Russian International Affairs Council head Ivan Timofeev has told RT India that the UAE’s decision could reshape the global energy market
The United Arab Emirates’ decision to withdraw from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is a natural move, a top Russian policy expert has said.
Membership in any organization is relevant when it corresponds to national interests, Russian International Affairs Council General Director Ivan Tim
Russian International Affairs Council head Ivan Timofeev has told RT India that the UAE’s decision could reshape the global energy market
The United Arab Emirates’ decision to withdraw from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is a natural move, a top Russian policy expert has said.
Membership in any organization is relevant when it corresponds to national interests, Russian International Affairs Council General Director Ivan Timofeev said on an RT India panel. “When the perception of the national interest changes, it’s reasonable to expect that a state or member changes its stance.”
Timofeev added that given the current tensions in the Middle East, it is natural to expect a major player like the UAE to “strive to keep more free hands in terms of supplies... extraction [and] other factors which determine its national income.”
Though the Iran war significantly triggered the decision, the origins of this move emerged beforehand, he said. “But what is clear is that the attack against Iran stimulated and galvanized this way of thinking.”
Russia has welcomed the UAE’s move as a “sovereign decision.”
Also speaking on the panel, the host of RT’s New Order, Afshin Rattansi, noted that the UAE is already preparing for the post-war scenario. “There will be conversations in Delhi at the BRICS summit exactly about what a multipolar world means for energy resources,” he said.
The world is facing the biggest global energy supply shock on record, which will drive inflation and dampen economic growth globally
The Middle East war has triggered the biggest global energy supply shock on record and will drive a sharp rise in commodity prices, pushing inflation higher and slowing economic growth worldwide, the World Bank has warned.
Attacks on energy infrastructure and shipping in the critical Strait of Hormuz have cut globa
The world is facing the biggest global energy supply shock on record, which will drive inflation and dampen economic growth globally
The Middle East war has triggered the biggest global energy supply shock on record and will drive a sharp rise in commodity prices, pushing inflation higher and slowing economic growth worldwide, the World Bank has warned.
Attacks on energy infrastructure and shipping in the critical Strait of Hormuz have cut global supply by about 10 million barrels per day in the early stage of the US‑Israeli war on Iran, according to the bank’s Commodity Markets Outlook released on Wednesday.
Energy prices are set to jump by 24% this year to their highest level since 2022, while overall commodity costs will rise by 16%, the World Bank said, adding that the war has triggered “the biggest energy supply shock in history.”
Prices could climb further if the conflict intensifies, with oil potentially averaging $115 per barrel this year under the bank’s more severe disruption scenario.
Natural gas prices are also forecast to rise, with the EU particularly exposed to supply disruptions and higher import costs. Regional natural gas futures have surged in recent weeks.
The shock will ripple far beyond oil and gas, according to the report. Fertilizer prices are projected to climb by 31% this year, driven by a 60% surge in urea, raising concerns over agricultural output and food affordability. Prices for metals such as aluminum, copper and tin are also expected to hit record highs.
“The poorest people, who spend the highest share of their income on food and fuels, will be hit the hardest, as will developing economies already struggling under heavy debt burdens,” said World Bank Chief Economist Indermit Gill.
Brent crude briefly topped $117 per barrel on Wednesday, its highest level since March, amid supply concerns and after the UAE announced plans to exit OPEC, adding further uncertainty to global oil markets.
“The current situation is likely to keep inflation elevated globally, especially as disruptions in oil and commodity markets persist,” Iranian economist Peyman Molavi told RT, warning that uncertainty around Hormuz remains a key risk for further price increases.
He added that the UAE’s decision could increase market volatility by giving producers more freedom over pricing and output.
Talks between Washington and Tehran remain stalled, with US President Donald Trump reportedly rejecting an Iranian proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and lift the naval blockade while postponing nuclear negotiations to a later stage.
The two presidents discussed the Ukraine conflict and the escalation in the Middle East, according to Yury Ushakov
Russian President Vladimir Putin held a phone call with his US counterpart Donald Trump on Wednesday, during which the two discussed issues including the Ukraine conflict and the crisis in the Persian Gulf, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov has said.
During the conversation, Putin expressed his support to Trump in light of the latest attempt
The two presidents discussed the Ukraine conflict and the escalation in the Middle East, according to Yury Ushakov
Russian President Vladimir Putin held a phone call with his US counterpart Donald Trump on Wednesday, during which the two discussed issues including the Ukraine conflict and the crisis in the Persian Gulf, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov has said.
During the conversation, Putin expressed his support to Trump in light of the latest attempt on the US president’s life at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday. The Russian leader “strongly condemned” the incident, underlining that “political violence was unacceptable in any form,” Ushakov told journalists.
The Russian president backed Trump’s decision to extend the ceasefire with Iran, warning against renewed hostilities between the US-Israeli side and Tehran. Moscow is ready to mediate in the standoff and maintains contact with all the sides, Putin said, according to Ushakov.
“At the same time, the Russian president emphasized the inevitable, extremely dire consequences not only for Iran and its neighbors, but for the entire international community, should the US and Israel resort to the use of force again. And, of course, a ground operation on Iranian territory is regarded as a completely unacceptable and dangerous option,” the aide stated.
Putin and Trump also extensively discussed the Ukraine conflict and efforts to bring the hostilities to an end, Ushakov said. The two presidents “expressed essentially similar assessments of the behavior of the Kiev regime led by [Vladimir] Zelensky,” which has been “incited and supported by Europeans” to prolong the conflict at any cost, the official added.
“The American president emphasized the importance of a swift cessation of hostilities and his readiness to facilitate this in every possible way. His representatives will continue contacts with both Moscow and Kiev,” Ushakov added.
During the conversation, which lasted over 90 minutes and was initiated by the Russian side, the US leader praised the recent Easter truce announced by Moscow. Putin, in turn, proposed declaring a temporary ceasefire with Kiev during the upcoming Victory Day celebrations, Ushakov said.
“Trump actively supported this initiative, noting that the holiday commemorates our shared victory over Nazism in World War II,” he added.
Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said he had a “very good conversation” with Putin, “mostly about Ukraine.”
“I think we’re going to come up with a solution relatively quickly, I hope. I think [Putin would] like to see a solution, I can tell you, and that’s good,” the US president said.
RT’s Charlotte Dubenskij examines the accusations and IDF’s response
Footage appearing to show Israeli soldiers looting homes in southern Lebanon and filming themselves “joking around” while damaging property has emerged on social media.
The images come amid the fallout from the report by Haaretz last week alleging that looting by Israeli troops was widespread, with commanders turning a blind eye. The outlet cited testimonies from soldiers who de
RT’s Charlotte Dubenskij examines the accusations and IDF’s response
Footage appearing to show Israeli soldiers looting homes in southern Lebanon and filming themselves “joking around” while damaging property has emerged on social media.
The images come amid the fallout from the report by Haaretz last week alleging that looting by Israeli troops was widespread, with commanders turning a blind eye. The outlet cited testimonies from soldiers who described troops taking “significant amounts of civilian property,” including televisions, furniture, and motorcycles.
The incidents allegedly took place during Israeli ground operations in southern Lebanon following renewed fighting with Hezbollah earlier this month.
Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir has said “if” these incidents occurred, they would run contrary to the values of the IDF.
Watch the full report by RT’s Charlotte Dubenskij below.
Abu Dhabi’s break with the cartel could flood markets, rattle prices, and redraw power lines from Riyadh to Moscow
The United Arab Emirates has announced its withdrawal from OPEC and the OPEC+ format effective May 1, 2026, ending nearly six decades of membership. This marks the largest institutional disruption to the oil production coordination system since the establishment of the expanded OPEC+ format in 2016 and is perceived by the market as a
Abu Dhabi’s break with the cartel could flood markets, rattle prices, and redraw power lines from Riyadh to Moscow
The United Arab Emirates has announced its withdrawal from OPEC and the OPEC+ format effective May 1, 2026, ending nearly six decades of membership. This marks the largest institutional disruption to the oil production coordination system since the establishment of the expanded OPEC+ format in 2016 and is perceived by the market as a step towards weakening the group’s ability to influence global oil prices.
At the same time, the move reflects Abu Dhabi’s strategic course towards maximizing its own production and increasing its market share, while maintaining its image as a ‘responsible supplier’ and relying on the long‑term growth of global energy demand.
The UAE’s withdrawal objectively leads to the potential growth of global oil production, and as a consequence, to downward pressure on prices in the medium term – especially after the unblocking of the Strait of Hormuz. It is already being described as one of the most notable institutional shifts in the energy market over the past decade. The Emirati authorities present this step as a “strategic re‑evaluation project” aligned with national economic interests, rather than a one‑off conflict over quotas.
From an economic perspective, the issue is not just about how many barrels Abu Dhabi and Dubai will produce but about the very architecture of global oil coordination. OPEC and OPEC+ are ceasing to be a monolith even in the formal sense: One of the largest and most flexible producers is moving into ‘independent mode’, transforming the market from a quota‑cartel structure into a more fragmented and sensitive one – a market driven not only by economics but also by geopolitics.
Why the UAE wanted out
In recent years, tensions have been building up between the UAE and Saudi Arabia over the issue of quota allocation within OPEC+. The UAE invested in expanding production capacity but was restricted in its ability to monetize it due to collective commitments to cut output. In fact, even before the official announcement in 2026, the UAE repeatedly signaled dissatisfaction with the level of its quotas and a desire for greater autonomy in making production decisions.
Official statements from the UAE government and Energy Minister Suhail Al Mazrouei stress that the decision to withdraw from OPEC constitutes a sovereign political decision in the field of energy policy, adopted following a “prolonged and thorough review” of the national strategy. The official wording highlights several key motives:
Alignment with the UAE’s long‑term strategic and economic vision and the evolution of the country’s energy sector.
Primary emphasis on national interests and strategic priorities, ensuring the continued perception of the country as a responsible and reliable supplier.
The anticipated sustainable growth of global energy demand in the medium- and long-term perspective justifies the expansion of the UAE’s own production and investments in the capacity foundation.
The key economic factor behind the decision is the significant expansion of the UAE’s production capacity and the drive to fully monetize it outside the constraints of a rigid quota system.
It should be noted that the UAE’s current production stands at around 3.4-3.5 million barrels per day (bpd), with plans to increase capacity to 5 million bpd by 2027 through investments in upstream projects.
Over the past several years, the UAE has invested substantial resources in expanding its production base, including through the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, thereby enhancing both nominal capacity and the quality of its crude oil, as well as improving environmental performance (low carbon intensity). However, within OPEC and OPEC+, a portion of this capacity has effectively remained underutilized due to existing restrictions. This has caused economic dissatisfaction and prompted the search for a more flexible operating regime.
For the UAE, where GDP growth and fiscal sustainability are closely tied to hydrocarbon exports, the ability to more aggressively ramp up production as global demand recovers and grows is seen as a way to accelerate the monetization of resources ahead of a potential structural shift in demand towards low‑carbon sources. In this context, leaving OPEC is perceived by Abu Dhabi as a means of protecting national revenue from external constraints and the asymmetry of interests within the organization.
The primary economic motive for the UAE’s exit from OPEC can be summarized briefly: The country no longer intends to keep its production capacity within the limits set by the collective system when it believes it can produce and export more than the quotas allow. This has been explicitly stated by UAE officials, who point to the need to “revise production policy and strengthen autonomy in managing the oil and gas sector.”
The medium-term goal is to increase production by more than 30% and strengthen the UAE’s position as a key supplier to fast-growing Asian markets, including China and India. The authorities stress that OPEC quotas, at a time when the country is completing large-scale investment cycles in oil and gas projects, begin to look like an artificial brake on potential.
Against this backdrop, leaving OPEC appears to be part of a broader diversification strategy. The UAE is simultaneously developing traditional oil export flows, natural gas, petrochemicals, and low‑carbon sectors, including renewable energy. In this model, oil and gas are not an end in themselves but a source of capital for further diversification. Consequently, any restrictions on export volumes automatically slow down progress along this trajectory.
The financial benefits are clear. In the short and medium term, the country gains the opportunity to ramp up exports when prices are favorable, reallocate flows towards more solvent markets, and accelerate the implementation of infrastructure and petrochemical projects, using waves of high prices as a ‘capital catcher’.
This could lead to a significant increase in export revenue and faster accumulation of foreign exchange reserves – which is particularly important for an economy actively participating in global financial flows.
However, the economic risks are also significant.
Firstly, leaving OPEC weakens the collective market-stabilization mechanism, which increases price volatility. In an environment where oil prices become more erratic, budget planning becomes more challenging: Revenues fluctuate sharply, and fiscal buffers and reserve funds must be designed to accommodate a wider range of scenarios.
Secondly, the UAE partially loses the political weight and institutional influence that OPEC+ membership provided. Instead of jointly taking part in shaping the rules of the game, the UAE becomes a major but standalone player whose decisions are perceived by the market as an external factor rather than as part of an institutional consensus. This raises the risk that, in times of crisis, the UAE could be viewed as a destabilizing factor – which in turn could increase pressure from partners and regulators.
The exit from OPEC carries not only economic but also symbolic significance: It demonstrates the UAE’s readiness to pursue its own course amid the fragmentation of the regional security architecture and energy coordination.
Impact on global oil trade
From a supply-side perspective, the UAE’s departure implies the potential introduction of additional volumes into the market in the medium term – 1 to 1.5 million bpd – as production expands and transportation infrastructure is restored. Combined with a possible reaction from other producers, this leads to the following:
a reduction in the market’s overall fear of a supply deficit, and as a consequence, downward pressure on forward quotations.
a weakening of the influence of OPEC+ signals and strengthening of individual producers’ strategies.
a further shift in the market’s center of gravity towards competition among major independent players (the US and others).
From a short‑term perspective, the market could react to the UAE’s exit as a ‘risk shock’. Any news about quota revisions, increases in production volumes, or disruptions in logistics in the Strait of Hormuz area will amplify volatility. At the beginning of this scenario, both upward and downward price spikes are possible as market participants revise their forecasts regarding future supply levels and prices.
In the medium term, the key question is whether other producers will follow the UAE’s lead and whether real discipline will be maintained among the remaining OPEC+ members. If so, relative stabilization is possible – albeit with higher baseline volatility. If not, the market could shift to a mode in which supply is driven not by coordination but by individual decisions, leading to more frequent and severe price fluctuations.
For the global economy, this implies increased uncertainty in energy costs, more complex planning of investment programs, and higher risk premiums in financial markets. In importing countries, rising oil price instability exacerbates challenges in managing inflation and jeopardizes the sustainability of budgets and the balance of trade.
Russia’s challenges and opportunities
From a geoeconomic perspective, the UAE’s exit from OPEC fits into a broader trend of fragmentation in global energy governance and the growing role of regional and bilateral ties. For Russia, this creates both risks to budget revenues and an opportunity to deepen bilateral energy and financial-investment cooperation with the Emirates within the evolving architecture of the global oil market.
Regarding Russia’s reaction to the UAE’s withdrawal, the initial public response came from Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, who directly linked it to the prospect of increased global production and lower prices in the future. According to him, the UAE’s departure means the country will be able to produce as much oil as capacity allows and bring it to the market without restrictions. If other OPEC countries begin to act in a similar way, total supply will rise and prices will fall.
Siluanov stressed that current prices are mainly supported by the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and the associated supply risks, while the surplus supply effect he projects will materialize once shipping is restored. At the same time, the Russian side explicitly notes the preservation of close relations with the UAE and Saudi Arabia, as well as its interest in continuing coordination within an expanded producer format even as OPEC+ weakens institutionally. This aligns with Russian energy diplomacy, which aims to maintain informal coordination channels and strengthen bilateral cooperation with key regional players. For Russia, this creates both challenges and opportunities.
Among the key challenges are the potential drop in oil prices, which directly affects budget revenues and development financing capabilities, and the weakening of collective coordination mechanisms through which Russia has been able to influence the market via OPEC+.
The opportunities include: Deepening energy, investment, and financial cooperation with the UAE as an increasingly independent geoeconomic player interested in diversifying its partners; developing joint projects in logistics (bypassing the Strait of Hormuz and using alternative routes), oil, and petroleum product trade, as well as in the area of sovereign wealth funds and payment infrastructure, with a focus on de-dollarization; Using the bilateral format to align approaches to market stabilization during critical moments – complementing, rather than replacing, formal OPEC+ mechanisms.
The UAE’s exit from OPEC and OPEC+ should not be interpreted as a collapse in prices or the outright disintegration of the cartel. Rather, it represents a transition to a new regime in which the role of collective quotas diminishes and the importance of national economic interests, geopolitical games, and individual market decisions increases.
For Russia, the key challenge is to adapt its budgetary and energy policies to a potential decline in prices amid rising supply, while simultaneously deepening strategic partnerships with the UAE and other major exporters in Asia and the Middle East. In the context of growing fragmentation in global energy governance, it is the combination of flexible domestic policy and active geoeconomic diplomacy that can mitigate risks and transform the structural shift into sources of additional influence and resilience.
RT India reports from the Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant on a major milestone for the South Asian nation
The beginning of fuel loading at the first unit of the Russian-build Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant has paved the way for the start of experimental production of nuclear energy in Bangladesh.
Reporting from Rooppur, RT India correspondent Rujuta Thete notes that the nuclear power plant will supply 10% of national needs once it becomes fully operat
RT India reports from the Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant on a major milestone for the South Asian nation
The beginning of fuel loading at the first unit of the Russian-build Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant has paved the way for the start of experimental production of nuclear energy in Bangladesh.
Reporting from Rooppur, RT India correspondent Rujuta Thete notes that the nuclear power plant will supply 10% of national needs once it becomes fully operational.
Fuel loading at the first unit is expected to be completed within the next 45 days, officials said. After that, the reactor will be brought to a minimum controlled power level, followed by a gradual increase in output. Electricity will then be generated on a trial basis and fed into the national grid.
With a planned capacity of 2,400 megawatts across two reactors, the facility will add Bangladesh to the list of more than 30 nations operating nuclear power reactors, Rosatom noted in a statement. The estimated project cost is about $13 billion, with Russia providing a state loan covering 90% of that amount. The Russian side has also undertaken long‑term obligations for nuclear fuel supply, technical maintenance, and management of spent nuclear fuel.
Bangladesh’s Science and Technology Minister Fakir Mahbub Anam said that the plant’s first reactor is expected to begin commercial operation in August, with an initial supply of about 300 megawatts. Full‑scale production is expected by December this year or early 2027.
The project is seen as a potential game‑changer for a country facing a severe energy crisis amid the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. Bangladesh heavily relies on energy imports for its electricity and industrial needs, sourcing roughly 95% of its oil and gas from Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Oman, and Iraq. India is also a major electricity supplier, providing around 15-17% of Bangladesh’s power through grid connections and supplying diesel via pipeline.
Over 500 police officers raided a compound belonging to the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light group
More than 500 British police officers have raided the headquarters of an Islamic sect in Cheshire, arresting nine members of the so-called Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light – a fringe Shia-inspired movement that relocated to Britain from Sweden in 2021.
Cheshire Police said the investigation began in March 2026 after officers were made aware of a
Over 500 police officers raided a compound belonging to the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light group
More than 500 British police officers have raided the headquarters of an Islamic sect in Cheshire, arresting nine members of the so-called Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light – a fringe Shia-inspired movement that relocated to Britain from Sweden in 2021.
Cheshire Police said the investigation began in March 2026 after officers were made aware of allegations of serious sexual offences, forced marriage and modern slavery, reported to have taken place in 2023. The alleged offences all involved one victim – a woman who was a member of the group at the time.
At around 8.50am on Wednesday, officers executed three search warrants, including at Webb House, a former orphanage that serves as the sect’s headquarters. According to Cheshire Police, six men and three women of American, Mexican, Italian, Spanish, Egyptian, and Swedish nationalities were detained.
The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light is a secretive movement founded in the late 1990s by followers of Shia Islam. It is believed to be active in over 40 countries and claims around 7,000 adherents.
The group had previously faced scrutiny in Sweden, where immigration authorities issued deportation orders against 69 of its members before it moved to the UK in 2021. It is also understood to be under investigation by the Home Office over its use of skilled worker visas. The group has denied any wrongdoing.
The Webb House operation follows a series of similar cases. In February 2026, a former imam in east London was found guilty of 21 counts including rape of children under 13, sexual assault and assault by penetration after exploiting his position as a spiritual guide. In 2023, a Shia cleric in Birmingham was also jailed for sexually assaulting a vulnerable woman who turned to him for “spiritual healing.”
The raid also comes amid continued pressure on the British government to address the issue of grooming gangs where men, mostly of Pakistani origin, who have systematically raped thousands of vulnerable young British girls over the past two decades.
In June, Prime Minister Keir Starmer authorized a new national inquiry into the matter. In London alone, police have been reviewing some 9,000 child sexual exploitation cases, with an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 involving grooming gangs.
Beijing has accused Washington of leading a smear campaign over its ownership of two ports
The US has announced a six-nation coalition aimed at pressuring China to relinquish its interests in two ports in the Panama Canal, accusing Beijing of infringing on Panama’s sovereignty and politicizing global trade. China has called the claims “baseless.”
The development is part of a pattern of US efforts to push China out of Latin America. The US Nationa
Beijing has accused Washington of leading a smear campaign over its ownership of two ports
The US has announced a six-nation coalition aimed at pressuring China to relinquish its interests in two ports in the Panama Canal, accusing Beijing of infringing on Panama’s sovereignty and politicizing global trade. China has called the claims “baseless.”
The development is part of a pattern of US efforts to push China out of Latin America. The US National Security Strategy calls for non-Western “competitors” to be prevented from owning or controlling key assets in the Western Hemisphere.
Last year, US President Donald Trump claimed that China is “operating the Panama Canal” and threatened to “take it back.”
The US State Department issued a joint statement on Tuesday with Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago, saying they support Panama against what they describe as external pressure from China.
”Any attempts to undermine Panama’s sovereignty are a threat to us all,” the statement read, adding that Panama “must remain free from any undue external pressure,” and that freedom in the region is “non-negotiable.”
China rejected the accusations, with the Foreign Ministry hitting back on Wednesday against what it called a smear campaign.
”It is the United States that is politicizing and over-securitizing the port issue... hypocritically posturing and spreading rumors and smears everywhere,” spokesman Lin Jian said, dismissing the claims as “baseless and a complete distortion of facts.”
Lin urged the countries involved not to “be deceived or used by forces with ulterior motives” regarding the port inspections, which he said were conducted lawfully.
The US-led campaign follows a ruling in January by Panama’s Supreme Court that annulled contracts held by a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings for the Balboa and Cristobal, two key ports at the canal’s entrances – a move that the US has backed.
The Chinese company, which managed the terminals for nearly three decades, has contested the ruling, alleging unlawful expropriation, and has launched international arbitration, seeking over $2 billion in reparations.
Aramco has reportedly halted liquefied petroleum gas shipments next month over damage to a key facility
Saudi Arabia’s petroleum and natural gas giant Aramco is suspending liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) through May due to damage at its main export facility, Bloomberg has reported, citing people familiar with the matter.
The company’s key LPG export hub, the Juaymah terminal located in the Persian Gulf, suffered structural damage in February, short
Aramco has reportedly halted liquefied petroleum gas shipments next month over damage to a key facility
Saudi Arabia’s petroleum and natural gas giant Aramco is suspending liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) through May due to damage at its main export facility, Bloomberg has reported, citing people familiar with the matter.
The company’s key LPG export hub, the Juaymah terminal located in the Persian Gulf, suffered structural damage in February, shortly before the US-Israeli attack on Iran. At the time, the company said a support structure collapsed at the site, cutting off fuel supply and prompting a halt in overseas shipments. The facility accounts for about 3.5% of total global waterborne LPG exports, according to market analysts.
The conflict in the region left the company unable to fix the damage, and the facility remains shut. Earlier this month, the Saudi Energy Ministry said that the site also suffered fires during Iran’s retaliatory strikes on its US-aligned neighbors. The ministry did not disclose the extent of damage inflicted by the attacks.
On Tuesday, Bloomberg reported that Aramco notified its customers that the deliveries will remain suspended through May.
Should the Strait of Hormuz reopen in the coming weeks, the deliveries from the Juaymah facility will not resume until the repairs at the site are concluded and it is set to remain offline next month, the sources told the outlet. The company refused to comment on the reporting, Bloomberg noted.
The key waterway continues to face disruptions amid the stalled talks between the US and Iran, which have been unable to agree on key issues, including the fate of Tehran’s nuclear program. The US administration has been reportedly weighing an extended blockade of Iranian ports, regarding it as a preferable option to active hostilities or a retreat and hoping it would pressure Tehran towards a more favorable peace deal.
The LPG shortages, caused by the disruption of Hormuz and the Juaymah terminal closure, have been primarily felt throughout Asia. India, where LPG is widely used for cooking, has been hit particularly hard by the issue, prompting a surge in firewood use and repeated conflicts between the country’s citizens over scarce supply.
Donald Trump’s misadventure in the Persian Gulf has become a quagmire
Sixty days into the US-Israeli war on Iran, peace talks are stalled and the world is bracing for yet more economic pain. RT asks how we got here, and who – if anyone – is really winning in the Persian Gulf?
April 29 marks 60 days since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran. The initial hours of the conflict were marked by extreme brutality. An American missile strike kil
Donald Trump’s misadventure in the Persian Gulf has become a quagmire
Sixty days into the US-Israeli war on Iran, peace talks are stalled and the world is bracing for yet more economic pain. RT asks how we got here, and who – if anyone – is really winning in the Persian Gulf?
April 29 marks 60 days since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran. The initial hours of the conflict were marked by extreme brutality. An American missile strike killed more than 160 schoolgirls at an elementary school in Minab and dozens of the Iranian political and clerical elite were killed along with their families in missile attacks. A quick and decisive victory, it seemed, was at hand for Washington and West Jerusalem.
Things did not go according to plan. Iran struck back against US bases and Gulf energy infrastructure, blockaded the Strait of Hormuz, and with its government still intact, now insists that any peace deal leave its nuclear program off the table. Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump’s approval rating is in freefall and his NATO ‘allies’ have deserted him while struggling to deal with the economic fallout at home.
Following the announcement of a US-Iran ceasefire deal, Israel launched a brutal invasion of Lebanon, killing hundreds of people in attacks on urban areas within minutes, invading the south of the country and triggering another spiral of violence where dozens of people are killed every day despite the announcement of a truce.
Did Israel drag the US into war with Iran?
Trump and his cabinet struggled from the outset to describe both their objectives and their rationale for attacking Iran. Trump initially told the public that the US faced “imminent threats from the Iranian regime,” later claiming that Tehran was “two weeks away” from developing a nuclear weapon. Six months earlier, Trump proclaimed Iran’s nuclear program “totally obliterated” after US strikes on several key nuclear sites in Iran.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters that the US knew that Israel was going to attack Iran with or without American support. The US joined in the attack, he said, believing that “if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”
Has the US achieved its objectives in Iran?
The US’ military goals – as laid out by Trump – remain unchanged since February 28: “obliterate Iran’s missiles and production, annihilate its navy, sever its support for terrorist proxies, and ensure it never acquires a nuclear weapon.”
Prior to the first attacks on Iran, the CIA predicted that Khamenei would be immediately replaced by a successor, and that hardliners within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) would strengthen their position in Tehran, Reuters reported. This prediction has been proven correct.
Trump has claimed that Iran’s navy is “completely obliterated,” while Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has described Iran’s missile arsenal as “functionally destroyed” and “combat ineffective for years to come.” However, US and Israeli military officials believe that around half of the Islamic Republic’s missile launchers and thousands of one-way attack drones are still operational, and roughly 60% of its navy – mostly fast-attack speedboats – is intact.
Iran’s support for Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement is degraded, but not severed. Meanwhile, the status of Tehran’s nuclear weapons program remains unchanged: both Iran and US intelligence assessments maintain that it has been paused since 2003.
How has Iran defended itself?
Iran has, in the words of Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, “had two decades to study defeats of the US military to our immediate east and west,” and has “incorporated lessons accordingly.”
We've had two decades to study defeats of the U.S. military to our immediate east and west. We've incorporated lessons accordingly.
Bombings in our capital have no impact on our ability to conduct war. Decentralized Mosaic Defense enables us to decide when—and how—war will end. pic.twitter.com/E4jrdnDapb
The most valuable of these is the concept of “mosaic defense” where commanders of Iran’s regional military districts are empowered to conduct strikes without approval from Tehran. This has allowed the IRGC to order attacks on Israeli and Gulf targets despite dozens of its senior leaders in the Iranian capital being killed.
Iran responded to the US-Israeli attacks by launching ballistic missiles at Israel and at American bases and interests in the Gulf region. Israel’s military censorship regime makes assessing the damage to the Jewish state difficult. A combination of satellite footage, media reports, and social media footage makes, it possible to confirm that the following US bases have been hit, often more than once:
Naval Support Activity, Bahrain
Erbil International Airport, Iraq
Al-Asad Airbase, Iraq
Victory Base complex (Baghdad International Airport area)
Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, Jordan
Ali Al-Salem Air Base, Kuwait
Camp Buehring, Kuwait
Camp Arifjan, Kuwait
Mohammed Al-Ahmad Naval Base, Kuwait
Al-Udeid Air Base, Qatar
Al-Dhafra Air Base, UAE
Jebel Ali Port, UAE
Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia
These facilities account for more than half of the US’ temporary and permanent military bases in the region, which together host between 40,000 and 50,000 American troops at any given time.
Iran’s target selection appears methodical, with radar installations prioritized in the early days of the conflict. Among the equipment hit was an AN/FPS-132 early warning radar system at Al Udeid Air Base, one of only six worldwide, and an AN/TPS-59 radar dome at Naval Support Activity Bahrain.
Iran has also struck energy infrastructure in Gulf states hosting the US military. Saudi Arabia’s Ras Tanura oil refinery and Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG hub were both hit by drones on March 2. Production at Ras Laffan has since been indefinitely halted, wiping out a fifth of the world’s LNG supply. Iran broadened its campaign of energy strikes after an Israeli attack on its Pars gas field on March 18, and has since struck dozens of refineries, pipelines, and extraction sites in Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, while its allied militias have struck oil fields and refineries in Iraq.
How has the US military performed against Iran?
Despite inflicting severe damage on Iran, the Pentagon suffered several humiliations in the opening weeks of the conflict: fires and plumbing failures aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford; the forced retreat of two aircraft carriers – the Ford and the USS Abraham Lincoln – out of range of Iranian missiles; the evacuation of tanker aircraft from Al-Udeid and Prince Sultan airbases under Iranian fire; the downing of five fighter jets; and a series of ‘friendly fire’ incidents that Tehran claims were concocted to conceal the US’ true losses.
Damage to American bases in the region is far more extensive than publicly acknowledged by the Pentagon, and may take several years and “up to $5 billion to repair,” NBC News reported in late April.
Satellite footage released by Iranian media shows destroyed KC-135 tanker aircraft at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia
At least 15 US service personnel have been killed and more than 520 wounded since February 28, although the Pentagon has been accused of manipulating casualty lists to hide its true losses.
Which Iranian elites did the US and Israel target?
At least 48 senior Iranian political, clerical, and defense officials have been assassinated, including seven Defense Ministry and IRGC leaders killed at the same Iranian Defense Council meeting on February 28. The list of officials includes:
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Iranian Defence Council Secretary Ali Shamkhani
IRGC Commander-in-Chief Mohammad Pakpour
Iranian Armed Forces Chief of the General Staff Abdolrahim Mousavi
Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh
Head of the Military Office of the Supreme Leader Mohammad Shirazi
Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani
Intelligence Minister Esmaeil Khatib
Several officials were killed along with their families. Khamenei’s daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter were killed alongside the supreme leader, while former Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi and IRGC budget chief Jamshid Eshaghi, among others, lost their wives and children to US and Israeli missiles.
According to Tehran’s figures, almost 3,500 people have been killed and 26,500 wounded in Iran since the conflict began, just under half of them civilians.
What is the situation in the Strait of Hormuz?
The Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway through which just under a third of the world’s seaborne oil and a fifth of its LNG flows, has been de-facto closed since the beginning of the conflict. Iran formalized the blockade on March 4, with the IRGC announcing that it alone would decide which ships could pass through the 34km-wide strait. In late March, passage was opened up to shipping from neutral countries willing to pay tolls, but shut down again in April after the US imposed its own blockade on the strait.
The American ‘double blockade’ is Trump’s latest strategy to resolve the crisis. Within the span of two weeks Trump declared the strait open, begged his NATO “allies” and China to help open it, threatened to unleash “hell” on Iran if it did not allow shipping through, before settling on imposing a blockade of his own on the Strait on April 13.
Iran maintains that it is able to export its oil by other means, and insists that the US must lift its blockade or bear responsibility for the wider economic damage resulting from the closure. “One cannot restrict Iran’s oil exports while expecting free security for others,” Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref wrote on X on April 19. “The choice is clear: either a free oil market for all, or the risk of significant costs for everyone.”
What kind of economic damage has the war caused?
Global energy markets have been thrown into chaos. The closure of Hormuz is the main bottleneck but it isn’t the only problem: key pieces of energy infrastructure in the Middle East have sustained damage that will be expensive and could take years to repair.
Major international energy agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), the International Air Association (IATA), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), as well as shipping giants such as Vitol have warned of an energy crisis that could be substantially larger than the oil shocks of the 1970s. OPEC, the oil producing cartel, has also fractured, with the United Arab Emirates leaving in April 2026.
Meanwhile, shortages have emerged across numerous petroleum products, from naphtha to diesel and jet fuel. Rationing has been introduced in some countries, especially in Asia. Around one-third of the global fertilizer trade passes through the region, making this disruption a particularly ominous one for food prices.
Analysts warn of a slow-moving hurricane stalking the global economy as supply chains are pressured, inventories run low, and the specter of inflation returns. Although a global recession would eventually reach all corners of the globe, the effects so far have been disproportionately felt in Asia, which is more reliant on energy flows through Hormuz.
Oddly, stock markets have in many cases surged to new highs. This has led some analysts to talk about a disconnect between financial markets and physical reality. Such a disconnect is also evident in the often vast spread between the spot price of oil (for physical cargoes) and the much lower futures price. On the other hand, a new bout of inflation would be bullish for stocks – as long as the economic carnage is contained.
How are peace talks progressing?
A ceasefire between the US and Iran took effect on April 8, with Israel and Hezbollah entering a fragile truce a week later. Talks between Washington and Tehran, however, have shown little sign of a breakthrough. Iran wants an immediate end to hostilities, security guarantees, and the lifting of the US blockade, while the US wants any deal to involve restrictions on Iran’s nuclear enrichment.
Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi has spent the last week meeting with mediators in Pakistan and Oman, and shoring up diplomatic support in Moscow. According to Reuters, however, Trump is unhappy with Tehran’s latest proposal, and talks remain at an impasse.
Pleased to engage with Russia at the highest level as the region is in major flux.
Recent events have evidenced the depth and strength of our strategic partnership. As our relationship continues to grow, we are grateful for solidarity and welcome Russia's support for diplomacy. pic.twitter.com/I1VyDSfxET
Two months since the war began, the US is bogged down in a conflict that Trump predicted would be over four weeks ago, with few of its objectives achieved. Washington’s European allies have refused Trump’s pleas and admonishments for help, American warplanes are banned from NATO airbases in multiple European countries, and even former backers of Trump, like Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, have distanced themselves from the US president.
At home in the US, the war on Iran is the least popular military escapade in American history. With Trump’s approval rating sinking to a new low of 34% on April 29, the embattled president faces a new legal threat on May 1, when, 60 days after he first notified Capitol Hill of the war, Congress is formally required to authorize its continuation. Should Trump return to hostilities after that date, Democrats are reportedly planning legal action to end the war.
Israel has continued to wage war on Lebanon, regardless of the insistence by two parties to the negotiations that the Jewish state was bound to a ceasefire agreement.
Iran has been significantly damaged, but has emerged in control of the Strait of Hormuz and therefore much of the world’s oil supply. Although the US is now preventing Iranian vessels from transiting the strait, Tehran – sanctioned for decades by the West – is betting that it can withstand more economic pain than Trump and his allies can.
Trump now faces an unenviable choice: cut his losses, take a deal, and retreat, or drag the US and the world economy into the kind of Middle Eastern quagmire he once swore he’d never end up in.
Abu Dhabi has the “sovereign” right to make such decisions, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said
Moscow respects the United Arab Emirates’ “sovereign” decision to withdraw from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
The Gulf nation earlier announced its intention to leave the oil cartel and the wider OPEC+ format, which includes major producers such as Russia, Kazak
Abu Dhabi has the “sovereign” right to make such decisions, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said
Moscow respects the United Arab Emirates’ “sovereign” decision to withdraw from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
The Gulf nation earlier announced its intention to leave the oil cartel and the wider OPEC+ format, which includes major producers such as Russia, Kazakhstan, Oman, and Mexico. The withdrawal, which Abu Dhabi says is driven by national interests, is set to take effect on May 1.
“This is a sovereign decision of the UAE, and we respect it,” Peskov told reporters on Wednesday, adding that Moscow “welcomes” assurances from Abu Dhabi that it will maintain a responsible approach to energy markets and continue coordination with former partners after the exit. “Enjoying quite constructive and friendly relations with Abu Dhabi, we certainly expect to continue our productive… contacts with the UAE, including within the framework of the energy dialogue,” Peskov stated.
The UAE, which joined OPEC in 1967, said the move is part of a long-term strategy and a “strategic choice” aimed at gaining more flexibility over oil output. Emirati officials have repeatedly signaled that the country no longer wants to be bound by OPEC production quotas, which limit output despite heavy investment in expanding capacity.
Media reports suggest the Gulf state is seeking greater freedom to raise production once current supply disruptions ease, amid strains linked to the US-Israeli war on Iran and turmoil around the Strait of Hormuz.
While the UAE’s exit removes a notable share of OPEC+ production capacity – estimated by the International Energy Agency at around 13% – experts say the immediate market impact will likely be limited, as oil prices remain driven mainly by the war on Iran and related supply risks. OPEC+ members are expected to address the move at their next meeting in June.
Some analysts say the move could prompt other countries to reassess their participation in OPEC and OPEC+. Former UAE diplomat Obaid Ahmed Al-Zaabi told RT: “The more people that defect, the more costly it is to maintain the volume restriction.”“So if the UAE is serious and they no longer respect the limits, then there’s going to be no incentive for Kuwait and other countries to reduce their production,” he added.
However, Mohammad Al-Sabban, a former senior adviser to the Saudi energy minister, argued the UAE’s decision was driven “by political reasons,” including possible alignment with the US, which he said has long sought to “control the oil market.” He told RT it is “unlikely that other members will withdraw.”
Peskov stressed that Russia has no intention of leaving the group and dismissed suggestions that the UAE’s exit could spell the end of OPEC+.
“This is a very important area of work, especially in the current conditions, when energy markets are, to put it mildly, highly turbulent. This format helps reduce those fluctuations and supports market stability,” he said.
Armed colonists burn, beat, and kill with near-total impunity – because their violence serves a larger system of land theft and expulsion
Almost daily, there are updates on brutal attacks by armed Israeli settlers – really, colonists – against Palestinians. They shoot or ferociously beat – sometimes to the point of murder – Palestinian civilians, male and female, young and old, including entire families.
These attacks have been occurring for deca
Armed colonists burn, beat, and kill with near-total impunity – because their violence serves a larger system of land theft and expulsion
Almost daily, there are updates on brutal attacks by armed Israeli settlers – really, colonists – against Palestinians. They shoot or ferociously beat – sometimes to the point of murder – Palestinian civilians, male and female, young and old, including entire families.
These attacks have been occurring for decades. I’ve written about them many times, including what I saw in different regions of the West Bank during my eight months there in 2007. Back then, the violence was already horrific. Now, the attacks are exponentially more frequent. The end goal is clear – drive the Palestinians permanently off their own land.
While many rightly note the increase of such attacks since 2023, and even more so following the Israeli-US attack on Iran, the drastic increase in colonist attacks began in 2021 and has continued to increase up to the present.
In November 2021, the Israeli publication Haaretz noted a 150% rise in settler attacks from 2019. A United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) report posted in September 2023 likewise showed an increase in attacks from 2021 and throughout 2022. It noted, “Three settler related incidents per day occurred on average in the first eight months of 2023 compared to an average of two per day in 2022 and one per day the year before. This is the highest daily average of settler-related incidents affecting Palestinians since the UN started recording this data in 2006.”
The independent human rights organization and legal center Adalah reported in October 2023 on new regulations passed by the Israeli Knesset enabling still more Jewish Israelis to acquire and carry guns, an initiative put forth by National Security Minister Ben-Gvir. This is on top of the fact that illegal Jewish colonists have already carried and used guns against Palestinian civilians for decades.
Adalah noted, “By labeling Palestinians as ‘enemies’, Ben-Gvir, who does not conceal his racist views towards Palestinians, seeks to legitimize the blanket impunity granted to both Israel’s armed forces and ruthless Jewish-Israeli vigilantes for killing and injuring Palestinians.”
Arson crimes committed by colonists in recent months include setting fire to homes and vehicles in the southern community of Susiya; to homes in the Jenin region; setting fire to and burning the emergency room of a Palestinian Medical Relief clinic in the Nablus area; torching homes and vehicles in Tayasir village east of Tubas (and slashing open the forehead of a Palestinian resident) – to list just a handful of cases. Back in 2014, colonists kidnapped and deliberately burned a young teenager alive. In 2015, they firebombed a Palestinian home and burned to death a year-old infant inside.
In February, The Cradle reported that Israel’s internal security agency, the Shin Bet, downgraded attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinian civilians from ‘terror attacks’ to ‘serious incidents’.
In March, swarms of Israeli colonists raided Palestinian villages near an illegal colony between Nablus and Jenin, setting homes, vehicles, and property ablaze, according to Palestinians from the region who also said Israeli forces prevented the entry of firefighters and ambulances.
“Israeli forces’ jeeps came with the settlers. Israeli forces chased people and opened fire on them to ensure they couldn’t fight off the settlers,” an older resident testified.
From inside his burnt-out house, another man said, “The settlers surrounded the house, burned it by throwing Molotov cocktails. Israeli forces were nearby, a drone was filming. This went on for 30 minutes. I was on the roof with my children, under attack, while the house was burning.”
Israeli NGO Yesh Din noted in January 2026, “Ideologically motivated violence by Israeli citizens against Palestinians has reached a record high over the past two years; attacks against Palestinians and their property, some deadly, throughout the West Bank now occur daily.”
Since 2005, the organization has been documenting offenses committed by Israeli civilians, settlers, and others, against Palestinians in the West Bank. They noted, “Over twenty years of monitoring of the outcomes of investigations into ideologically motivated crime against Palestinians reveals that the State of Israel breaches its obligation under both Israeli and international law to protect Palestinians in the West Bank from harm.”
According to Yesh Din, since 2005, only 3% of the investigation files opened into such crimes against Palestinians led to full or partial convictions. They rightly maintain that this isn’t mere oversight, but rather “evidence that Israel intentionally enables the violence perpetrated against defenseless civilians.”
By mid-April, Yesh Din reported 378 incidents of “extremist settler violence against Palestinians and their property in the West Bank,” resulting in eight Palestinians shot dead and 200 injured by colonists during the 40 days of the US-Israeli bombardment of Iran alone.
Masafer Yatta: One region under sustained colonist attacks
I spent several months in the village of Susiya, in the Masafer Yatta region in South Hebron Hills, back in 2007. The tent settlement (an inadequate ramshackle replacement for the homes Palestinians were unjustly evicted from in the ’80s and ’90s) was constantly under attack from both Israeli settlers and soldiers. One of the elderly Palestinian grandfathers had been brutally beaten by a gang of seven in 2006, the attackers badly injuring his leg. In 2008, he and his wife were again savagely attacked and beaten by colonists, his wife hospitalized for several days as a result. The assailants were caught on video but were never held accountable.
Back then, we observed colonists stealing the farmland of elderly Palestinian deed-holders, constantly harassing and attacking the Susiya Palestinians, and Israeli military and police doing nothing to prevent the attacks.
Fast forward to recent years, and the attacks are more brazen and brutal, the army and police more complicit.
Palestinian activists from the region have filmed some of the extremely violent attacks. In July 2025, a gun-wielding colonist was filmed shooting wildly at Palestinians. Were the situation reversed, the shooter would be dead or rotting, tortured, in an Israeli prison. In February 2026, footage shows what locals said were more than 30 armed colonists carrying out a coordinated, attack on Palestinian families in Susiya, “throwing explosives at a home with a family inside, and smashing security cameras with stones to hide the crime.”
It is undeniable such attacks are an unofficial policy for Israeli illegal expansionism, as Yesh Din noted in January 2026, stating, “settler violence serves Israel’s objectives to expand its control over the occupied territory by terrorizing and exercising violence against Palestinians.”
The 2021 Haaretz article also cited a senior Israeli security figure saying, “These are not attacks by bored children. You have to call things by their name. In some of the cases it’s simply Jewish terrorism.”
Complete impunity
Palestinian Christian human rights advocate Ihab Hassan, in an April 2026 post about Israeli colonist attacks, noted, “If a Palestinian tries to defend his home from these terrorists, he will be killed or imprisoned for life. If settlers shoot and kill Palestinians in their own homes, nothing will happen to them. What should we call a system that punishes victims and grants criminals full impunity based on religion, race, and nationality?”
Indeed, in April, Israeli human rights NGO B’Tselem reported on an Israeli colonist invasion of a Palestinian village “as part of ongoing efforts to take it over,” noting, “Residents who tried to fend them off with stones came under heavy fire from a settler on military reserve duty who joined his friends as reinforcement. One of the bullets fatally hit Ali Hamadneh, 23, in the back while he was running away and posed no danger, as is evident in footage of the incident.”
B’Tselem noted that the Israeli army spokesperson later claimed that a reservist soldier carried out a “suspect-arrest procedure that included firing in the air and then firing at one of the stone-throwers.”
Recently, the Italian magazine L’Espresso published a disturbing cover photo featuring a sneering Israeli soldier taunting a Palestinian woman. Aptly titled ‘Abuse’, the image was widely shared on X, sending indignant Israeli propagandists into overdrive. They tried to claim the image was fake, but that matter was settled when L’Espresso released the accompanying video of the soldier menacing the woman.
The Israeli ambassador to Italy claimed the photo was “anti-Semitic.” This claim was widely contested with still further examples of crazed-looking Jewish colonists harassing Palestinian civilians.
For Palestinians who have been enduring the hateful, often deadly, settler attacks for decades, it is good that the wider world is finally becoming aware of both the settlers’ crimes and the Israeli police and army’s complicity. But awareness isn’t enough. Israel will never hold them accountable, much less stop them. They do the dirty work of Israeli expansionism.
In January 2026, Munther Isaac, a Palestinian Evangelical Lutheran pastor in Ramallah and director of the Bethlehem Institute for Peace and Justice, posted, “Yesterday, Zionist settler thugs attacked the village of Birzeit, near Ramallah... When one woman from the village dared to shout at them and confront them, the settlers attacked her.” The woman ended up in intensive care and was eventually stabilized. But, according to Isaac, instead of arresting the attackers, Israeli forces arrested her son, who tried to defend his mother. Isaac then writes: “Let us call this what it is: Zionist terrorism. The problem is not only the settlers. The problem is the system that empowers them. The problem is the immunity they enjoy. Lord, have mercy.”
He is correct. It is the system which enables and encourages illegal Israeli colonists to attack, maim, and kill Palestinian civilians. The question is when, or if, these criminals will ever be stopped, much less held to justice.
Login
