Read the daily news to learn English

‘Absurd, hardline calls’: questions over Sweden’s post-Brexit migration policy

He arrived with nothing other than the clothes he wore that morning. Hours later he was banged up in a detention centre close to a Stockholm airport to await deportation. Charles, a former business director from Cambridge, who did not want his full name published, moved to Sweden in 2017 to be with his Swedish wife, Lily, and applied to remain after Brexit, before the deadline of December 2021. But the migration agency rejected his application, and he and his wife have been fighting with the Swedish authorities ever since. In a message passed on by Lily, he said he was the only Briton in the detention centre, where he described being hemmed in by three lines of fences separated by a “no man’s land”. “I arrived here with nothing apart from the clothes I had on,” Charles said. “We were told the meeting … with the border police was to discuss my case. They then said they thought I would abscond, which is why they were going to detain me.” Lily, a lawyer, questioned whether Sweden, considered a global leader in human rights and progressive politics, was now like Afghanistan. “They have hunted us for five years,” she said. Charles could be deported in the next week unless his latest legal challenge delivers a reprieve. He joins a list of 2,490 Britons – of an estimated 14,000 in Sweden – deported from the country between 2020 and 2025, as questions are mounting as to why Sweden appears to have taken such a hardline approach to the Brexit withdrawal agreement (WA) over migration. In total, Sweden is responsible for 33% of all British nationals deported from the EU between 2021 and 2025, compared with France, which accounted for 6% of all British deportees, Spain at 3%, and Germany at 2%. France deported 450, Spain 250 and Germany 160, while Italy deported just 15 Britons in that period. Different countries collate data in different ways, but Eurostat data suggests the Netherlands is another outlier, with 2,270 Britons deported in the same period. Data shows 2,100 removal orders were also issued in Sweden, though it is not clear how many of these resulted in voluntary departures or progressed to deportations. People served with removal orders include Joyce Thomas, a 78-year-old widow who has been in Sweden for 22 years, and George Mason, a 74-year-old with dementia who has been in Sweden for 25 years, both of whose applications missed the deadline to apply to remain in Sweden post-Brexit. John Sellers, a 34-year-old Briton who has lived in Sweden since he was 10, was deported in January. The cases also raise the question as to whether the WA delivers the political promise made by the Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier and others promising citizens should not be collateral damage of Brexit. “The level of protection afforded under EU law must not be watered down. Brexit should not alter the nature of people’s daily lives,” Barnier said in 2017. Nine years on, questions are being asked whether Sweden’s approach has been infected by its apparent lurch to the right more broadly, serving deportations on children and even a 95-year-old Iraqi woman who had lived in Sweden for 20 years. “The number of absurd, hardline calls from the migration department just keeps piling up,” the Swedish author and journalist Martin Gelin wrote this week ahead of the general election on Sunday. British citizens who lived in the country before Brexit have unique protection under the WA, but activists have noted that they appear to be subject to the same treatment as other foreign nationals. “The question is, has national migration policy affected the way in which they apply the withdrawal agreement in edge cases? And has it affected the culture in Migrationsverket [the migration agency] and perhaps in the courts as they apply the withdrawal agreement?” asked James Savage, the editor of the Local, which recently revealed the pressure applied to Sweden by the European Commission. Family members acting on behalf of Mason turned to the general migration route for residency after the migration agency rejected the withdrawal agreement request for him to remain in the country. The judge’s ruling was clear: “The state’s interest in regulated immigration outweighs Horace [George] Mason’s interest in continuing to reside [in Sweden].” Since the surge in publicity surrounding deportations of British citizens in Sweden, all three opposition parties have pledged new laws to reopen the application process for British citizens, and the incumbent government has said it would look at doing the same. Niels Paarup-Petersen, the migration spokesperson for the Centre party, has promised new laws to reopen the applications process for post Brexit residency status if his party retains power. “Some of these cases are just stupid,” he told the Guardian. “They [the migration agency] should not be lenient, but the present decision-making leans towards deportation.” The Swedish migration agency insists it has only deported 458 British people in strict Brexit-related cases but activists – who have been trying to get granular detail on the remaining cases – say that data may not include Britons who upon rejection from the agency then applied to stay under different routes and ended up with deportation orders. The agency also says there is “no indication that Sweden has in any way interpreted the withdrawal agreement in an extreme manner or differently from other [EU] member states” and that it has “applied applicable law” with appeal processes. Savage notes that promises to change the law were made three years ago after other cases emerged. David Milstead, who runs the activist group Brits in Sweden, has welcomed promises of action but is concerned that politicians might provide a fix for future British applicants without giving a second chance to those already deported or who have left voluntarily. A spokesperson for the European Commission said: “Correct implementation of the withdrawal agreement is very important to us”, but added: “Reasonable grounds that may justify a late application for beneficiary status are not defined in the withdrawal agreement.” This means “host states have a certain margin of discretion in deciding what they accept as reasonable grounds”. In other words, Sweden has not breached the withdrawal agreement but rather is exercising allowable discretion. Catherine Barnard, a professor of EU law at Cambridge University, says the withdrawal agreement is “unique”, as no other member state has ever left the EU, and will take time to test. But decisions by migration authorities have to be proven to be “proportionate”. While Swedish courts have not referred their decision-making upwards to the European court of justice, Barnard says a case in the UK may provide precedent for EU citizens affected by the WA. In the case of “CG”, the European court of justice ruled that the UK breached the EU charter of fundamental rights in denying benefits to an EU citizen in Northern Ireland. “In a 2021 case before the Court of Justice, the court ruled that the charter would apply to those who had moved to another member state before Brexit and lived there,” Barnard said. “While the facts of the case were somewhat different the principle should remain: the state’s interest in protecting its immigration must be balanced against the rights to family life of vulnerable individuals.” The Swedish migration authorities and police have been approached for comment on the detention of Charles.

‘World’s most profitable football business’: Abramovich’s frozen Chelsea cash earns £175m

Funds from Roman Abramovich’s sale of Chelsea FC have earned at least £175m in interest while locked in a UK bank account, new accounts show, leading one analyst to describe the company housing the frozen cash as “the most profitable football business in the world”. Accounts for Fordstam, the company through which the billionaire Russian oligarch owned Chelsea, show that the proceeds of the sale completed in May 2022 have risen from £2.3bn to nearly £2.5bn. Abramovich, who was hit with UK sanctions in 2022 over his ties to Vladimir Putin, has previously pledged to donate the money to victims of the war in Ukraine. However, the funds have yet to be released, amid an ongoing legal dispute with the British government about how the money should be used. The picture is further complicated by a separate criminal investigation by the Jersey authorities into the original source of the oil tycoon’s wealth. There is also uncertainty about whether £1.4bn in loans – part of a vast network of offshore companies that the oligarch used to fund Chelsea’s success – will be deducted from the final sum available for donation. In the meantime, the money, an initial £2.35bn, has been accruing interest rapidly, earning £114m in 2024 and nearly £63m the year before that. The total is likely to have risen significantly because another two years have elapsed since June 2024, the latest date covered by the accounts. Stefan Borson, a football finance expert who is head of sport at the law firm McCarthy Denning, said: “With the interest received, this now appears to be the most profitable football-related business in the world,” a tongue-in-cheek reference to the lack of profitability among high-spending football clubs. “It sheds no further insight as to what progress (or otherwise) has been made in distributing the proceeds of the sale.” The £2.5bn proceeds remain frozen in a Barclays bank account owing to a dispute with the UK government, which pledged to take legal action after Abramovich missed a March 2026 deadline to free up the funds. The government wants the money to be earmarked for Ukraine but, according to reports, Abramovich is prepared to defy ministers by giving it to a foundation with a more global outlook. A government spokesperson said: “We have been clear from the start that the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea FC must be used for humanitarian causes in Ukraine. Roman Abramovich has yet to fulfil the commitment made at the time of the sale. The government is taking further steps to ensure that promise is kept, including continuing preparations for potential legal action if necessary. “Our absolute priority remains ensuring the funds reach the most vulnerable in Ukraine who have endured over four years of relentless suffering.” It is also unclear whether the donation will be reduced by any demand from Abramovich that Fordstam repays £1.4bn in loans extended by his Camberley International Investment vehicle, based in Jersey. “It’s always been vague as to whether Abramovich was going to donate the whole sale proceeds to the Ukraine relief fund or just the profits,” said a football finance expert, Kieran Maguire. “The sum due to his offshore company is still in the accounts which suggests the latter.” The future of the loan is further complicated by two factors. As long as Abramovich is under sanctions, the money cannot legally be repaid to him without a licence from the Office for Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), part of the Treasury. At the same time, prosecutors in Jersey are investigating whether the proceeds of the Chelsea sale amount to the proceeds of crime, as part of a corruption and money-laundering investigation. The inquiry is looking at the source of much of Abramovich’s wealth, including the sale of his oil and gas company Sibneft, which the Russian government acquired for $13bn in 2005. The Guardian approached lawyers for Roman Abramovich for comment.

UK sanctions on West Bank settlers are the right step | Letters

As a religious Jew, I am disappointed at the reaction of some of our communal leaders and bodies to the sanctions on trade with illegal Israeli settlements (UK accuses Israeli ‘terrorists’ of ethnic cleansing in West Bank with government backing, 8 September). Many Jews in the UK are horrified by the Israeli government’s actions, which include promises from some ministers of burying the idea of a Palestinian state, and turning a blind eye to unchecked settlement expansion and escalating settler violence. While much of the British media may choose to platform one view as being representative of the Jewish reaction to these sanctions, I would point to organisations such as Yachad and Na’amod, which provide an alternative anti‑occupation narrative. It is also frustrating that the opinion of the chief rabbi is upheld by news organisations as though he is the Jewish version of the pope: he isn’t. There are indeed rabbis in the UK who agree with these sanctions, or who have visited the West Bank and seen displays of injustice and violence with their own eyes, and understand that something must be done (Senior UK rabbis come out in support of sanctions on Israeli settlements, 9 September). There is a multiplicity of opinions on this nuanced subject that cannot be boiled down to a statement from one leader. I walk through the world visibly Jewish with a kippah on my head. I will also be attending synagogue over the High Holy Day period. During this period of increased antisemitism, my safety as a Jew and the urgent need for all countries to “call out” Israel are not mutually exclusive. Jewish people are held responsible for the actions of an Israeli government over which they have no control – that’s true. This, as the foreign secretary has stated, is antisemitism and should be tackled. However, above all, I believe that when we Jews see suffering we have an impetus to act, no matter how conflicting it feels: “If not now, when?” Jonathan Tebble Brighton • The government’s announcement of sanctions against settlements in the West Bank could have been better timed. Those of us in Israel who have worked for years to create a just and secure peace for two nations, and in six weeks’ time have a chance to remove a government that persists in settlement expansion and the denial of Palestinian rights, have just been kicked in the nuts. There is nothing more dangerous than an Israeli electorate who feel that the world is against them. The British government, along with other European countries that made similar declarations, may well have handed an election victory to the very forces they are committed to undermine and remove: the likes of Benjamin Netanyahu, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. It would have been more sensible to make the announcements after 27 October, possibly when the new government had been formed and was available for policy discussion with its international partners. Clear and sincere commitments to peace and security for both countries would be enormously more helpful than declaring sanctions against West Bank settlements before an Israeli election that is critical for the future of a liberal, democratic state of Israel. Robin Newell Kibbutz Sde Nehemia, Israel • A substantial minority of British Jews like myself agree with the UK government’s new use of the term ethnic cleansing to describe how armed settlers in the occupied territories evict Palestinians from their land, with passive and sometimes active support from Israeli institutions. While the UK’s trade ban on goods from the occupied West Bank and new language is unlikely to be a significant catalyst for change, the terminology is now at least accurate. Tolerating settler violence is longstanding Israeli policy, which I’ve seen with my own eyes. Twenty-two years ago I spent some months in a tiny farming village in the West Bank called Yanoun, where neighbouring armed settlers were severely harassing Palestinian villagers. Settlers killed livestock, contaminated wells, walked with guns through the hamlet, drove their cars up and down village roads, and beat villagers. I saw with dismay the indulgent favour of state forces towards these most renegade settlers: how regional police (settlers themselves) laughed contemptuously at villagers’ complaints; and how, when called upon for protection, the Israeli army arrived slowly or not at all, and did nothing. In the last year, I learned that Yanoun’s villagers have left their beautiful village for a second time, perhaps for good? This is how ethnic cleansing works. Dr Vivienne Jackson Walthamstow, London • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.

Enjoy Łódź – but don’t omit its tragic past | Letter

I was shocked to read your travel article detailing the delights of Łódź without a single mention of the city’s past as the site of one of the largest ghettos during the second world war (A city break in Łódź, Poland’s capital of cinema and factories, 5 September). The article says: “I ask Anna how Łódź fared in the second world war. ‘It was not too badly damaged,’ she says. ‘Both the Germans and the Russians wanted the industry intact.’” I wonder how the surviving family members of the perhaps 200,000 people who died after being herded into the ghetto, often to work as slaves for the Nazi war effort, would feel about that. Łódź is indeed a wonderful city, and I have watched its transformation since I worked there in the late 1980s. Your article highlights the many great pleasures of the city today, as I too experienced on my most recent visit in July. But as so many have said in the past, if we ignore history, all too often we repeat it. Dr Richard Bradbury Exton, Devon • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.

Lübeck’s sweetest treat deserves a visit | Brief letters

In her piece on Lübeck (‘Fabulous museums and no queues’: five of the best under-the-radar city breaks in Europe, 6 September), Rachel Dixon didn’t mention the German city’s sweetest treat, the Café Niederegger. Many will know the city’s name from Niederegger marzipan as much as Thomas Mann. Their museum on the floor above the cafe includes a lifesize marzipan statue of the writer, whom they claim was also a fan. Elizabeth Card Leeds • It is surprising that Reading Museum has not used the publicity surrounding the arrival of the Bayeux tapestry in the UK to blow its own trumpet more loudly. Its superb copy of the Bayeux tapestry, produced by 35 women in just over a year, finishing in 1886, is free to view. Joyce Quarrie Leytonstone, London • In answer to Marina Hyde’s question of what’s next in Donald Trump’s huge renaming spree (America: the gulf, the lake and now the state – what’s next on Trump’s huge renaming spree?, 8 September), how about The Donald J Trump Mass Extinction, to sit alongside the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic and Cretaceous mass extinctions? President Trump deserves to be remembered for his contribution. David Mond Leamington Spa, Warwickshire • To complete the president’s proposed changes, perhaps the Oval Office should be renamed Amerigo Round. Philip Arundel Colwall Green, Herefordshire • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.

Ireland holds its breath as its leftwing president prepares to meet Trump

Ireland’s president, Catherine Connolly, has called Donald Trump abhorrent and an abuser of power. In his sole previous comment on Connolly, the US president seemed to think she was a man. Now that they are about to meet, Ireland is holding its breath. Trump is to fly into Dublin on Saturday morning for a two-day visit centred on golf. But before making it to his beloved greens, protocol obliges him to meet a woman who has given every impression of loathing him. A courtesy call to Áras an Uachtaráin, the Irish president’s official residence and workplace in the city’s Phoenix Park, has left the government anxious and the media reaching for popcorn. “What could possibly go wrong?” headlines ask. Many in Ireland are rooting for Connolly to let rip at Trump for his policies and rhetoric on immigrants and the Middle East. Others hope she will stifle any criticisms to avoid provoking a visitor who could upend Ireland’s economy. The taoiseach, Micheál Martin, said he had no concerns “at all” about the encounter, but one senior official said the government was on tenterhooks. “We need to get him [Trump] in the Áras, then out of the Áras. We’ll breathe easier after,” they said. Before winning the Irish presidency – a ceremonial post – last year, Connolly was an independent leftwing member of parliament for Galway who protested against Trump’s 2019 visit and more recently assailed him over his positions and policies on Gaza, Iran and other issues. “If we are going to act as an independent sovereign state, a neutral republic, we must use our voice to speak to power and the abuse of power by president Trump,” she said. Asked in March about the criticism, Trump replied: “He’s lucky I exist.” Trump is now to meet Connolly – and Martin in a separate meeting – before heading to his golf resort in Doonbeg, County Clare, which is hosting the Irish Open. Heavy security around the Phoenix Park and Doonbeg will insulate the US president from protests, including a “No welcome for Trump” demonstration that is expected to draw thousands to central Dublin on Saturday afternoon. Some hope Connolly will speak for them when she meets Trump behind closed doors. “She should speak truth to power,” Rosie O’Donnell, the US comedian who moved to Ireland after Trump won a second term, told the Irish Independent. “I don’t think she should drop what she believes in to be polite to a madman. He is like a mad king that has destroyed the country.” Leftwing parties that supported Connolly’s presidential run urged the former barrister to “find a way” to convey criticism without causing a diplomatic storm. Trump has expressed affection for the emerald isle but also wants American tech and pharmaceutical firms to move jobs and taxes from Ireland to the US, a scenario that could devastate Irish state finances. During her election campaign, Connolly promised to heed constraints of the office, which is largely symbolic and has no responsibility for foreign policy. She also said that if asked, she would meet Trump. “That implies that it’s not to meet him in order to berate him,” said Bobby McDonagh, an former Irish ambassador to the UK and EU. “She’ll have an opportunity to have a chat with President Trump and make some gentle points reflective of Irish values. I expect it to go smoothly.” Connolly could emulate Martin, who discreetly rebutted some of Trump’s opinions during a visit to the White House, said McDonagh. “He had the emotional intelligence and experience to do it in a way that didn’t provoke any reaction.” The six-time major champion golfer Rory McIlroy said he and other competitors at Doonbeg would focus on the game, not politics. “It’s going to be different with him being here but we’re here to play a golf tournament and it’s a good golf course so we’ll keep our heads down and play,” McIlroy said.

Iran’s Houthi allies capture strategic island on vital oil shipping route

Yemen’s rampant Houthi forces have captured the strategic island of Perim in the Bab al-Mandab strait, expanding their control of the narrow waterway, one of the world’s vital shipping routes. The Iran-aligned Houthis took control of the volcanic island after forces allied to the UN-backed, Aden-based government left in the latest of a dramatic series of reverses along Yemen’s west coast in recent days, including the loss of the port city of Mocha on Thursday. Saudi Arabia, which supports and bankrolls the official Yemen government, mounted air raids on Houthi positions in Mocha on Friday. The Bab al-Mandab strait links Asia to Europe via the Red Sea and Suez canal. Perim island, also known as Mayun, divides the waterway in two, close to its narrowest point. The United Arab Emirates, a former Saudi ally in the anti-Houthi coalition, had been building an airbase on the island before ending its active involvement in the conflict in January. Saudi Arabia has increasingly relied on the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab to export its crude since Iran has been targeting vessels in the strait of Hormuz. About 12% of the world’s goods are typically shipped through the strait. Full Houthi control of shipping in the strait, alongside Iranian control of the strait of Hormuz, would strengthen the chokeholds of anti-western forces over global energy shipments. Oil prices have risen to more than $100 a barrel as the fighting in Yemen has escalated. Iran hailed the Houthi advances in an official statement on Friday, its first extended comment on the renewed fighting inside Yemen. Iran and the Houthis have been allied since the Houthis rose to power inside Yemen in 2014. In a statement the Houthis hailed the expulsion of “Saudi enemy” troops from six districts in the Taiz and Hodeidah regions, the capture of 4,500 sq miles, the targeting of “seven military divisions of the Saudi enemy’s forces” and the “killing, capture, and wounding” of hundreds of soldiers. It also claimed to have released hundreds of prisoners “held by the Saudi enemy’s mercenaries for years”. British diplomatic sources said they did not at present expect Donald Trump to sanction any US bombing of Houthi positions in Yemen, despite requests to do so from Saudi Arabia. The pace of the Houthi advance, and political divisions in the Yemen governorates not controlled by the Houthis, have left western capitals fearful that even the Yemen government capital, Aden, could fall to the Houthis. The UK effectively treated Yemen as a British protectorate until 1967. The Houthi offensive has cost more than 500 lives and displaced about 46,000 people, the UN migration agency said on Friday. The Houthi progress down the Red Sea coast from the port of Hodeidah also strengthens Iran’s hand in trying to reach an agreement with other Gulf states on future control of the strait of Hormuz, the central dispute between the US and Iran. Iran has reached an agreement on temporary approved routes with Oman, the country sharing the southern coast of the Hormuz strait. The proposed deal is supposed to be discussed at a meeting of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) foreign ministers in the Omani coastal city of Salalah on Monday. The deal, including a temporary approved route for shipping largely under Iranian control, would – if agreed by the GCC – put pressure on the US to lift its highly effective blockade of Iranian oil ports, which is severely damaging the Iranian economy. The US struck a surprise ceasefire deal with the Houthis in May 2025 after the cost of a bombing campaign escalated, and Houthis gave private assurances that they would not attack US shipping in the Red Sea. The Houthi leadership this week continued to give similar assurances to all shipping except Saudi Arabian oil tankers. On 14 August Saudi Arabia assembled a 14-country international maritime naval coalition to protect freedom of navigation in the Bab al-Mandab strait and the Gulf of Aden. The coalition, including Bahrain, Pakistan, Somalia, Djibouti, Turkey and Egypt, has so far been invisible, though Riyadh would argue that such a coalition of the willing takes time to assemble. Recriminations are under way over the fall of Mocha, with the role of Maj Gen Tareq Saleh, the leader of the National Resistance Forces that retreated from the city, under scrutiny. He said the retreat was necessary to regroup his forces. On her Facebook page, the Yemeni 2011 Nobel peace prize winner, Tawakkol Karman, called on Yemen’s president, Rashad al-Alimi, to dismiss Saleh and to refer him for investigation and trial on charges of conspiracy and high treason. Amr al-Bidh, the foreign affairs representative of the separatist political organisation the Southern Transitional Council (STC), said he had warned western diplomats repeatedly of the need for a comprehensive national regional and international strategy to defeat the Houthis, adding occasional airstrikes were not enough. He accused the Saudis of strategic incompetence and of alienating the southern forces most needed to combat the Houthis. “The position is now very serious,” he said. “The Houthis’ presence in the strait means they will be able to control the waterways without needing to use sophisticated weapons that as a result they can now use elsewhere. The advance is also likely to give them a new income through control of ports along the west coast of the Red Sea.” The Houthis are already offering concessionary rates to draw traffic from ports controlled by the Yemeni government in the Gulf of Aden. The STC was the dominant political and military force in southern Yemen until this January, when Saudi Arabia bombed its troops, closed its political organisation down and detained as many as 20 of its leaders in Riyadh. A Saudi promise of a dialogue about the southern question made in January has never been kept, al-Bidh said, adding that Human Rights Watch warned in a March report that some pro-STC protests in Aden were being repressed with undue violence. “The betrayal of promises had left the southern population unwilling to leave their home territories to fight the Houthis in the north,” he said. “The Saudis for 10 years have been dependent on the people of the south to deter the Houthis, and the STC with as many as 80,000 troops at its disposal, has been the backbone of that force.” Saudi Arabia is facing a familiar dilemma: whether to reach a negotiated settlement with the Houthis on the future of Yemen or to try to push the highly stretched Houthi forces back. Although the Houthis operate independently of Tehran’s instructions, it is hugely to Iran’s advantage for them to be fighting Saudi Arabia, as the Saudis are more likely in turn to put pressure on Washington to relent over Iran. There is also concern in western capitals about the use of western weaponry by the Saudis in Yemen, and whether their activity complies with international humanitarian law, including whether the Saudi strikes can truly be seen as acts of self-defence.

The rapid Houthi advance in Yemen: why it matters and what’s at stake

Violence has erupted again in Yemen, where a rapid advance by the Houthis in recent days is threatening another waterway critical to global shipping. More than 1,000 people have been killed or wounded, and tens of thousands displaced by the most significant fighting between the Iran-aligned Houthis and the Saudi-backed Yemeni government forces in years. Though the immediate catalyst for the fighting has been the US-Iran war, it stems from years of conflict in Yemen itself. Who are the warring parties in Yemen’s civil war and who are their backers? The two main parties fighting in Yemen’s civil war are the Yemeni government forces alongside their allies, and the Houthi movement. Yemen’s government controls the north-east of the country, and its southern port. The government is the internationally recognised authority in the country, but is chiefly backed by Saudi Arabia and a coalition of Arab countries which intervened on behalf of the government during Yemen’s civil war. The Saudi-led coalition, in addition to supporting the Yemeni government forces, directly intervenes militarily in the country, mainly through airstrikes. The government’s control of the country is contested by the Houthis, who hold the western part of the country, including its capital, Sana’a. The Shia group is broadly aligned with Iran and comprises part of the “axis of resistance”, a coalition of Iran-aligned armed groups in the Middle East, such as Hezbollah. But while the group is aligned ideologically with Iran, which supplies some arms shipments, the Houthis are considered an independent group with their own policies. A variety of smaller armed groups are also active in the country. What’s been happening in recent days? Last week the Houthis launched a wide-ranging offensive to take parts of the western coast of Yemen and gain a more strategic position over Bab al-Mandab. Fighting then broke out across multiple fronts in Yemen as the Saudi-backed government forces tried to reconsolidate their position, with clashes starting in al-Jawf, al-Baydaa, Taiz and Hodeidah. The Yemeni government forces then released a statement saying they were launching their own campaign to try to retake Sana’a from the Houthis. The Houthis launched missile strikes on Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, injuring 73 people and causing huge fires at Saudi oil installations. Saudi Arabia then launched more than 50 airstrikes on Yemen in a 12-hour period on Wednesday. It was the most significant fighting in the country since the UN-brokered peace plan in 2022. On Thursday and Friday, a rapid Houthi advance southwards along Yemen’s western coast resulted in the capture of the port city of Mocha and then the strategic island of Perim in the the Bab al-Mandab strait. Pending a counter-offensive from government forces, the group is now in a position to control shipping through the strait. How significant is the strait? Bab al-Mandab is a critical waterway for shipping, with about 10% of global maritime trade passing through the strait. It has become more important since the US started its war against Iran and the latter closed the strait of Hormuz. The Red Sea, via Bab al-Mandab, has become a vital lifeline for Saudi Arabia to export its oil. If the Houthis gained full control over the strait, the group would be able to virtually close shipping through the waterway, or charge tolls. It would give Iran and its allies control over two key shipping lanes in the region. How did the war in Yemen begin? The civil war began in 2014 when fighting broke out between the Houthis and the Yemeni army after Houthi supporters were shot at during mass protests against fuel subsidy cuts in the capital, Sana’a. The Houthis promptly seized the capital, and by 2015 had toppled the government. A coalition of mostly Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia, then intervened on behalf of the ousted government, with a mostly aerial campaign that was widely criticised for its deadly impact on the civilians of Yemen. The Yemeni government declared the southern port city of Aden to be its temporary capital, while the Houthis continued to maintain their control over Sana’a and much of the rest of north-west Yemen. The government-aligned side was made up of several groups that fractured over the course of the war, primarily along the lines of their two chief backers: Saudi Arabia, which backed the Yemeni government itself, and the United Arab Emirates, which mainly supported the Southern Transitional Council (STC) and the Joint Forces. The country also fractured, with al-Qaida seizing territory in east Yemen, and separatist groups, such as the STC, pushing for division of the country. The Saudi-led coalition also brought foreign mercenaries into the conflict. Frontlines hardened and the war entered a deadlock. The Saudi-led coalition’s intervention was becoming increasingly unpopular internationally and had not led to the defeat of the Houthis. Weary of fighting, warring parties agreed to a temporary UN-mediated truce in 2022. The truce was extended twice, and calm largely held across the country until this September. Why did the UN-brokered peace plan break down? The peace plan has been strained since the war in Gaza started on 7 October 2023. Israel launched the war in response to a Hamas-led attack in Israel that killed about 1,200 people. Israel’s war in Gaza, which has killed more than 70,000 Palestinians and earned widespread condemnation for what a UN committee said was genocide, drew the axis of resistance into the fray. The Houthis, in what they said was a move of solidarity with the people of Gaza, began targeting ships in the Red Sea that they said were heading for Israel. The western coast of Yemen occupies a strategic position for global shipping because it overlooks Bab al-Mandab, a strait that links the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. The Houthi campaign brought about a US military intervention and strained the truce in Yemen. At the same time, its intervention brought the Houthis support regionally and within the territory they hold. With the Houthis’ position strengthened, the group stopped seriously engaging in negotiations, frustrating Saudi Arabia. In July, an Iranian plane landed in Sana’a airport, despite the protests of the Yemeni government, leading Saudi Arabia to strike the airport. The Houthis then declared a naval blockade of Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea, a key route for Saudi oil since Iran closed the strait of Hormuz in March. What has been the humanitarian impact of the war? The war in Yemen, and the Saudi-led coalition aerial campaign in particular, has devastated the country’s population. At least 150,000 people have been killed since 2014 by fighting alone, while hundreds of thousands more have died from related causes, such as hunger and disease. About 4.5 million people have been displaced by fighting and more than 18.2 million are in dire need of humanitarian assistance, according to the UN. The renewed fighting has further exacerbated humanitarian conditions. The World Health Organization said the latest clashes had killed or wounded more than 1,000 people and displaced tens of thousands.