Nationalist, conservative parties enjoy a boost in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s general election did not bring about many surprises in voter trends, but some developments could change the country’s political atmosphere, analysts have told Al Jazeera.

Most voters on Sunday moved further along ethnic lines, turning away from the idea of a civic society that gained momentum in the previous election when the centre-right Bosniak Party of Democratic Action (SDA) did not participate in the state government.

This trend has long been a fixture in the Bosnian entity of Republika Srpska, where Milorad Dodik’s Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD) once again swept aside its competition in Sunday’s elections.

Voters in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina elected a candidate of the Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina (HDZ BiH), Darijana Filipovic, to the state presidency; for eight years that seat had been held by Zeljko Komsic of the Democratic Front, a civic-oriented party.

Sacir Filandra, a professor of political science at the University of Sarajevo, said the results were in line with a broader pattern – the strengthening of conservative forces in an uncertain European environment marked by “rising walls” and fear.

“We are witnessing the strengthening of conservative views and the revival or consolidation of political right-wing forces as part of wider European trends,” Filandra told Al Jazeera. “In these times of crisis and transition, that trend has also reached us, which is why nationalist and conservative parties have gained greater prominence. The basis of this voter choice is insecurity, anxiety, uncertainty and, to some extent, fear, as well as global developments in Europe.”

The clearer picture of what comes next will emerge only after parties negotiate coalitions and form governments.

“In our society, political parties reflect longstanding divisions within society,” Filandra said. “The situation is highly conservative, status quo prevails and politics has been reduced to a redistribution of power. It was not realistic to expect encouraging breakthroughs in terms of political reconciliation”, he added.

Changes in the presidency

During the years Komsic held the seat, the nationalist Croat leadership headed by Dragan Covic complained that Croats were being outvoted by Bosniaks, who helped Komsic to win the seat twice in a row.

Under Bosnia’s electoral system, Croat and Bosniak members of the state presidency are elected in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with every citizen, regardless of nationality, entitled to vote for any of the candidates. Over the past eight years, many Bosniaks have cast their ballots for Komsic, who was running for the Croat seat.

It could be argued that Filipovic’s victory is the most significant shift.


The results mean that the only member of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s tripartite presidency representing a declared multi-ethnic political orientation will be Bosniak Denis Becirovic, of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and its partners, who won a second term in the state presidency.

However, with Filipovic and Zeljka Cvijanovic, the candidate of Dodik’s hardline Serb nationalist SNSD, on the presidency, the national interests of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s constituent peoples are likely to play a much greater role than they have over the past eight years.

The elections for the state and entity parliaments, as well as cantonal assemblies, also saw the SDA perform – it was the leading party in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in terms of the number of votes won, alongside traditionally strong performances by HDZ and SNSD. HDZ secured a convincing victory among Croat voters, while Dodik’s party won the largest number of votes in both the entity and state parliamentary elections.

‘A relaxation of Croat-Bosniak relations’

Over the past eight years, HDZ BiH leader Dragan Covic has warned of the “endangerment of Croats”, fuelled by Komsic’s victories over HDZ candidates in elections for the state presidency.

These votes could usher in an end to the pattern that Covic described, with the election of the Croat member of the Presidency.

Filipovic defeated Komsic’s preferred candidate, Slaven Kovacevic.

Covic publicly “thanked Bosniaks” for the outcome.

The question now is how this change will affect the political environment in Bosnia.

“Part of the public in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not unhappy with the outcome and sees the change as an opportunity to ease Croat-Bosniak relations,” historian and columnist Dragan Markovina told Al Jazeera. “I do not believe anything fundamental will change, but at least the atmosphere between political parties … could become less tense.”

Another striking feature of the election was the low turnout. About 40 percent took to the polls, some 10 percent fewer than four years ago.

Some interpret that as growing apathy.

Srecko Latal, an independent analyst, believes new technologies have also played a role, eliminating allegedly fraudulent ballots.

‘Worries’ for Bosnia’s future

Markovina believes the election results point clearly towards a possible coalition and the emergence of a new conservative axis between SDA, SNSD and HDZ, a scenario that evokes Bosnia’s political past.

The dominance of the three conservative parties in post-war Bosnia has been associated with obstruction, political deadlock and ethnonationalist narratives that have hindered progressive processes.

Amid declining support for civic or multi-ethnic parties, the political balance is changing.

“It would be fair to say that a coalition of SDA, SNSD and HDZ is likely to emerge. Much of post-war Bosnia’s history has been spent with these parties in coalitions, and nothing has improved, nor has any fundamental problem been resolved,” said Markovina, expressing little optimism about the future.

“Bosnia is moving backwards,” Markovina believes. “We are not the only ones who have nationalists. There are more and more of them around us (in Europe), and that is what worries me most when it comes to Bosnia’s future.”

Nigeria launches rescue after military plane crashes with 32 aboard

Nigeria has launched a search-and-rescue operation after a military aircraft carrying 32 people crashed in Ondo state in the country’s southwest.

The wreckage of the aircraft has been located near the naval base in Igbokoda, Aviation Minister Festus Keyamo said on Monday. The plane disappeared while flying from Benin to Lagos.

“The wreckage has been located and search and rescue operations are ongoing,” Keyamo said in a statement on social media.

He added that preliminary information indicated that 25 passengers and seven crew members were on board.

Air traffic controllers lost contact with the aircraft at 09:13 local time (0813 GMT). Repeated attempts to reach it by radio were unsuccessful.

The Nigerian air force said the plane was an ATR-42 that had been travelling to Lagos on a routine flight. Rescue teams have been deployed to the crash site.

Keyamo said he had spoken with Nigeria’s Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshal Sunday Kelvin Aneke, and offered the Aviation Ministry’s “total cooperation and assistance” in the rescue effort.

Authorities have not yet confirmed any casualties, and it was not immediately clear how badly the aircraft was damaged.

Yemeni gov’t forces aim for Sanaa, but Houthi defeat will be a challenge

Yemeni government forces have claimed advances along the strategic Bab al-Mandeb strait after the head of Yemen’s Presidential Leadership Council, ⁠Rashad al-Alimi, announced the start of a major offensive to capture all territories lost to the Houthis.

On Monday, forces aligned with Yemen’s internationally recognised government claimed the advance and headed north along the Red Sea coast, and said they had retaken the town of Dhubab and port city of Mocha. They also earlier said that they had launched a “strategic offensive” on the Houthi-held capital Sanaa.

Government forces are also attempting to reverse gains made by the Houthis in recent days around the key city of Taiz, in southwestern Yemen.

The Houthis, an Iranian-allied movement, have held the capital Sanaa since September 2014, before making other territorial gains in northern and western Yemen.

After four years of relative calm, fighting flared once again in July, before a Houthi offensive in early September saw the group make sweeping gains along the Red Sea coast, including the port city of Mocha and Bab al-Mandeb.

The Yemeni government, backed by Saudi Arabia, is now attempting to regain that lost territory, but still faces divisions within the anti-Houthi camp.

“The [internationally recognised government’s] ground forces are big on paper and quite sizeable, but scattered across a bunch of fronts and running on old pre-war gear, so they can hold their lines but [currently] can’t push the Houthis out of their mountain strongholds,” Raiman al-Hamdani, a London-based Yemen analyst, told Al Jazeera.

The most recent fighting hints at a new escalation in the conflict, al-Hamdani said.

“This all seems to be moving into a more dangerous phase, and while the appetite for a full-scale war may exist among elements of the leadership on both sides, the reality is more complicated,” al-Hamdani said.

“In the longer term, the more plausible outcome is not the military destruction of one side by the other, but a negotiated and imperfect political settlement in which the Houthis retain substantial influence in northern Yemen, Saudi Arabia obtains greater security guarantees, and Yemen’s competing political and military factions are forced into some form of power-sharing arrangement,” al-Hamdani added.

“The problem is that reaching that point may require another period of serious escalation before any settlement.”


Government setting the agenda

Ahmed al-Shalafi, Al Jazeera’s Yemen correspondent and a specialist in Yemeni affairs, reported that the recent moves by the Yemeni government show “complete operational and political integration”.

“These moves lend a serious and decisive dimension to the announced battle to liberate Sanaa and restore the state,” he said.

Al-Shalafi said the government’s offensive is intended to start the confrontation on their own terms, rather than allowing the Houthis to dictate the stages of the war.

And even if the United States and Iran agree a deal to end their ongoing conflict, which began in late February, it might not seriously impact the fighting in Yemen.

Nicholas Brumfield, an independent Yemen analyst, told Al Jazeera that he believes the balance of power has not yet shifted in favour of either side.

“The Houthis are going to keep pushing in Taiz and Marib,” he said. “[Government] forces have been better on the defensive in Taiz … But the Houthis have been able to push in all directions at once in a way [government] forces just aren’t.”

However, Saeed Thabet, the head of Al Jazeera’s Yemen bureau, said the government’s advances, coming soon after al-Alimi’s announcement of the beginning of a new large-scale offensive against the Houthis, were a way of demonstrating that the government was serious about reversing Houthi gains.

“The military expansion is a message that the government is determined to implement what it says in its statements,” Thabet said. “In the past, a lot of Yemenis would not take these statements seriously.”

“The government forces will now attempt to … control Taiz’s Red Sea coast,” he added. “It will also attempt to contain the Houthi infiltration into some villages and areas in Taiz governorate, especially in al-Shamayatayn and al-Waziya districts. Sources there have told us that government security forces are sweeping those areas and capturing some [Houthi] armed men.”

Interactive_Yemen_Control_Map_October5_2026
(Al Jazeera)

What happened between Ireland and Israel in their Nations League match?

Tensions between the football teams of Israel and Ireland reached a flashpoint during the second leg of their Nations League fixture in Serbia, bringing an end to a politically charged two weeks.

The League 3 Group B match ended in a 1–1 draw at the TSC Arena in Backa Topola on Sunday, but tempers flared and accusations flew despite the game being held behind closed doors and at a neutral venue.

It built on the confrontational nature of their first match on September 27, when Ireland defeated Israel 3-0.

Irish players had been under pressure from home – where affinity with Palestinians is strong – to boycott the second match against Israel, although the pressure seemed greater during the first game.

“I felt that pressure growing day by day and it’s getting almost to a breaking limit now,” Ireland coach Heimir Hallgrimsson said at the time.

Here’s a look at the events surrounding the fixture:

What are the spitting allegations against Israel?

Irish media reported that one of Ireland’s coaches, Damien Doyle, had accused an Israeli player of spitting at him after the half-time whistle.

“I was there. I’m not going to comment. It’s something a disciplinary committee will look at,” Ireland coach Heimir Hallgrimsson said when asked by reporters about the incident.

Israel coach Ran Ben-Shimon said he had already left the sideline and did not see what happened.

“Half-time, I was in the dressing room, in my room with my ⁠⁠staff; I didn’t see anything. When I’m going to see and check, I will get ⁠⁠back to you with the answer,” he told reporters.


Will UEFA take action against Israeli players?

There is no clarity yet on whether European football’s governing body will sanction the players.

UEFA and the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) have not responded to Al Jazeera’s request for comment on whether a disciplinary inquiry has been opened into the incident.

While spitting incidents in football are not uncommon, there have been none previously reported between Irish and Israeli players.

Why did Ireland’s players not shake hands with Israelis?

Ahead of the first fixture, Israel was informed in advance by the FAI that Ireland’s players would not shake hands as a form of silent protest and UEFA accepted the arrangement.

It was one of several protest measures unveiled by David Courell, FAI CEO, at the pre-match news conference. He said there would be no exchange of the customary pennant before the game and that Irish players would wear black armbands in honour of all the victims of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, while donating their match fees to charity.

Irish players also bowed their heads while Israel’s national anthem was being played.

Ireland is one of Europe’s most outspoken critics of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and the FAI chose to stage Sunday’s match behind closed doors in Serbia amid the pressure to withdraw from the fixtures.


Will Ireland and Israel face each other again?

No, Sunday’s match was the second and final fixture between the two sides in the group stage. They will not face each other again in the current Nations League cycle.

“I’m absolutely delighted this is finished,” Hallgrimsson said after Sunday’s match, according to Ireland’s national broadcaster RTE.

When asked whether Ireland and Israel should be drawn in the same group at such tournaments, he said:  “No, we shouldn’t.”

“But that’s not for us to decide. It’s UEFA that decides that.”

The Icelandic coach went on to talk about the toll it took on his players.

“I wouldn’t wish for any national team to go through what we have gone through these two weeks. So maybe UEFA just needs to step in and do something.”

Hallgrimsson underscored the Irish support for Palestine, saying emotions ran high due to the sentiment.

“There’s obviously a big support for Palestine in Ireland. There’s not many countries that support Palestine as much as Ireland does.”

People hold placards calling on Ireland's football team not to play their next fixture against Israel, during a 'Stop The Game' protest outside Aviva Stadium in Dublin on October 1, 2026, ahead of the team's Nations League match against Austria. Ireland coach Heimir Hallgrimsson said on September 30 they will play their second Nations League match against Israel on October 4 after the first fixture was thrown into doubt by player concerns over the Gaza war. (Photo by Paul Faith / AFP)
Placards urging Ireland’s football team not to play against Israel [Paul Faith/AFP]

Does UEFA separate teams due to political reasons?

Yes, while UEFA uses a computer-generated system to sort the 54 nations into four pots to create groups, it has certain draw conditions in place to keep certain teams apart due to geopolitical or travel restraints.

The only “prohibited clash” in the 2026-27 cycle was between Bosnia and Herzegovina (League B, pot 2) and Kosovo (League B, pot 4).

Other teams that will not be drawn together due to political reasons based on the UEFA Executive Committee’s decision are:

  • Armenia and Azerbaijan
  • Gibraltar and Spain
  • Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Kosovo and Serbia
  • Kosovo and Russia
  • Ukraine and Russia
  • Ukraine and Belarus

Why did Ireland’s Finn Azaz not play against Israel?

Ireland player Finn Azaz, whose mother has Israeli heritage, was benched for both fixtures after Hallgrimsson said he “didn’t feel he was ready for the game”.

“Obviously we spoke a lot together and it was just tough on him. I could feel it when I spoke to him,” the Ireland manager told the public broadcaster.

“It tested him more than all of us. So I just felt it was better to leave him out than play him.”

Why were Irish players wearing black armbands?

Ireland players wore black armbands in both fixtures in recognition of Palestinians killed in Gaza.

Israel, meanwhile, wore black armbands featuring “7.10”, a reference to October 7, when armed fighters from Palestinian group Hamas launched attacks in southern Israel, which then launched its genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.


Have other teams worn armbands at international matches before?

Yes, several teams have worn black armbands to commemorate a player or coach who has passed.

Portugal wore black armbands and observed a moment of silence for midfielder Diogo Jota who was killed in a car crash in July 2025. The team then transitioned to longer-term tributes through custom wristbands bearing the name of Jota and the squad when they competed at the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

All Premier League teams and officials honoured Brazilian legend Pele with black armbands and a minute’s applause prior to kickoffs during certain matches the week of Pele’s death in December 2022.

In 2020, AC Milan and Torino wore black armbands in tribute to NBA legend Kobe Bryant, who supported AC Milan and lived in Italy for several years during his childhood.

Latest US military strike on alleged drug boat kills four in Caribbean

The United States has conducted another strike on an alleged drug trafficking boat in the Caribbean, killing four, according to the US military.

US Southern Command said late Sunday that it struck alleged drug traffickers operating along “established narco-trafficking routes” in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean, following its standard reporting pattern for military operations of suspected cartels across the multinational maritime zones.

The latest attack brings the death toll from US military boat strikes to at least 235 deaths across 70 attacks, since the administration of US President Donald Trump first launched its counter-narcoterrorism campaign, termed Operation Southern Spear, in September of last year.

At the time, Trump characterised the fight against cartels in Latin America as an active “armed conflict” while defending the strikes as a necessary escalation to curb illicit drug trafficking and reduce fatal US overdoses.

The move comes as United Nations experts warn that the strikes violate international law and could amount to crimes against humanity.

Despite releasing footage on X showing the explosion that destroyed the moving vessel, the US military has offered no evidence that the targeted boat was ferrying drugs.

The Trump administration has been actively seeking regional security agreements across Latin America to expand joint military operations against what it has designated as criminal cartels.  The deals come under the US-led Shield of the Americas coalition, launched in March. The president has pledged the undertaking will use “unmatched military might” to dismantle drug cartels while simultaneously countering Chinese economic influence in the Western Hemisphere.

During a visit to Panama in August, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that Colombia, Guatemala and Honduras had agreed to joint counter-crime military operations on their soil, a statement Guatemala quickly disputed to clarify its sovereignty and boundaries within the 19-member alliance.

Murder in Okinawa: The US military’s history of alleged crime in Japan

The murder of a Japanese woman allegedly committed by a US Marine on the southern island of Okinawa has prompted public outrage in Japan, amid a long string of incidents involving American personnel.

Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi described the incident on Monday as a “heinous crime” and said the government had lodged a strong protest with Washington, urging their “full cooperation with the investigation” and “strict discipline among US military personnel”.

About 100 people participated in a rally in Naha, the capital of Okinawa, on Sunday, as news spread that a US marine had, a day earlier, allegedly killed a 39-year-old woman at a hotel in the city and stolen her wallet.

Public broadcaster NHK reported that security camera footage from near the scene showed a foreign man entering a room with a woman and later leaving alone with her belongings. Police then found a 20-year-old man who matched the description. The suspect has reportedly denied the allegations.

Police identified the suspect as Devin Jacob Ballard and the victim as Anna Yagi.

Kozue Akibayashi, a professor of gender and peace studies at Doshisha University in Kyoto, Japan, said the incident reflects a decades-long issue. “The Japanese government has always chosen the US-Japan alliance over the safety and lives, and voices of the people of Okinawa,” she told Al Jazeera.

Why are US marines stationed in Okinawa?

The United States has about 54,000 military personnel stationed in Japan. Okinawa bears a disproportionate burden, hosting about 70 percent of US military facilities in the country, set up under a bilateral security treaty and Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed first in 1951 and then revised in 1960.

Japan has the “primary right to exercise jurisdiction” for crimes committed off-base while US personnel are not on duty, while the US has the “primary right” for crimes committed on the base or while on duty.

Okinawa is viewed by Tokyo and Washington as key in deterring potential military aggression from China. “The US and the Japanese governments have always cited ‘geopolitical’ importance of the location of the archipelago to justify not only the presence itself but also the disproportionately high concentration of the US military there,” Akibayashi, at Doshisha University, said.

“However, in reality, it was convenient for the Japanese government to keep the larger number of US troops and military facilities in Okinawa that nobody wants.”

The professor said Okinawa, one of Japan’s 47 prefectures, represents 1 percent of the entire population of Japan and less than 1 percent of the entire Japanese territory.

“Their political voice does not seem to bear significance to the Japanese government,” she added. “Probably more importantly, Okinawa was colonised by Japan in the late 19th century and has always been a subject of discrimination within Japan.”

Okinawa was historically an independent trading nation called the Ryukyu Kingdom before Japan annexed it in 1879. The US held Okinawa, which is ‌100 kilometres (60 miles) from Taiwan at the closest point, from the end of World War II ⁠until 1972.

“Many US military bases located on the main islands of Japan were transferred to the islands of Okinawa … because the mainland Japanese people had started to protest the presence of the US military in their neighbourhood,” Akibayashi said.

The presence of US marines has repeatedly stirred resentment among residents ⁠over issues such as noise, aircraft crashes and the conduct of personnel.

Have US marines been accused of crimes before?

Yes, there is a long history of crimes including rapes, assaults, hit-and-run and drunk-driving accidents allegedly committed by US personnel, triggering protests on Okinawa.

Last year, a Japanese court sentenced a US marine accused of choking and attempting to rape a woman in her 20s to seven years in prison.

In 2017, a former US marine and civilian military base worker was sentenced to life in prison for the rape and murder of a local woman in Okinawa. The same year, an intoxicated US marine crashed his vehicle into a mini-truck, killing its 61-year-old local driver.

In 1995, the rape of a 12-year-old Okinawan girl by three US servicemen led to mass protests.

According to the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper, about 6,000 US military personnel have been arrested since 1972, when the US returned control of Okinawa to Japan. In 2024, the number of arrests hit 80, the highest in 20 years.

Akibayashi said people in Okinawa have been outraged by these crimes, which they see as violations of their basic human rights. “Their lives and even survival have been made insecure and threatened by the US military presence,” she said.

“They have expressed countless times their opposition to and anger at the US military presence, and unequal burden of ‘security’ policies imposed on them throughout the decades. Their protests have been ignored and nullified.”

How did Japan and the US respond to Yagi’s murder?

Japanese authorities have expressed outrage at the murder, while the US pledged full collaboration in the investigations.

Japanese Defence Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said, “Incidents and accidents involving US military personnel cause great anxiety among the local community and must not be allowed to happen.”

Prime Minister Takaichi said Japan had lodged a protest with US authorities and called the crime “exceptionally brutal and vicious”.

The government has urged the US “to provide maximum cooperation with the investigation, enforce stricter discipline among US military personnel, and take thorough measures to prevent the recurrence of similar crimes”, Takaichi said.

The US embassy and the Marine Corps expressed condolences over the incident and said they were cooperating with the Japanese authorities.

The Marine Corps said in a statement that the suspect, who ⁠is assigned to the III Marine Expeditionary Force and based ⁠at Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, was in Japanese custody.

“The Marine Corps takes these allegations very seriously and expects every Marine to adhere to the highest standards of behavior,” it said.

US Ambassador George Glass posted on social media that he had spoken with Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Okinawa’s governor, offering “our sincere condolences and pledging full cooperation as the investigation continues”.

Akibayashi said that when crimes are committed, “the US government and the military always say they would address the issue or promise tighter discipline”.

“They never worked,” she added.

US pulls bombers from UK base: Is Iran manoeuvring Trump’s war plans?

Last week, a British bomb disposal robot roamed the area near the Royal Air Force (RAF) base at Fairford and 85 homes were evacuated as the threat of an attack appeared imminent.

Days later, the United States speedily sent B-1 bombers stationed there, which were used to strike Iran in its ongoing war, back home. About a dozen had been stationed at the air base.

The foiled incident resulted in no charges and the release of five suspects, and subsequently a separate British-Iranian suspect. But the US cited concerns about more potential attacks for its decision to withdraw its fleet. Tehran has denied any link to the alleged plot to target the base.

RAF Fairford was a pit stop for US bombers during the war – but more importantly, it allowed Washington to rapidly unleash intensive strikes on Iran, say analysts.

They added that their withdrawal reduces Washington’s ability to rapidly generate and sustain bombing missions, but it will not prevent the US from continuing to strike Iran.

“The United States has lost a convenient launchpad, not its underlying strike capability,” Dania Thafer, executive director of the Gulf International Forum and a lecturer at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera.

Long bombing campaigns made more demanding

The analysts were in agreement that the British base gave the US a faster and more efficient way to sustain strikes on Iran.

The bombers at the Fairford base were officially stationed there for defensive strikes – at the behest of the UK government – and likely had a modest targeting list, said Christoph Bergs, an analyst at the world’s oldest defence and security thinktank, the Royal United Services Institute.

“Their withdrawal reduces the capacity to quickly surge sorties against Iran, reducing the threat level somewhat,” Bergs told Al Jazeera.

Thafer explained that while the loss of the bombers does not remove the US’s ability to strike or escalate, “depending on where other assets are positioned, it could make a prolonged bombing campaign more demanding”.

The removal of B-1 bombers imposes a number of tactical costs, says Arun Dawson. He is a PhD candidate at King’s College London’s Freeman Air and Space Institute and a researcher with the UK Nuclear Deterrence Network.

Unlike the more modern B-2 stealth bomber designed to make enemy tracking difficult – which has also previously been stationed at RAF Fairford – “the B-1’s principal advantage is its conventional weapons payload – the largest of any aircraft in the US military”, Dawson told Al Jazeera. The B-1 carries at least 34 tonnes of ordnance, he said.


“This makes the B-1 particularly effective at delivering large volumes of precision-guided weapons against multiple targets during a prolonged air campaign,” said Dawson.

“In the Iran war, those targets may include air-defence infrastructure, ballistic missile sites and IRGC facilities,” he added, referring to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

With the B-1s withdrawing, the US may now have to rely more heavily on longer-range missions from the US or other distant bases, increasing flight times, crew fatigue and the need for aerial refuelling, he explained.

Still, the US may have made the withdrawal decision based on an examination of risks, said Dawson.

“Their abrupt departure suggests that specific threats may have been directed at the aircraft, their crews or the base itself,” he said.

Washington may have also calculated that temporarily withdrawing the bombers could protect it for future operations, especially if the US does not expect the Iran war to intensify any time soon, said Dawson.

For David Des Roches, a professor at the Thayer Marshall Institute and a former Pentagon official, the B-1 withdrawal suggests that the risks outweighed the benefits of keeping the jets at the UK airbase.

The security incident last week “exposed a vulnerability” as the aircraft were “out in the open” and only about 300 yards (275 metres) from where the public could see them.

“So they were very vulnerable to, say, drone attacks or other kind[s] of mortar attacks,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Just a small drone or any kind of a drone with explosives on board could conceivably cause significant damage,” said Des Roches.

The former Pentagon official acknowledged that the deployment of the US bombers means “you lose a little bit of operational ability,” but said that given the threat seen at Fairford, “we should have had overhead cover for all of our aircraft, globally, years ago”.

Can the bombers go elsewhere?

The US has two potential options if the bombers are to be redeployed: to Diego Garcia, the remote coral atoll in the central Indian Ocean hosting both a US and UK military base; or to its many US bases in the Gulf.

Thafer pointed out that Diego Garcia offers greater protection from potential Iranian attacks, but requires longer flight distances.

Rerouting the bombers to Diego Garcia will also depend on how quickly additional aircraft can be folded into the local basing infrastructure, pointed out Bergs.

Stationing them in the Gulf closer to Iran would give them the advantage of shortened transit times, reduced tanker requirements and the ability to generate sorties more rapidly, said Dawson.

But basing in the Gulf region, the analysts agreed, will require more deliberate negotiations around risk mitigation, given that these countries have taken the brunt of Iranian counterstrikes throughout the war. They also want to avoid being seen as direct participants in a US campaign against Iran.

Fairford had therefore offered a “useful” middle ground between the two options, said Thafer.

But with Fairford no longer an option, Diego Garcia would be the more obvious choice, Dawson said, offering not only greater distance from Iran but also a more secure operating environment. It has infrastructure designed to support large-scale US air operations, he said.


US capabilities in the war ahead

For now, the withdrawal appears to blunt rather than eliminate US bombing capacity against Iran.

However, the practical impact on US military options will depend largely on whether the administration sees a need for such strikes now, or whether the threat posed by similar aircraft stationed at Diego Garcia is sufficient for the time being, said Bergs.

The expected arrival of the Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group and the Makin Island Marine Expeditionary Force to the Middle East by November, meanwhile, will add significant US carrier-based air power in the region, said Dawson.

“Aircraft for aircraft, carrier fighters cannot substitute for the B-1’s enormous payload, but there are many more of them, giving commanders additional options for shorter-range strikes,” he said.

What this episode highlights, said the researcher, is the importance – and the vulnerability – of the US’ alliances and overseas basing.

Washington has long enjoyed access to a global network of military facilities – which has been key for its ability to project power rapidly and at scale, he said.

But if those bases face attacks or political restrictions – the implications would extend beyond the Iran war, warned Dawson.

They would affect “how the US military structures its forces, distributes its assets, generates combat power and sustains operations overseas”.


Nobel medicine prize honours US and German scientists for optogenetics work

American scientist Karl Deisseroth and Germans Peter Hegemann and Georg Nagel have won the 2026 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their pioneering discoveries on light and optogenetics that have helped understand ⁠how the brain works.

The Nobel Assembly of Sweden’s Karolinska Institute medical university said on Monday that Deisseroth, 54, Hegemann, 71, and Nagel, 73, were honoured “for their discovery of a molecular switch for nerve cells”.

Optogenetics involves controlling nerve signals with light, and helps researchers understand how specific cell types contribute to behaviours like learning, fear, addiction and movement.

“Optogenetics has fundamentally altered our understanding of the brain. Every day brings new discoveries, helping to solve one of humanity’s great mysteries: how our incredible brain works,” the Nobel Assembly said.

Thomas Perlmann, the secretary-general of the ⁠Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institute, added that optogenetics “makes it possible to switch on, or off, the activity of individual nerve cells in a living brain”.

“This method is now being used in laboratories around the world to reveal the brain’s mysteries,” Perlmann added.

“Optogenetics provides opportunities for mapping the brain in a way that we could once only dream of,” Per Svenningsson, chair of the Nobel committee, said in a statement.

Researchers also hope optogenetics could improve cochlear implants, allowing more precise stimulation of the auditory nerve than current electrical devices.

Deisseroth, 54, is a professor at Stanford University in the US, while Hegemann, 71, is a neuroscience professor at Humboldt University of Berlin. Nagel, 73, is a biophysics professor at the University of Wurzburg. The three of them will share a prize sum amounting to 12 million Swedish crowns ($1.2m).

“All three said the same thing: that they ⁠thought it was absolutely wonderful to receive the prize with the other two who they call their friends – that it’s such an honour to receive the prize together,” Perlmann said.

Nobel laureates are chosen by expert committees appointed by the prize-awarding institutions. The physiology or medicine prize traditionally opens the annual Nobel announcements, with the Nobel Prize for physics announced on Tuesday, followed by the chemistry prize on Wednesday and the literature prize on Thursday.

But perhaps the most keenly anticipated award is that due on Friday, the peace prize – the only Nobel to be awarded in Oslo. Experts have suggested the jury could choose a laureate this year who enjoys broad consensus, after last year’s controversial winner, Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado.

Laureates receive their awards on December 10, the anniversary of Nobel’s death, in ceremonies attended by Sweden’s and Norway’s royal families, with banquets held in their honour.


Is Iran charging a toll to allow oil traffic through Hormuz?

Middle East oil exports have climbed back above levels seen before the US-Israel war on Iran began in February, despite Tehran’s attempts to blockade the Strait of Hormuz and attack vessels.

Crude exports from the region exceeded pre-war levels on four days in the final week of September, reaching between 19.5 and 22.5 million barrels per day (bpd), according to provisional data from maritime tracking firm Kpler. Before the war, exports averaged about 18 million bpd.

This surge in oil exports from the region has so far largely been attributed to US ships shepherding tankers out of the Strait of Hormuz, coupled with increasing ship-to-ship transfers that reduce the risks of being targeted by Iranian missiles and drones. Meanwhile, the fact that oil prices have remained high has been explained by analysts as the result of still-elevated insurance rates — driven by fears of Iranian attacks — and a market factoring in the possibility of a return to a hot war.

But a senior Kpler analyst last week offered a different explanation for the rise in oil exports at high prices. Gulf countries, she suggested, may be paying Iran to allow their oil through – potentially handing Tehran a significant portion of the value of the cargo.

Before the war, one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas exports passed through the Strait of Hormuz.

Does this explanation hold up, and what does it mean for the war and oil prices?

What did the Kpler analyst say?

Michelle Brohard, head of policy and geopolitical risk at Kpler, recently said some countries could be paying Iran for passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

“I suspect there is a toll that’s being paid, which is giving these ships safe passage,” she said in an interview last week with energy analyst Rory Johnston.

“I also suspect that these countries know that this is unsustainable from a perspective of [the] US escorting [ships], and also unsustainable from them paying Iran 10 percent of their cargo, or 20 percent of their cargo,” she added.

“So you’re starting to see like what I would call like a race to get out as much as possible, as quickly as possible before the war restarts.”


The claim has not been independently verified, and Brohard presented it as speculation rather than a finding backed by evidence.

But as early as March, the shipping journal Lloyd’s List reported that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had already imposed a “toll booth” system to control vessel traffic through the strait.

The Trump administration, during the course of the war, has repeatedly said Iran will not be permitted to charge a toll under any potential agreement with Washington.

Closure of the strait has caused global fuel costs to soar and has tested agricultural sectors across the world.

What does traffic in the Hormuz look like?

Oil is increasingly getting out of the Middle East, marine trackers report.

In the last week of September, the seven-day average climbed above the roughly 18 million bpd recorded before the US-Israel war on Iran began in February – the first time since the conflict started.

Kpler said crude exports excluding Iran had also recovered to at least 16.5 million bpd as an average over September.

The pattern of increasing oil exports has continued into October. Iraq’s state-owned Oil Tanker Company on Saturday announced that it had transported two million barrels of crude on a very ‌large crude carrier (VLCC) through the Strait of Hormuz, in what its director general said was the company’s first such operation in decades.

According to Kpler, “40 percent now bypass Hormuz, and most crude crossing the strait changes tankers offshore”, with much of it flowing through Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates pipelines.

The export figures also include supplies moved through the Red Sea, which has become an increasingly important alternative to the Strait of Hormuz.

INTERACTIVE - Strait of Hormuz - March 2, 2026-1772714221

Moreover, the Kpler figures exclude any vessels that may have crossed the key transit route with their automatic identification system transponders turned off to avoid detection.

Iran, however, disputes suggestions that it has lost control of the waterway.

Senior IRGC commander Ali Fadavi said on Sunday only three to four million bpd were travelling along a US-supervised route and described that amount as “negligible” compared with pre-war traffic.

Before the war erupted seven months ago, the strait routinely saw about 125 large commercial vessels a day, including tankers, gas carriers, bulk carriers and container ships.

Where are oil prices right now?

Oil prices have eased marginally as exports from the Middle East recover. Last week, the Group of Seven countries also announced a decision to release 100 million barrels of oil from emergency reserves.

But crude prices remain significantly higher than pre-war levels. Brent crude was trading at about $101.59 a barrel on Monday, down 0.71 percent, while US West Texas Intermediate fell 1.2 percent to about $90.05.

“Despite exports from the region resurging, much will depend, longer-term, on the security of energy supplies,” said Susannah Streeter, chief investment strategist at Wealth Club, noting that the “situation is still tense”.

“The Strait of Hormuz remains a major flashpoint, with the attack on another tanker on Sunday keeping worries bubbling about the potential for further disruption to supplies, particularly if shipping companies become increasingly reluctant to risk sending vessels through the crucial chokepoint.”

On Monday, an oil tanker transiting the Strait of Hormuz was instructed by the IRGC to turn back or risk being targeted, according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) group that monitors shipping traffic.

Does the Kpler analyst’s claim hold weight?

Academic Abdul Khalique says while Kpler analyst Brohard’s speculation that a transit-fee arrangement has been put in place may be “plausible”, it is best described as an “informal security mechanism rather than a formal maritime levy”.

“No public proof confirms a systematic, state-run Iranian toll system,” Khalique, head of the Liverpool John Moores University Maritime Centre, told Al Jazeera.

He said the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) safeguards transit passage through international straits, “rendering formal tolls legally dubious”.

Chris Beauchamp, chief market analyst at IG Group, told Al Jazeera that Brohard’s suspected scenario was “in part” possible.

“Everything appears to be happening under the radar in the Middle East, from the US convoying ships to Iran quietly charging tolls,” he told Al Jazeera.

In September, the US government also imposed sanctions on a digital assets firm, BitBank, that it said had been used by Iran’s Hormuz Safe Marine Services Authority — a body set up by the country’s government to collect fees for allowing the safe transit of vessels through the strait — to transfer money to Tehran.

However, Beauchamp said the biggest challenge for oil exports was now what he called the “problem of shipping”.

“The shuttle system in the Gulf is doing wonders in getting oil out, but it requires plenty of ships, and that has pushed freight rates higher while also reducing supply beyond the region itself,” he added.

According to Beauchamp, Asian buyers are having to find crude from further away too, “lengthening transit times”.

“Previously a supply story, this is now one about the underlying mechanics of shipping. While less exciting, it is arguably much more important and trickier to solve,” he said.

“Ships don’t get built overnight.”

Before UK Greens, who else has equated Zionism with racism?

The United Kingdom’s Green Party has voted to define Zionism as a form of racism, drawing condemnation from the Israeli government.

In a binding vote held at the party’s conference over the weekend, members voted to usher in the new definition as well as a series of other strongly pro-Palestine policies.

However, just as the resolution has drawn international criticism, it has also proved internally controversial with four of the party’s five members in parliament opposing it.

Israel on Monday banned party leader Zack Polanski from the country just a day before the politician faces a by-election as he runs in the London constituency that former Prime Minister Keir Starmer represented.

Zionism emerged as a political ideology in the late 19th century. It called for the creation of a Jewish homeland at a time of rising anti-Semitism and persecution of Jews in Europe. Theodore Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian journalist considered the father of political Zionism, originally proposed an independent and colonial Jewish state in either Palestine or Argentina.

Here’s what we know about what the Greens have said:

BOURNEMOUTH, ENGLAND - OCTOBER 04: Green Party leader Zack Polanski (r) chats with Ben Jamal, Director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, on the second day of the Green Party Conference at the Bournemouth International Centre, on October 04, 2025 in Bournemouth, England. The Green Party go into this year's conference with new leader Zack Polanski and will focus on the cost-of-living, climate crises and the NHS. (Photo by Finnbarr Webster/Getty Images)
Green Party leader Zack Polanski, right, chats with Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, at the 2025 Green Party conference in Bournemouth, England [File: Getty Images]

What is the resolution?

The Greens endorsed the motion to equate Zionism with racism by a vote of 1,022 to 813.

In addition, the party restated its “commitment to Palestinian liberation” and called for the “establishment of a single democratic state throughout historic Palestine”.

The party also recommitted to its support of Palestinians’ right of return as well as to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement against Israel.

“The real, material, manifestation of Zionism has been the historic and ongoing dehumanisation, displacement, dispossession, disenfranchisement and destruction of Palestinians,” a Green Party statement said.

A  significant number of party members, including four of its five MPs, were against parts of the resolution, exposing divisions within the party.

Codeputy leader Rachel Millward said in a post on X that while the party is committed to “stop the genocide”, the term Zionism means “different things to different people, … so I personally do not think the policy helps us do the work we all want to”.

Meanwhile, Polanski, who is Jewish and was away campaigning during the vote, told journalists afterwards that if Zionism equates to the displacement of Palestinians, “that is clearly racist.”

Polanski said he, however, did not support the reference to a single Palestinian state and external entities should not decide what a future state would look like.

How has Israel responded?

Israel has accused the party of legitimising “terrorism”, and senior officials equated it to anti-Semitism.

“The Greens have adopted not only the green of Hamas, but also its ideology: the elimination of the State of Israel through armed struggle,” the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote on social media.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog said it would “deliberately endanger Jews and Israelis everywhere”. Opposition leader Yair Lapid said the party was “racist”.

The Green Party has rejected equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and reiterated its stance against “any form of discrimination or harassment”.

“We know there is no conflict between supporting the rights of Palestinians and the rights of Jewish people,” Polanski and other senior party members said in a statement on Sunday.

Has Zionism been equated to racism before?

Yes. In 1975, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution that “determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”.

The vote was sponsored by the Soviet bloc and the Arab League. It passed after 72 countries, largely from the Middle East and Africa, voted for it. Israel and 34 other countries – chiefly from the West – were against it. Thirty-two other countries abstained.

Just a year before, at the 1974 General Assembly, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had given his “olive branch” speech at the General Assembly.

About the same time, African countries opposing the apartheid regime in South Africa, which was increasingly allying with Israel, had resolved separately that the Israeli government was “racist” and both had an “imperialist origin.”

Also, in 1975, at the first international women’s conference, held in Mexico City, attendees decided there would be no international peace outside the “elimination of foreign occupation, Zionism, apartheid” and all other forms of “racial discrimination”.

However, the General Assembly vote proved controversial. Chaim Herzog, then-Israeli ambassador to the UN and later president, told the assembly in a speech that it was “based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance” and proceeded to rip up copies of the resolution in front of the audience.

The US too accused the UN of making “anti-Semitism international law”.

In December 1991, the US, under President George HW Bush, stepped up a campaign to revoke the resolution with Bush declaring at the UN that equating Zionism with racism “is to reject Israel itself” and to “challenge its right to exist”.

Israel also insisted it would not participate in the Madrid Peace Process to continue negotiations between Israel and Palestinian leaders if the resolution was not cancelled.

After much pressure from the US, an overwhelming majority of countries voted for its revocation – 111 to 25, including European and African countries.

Who else equates Zionism with racism?

Jewish Voice for Peace, the American anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian advocacy group, has also named Zionism as a movement that creates a “racist hierarchy with European Jews at the top”.

In a February statement, the group reiterated its stance against what it called the “colonial ideology” of Zionism’s founders.

Similarly, in the United Kingdom, an employment tribunal in 2024 backed anti-Zionist activist and professor David Miller, who was earlier sacked from his post at the University of Bristol in 2021 for his views that the movement was “inherently racist”.