Saudi Arabia's priority is permanent Gaza ceasefire, says Foreign Minister
Prince Faisal was asked about the future of Saudi ties with Israel during a visit to Moscow. "What we are seeing is the Israelis are crushing Gaza, the civilian population of Gaza," he said. "This is completely unnecessary, completely unacceptable and has to stop."
Since returning to the White House in January, US President Donald Trump has made expanding the Abraham Accords, which established relations between Israel and several Arab states, a central foreign policy goal.
Before the Gaza war erupted in October 2023, Saudi Arabia was in advanced talks to join the Abraham Accords and establish relations with Israel, in a move mediated by the US. But Israel's war on Gaza halted that momentum, with Riyadh publicly emphasising the need for a credible path towards a Palestinian state before moving forward.
In 2024, Prince Faisal said the kingdom could not establish ties with Israel without the Palestinian issue being resolved.
More than 57,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel's assault on Gaza since October 7, 2023, health authorities in the enclave have said. The war began when Hamas led an attack on Israel that killed 1,200 people, with about 240 taken hostage.
During his visit to Moscow, Prince Faisal met Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. They held a joint press conference after talks on subjects that included regional and international developments, as well as areas of co-operation between their countries.
On Iran, Prince Faisal stressed the importance of resuming diplomatic negotiations over the country's nuclear programme and said Tehran also needed to co-operate fully with the UN nuclear watchdog.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Thursday that Iran 'remains committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its safeguards agreement', a day after President Masoud Pezeshkian approved a law suspending co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
'Our co-operation with the IAEA will be channelled through Iran's Supreme National Security Council for obvious safety and security reasons,' Mr Araghchi said in a post on X.
Iranian leaders have accused the agency of providing Israel with grounds for attacking its nuclear sites, after the IAEA board censured Tehran last month for failing to comply with its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty, which is intended to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Introducing my son to Lebanon helped me heal my relationship with home
As the wheels touch down on the tarmac at Beirut's Rafic Hariri International Airport, my wife and I turn to our 20-month-old son, Dia, kiss his soft head and whisper: 'Welcome home.' Then we both cry. It's his first time in Lebanon – a trip long delayed by an interminable war. Like many Lebanese born in the diaspora, my relationship to the country has always been complicated. Raised abroad, I absorbed it through Sunday meals at Lebanese restaurants in London, family stories and summer visits. As a teenager and young adult, I would go on to live there for 10 years, turning it into a site of belonging and often heartbreak. For the past five years, I've been estranged from it. I had seen a lot during my years in Lebanon, but nothing broke me like the August 4 Beirut port explosion. I felt I lost too much that day. I almost lost my father, who was in a building by the port. We couldn't locate him for hours. I lost far less important things – our company's brand-new office, my car, work projects. After that trip, I left broken. Something had snapped in my already tense relationship with a country that was often exhausting to live in, however much I loved it. Since then, I've only returned for work, family emergencies or deaths. My relationship with Lebanon calcified into something unpleasant. But something shifted on this trip. I came back as a different person. I came back as a father. Lebanon today feels hopeful but precarious – a country both limping out of war and still staggering from the collapse of 2019. The streets are tired. Shoots of wild grass protrude from the pavements and highways. I have become obsessed with these unkempt public roads. They remind me of the way Lebanon looked at the end of the civil war. The country has the air of an aristocratic home fallen into disrepair – once proud, now crumbling, its residents unable to afford its upkeep. But still full of life and stories. But none of that matters when I see my son here. To see how he belongs to this place. He's surrounded by doting grandparents. Even the neighbours beam when they see him. He devours zaatar and stuffed vine leaves. He's wide-eyed with curiosity. As Lebanese, our link to the motherland can often be tied to the kind of nostalgia these scenes can evoke. Nostalgia is a powerful, sometimes dangerous thing. It led many in our diaspora to invest life savings in Lebanon out of duty or hope, only to watch them vanish in the banking collapse. I used to be so weary of that dangerous form of nostalgia that led people to be irrational. But I find myself understanding it this time. For me, returning to Lebanon has always carried a hint of regression. Like anyone revisiting their parents' home, you slip back into old habits, old roles. You unlearn everything that's happened in the intervening years. But this time is different. There's no regression – only transformation. I'm here not as a son, but as a father. I'm not trying to make sense of my place, I'm building a bridge for my son between his heritage and his future. In a recent therapy session, while speaking about my connection to the Mediterranean, I had a surprising realisation: it wasn't the sea I was so anchored to. It was the mountain. I wanted to see if Dia had the same connection. On a visit to Jaj – a village 1,200 metres above the historic coastal town of Byblos – my wife's aunt left some cherries unpicked in the garden just for Dia. He picked them himself, dropping them into a plastic tub with glee. Nour noticed the cherries at the top had been pecked at. 'The top of the tree is for the birds,' her aunt said. 'The bottom is for us.' One simple sentence. Centuries of understanding how to live with the land, not just on it. And now, my son is learning that wisdom. And through him, so am I. Back in Beirut, we realise the city is not exactly toddler-friendly. Pavements are often a suggestion. When they do exist, they're broken, cluttered, blocked by scooters and cars. Electrical cables dangle from poles. It's whatever the opposite of baby-proof is. One afternoon, Nour suggests we might find more space to roam by taking Dia to my alma mater – the American University of Beirut. I haven't set foot there in years. I don't often reminisce about my time there, or much else. But walking through the main gate feels like a reckoning. I tell the security guard I remember my student number – a strange fact to recall from 2001. He pulls up my record, and there it is: my old ID photo. I barely recognise the boy in the image – fresh-faced and naive. Closer in age to Dia than to me now. I'm carrying my son and pointing at the ID photo on the screen, wondering if he'll recognise me. He smiles. Maybe he does. Maybe he's just happy to be here too. As he runs around the grounds of the 19th-century campus, I remember something Nour told me recently – about mycelium networks that connect trees underground, allowing forests to share resources and nutrients. That's how I feel, watching my son plant his feet on this soil. He's connected to people he's never met, to land he's never seen. And in watching him, I realise I'm part of that network too, in a way I haven't felt in years.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
What happens if Iran were to acquire the bomb?
The recent attacks on Iran and its nuclear facilities shocked the global community. While the world watches closely for further developments and hopes for a diplomatic resolution to this crisis, the attacks on Iran and its next steps will have a profound impact on the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The existing nuclear non-proliferation regime, established to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, is based on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), negotiated in 1968. It enjoys nearly universal membership and was instrumental in preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons by another two dozen states, as was predicted before the treaty was put in place. Iran, a party to the NPT, threatened to withdraw even before the attacks. If Iran were to leave the NPT and focus on resurrecting its nuclear programme to build nuclear weapons, it would deal a major blow to the non-proliferation regime and its credibility. Moreover, regardless of Iran's decision about its membership in the NPT or pursuit of nuclear weapons, the damage to the efforts to curtail the proliferation of nuclear weapons has already been done. The 21st century has witnessed several attacks by nuclear-armed states against non-nuclear-weapon states, including the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with the rationale of preventing the alleged acquisition of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. Some countries, like Libya, agreed to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons and were nonetheless attacked later. Ukraine, which inherited a nuclear weapons arsenal from the Soviet Union, gave them back to Russia and joined the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon state. Many in Ukraine today ask themselves whether the decision to forgo nuclear weapons was the right one, and whether Ukraine would have been attacked if it had chosen to keep them. Countries also look at North Korea, which left the NPT and rushed to build nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US as a deterrent against military attacks. So far, this strategy has worked, and North Korea continues to expand and enhance its nuclear arsenal, proudly exhibiting it to ensure the US and others get the message. With the waning reliability of US commitments to its allies, some states may decide that they can only protect themselves with the ultimate deterrent – nuclear weapons. In South Korea, for example, public opinion already favours the nuclear weapons option. Iran's nuclear programme has made countries in the Middle East and beyond nervous for decades. We've heard disconcerting statements from Turkey and Saudi Arabia regarding a potential pursuit of nuclear weapons if Iran were to acquire the bomb. Would attacks on Iran and its nuclear programme shift the calculus of some of these countries regarding their own nuclear ambitions, serving as a catalyst for further nuclear proliferation? Iran insists on the peaceful nature of its programme. However, several elements of it were developed without a particular need for an existing or even planned nuclear energy programme and have been a source of proliferation concern. Iran was on the verge of having everything, including significant stocks of highly enriched uranium, but the bomb itself. It played the nuclear hedging game for over two decades but vastly expanded and accelerated it in the last couple of years. Future proliferators will take note of the risks posed by the ambiguity of their intentions while acquiring nuclear technologies and capabilities that could lead to weaponisation. It remains to be seen whether Iran will leave the NPT and focus on resurrecting its nuclear programme. Iran has already moved forward with the suspension of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, a key component of the non-proliferation regime that inspects nuclear activities and facilities and is a legal obligation under the NPT. It would be in its own interest to return to full co-operation with the IAEA and offer full transparency of its nuclear programme. Ultimately, further proliferation in the region, ignited by Iran's withdrawal from the NPT and pursuit of nuclear weapons, would be against Iran's own interests. Beyond a diplomatic solution to the existing crisis, there are several steps that NPT states could pursue to prevent further proliferation in the Middle East and beyond. One of these is an explicit legal obligation or regional agreement not to pursue national programmes for uranium enrichment and reprocessing of spent fuel – two critical elements of the nuclear fuel cycle capable of producing fissile material for nuclear weapons. In this regard, the UAE stands as an example of steering clear of any ambiguity in its nuclear power programme. In its agreement on nuclear co-operation with the US (the so-called 123 agreement), it took on an obligation not to pursue these sensitive technologies. Another option is for any new facility involving enrichment and reprocessing to be established as an international or multilateral facility subject to international safeguards. One could argue that robust regional and international co-operation on nuclear energy and its peaceful applications could eventually pave the way for co-operation, transparency and trust-building among countries in the region. Another way to alleviate proliferation concerns in the Middle East is the establishment of a regional verification arrangement to supplement IAEA safeguards, modelled on the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials (ABACC). Such an arrangement could build confidence in the peaceful nature of nuclear activities. In recent years, interest in nuclear power as a carbon-neutral energy source has significantly increased, including in the Middle East. It holds the promise of reliable and clean energy, with uses in various other applications beyond electricity generation, including desalination of water and many other benefits. For this promise to be realised, the NPT must hold firm, and the system of checks on proliferation must remain in place.
UAE Moments
an hour ago
- UAE Moments
BBC Staff Accuse the Broadcaster of Forcing Israeli PR
More than 400 media figures, including 111 current BBC journalists, have signed an open letter condemning the corporation for acting as 'PR for the Israeli government and military,' following a series of editorial decisions perceived to downplay Palestinian suffering and prioritize Israel's narrative. Core Allegations The letter claims the BBC's coverage 'falls short' of its own impartiality standards, failing to analyze UK government arms sales or airlifting narratives critical of Israel's actions . BBC's decision to shelf 'Gaza: Doctors Under Attack' and 'Gaza: Medics Under Fire'—films with harrowing footage of attacks on Palestinian medics—was seen as political censorship, driven by fear of appearing anti‑Israel. Staff condemned Sir Robbie Gibb—a BBC board member with close ties to the Jewish Chronicle and Conservative circles—accusing him of ideological interference in editorial affairs. Employee Testimonies An anonymous BBC insider said the following about the broadcaster: 'All too often it has felt that the BBC has been performing PR for the Israeli government and military.' Another insider also said, 'Opaque editorial decisions and censorship … we believe the role of Robbie Gibb … is untenable.' They also warn that staff are being 'gaslit' and that editorial standards are being suspended to accommodate political agendas. BBC's Response and Repercussions The BBC leadership has defended its editorial integrity, citing guidelines and internal checks for content decisions. However, these reassurances have done little to quell criticism. Critics, including prominent public figures like Miriam Margolyes and Mike Leigh, have called for Robbie Gibb's removal, arguing his presence undermines credibility. This revolt compounds other recent controversies: live-streaming anti‑IDF chants at Glastonbury, delayed removal of footage, and earlier suspensions of Gaza-related documentaries—all prompting over 400 current staff to demand an internal reckoning and renewed commitment to impartial reporting. This article was previously published on qatarmoments. To see the original article, click here
