Khan al-Ahmar: Last Tent in Battle for Greater Jerusalem

Khan al-Ahmar community in the heart of the West Bank (Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories - B’Tselem)
Khan al-Ahmar community in the heart of the West Bank (Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories - B’Tselem)
TT

Khan al-Ahmar: Last Tent in Battle for Greater Jerusalem

Khan al-Ahmar community in the heart of the West Bank (Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories - B’Tselem)
Khan al-Ahmar community in the heart of the West Bank (Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories - B’Tselem)

On the road to the impoverished Bedouin community of Khan al-Ahmar, in the heart of the West Bank, the upscale Israeli settlement of Maale Adumim occupies a large, elevated and commanding stretch of land.

But that is no longer enough for Israel’s far-right government, which now plans to annex everything, Maale Adumim, Khan al-Ahmar and the surrounding area, to Jerusalem under the controversial E1 project.

The plan aims, among other things, to realize the dream of Greater Jerusalem, the most important step in a project to change the face of the West Bank by cutting through it with a settlement belt.

That would strengthen the presence of settlers and settlements in what Palestinians describe as a new state of settlers, end the dream of a contiguous Palestinian state, and isolate Jerusalem, the hoped-for capital, from it.

No one in the West Bank has faced more demolition orders and threats than the residents of Khan al-Ahmar, which now finds itself in a battle larger than itself. Over many long years, they have fought several legal battles and ground confrontations, holding on to their land and tents and trusting in victory.

That confidence has been shaken only by Israel’s fierce and sweeping assault on everything Palestinian since Oct. 7.

“The situation is different”

Tension hung over Khan al-Ahmar days after a decision by Bezalel Smotrich. Eid al-Jahalin, also known as Abu Khamis, the head of the Bedouin council, had no clear answers for hundreds of calls, messages and questions from journalists and activists, some of whom came to the area to document what was happening inside and around the temporary tents and structures.

He told Asharq Al-Awsat that he did not know exactly what would happen.

Abu Khamis, who speaks several languages, including English and Hebrew, was trying hard to deliver one message: that demolishing this simple and poor place would open the door to the most dangerous plan in the West Bank, “Greater Jerusalem.”

In his modest tent, among many others, there are maps, a coffee pot, journalists, visitors, solidarity activists and foreign delegations. He has grown used to such scenes with every Israeli threat to demolish Khan al-Ahmar. This time, however, he is more worried than ever.

“The situation this time is completely different and very dangerous,” Abu Khamis said. “In 2018, all Palestinians were with us. The government and civil society were sleeping here. I had 5,000 people with me. International pressure was strongly present, and our cause was at the top of the Middle East agenda. Today, the situation is different.”

Explaining his fears, he said: “After Oct. 7, Israel became more aggressive, and the West Bank has been turned into a state of settlers. This is a state war against us, not a problem caused by individuals. In the West Bank, we now have a thousand Khan al-Ahmars: killing, displacement and fire consuming every part of the West Bank, while the Palestinian effort is scattered.

“Internationally, too, there is the Gaza war, the war in Lebanon and the Hormuz war. The world is also busy and distracted. Governments have changed in America, Israel and elsewhere.”

He said the occupation believes this is the right time.

For Abu Khamis, Smotrich’s latest decision “was issued for actual implementation, and only real international pressure will stop it.”

Evacuation order and declared war

Smotrich, who is leading what Israelis describe as a revolution to change the status quo in the West Bank, signed an evacuation order for Khan al-Ahmar last month as part of the “beginning of a war” he declared against the Palestinian Authority.

He accused the PA of being behind a secret arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court, which had earlier rejected the matter.

Speaking at a news conference about 10 days ago, against the backdrop of reports that the ICC in The Hague had issued a secret request for an arrest warrant against him, Smotrich said: “The hands are the hands of The Hague, but the voice is the voice of the Palestinian Authority, the terrorist organization wrongly called the Palestinian Authority.”

Smotrich claimed that issuing arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and himself amounted to “a declaration of war.”

“In the face of a declaration of war, we will respond with an all-out war,” he said.

“I am not a submissive Jew, no. The Palestinian Authority has started a war, and it will get a war. From today, any economic or other target that falls within my powers as finance minister and as a minister in the Defense Ministry, and that I can harm, will be attacked. There will be no words and slogans, only actions.”

He added: “I announce here the first target. As soon as I finish speaking here, I will sign an order to evacuate Khan al-Ahmad under my powers as a minister in the Defense Ministry. I promise all our enemies: this is only the beginning.”

Smotrich immediately signed the decision to evacuate Khan al-Ahmar and ordered that “all necessary measures” be taken to demolish it.

The decision to demolish Khan al-Ahmar can only be seen as part of a campaign Smotrich has led for years against Palestinians in the West Bank.

It has included seizing large areas of land, changing laws related to control, ownership, land registration procedures and possession of property, as well as powers related to law enforcement.

It has also included his relentless work to weaken and dismantle the Palestinian Authority and turn the West Bank into a state of settlers by advancing major settlement plans and giving settlers a free hand in the area.

But Khan al-Ahmar’s significance is exceptional because it is a major obstacle to implementing the huge E1 settlement project, which involves a dangerous linking of a group of large surrounding Israeli settlements with Jerusalem, forming Greater Jerusalem.

The plan would connect Jerusalem to the large settlement of Maale Adumim in the central West Bank, in a way that Israeli rights group B’Tselem has said would severely threaten the possibility of a future Palestinian state and entrench a binational apartheid state.

The Palestinian National Information Center said that, in addition to the historically declared goal of linking Maale Adumim settlement with Jerusalem and excluding Palestinian neighborhoods from their natural development space, the plan serves the broader vision of “Greater Jerusalem,” covering about 600 square kilometers, or around 10% of the West Bank, through road belts, industrial zones and new neighborhoods.

Implementation depends on the settlement project known as the “fabric of life” road and alternative routes to separate Palestinian movement from the center of the West Bank, while connecting nearby Palestinian areas through controlled corridors in tunnels.

An old plan revived

Since 2009, Israel has sought to demolish the site. Each time it came close, however, it faced a storm of Palestinian, Arab and international reactions and criticism, until Khan al-Ahmar became a symbol of the conflict.

Israel therefore avoided demolishing it, even though an Israeli court gave the green light for the demolition.

Every time the court asked for an explanation as to why the site had not been demolished despite a judicial ruling, the Israeli government offered a different explanation for not evacuating the residential compound.

Yedioth Ahronoth said the evacuation of Khan al-Ahmar, which has become a global symbol, had turned into a diplomatic headache for the government because of international public opinion.

Even this time, 85 members of the US House of Representatives called on President Donald Trump’s administration to use all available diplomatic tools to halt the Israeli colonial construction project known as E1, warning that implementing it would impose a permanent reality on the ground and undermine the prospects of a two-state solution.

The appeal came in a letter from the lawmakers to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The signatories said the E1 area, which extends over about 12 square kilometers east of Jerusalem, is one of the most sensitive areas in the West Bank because settlement construction there would separate the northern West Bank from its south and strengthen geographic contiguity between Jerusalem and the settlement of Maale Adumim, entrenching Israeli control over a strategic area in the heart of the West Bank.

They also pointed to other Israeli measures linked to the project, including plans to build what is known as the “Sovereignty Road,” as well as steps targeting the Bedouin community in Khan al-Ahmar. They said these measures were part of an accelerating process aimed at imposing new facts on the ground that would be difficult to reverse in the future.

In the view of the lawmakers, implementing the E1 settlement project would undermine the possibility of establishing a geographically contiguous Palestinian state. They called on the US State Department to clearly inform the Israeli government that moving ahead with the project contradicts declared US positions on the future of the West Bank.

Before them, more than 400 ministers, ambassadors and European officials called in an open letter to European Union leaders to “act now” against Israel’s “illegal annexation” of the occupied West Bank through the E1 project, under which it plans to build thousands of homes.

The 448 signatories, including former European Commission Vice President Josep Borrell and former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, wrote: “The EU and its member states, in cooperation with their partners, must take immediate steps to deter Israel from continuing its illegal annexation of Palestinian land in the West Bank.”

The signatories said that “at a minimum, the EU must impose targeted sanctions, including visa bans and bans on conducting business activities in the EU, against all persons involved in illegal settlement operations, especially those promoting, participating in tenders for and implementing the plan related to the E1 area.”

These calls came after Israel took another practical step toward beginning the plan by issuing an official notice to demolish 50 structures and commercial premises in the town of al-Eizariya, southeast of occupied Jerusalem, that fall within the settlement plan.

These repeated international positions are what currently complicate the demolition of Khan al-Ahmar.

The decision to demolish may not be in Smotrich’s hands alone, according to Yedioth. It goes back to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in coordination with Defense Minister Israel Katz and the Israeli army, and would require explicit approval from the cabinet because of its consequences, which could complicate matters for Israel, embroil it politically and lead to very severe sanctions against it by the European Union.

But Meir Deutsch, director-general of Regavim, the movement founded by Smotrich that petitioned the High Court on the issue months ago, said: “The situation is different now and there is an opportunity.”

“Over the past two years, the Israeli government has taken unprecedented and historic decisions to ensure the future of the State of Israel,” he added. “Now, more than ever, the time has come to enforce the law against the aggressors in this field, and thus thwart the Palestinian Authority’s plan to seize this important site as part of establishing a terrorist state in the heart of the country.”

The Palestinian Authority understands this situation better than anyone. In previous years, when the situation was very different, the PA threatened to cancel agreements if Israel proceeded with the E1 project because it would kill the Palestinian state. It organized major campaigns to maintain a presence at the site, unlike what is happening now.

Geopolitical significance

Attorney Hassan Mlihat, the general supervisor of the Al-Baidar Organization for the Defense of Bedouin Rights, told Asharq Al-Awsat that “what must be understood is that Khan al-Ahmar is an area of enormous geopolitical importance. It is located northeast of occupied Jerusalem, specifically on the vital road linking Jerusalem and Jericho.”

“The extreme danger of this area lies in the fact that it falls within the E1 settlement plan, the most dangerous project targeting the Palestinian cause and the West Bank in the history of the conflict,” he added.

Mlihat said the danger of the project also lies in the fact that it would form Greater Jerusalem by taking control of 12,000 dunams in the heart of the West Bank and create continuous geographic contiguity between Jerusalem and Maale Adumim settlement all the way to the Dead Sea. This, he said, is the practical implementation of the Greater Jerusalem project.

For Mlihat, the project has other catastrophic consequences because it “re-engineers the demographic composition of these areas by expelling Palestinians and replacing them with settlers, and divides the West Bank into two separate parts, north and south. This means that the establishment of any geographically contiguous Palestinian entity or state would become impossible. The occupation’s success in this area would also become a starting point for isolating and targeting the rest of the West Bank.”

“This is a dangerous and huge project, and Khan al-Ahmar is the biggest obstacle,” he said.

Khan al-Ahmar at the heart of Greater Jerusalem

But it is not only Khan al-Ahmar. Mlihat believes the assault on Khan al-Ahmar is part of a wider attack on Palestinian Bedouins. While Israel has not demolished Khan al-Ahmar so far, it has already displaced more than 88 Bedouin communities in the West Bank.

Mlihat said that since 2019, specifically after the announcement of the “Deal of the Century,” the targeting of Bedouins had intensified, with the fierce assault on them escalating in an unprecedented manner after the events of October.

“This war targets the Bedouin presence in all areas and pockets of Area C, especially in the central West Bank east of Jerusalem because of the E1 plan, and in Jericho and the Jordan Valley because of their border and security dimensions,” he said.

Dozens of families have already been forced to leave their homes in the Palestinian Jordan Valley after several attacks by the army and settlers, in a recurring scene Mlihat described as an ongoing Nakba.

It was striking that the Bedouins were forced to face their fate alone in a battle larger than themselves, the same situation Jahalin pointed to in Khan al-Ahmar.

“Alone in the battle”

Abu Khamis looks after about 300 Bedouins in Khan al-Ahmar, who live in a place that includes a school, a mosque and a health clinic. These also serve many Bedouins from outside the community who come for education or treatment.

Abu Khamis looked toward the simple school as children played there, trying to steal a little space for joy, and asked many questions about whether the Israelis would really attack the place.

“We are alone in this battle,” Abu Khamis said.

“The war today is focused and directed specifically against the Bedouins,” he added. “It is the product of the consequences of the Oslo Accords and the division of the land into Areas A, B and C. Area C makes up about 62% of the West Bank. And who is in it? The Bedouins.”

“The problem of Khan al-Ahmar is that it lies at the heart of the Greater Jerusalem project, from al-Eizariya to the border of the Dead Sea. In this vast area, there is no Palestinian village or camp except Khan al-Ahmar,” he said.

Abu Khamis understands the matter well.

“If we are uprooted from here, the occupation will connect the settlements of Maale Adumim, Kfar Adumim, Mishor Adumim and Alon to form a settlement belt that clamps down on the eastern gate of Jerusalem and closes it completely,” he said.

“It will then cut up the West Bank and separate its north from its south. Jerusalem today is being surrounded by a massive settlement bloc, and Khan al-Ahmar lies at the heart of this most dangerous settlement project since the beginning of the occupation until today.”

This awareness is present among all residents of Khan al-Ahmar, even its children.

Ali had just finished his school day when he went to check on his family’s livestock. Ali told Asharq Al-Awsat: “They attack us from time to time, insult us and threaten us.”

The young Ali refused to accept moving where he lives, saying he loves the place and will not leave.

“We will not leave,” he said. “Even if they demolish the houses, we will not leave. It’s fine, let them demolish, but we will not leave. We want to stay here. This land is ours, and we will not leave it.”

Ali represents the fifth generation born in Khan al-Ahmar since its residents arrived there in the 1950s, displaced from Tel Arad in the Negev.

Sheikh Mohammed Abu Dahouk, 56, who was born in Khan al-Ahmar, told Asharq Al-Awsat: “My grandfather and my father were here. I was born here, and now my children and grandchildren were born here.”

Abu Dahouk does not intend to leave the place, although he expects them to demolish it at any moment.

“We expect anything from them,” he said. “Today, blood is flowing everywhere. But if they demolish, we will remain here in the sun. We will sit here. If they demolish, there is nowhere for us to go. Where would we go? There is nowhere for us to go. We will stay sitting in the sun.”

Like others, Abu Dahouk rejects the idea of moving to what Israel calls a “proper area.”

“Give us permits here,” he said. “We are the owners of the land. This is our land, and our land is dear to us. We are not leaving for any other place, whatever it may be.”

Alongside many previous legal battles, the residents of Khan al-Ahmar and the Arab al-Jahalin communities filed an objection to a plan to concentrate Bedouin communities in a “planned urban compound.”

The objection, filed through the Israeli group Bimkom, said the plan does not suit the communities’ way of life and could lead to their forced removal from the space where they have lived for decades.

Architect Alon Cohen-Lifshitz of Bimkom told Yedioth Ahronoth that this was “a plan of uprooting under the cover of planning,” stressing that it was part of a broader policy to shape the space in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Meanwhile, the saga of Khan al-Ahmar continued. Jahalin continues to receive European and local officials and activists, takes many calls, holds Zoom meetings with institutions and activists abroad, and has met, among others, Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa at his office. Mustafa, for his part, promised to support the residents’ steadfastness.

But none of this was new to Jahalin.

“Our struggle is not new,” he said. “It has continued since 1967, when Israel declared the area a closed military zone. They used to shoot to frighten them, before they were later surprised that those ‘military lands’ had turned into large settlements, including Maale Adumim and Kfar Adumim.”

Jahalin repeated what he had said several times: “It is a state of settlers, and this time is different from those before it.”

Yet despite everything that changed after Oct. 7, the Bedouin mentality has not changed.

Abu Khamis said it plainly: “I am a Bedouin, and I have spent 60% of my life in the sun. It will not hurt me if I spend 100% of it in the sun. I will be here or at the closest possible point to Khan al-Ahmar. Even if I remain suspended between the sky and the earth, I will not leave.”

 



Pleasing No One: Netanyahu Puts Election First with Gaza Decision

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference in Jerusalem on March 19, 2026. (AFP)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference in Jerusalem on March 19, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Pleasing No One: Netanyahu Puts Election First with Gaza Decision

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference in Jerusalem on March 19, 2026. (AFP)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference in Jerusalem on March 19, 2026. (AFP)

Faced with a divisive US-led Gaza plan just before elections that could end his career, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had to choose between pleasing his ally Donald Trump or his right-wing base.

In rejecting the plan, he may not please anyone.

The decision is a tactical and PR victory for Hamas, analysts say, with the movement publicly backing the deal under which it would disarm, without taking any steps yet to do so.

Netanyahu, who has built his decades-long career on hawkish security positions, had voiced concerns but softly after the US president on July 30 hailed what he called the historic milestone on ending the Gaza war.

He finally rejected the plan Sunday during a cabinet meeting after pushback from the far-right, which strongly opposes the 15-point deal that would see Israel eventually withdraw troops from much of Gaza.

Netanyahu, Israel's longest-serving prime minister, is by nature "a procrastinator" and is struggling to secure the trust of the hard-right ahead of the October 27 vote, said Yossi Mekelberg, an expert on Israeli politics at London-based think tank Chatham House.

Netanyahu's calculation is to dissuade votes for the opposition by creating the impression that he is "still the only bastion of power that will stop Hamas", Mekelberg said.

"Netanyahu knows that falling out with Trump doesn't serve him or Israel. On the other hand, he knows the minute that he agrees to the 15 points, he would be attacked not only by the right wing, but that some opposition parties will attack him, too," he said.

"He's trying to appease everyone. At the end of the day, he will be appeasing no one."

- Cooperating despite rejection -

Israel will be voting for the first time since the trauma of Hamas's October 7, 2023, attack, the deadliest ever against Israel, which retaliated with an overwhelming offensive in Gaza.

Despite Netanyahu's public rejection of Trump's plan, Israel in practice appears to be complying with a key part of it. Israel has stopped air strikes since August 3, although Gaza authorities report periodic Israeli gunfire.

"These strikes could be resumed and even intensified at any time. It is one of the cards Israel can maneuver with," said Ehud Eilam, a former analyst at Israel's defense ministry.

He noted that Israel had not succeeded in its goal of completely destroying Hamas after October 7.

"Therefore, Israel at least seeks to disarm Hamas, which is also a very difficult task," Eilam said.

"Hamas will anyway refuse to completely disarm, and for now can continue to use Netanyahu as an excuse to avoid or at least slow down this process," he said.

Netanyahu had long campaigned on his close rapport with Trump, who has taken unprecedented steps such as moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and joining Israel in attacking Iran.

But Trump's popularity in Israel took a nosedive in April when he called a ceasefire with Iran and sought a settlement, seeing the Middle East war as politically and economically damaging.

Netanyahu could be willing to take some steps forward on Gaza to please Trump in return for new US action against Iran, Eilam said.

"For Netanyahu, the Gaza Strip, and Lebanon too for that matter, are not the most urgent concerns; Iran is," he said.

- Tactical win for Hamas -

Hamas publicly backed the disarmament agreement shortly after it chose a new leader, Khalil al-Hayya.

"I think Hamas, from the get-go, did this for tactical reasons," said Ghaith al-Omari, a former Palestinian Authority official who is now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

He said that Hamas wanted to be seen as a "reasonable actor" -- and that Netanyahu's rejection worked in its favor.

"What this does is actually give Hamas and mediators reason to say, look, Hamas has committed, Israel has not committed -- the ball is in Israel's court," he said.

"It lets the pressure off Hamas."


Iran's Leaders Think They Have Trump Cornered, But Their Strategy Carries Great Risks

A banner with a picture of US President Donald Trump next to an Iranian missile system at Azadi Square in Tehran, Iran, July 30, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
A banner with a picture of US President Donald Trump next to an Iranian missile system at Azadi Square in Tehran, Iran, July 30, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
TT

Iran's Leaders Think They Have Trump Cornered, But Their Strategy Carries Great Risks

A banner with a picture of US President Donald Trump next to an Iranian missile system at Azadi Square in Tehran, Iran, July 30, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
A banner with a picture of US President Donald Trump next to an Iranian missile system at Azadi Square in Tehran, Iran, July 30, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS

The Strait of Hormuz is, by some accounts, named for a Zoroastrian deity destined to emerge victorious after a 9,000-year standoff with an adversary.

Iran's leaders feel their own victory is at hand and won't require the same epic patience.

They are betting that military pressure will ultimately force the United States to accept their control over the crucial waterway for global energy — and that time is on their side.

They know about the diminishing stockpiles of key US weapons such as advanced missile interceptors. They know the war is deeply unpopular with Americans. They know that as long as the strait is largely closed, the price of gas and other goods will stay high ahead of US congressional elections in November. They know that trying to open it by force would be costly and may require American ground troops. They know their Houthi allies in Yemen could widen the war and disrupt another major trade route.

By that logic, US President Donald Trump has no choice but to capitulate.

But Iran's strategy carries risks.

Trump points to strikes that have decimated Iran's top leadership, navy and air force. He alternates between threatening escalation and saying talks are going well. Iran's own economy has been battered, in part because of a US blockade. Iranians rose up in mass protests just months ago and could do so again.

And Iran's leaders need only look to how Trump's “short-term excursion” to the Middle East has bogged down to be reminded that wars rarely turn out as expected.

An evolving deal could give Iran a major win

Iran says it is close to reaching a deal with Oman to manage the strait, which runs between the two countries. But it would be conditioned on the US lifting its blockade, so even if there are no direct negotiations — as Iran says — Trump would have to approve.

It's unclear whether the deal would allow Iran to charge fees. But it would formalize its control over what had been an open international waterway before the war, one that carried a fifth of the world's traded oil and gas.

Abdolreza Davari, an analyst who once advised former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Iran's effective control of the strait has given it leverage with the US and regional countries that can help guarantee its security.

“More than revenue from the strait, Iran wants to confirm its management and sovereignty over the strait,” he said by phone from Tehran.

Formal control over even part of the strait would be a clear win for Iran and a loss for the US, which has yet to accomplish some of its various and shifting goals in the war.

It would also deal a blow to global norms on freedom of navigation and set a precedent that much of the world would find disturbing — that nations can shut down trade choke points at will.

China, which buys oil from Iran and has influence over it, said as recently as May that “normal and safe passage” through the strait should be restored.

Iran feels time is on its side

To borrow a phrase from Trump's own theory of geopolitics, Iran believes it holds the cards.

“They started the war, but its end was never with them. We always decide for ourselves when it ends," Mahdi Mohammadi, an adviser to Iran's chief negotiator, posted on social media. “Iran is going after the enemy’s defeat — not an agreement.”

He said a surprise Iranian attack on Jordan in July “compensated” for a drop in oil prices. That contributed to the collapse of an interim agreement reached in June that had offered significant concessions to Iran, including a US waiver to sell oil internationally and the promise of broader sanctions relief.

Iran has repeatedly said the Strait of Hormuz will not go back to being an open waterway, and that it will keep attacking ships trying to transit without its permission. Iran's joint military command has called it an “unbreakable red line.”

“For Iran, the Strait of Hormuz has become a strategic lever for deterrence, maintaining the regional balance of power, and reshaping the security rules” in the Arabian Gulf, said Mostafa Najafi, a Tehran-based security analyst.

That poses a major obstacle to ending the war, much less resolving the even more complex, long-standing dispute over Iran's nuclear program.

"The atomic issue, because of the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz, has been pushed to the side, and in reality, that is in Iran’s interests,” said Rahman Ghahremanpour, an Iran-based analyst. Control of the strait would give Iran leverage if the nuclear talks resume, he added.

It's still a risky gamble

The economic fallout from the war has spread worldwide but is particularly acute in Iran.

US and Israeli strikes have pummeled its industrial base. The US blockade has choked off much of its oil exports. Iranians are grappling with triple-digit food inflation. Trump has repeatedly threatened major strikes on civilian infrastructure like water and electricity.

In December, a currency crisis sparked some of the biggest anti-government protests in the 47-year history of the Iranian Republic. Authorities responded with a bloody crackdown in which thousands were killed and tens of thousands detained.

Many in Iran, including those close to its moderate President Masoud Pezeshkian, fear it may go too far.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, who as foreign minister helped negotiate the 2015 nuclear deal, wrote in a recent essay that Iran's achievements in the war had opened “an exceptional window for diplomacy.” But he warned that if it doesn't strike a deal soon, then “economic recovery will be difficult, and the possibility of internal unrest or renewed aggression, especially after the US elections, cannot be ruled out.”

The war has already been marked by surprises.

After the first wave of US and Israeli airstrikes on Feb. 28 killed Iran's supreme leader and other top officials, Trump suggested it would be over in a matter of weeks.

Instead, the conflict has emboldened Iran's leaders and mobilized their supporters. Tehran is using the strait “to show that it has not been defeated," Ghahremanpour said. "It can increase its legitimacy at home.”

But the strategy could also backfire. Iran's resilience has limits and there are concerns that an economic crash could trigger unrest. “Iran cannot continue with this strategy forever, and at a certain point, in reality, it has to reach a deal with America," he said.

But Davari said that for now, Iran can withstand the pressure. "It’s unlikely, despite the difficulties of the economic situation, that Iran will retreat from its positions," he said.


Will Trump Make Concessions over Hormuz?

A drone view shows vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from Musandam, Oman, June 15, 2026. (Reuters)
A drone view shows vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from Musandam, Oman, June 15, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

Will Trump Make Concessions over Hormuz?

A drone view shows vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from Musandam, Oman, June 15, 2026. (Reuters)
A drone view shows vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from Musandam, Oman, June 15, 2026. (Reuters)

To reach a deal with Iran that reopens the economically vital Strait of Hormuz, President Donald Trump may need to do something out of character — compromise, reported The Associated Press.

Any concession would be tough for the Republican president, who has insisted there is no truth to his sagging poll numbers, the sluggish economy and the US military’s dwindling stockpiles of key weapons following the Iran war he launched with Israel more than five months ago.

“He divides the world into winners and losers, and this would make him a loser,” said Eliot Cohen, who served as counselor of the State Department in the George W. Bush administration. “And the image of being a loser, I think, would be intolerable for him.”

The sticking point has been over control of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world's oil normally flows. While both sides say a deal is close, the Trump administration has ruled out any arrangement that would cement Iran’s grip over the waterway, including Tehran charging fees.

But Iran has insisted on some measure of control, saying the strait will not go back to being an open international waterway as it was before the war. Despite thousands of US strikes, Iran can still fire drones and missiles at vessels, giving it a chokehold over commercial shipping.

Cohen said yielding ground to Iran would be difficult for the president, even if the conflict keeps gasoline prices elevated and poses problems for Republicans in November’s midterm elections.

But David Schenker, a former State Department official in the first Trump administration, said the increasing economic pressure may actually prompt Trump to compromise on the strait, even if it's likely to have profound implications on global trade.

“There will be a lot of spin both ways, but my guess is that the president has tipped his hand as to the urgency for him of resolving the crisis,” said Schenker, now a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “This is a concession he may very well be willing to make.”

Trump, however, has so far conceded little about the war.

He posted on social media Thursday that the US military still has “massive amounts” of weapons and that large amounts are being manufactured. He threatened jail time for the alleged “leakers” of information on the nation's weapons stockpiles.

Trump was referencing a Washington Post story that reported his frustration with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over the shrinking inventories of advanced weapons, as the Cabinet had gathered at Camp David last week.

A senior administration official said there had been a “robust and healthy” discussion about Iran in the Cabinet meeting and would not provide additional details except to say there had not been a "knock-down, drag-out fight” over the matter. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations.

Experts say the US military is running short on weapons like advanced missile interceptors that have defended American troops from Iranian attacks. The Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, has released reports on declining inventories based on budget documents and other public information.

When asked later about weapons stockpiles, Trump told reporters that “we need more all the time.” He claimed that certain kinds of munitions are in “virtually unlimited supply” and others are “a little bit tighter.” He didn't offer more specifics.

He insisted that “we’re in great shape. But, with that being said, we always want more. We have to have more,” noting that the military could tap into US supplies of munitions around the world if needed.

Hegseth was on Capitol Hill this week, meeting privately with Republican senators as he makes the case for billions of dollars in additional Pentagon spending as part of a major GOP budget package.

Sen. Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat and former Navy pilot, said the weapons shortfall stems from a war that lacked a well-defined goal and strategy beyond striking more than 14,000 targets.

“My contention on this is, if you knew what the goal is, maybe the target list would have been 500 targets. Maybe it would have been 200 targets," Kelly said, adding the Pentagon wants "billions and billions of dollars to fix their self-inflicted problem.”

Trump also has claimed in a social media post Tuesday that his polling numbers are the best “they have ever been.” He cited accomplishments including employment numbers and the “Denuclearization of Iran.”

But about two-thirds of US adults say the war with Iran has not been worthwhile, according to a poll from late July by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. That includes the vast majority of Democrats and independents, as well as about 37% of Republicans.

On employment, the United States had nearly 159 million jobs in June, not including farmworkers, which was a record. In Trump’s second term, however, job growth has slowed considerably.

Trump also continues to claim that the Strait of Hormuz is open to commercial shipping. He said Thursday that the strait is “sort of open right now” and pointed to the Navy's blockade of Iranian ports.

“But they can always shoot something, they always have something or drop a mine,” Trump said of Iran. “And if you have one mine sitting out there, you sort of mess things up because people don’t want to take their billion-dollar boats and accidentally get hit by a mine.”

At least two ships were hit in the Strait of Hormuz in the past week, while several others reported near misses or warnings from entities claiming to represent Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, according to maritime data company Lloyd’s List Intelligence.

Vessel traffic through the strait increased to 84 transits last week, up from 45 the week before. But traffic is still far below the more than 700 transits seen in a typical week before the crisis, Lloyd’s List said.

A deal over the Strait of Hormuz could hinge on fees US and Iranian officials say they are close to reaching an agreement to reopen the strait. That is even as the US military insists the strait is open through a route it helps oversee near Oman’s coast, saying this week that it “remains free and open for all commercial vessels seeking to transit the international waterway.”

The Associated Press reported Wednesday that the potential deal is being portrayed as a temporary solution to the dispute over the strait, and that it would allow ships to enter the Arabian Gulf through an Iranian-controlled route and exit through an Omani-controlled route.

The Trump administration has said repeatedly that it is strongly opposed to any arrangement that would see Iran charge fees.

Any temporary routes through the waterway will not have tolls, charges or other impediments, according to a US official not authorized to comment publicly who spoke Thursday on condition of anonymity. The official said Trump’s preferred choice is diplomacy and he “holds all the cards” in dealing with Iran.