, which Pakistan said would result in lower tariffs and increased investment.

Pakistan's Commerce Minister Jam Kamal has said Islamabad will offer US businesses opportunities to invest in mining projects primarily in the southwestern Baluchistan province through joint ventures with local companies, providing concessions such as lease grants.

The province is home to key mining projects, including Reko Diq, run by mining firm Barrick Gold and believed to be one of the world's largest gold and copper mines.

"We look forward to exploring new areas of economic cooperation, including critical minerals and hydrocarbons, and fostering dynamic business partnerships," Rubio said late on Wednesday.

"The United States deeply appreciates Pakistan's engagement on counterterrorism and trade."

Before President Donald Trump's administration, Islamabad's relationship with Washington had cooled in recent years, as the US drew closer to Pakistan's traditional adversary India to counter China's rise, among other factors.

Washington also resented Islamabad over Afghanistan, especially under former President Joe Biden's administration, which oversaw a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and the takeover of the country by the Taliban insurgency that Washington accused Islamabad of backing. Pakistan denied the charge.

In recent months, Washington's ties with Islamabad have improved. Trump took credit for a ceasefire between India and Pakistan after the Asian neighbors engaged in hostilities in May following an April attack in India-administered Kashmir.

Pakistan praised Trump while India maintained that New Delhi and Islamabad should resolve their issues directly without outside involvement.

The US and Pakistan held the latest round of counterterrorism talks in Islamabad on Tuesday. Washington has designated separatist militant group Baluchistan Liberation Army as a "foreign terrorist organization."

"The US-Pakistan counterterrorism dialogue joint statement is one of the most positive and effusive I've seen from these two countries on CT for quite a few years," Michael Kugelman, a Washington-based South Asia analyst and writer for Foreign Policy magazine, said.

 

Brazil to be largest source of output expansion

OPEC has downgraded its forecast for US oil supply growth next year, paving the way for Brazil to become the largest source of non OPEC output expansion in 2026, according to its latest Monthly Oil Market Report (MOMR).

US liquids output is now expected to rise by just 130,000 barrel per day — down by 80,000 bpd from last month's report and sharply lower than the 510,000 bpd projected in January. The revision reflects sustained capital discipline and weaker momentum in drilling activity, the MOMR said. It follows a series of earlier downgrades to US oil supply growth for both this year and next.

Brazilian supply is forecast to increase by 160,000 bpd in 2026, making it the top contributor to non OPEC Plus growth.

Total non OPEC Plus supply is now projected to grow by 630,000 bpd next year — 100,000 bpd less than previously expected. OPEC left its 2025 non OPEC supply growth forecast unchanged at 810,000 bpd.

OPEC Plus crude output — including Mexico — rose by 335,000 bpd to 41.94 million bpd in July, based on an average of secondary sources including Argus.

The group estimates the call on OPEC Plus crude at 42.5 million bpd in 2025 and 43.1 million bpd in 2026.

On the demand side, OPEC has raised its 2026 global oil demand growth forecast by 100,000 bpd to 1.38 million bpd, bringing total demand to 106.52 million bpd. The upgrade reflects stronger expectations for consumption in the US, Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

Demand growth for 2025 was left unchanged at 1.29 million bpd, with total consumption seen at 105.14 million bpd.

But there remains considerable uncertainty regarding global oil demand, with other outlooks such as the IEA projecting much lower consumption.

The IEA sees oil demand growing by just 700,000 bpd to 103.68 million bpd in 2025, and by another 720,000 bpd to 104.40 million bpd in 2026. This equates to a gap of about 1.5 million bpd between OPEC and the IEA 2025 demand projections, rising to more than 2 million bpd in 2026.

 

Trump Administration threatens backers of IMO net zero proposals

A joint statement by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, said the Trump Administration “unequivocally rejects” the net zero framework proposal that the IMO is aiming to reach agreement on in October, reports Seatrade Maritime News.

The joint statement said the Trump Administration, “will not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens, energy providers, shipping companies and their customers, or tourists”.

However, the statement did not merely reject the IMO’s net zero proposals but also said that the US would retaliate against nations backing them at the MEPC meeting in October.

“We will fight hard to protect the American people and their economic interests. Our fellow IMO members should be on notice that we will look for their support against this action and not hesitate to retaliate or explore remedies for our citizens should this endeavour fail.”

There was no mention of what shape retaliation or remedies might take, but tariffs have very much been the Trump Administration’s weapon of choice.

The strongly worded rejection of the proposals follows the US delegation walking out of a vote at extraordinary meeting of the MEPC at the IMO in April. Despite the US walkout and some member states either abstaining or voting against the proposals the necessary majority was attained to take the framework forward to the next meeting in October.

The Trump Administration’s threat of retaliation against countries backing the proposals will add further difficulties to what was already expected to be a challenging meeting in October.

In May DNV Maritime CEO Knut Ørbeck-Nilssen, told a webinar, “Considering that the US withdrew from the whole process, I think it is still uncertain what will happen in October.”

While those pushing for net zero targets were critical of the proposals for not providing enough incentives for the switch green fuels such as ammonia or methanol, the Trump Administration railed against potentially higher costs for ship owners and operators using LNG and biofuels with the imposition of what it sees as a global carbon tax.

“Whatever its stated goals, the proposed framework is effectively a global carbon tax on Americans levied by an unaccountable UN organization. These fuel standards would conveniently benefit China by requiring the use of expensive fuels unavailable at global scale,” the statement said.

China is at the forefront of developing alternative fuels. According to the Methanol Institute when it comes to developing green methanol production China represents more than half of the total announced capacity to 2030 and in the near term will provide 75 to 80% up to 2028.

Rubio, Lutnick, and Duffy stated, “These standards would also preclude the use of proven technologies that fuel global shipping fleets, including lower emissions options where US industry leads such as liquified natural gas (LNG) and biofuels. Under this framework, ships will have to pay fees for failing to meet unattainable fuel standards and emissions targets.”

 

Collision between ships in South China Sea

According to South China Morning Post, two Chinese ships were involved in a collision during a confrontation with Philippine ships near the disputed Scarborough Shoal on Monday.

The incident, in which Beijing claimed it had expelled a number of vessels from the area, was the latest in a series of confrontations between the two countries in the South China Sea.

Two Philippine coastguard vessels – the BRP Teresa Magbanua and BRP Suluan – were in the area escorting the government owned fishing carrier MV Pamamalakaya and 35 local fishing vessels as part of a government initiative to support fishing communities.

The coastguard said its ships were also delivering fuel and other supplies to the fishing boats at the time.

The Philippine coastguard said its ships were confronted by the China Coast Guard (CCG)’s cutter 3104 and a PLA Navy Type 052D guided-missile destroyer, the Guilin.

It added that the two vessels collided around 10.5 nautical miles (19.5km) east of the Scarborough Shoal, a reef that has seen numerous confrontations between the two sides.

China has not released footage of the incident, but the Philippines released a video showing the accident.

The footage, apparently filmed on board the Suluan, showed the Chinese coastguard ship heading towards the Philippine vessels and firing its water cannons.

The camera then showed the destroyer at the rear of the Philippine vessel, where it was hit by the Chinese coastguard ship, which appeared to suffer extensive damage to its bow.

“The CCG 3104, which was chasing the BRP Suluan at high speed, performed a risky manoeuvre from the [Philippine] vessel’s starboard quarter, leading to the impact with the PLA Navy warship,” the Philippine coastguard said.

It also credited the crew’s “seamanship skills” for avoiding a direct hit from the water cannons.

China’s official statements have so far focused on its efforts to expel Philippine vessels from the waters around the Scarborough Shoal.

Gan Yu, a Chinese coastguard spokesman, said the Philippine ships had “disregarded repeated dissuasion and warnings from China” and “forcibly intruded” into the area.

Gan added the Chinese ships had taken “professional, standardized, legitimate and legal” methods to drive away the vessels.

It was unclear if anyone was hurt in the collision or the exact extent of the damage to either Chinese ship.

Ding Duo, an associate research fellow at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, said that the “relatively small and fast” Philippine vessel had made a “risky” manoeuvre to cross directly in front of the destroyer.

“The Chinese coastguard vessel was pursuing from behind, could not stop in time, and did not give up the chase. The distance involved was actually normal, but the Philippine side chose a different tactic – one with a degree of recklessness and considerable danger,” he said.

The China Coast Guard and PLA Navy both carry out regular patrols in the South China Sea as part of Beijing’s efforts to assert its sovereignty.

But the accident has raised questions about how well they coordinate their operations in the disputed waters.

Other navies have suffered from similar accidents in the past, including the US Navy, which was involved in three separate collisions – two of them fatal – with commercial ships in the space of just four months in 2017.

Seven sailors died when the USS Fitzgerald collided with a Philippine cargo ship off the coast of Japan in June of that year. A further 10 died when the USS John McCain and an oil tanker crashed into each other two months later in waters east of Singapore.

 

Bahri denies carrying arms for Israel

Responding to recent media coverage, Saudi Arabian shipping logistics company Bahri has issued a statement categorically denying that its vessels carry Israel-bound shipments, reports Seatrade Maritime News

“In response to false allegations and malicious rumours circulating in certain media outlets and on social media platforms, claiming that the company’s vessels are transporting shipments bound for Israel, Bahri categorically denies these unfounded claims. These allegations are entirely false and without merit,” the company said in its statement.

The release comes after dockworkers from Italian union Unione Sindacale di Base (USB) refused to work on Bahri Yanbu, after claiming to have found a large shipment of weapons and ammunition onboard the vessel. USB’s own coverage of the event makes no mention of Israel, but alleged the weapons shipment lacked necessary paperwork.

The union is currently running a campaign to prevent arms trafficking in Italian ports, and to resist Italian ports playing a role in weapons logistics chains.

The union’s “We will not work for war” stance has seen containers of “war material” turned away from Italian ports. USB has also been involved in coordinated action with other European unions to target materiel and weapons-grade materials destined for Israel, cargoes they believe will be used to carry out genocide in Gaza.

 “The company operates strictly in line with the Kingdom’s declared and consistent policies in support of the Palestinian cause,” Bahri said in its statement.

“It has never transported any goods or shipments to Israel and has never been involved in any such operations in any capacity.”

The Saudi ship owner, which has a fleet of 103 vessels in sectors including oil, products, dry bulk, and break bulk, said it retained the right to pursue legal action against those spreading malicious claims against the company.

 

Trump paved way for Israeli attacks on Iran

Israel had been planning a full-scale invasion of Iran for many years, but the re-election of Donald Trump coincided with a series of critical events paving the way to the direct attack in June this year, four current and former Israeli intelligence sources told Euronews in separate interviews.

Israeli intelligence sources, speaking on condition of anonymity due to security concerns, told Euronews that Mossad agents had identified key strategic factors and political conditions enabling them to prepare for and initiate the attack on Iran. Among these, they cited the intensification of the proxy war, the election of US President Donald Trump, and the momentum of nuclear negotiations with Western powers.

On June 13, Israel launched multiple land and air strikes on Iran, killing senior Iranian military leaders, nuclear scientists and politicians, and damaging or destroying Iranian air defences and nuclear military facilities.

Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israeli cities and military sites, aided by Houthis in Yemen.

The US defended Israel from these attacks and, on the ninth day, bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. Iran then struck a US base in Qatar. On June 24, under US pressure, Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire.

Both sides claimed victory following the ceasefire. Israel and the US asserted that they significantly degraded Iran’s missile and nuclear programs, while Iranian authorities denied these claims. Independent assessments are currently limited due to the secrecy surrounding Iran’s nuclear program.

Israel and the US said that the attack had been in the planning for many years, in parallel with diplomatic engagement with Iran.

“Israel has never hidden the fact that it wants to destroy the Iranian nuclear program, and it has never hidden the fact it was also willing to allow it to be resolved diplomatically, as long as the diplomatic solution prevents Iran not only from enriching uranium, but from ever getting the capacity to pose an existential threat to the state of Israel,” a first Israeli intelligence source told Euronews.

Diplomatic engagements were not bringing any tangible results, the sources said, while tensions between the US and Iran grew following Donald Trump's first presidency in the US from 2016-2020.

In 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), which had limited Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Following the US re-imposition of sanctions, Iran began ignoring the deal’s nuclear restrictions in 2019.

“I think the pivotal moment was in April 2024, when Iran launched missiles directly from its own territory at Israel. Until then, Iran had primarily relied on proxies to attack Israel, while Israel carried out covert operations inside Iran with plausible deniability, aiming to prevent escalation into full-scale war,” the first intelligence source said.

In April 2024, Iran launched missiles at Israel in retaliation for an Israeli strike on its consulate in Syria that killed Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi. He was the highest-ranking Iranian military official killed since the Iranian General Qassem Suleimani’s assassination in 2020 by the US Trump administration. Suleimani was the ‘architect’ of Iran’s proxy war in the Middle East.

“I think Israel had to wait from April 2024. It needed time to gather all the intelligence and planning it needed in order to feel confident that, already in the first two or three days of the war, we would be in a position where we had complete control over the situation, minimal casualties at home, and complete control of Iranian airspace, with the ability to attack whenever and wherever we want to,” the source added.

Donald Trump's second election as US president was another key pivotal moment and was welcomed by all the four sources.

“The original plan was to attack in October 2024. That was after the second direct missile attack by Iran on Israel following Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon in September,” the first intelligence sources said, but the attack was delayed to wait for the US elections in November.

“I think it was very important for Israel that Trump should win those elections. Once Trump was elected, he put the main emphasis on reaching a hostage deal,” said the second source, referring to the Hamas-Israel conflict.

“Once the hostage deal was signed around March 2025, Israel was again in a position to attack Iran. But the US and Iran entered into negotiations, to try bringing a peaceful solution to the issue of Iran's enrichment and nuclear program,” the first source added.

In March, the US and Iran began indirect negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. The negotiations did not bring an agreement, although counterparts described them as “constructive”.

“Trump gave 60 days to those negotiations. The day after, Israel attacked Iran. I think that obviously was coordinated with the US administration,” all the current and former Israeli intelligence sources told Euronews.

Washington has never publicly stated that Israel’s first attack on Iran was coordinated. However, following the US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a press conference on June 23 that the operation had been planned for many years.

“When we attacked, we were at the end of the 60-day period of negotiations. I think it was very clear to Trump at this stage that the Iranians were not willing to forego enrichment on Iranian soil, even though the negotiations did bring up some interesting solutions to that. For example, some sort of international enrichment agency that would allocate enriched uranium at civilian levels to all countries in the region interested in it,” the first intelligence source said.

“Trump realized Iran was engaging in negotiations merely to buy time, with no real intent to reach a resolution. The talks served as a decoy, giving Iran the impression it wouldn’t be attacked, especially amid widespread press reports that Israel was on the verge of striking,” the first source added.

While Iran claimed victory and celebrated its resilience towards Israel's invasion, Israeli intelligence sources said that Tehran’s regime has been left weakened following the attack.

“Israel has emerged from several conflicts in a stronger strategic position in the region, but in a more difficult political position with its Western partners, except perhaps Washington. We’re at a very delicate moment in which both Israel and Iran have little to gain by pushing further right now,” Ian Lesser, fellow and adviser to the German Marshall Fund’s president, told Euronews.

“Iran has fewer options now. One option is to return to negotiations. Another is to turn to its traditional methods of responding, which rely on proxies and non-traditional actions, including terrorism. There is also the possibility that, if Iran maintains some ability to develop nuclear weapons, it may see this as another path. But I don’t think anyone will let them do that. There may be disagreements about Israeli strategy and policy, but overall, Israel and its Western partners are not willing to tolerate a nuclearized Iran,” the expert added.

If the war had gone further, Israel would have probably attacked gas and oil installations, a fourth former Israeli intelligence source told Euronews. However, after the ceasefire, negotiations have resumed at diplomatic level.

On July 25, diplomats from Iran met counterparts from Germany, the UK, and France in Istanbul for talks, the first since Israel’s mid-June attack on Iran, amid warnings that these European countries might trigger a “snapback” of UN sanctions on Tehran.

The second intelligence source said that following the conflict, Israel would maintain control over Iranian airspace, in order to “destroy anything that even suggests that the Iranians are preparing to rebuild any of the capabilities that we have destroyed”. — Euronews