The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) convened its 2025 summit in The Hague, Netherlands, from June 24 to 25. This summit was unprecedented in its scale, symbolism, and strategic decisions, particularly given the backdrop of continuing Russian military action against Ukraine, evolving transatlantic dynamics in the second term of President Donald Trump in the U.S., and growing calls for European defence autonomy.[1] With participation from 45 heads of state and thousands of delegates, the summit was a defining moment for NATO’s trajectory in the second half of the 2020s.[2]
Hosted at the World Forum in The Hague, the summit brought together representatives from all 32 NATO member states. Special attention was accorded to the participation of U.S. President Donald Trump, who’s past scepticism toward NATO spurred a charm offensive by the Dutch hosts, including official dinners at the royal palace.[3] Also present were the alliance’s four Asia-Pacific partners, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea (though the latter did not send a head of state). Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy attended a side dinner, reflecting Ukraine’s continuing but still incomplete engagement with NATO.[4] This summit also marked the first under NATO’s new Secretary General, Mark Rutte, former Prime Minister of the Netherlands.[5]
Good morning. The war in Gaza – which began with the horror of the Hamas slaughter and kidnapping of innocent Israelis on 7 October 2023, and has brought unimaginable death and destruction to the civilian population of Gaza almost every day since – has entered its 21st month.
So far every attempt to end the conflict has failed. But the the fraying patience of the US president, Donald Trump, who has promised to deliver peace to Gaza, has seen Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu dispatch a team of negotiators to Qatar for indirect talks with Hamas, with the Israeli leader expected to come under pressure on this week’s trip to Washington DC to agree to a ceasefire.
Yet despite Trump’s desire to end the war, and Israel and Hamas making positive noises about the prospect of a ceasefire, the two sides are still far apart on a number of crucial negotiating points.
Last night, just hours before Netanyahu told Trump at a White House dinner that he had nominated him for the Nobel peace prize, Israel laid out a plan that would force all Palestinians in Gaza into a camp on the ruins of Rafah, in a scheme that legal experts described as “a blueprint for crimes against humanity”.
For today’s newsletter, I talked to the Guardian’s Middle East correspondent Emma Graham-Harrison about the prospects for peace, and what is at stake for everyone involved. First, the headlines.
Five big stories
Immigration | Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron are expected to announce plans for French police to do more to block small boats crossing the Channel at a summit in London this week, but a wider deal on returning asylum seekers is still up in the air.
Iran | The Iranian president, Masoud Pezeshkian, said in an interview released on Monday that Israel, which last month fought a 12-day war with Iran, had attempted to assassinate him by bombarding an area in which he was holding a meeting.
Poverty | Children in England are living in “almost Dickensian levels of poverty” where deprivation has become normalised, the children’s commissioner has said, as she insisted the two-child benefit limit must be scrapped.
Environment | Millions of tonnes of treated sewage sludge is spread on farmland across the UK every year despite containing forever chemicals, microplastics and toxic waste. An investigation by the Guardian and Watershed has identified England’s sludge-spreading hotspots and shown where the practice could be damaging rivers.
US news | The Texas senator Ted Cruz ensured the Republican spending bill slashed funding for weather forecasting, only to then go on vacation to Greece while his state was hit by deadly flooding – a disaster that critics say was worsened by cuts to meteorology.
In depth: What a new ceasefire might look like – and the risks if it fails
Aftermath of an Israeli strike that destroyed homes at a refugee camp in Gaza City last week. Photograph: Mahmoud Issa/Reuters
A few hours before Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump met yesterday, the latest rounds of indirect ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas in Doha ended without a breakthrough. Despite this, Trump insisted at a dinner with Netanyahu last night that negotiations were “going along very well”.
If a new ceasefire is agreed and does come into effect, it will be the third during a war that has claimed the lives of at least 57,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians.
The first ceasefire – in November 2023 – lasted just 10 days. The second, in February and March this year, collapsed after Israel reneged on its promise to move to a second phase that could have seen a definitive end to the conflict.
In the months since, a new Israeli offensive has claimed the lives of thousands more Palestinians. Extreme hunger is everywhere after an 11-week siege and ongoing tight blockade, with only minimal food and aid allowed in.
What are the terms of this new proposed ceasefire?
The details of this new deal include the staggered release of 10 living hostages still held in Gaza by Hamas, and the return of the bodies of 18 more, in exchange for a number of Palestinians held in Israeli jails. There would also be more aid entering the area and a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from some parts of the Gaza Strip.
Like the previous ceasefires, it will last for 60 days, with Trump and regional allies guaranteeing Hamas that Israel will engage in “meaningful” talks to bring about a permanent end to the war.
The deal would leave 22 hostages, 10 of them believed to be alive, still held in Gaza.
How strong is Netanyahu’s position with Trump?
Emma Graham-Harrison said that, on paper, Donald Trump has most of the leverage, which he is using to push a reluctant Netanyahu to the negotiating table.
Two weeks ago, the world watched as Trump publicly eviscerated Israel for breaking a tentative ceasefire with Iran. He had already forced the Israeli prime minister to turn around fighter jets on their way to Iran – a display of raw power over Israel’s leader that Emma said is “unprecedented”.
Since Trump’s F-word outburst, the two allies have once again appeared in lockstep, with the US going on to launch a bombing run in support of Israel against Iran’s nuclear programme, handing Netanyahu a huge political boost.
Trump has also backed Netanyahu on a number of other key political issues, calling for corruption charges facing the Israeli prime minister to be dropped and continuing to back his policy for distributing food to Palestinians in Gaza through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), despite hundreds of Palestinians being shot and killed while trying to reach the distribution points.
“Netanyahu has made sure that he appears to be taking Trump’s demands for an end to the war seriously; for example sending a team of negotiators to the ceasefire talks in Doha,” said Emma.
At last night’s dinner, Trump was upbeat about the prospect of a ceasefire. When the US president was asked about Israel’s reported plans to force all Palestinians in Gaza into a new “humanitarian city” built on the ruins of Rafah, Trump directed Netanyahu to answer the question. In response Netanyahu said he was working with the US on finding countries that will “give Palestinians a better future”.
Does Netanyahu really want to end the war?
While Netanyahu is aware he needs to appease Trump’s desire to present himself as a peacemaker by announcing a ceasefire, Emma said that Netanyahu’s critics say he has multiple, compelling reasons not to want a lasting end to the war.
He is still very much beholden to far-right parties within his coalition government who are vehemently opposed to a ceasefire. National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich have both threatened to leave the government if Netanyahu ends the war.
“There are very powerful voices in the Israeli government who are openly on a messianic mission to ethnically cleanse Gaza ,” said Emma.
There is also the separate issue of that corruption trial which, even with Trump’s support, he may not be able to avoid if he loses political office.
A third reason Netanyahu might want to keep the war going, Emma said, is that it allows him to delay any official examination of how the 7 October attacks happened on his watch. She thinks one possible option is that Netanyahu could attempt a “political fudge”, accepting a ceasefire and appearing to agree to Trump’s plan that it should lead to a permanent end to the war, while telling allies at home that Israel can return to fighting once the 10 hostages are home.
What about Hamas?
The hostages held by Hamas are the group’s only significant leverage in the talks, said Emma.
Militarily, Hamas has been crippled by Israel’s relentless assault and obliteration of its senior leadership, (although Emma pointed out that Hamas is far from eliminated as a fighting force.
“Agreeing to give up more hostages in a situation that doesn’t seem to be concretely leading to a permanent end to the war is arguably not that attractive an option for them,” says Emma. “I think their key aim now will be to end the war in a way that preserves some kind of power and influence in Gaza and trying to making sure that some elements of their organisation are still functioning.”
skip past newsletter promotion
after newsletter promotion
What if the talks fail?
The Israeli offensive has reduced most of Gaza to ruins since 2023, displaced almost the entire 2.3 million population, destroyed its healthcare system and killed more than 57,000 people, burying thousands of others under the rubble.
The total siege imposed for 11 weeks after the collapse of the last ceasefire has only partly been lifted to allow a small amount of food aid and medical supplies into the territory. Aid workers are saying that fuel stocks are close to running out, which would lead to the “complete collapse” of humanitarian operations, the health system and communications.
Amid all the discussions about the ceasefire, the voices of Palestinian people themselves have seldom been heard, so I want to end this newsletter with Lama, a 12-year Palestinian girl who was interviewed by our Gaza correspondent Malak A Tantesh about what is really at stake if peace is not achieved.
“I was so happy during the last ceasefire. We felt a bit safe. When the war returned, I cried a lot because it meant going back to the suffering of tents, the summer heat and repeated displacement,” Lama said.
When asked about what she was afraid of if the ceasefire talks failed, she told Malak that she was scared of being “torn apart, killed, paralysed or losing a limb”.
What else we’ve been reading
Erin Patterson has been found guilty of murdering three relatives with a mushroom lunch at her home in regional Australia. Composite: AP/Guardian Design
If you weren’t tuned in to Australia’s extraordinary “mushroom murders” trial, in which Erin Patterson was found guilty on Monday of deliberately poisoning three relatives, Nino Bucci has a startling breakdown of every twist and turn in the unbelievable tale. Charlie Lindlar, acting deputy editor, newsletters
Hugh Muir looks back on Ken Livingstone’s speech of defiance and unity that followed the 7/7 London terrorist attacks through the prism of our increasingly divisive politics 20 years on. Annie
One often hears that we can’t raise taxes on the super-rich or they’ll leave the UK and take their money with them … but is it really true? Lauren Almeida digs into the data in this fascinating piece. Charlie
Amid the tsunami of Oasis coverage, I loved this piece by Lauren Cochrane on how the band’s fans are having a fashion moment and dusting off their bucket hats and parkas for the reunion tour. Annie
A compelling piece in the Atlantic (£) from a former New York precinct police chief, Brandon del Pozo, who argues that as ICE agents “rack up arrests on the road to 1 million deportations”, the ghoulish practice of dressing in masks and refusing to identify themselves must end. Charlie
Sport
Iga Świątek overcame early nerves, with four double faults in her first two service games, to win comfortably. Photograph: Tom Jenkins/The Guardian
Tennis | Jannik Sinner was fortunate to advance to the Wimbledon quarter-finals as Grigor Dimitrov was forced to retire through injury when leading by two sets. Novak Djokovic lost the first set in 30 minutes before recovering to beat Alex de Minaur 1-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 and advance. Iga Świątek had a 6-4, 6-1 win over Clara Tauson to set up a quarter-final against 19th-seeded Liudmila Samsonova. The 18-year-old Mirra Andreeva beat Emma Navarro 6-2, 6-3 while Belinda Bencic reached her first Wimbledon quarter-final.
Cycling | Tim Merlier took stage three of the Tour de France in Dunkirk after the peloton’s top sprinter and points leader Jasper Philipsen crashed out of the race 60km from the finish.
Cricket | Jofra Archer is poised to make his long-awaited comeback in the third Test against India this week, with Brendon McCullum, the England head coach, calling for Lord’s to deliver a pitch that has pace, bounce and sideways movement.
The front pages
The Guardian is reporting this morning that “Bosses face ban on non-disclosure deals that silence victims of abuse”. The i paper has “50,000 children will be lifted out of poverty due to rebellion on welfare reforms”. “Trump grants three-week reprieve on return of ‘reciprocal’ trade tariffs” – that’s the Financial Times while the Express takes aim at “‘Hypocrisy’ of Labour’s homes plan”. The Telegraph heralds the French president’s state visit with “No borders between us, King to tell Macron”. “Hand back our £771 million, Mr Macron” says the Daily Mail, tacking “s’il vous plait” on the end in mock courtesy. (A Tory says we’ve paid that money to France without it stopping the boats.) The Times sound more realistic with “PM set to press Macron for ‘one in, one out’ deal”. “Victims’ fury as Epstein probe shut down” – by the “Trump team”, says the Mirror. Top story in the Metro today is “Mushroom murderer targeted me four times”.
Today in Focus
Donald Trump holds a gavel as he sits at a desk surrounded by the House speaker, Mike Johnson, and other Republicans after signing the tax cuts and spending bill into law. Photograph: Shawn Thew/EPA
Trump’s big beautiful betrayal
Ed Pilkington explains the president’s “Big Beautiful Bill” and what it will mean for millions of poorer Americans who voted for him last November.
Cartoon of the day | Ben Jennings
Illustration: Ben Jennings/The Guardian
The Upside
A bit of good news to remind you that the world’s not all bad
Nikki Allen. Photograph: Courtesy of Nikki Allen
Sometimes it’s the simple things that make all of the difference. Nikki Allen (above) was conditioned to say yes to requests – from a colleague at work, from the PTA, from a friend. But she discovered one night, after distractions kept her from responding to a request for help right away, that urgent queries were not always pressing.
“It was the start of a new habit: to stop saying yes on the spot. To pause and think about whether I really want to first,” writes Allen for The one change that worked. “Now, since that night a few years ago, whenever someone asks me to do something … I tell them: ‘Let me check and get back to you.’”
It’s a subtle change that has given her more time, energy and autonomy to focus on the things each day that matter much more than other people’s approval.
Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every Sunday
Bored at work?
And finally, the Guardian’s puzzles are here to keep you entertained throughout the day. Until tomorrow.
US President Donald Trump has hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for dinner at the White House, where he has declared talks to end the war in Gaza are “going along very well”.
In turn, Netanyahu revealed he has nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, saying:
he is forging peace as we speak, in one country, in one region, after the other.
Despite all the talk of peace, negotiations in Qatar between Israeli and Palestinian delegations have broken up without a breakthrough. The talks are expected to resume later this week.
If an agreement is reached, it will likely be hailed as a crucial opportunity to end nearly two years of humanitarian crisis in Gaza, following the October 7 attacks in which 1,200 Israelis were killed by Hamas-led militants.
However, there is growing scepticism about the durability of any truce. A previous ceasefire agreement reached in January led to the release of dozens of Israeli hostages and hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.
But it collapsed by March, when Israel resumed military operations in Gaza.
This breakdown in trust on both sides, combined with ongoing Israeli military operations and political instability, suggests the new deal may prove to be another temporary pause rather than a lasting resolution.
Details of the deal
The proposed agreement outlines a 60-day ceasefire aimed at de-escalating hostilities in Gaza and creating space for negotiations toward a more lasting resolution.
Hamas would release ten surviving Israeli hostages and return the remains of 18 others. In exchange, Israel is expected to withdraw its military forces to a designated buffer zone along Gaza’s borders with both Israel and Egypt.
The agreement being thrashed out in Doha includes the release of Israeli hostages, held in Gaza for the past 22 months. Anas-Mohammed/Shutterstock
While the specific terms of a prisoner exchange remain under negotiation, the release of Palestinian detainees held in Israeli prisons is a central component of the proposal.
Humanitarian aid is also a key focus of the agreement. Relief would be delivered through international organisations, primarily UN agencies and the Palestinian Red Crescent.
However, the agreement does not specify the future role of the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Fund, which has been distributing food aid since May.
The urgency of humanitarian access is underscored by the scale of destruction in Gaza. According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, Israel’s military campaign has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians. The offensive has triggered a hunger crisis, displaced much of the population internally, and left vast areas of the territory in ruins.
Crucially, the agreement does not represent an end to the war, one of Hamas’s core demands. Instead, it commits both sides to continue negotiations throughout the 60-day period, with the hope of reaching a more durable and comprehensive ceasefire.
Obstacles to a lasting peace
Despite the apparent opportunity to reach a final ceasefire, especially after Israel has inflicted severe damage on Hamas, Netanyahu’s government appears reluctant to fully end the military campaign.
There is scepticism a temporary ceasefire would lead to permanent peace. Anas-Mohammed/Shutterstock
A central reason is political: Netanyahu’s ruling coalition heavily relies on far-right parties that insist on continuing the war. Any serious attempt at a ceasefire could lead to the collapse of his government.
Militarily, Israel has achieved several of its tactical objectives.
It has significantly weakened Hamas and other Palestinian factions and caused widespread devastation across Gaza. This is alongside the mass arrests, home demolitions, and killing of hundreds of Palestinians in the West Bank.
And it has forced Hezbollah in Lebanon to scale back its operations after sustaining major losses.
Perhaps most notably, Israel struck deep into Iran’s military infrastructure, killing dozens of high-ranking commanders and damaging its missile and nuclear capabilities.
Reshaping the map
Yet Netanyahu’s ambitions may go beyond tactical victories. There are signs he is aiming for two broader strategic outcomes.
First, by making Gaza increasingly uninhabitable, his government could push Palestinians to flee. This would effectively pave the way for Israel to annex the territory in the long term – a scenario advocated by many of his far-right allies.
Speaking at the White House, Netanyahu says he is working with the US on finding countries that will take Palestinians from Gaza:
if people want to stay, they can stay, but if they want to leave, they should be able to leave.
Second, prolonging the war allows Netanyahu to delay his ongoing corruption trial and extend his political survival.
True intentions
At the heart of the impasse is the far-right’s vision for total Palestinian defeat, with no concession and no recognition of a future Palestinian state. This ideology has consistently blocked peace efforts for three decades.
Israeli leaders have repeatedly described any potential Palestinian entity as “less than a state” or a “state-minus”, a formulation that falls short of Palestinian aspirations and international legal standards.
Today, even that limited vision appears to be off the table, as Israeli policy moves towards complete rejection of Palestinian statehood.
With Palestinian resistance movements significantly weakened and no immediate threat facing Israel, this moment presents a crucial test of Israel’s intentions.
Is Israel genuinely pursuing peace, or seeking to cement its dominance in the region while permanently denying Palestinians their right to statehood?
Following its military successes and the normalisation of relations with several Arab states under the Abraham Accords, Israeli political discourse has grown increasingly bold.
Some voices in the Israeli establishment are openly advocating for the permanent displacement of Palestinians to neighbouring Arab countries such as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This would effectively erase the prospect of a future Palestinian state.
This suggests that for certain factions within Israel, the end goal is not a negotiated settlement, but a one-sided resolution that reshapes the map and the people of the region on Israel’s terms.
The coming weeks will reveal whether Israel chooses the path of compromise and coexistence, or continues down a road that forecloses the possibility of lasting peace.
Donald Trump’s new tariff rates of as much as 40% for 14 countries have drawn muted responses from the hardest hit Asian countries who are hoping to renegotiate them before they come into effect next month.
Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Kazakhstan and Tunisia were handed the lowest tariff rate of 25% while Laos and Myanmar – both facing high rates of poverty – were hit with the highest at 40%.
Trump posted copies of his tariff letters to each of the countries on his social media site and press secretary Karoline Leavitt said more letters would be sent later this week.
Japanese prime minister Shigeru Ishiba said some progress had been made on avoiding higher tariffs of up to 35% that Trump had suggested recently, while South Korea’s industry ministry said it planned to intensify US trade talks by 1 August to “reach a mutually beneficial result”.
South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, said the 30% US tariff rate was unjustified given that 77% of US goods entered South Africa with no tariffs.
Here is more on the tariffs and other key US politics news of the day:
Trump delays tariff hikes but sets new rates for some countries
The US president revealed plans to step up his trade wars on Monday but delayed tariff hikes on goods from key economies until next month, amid widespread confusion over his controversial economic strategy.
Trump announced countries including Japan, South Korea and South Africa would face tariffs of up to 40% as part of a fresh wave of levies to kick in on 1 August. No increases will take place on Wednesday, however, after he extended a previous pause.
Read the full story
Netanyahu nominates Trump for Nobel prize at meeting set to focus on Gaza
Benjamin Netanyahu told Donald Trump that he would nominate him for the Nobel peace prize on Monday, as the two leaders met for the first time since the US launched strikes on Iran’s nuclear program as part of a short-lived war between Israel and Iran.
Trump was expected to press Netanyahu to agree to a ceasefire in Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza amid an outcry over the humanitarian cost of an offensive that has led to nearly 60,000 deaths.
Read the full story
Pregnant doctor denied Covid vaccine sues Trump administration
A pregnant physician who was denied a Covid-19 vaccine is suing the Trump administration alongside a group of leading doctors’ associations, charging that the administration sought to “desensitize the public to anti-vaccine and anti-science rhetoric”, according to their attorney.
Read the full story
Deportation protections for people from Honduras and Nicaragua end
The Trump administration has ended temporary protections for people from Honduras and Nicaragua in the latest phase of its effort to expel undocumented people from the US.
The Department of Homeland Security announced it would end temporary protected status for an estimated 72,000 Hondurans and 4,000 Nicaraguans in moves that will come into effect in about 60 days. Citizens of the two Central American nations were accorded the status after Hurricane Mitch in 1998, which left 10,000 dead after it ripped through the region.
Read the full story
Planned Parenthood sues over funding cuts in Trump bill
Planned Parenthood sued the Trump administration on Monday over a provision in Trump’s sweeping domestic policy bill that would strip funding from health centers operated by the reproductive healthcare and abortion provider.
In a complaint filed in Boston federal court, Planned Parenthood said the provision was unconstitutional and its clear purpose was to prevent its nearly 600 health centers from receiving Medicaid reimbursements.
Read the full story
Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide, review confirms
A review of files held by the US government on the financier Jeffrey Epstein has said there is no secret client list to be released, and confirmed his August 2019 death by suicide while in federal custody, both of which contradict conspiracy theories.
Read the full story
Analysis: cruelty is the point at ‘Alligator Alcatraz’
After the cruelty, the mockery. As the first detainees were being hauled into Donald Trump’s controversial migrant jail in the inhospitable wetlands of the Florida Everglades last week, his supporters were indulging in some parallel retail therapy.
“Surrounded by swamps & pythons, it’s a one-way ticket to regret,” the Florida Republican party’s official X account crowed, hawking its new range of Alligator Alcatraz-themed shirts and hats. “Grab our merch to support tough-on-crime borders! Limited supply – get yours before the gators do!”
The death toll from catastrophic flooding in Texas rose to more than 100 on Monday, as rescuers continued their grim search for people swept away by torrents of water.
Among the dead were at least 27 girls and counsellors who were staying at a youth summer camp on a river when disaster struck over the Fourth of July holiday weekend.
Forecasters have warned of more flooding as rain falls on saturated ground, complicating recovery efforts involving helicopters, boats, dogs and some 1,750 personnel.
“There is still a threat of heavy rain with the potential to cause flooding,” Texas Governor Greg Abbott said in a statement Monday, with the number of victims expected to rise still.
President Donald Trump confirmed he planned to visit Texas on Friday, as the White House slammed critics claiming his cuts to weather agencies had weakened warning systems.
“Blaming President Trump for these floods is a depraved lie, and it serves no purpose during this time of national mourning,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Monday.
She said the National Weather Service, which The New York Times reported had several key roles in Texas unfilled before the floods, issued “timely and precise forecasts and warnings.”
Trump has described the floods that struck in the early hours of Friday as a “100-year catastrophe” that “nobody expected.” The president, who previously said disaster relief should be handled at the state level, has signed a major disaster declaration, activating fresh federal funds and freeing up resources.
‘Tragedy’
At least 104 flood-related deaths were reported across central Texas.
Kerr County, through which the Guadalupe River runs, was the hardest hit, with at least 84 people killed including 28 children, according to the local sheriff’s office.
The toll includes 27 who had been staying at Camp Mystic, an all-girls Christian camp that was housing about 750 people when the floodwaters struck.
Camps are a beloved tradition in the long US summer holidays, with children often staying in woods, parks and other rural areas.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz described them as a chance to make “lifetime friends — and then suddenly it turns to tragedy.”
But some residents were questioning the absence of more robust flood-warning systems in this region of south and central Texas — where such deluges are so frequent that it is known colloquially as “Flash Flood Alley.”
Experts stress the NWS sent out timely forecasts, and climate scientist Daniel Swain pinned the problem on a failure of “warning dissemination.” San Antonio mother Nicole Wilson— who almost sent her daughters to Camp Mystic — launched a petition on Change.org urging Governor Greg Abbott to approve a modern warning network.
“Five minutes of that siren going off could have saved every single one of those children,” she told AFP.
At a candlelight vigil in San Antonio on Monday night, Texans gathered to pray for the victims of the floods and voice lingering fears.
“I was pretty shocked on the gravity of the situation and how big it was, and I wouldn’t necessarily expect that our rivers would rise so quickly,” said Rebeca Gutierrez, 29.
“Hopefully there’s preventative efforts happening in similar areas to make sure nothing to this degree happens.”
Two-story building
In a terrifying display of nature’s power, the rain-swollen waters of the Guadalupe River reached treetops and the roofs of cabins as girls at the camp slept.
Blankets, teddy bears and other belongings were caked in mud. Windows in the cabins were shattered, apparently by the force of the water.
Volunteers were helping search through debris from the river, with some motivated by personal connections to the victims.
“We’re helping the parents of two of the missing children,” Louis Deppe, 62, told AFP. “The last message they got was ‘We’re being washed away,’ and the phone went dead.”
Months’ worth of rain fell in a matter of hours on Thursday night into Friday, and rain has continued in bouts since then.
The Guadalupe surged around 26 feet (eight meters) — more than a two-story building – in just 45 minutes.
Flash floods occur when the ground is unable to absorb torrential rainfall.
Human-driven climate change has made extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and heat waves more frequent and more intense in recent years.
What does Netanyahu’s latest US visit mean for Palestinians in Gaza?
Could Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s third trip to the United States during President Donald Trump’s administration mean a ceasefire in Gaza is close at hand? As Netanyahu lands in Washington, DC, for a week of discussions on topics such as Gaza and Iran, what pressures is he facing at home?
In this episode:
Daniel Levy, president of US/Middle East Project, former Israeli negotiator
Episode credits:
This episode was produced by Marcos Bartolomé and Amy Walters, with Leonidas Sofogiannis, Remas Alhawari, Kisaa Zehra, Melanie Marich, Marya Khan and our guest host, Kevin Hirten. It was edited by Kylene Kiang.
Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our video editors are Hisham Abu Salah and Mohannad al-Melhemm. Alexandra Locke is The Take’s executive producer. Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera’s head of audio.
Connect with us:
@AJEPodcasts on Instagram, X, Facebook, Threads and YouTube
Apropos of an unconfirmed news report suggesting that India may procure stealth fighters from an allied nation to meet the IAF’s immediate requirements:
While the report lacks supporting evidence, it appears credible—because it makes logical sense. However, logic is not widely seen as the driving force behind decision-making in India’s Ministry of Defence.
In recent times, defense procurement in India has increasingly been perceived as being guided more by geopolitical signaling than by economic or military imperatives.
Geopolitical Imperatives
Given India’s 360-degree geopolitical balancing act, it may find itself needing to procure, more likely lease, F-35A fighters to preserve U.S. goodwill and, in turn, secure continued Russian cooperation on the Su-30MKI upgrade program.
Without such a balancing gesture, India could risk facing punitive tariffs and sanctions from “Shylock Sam.”
However, an F-35A deal would likely come with strings attached—most notably, a U.S. demand that India abandon its Russian S-400 air defense systems in favor of the American THAAD.
Unfortunately, India lacks the fiscal bandwidth to field THAAD batteries across its vast borders. Recently, while speaking at a convention and addressing delays in HAL’s delivery of the LCA Mk-1A, the IAF Chief quoted a dialogue from a Salman Khan film.
“Ek baar jo humne commit kiya hai, fir main apne aap ki bhi nahi sunta.”
(“Once I commit to something, I don’t even listen to myself after that.”)
Asked to blow a gaping hole in India’s air defense coverage just to host leased F-35As, the IAF Chief would not be able to summon a Salman Khan quote to express his frustration.
Now, let’s assume that sensing resistance from a cornered India, Washington has graciously recused itself from the stealth fighter equation and tacitly permitted New Delhi to procure Su-57s from Russia instead.
Not The Su-57
I doubt the IAF will go for the Su-57 outright.
The IAF’s requirement isn’t just for a stealth fighter—it is specifically for a dual-seat, twin-engine stealth fighter!
It’s worth recalling that the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), which India and Russia once planned to co-develop, was envisioned as a two-seat variant of the Su-57. However, India opted out of the FGFA project, citing critical shortcomings—namely, the aircraft’s lack of essential fifth-generation features, such as supercruise, and its unproven operational capability.
That said, India never completely closed the door. While it suspended participation in the FGFA project, it left the option open to procure the aircraft at a later stage.
In July 2018, then-Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman told Business Standard, “In February, it was conveyed to the Russians that they could go ahead with developing the fighter without us. But the option remains, and we could well go back at a later stage and ask to buy the fighter.”
A year later, in July 2019, the Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal B.S. Dhanoa, told Krasnaya Zvezda, the official newspaper of the Russian Armed Forces, that India would make a decision on the Su-57 after seeing it in action and after Russia showcases the aircraft in India.
Since then, the Su-57 has been operationally deployed in conflict zones, and according to both Russian and Western reports, its performance has been creditable. Furthermore, concerns over the lack of supercruise capability are being addressed. The aircraft’s second-stage (fifth-generation) engine, known as Izdeliye 30, is currently undergoing flight testing. Su-57s delivered from the mid-2020s onward are expected to be powered by this engine, while earlier units use an interim fourth-generation powerplant.
Also, Russia showcased the aircraft in Bengaluru during Aero India 2025.
In short, many of the IAF’s earlier concerns regarding the Su-57’s operational capability and performance envelope—particularly supercruise—are now being addressed.
Sukhoi Su-57 fifth-generation fighter aircraft perform during the MAKS 2019 International Aviation and Space Salon opening ceremony in Zhukovsky outside Moscow on August 27, 2019. (Photo by Alexander NEMENOV / AFP)
The Dual Seat Option
In June 2021, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov discussed plans to develop a dual-seat variant of the Su-57, which would enhance the aircraft’s versatility. Also, the aircraft would be more attractive to foreign customers, he said.
In November 2023, Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation published a patent for a Multifunctional two-seat stealth aircraft, which was easily recognizable as the fifth-generation heavy fighter Su-57.
It’s interesting to note that at no stage did the Russian Aerospace Forces show any interest in a two-seat variant of the Su-57. Russia considered developing a two-seat variant only to meet FGFA requirements.
Why A Two-Seat Variant Makes A Difference?
The announcement and patenting of a two-seat Su-57 variant marked a strategic pivot intended to appeal to the IAF for several reasons:
Ease of Pilot Training: A two-seat configuration allows easier transition and training for pilots, especially critical for complex fifth-generation systems. The IAF has always valued twin-seat trainers like the Su-30MKI.
Enhanced Mission Management: A second crew member would ease the operational workload by managing complex systems, data fusion, and electronic warfare operations. As roles for 5th-gen fighters expand into network-centric warfare, this becomes increasingly vital.
Drone Mothership Capability: The Su-57 two-seater is reportedly designed to control UAVs like the S-70 Okhotnik. The ability to command unmanned wingmen while operating in contested airspace adds a force-multiplier dimension, aligning with the IAF’s future combat doctrine.
Combat Command Post: According to the Russian patent, the two-seater Su-57 can act as an airborne command center for mixed aircraft groups—ideal for integrating Su-30MKIs, Rafales, and future indigenous drones in a combat network.
Expanded Strike Capability: With one pilot focused on flying and the other on weapons systems, the Su-57 becomes a more capable deep strike aircraft. This could be crucial for the IAF’s need to penetrate hostile airspace protected by advanced SAM systems.
The Overall Logic For Dual-Seat Su-57 Procurement
India’s requirement for a fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) is both urgent and specific. The Indian Air Force (IAF), having withdrawn from the original Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) program in 2018, has since closely monitored the evolution of Russia’s Su-57.
Recent disclosures and patents suggest Russia is developing a two-seat variant of the Su-57—a development that could realign India’s interest toward the platform.
India’s original involvement in the FGFA program, based on the Su-57 (then PAK FA), was driven by the desire for co-development, industrial participation, and access to fifth-generation technology.
However, concerns about cost, capability gaps (especially stealth and supercruise), and lack of clarity over work share led to India’s exit in 2018. Despite this, Indian officials kept the door open for a future acquisition, contingent on the maturity of the platform.
In the years since, Russia has continued to develop the Su-57, operationalizing it with its own air force and introducing export versions like the Su-57E. Recent advances, including the development of the second-stage Izdeliye 30 engine and reports of successful deployment in Syria and Ukraine, have improved the fighter’s credibility.
Industrial & Strategic Rationale
India’s own AMCA fifth-generation fighter is under development but not expected to enter service before 2035. The Su-57 two-seater offers a strategic interim solution without compromising long-term indigenous goals.
Moreover, Russia may offer industrial participation as part of a larger defense cooperation framework. This could include licensed assembly, MRO facilities, and possible avionics customization, appealing to both the IAF and the Indian industry.
The IAF is facing delays in acquiring 114 multi-role fighters under the MRFA program. Acquiring a small batch (approximately 18-24) of twin-seat Su-57s could serve as a stopgap, providing advanced capabilities while the MRFA and AMCA mature.
Vijainder K Thakur is a retired IAF Jaguar pilot, author, software architect, entrepreneur, and military analyst.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday he has nominated Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, presenting the US president with a letter he sent to the prize committee.
The move comes as Israel continues its onslaught on Gaza, which has so far killed 57,523 Palestinians. Last year, the UN-backed International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, citing allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The court said he, along with ex-defence minister Yoav Gallant, “intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival”, including food, water, medicine, fuel, and electricity.
“He’s forging peace as we speak, in one country, in one region after the other,” Netanyahu said at a dinner with Trump at the White House.
Trump has received multiple Nobel Peace Prize nominations from supporters and loyal lawmakers over the years and has made no secret of his irritation at missing out on the prestigious award.
The Republican has complained that he had been overlooked by the Norwegian Nobel Committee for his mediating role in conflicts between India and Pakistan, as well as Serbia and Kosovo.
In 2024, he insisted that he was more deserving of a Nobel than ex-president Barack Obama, and complained how it was unfair that “anybody else” but him would have been honoured with one.
In June, Pakistan had also decided to formally recommend Trump for the coveted prize, given his role in de-escalating the India-Pakistan conflict when both neighbours stepped back from the brink of war after US mediation.
However, as the US joined Israel’s war with Iran and launched attacks on three Iranian nuclear facilities, Pakistani lawmakers, activists, authors and ex-diplomats criticised the move. A resolution was also submitted in the Senate by the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl to rescind the decision but led to no tangible outcome as Pakistan had not officially submitted the nomination.
Trump has also demanded credit for “keeping peace” between Egypt and Ethiopia and brokering the Abraham Accords, a series of agreements aiming to normalise relations between Israel and several Arab nations.
He campaigned for office as a “peacemaker” who would use his negotiating skills to quickly end conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, although both conflicts are still raging more than five months into his presidency.
Israel’s June 13 assault on Iran, designed to decapitate Tehran’s military and nuclear program, is one of the worst setbacks the Islamic Republic has ever experienced. In less than two weeks, the Israel Defense Forces managed to assassinate dozens of senior Iranian commanders and nuclear scientists. The IDF destroyed many of Iran’s air defense systems and damaged its nuclear facilities. Israel bombed Iran’s energy infrastructure, military bases, and various missile production sites. The strikes were precise, indicating that Israeli intelligence had penetrated the highest levels of Iran’s armed forces and government. And toward the end of the attacks, the United States joined in. As a result, the Iranian military is weaker now than it was just a month earlier.
But instead of collapsing under the shock, the Islamic Republic appears to have gained a new lease on life. The strikes caused a rally-around-the-flag effect as Iranians condemned them and celebrated the government’s response. The Iranian regime mourned its lost officials but swiftly replaced them. The operations thus made the Iranian nation more cohesive and strengthened the hand of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Iranian society is unlikely to become more rigidly Islamist in response to the strikes. To maintain internal stability, the government might even tolerate more social freedoms. But the regime will probably become more repressive, arresting anyone it sees as a traitor. And critically, Iranians may be more willing to accept the state as it is. The country could now have a new social contract, one that prioritizes national security above everything else.
Iran’s national security strategy, however, remains broadly unchanged. The Islamic Republic may be weaker in some ways, but its leaders are proud of having withstood the Israeli and American assaults. They see the substantial damage they inflicted on Israel’s cities as a major achievement. And they continue to believe that demonstrating resolve in the face of aggression is the only way to deter their opponents. Iranian leaders will thus set out to rebuild the country’s network of proxies: the so-called axis of resistance. They will trust diplomacy even less than before. Instead, they will lay the groundwork for a long war of attrition with Israel—and a potential nuclear breakout.
UNITE AND FIGHT
In the weeks before Israel attacked Iran, it seemed as if Tehran and Washington might peacefully resolve their dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. For the first time since abandoning the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018, the nuclear deal that Iran had reached with the United States and other major countries three years earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump’s team indicated it was willing to accept an arrangement in which Iran would be able to enrich uranium up to 3.67 percent—the level the United States agreed to under the JCPOA—rather than no enrichment at all. Tehran, for its part, was once again open to speaking directly to American officials rather than exclusively through mediators. Some analysts believed a new nuclear agreement could be near.
But as negotiations progressed, the Trump administration began walking back its initial flexibility, oscillating between demanding zero enrichment and the full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Israel, meanwhile, steadily degraded Tehran’s position by picking apart Hezbollah (Tehran’s most powerful partner), tearing through Hamas, and taking out some of Iran’s air defenses. The Islamic Republic grew even weaker in December, when rebels toppled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, another faithful Iranian ally. Eventually, a sense of resignation took hold in Tehran: many officials and analysts alike came to believe that—deal or no deal—Israel, the United States, or both would attack.
Tehran still proceeded with caution. It knew that its people were seething after decades of repression and that it risked even more domestic anger if it provoked a direct confrontation with Washington. Iranian officials thus stayed at the negotiating table, hoping to avoid an assault while trying to shore up their domestic backing—for instance, by suspending enforcement of the unpopular law mandating that women fully cover their hair in public and easing other restrictions on freedom of expression.
The Israeli and U.S. attacks led to an outburst of Iranian nationalism.
It is unclear how much these steps helped the government when the first Israeli bombs fell. At first, many ordinary Iranians assumed the conflict would be a short confrontation between two governments that was unlikely to affect them. But as the strikes intensified, targeting infrastructure and killing ordinary citizens, many Iranians began to conclude that the attacks were not merely a war against the regime but a war against the nation itself. These sentiments swelled after Trump and Israeli officials urged Tehran’s residents to evacuate their homes. “I’m no fan of the Islamic Republic, but it’s now time to show solidarity for Iran,” one Tehran resident told the Financial Times. “Trump and Netanyahu say ‘evacuate’ as if they care about our health. How can a city of 10 million evacuate? My husband and I are not going to pave the ground for them. Let them kill us.”
Rather than prompting popular outrage at the Iranian state, the attacks led to an outburst of nationalism. As the Islamic Republic weathered Israel’s assault and retaliated with ballistic missiles of its own, the regime’s response was cheered on by Iranian writers, artists, and singers, many of whom are typically apolitical or in opposition to the government. Iranian commentators across the political spectrum likened the Israeli assault to Nazi Germany’s 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, casting the conflict as Iran’s own patriotic war: a national struggle that transcends politics. Even some longtime dissidents and former political prisoners joined in. For instance, hundreds of political and civil rights activists—many of whom have been previously imprisoned—condemned Israel’s attacks in a joint statement. “In defense of our homeland’s territorial integrity, independence, national defense capabilities, … we stand united and resolute,” it declared. These actors carefully kept some distance from the regime. But their emphasis on solidarity aligned with the government’s message. Israel’s strikes thus relieved some of the internal pressure on the Islamic Republic.
The Iranian government is likely to use this respite to accelerate its militarization in preparation for sustained conflict. Less constrained by domestic pressure, it will channel resources into the IRGC and other armed forces and security agencies, especially since many in Tehran expect the fragile cease-fire to collapse at any moment. But it will struggle to prove that it can handle another war, especially given the extent to which its ranks have been penetrated by Israeli intelligence operatives. Critics have accused the regime of prioritizing ideological loyalty over competence, allowing individuals who simply mouthed hard-line slogans to rise through the ranks while concealing their true allegiances. Others point out the irony that, as the government fixated on enforcing the veiling law and cracking down on political dissidents under the pretext of fighting foreign subversion, its actual adversaries were quietly infiltrating its most sensitive institutions.
The resulting fallout has triggered calls for investigations, accountability, and even the resignation of the senior officials accused of overseeing such a catastrophic intelligence failure. Whether any top official will actually face consequences remains to be seen. But one response already appears certain: Tehran is likely to launch internal purges, expand its surveillance apparatus, and rely on ordinary citizens to participate in monitoring and reporting suspicious activities.
Iran has been summarily executing those it accuses of collaborating with Israel.
Still, the country’s leaders are trying to keep the country’s society unified. Pro-government preachers across the country have suddenly begun blending iconic, pre-revolutionary patriotic songs into Shiite religious rituals—a mix of nationalism and Islamism that the regime historically avoided but now appears eager to embrace. Similarly, state-controlled media and municipal officials are now invoking pre-Islamic Persian mythology in their messaging, linking legendary figures to slain IRGC commanders. This cocktail has drawn mixed reactions, with many skeptical Iranians arguing that the gestures are merely opportunistic. Yet other citizens are joining in, having concluded that they must confront these external threats with the government they have, not the one they want.
Some Iranians believe that to make sure today’s social cohesion lasts into the future, senior officials will take steps to moderate. The government, after all, has acknowledged the support of Iranians who have historically opposed the regime and, implicitly conceding past mistakes, promised better treatment of the population. It might release political prisoners and repair relations with sidelined moderate figures, including former presidents Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani, to project national unity. It could also continue to let women go unveiled and allow for more free expression. It has already marginalized some hard-liners, who had pushed for Iran to attack Israel before June 13. (Some of these figures and analysts had argued that the country was already at war and thus needed to strike, even though doing so risked further upsetting an already fractured populace.)
But whether the government’s promise of moderation signals a genuine opening remains unclear. Many Iranians believe the government will instead double down on its hard-line stance, viewing reconciliation as too risky in wartime and expecting that the wave of nationalist solidarity will allow them to be more repressive while limiting blowback. The state, for example, has been summarily executing those it accuses of collaborating with Israel. It has established checkpoints across major cities to arrest suspected collaborators, as it did during the 1980s—the last time Iran was subjected to similar kinds of attacks. The regime could also mix and match, liberalizing in some respects while growing more restrictive in others. Iranians, after all, are ambivalent about the state’s reaction. “It’s unsettling, but also somewhat reassuring to see them near my house,” a different Tehran resident told the Financial Times, referring to the IRGC paramilitary volunteers. “I could never imagine seeing Basijis and feeling happy.”
STAY THE COURSE
Israeli and U.S. officials are, of course, focused more on whether Tehran is a threat to them than whether it is a threat to its people. And after a year and a half of indirect and direct conflict, many of them believe the regime is nowhere near as menacing as it was before. According to these commentators, Iran’s aggressive Middle East strategy has been a failure, given the collapse of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad in Syria, and Hamas in Gaza—plus the damage to Iran’s own military.
The IRGC, however, sees the situation differently. Its leaders believe the country’s forward defense strategy—fighting adversaries by conducting asymmetric warfare near or within their borders rather than on Iranian soil—has been vindicated. This approach successfully deterred Israel and the United States from attacking for years and thus bought Tehran critical time to build up the industrial infrastructure, technical expertise, and institutional resilience it can now use to rapidly rebuild its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, even after the devastating bombings.
IRGC leaders had argued for years that they needed to take the fight abroad to protect the nation—claiming, for example, that failing to shore up Assad in Damascus would lead to strikes in Tehran. In a sense, they have now been proved correct. Iran had designed its regional posture to create layers of defense in the form of its various partners, believing that this network would force adversaries to penetrate multiple fronts before striking the homeland. That, of course, is exactly what Israel did. In other words, the way the war has played out allows the IRGC and its hard-line allies in the regime to assert that their strategy worked as intended. This argument is easy to rebut: the layered defense delayed, but did not prevent. attacks on Iranian soil. But for Tehran, that delay is precisely the point: it bought the government time to prepare, learn from Israel’s tactics, and cast the war as an existential national struggle.
Iran is therefore unlikely to behave much differently after this attack, although it will make some adjustments to reflect the realities that have emerged in the past year and a half. The regime could look to reconstitute the axis of resistance by rebuilding Hezbollah as a more agile, small force closer to its original form rather than as the quasi army it had become. (It would still equip the group with advanced missile capabilities.) In Syria, Tehran will try to take advantage of the current power vacuum by empowering grassroots militant groups. Neither of these steps will be easy: Hezbollah is under pressure from Lebanese officials and continues to suffer Israeli bombardment, and the new Syrian government, which is consolidating control over its territory, is hostile to Iran and has begun moving closer to Israel. Still, Tehran sees openings. The war in Gaza has fueled widespread anger toward Israel across the region, driving bottom-up demand for renewed resistance to the Islamic Republic’s enemy. In fact, Iran’s survival and its missile strikes on Israeli territory have also earned it admiration among many Arab populations.
Tehran will likely continue to pursue nuclear ambiguity.
Tehran, meanwhile, is more skeptical of diplomacy than ever. The shock of the attacks—which included the assassination of senior IRGC commanders and a failed attempt to kill a key nuclear negotiator, Ali Shamkhani—has drained away whatever credibility American assurances might once have had. In the past, Iran distrusted Washington but saw talks as a potential avenue for sanctions relief and de-escalation. Now, Iranian officials will not only assume that the United States will violate any agreement but also that negotiations are a cover for coercion or military action, given that Israel’s attack occurred just two days before scheduled talks between Tehran and Washington. Nevertheless, Iran is likely to remain engaged, combining maximum resistance to the regional order with maximum diplomacy, in order to communicate its redlines and further expose what it views as the West’s bad faith. By doing so, Tehran can justify its behavior to both internal and external audiences and put pressure on Israel and the United States.
Still, Iran does not appear to be rushing toward the bomb. By crossing the nuclear threshold, Tehran would validate the very accusations it has long denied and risk triggering a larger conflict with U.S. forces. Iran also does not see nuclear weapons as a substitute for a strong conventional military. It is a large country that has porous borders with multiple unstable neighbors. It is involved in overlapping territorial disputes about oil fields, water resources, and maritime boundaries. These external challenges are compounded by Iran’s internal vulnerabilities, including chronic ethnic tensions along its periphery. And it has a long history of enduring foreign invasions and meddling. There is a reason why generations of Iranian leaders have invested extensively in building a conventional military, regardless of the type of regime.
Instead of rushing for a bomb, Tehran will likely continue to pursue nuclear ambiguity, suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Doing so will also pressure the IAEA to lobby against future attacks on Iran, since the agency can resume inspections only if Iran’s nuclear sites are no longer under threat. Tehran believes this approach, which conceals its enrichment activity, will also provide it with greater flexibility to advance its program without notice. And it sees the suspension as a just comeuppance for the IAEA: Iranian officials are incensed that the agency has not condemned the Israeli and American attacks even though Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (from which it has threatened to withdraw), which guarantees members the peaceful use of nuclear energy. In fact, Iranian officials believe the IAEA gave Israel and the United States useful intelligence and was exploited to justify the attacks. As Tehran pointed out, the agency released a report just a few days before the attack, declaring that Iran’s cooperation with IAEA inspectors was “less than satisfactory.”
That doesn’t mean Iran will eventually build a nuclear weapon. Whether or when the country will obtain the ultimate deterrent remains an open question. But what is clear is this: Iran is unbowed and unlikely to behave differently than it did before. That means Israel may decide to strike again. Iran could swiftly retaliate. The conflict between these parties is far from over, and the Middle East should expect more turbulence ahead.
