SITREP
Evacuations from High-Risk Locations Call +44 (0)1202 308810 or Contact Us →
Gulf Security Remains Volatile Despite Ceasefire
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | INTELLIGENCE WINDOW: 26 June 2026 – 30 June 2026
- Since 26 June, the fragile ceasefire formalised in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by the US and Iran on 17 June has come under serious strain, with the US and Iran trading direct fire for the first time since the MoU’s signing.
- On both 26 and 27 June, the US conducted strikes in Iran. These strikes followed Iranian attacks against two vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz (SoH).
- In retaliation, Iran launched attack drones and ballistic missiles against targets in Bahrain and Kuwait on 27 and 28 June, with the IRGC claiming to have targeted the Ali Al Salem airbase in Kuwait and the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain.
- During the 28 June attacks against Bahrain, a residential building near Bahrain International Airport (BAH / OBBI) was damaged, with no fatalities reported.
- Despite the first direct kinetic engagement between the US and Iran since the signing of the MoU, the strikes conducted by both Iran and the US were likely calibrated to remain sub-threshold for a return to full-scale conflict.
- Delegations from Iran and the US are in Qatar on 30 June, but it remains unconfirmed whether negotiations will go ahead and in what format.
- There remains a high risk of a tactical miscalculation and/or escalation in the SoH, with retaliatory strikes unlikely to be confined to the immediate area of engagement. These cycles of escalation have repeatedly led to strikes against regional countries, with targets in Bahrain and Kuwait being more recently prioritised by Iran.
- As of 30 June, the airspaces of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman are open.
Middle East Conflict: Latest Intelligence & Travel Advice
To support planning, we are updating our Middle East travel advice daily with guidance from our intelligence team on airspace openings and closures, flight operations, and escalating risks impacting movement.
Situation Update: Gulf States Navigate Fragile Ceasefire and Ongoing Disruption
On 26 June, the US launched strikes against targets in Iran. US Central Command (CENTCOM) stated that airstrikes were conducted against Iranian missile and drone storage locations, in addition to coastal radar sites, around the Strait of Hormuz (SoH), as a “powerful response” to “unwarranted aggression” by Iran. The strikes followed the earlier Iranian attack against the Singapore-flagged EVER LOVELY (IMO: 9629110) on 26 June, after the vessel exited the SoH along the Omani coast. US Vice President JD Vance said following the US strikes that “violence will be met with violence”.
On 27 June, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched an attack drone which hit the Panama-flagged oil tanker KIKU (IMO: 9329796) transiting the SoH. Subsequently, the US conducted further strikes with CENTCOM stating that ten Iranian military targets were struck in sites including Sirik, Bandar-e Lengeh and Qeshm. This was followed by Iranian attack drone and ballistic missile launches against targets in Bahrain and Kuwait on 27 and 28 June, with the IRGC claiming to have targeted the Ali Al Salem airbase in Kuwait and the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain. During the 28 June attacks against Bahrain, a residential building near Bahrain International Airport (BAH / OBBI) was damaged, with no fatalities reported.
On 28 June, a US official stated that the US and Iran had agreed to halt attacks and renew talks. US President Donald Trump claimed on 29 June that Iran had “requested a meeting” to take place in Doha, Qatar, on 30 June. An Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson stated that while Iran is sending its technical delegation to Qatar this week, this has no relation to a concurrent visit by US envoys and no US-Iran talks are scheduled. However, a separate senior Iranian official has claimed there will be a meeting in Doha with a focus on managing the SoH and de-escalating tensions, while another official briefed that technical teams will meet separately with Qatari and Pakistani mediators on 30 June. Delegations from Iran and the US are in Qatar as of 30 June, but it remains unconfirmed whether any negotiations will go ahead and in what format.
In Lebanon, on 26 June, US officials announced that the Israeli and Lebanese sides had signed a new “framework agreement”. The new agreement allows the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to replace the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) in two areas in southern Lebanon, commits Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon, and calls for the disarmament of all non-state groups in Lebanon. However, Israel’s Defence Minister, Israel Katz, later stated that Israel would maintain the security zone in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah rejected the agreement, and indicated that it would respond to any LAF disarmament attempts.
As of 30 June, the airspaces of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman are open.
Saudi Arabia
No attacks have been reported in Saudi Arabia between 26 and 30 June.
On 28 June, a helicopter belonging to the Saudi Arabian state-owned oil company Aramco crashed in Ras Tanura, resulting in the death of 14 people on board who were all Saudi citizens. Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Energy stated that “authorities have launched a full investigation to determine the cause of the crash”. The helicopter crash coincided with elevated tensions following the first kinetic strikes by the US against Iran since the signing of the MoU, and the Ras Tanura terminal has been previously targeted by Iranian strikes in the earlier full-scale regional conflict phase of the war. However, there is currently no available evidence that indicates the crash resulted from hostile action.
At least three people have been killed and 29 injured in Saudi Arabia, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 30 June, Saudi Arabia’s airspace is open.
Kuwait
On 28 June, the Kuwaiti Ministry of Defence stated that two “hostile ballistic missiles” were detected and intercepted inside Kuwaiti airspace, with no material damage or casualties. The IRGC claimed that it launched an attack against “key US military installations” which included the “Ali Al Salem Airbase in Kuwait”, in retaliation for US strikes on Iranian territory.
At least seven people have been killed, and dozens have been injured in Kuwait, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 30 June, Kuwait’s airspace is open.
Bahrain
On 27 June, Bahraini authorities stated that an unspecified “number of Iranian drones” targeted Bahraini territory. This followed the first US strikes conducted against Iranian territory since the signing of the MoU. A US official anonymously briefed that this attack consisted of two attack drones, with one being shot down and the other landing harmlessly in a remote airfield area.
On 28 June, another attack took place, with Bahrain’s Interior Ministry announcing the interception of an unspecified number of projectiles. During this attack, a residential building near Bahrain International Airport (BAH / OBBI) was damaged, with no fatalities reported. The IRGC claimed that it launched an attack against “key US military installations”, which included the “US Fifth Fleet headquarters at Salman Port in Bahrain”, in retaliation for US strikes on Iranian territory.
At least three people have been killed, and dozens have been injured in Bahrain, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 30 June, Bahrain’s airspace is open.
Qatar
No attacks have been reported in Qatar between 26 and 30 June, excluding an incident involving a marine vessel which resulted in the death of one Qatari national. After a vessel with two individuals on board failed to return as scheduled on 27 June, search operations were conducted, which located the missing vessel. The Qatari national on board was killed by “shrapnel resulting from the military operations in the area”, and an “Arab resident was also injured” and transferred to hospital for medical treatment, according to the Qatari Ministry of Interior. It is likely that the incident resulted from the interception of Iranian attack drones during the attacks against targets Bahrain and Kuwait. Qatar’s Ministry of Transport subsequently announced a temporary suspension of marine activities involving recreational boats, fishing vessels, jet skis and other similar watercraft until further notice.
At least 20 people have been injured in Qatar, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 30 June, Qatar’s airspace is open.
UAE
No attacks have been reported in the UAE between 26 and 30 June. On 26 June, phone alerts were issued in the UAE warning of potential missile threats. However, authorities have stated that this resulted from a technical malfunction in the early warning system.
At least 12 people have been killed and 224 injured in the UAE, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 30 June, the UAE’s airspace is open.
Oman
No attacks have been reported in Oman between 26 and 30 June, excluding attacks against vessels within Omani territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz.
At least three people have been killed and 16 injured in Oman, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 30 June, Oman’s airspace is open.
Regional Advisory
Despite the first direct kinetic engagement between the US and Iran since the signing of the MoU, the strikes conducted by both Iran and the US were likely calibrated to remain sub-threshold for a return to full-scale conflict. However, the escalation almost certainly highlights how the MoU is functioning primarily as an extension of the ceasefire, rather than as a substantive or durable peace agreement. The previous ceasefire was also marked by sporadic exchanges of strikes between the US and Iran following continued confrontation in the maritime domain, and there remains a high risk of a tactical miscalculation and/or escalation in the SoH, with retaliatory strikes unlikely to be confined to the immediate area of engagement.
In addition to endangering the broader MoU, cycles of escalation from the maritime domain since the implementation of the first ceasefire on 8 April have repeatedly led to renewed Iranian strikes against regional countries, first with the UAE and more recently against Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain. During the 26-28 June escalation, Bahrain and Kuwait were targeted, in a likely continuation of this recently observed target prioritisation.
Currently, Iranian retaliation strikes are less likely to directly target Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Oman, although direct strikes against these countries cannot be ruled out in the event of a significant escalation and/or breakdown in the MoU. Senior Iranian officials and the IRGC have repeatedly threatened that strikes will be conducted against US military assets across the region in response to continued “aggression”.
Of the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia highly likely exerts the greatest deterrence against Iran, reinforced by the deployment of Pakistani forces to Saudi Arabia, and regular diplomatic engagement between Tehran and Riyadh continues. The UAE has notably not been attacked since mid-May, having previously been likely the highest priority target for Iranian strikes in the Gulf. This is likely related to increased diplomatic engagement between the UAE and Iran, which may have involved agreement by the UAE to unlock billions of dollars for Iran, although Emirati authorities have denied these reports.
Qatar and Oman were directly attacked the least of these countries during the full-scale phase of the conflict, and Qatar is actively serving as a mediator in the currently ongoing talks. Oman previously served as the mediator in the pre-28 February talks between the US and Iran, and Tehran has repeatedly indicated a desire to engage with Oman to set up a long-term framework for managing the SoH.
Continued IDF operations in Lebanon are likely to pose a significant threat to the MoU and have previously resulted in Iranian military claims of closing the SoH during the post-MoU period. While Iranian attacks against Israel are unlikely if operations are limited and contained to southern Lebanon, IDF strikes on Beirut could trigger a direct Iranian response against Israel. This, in turn, would likely lead to an escalation cycle with high risks of a broader ceasefire collapse. Opposition to the MoU from senior Israeli politicians almost certainly reflects concerns that the agreement does not satisfy Israel’s key objectives, with Iran’s ballistic missile programme and support for proxy forces omitted from negotiations. Israeli opposition and/or unilateral military action are likely to complicate the MoU’s implementation and undermine the agreement.
Iranian adherence to the ceasefire is likely to be undermined by the IRGC, which has increasingly consolidated power in Tehran, acted independently of the civilian government, and signalled total opposition to US demands. The lack of a fully coherent regime in Tehran with a unified negotiating position almost certainly complicates the negotiation process and increases the likelihood that elements within the IRGC could fail to comply with any agreements made by Tehran’s civilian government and negotiating team. Agreements made in the diplomatic track are almost certainly vulnerable to spoiling by more hardline elements in the regime, which have repeatedly indicated opposition to even minor perceived concessions to the US.
Travellers and expatriates are strongly advised not to film or distribute footage of strikes, damage, or military activity:
- Jordanian authorities have warned against publishing videos or information regarding Jordan’s defensive operations without authorisation.
- Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Interior has stated that “[p]hotographing or publishing or circulating information related to countering missiles and drones and the locations of their falls exposes you to legal accountability.”
- In the UAE, authorities have warned that publishing or circulating “rumours, false news, or news from unknown sources through social media platforms or other information technology” is illegal. Reports indicate that Dubai Police have used “electronic monitoring operations” to detect a photo shared within a private WhatsApp group.
- In Bahrain, several people have been confirmed as arrested for “filming, live streaming, clipping, and publishing events in a manner constituting a legal violation”.
- Qatar’s Ministry of Interior warned that gathering at incident sites or photographing and sharing content related to field developments may result in legal accountability and has arrested hundreds of people of various nationalities for “producing and sharing misleading information”.
- Omani authorities have stated: “Beware of sharing or publishing any captured photos or videos. They should be shared only with the competent authorities”.

Request Evacuation Assistance
If you need secure, coordinated support to move personnel out of a high-risk location, our team is ready to help – quickly, calmly, and with care.
Escalating Anti-Migrant Protests Raise Security Concerns in South Africa
SITUATION SUMMARY | Intelligence cut off: 13:00 UTC 30 June 2026
Coordinated anti-migrant protests are scheduled to take place on 30 June across all nine of South Africa’s provinces, with rallies scheduled in major cities including Johannesburg, Pretoria, Cape Town, and Durban, as well as smaller towns. The protests coincide with an unofficial deadline set by anti-migration campaigners for undocumented foreign nationals to leave the country.
The protests have been primarily organised by the anti-migrant March and March movement. They have been supported by a coalition of approximately 27 anti-migrant and civil society groups, including Operation Dudula, United South Africa, and the Progressive Forces of South Africa.
South African authorities and local officials have increased security measures ahead of the planned protests, with police officers deployed across the country and widespread road closures implemented due to fears that the protests could turn violent. Workers have stayed home, and shops have closed in anticipation of the large-scale marches.
In Johannesburg, three marches have been approved: from Beyers Naudé Square to Constitution Hill (08:00-14:00); a Hillbrow leg running from the Kotze/Hospital streets intersection to the Department of Home Affairs on Plein Street (08:00-12:00); and a Midrand leg from the Dale/Modderfontein roads intersection to the Sandton Plant Hire office (09:00-13:00). In Durban, marchers are gathering at King Dinuzulu Park before proceeding along Dr Pixley KaSeme Street, although the endpoint is subject to confirmation, while in Pretoria the march runs from Church Square to Sunnyside police station (10:00-15:00).
Multiple businesses have reportedly been vandalised by protesters along KaBokweni Road in Ngodini. Officials have also reported looting in Delft, Cape Town, while a flash-bang grenade was deployed against demonstrators in Kraaifontein.
Thousands of migrants have awaited processing in temporary camps for several weeks out of fears of being subjected to violence. Nigeria, Ghana, and Mozambique have initiated the repatriation of citizens, while Zimbabwe’s embassy has issued a warning for nationals to avoid protest areas and limit movement.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has repeatedly called on protesters to act peacefully and responsibly, writing, “[t]he right to protest and freedom of expression does not allow people to threaten or intimidate others, or to engage in acts of vandalism or violence.”
INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS
Longstanding Grievances Continue to Fuel Anti-Migrant Mobilisation in South Africa
The preparations followed weeks of violence and disruption tied to anti-immigration unrest. On 28 June, the Ugandan government said one of its nationals was killed in a suspected anti-immigrant attack in KwaZulu-Natal and said 746 Ugandans had voluntarily registered for evacuation ahead of the 30 June protests. On 20 June, one person was killed during anti-immigrant rioting in central Pietermaritzburg, and local media said at least 1,000 Malawian nationals had fled to nearby Durban. By 17 June, local media reported that more than 600 Malawians had been repatriated from South Africa, with humanitarian services set up in Blantyre. According to South African police, at least 25,000 people, most of whom are from other African countries, have been repatriated.
The unrest also included attacks on foreign-owned businesses and properties, leading to cases of displacement. On 18 June, police stated that seven people were arrested near Vrede, Free State, after more than 15 foreign-owned shops were looted. On 15 June, South African media reported that at least 120 foreign nationals were camping outside a Home Affairs office in central Durban after being displaced by recent anti-migration rioting. On 8 June, residents in George reportedly attacked foreign-owned businesses before police dispersed them.
The rise of dedicated anti-migrant groups likely reflects the increasing organisation of anti-migrant movements in South Africa in recent years. Since 2022, Operation Dudula, meaning “to push”, has reportedly harassed migrant traders in Soweto and Johannesburg. The Dudula Movement concurrently emerged, acting as a vigilante organisation targeting foreign nationals believed to be undocumented. March and March, a self-described “grassroots citizen movement addressing growing concerns about undocumented immigration in South Africa”, is a newer movement aiming to mobilise citizens through “peaceful demonstrations and rallies”.
Migrants make up just under four per cent of South Africa’s population, equivalent to approximately 2.4 million people. Most originate from neighbouring countries, including Lesotho, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique. Anti-migrant groups claim that there are also between three and five million undocumented migrants, although these figures are contested. A primary driver of anti-migrant sentiment is South Africa’s high unemployment rate, which remains above 30 per cent. Anti-migrant groups have mobilised this to frame migrants as direct competitors for jobs, housing, informal trading space, and state resources, amid rising economic instability triggered by the Strait of Hormuz closure.
This is the latest of a series of waves of unrest targeting foreign nationals and foreign-owned businesses, with major waves in 2008, 2015, and 2019. In 2008, at least 62 foreign nationals were killed, while in 2015, a wave of anti-foreigner violence that began in Durban and spread to Johannesburg left at least seven people dead and saw the widespread looting and burning of foreign-owned shops. In September 2019, renewed rioting concentrated in Johannesburg and Pretoria again targeted foreign-owned businesses and left roughly 12 people dead.
The 30 June protests are highly likely to be accompanied by incidents of vandalism and looting targeting foreign-owned businesses, as well as isolated violence. There is a realistic possibility that the protests will escalate into widespread clashes with security forces into the evening, particularly if they attempt to disperse protesters with measures perceived as excessive, such as tear gas, water cannon, rubber bullets, and mass arrests.
Travel and Safety Guidance for South Africa
- Reconsider non-essential travel to South Africa on 30 June.
- Avoid the central business districts in major cities around 30 June.
- Closely monitor announcements from local authorities and trusted media sources for any developments that may severely impact the local security environment.
- Avoid all areas of unrest due to incidental risks to bystanders. If caught in the unrest, travellers should move with the crowd until they find the nearest opportunity to escape. If in a vehicle, look to turn down the nearest road. If driving away is not an option, lock the vehicle and escape on foot.
- Always follow all instructions and orders from security forces. Where possible, avoid areas of active unrest and remain in secure accommodation.
- Prolonged civil unrest can disrupt travel, especially if protesters begin targeting airports. Travellers should have contingency measures in place, including evacuation plans and reliable access to food, water and medication.
- Have emergency contact numbers saved on your phone. These should include the local authorities, medical facilities and any consular support. Ensure that mobile phones are charged in case of any loss of electricity.
- Keep emergency contact numbers saved on your phone, including those for local authorities, medical services, and consular assistance. Ensure mobile devices are fully charged in case of potential power outages.
- Closely monitor alerts from a security provider if available, trusted local news reports and government alerts.

Request Evacuation Assistance
If you need secure, coordinated support to move personnel out of a high-risk location, our team is ready to help – quickly, calmly, and with care.
Gulf Security Remains Volatile Despite Ceasefire
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | INTELLIGENCE WINDOW: 23 June 2026 – 26 June 2026
- Despite the ceasefire remaining formally in place, Israel and Hezbollah continue to engage in clashes in southern Lebanon.
- Iran reportedly carried out a strike on a vessel trying to exit the Strait of Hormuz. The strike followed the announcement of a UN-led effort to evacuate the personnel of vessels that have remained in the area. Following the strike, the evacuation effort was halted.
- On 25 June, the US and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) released a joint statement following a ministerial meeting in Bahrain, which reiterated US-GCC partnership commitments. Iran criticised the statement as “interventionist”.
- US Vice-President J.D. Vance stated on 25 June, that the United States and Iran had established a direct channel of communication in Doha to support deconfliction and reduce the chance of the conflict resuming.
- As of 26 June, the airspaces of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman are open.
Middle East Conflict: Latest Intelligence & Travel Advice
To support planning, we are updating our Middle East travel advice daily with guidance from our intelligence team on airspace openings and closures, flight operations, and escalating risks impacting movement.
Situation Update: Gulf States Navigate Fragile Ceasefire and Ongoing Disruption
The ceasefires between the US, Israel, and Iran, and between Israel and Lebanon, remain extant. However, the agreements remain unstable. US Vice-President J.D. Vance stated on 25 June, that the United States and Iran had established a direct channel of communication in Doha to favour deconfliction and reduce the chance of the conflict resuming.
On 23 June, US President Donald Trump stated that US forces would halt their blockade of the Strait of Hormuz (SoH). On the same day, the UN’s International Maritime Organisation (IMO) announced that it would, alongside Oman, begin coordinating the evacuation of approximately 11,000 personnel on board vessels that have remained within the SoH due to the conflict. On 25 June, the Islamic Security Guard Corps (IRGC) struck a vessel approximately 7.5 nautical miles southeast of Dahit, Oman. The attack followed IRGC statements that attempts to cross the SoH via the route designated by IMO would be “unacceptable”, and that all crossings would need to be coordinated with the newly-established Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), an Iranian government agency that is responsible for regulating traffic in the SoH. Following the strike, UN channels stated that they would pause evacuation efforts and noted that several vessels had already exited the waterway.
On 25 June, the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that it would hold talks with Oman to “define future administration and maritime services” in the SoH. US officials have reiterated their opposition to Iran’s plan to charge vessels transiting through the SoH.
On 24 June, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated that its inspectors would visit Iranian enrichment sites under the framework of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). On the following day, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi rejected the IAEA statement, claiming that there is “no plan” for future visits to Iranian nuclear sites.
On 25 June, the US and the Gulf Cooperation Council released a joint statement following a ministerial meeting in Bahrain. The statement reiterated “the enduring U.S. commitment to GCC security” and the “importance of reopening the Strait of Hormuz, noting that free, unconditional, and unrestricted navigation, including the right of transit passage as guaranteed under international law, remains essential to regional and global security”. The statement also condemned regional attacks by Iran and it proxies. On 26 June, Iranian diplomatic channels called the statement “provocative” and “interventionist”.
As of 26 June, the airspaces of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman are open.
Saudi Arabia
No attacks have been reported in Saudi Arabia between 23 and 26 June.
At least three people have been killed and 29 injured in Saudi Arabia, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 26 June, Saudi Arabia’s airspace is open.
Kuwait
No attacks have been reported in Kuwait between 23 and 26 June.
At least seven people have been killed, and dozens have been injured in Kuwait, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 26 June, Kuwait’s airspace is open.
Bahrain
No attacks have been reported in Bahrain between 23 and 26 June.
At least three people have been killed, and dozens have been injured in Bahrain, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 26 June, Bahrain’s airspace is open.
Qatar
No attacks have been reported in Qatar between 23 and 26 June.
At least 20 people have been injured in Qatar, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 26 June, Qatar’s airspace is open.
UAE
No attacks have been reported in the UAE between 23 and 26 June.
At least 12 people have been killed and 224 injured in the UAE, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 26 June, the UAE’s airspace is open.
Oman
On 25 June, IRGC forces carried out a strike that damaged a cargo vessel approximately 7.5 nautical miles from the coast of Dahit. MV EVER LOVELY (IMO: 9629110), a Singapore-flagged vessel, was reportedly struck by a projectile while transiting on the route designated by the IMO, with the impact causing limited damage to the bridge,
At least three people have been killed and 16 injured in Oman, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 26 June, Oman’s airspace is open.
Regional Advisory
The MoU and the holding of direct talks in Switzerland have likely reduced the immediate risk of a return to full-scale US-Iran conflict and strikes on the Gulf States. However, the MoU is highly likely functioning primarily as an extension of the ceasefire, rather than as a substantive or durable peace agreement. The agreement is likely vulnerable to multiple key triggers for ceasefire breakdown. The conflict in Lebanon, Iran’s nuclear programme and the long-term status of the SoH remain unresolved.
Continued IDF operations in Lebanon are likely the most immediate threat to the MoU and have resulted in Iranian claims of closing the SoH. The IRGC is likely to leverage tactical actions in the SoH to apply pressure on the US during negotiations, as evidenced by the recent attack on a vessel in Omani waters. As of 26 June, it appears this attack did not cross the threshold for US retaliation; however, sustained attacks on international shipping could trigger a kinetic response from the US. As during previous escalation cycles, incidents in the SoH are unlikely to be contained to the maritime domain and could result in Iranian attacks on terrestrial targets in the region, although sustained direct attacks on Gulf States remain unlikely outside of a major escalation and complete collapse of the negotiation process.
President Trump’s multiple stated threats since the MoU’s signing have likely challenged terms within the MoU which preclude the issuance of threats of military force, and the announcement by Iran’s military headquarters that it would close the SoH directly contravened key terms of the MoU. While neither side has acted in a manner that has likely crossed a threshold warranting renewed hostilities, these reciprocal violations almost certainly underscore the fragility of the MoU.
Iranian adherence to a ceasefire is likely to be undermined by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which has increasingly consolidated power in Tehran, acted independently of the civilian government, and signalled total opposition to US demands. The lack of a fully coherent regime in Tehran with a unified negotiating position almost certainly complicates the negotiation process and increases the likelihood that elements within the IRGC could fail to comply with any agreements made by Tehran’s civilian government and negotiating team.
Iranian Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has also made statements aimed at characterising Tehran’s agreement to the MoU as the responsibility of Iran’s civilian President, Masoud Pezeshkian. This is likely intended to limit domestic criticism of any shift from the maximalist objectives of hardliners, but it also likely highlights the lack of a fully unified negotiating position in Iran. It should not be assumed that diplomatic breakthroughs in Switzerland will be uniformly accepted or implemented across Iran’s political and security establishment.
Travellers and expatriates are strongly advised not to film or distribute footage of strikes, damage, or military activity:
- Jordanian authorities have warned against publishing videos or information regarding Jordan’s defensive operations without authorisation.
- Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Interior has stated that “[p]hotographing or publishing or circulating information related to countering missiles and drones and the locations of their falls exposes you to legal accountability.”
- In the UAE, authorities have warned that publishing or circulating “rumours, false news, or news from unknown sources through social media platforms or other information technology” is illegal. Reports indicate that Dubai Police have used “electronic monitoring operations” to detect a photo shared within a private WhatsApp group.
- In Bahrain, several people have been confirmed as arrested for “filming, live streaming, clipping, and publishing events in a manner constituting a legal violation”.
- Qatar’s Ministry of Interior warned that gathering at incident sites or photographing and sharing content related to field developments may result in legal accountability and has arrested hundreds of people of various nationalities for “producing and sharing misleading information”.
- Omani authorities have stated: “Beware of sharing or publishing any captured photos or videos. They should be shared only with the competent authorities”.

Request Evacuation Assistance
If you need secure, coordinated support to move personnel out of a high-risk location, our team is ready to help – quickly, calmly, and with care.
Aligning protection with modern travel risk management and corporate travel security
7 Signs Your Corporate Travel Security Programme Needs to Scale
The sign: Your organisation subscribes to threat intelligence and receives alerts. But when a major incident occurs, there is no pre-agreed plan, no confirmed resource, and no provider with a contractual obligation to act. Intelligence without response capability Without a response capability in place, organisations may find themselves making critical decisions and sourcing support at the same time.
Why it matters: The geopolitical volatility of 2026 has exposed this gap at scale. When Operation Epic Fury, the US-led military campaign against Iran, triggered rapid airspace closures, Iranian retaliatory strikes, and mass displacement across the Middle East, organisations with fragmented security arrangements were left scrambling. Traveller tracking, close protection, and emergency response sat with different vendors who had no shared protocol and no obligation to coordinate. Employees were stranded. Evacuation costs surged. Those without pre-negotiated crisis evacuation plans faced significantly higher fees – and significantly longer exposure windows – than those with an integrated response structure already in place. When mass numbers attempt to evacuate simultaneously, the market for seats, logistics, and ground support dries up fast.
Ask yourself: Do you have a provider with a confirmed commitment to respond, not just report, in a crisis? Have you tested that commitment against a worst-case scenario?
The sign: When a crisis hits, whether from a natural disaster, civil unrest, or a security incident, your team spends critical minutes establishing who is where, rather than responding. And that problem is no longer limited to international travel. With hybrid working now standard, the same visibility gap exists domestically: do you know, at any given moment, who is in the office and who is working remotely?
Why it matters: Real-time visibility across your entire workforce – travelling executives, employees on international assignments, and staff working from home or third-party locations – is an important part of duty of care. A travel risk management app that provides live tracking, journey monitoring, and two-way communication tools can build the full picture of where your people are, not just those on booked itineraries.
Ask yourself: If an incident occurred right now, could you accurately account for every employee – those abroad, those travelling domestically, and those working remotely?
3. Your Duty of Care Framework Has Not Been Updated for Current Threat Levels
The sign: Your duty of care policies were written for a different risk environment. They may not account for geopolitical tensions (a concern for 46% of organisations), regional conflicts (43%), or the growing expectation from employees that their employer will actively protect them – not just have a policy on file.
Why it matters: Employee expectations have never been higher. Employers deemed in breach of their duty of care face not only legal liability but reputational damage that can affect their ability to attract and retain talent. The potential cost of failure far exceeds the cost of building a robust programme.
Ask yourself: How do you define duty of care for your employees? Has that definition kept pace with today’s threat landscape?
4. Your Emergency Response Plan Has Never Been Tested
The sign: You have a plan. But it hasn’t been validated recently against a realistic worst-case scenario – a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, or civil unrest in a market where your senior leaders are present.
Why it matters: Many emergency response policies contain restrictions that organisations are unaware of. Insurance providers may not cover war zones, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters – gaps that only become apparent under pressure. A 24/7 Global Security Operations Centre (GSOC) that has been tested and validated provides the continuity and confidence that a paper plan cannot.
Ask yourself: Have you tested your emergency response plan with your current provider to validate they have the resources to respond in a worst-case scenario?
5. Intelligence Is Not Informing Pre-Travel Planning
The sign: Your security briefings are generic. Travellers receive country-level advisories rather than contextual, event-specific intelligence that shapes routing, accommodation choices, and on-the-ground protocols.
Why it matters: An intelligence-led approach to executive protection is what separates organisations that prevent incidents from those that merely respond to them. Today’s threats rarely occur in isolation – one major event triggers a cascade of others. Pre-travel planning grounded in current threat intelligence significantly reduces exposure.
Ask yourself: Where have your executives or travelling employees felt most vulnerable in the past 12 months? What intelligence would have changed their behaviour?
6. Your Corporate Brand Is Increasing Exposure
The sign: Your organisation’s profile, whether through public-facing leadership, high-value contracts, or geopolitical associations, is raising the risk level for your executives. But your protection programme has not evolved to reflect this.
Why it matters: Corporations increasingly recognise that their brand and reputation can expose employees to risk both domestically and internationally. High-profile leadership, media attention, or operations in sensitive regions all alter the threat calculus. Executive protection must be calibrated to the organisation’s specific risk profile.
Ask yourself: Could your company’s brand or the public profile of your senior leaders make them a target? Has your protection programme been assessed against that reality?
7. Your Programme Structure Slows Response When Speed Is Critical
The sign: During your last significant incident, your team spent time establishing who was in charge, which provider to call, and what the escalation path was – before any response could begin. Ownership was unclear. Handoffs were delayed. The programme itself became an obstacle.
Why it matters: Unclear escalation paths and multiple points of contact have a direct operational cost during a crisis. When close protection, travel risk management software, and GSOC support operate within a single coordinated model under one point of contact, organisations move from insight to action without delay. Where that structure does not exist, the gap shows, particularly in fast-moving, large-scale incidents where every hour of indecision carries consequences.
Ask yourself: In your last significant incident, how much time elapsed between the alert and the first coordinated response? Where did that time go?
Scaling Executive Protection: The Integrated Model
Scaling effectively requires bringing the right elements together into a structure with clear ownership and tested capability.
- Intelligence ensures threats and changing conditions are understood in context, supporting pre-travel planning and measured incident response
- Technology – through a travel risk management app or travel risk management software – provides tracking, communication, and real-time reporting across all journeys
- Operational capability through an outsourced Global Security Operations Centre provides 24/7 monitoring, coordination, and a single point of control
Together, these create a resilient model where executive protection supports both routine business travel and complex, high-risk environments – with one point of contact, clear accountability, and continuity from planning through to response.
Reviewing Your Corporate Travel Security Programme
Solace Global Risk supports organisations in developing and scaling executive protection programmes aligned with modern travel risk management requirements.
If any of the signs above reflect your current position, we can help you assess your programme and identify practical next steps – before an incident makes the decision for you.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Executive protection is the organised security provision designed to protect senior personnel — and in some cases their families — from threats arising from their position, profile, or operational environment. It typically encompasses advance planning and security surveys, close protection officers, secure transportation, intelligence briefings, and 24/7 GSOC monitoring. Under ISO 31030:2021, executive protection is a component of a broader travel risk management programme, calibrated to the specific risk profile of the individual and the environment in which they are operating.
ISO 31030:2021 is the international standard for travel risk management. It provides the framework within which executive protection programmes should sit: from risk identification and pre-travel authorisation through journey management, incident response, and post-travel review. The standard identifies personnel risk — including assault, detention, and kidnap — as a core risk category (Section 6.2), and requires that protective measures are proportionate to the traveller’s profile and risk exposure. Organisations with programmes aligned to ISO 31030 are better positioned to demonstrate duty of care compliance and to respond proportionately when conditions change.
Close protection services refer specifically to the provision of trained protective personnel — commonly close protection officers — deployed alongside an individual or group. Executive protection is the broader programme: it encompasses close protection as one operational element, alongside intelligence, advance work, secure transportation, route planning, GSOC monitoring, and crisis management coordination. A close protection officer on the ground operates most effectively within a programme that has structured intelligence support and clear escalation protocols behind it.
ISO 31030:2021 recommends regular review of travel risk management arrangements to reflect changes in the risk environment, the organisation’s risk appetite, or the profile of the travelling population (Annex A, Stage 4). In practice, a programme review is warranted after any significant incident, following a change in the organisation’s operational footprint, when the seniority or public profile of key personnel has changed materially, or if the current provider’s capability has not been tested against realistic scenarios. Organisations that review programmes proactively — rather than in response to an incident — typically encounter lower costs and shorter resolution windows.
A Global Security Operations Centre (GSOC) provides the monitoring, intelligence, and coordination layer that connects the individual elements of an executive protection programme into a functioning response capability. It tracks traveller locations, monitors threat intelligence feeds, issues alerts, and acts as the central point of coordination between on-the-ground protective personnel, intelligence analysts, and the organisation’s own security teams. Within the ISO 31030 framework, the GSOC fulfils the requirement for proactive monitoring, clear escalation procedures, and integrated incident management (Annex A, Stage 3).
The highest-rated concerns among corporate security teams currently include geopolitical instability — including rapid escalation events, airspace closures, and sanctions-driven access restrictions — rising levels of crime in major business hubs, kidnap and extortion risk in certain regions, and targeted threats arising from an organisation’s public positioning or senior leadership profile. ISO 31030:2021 lists personnel risk categories as injury, assault, detention, kidnap, theft, robbery, and death (Section 5.5), alongside legal, reputational, and financial risk categories that may arise where travel risk management arrangements are inadequate.

Contact Solace Global Risk to arrange a programme assessment
Major Earthquakes Cause Widespread Damage in Venezuela
SITUATION SUMMARY | Intelligence cut off: 9:00 UTC 25 June 2026
At 18:04 local time (22:04 UTC) on 24 June, a magnitude 7.2 earthquake was detected 23 kilometres southeast of Yumare, Venezuela, at a depth of 20.3 kilometres. The first tremor was followed by a magnitude 7.5 earthquake at 18:05 local time, 39 seconds after the initial foreshock, at a depth of 23 kilometres. Shortly after the earthquakes, the National Weather Service (NWS) issued a tsunami advisory for Venezuela, Curaçao, Aruba, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. A separate notice stated that there was no tsunami risk for the US East Coast, Gulf Coast, or eastern Canada. The tsunami threat remained focused on coastal areas closer to the epicentre, particularly parts of the southern Caribbean. The National Weather Service subsequently updated its tsunami advisory for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, stating that tsunami waves of less than one foot were expected.
Damage and disruption were widespread across Venezuela, specifically in Caracas. Local media sources reported dozens of building collapses, road closures, and utility outages reported across the capital region, including in Catia La Mar, Los Teques, La Pastora, Chacao, Altamira, Los Palos Grandes, Lídice, El Paraíso, Ciudad Universitaria, and San Bernardino. Water and power supplies were affected in Caracas and several northern states, while authorities shut off gas services in impacted areas as a precaution.
Social media footage showed shaking in downtown Caracas, damage inside apartments in La Tahona and significant structural damage in Altamira. A building collapse in the Los Palos Grandes area of Caracas reportedly caused at least two deaths. In Las Minas de Baruta, at least three people were killed in two building collapses. Beyond Caracas, significant damage was reported in La Guaira, Catia La Mar, Tucacas, Turmero, Morón, and San Antonio de los Altos. Reports also indicated multiple collapsed homes on fire in La Guaira, cracks in a highway in Morón, and possible damage or leaks at a chemical plant in Morón. Local media have also reported widespread gas outages and telecommunications service disruptions in Venezuela following the earthquake.
Tremors from the earthquakes were also felt in parts of Brazil’s Amazonas and Pará states, although local media have not reported any structural damage or casualties in those regions.
Video footage showed major damage inside Simón Bolívar International Airport in Maiquetía. Reports indicated that all flights at Simón Bolívar International Airport were cancelled. The Caracas Metro was also evacuated.
Acting President Delcy Rodríguez said at least 32 people had been killed and around 700 others injured by the earthquakes, and subsequently announced a nationwide state of emergency. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has made an initial estimate that the death toll could range from 10,000 to 100,000.
Argentina and Colombia indicated readiness to support response efforts, while Ecuador announced plans to send humanitarian aid. El Salvador said it had prepared more than 300 rescuers and 50 tonnes of equipment, supplies, and medicines for deployment. The Dominican Republic said specialised search-and-rescue teams would depart for Venezuela on the morning of 25 June, and US President Donald Trump has pledged to deploy US resources to Venezuela.
INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS
Economic and Political Grievances Continue to Shape Unrest Risks in Kenya
Venezuela is highly exposed to seismic activity. The country is near the boundary between the Caribbean and South American tectonic plates, where plate motion is largely accommodated by major strike-slip fault systems across northern Venezuela, including the Boconó fault system. The 24 June earthquake southeast of Yumare occurred at a shallow depth and was associated with strike-slip faulting along this boundary.
Northern Venezuela has a history of significant seismic activity, though large earthquakes near the June 2026 epicentre have been relatively infrequent over the past century. On 21 August 2018, a 7.3 magnitude earthquake struck Venezuela’s northern coast, damaging dozens of buildings and causing multiple injuries across the country. More recently, in September 2025, magnitude 6.2 and 6.3 tremors near Mene Grande caused at least one death, injured more than 110 people, damaged homes and infrastructure, and were felt across several Venezuelan states and parts of Colombia.
Notable historical earthquakes include a 6.4 magnitude earthquake near Morón in 2009, which injured 18 people and damaged buildings, and a 6.0 magnitude event near Valencia in 1989 that caused minor damage. The most destructive modern earthquake in the wider region was the 1967 Caracas earthquake, which caused around 240 deaths, hundreds of injuries, collapsed several high-rise apartment buildings, and led to widespread destruction. Since 1900, at least five magnitude 7 or larger earthquakes have occurred in northern Venezuela or near its coast. However, it is highly likely that the damage, casualties and impact of the 24 June doublet earthquakes will be the worst in Venezuela in a century.
It is likely that aftershocks will be recorded near the epicentre in the short term. On 25 June, USGS assessed that there is a 94 per cent chance of at least one aftershock of magnitude 5 or above within the next week, and a 29 per cent chance of an aftershock of magnitude 6 or above. Even if lower-magnitude compared to the 24 June earthquake, aftershocks can still result in significant damage, causing critical failures in structures damaged during the initial shocks.
The death toll from the 24 June earthquakes will almost certainly considerably exceed the early estimates provided by the Venezuelan government. The impact of the tremors is highly likely to be compounded by the country’s poor disaster preparedness and emergency response infrastructure. Possible failures in government responses to the earthquakes could rapidly become catalysts for civil unrest in Venezuela, particularly as the country’s leadership has likely been destabilised by the US intervention that captured former President Maduro in January 2026. Previously a staunch geopolitical adversary of the US, Venezuela is now increasingly close to Washington as a result of the US intervention.
The economic impact will highly likely be severe and will fall on a state with minimal fiscal and institutional capacity to absorb it. Venezuela’s economy was already critically degraded prior to the earthquake, and the earthquake has had a severe impact on major economic hubs like the Caracas capital region. Acute humanitarian crisis, pre-existing economic crisis, destroyed utilities, and a transitional government which has contested legitimacy are all factors which could quickly materialise into an anti-government movement and violent civil unrest in the coming months.
Travel and Safety Guidance for Venezuela
- Closely monitor local news reports and government alerts.
- Expect aftershocks. Be prepared to Drop, Cover, Hold On in case of further tremors.
- During a tremor, if outside, do not enter buildings and move away from buildings, trees, streetlights and overhead lines.
- If inside, pick a safe place (under a sturdy table or desk, or against an interior wall and away from windows and heavy furniture). Do not leave until the shaking stops.
- If evacuating a building, always use the stairs. Look out for fires and falling debris.
- Adhere to all instructions issued by authorities.
- Heed evacuation orders and travel to government-issued shelters if safe to do so.
- Avoid coastal areas covered by tsunami warnings.
- Ensure important documents and medications are appropriately stored.
- Prepare an emergency ‘go bag’ with essentials such as bottled water, batteries, important documents, and medications.
- Confirm booked flights are running prior to checking out of hotels or travelling to the airport.
- Prepare for power outages, communication disruptions, and travel delays.
- Stay away from damaged buildings and affected areas until authorities deem them safe.
- Management should maintain communication with individuals affected until the event is concluded.

Request Evacuation Assistance
If you need secure, coordinated support to move personnel out of a high-risk location, our team is ready to help – quickly, calmly, and with care.
Large-Scale Protests Planned Across Kenya
SITUATION SUMMARY | Intelligence cut off: 15:00 UTC 24 June 2026
Nationwide demonstrations are planned for 25 June, marking the second anniversary of the 25 June 2024 anti-Finance Bill protests and commemorating those who were killed during the unrest in 2024 and 2025.
Victims’ families have called on Kenyans to march to parliament in Nairobi at 10:00 local time (07:00 UTC) to demand justice and lay flowers where their relatives were killed. Activists have urged participants outside Nairobi to hold peaceful vigils near police stations with flowers and flags, and to document events on mobile phones, livestreams, and hidden cameras to capture any incidents.
Opposition figures, including former Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka, have called for a large turnout. A group including Siaya Governor James Orengo, activist Boniface Mwangi, and families of protest victims marched to parliament on 18 June and formally notified the police of a nationwide march. Organisers have stated that the demonstrations will remain peaceful and constitutional. Orengo added on social media that “June 25th remains a public holiday of remembrance and resistance.”
The government has ruled out a public holiday, with Government Spokesperson Isaac Mwaura insisting that 25 June remains a normal working day. President William Ruto additionally warned against attempts to “shut down the country”. Police maintain they have not received formal notification authorising demonstrations in Nairobi and have warned that they will respond “firmly” to any attempts to disrupt public order.
INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS
Economic and Political Grievances Continue to Shape Unrest Risks in Kenya
Widespread youth-led protests have taken place in Kenya in both 2024 and 2025. In June and July 2024, a series of mass protests erupted in response to proposed tax increases in the government’s Finance Bill 2024. The unrest started in Nairobi, quickly spreading to other parts of the country. On 25 June, thousands of protesters stormed the parliamentary complex, setting fire to the Kenyan Parliament Building. Overall, at least 50 people were killed, and several hundred were injured as protesters clashed with security forces, who used live ammunition and conducted mass arrests.
Widespread protests were also staged in June and early July 2025, after a blogger was killed in police custody, with protesters demanding an end to police brutality. Security forces again responded with force, including live ammunition, tear gas, water cannon, and mass arrests. At least 65 people were killed, and over 550 people were injured. No significant concessions were made following the protests, and police brutality almost certainly remains a core grievance in Kenya.
The planned demonstrations are set to take place amid increased pressure on living costs, as well as frustrations over government plans to allow a US Ebola quarantine facility on its territory. Kenya’s fuel imports are heavily tied to Gulf suppliers, and the price of fuel has spiked due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Although President Ruto has moved to cushion consumers by cutting fuel VAT, using stabilisation funds, and pushing through a diesel price reduction, fuel prices remain elevated and continue to feed wider cost-of-living pressures. This almost certainly increases the risk that the planned protests could escalate into broader anti-government unrest.
Kenyan police forces have a precedent of responding forcefully to demonstrations, deploying live ammunition in both 2024 and 2025 unrest and being accused of abducting, torturing, and killing civilians believed to be leaders of anti-government protests. The apparent lack of authorisation for the demonstrations almost certainly raises the risk of crackdowns being imposed. If security forces are perceived as using disproportionate force against protesters, this will highly likely exacerbate demonstrations. This risk almost certainly elevates with calls for protesters to capture footage, with videos of perceived brutality by security forces highly likely to spread quickly through social media, increase anti-government sentiment and provoke larger demonstrations.
Nairobi’s parliament is located within the Central Business District (CBD), and most protesters will highly likely be gathered there. If protests spread, other hotspots in Nairobi include Kangemi, Ngong, Kamukunji, Thika Road, and Kitengela. During the 2025 protests, security forces blocked off major roads into Nairobi, including Waiyaki Way, Mombasa Road, Thika Road, Ngong Road, Valley Road, Juja Road, and Lang’ata Road. Other cities that may see large-scale gatherings and potential clashes include Mombasa, Kisumu, and Nakuru.
In the lead-up to and during the potential protests, there is a realistic possibility that the government will impose internet outages to prevent the spread of calls for anti-government protests. There will highly likely be a heightened security presence in Nairobi and other major cities on 25 June.
Travel and Safety Guidance for Kenya
- Reconsider non-essential travel to Kenya, particularly Nairobi, Mombasa, and other major cities on 25 June.
- Avoid the central business district in Nairobi around 25 June, particularly around Kenyatta Avenue, Haile Selassie Avenue, City Hall, and any other wide roads conducive to the staging of protests, as well as all major government buildings such as the Kenyan Parliament or the Governor’s Office.
- Closely monitor announcements from local authorities and trusted media sources for any developments that may severely impact the local security environment.
- Avoid all areas of unrest due to incidental risks to bystanders. If caught in the unrest, travellers should move with the crowd until they find the nearest opportunity to escape. If in a vehicle, look to turn down the nearest road. If driving away is not an option, lock the vehicle and escape on foot.
- Always follow all instructions and orders from security forces. Where possible, avoid areas of active unrest and remain in secure accommodation.
- Prolonged civil unrest can disrupt travel, especially if protesters begin targeting airports. Travellers should have contingency measures in place, including evacuation plans and reliable access to food, water and medication.
- Have emergency contact numbers saved on your phone. These should include the local authorities, medical facilities and any consular support. Ensure that mobile phones are charged in case of any loss of electricity.
- Keep emergency contact numbers saved on your phone, including those for local authorities, medical services, and consular assistance. Ensure mobile devices are fully charged in case of potential power outages.
- Closely monitor alerts from a security provider if available, trusted local news reports and government alerts.

Request Evacuation Assistance
If you need secure, coordinated support to move personnel out of a high-risk location, our team is ready to help – quickly, calmly, and with care.
Gulf Security Remains Volatile Despite Ceasefire
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | INTELLIGENCE WINDOW: 19 June 2026 – 23 June 2026
- On 19 June, within an hour of a renewed Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire coming into effect, Israel conducted further strikes in southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah launched drones towards northern Israel.
- On 20 June, Iran’s military headquarters announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, citing continued conflict in Lebanon. US Central Command (CENTCOM) said it had tracked no Iranian movements to close the Strait and that traffic continued to flow, while Iran’s own foreign ministry told Iranian media that shipping was operating normally.
- On 21 June, the first round of Qatar and Pakistan-mediated direct US-Iran talks began at Lake Lucerne, Switzerland. Threats from US President Donald Trump to strike Iran again led to the Iranian delegation reportedly threatening to walk out.
- The second day of the Lucerne Summit went ahead on 22 June, with mediators announcing a 60-day roadmap and several working groups on the key issues. Subsequent statements from both parties contradicted each other on agreements made regarding an invitation for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors and the release of some frozen Iranian assets.
- On 22 June, an Israeli statement was issued, which said that Israel Defence Forces (IDF) operations will continue in southern Lebanon. Israeli and Lebanese diplomats are scheduled to hold another round of direct talks on 23 June.
- As of 23 June, the airspaces of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman are open.
Middle East Conflict: Latest Intelligence & Travel Advice
To support planning, we are updating our Middle East travel advice daily with guidance from our intelligence team on airspace openings and closures, flight operations, and escalating risks impacting movement.
Situation Update: Gulf States Navigate Fragile Ceasefire and Ongoing Disruption
On 20 June, Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya central military headquarters announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, just three days after it had been reopened as part of the MoU. Khatam al-Anbiya cited Israel’s alleged ceasefire violations in Lebanon and the US failure to implement the first clause of the MoU, the article requiring an immediate end to military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. US Central Command (CENTCOM) said it had tracked no Iranian movements to close the Strait and that traffic continued to flow, while Iran’s own foreign ministry told Iranian media that shipping was operating normally. In response, US President Donald Trump threatened on social media to impose American tolls in the Strait of Hormuz if a deal is not reached in 60-days.
On 21 June, the first round of Qatar and Pakistan-mediated direct US-Iran talks began at the Bürgenstock resort on Lake Lucerne, Switzerland, having been postponed from 20 June due to the aforementioned developments. US Vice President JD Vance led the US delegation, which included President Trump’s envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff. Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who has become increasingly powerful in Tehran since the outbreak of war on 28 February, led the Iranian delegation, which also included the foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi.
During this first day of talks, President Trump threatened on social media to “hit Iran very hard again, just like we did last week, only harder!!!” if Iran did not stop Hezbollah from “causing trouble”. The Iranian delegation lodged a protest and reportedly threatened to walk out, but Vance later said that the Iranians never left the talks.
The second day of the Lucerne Summit went ahead on 22 June, with mediators announcing: a 60-day roadmap, a high-level oversight committee, a US-Iran communication line on the Strait of Hormuz, and a “de-confliction cell” to support adherence to the cessation of operations in Lebanon. Working groups will also be established regarding the nuclear file, sanctions, and monitoring and dispute resolution. Vice President Vance claimed that Iran had agreed to invite International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, possibly within the week. However, Iran’s foreign ministry denied this and stated they had made no such commitment. Furthermore, Araghchi stated that an agreement was reached on the release of some frozen Iranian assets, while Vance said this has not yet happened.
Also on 22 June, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a joint statement with Israel’s Defence Minister and the IDF chief of staff, which said that the IDF will continue “to act decisively to neutralise threats to our soldiers and citizens, destroy terrorist infrastructure, and maintain the security zone in southern Lebanon.” On 23 June, Israeli and Lebanese diplomats are scheduled to hold a round of direct talks, mediated by the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio.
Saudi Arabia
No attacks have been reported in Saudi Arabia between 19 and 23 June.
At least three people have been killed and 29 injured in Saudi Arabia, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 23 June, Saudi Arabia’s airspace is open.
Kuwait
No attacks have been reported in Kuwait between 19 and 23 June.
At least seven people have been killed, and dozens have been injured in Kuwait, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 23 June, Kuwait’s airspace is open.
Bahrain
No attacks have been reported in Bahrain between 19 and 23 June.
At least three people have been killed, and dozens have been injured in Bahrain, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 23 June, Bahrain’s airspace is open.
Qatar
No attacks have been reported in Qatar between 19 and 23 June. On 21 June, a large explosion occurred at the Barzan LNG plant in Ras Laffan Industrial City, with authorities stating that at least 13 people were killed and 66 others injured. Due to the high regional tensions, there has been speculation that the explosion was related to Iran. However, Qatari authorities have announced that sabotage has been ruled out, and Qatar Energy has said that the explosion was caused by an operational incident during start-up of operations.
At least 20 people have been injured in Qatar, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 23 June, Qatar’s airspace is open.
UAE
No attacks have been reported in the UAE between 19 and 23 June.
At least 12 people have been killed and 224 injured in the UAE, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 23 June, the UAE’s airspace is open.
Oman
No attacks have been reported in Oman between 19 and 23 June.
At least three people have been killed and 16 injured in Oman, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 23 June, Oman’s airspace is open.
Regional Advisory
The MoU has likely reduced the immediate risk of a return to full-scale US-Iran conflict. However, the MoU is highly likely functioning primarily as an extension of the ceasefire, rather than as a substantive or durable peace agreement. The agreement is likely vulnerable to multiple key triggers for ceasefire breakdown, including conflict in Lebanon, disagreements over the nuclear file during negotiations, and continued Iranian efforts to maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz.
Continued conflict in Lebanon was the trigger for the first significant challenge to the MoU since its signing on 17 June, with the Iranian military claiming to have again closed the Strait of Hormuz. However, the announced closure has yet to materialise into reduced traffic. There is a realistic possibility that the announcement was used to provide Iran with further leverage just prior to the start of direct negotiations.
The announced continuation of IDF operations in southern Lebanon, if sustained following further Israel-Lebanon talks today on 23 June, is likely to cause further issues for the broader ceasefire. Moreover, President Trump’s multiple stated threats since the MoU’s signing have likely challenged terms within the MoU which preclude the issuance of threats of military force, and the announcement by Iran’s military headquarters of the Strait’s closure directly contravened key terms of the MoU, although this has so far failed to materialise in practice.
It is notable that Iran’s foreign ministry quickly rebuffed the claims from Iran’s military headquarters of the Strait’s closure. Iranian adherence to a ceasefire is likely to be undermined by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which has increasingly consolidated power in Tehran, acted independently of the civilian government, and signalled total opposition to US demands. The lack of a fully coherent regime in Tehran with a unified negotiating position almost certainly complicates the negotiation process and increases the likelihood that elements within the IRGC could fail to comply with any agreements made by Tehran’s civilian government and negotiating team.
Furthermore, statements from Iran’s new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, have highly likely made distinct efforts to characterise Iran’s agreement to the MoU as the responsibility of Iran’s civilian President, Masoud Pezeshkian. This is likely intended to limit domestic criticism of any shift from the maximalist objectives of hardliners, but it also likely highlights the lack of a fully unified negotiating position in Iran.
Travel to the Middle East is likely to remain at a high risk profile until there are clear indications of durable de-escalation, such as a major US force withdrawal or reduction. As long as the current US in-region force posture is maintained, and with multiple triggers for ceasefire breakdown remaining extant, renewed escalation could break out with minimal indicators or warnings.
Confrontations between US and Iranian forces in the maritime domain have been accompanied by continued attacks against some Gulf states since the implementation of a ceasefire on 8 April, demonstrating that the ceasefire framework does not preclude further hostilities. Post-ceasefire Iranian retaliation strikes initially primarily targeted the UAE, but later focused on Jordan, Kuwait, and Bahrain. These post-ceasefire strikes notably escalated in early June, with increased scale and the repeated targeting of Kuwait’s international airport.
Travellers and expatriates are strongly advised not to film or distribute footage of strikes, damage, or military activity:
- Jordanian authorities have warned against publishing videos or information regarding Jordan’s defensive operations without authorisation.
- Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Interior has stated that “[p]hotographing or publishing or circulating information related to countering missiles and drones and the locations of their falls exposes you to legal accountability.”
- In the UAE, authorities have warned that publishing or circulating “rumours, false news, or news from unknown sources through social media platforms or other information technology” is illegal. Reports indicate that Dubai Police have used “electronic monitoring operations” to detect a photo shared within a private WhatsApp group.
- In Bahrain, several people have been confirmed as arrested for “filming, live streaming, clipping, and publishing events in a manner constituting a legal violation”.
- Qatar’s Ministry of Interior warned that gathering at incident sites or photographing and sharing content related to field developments may result in legal accountability and has arrested hundreds of people of various nationalities for “producing and sharing misleading information”.
- Omani authorities have stated: “Beware of sharing or publishing any captured photos or videos. They should be shared only with the competent authorities”.

Request Evacuation Assistance
If you need secure, coordinated support to move personnel out of a high-risk location, our team is ready to help – quickly, calmly, and with care.
Gulf Security Remains Volatile Despite Ceasefire
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | INTELLIGENCE WINDOW: 16 June 2026 – 19 June 2026
- On 17 June, US and Iranian officials electronically signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) agreed by both countries. The 14-point document extends the ceasefire and entails several provisions to resume shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
- The immediate risk of a return to full-scale US-Iran conflict has likely decreased with the MoU’s implementation. However, it is likely to be only a ceasefire extension, not yet a substantive and lasting peace agreement.
- The reported agreement is likely vulnerable to continuing conflict in Lebanon, disagreements on the nuclear file in a 60-day negotiating period, and issues regarding the Strait of Hormuz.
- The planned formal signing ceremony between US and Iranian officials in Switzerland on 19 June has been postponed, highly likely due to Israel’s continued attacks in Lebanon.
- A US force withdrawal from the region is reportedly tied to progress on further negotiations. As long as the US force posture is maintained, renewed escalation could rapidly break out with minimal indicators and warnings.
- As of 19 June, the airspaces of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman are open.
Middle East Conflict: Latest Intelligence & Travel Advice
To support planning, we are updating our Middle East travel advice daily with guidance from our intelligence team on airspace openings and closures, flight operations, and escalating risks impacting movement.
Situation Update: Gulf States Navigate Fragile Ceasefire and Ongoing Disruption
The MoU comprises 14 points, including the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the cessation of hostilities on all fronts, the lifting of the US blockade on Iran, and sanctions relief for Tehran. The signing of the MoU resulted in the de facto suspension of the US naval blockade on Iranian ports, with several Iranian tankers crossing the US blockade line on 17 June. On 19 June, a 60-day period of negotiations on some unresolved triggers of the conflict, such as Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, began.
Both Israeli and Hezbollah forces carried out reciprocal attacks during the 14-19 June period in southern Lebanon. Iranian officials have continued to describe Israeli military operations as violating the ceasefire and have called on Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon.
The planned formal signing ceremony between US and Iranian officials in Switzerland on 19 June has been postponed. The talks were intended to address the technical terms of the ceasefire agreement, but Iran has reportedly delayed the process by holding back its delegation. Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, stated that any talks would remain bound by Tehran’s “red lines”, highly likely referring to a halt to Israel’s attacks on Lebanon.
Following the signing of the MoU, the United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO) reduced its travel security alert levels for Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Oman.
Saudi Arabia
No attacks have been reported in Saudi Arabia between 16 and 19 June.
At least three people have been killed and 29 injured in Saudi Arabia, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 19 June, Saudi Arabia’s airspace is open.
Kuwait
No attacks have been reported in Kuwait between 16 and 19 June. On 19 June, Kuwait’s oil minister stated that all force majeure declarations will be lifted following the US-Iran agreement. He added that pre-war production levels are possible within a week. An earlier statement on 18 June declared that repairs of war-related damages have advanced faster than projected.
At least seven people have been killed, and dozens have been injured in Kuwait, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 19 June, Kuwait’s airspace is open.
Bahrain
No attacks have been reported in Bahrain between 16 and 19 June. On 17 June, clashes took place between police and protesters in Abu Saiba after security forces attempted to remove the Husseini flags that had been erected, according to local media.
At least three people have been killed, and dozens have been injured in Bahrain, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 19 June, Bahrain’s airspace is open.
Qatar
No attacks have been reported in Qatar between 16 and 19 June.
At least 20 people have been injured in Qatar, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 19 June, Qatar’s airspace is open.
UAE
No attacks have been reported in the UAE between 16 and 19 June.
At least 12 people have been killed and 224 injured in the UAE, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 19 June, the UAE’s airspace is open.
Oman
No attacks have been reported in Oman between 16 and 19 June.
At least three people have been killed and 16 injured in Oman, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 19 June, Oman’s airspace is open.
Regional Advisory
The announcement of the MoU’s agreement is almost certainly the biggest diplomatic breakthrough since the implementation of the 8 April two-week ceasefire. With its signing, the immediate risk of a return to full-scale US-Iran conflict has likely decreased. However, the MoU is likely to function primarily as an extension of the ceasefire, rather than as a substantive or durable peace agreement. The agreement is likely vulnerable to multiple friction points, including conflict in Lebanon, disagreements over the nuclear file, and issues regarding the Strait of Hormuz.
While the US has allowed Iranian tankers to bypass its naval forces, the US’s regional force posture remains largely unchanged, with two carrier strike groups (CSGs) within the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR), combined with multiple surface platforms and dozens of additional combat aircraft forward-deployed to regional bases. A US force withdrawal or reduction is likely to be a clearer indication of de-escalation. It is likely to be tied to tangible progress on unresolved issues, principally the nuclear file. As long as the current US force posture is maintained, renewed escalation could break out with minimal indicators or warnings.
If the MoU collapses, there is a realistic possibility of renewed Iranian strikes against targets in Jordan and the Gulf States. If recent Iranian targeting patterns are sustained, Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain are likely to be more exposed in the event of a ceasefire breakdown.
Lebanon
The MoU reportedly includes an end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, which is likely to be the immediate test for the agreement. Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, has stated that the IDF will indefinitely remain in the security zone in Lebanon, with IDF operations in southern Lebanon continuing as recently as 19 June. Moreover, senior Israeli officials and politicians have largely reacted negatively to the MoU’s announcement, with Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir stating that Israel is not bound to the deal “in any way”.
Israeli opposition to the MoU almost certainly reflects concerns that the agreement does not satisfy Israel’s key objectives, with Iran’s ballistic missile programme omitted from negotiations. Israeli opposition or unilateral military action is likely to complicate the MoU’s implementation or undermine the agreement at a later stage. Furthermore, Hezbollah is likely to sustain attacks against the IDF and northern Israel in response to continued IDF operations in Lebanon, with senior Hezbollah leadership stating that its position would be linked to Israel’s adherence to a ceasefire.
Tehran is likely to continue leveraging the threat of force in response to Israeli operations in Lebanon to both support Hezbollah and extract concessions from the US during the negotiation phase. The postponement of the formal signing ceremony on 19 June almost certainly increases pressure on the US to push for a halt to Israeli attacks in Lebanon.
The Nuclear File
The primary issue that impeded progress in the Oman-mediated US-Iran talks, which preceded the outbreak of conflict on 28 February, was the nuclear file. The MoU reportedly only involves a reiteration of Iran’s past commitment to never acquire or procure a nuclear weapon, with technical talks on the nuclear file deferred to a post-MoU 60-day negotiation window.
The most difficult issues to resolve will almost certainly be Iran’s buried stockpile of approximately 440.9kg of 60 per cent highly enriched uranium (HEU), enough to produce approximately ten nuclear weapons if enriched further, and whether Iran will be permitted to retain any domestic enrichment capability. There is no credible civilian requirement for uranium enriched to that level, and Iran’s possession of HEU has served as Tehran’s primary source of leverage, which hardliners within the regime are likely to be reluctant to surrender.
The Trump administration’s pre-war position was that Iran suspend all enrichment and physically surrender the HEU stockpile to the US, with Tehran consistently stating that the HEU must remain in Iran. However, Washington’s position has reportedly softened on both fronts. Reports indicate that Washington may be willing to accept Iran domestically down-blending the HEU under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as well as accepting limited low-level domestic enrichment.
While the specifics of the MoU remain undisclosed, senior US officials and leaders (including Vice President JD Vance) have stated that key incentives such as sanctions relief, regional investment funds, and access to frozen assets will be tied to the resolution of the nuclear file in the 60-day window. There is a realistic possibility that these incentives, in combination with the observed softening of the US position on nuclear demands, could lead to a nuclear agreement. However, recent CIA assessments have raised “serious doubts about Iran’s willingness” to make desired nuclear concessions.
The Strait of Hormuz
The future status of the Strait of Hormuz is also likely to be a major source of friction. While the MoU reportedly provides for the toll-free reopening of the Strait and aims towards a gradual return to pre-war shipping volumes, issues regarding the Strait’s long-term remains unresolved and will likely provide Iran with another major source of leverage. Tehran has continued to signal that transit fees may ultimately be imposed under alternative mechanisms, including service or environmental charges. However, such an arrangement is likely to be unacceptable to the US and the international community, as it would almost certainly be inconsistent with international maritime law and the principle of freedom of navigation. If naval blockades are lifted and commercial transits increase, mine-clearance operations and continued sub-threshold disruptions, including GPS jamming, Automatic Identification System (AIS) spoofing, and the harassment of vessels by the IRGC, are likely to pose risks to maritime traffic.
Travellers and expatriates are strongly advised not to film or distribute footage of strikes, damage, or military activity:
- Jordanian authorities have warned against publishing videos or information regarding Jordan’s defensive operations without authorisation.
- Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Interior has stated that “[p]hotographing or publishing or circulating information related to countering missiles and drones and the locations of their falls exposes you to legal accountability.”
- In the UAE, authorities have warned that publishing or circulating “rumours, false news, or news from unknown sources through social media platforms or other information technology” is illegal. Reports indicate that Dubai Police have used “electronic monitoring operations” to detect a photo shared within a private WhatsApp group.
- In Bahrain, several people have been confirmed as arrested for “filming, live streaming, clipping, and publishing events in a manner constituting a legal violation”.
- Qatar’s Ministry of Interior warned that gathering at incident sites or photographing and sharing content related to field developments may result in legal accountability and has arrested hundreds of people of various nationalities for “producing and sharing misleading information”.
- Omani authorities have stated: “Beware of sharing or publishing any captured photos or videos. They should be shared only with the competent authorities”.

Request Evacuation Assistance
If you need secure, coordinated support to move personnel out of a high-risk location, our team is ready to help – quickly, calmly, and with care.
Gulf Security Remains Volatile Despite Ceasefire
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | INTELLIGENCE WINDOW: 12 June 2026 – 16 June 2026
- On 14 June, an agreed memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Iran and the US was announced. The MoU is reportedly scheduled to be formally signed on 19 June, with the opening of the Strait of Hormuz to follow.
- Almost certainly the biggest diplomatic breakthrough since the implementation of the 8 April ceasefire, the immediate risk of a return to full-scale US-Iran conflict would likely decrease with the MoU’s implementation. However, it is likely to only be effectively a ceasefire extension and not yet a substantive and lasting peace agreement.
- The announcement of the MoU’s agreement was preceded by further conflict in Lebanon on 14 June, which reportedly almost derailed the deal. Sustained Israeli operations in Lebanon are likely to represent the first major test of the MoU’s implementation. Israeli operations in southern Lebanon have continued as recently as 16 June.
- The reported agreement is likely vulnerable to continuing conflict in Lebanon, disagreements on the nuclear file in a 60-day negotiating period, and issues pertaining to the Strait of Hormuz.
- A US force withdrawal from the region is reportedly tied to progress on further negotiations. As long as the US force posture is maintained, renewed escalation could rapidly break out with minimal indicators and warnings.
- As of 16 June, the airspaces of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman are open.
Middle East Conflict: Latest Intelligence & Travel Advice
To support planning, we are updating our Middle East travel advice daily with guidance from our intelligence team on airspace openings and closures, flight operations, and escalating risks impacting movement.
Situation Update: Gulf States Navigate Fragile Ceasefire and Ongoing Disruption
On 14 June, a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Iran and the US was announced as agreed by Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. US President Donald Trump announced that the deal includes the “toll-free opening of the Strait of Hormuz” and ordered “the immediate removal of the [US blockade].” Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, confirmed the agreement of the deal on state television. The MoU is reportedly scheduled to be formally signed on 19 June in Switzerland, with the opening of the Strait of Hormuz to follow its signing.
The exact terms of the MoU remain publicly undisclosed as of 16 June, with contradictory reporting of specific terms, particularly from Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-affiliated media. Most reporting indicates that the MoU includes: the toll-free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, an immediate end to the US naval blockade, a ceasefire “on all fronts” (which extends to Lebanon), and a 60-day negotiating period for technical talks on the nuclear file and potential Iranian sanctions relief.
The announcement of the MoU’s agreement was preceded by further conflict in Lebanon on 14 June, which reportedly almost derailed the deal. On the morning of 14 June, Hezbollah launched several drones at northern Israel, with the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) then conducting strikes in Beirut’s southern suburbs (Dahieh). Several senior Iranian military and political figures subsequently warned that the attack on Beirut “will not go unanswered” and that a “strong response is coming”.
US negotiators reportedly “scrambled to avoid an Iranian attack on Israel”. No Iranian attack was conducted, with Gharibabadi claiming that Iran’s threats “helped facilitate progress in the negotiations” with requested Iranian amendments to the MoU being granted. IRGC-affiliated media reported that the attack was called off due to “last-minute concessions” offered by the US, including guarantees on Lebanon’s territorial integrity, Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, and the US blockade being lifted immediately rather than gradually.
As of 16 June, the airspaces of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman are open.
Saudi Arabia
No attacks have been reported in Saudi Arabia between 12 and 16 June.
At least three people have been killed and 29 injured in Saudi Arabia, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 16 June, Saudi Arabia’s airspace is open.
Kuwait
No attacks have been reported in Kuwait between 12 and 16 June.
At least seven people have been killed, and dozens have been injured in Kuwait, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 16 June, Kuwait’s airspace is open.
Bahrain
No attacks have been reported in Bahrain between 12 and 16 June.
At least three people have been killed, and dozens have been injured in Bahrain, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 16 June, Bahrain’s airspace is open.
Qatar
No attacks have been reported in Qatar between 12 and 16 June.
At least 20 people have been injured in Qatar, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 16 June, Qatar’s airspace is open.
UAE
No attacks have been reported in the UAE between 12 and 16 June.
Citing four sources, international media reported on 12 June that the UAE agreed “to unlock billions of dollars for Iran”. The report claims that the UAE has agreed to release a total of USD 10 or 20 billion, with over USD 3 billion having already been delivered. The Emirati Ministry of Foreign Affairs categorically denied the reports.
It is notable that Iranian retaliation strikes following US-Iran confrontations in the maritime domain have not been directly conducted against the UAE since early May. It is likely that this is related to increased backchannel diplomatic contacts between the UAE and Iran seeking to de-escalate, which is alleged to have included the payment of funds, in a marked shift from the UAE’s earlier hawkishness against Iran.
At least 12 people have been killed and 224 injured in the UAE, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 16 June, the UAE’s airspace is open.
Oman
No attacks have been reported in Oman between 12 and 16 June, excluding US attacks in Omani waters against Iran-linked vessels as part of efforts to enforce the blockade.
At least three people have been killed and 16 injured in Oman, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 16 June, Oman’s airspace is open.
Regional Advisory
The announcement of the MoU’s agreement is almost certainly the biggest diplomatic breakthrough since the implementation of the 8 April two-week ceasefire. Although reportedly already signed remotely, the MoU has not yet been formally signed, with its signing ceremony scheduled for 19 June. With its signing, the immediate risk of a return to full-scale US-Iran conflict would likely decrease. However, the MoU is likely only to be an effective ceasefire extension and not a substantive and lasting peace agreement. The reported agreement is likely vulnerable to continuing conflict in Lebanon, disagreements on the nuclear file, and issues pertaining to the Strait of Hormuz.
A US force withdrawal from the region is reportedly tied to progress on further negotiations. As long as the current US force posture is maintained, renewed escalation could rapidly break out with minimal indicators and warnings.
If the MoU collapses, there is a realistic possibility of renewed Iranian strikes against targets in Jordan and the Gulf States. Iranian strikes post-8 April ceasefire have recently escalated in both scale and targeting profile. If recent Iranian targeting patterns are to be sustained, Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain are likely to be more exposed in the event of a ceasefire breakdown.
Lebanon
The first significant test for the MoU is likely to be the continuation of Israeli operations in Lebanon. The MoU reportedly includes an end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon. However, Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, has stated that the IDF will indefinitely remain in the security zone in Lebanon, with IDF operations in southern Lebanon continuing as recently as 16 June.
Senior Israeli officials and politicians have largely reacted negatively to the MoU’s announcement. Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has stated that the MoU is “bad for Israel” and “the entire free world”, and the National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has stated that Israel is not bound to the deal “in any way”. Israeli opposition to the MoU is almost certainly reflective of concerns that the agreement does not satisfy Israel’s key objectives. Israeli opposition or unilateral military action could complicate the MoU’s implementation or undermine the agreement at a later stage.
Moreover, Hezbollah is likely to sustain attacks against the IDF and northern Israel in response to continued IDF operations. A Hezbollah official told international media that the group has not carried out operations since the MoU was announced, but that its position would be linked to Israel’s adherence to a ceasefire. Additionally, Tehran is likely to continue leveraging the threat of force in response to Israeli operations in Lebanon, not only to provide support for Hezbollah, but also to pressure concessions from the US in negotiations, as regime officials have claimed to have done so on 14 June.
The Nuclear File
The primary issue that impeded progress in the Oman-mediated US-Iran talks, which preceded the outbreak of conflict on 28 February, was the nuclear file. The MoU reportedly only involves a reiteration of Iran’s past commitment to never acquire or procure a nuclear weapon, with technical talks on the nuclear file deferred to a post-MoU 60-day negotiation window.
The main disputes during the pre-28 February negotiations are likely to continue to complicate talks. The most difficult issues to resolve will almost certainly be Iran’s buried stockpile of approximately 440.9kg of 60 per cent highly enriched uranium (HEU), enough to produce approximately ten nuclear weapons if enriched further, and whether Iran will be permitted to retain any domestic enrichment capability.
The Trump administration’s pre-war position was that Iran suspend all enrichment and physically surrender the HEU stockpile to the US, with Tehran consistently stating that the HEU must remain in Iran. However, Washington’s position has reportedly softened on both fronts. Reports indicate that Washington may be willing to accept Iran domestically down-blending the HEU under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as well as accepting limited low-level domestic enrichment.
While the specifics of the MoU remain undisclosed, senior US officials and leaders (including Vice President JD Vance) have stated that key incentives such as sanctions relief, regional investment funds, and access to frozen assets will be tied to the resolution of the nuclear file in the 60-day window. There is a realistic possibility that these incentives, in combination with the observed softening of the US position on nuclear demands, could lead to a nuclear agreement. However, assessments by the US intelligence community, as reportedly briefed to President Trump by the CIA Director John Ratcliffe, are reported to have raised “serious doubts about Iran’s willingness” to make desired nuclear concessions.
Much of the MoU is reportedly contingent on future nuclear negotiations, with US sanctions and the current regional force posture set to remain in place until a final nuclear agreement is reached. The 60-day negotiation period is likely to remain highly vulnerable as it centres on the same nuclear issues that have repeatedly obstructed diplomatic progress. Any breakdown in these talks would likely place the ceasefire under immediate strain.
The Strait of Hormuz
The reported initial steps in the deal primarily revolve around efforts to open the Strait of Hormuz. President Trump has stated that the Strait’s opening and concurrent end of the US blockade will take place upon the MoU’s formal signing on 19 June. However, it is highly unlikely that if the MoU is implemented, the Strait will immediately return to its pre-war status. Mine-clearance operations will still need to be conducted, while continued messaging from Tehran over its future management of the Strait is likely to sustain uncertainty over maritime security and freedom of navigation. GPS-jamming, AIS spoofing, the harassment of vessels and other forms of sub-threshold disruption are likely to remain common.
The MoU reportedly involves the Strait of Hormuz being reopened without tolls, with an objective to return to pre-war shipping volumes within 30 days. While Iranian regime sources have softened the language from “tolls”, regime and IRGC-linked media have repeatedly indicated that payments could still be imposed for transit under the guise of “environmental protection” or “service charges”. IRGC-affiliated media have reported that Tehran has only agreed to allow free passage for vessels for 60 days, with plans to collect revenues from various fees following this period. Moreover, a spokesman for Iran’s foreign ministry directly stated that Iran will charge for services in the Strait of Hormuz.
A conclusive resolution on the future management of the Strait of Hormuz also appears to have been deferred, leaving a key source of leverage and potential escalation unresolved. It is highly likely that Tehran will seek to preserve leverage over the strategic chokepoint while gradually normalising a greater long-term role in its administration. Such a development is unlikely to be accepted by the US and the international community, as it would directly challenge maritime law and the principles of freedom of navigation.
While an end to the US blockade and gradual opening of the Strait would likely reduce the primary tactical trigger for US-Iranian escalation in the short-term, which has repeatedly led to Iranian strikes against several Gulf States and Jordan, continued Iranian efforts to maintain greater control over the Strait are highly likely to lead to continued high tensions, challenge any implemented ceasefire and undermine future negotiations.
Travellers and expatriates are strongly advised not to film or distribute footage of strikes, damage, or military activity:
- Jordanian authorities have warned against publishing videos or information regarding Jordan’s defensive operations without authorisation.
- Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Interior has stated that “[p]hotographing or publishing or circulating information related to countering missiles and drones and the locations of their falls exposes you to legal accountability.”
- In the UAE, authorities have warned that publishing or circulating “rumours, false news, or news from unknown sources through social media platforms or other information technology” is illegal. Reports indicate that Dubai Police have used “electronic monitoring operations” to detect a photo shared within a private WhatsApp group.
- In Bahrain, several people have been confirmed as arrested for “filming, live streaming, clipping, and publishing events in a manner constituting a legal violation”.
- Qatar’s Ministry of Interior warned that gathering at incident sites or photographing and sharing content related to field developments may result in legal accountability and has arrested hundreds of people of various nationalities for “producing and sharing misleading information”.
- Omani authorities have stated: “Beware of sharing or publishing any captured photos or videos. They should be shared only with the competent authorities”.

Request Evacuation Assistance
If you need secure, coordinated support to move personnel out of a high-risk location, our team is ready to help – quickly, calmly, and with care.
Gulf Security Remains Volatile Despite Ceasefire
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | INTELLIGENCE WINDOW: 9 June 2026 – 12 June 2026
- Following the announced end of the Israel-Iran confrontation on 8 June, a US Apache helicopter crashed in the Strait of Hormuz following an incident with an Iranian attack drone. US forces subsequently conducted strikes against southern Iran on 10 and 11 June, with Iranian forces then launching retaliatory strikes against US military targets in Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain.
- These mark the first Iranian attacks against targets in Jordan since the implementation of the ceasefire on 8 April, and almost certainly indicate an expansion of targeting patterns to include Muwaffaq Salti Air Base for retaliatory strikes following continued US operations against Iran.
- During the 11 June attack against Kuwait, authorities said that radar facilities and equipment linked to air traffic management were seriously damaged at Kuwait International Airport.
- Israeli operations have continued in southern Lebanon. There is a realistic possibility of this triggering further Iranian strikes against Israel, which could lead to further exchanges of tit-for-tat strikes and endanger the broader ceasefire.
- On 11 June, President Trump threatened on social media that the US “will be hitting Iran VERY HARD TONIGHT”. However, later on 11 June, President Trump announced that he had cancelled planned strikes against Iran and claimed that Iranian leadership had “approved” a draft memorandum of understanding (MOU). Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-affiliated media denied that Iran has confirmed the agreement yet, but there was a “possibility” it will be approved as the US has accepted “Iran’s proposed text”.
- As of 12 June, the airspaces of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman are open. Early 11 June, Kuwait announced the temporary closure of its airspace, which was reopened shortly afterwards.
Middle East Conflict: Latest Intelligence & Travel Advice
To support planning, we are updating our Middle East travel advice daily with guidance from our intelligence team on airspace openings and closures, flight operations, and escalating risks impacting movement.
Situation Update: Gulf States Navigate Fragile Ceasefire and Ongoing Disruption
Following the announced end of the Israel-Iran confrontation on 8 June, a US AH-64 Apache helicopter crashed in the Strait of Hormuz following an incident with an Iranian attack drone, with two crew members being subsequently rescued. CENTCOM stated that the crash is under investigation, and some US officials have stated that it remains unclear whether the collision was intentional, but US President Donald Trump has stated that it was an intentional attack, with the attack drone failing to detonate.
US forces subsequently conducted strikes against around 20 targets in southern Iran, with Iranian forces then launching strikes against US military targets in Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain. On 10 June, US forces conducted further strikes against southern Iran, which were reportedly “calibrated to avoid casualties and leave open the possibility of a deal”. Iranian forces then again conducted strikes against US military targets in Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain.
On 11 June, President Trump threatened on social media that the US “will be hitting Iran VERY HARD TONIGHT”, and that “[a]t some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island”. However, later on 11 June, President Trump announced that he had cancelled planned strikes against Iran and claimed that Iranian leadership had “approved” a draft memorandum of understanding (MOU). Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-affiliated media denied that Iran has confirmed the agreement yet, but there was a “possibility” it will be approved as the US has accepted “Iran’s proposed text”.
On 11 June, Israeli military officials stated that the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) had moved armour and troops into position in southern Lebanon in preparation for a potential offensive on Nabatieh. Nabatieh is one of the largest urban centres in southern Lebanon and a known Hezbollah stronghold.
As of 12 June, the airspaces of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman are open. Early 11 June, Kuwait announced the temporary closure of its airspace, which was reopened shortly afterwards.
Saudi Arabia
No attacks have been reported in Saudi Arabia between 9 and 12 June.
At least three people have been killed and 29 injured in Saudi Arabia, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 12 June, Saudi Arabia’s airspace is open.
Kuwait
On 10 June, Kuwait’s armed forces stated that air defence systems were “intercepting hostile aerial targets”. The IRGC stated that the attack was conducted in retaliation for the US strikes against southern Iran, targeting the Ali Al Salem and Ahmad Al-Jaber airbases. On 11 June, Kuwait’s air defences were again activated due to another Iranian attack. During this attack, Kuwait’s civil aviation authority said that radar facilities and equipment linked to air traffic management were seriously damaged at Kuwait International Airport, with injuries reported. Kuwait’s armed forces later announced on 11 June that in the previous 48 hours, 24 attack drones had been intercepted.
At least seven people have been killed, and dozens have been injured in Kuwait, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 11 June, Kuwait’s airspace is open. During the 11 June attack, which involved an attack against Kuwait International Airport, Kuwait’s civil aviation authority announced the temporary closure of Kuwait’s airspace starting 04:50 local time. Around two hours later, authorities announced” the return of air traffic in Kuwaiti airspace to normal.”
Bahrain
On 10 June, the Bahraini air defences were activated due to incoming Iranian attacks. The IRGC stated that the attack was conducted in retaliation for the US strikes against southern Iran, targeting Sheikh Isa airbase. Bahrain’s Ministry of the Interior stated that the attacks resulted in a minor injury and damage to homes and vehicles in Hamad City and Manama due to debris from intercepted Iranian drones. On 11 June, Bahrain was attacked again, with the foreign minister stating that Bahrain was targeted by 36 attack drones. IRGC-affiliated media claimed to have struck the AR-327 early warning radar site located in Bahrain’s Mount Dukhan.
At least three people have been killed, and dozens have been injured in Bahrain, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 12 June, Bahrain’s airspace is open.
Qatar
No attacks have been reported in Qatar between 9 and 12 June.
At least 20 people have been injured in Qatar, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 9 June, Qatar’s airspace is open.
UAE
No attacks have been reported in the UAE between 9 and 12 June.
Notably, Iranian retaliation strikes have not recently been conducted against the UAE, which is likely related to reportedly increasing backchannel diplomatic contacts between the UAE and Iran seeking to de-escalate.
At least 12 people have been killed and 224 injured in the UAE, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 12 June, the UAE’s airspace is open.
Oman
No attacks have been reported in Oman between 9 and 12 June, excluding US attacks in Omani waters against Iran-linked vessels as part of efforts to enforce the blockade.
At least three people have been killed and 16 injured in Oman, as of 09:00 UTC on 10 June.
As of 12 June, Oman’s airspace is open.
Regional Advisory
Overall, the ‘ceasefire’ has almost certainly come closer to collapse in the past week than at any point since its implementation on 8 April. Tehran has expanded its stated criteria for renewed attacks against Israel in response to continued conflict in Lebanon, with expanded IDF operations in southern Lebanon likely to be exploited by Iran to undermine the ceasefire. In addition, escalation cycles linked to US-Iran confrontation in the maritime domain have intensified to their highest level yet, reflected in the scale of Iranian retaliatory strikes targeting Kuwait and Bahrain, and the resumption of strikes on Jordan, which had not been attacked since the 8 April ceasefire.
The exchange of strikes between the US and Iran following the loss of an Apache helicopter is almost certainly the most significant resulting from confrontation in the maritime domain since 8 April. As long as the competing blockades are maintained, there remains a high risk of a tactical miscalculation and/or escalation in the Strait of Hormuz, with retaliatory strikes unlikely to be confined to the immediate area of engagement. In addition to endangering the broader negotiation process, the cycles of escalation have repeatedly led to renewed Iranian strikes against regional countries, first with the UAE and more recently against Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain. The UAE has notably not been attacked since mid-May, which is likely related to the increased diplomatic engagement between the UAE and Iran.
Since 3 June, Iranian retaliatory attacks have likely shifted from sporadic post-ceasefire engagements to larger and more complex attacks. The targeting of Kuwait International Airport on 3 June was a notable escalation in the target profile of Iranian strikes since 8 April. This pattern has likely continued, evidenced by the 10-11 June attacks, whereby Kuwait International Airport was attacked again, and Iranian strikes expanded to Jordan.
Should an MOU be imminently reached, which President Trump claims could be as soon as this weekend, the immediate risk of a return to full-scale US-Iran conflict would likely decrease. However, such a framework would likely only be an effective ceasefire extension and not a substantive and lasting peace agreement. Major issues like control of the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear programme are unlikely to be fully resolved. Moreover, reported provisions within the MOU, such as the US blockade being lifted in proportion to the restoration of commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, provide multiple triggers for the potential MOU to break down. Finally, if the MOU only delays detailed nuclear talks for another 60 days, the main disputes during the pre-28 February negotiations would likely continue to complicate talks.
If an MOU/framework agreement is not agreed, there is a realistic possibility of Iranian retaliation strikes against targets in Jordan and the Gulf States further escalating as a result of continued US and/or Israeli strikes on Iran. On 10 June, President Trump stated in an interview that he is considering ordering new strikes targeting Iran’s power plants and bridges if Tehran does not sign an agreement, and also threatened the seizure of Kharg Island on 11 June. Previous similar threats issued by President Trump led to IRGC-affiliated media publishing lists of desalination and power plants across the Gulf States as potential targets for retaliation. Furthermore, Iran’s chief negotiator and parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, threatened that the Israeli strikes against Iran, in addition to the ongoing US naval blockade, have made US bases and assets in the region “legitimate targets”. The IRGC-affiliated media outlet, Fars, citing a senior Iranian official, directly reported that if Iranian energy infrastructure is attacked again, Iran will carry out analogous attacks against oil and gas facilities in the region.
The MOU reportedly involves the Strait of Hormuz being reopened immediately without tolls, with a return to pre-war shipping volumes within 30 days. Iranian state-owned media reported on 12 June that the MOU will not make a commitment regarding any transfer of management of the strait. While softening the language from “tolls”, regime and IRGC-linked media have repeatedly indicated that payments could still be imposed for transit under the guise of “environmental protection” or “service charges”. These actions likely indicate that Tehran is seeking to preserve leverage over the strategic chokepoint while gradually normalising a greater long-term role in its administration; a development unlikely to be accepted by the US and the international community, as they directly challenge maritime law and the principles of freedom of navigation.
Travellers are strongly advised not to film or distribute footage of strikes, damage, or military activity:
- Jordanian authorities have warned against publishing videos or information regarding Jordan’s defensive operations without authorisation.
- Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Interior has stated that “[p]hotographing or publishing or circulating information related to countering missiles and drones and the locations of their falls exposes you to legal accountability.”
- In the UAE, authorities have warned that publishing or circulating “rumours, false news, or news from unknown sources through social media platforms or other information technology” is illegal. Reports indicate that Dubai Police have used “electronic monitoring operations” to detect a photo shared within a private WhatsApp group.
- In Bahrain, several people have been confirmed as arrested for “filming, live streaming, clipping, and publishing events in a manner constituting a legal violation”.
- Qatar’s Ministry of Interior warned that gathering at incident sites or photographing and sharing content related to field developments may result in legal accountability and has arrested hundreds of people of various nationalities for “producing and sharing misleading information”.
- Omani authorities have stated: “Beware of sharing or publishing any captured photos or videos. They should be shared only with the competent authorities”.

Request Evacuation Assistance
If you need secure, coordinated support to move personnel out of a high-risk location, our team is ready to help – quickly, calmly, and with care.
Teachers’ Strike Raises Operational Risks During World Cup
SITUATION SUMMARY | Intelligence cut off: 13:00 UTC 11 June 2026
Mexico’s largest teachers’ union, the National Coordinator of Education Workers (Coordinadora Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educación, CNTE), has continued to coordinate large-scale and disruptive protests across Mexico as the 2026 FIFA World Cup opens. The protests form part of an ongoing nationwide strike that began in May and has involved thousands of teachers and education workers across multiple states. The CNTE is demanding the repeal of pension reforms, higher wages, improved working conditions and direct negotiations with the federal government.
The World Cup, which is being co-hosted with the United States and Canada, is being contested by 48 teams across 104 matches in 16 cities, and opens on 11 June. Mexico is scheduled to play the inaugural match against South Africa at the Estadio Azteca in Mexico City. Mexico’s three host cities are Mexico City, Guadalajara and Monterrey.
Mexico City has remained the epicentre of the protest movement. Demonstrators have maintained a large encampment in the capital’s central district and have repeatedly disrupted transport networks through marches and by establishing roadblocks. On 5 June, teachers blocked several major roads across the capital, causing significant transport disruption. On 9 June, police prevented a teachers’ march from reaching a stadium scheduled to host FIFA World Cup events, and protesters have toppled World Cup symbols in the capital, including statues of football players. Protesters have also effectively blocked access to the central plaza (Zócalo) designated to host the capital’s main fan celebrations. On 10 June, protesters warned that they would block access to Mexico City’s Benito Juárez International Airport (AICM).
Smaller-scale protests have also been observed in the states of Guerrero, Michoacán, Morelos, Zacatecas and Baja California, where teachers have occupied government buildings, blocked roads and organised strikes. In several locations, protesters have reportedly used fireworks and other improvised projectiles during confrontations with authorities.
In response, Mexican authorities have mounted one of the country’s largest peacetime security operations. More than 100,000 soldiers, marines, National Guard and police personnel are reported to be deployed across the three host cities and major tourist destinations for the duration of the tournament, supported by anti-drone teams, surveillance-camera networks and specialised crowd-management units operating at stadiums, fan zones, airports and national-team camps in coordination with FIFA. The deployment also reflects broader security concerns: Guadalajara experienced a severe but brief outbreak of cartel-related violence earlier in the year, and host-city authorities have increased visible patrols to reassure visitors and residents.
INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS
Disruption Risks in Mexico Likely to Persist Throughout the Tournament
Large-scale, disruptive and coordinated protests have almost certainly been staged by the CNTE to maximise pressure on the central government ahead of and during the 2026 FIFA World Cup, and have likely been designed to provide minimal time for President Sheinbaum to concede to their demands. The deliberate targeting of World Cup symbols, such as player statues, and the establishment of an encampment near the capital’s fan zone have almost certainly been intended to signal the CNTE’s intent to disrupt the tournament and to increase the political and reputational cost of failing to resolve the dispute before the tournament begins.
With the World Cup beginning on 11 June, and Mexico hosting the opening match at the Estadio Azteca, it is increasingly unlikely that the government will concede to CNTE demands in the near term. The CNTE is likely to continue using the tournament as leverage by targeting high-visibility locations and key transport routes, which is likely to result in major disruption on the international stage and sustain pressure on the federal government throughout the early stages of the tournament.
The CNTE has successfully organised large-scale and coordinated protests across Mexico on multiple occasions. Moreover, several smaller protest movements, such as farmers’ and transport unions, have threatened to disrupt the tournament. The likelihood of protests continuing throughout the tournament is high, with protesters likely to target fan zones, World Cup venues, transport hubs, airports, border crossings, government buildings and major roads in order to cause significant disruption and achieve maximum visibility.
The government has already deployed security forces to prevent protesters from reaching World Cup venues and to clear or contain demonstrations, and is likely to deploy additional forces during the tournament. As a result, there is a high risk of violent clashes, arrests and the use of dispersal tactics at or near protest sites. If the protests continue to escalate, there is a realistic possibility that security resources will become overstretched, limiting the authorities’ ability to manage unrest while simultaneously protecting tournament sites and transport routes. This risk is likely further compounded in host cities such as Guadalajara, where security forces are also committed to countering organised crime threats. Any concurrent criminal or security incident could further reduce the resources available to manage protest activity.
Travel and Safety Guidance for Mexico
- Travellers should avoid areas prone to protest or where demonstrations have been organised, particularly around World Cup venues, fan zones and fan festivals, government buildings and central Mexico City.
- Travellers should closely monitor local news reports, government alerts, official FIFA and venue advisories, trusted local media, and, if available, a security provider’s intelligence feed for updates relevant to the demonstrations and to match-day arrangements.
- Additional time should be allocated to all transfers to and from stadiums, fan zones and airports, and pre-plan alternative routes due to the high likelihood of roadblocks and marches.
- Anticipate disruption at Mexico City’s Benito Juárez International Airport (AICM), particularly if protests affect access roads. Where feasible, consider Felipe Ángeles International Airport (AIFA) or Toluca as contingency options and allow additional time for check-in, transfers and security screening.
- Where possible, vetted or private transport should be used and public transport avoided near demonstrations and city centres.
- If in the vicinity of a protest, it is advised to leave the area if it is safe to do so, and always abide by the directions of police and security authorities.
- If caught in a crowd and unable to leave, take precautions to minimise the risk of crowd crush: stay upright, move away from all hard barriers, move with and not against the crowd, and hold your arms at chest level in a boxer-like stance to relieve pressure.
- Ensure that you always carry personal identification documents or copies.
- Ensure all travellers know key contact numbers, including local emergency services, their embassy or consulate, accommodation security, venue security and any contracted assistance provider.
- Organisations should review staff attendance plans for World Cup events, brief travellers on high-risk areas for protests, consider flexible or remote working arrangements during large-scale protests, and confirm emergency communications, check-in and rendezvous protocols before travel.

Request Evacuation Assistance
If you need secure, coordinated support to move personnel out of a high-risk location, our team is ready to help – quickly, calmly, and with care.
Gulf Security Remains Volatile Despite Ceasefire
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | INTELLIGENCE WINDOW: 5 June 2026 – 9 June 2026
- Israeli operations have continued in southern Lebanon, with an airstrike being conducted against the southern Lebanese city of Tyre on 9 June, resulting in at least eight deaths, which followed the issuance of an Israeli evacuation order for the entire city. There is a realistic possibility of this triggering further Iranian strikes against Israel, which could lead to further exchanges of tit-for-tat strikes and endanger the broader ceasefire.
- Should further Israel-Iran confrontation be triggered by developments in Lebanon, there is a realistic possibility that Iranian retaliation would again extend to the Gulf States. Senior Iranian officials have threatened that the Israeli strikes against Iran, in addition to the ongoing US naval blockade, have made US bases and assets in the region “legitimate targets”.
- Overnight 5-6 June, further Iranian strikes were conducted against Kuwait and Bahrain following confrontation in the maritime domain between the US and Iran. The Kuwaiti military announced the interception of seven ballistic missiles, with interceptions occurring over several residential areas, and authorities stated that debris caused material damage but no injuries. The Bahrain Defence Force announced the interception of three missiles and “several drones”.
- As of 9 June, the airspaces of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman are open. Overnight 5-6 June, Kuwait announced the temporary closure of its airspace, which was reopened on 6 June.
Middle East Conflict: Latest Intelligence & Travel Advice
To support planning, we are updating our Middle East travel advice daily with guidance from our intelligence team on airspace openings and closures, flight operations, and escalating risks impacting movement.
Situation Update: Gulf States Navigate Fragile Ceasefire and Ongoing Disruption
Following Israeli strikes in Beirut, Iran and Israel engaged in retaliatory tit-for-tat strikes on 7 and 8 June. The exchange of strikes followed a rocket attack on northern Israel launched by Hezbollah in Lebanon on 7 June, which the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) responded to with strikes on Beirut’s southern suburbs (Dahieh).
Late 7 June, the IDF stated that it had intercepted a wave of Iranian missiles in northern Israel, Iran’s first direct attack against Israel since the implementation of the 8 April ceasefire. This was followed by Israeli strikes against Iran overnight into 8 June (including against a petrochemical complex). Missiles were subsequently fired from Yemen, alongside another Iranian salvo, with the Houthis claiming that they conducted a joint strike with Iran. The Houthis also reiterated their total ban on Israeli vessels transiting the Red Sea.
US President Donald Trump reportedly made significant efforts to “restrain” the Israeli response against Iran to allow more time for diplomacy. At approximately 11:30 UTC, 8 June, the IRGC issued a statement that “the cessation of armed forces operations is hereby announced”, but that if attacks continue, “including in southern Lebanon”, Iran will respond “more severe and forceful than before”. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated on 8 April that attacks against Iran will be halted “for now”, but that the fight with Tehran and Hezbollah is “not over”.
Overnight 5-6 June, further Iranian strikes were conducted against Kuwait and Bahrain following a confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz between the US and Iran. On 5 June, the IRGC claimed that four tankers under US military “guidance” attempted to bypass Iran’s imposed traffic separation scheme, with the IRGC attacking one of the vessels and claiming to have fired “warning shots” at US vessels. US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced that it shot down four Iranian attack drones and conducted strikes against radar sites on Iran’s Qeshm Island and in Goruk. Iran then conducted attacks against Kuwait and Bahrain in retaliation.
As of 9 June, the airspaces of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman are open. Overnight 5-6 June, Kuwait announced the temporary closure of its airspace, which was reopened on 6 June.
Saudi Arabia
The Al-Kharj governorate, southeast of Riyadh, issued a brief early warning in the early hours of 8 June “in anticipation of a possible danger”. The Prince Sultan Air Base, which hosts US personnel and was regularly attacked until the 8 April ceasefire, is located in Al-Kharj. Iranian officials denied reports that they launched an attack against Al-Kharj in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia’s defence ministry later stated that the alert was triggered by a ballistic missile launched from Yemen targeting a “regional state”, which malfunctioned and fell in an uninhabited area near the Saudi-Yemen border. The missile was almost certainly launched by the Yemen-based Houthis and was highly likely targeting Israel.
At least three people have been killed and 29 injured in Saudi Arabia, as of 09:00 UTC on 1 June.
As of 9 June, Saudi Arabia’s airspace is open.
Kuwait
On 6 June, the Kuwaiti military announced the interception of seven ballistic missiles overnight 5-6 June. This followed further confrontation between Iran and the US due to their competing maritime blockades. The interceptions occurred over several residential areas, with authorities stating that debris caused material damage but no injuries. The Kuwait Fire Force stated that they responded to two fire incidents resulting from debris.
At least eight people have been killed, and dozens have been injured in Kuwait, as of 09:00 UTC on 5 June.
As of 9 June, Kuwait’s airspace is open. During the overnight 5-6 June attack, the Kuwait Public Authority of Civil Aviation (PACA) announced the temporary closure of Kuwaiti airspace, which was reopened on 6 June.
Bahrain
On 6 June, the Bahrain Defence Force (BDF) announced the interception of three missiles and “several drones” launched from Iran overnight 5-6 June. This followed further confrontation between Iran and the US due to their competing maritime blockades. The IRGC claimed that it successfully struck the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Manama, with CENTCOM claiming that this is false.
At least three people have been killed, and dozens have been injured in Bahrain, as of 09:00 UTC on 1 June.
As of 9 June, Bahrain’s airspace is open.
Qatar
No attacks have been reported in Qatar between 5 and 9 June.
At least 20 people have been injured in Qatar, as of 09:00 UTC on 1 June.
As of 9 June, Qatar’s airspace is open. On 7 June, Qatar’s General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) issued a statement denying reports on social media regarding the closure of Qatari airspace.
UAE
No attacks have been reported in the UAE between 5 and 9 June.
At least 12 people have been killed and 224 injured in the UAE, as of 09:00 UTC on 1 June.
As of 9 June, the UAE’s airspace is open.
Oman
No attacks have been reported in Oman between 5 and 9 June.
At least three people have been killed and 16 injured in Oman, as of 09:00 UTC on 1 June.
As of 9 June, Oman’s airspace is open.
Regional Advisory
Tehran had previously warned that strikes in Beirut “could derail the diplomatic track” and result in retaliation, with Iranian officials consistently insisting that the wider ceasefire extends to Lebanon. The IDF has committed significant resources to a ground offensive in Lebanon and has continued to conduct high-intensity airstrikes in southern Lebanon. Sustained IDF offensives in Lebanon will almost certainly be leveraged by Iran to undermine ongoing diplomatic efforts and could provoke further escalation cycles between Iran and Israel. There is a realistic possibility that Iran-Israel exchanges will result in a collapse of the wider US-Iran ceasefire.
High-intensity IDF operations in southern Lebanon have continued since the 7–8 April ceasefire and the separate unilateral ceasefire with the Lebanese government. These operations likely remained below Iran’s threshold for direct escalation, with Tehran likely seeking to preserve capability for a major escalation. Several IDF strikes in Beirut also were not met with a direct Iranian response. However, Iran’s recent escalation highly likely indicates that IDF strikes in Beirut are a redline that Iran is willing to enforce. Moreover, the IRGC’s threat of retaliation for IDF operations in southern Lebanon may indicate that Tehran’s threshold has been reduced, broadening the range of Israeli actions that may trigger a direct Iranian response.
Israeli operations have continued in southern Lebanon, with an airstrike being conducted against the southern Lebanese city of Tyre on 9 June, following the issuance of an Israeli evacuation order for the entire city. There is a realistic possibility of this triggering further Iranian strikes against Israel, which could lead to further exchanges of tit-for-tat strikes that are likely to endanger the broader ceasefire.
Hezbollah have historically served as a key component of Iranian deterrence in the region, and its preservation is highly likely a strategic priority for Tehran. However, the regime’s focus on Lebanon and claimed suspension of negotiations also followed President Trump’s request for several amendments to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) being negotiated by the US and Iran.
It is highly likely that the Iranian regime, which is increasingly under the control of hardline IRGC commanders, calculates that it is willing to accept the risk of a return to full-scale conflict or a continuation of the current status quo rather than be perceived as conceding to US demands. By increasingly linking the status of the ceasefire to Lebanon, the regime likely also seeks to divert attention from and gain leverage over the two principal points of contention in negotiations: control of the Strait of Hormuz and the nuclear file.
Iran’s chief negotiator and parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, threatened that the Israeli strikes against Iran, in addition to the ongoing US naval blockade, have made US bases and assets in the region “legitimate targets”. Moreover, the IRGC-affiliated media outlet, Fars, citing a senior Iranian official, reported that if Iranian energy infrastructure is attacked again, Iran will carry out attacks against US oil and gas facilities in the region. There is a realistic possibility that further escalation between Iran and Israel will not be contained to a direct exchange between Iran and Israel, but could expand to renewed strikes targeting the Gulf States.
The involvement of the Yemen-based Houthis was almost certainly limited and primarily performative, but it highly likely serves as a key source of deterrence, given the militant group’s capacity to disrupt maritime traffic through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait and ability to target regional US allies from an additional axis. The Houthis’ limited involvement will likely increase pressure on Washington from its Gulf allies.
As long as the competing blockades are maintained, there remains a high risk of a tactical miscalculation and/or escalation in the Strait of Hormuz, with retaliatory strikes unlikely to be confined to the immediate area of engagement or the maritime domain. In addition to endangering the broader negotiation process, the cycles of escalation have repeatedly led to renewed Iranian strikes against the Gulf States, first with the UAE and more recently against Kuwait and Bahrain.
The 3 June attacks against Kuwait and Bahrain following maritime confrontation were the largest-scale Iranian attack since the implementation of the 8 April ceasefire, and the targeting of Kuwait International Airport was a notable escalation in the target profile of the sporadic Iranian strikes conducted since 8 April. The attacks against Kuwait and Bahrain overnight 5-6 June involved the launching of at least ten ballistic missiles, likely indicating a continuation of this escalated scale of strike packages against the Gulf States in response to US-Iran confrontation in the maritime domain which leads to strikes against Iran.
Travellers are strongly advised not to film or distribute footage of strikes, damage, or military activity:
- Jordanian authorities have warned against publishing videos or information regarding Jordan’s defensive operations without authorisation.
- Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Interior has stated that “[p]hotographing or publishing or circulating information related to countering missiles and drones and the locations of their falls exposes you to legal accountability.”
- In the UAE, authorities have warned that publishing or circulating “rumours, false news, or news from unknown sources through social media platforms or other information technology” is illegal. Reports indicate that Dubai Police have used “electronic monitoring operations” to detect a photo shared within a private WhatsApp group
- In Bahrain, several people have been confirmed as arrested for “filming, live streaming, clipping, and publishing events in a manner constituting a legal violation”.
- Qatar’s Ministry of Interior warned that gathering at incident sites or photographing and sharing content related to field developments may result in legal accountability and has arrested hundreds of people of various nationalities for “producing and sharing misleading information”.
- Omani authorities have stated: “Beware of sharing or publishing any captured photos or videos. They should be shared only with the competent authorities”.

Request Evacuation Assistance
If you need secure, coordinated support to move personnel out of a high-risk location, our team is ready to help – quickly, calmly, and with care.
Israel-Iran Strikes Renew Threats to Gulf Stability
SITUATION SUMMARY | Intelligence cut off: 13:00 UTC 8 June 2026
Following escalating conflict in Lebanon, Israel and Iran engaged in retaliatory tit-for-tat strikes. Late 7 June, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) stated that it had intercepted a wave of Iranian missiles in northern Israel. Iran reportedly launched at least ten ballistic missiles against Israel, all of which the IDF claimed were intercepted. This was Iran’s first direct attack against Israel since the implementation of the 8 April ceasefire.
The strikes followed a rocket attack on northern Israel launched by Hezbollah in Lebanon on 7 June, which the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) responded to with strikes on Beirut’s southern suburbs (Dahieh).
A statement from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) stated that Iranian “missile and drone units launched a co-ordinated and intensive attack targeting the heart of the northern cities”. The statement added that “this operation is not a passing event, but rather the beginning of a full week of continuous strikes” and that “waves of missiles and drones will continue to be launched around the clock for the next seven days until the enemy is deterred and ceases its crimes. … Any targeting of Iranian territory will be met with a devastating and overwhelming response beyond all expectation.”
Early 8 June, Israel launched retaliatory strikes on western and central Iran, with Iranian state TV reporting explosions in multiple cities, including Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan, and near Karaj. The IDF claimed that it launched strikes against “several targets” at an Iranian petrochemical facility in Mahshahr.
Missiles were subsequently fired from Yemen, alongside another Iranian salvo, with the Houthis claiming that they conducted a joint strike with Iran. The group also reiterated their total ban on Israeli vessels transiting the Red Sea. The IRGC stated that it targeted two Israeli air bases in Nevatim and Tel Nof.
The Al-Kharj governorate in Saudi Arabia issued an early warning in the early hours of 8 June “in anticipation of a possible danger”. Al-Kharj hosts the US Prince Sultan Air Base, which was regularly attacked until the 8 April ceasefire. Iranian officials have denied an attempted attack on Saudi Arabia, and an attack against Al-Kharj remains unconfirmed.
US President Donald Trump has reportedly made significant efforts to “restrain” the Israeli response against Iran to allow more time for diplomacy. At approximately 11:30 UTC, the IRGC issued a statement that “the cessation of armed forces operations is hereby announced”, but that if attacks continue, “including in southern Lebanon”, Iran will respond “more severe and forceful than before”. It is not immediately clear whether Israel has also agreed to a pause, and Israeli media have reported that no final decision has been made, as of 13:00 UTC, 8 June.
After this statement, Lebanese media reported further Israeli strikes in southern Lebanon. Three rockets were reportedly launched by Hezbollah at IDF troops in southern Lebanon in response. Two of the rockets were intercepted, while a third struck close to the target. No casualties were reported.
INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS
Drivers of Further Middle East Escalation Remain Unresolved
Tehran had previously warned that strikes in Beirut “could derail the diplomatic track” and prompt retaliation, with Iranian officials consistently insisting that the ceasefire includes Lebanon. Continued conflict in Lebanon, which remains highly likely, will almost certainly continue to complicate the wider US-Iran negotiations and could again trigger further cycles of Israel-Iran strikes, which endanger the broader ceasefire.
Hezbollah have historically served as a key component of Iranian deterrence in the region, and its preservation is highly likely a strategic priority for Tehran. However, the regime’s focus on Lebanon and claimed suspension of negotiations also followed President Trump’s request for several amendments to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) being negotiated by the US and Iran.
It is highly likely that the Iranian regime, which is increasingly under the control of hardline IRGC commanders such as Major General Ahmad Vahidi, calculates that it is willing to accept the risk of a return to full-scale conflict or a continuation of the current status quo rather than be perceived as conceding to US demands. By increasingly linking the status of the ceasefire to Lebanon, the regime likely also seeks to divert attention from and gain leverage over the two principal points of contention in negotiations: control of the Strait of Hormuz and the nuclear file.
As of 13:00 UTC, 8 June, it remains unconfirmed whether the current escalation cycle between Israel and Iran has fully ceased. If Israel conducts further strikes against either Iran or Beirut in the coming hours, this would almost certainly be met with further Iranian retaliation.
If further tit-for-tat strikes are sustained, or an Israel-Iran confrontation is again prompted by developments in Lebanon, there is a realistic possibility of Iranian retaliation strikes expanding to include attacks on the Gulf States. Iran’s chief negotiator and parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, threatened that the Israeli strikes against Iran, in addition to the ongoing US naval blockade, have made US bases and assets in the region “legitimate targets”. Moreover, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-affiliated outlet Fars, citing a senior Iranian official, reported that if Iranian energy infrastructure is attacked again, Iran will carry out attacks against US oil and gas facilities in the region.
The involvement of the Yemen-based Houthis was almost certainly limited and primarily performative. However, their involvement highly likely serves Tehran as a key deterrence due to the Houthi capability to impact maritime traffic through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait. The most critical leverage Iran has highly likely been able to impose against the US is the continued impact on the global economy and energy markets due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which remains severely disrupted. In the event of a full-scale escalation, it is likely that Iran would seek to additionally close the Bab al-Mandeb, as repeatedly threatened.
Travel and Safety Guidance for the Middle East
- Avoid all non-essential travel to the Middle East.
- Travellers should follow shelter-in-place orders and advisories, particularly in Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan.
- Do not conduct travel to the airport until shelter-in-place orders or recommendations are lifted. Once lifted, ensure that booked flights are still running before conducting travel to the airport.
- Ensure that you contact and register with your local embassy or consulate if situated in the Middle East.
- Sign up for government/embassy alerts.
- Avoid all military installations, government buildings, and key infrastructure, which may constitute potential targets.
- Adhere to all instructions issued by authorities.
- Expect the security situation in the region to remain unstable in the immediate future. There is an increased risk of further strikes, terrorist attacks, and civil unrest.
- Prepare an essential “go-bag” containing, at a minimum, travel documents, cash, medications, basic supplies, and communication devices in case of evacuation.
- Keep emergency contact numbers saved on your phone, including those for local authorities, medical services, and consular assistance. Ensure mobile devices are fully charged in case of potential power outages.
- Closely monitor alerts from a security provider if available, trusted local news reports and government alerts.

Request Evacuation Assistance
If you need secure, coordinated support to move personnel out of a high-risk location, our team is ready to help – quickly, calmly, and with care.
Tsunami Alert after 7.8-Magnitude Quake Hits the Philippines
SITUATION SUMMARY | Intelligence cut off: 10:00 UTC 8 June 2026
At 06:37 local time on 08 June (22:37 UTC on 07 June), a magnitude 7.8 earthquake was detected 24 kilometres west-southwest of Burias, Philippines, at a depth of 35 kilometres. The earthquake has killed at least 19 people and injured over 200, in addition to causing widespread infrastructure damage and flight disruptions. The primary earthquake was followed by over 130 aftershocks ranging from 1.3 to 6.7 in magnitude.
Damage and disruption were widespread across southern Mindanao. At least 20 structures were reported damaged in Soccsksargen. Video and photos showed a collapsed school in Jose Abad Santos, damaged buildings in Malapatan, severe damage at the Port of Mabila on the Balut Islands near the epicentre, and landslides into Lake Holon in South Cotabato. Power outages were widely reported in South Cotabato, Sarangani, and General Santos, and at least 17 flights were cancelled at General Santos International Airport (GES / RPMR) because of earthquake damage.
Shortly after the earthquake, the Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre issued a tsunami alert for the Philippines and across a large part of southeast Asia, including Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, and Australia. A tsunami measuring a few centimetres was later seen in Okinawa, while a 20-centimetre wave was measured in Ogasawara Islands. Tsunami waves were also detected along the coasts of Indonesia, Palau, and the Philippines, ranging from a few centimetres to 1.4 metres. In a later update, the threat was declared largely over.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr has stated that evacuation centres are ready and operational. Government agencies have continued to assess damage and clear routes for rescue operations.
INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS
Philippines Earthquake Triggers Significant Operational Challenges
The Philippines is almost certainly among the most vulnerable countries in the world to natural disasters. The archipelago is hit by approximately 20 typhoons and tropical storms a year, and its location in the Pacific ‘Ring of Fire’ means it is highly seismically active. In 2023, a 7.6 magnitude earthquake killed at least three people and injured 79, and in 2022, a magnitude 7 earthquake killed at least five people and injured 60. However, the 30 September 2025 Cebu earthquake, which killed at least 79 and injured 1,271, stands out as one of the deadliest earthquakes in the Philippines in years.
The Philippines has poor disaster resilience. A country’s disaster resilience, which consists of multiple factors including preparedness measures, infrastructure quality, building planning, and emergency response capacity, is a critical determinant of a natural disaster’s potential impact. Due to the confluence of the Philippines’ extreme exposure to natural hazards and its poor disaster resilience, the country is frequently cited as the most disaster-prone country in the world.
In late 2025, mass nationwide protests occurred in the Philippines due to public grievances regarding corruption in disaster resilience projects, particularly flood defences. While the movement had largely declined by early December, it is likely that the devastation of the earthquake may reinforce public perceptions that disaster-resilience funds and infrastructure governance are weak. There is a realistic possibility that this will trigger a resurgence in the protest movement in the coming weeks.
Travel and Safety Guidance for the Philippines
- Closely monitor local news reports and government alerts.
- Expect aftershocks. Be prepared to Drop, Cover, Hold On in case of further tremors.
- During a tremor, if outside, do not enter buildings and move away from buildings, trees, streetlights and overhead lines.
- If inside, pick a safe place (under a sturdy table or desk, or against an interior wall and away from windows and heavy furniture). Do not leave until the shaking stops.
- If evacuating a building, always use the stairs. Look out for fires and falling debris.
- Adhere to all instructions issued by authorities.
- Heed evacuation orders and travel to government-issued shelters if safe to do so.
- Avoid coastal areas covered by tsunami warnings.
- Ensure important documents and medications are appropriately stored.
- Prepare an emergency ‘go bag’ with essentials such as bottled water, batteries, important documents, and medications.
- Confirm booked flights are running prior to checking out of hotels or travelling to the airport.
- Prepare for power outages, communication disruptions, and travel delays.
- Stay away from damaged buildings and affected areas until authorities deem them safe.

Request Evacuation Assistance
If you need secure, coordinated support to move personnel out of a high-risk location, our team is ready to help – quickly, calmly, and with care.
Armenia Heads to Polls Amid Competing Geopolitical Visions
On 7 June, nearly 2.5 million Armenians will vote to elect the 9th convocation of the National Assembly. The unicameral legislature has 101 members, elected for five-year terms across 13 electoral districts under a proportional representation system based on party lists. Seats are distributed proportionally among political forces that pass the electoral threshold: 4 per cent for parties, 8 per cent for alliances of up to three parties, and 10 per cent for alliances of more than three parties.
If a party wins the most votes but secures less than 54 per cent of seats, it receives additional seats to ensure a 54 per cent majority. Conversely, if a party wins more than two-thirds of seats, extra seats are allocated to opposition parties to limit the winning party’s share to a maximum of two-thirds. Four seats are reserved for representatives of national minorities. If no government is formed within six days of the publication of preliminary results, a second round must be held on the 28th day between the two parties that received the most votes.
This election will be the first regular national election since 2017 and follows two snap elections triggered by the constitutional crises in 2018 and 2021. It is also the first election after Azerbaijan’s military takeover of the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh in late 2023, after which the ethnic Armenian population fled to Armenia.
The incumbent prime minister, Nikol Pashinyan, is expected to lead the governing Civil Contract party into the election for his third consecutive term. Pashinyan rose to power following Armenia’s 2018 Velvet Revolution, when mass anti-corruption and anti-establishment protests forced the resignation of long-serving leader Serzh Sargsyan and brought Pashinyan to office on a reformist, democratic mandate. While Civil Contract’s failure to secure a majority in the March 2025 municipal elections in Gyumri raised fears over the party’s declining popularity, the party still dominates the polling, with the latest survey conducted by Breavis placing its support at 65 per cent. The opposition remains highly fragmented, with most parties polling between 2 and 12 per cent and largely comprising blocs seeking to revive ties with Russia.
Leading the opposition polling is Samvel Karapetyan of the Strong Armenia party on 12 per cent, a pro-Russian opposition bloc that emerged in late 2025. However, Karapetyan’s additional Russian and Cypriot citizenships mean that his legal eligibility to run in the election is disputed. The traditional opposition is led by former president Robert Kocharyan, who is associated with the Armenia Alliance, the main opposition bloc in parliament, and is polling at around 6 per cent. Kocharyan is broadly mistrusted by the public due to his association with the pre-Velvet Revolution political establishment. Polling between 2 and 4 per cent are Prosperous Armenia led by Gagik Tsarukyan, Mother Armenia led by Andranik Tevanyan, and the Democracy, Law, Discipline (DOK) Party led by Vardan Ghukasyan.
ASSESSMENT
Armenia’s Election Seen as Referendum on Azerbaijan Policy
The election is being framed as a referendum on relations with Azerbaijan and Russia. In August 2025, Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev signed a joint declaration on the agreed text of a peace agreement, committing each side to progressing towards a formal signing and ratification. While the signing of the peace agreement depends on the adoption of a new constitution, which will require a referendum following the election, support for Pashinyan is largely centred around this issue. Pashinyan’s ousting would likely result in the end of the current peace deal with Azerbaijan.
The peace agreement would end a conflict that has been ongoing since 1988, when Armenian forces gained control of Nagorno-Karabakh during the collapse of the Soviet Union. In September 2023, Azerbaijan launched a rapid military operation in the territory, forcing the capitulation of Armenian forces and the fleeing of over 100,000 ethnic Armenians to Armenia. For this reason, the peace agreement is deeply divisive in Armenia, with public opinion split: 44 per cent in support and 41 per cent opposed. Supporters of the peace agreement argue that Armenia should stop tying its security to claims to Nagorno-Karabakh and open up economic opportunities with Azerbaijan and Turkey. Those who oppose perceive the government’s attempt to engage in a peace deal with Azerbaijan as legitimising Azerbaijan’s victory, which is largely considered a national humiliation for Armenians, and as an abandonment of Karabakh Armenians.
The Armenian Apostolic Church has engaged in heavy criticism of Pashinyan over his handling of Azerbaijan. Senior clergy and church-linked figures have been associated with anti-government protest activity, and in June 2025, Armenian authorities claimed they had foiled a coup plot involving Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan. This has provided a rationale for a crackdown on the church, with authorities arresting several clerics in the lead-up to the election. Approximately 95 per cent of Armenia’s population identifies with the Armenian Apostolic Church, and the church’s influence will almost certainly shape how the public votes, particularly among conservative, nationalist, and rural constituencies.
Competing Visions for Armenia’s Foreign Policy
A Pashinyan re-election would likely move the formerly Moscow-aligned Armenia closer to the EU, which would pose a strategic threat to Russia’s influence in the South Caucasus. Armenia has historically been one of Russia’s key security and economic footholds in the region. However, Armenia suspended its participation in the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), a Russian-led regional security bloc, in February 2024, following the Nagorno-Karabakh war, with Armenia accusing the CSTO of failing to defend its territorial integrity. In March 2025, Armenia’s parliament adopted a law to launch the process of joining the EU. A shift toward the EU would not only erode Russia’s direct influence in Armenia but would also establish a regional precedent that could be adopted by Georgia, which would significantly erode Russian influence in the Caucasus.
Russia has engaged in a disinformation campaign to attempt to sway the election in favour of a pro-Russian candidate. This campaign has attempted to appeal to Armenian nationalists opposed to the peace deal with Azerbaijan, engaging in a smear campaign to portray Pashinyan as an anti-Armenian Western puppet. Additional campaigns have accused Pashinyan and other officials of involvement in “child sex trafficking”. They have also alleged that Pashinyan owns a multi-million-euro property in France and real estate in the UAE, and that he has imported radioactive waste from France for burial in Armenia.
Further reports have claimed that plans are underway to transport tens of thousands of Russian-Armenians to influence the vote. Russian authorities have also imposed restrictions on Armenian imports, including vegetables and wine, exploiting Russia’s position as Armenia’s largest market for agricultural produce, while threatening to suspend their agreement on preferential supplies of gas and petroleum products. Part of Russia’s influence operations has been to portray the EU as interfering in the Armenian election, laying the groundwork for claims of election manipulation should Pashinyan win. While 71 per cent of participants in a 5-11 May 2026 International Republican Institute (IRI) survey believe the elections will be free and fair, this approach could almost certainly trigger protests from nationalist groups in the aftermath of the publication of the election results.
Polarisation Raises Risk of Post-Election Protests in Armenia
The 7 June election is broadly perceived as a contest over Armenia’s geopolitical orientation, making it a highly divisive vote. For many voters, the election amounts to a referendum on Pashinyan’s pro-Western agenda and pursuit of peace with Azerbaijan, versus more nationalist, Russia-aligned alternatives. This has almost certainly deepened political polarisation. Although recent polling broadly favours Pashinyan and indicates Civil Contract are highly likely to sweep the election, earlier surveys indicated a narrower gap between Civil Contract and pro-Russian opposition parties.
A narrow victory for Civil Contract would highly likely give opposition parties, church-linked critics, and nationalist actors greater scope to claim that the election had been distorted by external influence, media imbalance, vote buying, intimidation, or counting irregularities. Russian messaging portraying Pashinyan as a Western proxy would highly likely reinforce this narrative and provide the opposition with a unifying theme around which to mobilise. In this scenario, protests would likely occur in Yerevan, concentrating around the Central Electoral Commission, Republic Square, parliament, government buildings, and major road junctions. Heavy-handed policing, arrests of opposition figures, or forceful attempts to clear protest sites would almost certainly increase the risk of clashes.
If the latest polling is accurate and Civil Contract wins by a wide margin, protests would be far less likely to gain significant traction, with opposition parties and aligned groups likely to struggle to convince non-aligned voters that the result had been swung by external influence or manipulation. Pashinyan would likely present a decisive victory as a strong mandate for his peace agenda, including normalisation with Azerbaijan, deeper EU integration, and reduced dependence on Russia. A decisive Civil Contract victory would also strengthen Pashinyan’s political mandate to pursue constitutional reform, which he has framed as necessary to facilitate a full peace agreement with Azerbaijan.

Request Journey Management Support
Gulf Security Remains Volatile Despite Ceasefire
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | INTELLIGENCE WINDOW: 29 May 2026 – 02 June 2026
- Following reports that a draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) had been agreed by US and Iranian negotiators, President Donald Trump reportedly requested several amendments to the MOU regarding the nuclear file and the Strait of Hormuz.
- On 1 June, Israel’s Prime Minister publicly ordered strikes on Beirut’s southern suburbs (Dahieh). IRGC-affiliated media reported that due to the developments in Lebanon, “the Iranian negotiating team is suspending dialogues and exchange of texts through mediators”. President Trump announced a claimed fresh cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah and that talks with Iran were “continuing.”
- The risk of a return to full-scale conflict in the Middle East, which would likely be characterised by renewed daily Iranian strikes across the region, likely remains high. Furthermore, the continuing competing blockades of the Strait of Hormuz by the US and Iran continue to lead to conflict in the maritime domain, which has repeatedly escalated into broader ‘tit-for-tat’ strikes which have impacted the Gulf States.
- On 30 and 31 May, US Central Command (CENTCOM) stated that it conducted “self-defense strikes on Iranian radar and command and control sites for drones in Goruk, Iran and Qeshm Island”. These followed “aggressive Iranian actions that included the shootdown of a U.S. MQ-1 drone that was operating over international waters.” The IRGC subsequently announced attempted retaliation strikes against a US air base in Kuwait, with Kuwaiti air defences being activated early 1 June and CENTCOM claiming the interception of two Iranian ballistic missiles.
- As of 2 June, the airspaces of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman are open.
Middle East Conflict: Latest Intelligence & Travel Advice
To support planning, we are updating our Middle East travel advice daily with guidance from our intelligence team on airspace openings and closures, flight operations, and escalating risks impacting movement.
Situation Update: Gulf States Navigate Fragile Ceasefire and Ongoing Disruption
Following reports that a draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) had been agreed by US and Iranian negotiators, US President Donald Trump convened a Situation Room meeting on 29 May to review the proposal. President Trump reportedly requested several amendments to the MOU regarding the nuclear file and the Strait of Hormuz. In a subsequent statement on social media, President Trump claimed that the US naval blockade “will now be lifted”, the US will access Iran’s highly enriched uranium (HEU) stockpile in coordination with Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for its destruction, and that “[n]o money will be exchanged, until further notice”.
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-affiliated media denied many of President Trump’s claims, instead claiming that no final decision has been made on the MOU, that Iran would reopen the strait following a lifting of the US blockade, but could continue “monitoring and inspection of ships, the provision of services, and security measures”, and that Iran would receive an “immediate payment of $12 billion in frozen assets” with no further negotiations until this is paid.
On 30 and 31 May, US Central Command (CENTCOM) stated that it conducted “self -defense strikes on Iranian radar and command and control sites for drones in Goruk, Iran and Qeshm Island”. These followed “aggressive Iranian actions that included the shootdown of a U.S. MQ-1 drone that was operating over international waters.” The IRGC subsequently announced attempted retaliation strikes against a US air base in Kuwait, with Kuwaiti air defences being activated early 1 June.
The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon further escalated over 30-31 May, with the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) crossing the Litani River in the deepest incursions into Lebanon in over 25 years. On 1 June, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly ordered strikes on Beirut’s southern suburbs (Dahieh).
On 1 June, IRGC-affiliated media reported that due to the developments in Lebanon, “the Iranian negotiating team is suspending dialogues and exchange of texts through mediators”, and that “Iran and the Axis of Resistance have resolved to pursue the complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz and activate other fronts, including the Bab al-Mandab Strait”.
Hours later on 1 June, President Trump reportedly held an expletive-laden telephone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu, after which President Trump announced a claimed fresh cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah and that talks with Iran were “continuing, at a rapid pace.”
As of 2 June, the airspaces of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman are open.
Saudi Arabia
No attacks have been reported in Saudi Arabia between 29 May and 2 June.
At least three people have been killed and 29 injured in Saudi Arabia, as of 09:00 UTC on 1 June.
As of 2 June, Saudi Arabia’s airspace is open.
Kuwait
Early 1 June, the Kuwaiti military announced that air defences were “confronting hostile missile and drone attacks”. US CENTCOM stated that US forces intercepted two Iranian ballistic missiles targeting American forces based in Kuwait. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) stated that the missile launches targeting an “air base” in Kuwait were retaliation for the attack against a telecommunications tower in Sirik, Hormozgan Province, in Iran.
The 1 June attack against Kuwait follows another Iranian attack on 28 May against Ali Al Salem airbase in Kuwait, which also resulted from a cycle of escalatory but limited kinetic exchanges between the US and Iran in the Strait of Hormuz. These will likely continue to occur as long as the competing blockades of the strait by both the US and Iran are in place, with Iranian retaliation strikes currently prioritising targets in Kuwait.
At least seven people have been killed, and dozens have been injured in Kuwait, as of 09:00 UTC on 1 June.
As of 2 June, Kuwait’s airspace is open.
Bahrain
No attacks have been reported in Bahrain between 29 May and 2 June.
At least three people have been killed, and dozens have been injured in Bahrain, as of 09:00 UTC on 1 June.
As of 2 June, Bahrain’s airspace is open.
Qatar
No attacks have been reported in Qatar between 29 May and 2 June.
At least 20 people have been injured in Qatar, as of 09:00 UTC on 1 June.
As of 2 June, Qatar’s airspace is open.
UAE
No attacks have been reported in the UAE between 29 May and 2 June.
At least 12 people have been killed and 224 injured in the UAE, as of 09:00 UTC on 1 June.
As of 2 June, the UAE’s airspace is open.
Oman
No attacks have been reported in Oman between 29 May and 2 June.
At least three people have been killed and 16 injured in Oman, as of 09:00 UTC on 1 June.
As of 2 June, Oman’s airspace is open.
Regional Advisory
The risk of a return to full-scale conflict in the Middle East, which would likely be characterised by renewed daily Iranian strikes across the region, remains high, with indirect negotiations on an MOU having faltered. Furthermore, the continuing competing blockades of the Strait of Hormuz by the US and Iran continue to lead to hostile incidents in the maritime domain, which have repeatedly escalated into broader ‘tit-for-tat’ strikes impacting the Gulf States.
It remains unconfirmed whether indirect US-Iran negotiations over the MOU are continuing following the announced suspension of negotiations by IRGC-affiliated media due to Lebanon, and subsequent claims by President Trump of a fresh truce between Israel and Hezbollah. Previously, Tehran had warned that strikes in Beirut “could derail the diplomatic track”, with Iranian officials consistently insisting that the broader ceasefire includes Lebanon. Continued conflict in Lebanon, particularly IDF strikes against Beirut, almost certainly risks jeopardising the wider US-Iran ceasefire.
However, the regime’s reported decision to suspend negotiations also followed President Trump’s request for several amendments to the MOU. It is highly likely that the regime in Tehran, which is almost certainly increasingly under the control of hardline IRGC commanders such as Major General Ahmad Vahidi, calculates that it is willing to accept the risk of a return to full-scale conflict or a continuation of the current status quo rather than be perceived as conceding to US demands.
A collapse in MOU negotiations would not necessarily mean a return to full-scale conflict. Instead, the US and Iran could maintain their competing blockades of the Strait of Hormuz with the aim of ultimately pressuring the opposing party to make concessions. Following the announced suspension of talks by IRGC-affiliated media, President Trump told US media that “going silent would be very good, and that could be for a long time”, adding that this would not mean a return to full-scale strikes, but the US blockade would be maintained.
As long as the competing blockades are maintained, there remains a high risk of a tactical miscalculation and/or escalation in the Strait of Hormuz, with retaliatory strikes unlikely to be confined to the immediate area of engagement or the maritime domain. In addition to endangering the broader negotiation process, the cycles of escalation have repeatedly led to renewed Iranian strikes against the Gulf States, first with the UAE and more recently against Kuwait, and are likely to continue doing so while competing blockades are in place.
Should a framework agreement/MOU be reached, the immediate risk of a return to full-scale US-Iran conflict would likely decrease. However, such a framework would likely only be an effective ceasefire extension and not a substantive and lasting peace agreement. Major issues like control of the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear programme are unlikely to be fully resolved. Furthermore, reported provisions within the MOU, such as the US blockade being lifted in proportion to the restoration of commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, provide multiple triggers for the potential MOU to break down. Finally, if the MOU only delays detailed nuclear talks for another 60 days, the main disputes that blocked the pre-28 February negotiations would likely remain unresolved and resurface later.
If the US resumes strikes against Iran, this would highly likely result in renewed full-scale Iranian attacks against targets across the Middle East. This is further reinforced by the 26 May threats issued by Iran’s Supreme Leader against regional countries which host US military bases. Recent leaked classified assessments by US intelligence services indicate that, despite high-intensity US-Israeli strikes, Iran maintains the capability to conduct large-scale long-range strikes across the Middle East, likely for several months, depending on the rate of expenditure.
Travellers are strongly advised not to film or distribute footage of strikes, damage, or military activity:
- Jordanian authorities have warned against publishing videos or information regarding Jordan’s defensive operations without authorisation.
- Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Interior has stated that “[p]hotographing or publishing or circulating information related to countering missiles and drones and the locations of their falls exposes you to legal accountability.”
- In the UAE, authorities have warned that publishing or circulating “rumours, false news, or news from unknown sources through social media platforms or other information technology” is illegal. Reports indicate that Dubai Police have used “electronic monitoring operations” to detect a photo shared within a private WhatsApp group
- In Bahrain, several people have been confirmed as arrested for “filming, live streaming, clipping, and publishing events in a manner constituting a legal violation”.
- Qatar’s Ministry of Interior warned that gathering at incident sites or photographing and sharing content related to field developments may result in legal accountability and has arrested hundreds of people of various nationalities for “producing and sharing misleading information”.
- Omani authorities have stated: “Beware of sharing or publishing any captured photos or videos. They should be shared only with the competent authorities”.

Request Evacuation Assistance
If you need secure, coordinated support to move personnel out of a high-risk location, our team is ready to help – quickly, calmly, and with care.


