meed-logo

line1 line2 line3
SIGN IN / REGISTER

Iran launches regional attacks after US and Israel strikes start

28 February 2026

Register for MEED’s 14-day trial access 

Iran launched missiles aimed at Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE on Saturday, 28 February, after the US and Israel began airstrikes on the Islamic Republic earlier in the day.

Official news agencies in the countries targeted by Iran have confirmed the attacks and that missiles have been intercepted by air defences. There has been limited damage reported from the strikes, although one fatality has been reported in the UAE.

The UAE’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) said there was a blatant attack involving Iranian ballistic missiles and that UAE air defence systems intercepted a number of missiles. It also confirmed that missile debris falling into a residential area resulted in the death of one civilian of Asian nationality. The UAE also said it reserves its full right to respond to this escalation and to take all necessary measures to protect itself.

In Bahrain, the National Communication Centre (NCC) confirmed external attacks targeting sites and installations within Bahrain’s borders. It said the security and military authorities had immediately activated established emergency protocols and were taking all necessary operational measures on the ground.

In Doha, the Ministry of Defence confirmed that Qatar had been attacked and that all missiles were intercepted before reaching Qatari territory.

In Kuwait, the official Kuwait News Agency reported that air defence systems had dealt with missiles detected in Kuwaiti airspace.

Meanwhile, in Amman, a senior military official from the Jordanian Armed Forces (JAF) confirmed that air defences had intercepted and neutralised two ballistic missiles targeting Jordanian territory.

Saudi Arabia has condemned the attacks and has “affirmed its full solidarity with and unwavering support for the brotherly countries, and its readiness to place all its capabilities at their disposal in support of any measures they may undertake”.

Main image: UAE announces successful interception of new wave of Iranian missiles. Credit: Wam

https://image.digitalinsightresearch.in/uploads/NewsArticle/15813394/main.gif
Colin Foreman

Register for MEED's guest program now to access this article.

Click here to register
Exclusive from Meed
Related Articles
  • Israeli offensive leaves Beirut in limbo

    5 June 2026

     

    Lebanon is being held in economic and political limbo by Israel’s open-ended offensive in the south, which has killed more than 3,500 people since March and is characterised by strategic objectives that offer no clear end in sight.

    Political leaders in Tel Aviv are justifying the operation on the grounds of eliminating Hezbollah – a far‑fetched goal against a dispersed guerrilla organisation, as with Hamas in Gaza – while ignoring overtures from Lebanon’s leadership for a ceasefire.

    The recently formed Lebanese government, meanwhile, continues to look impotent: unable to secure its territory from Israeli incursions or Hezbollah activity, and unable to deliver on promises of stability, reform, IMF funding and reconstruction.

    Echoes of the past

    The overarching shape of Israel’s military campaign is ominously familiar, echoing the 1978, 1982, 1985 and 2006 Israeli invasions of southern Lebanon – all entailing creeping encroachment without strategic resolution.

    Since fighting resumed on 2 March 2026, Israeli forces have gradually pushed north, crossing north of the Litani for the first time since the 2006 Lebanon war and seizing Beaufort Castle above Nabatieh on 31 May.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has framed the goal as establishing a “security zone” – the same term and concept Israel used to justify the occupation of a roughly 800-square-kilometre belt of southern Lebanon from 1985 to 2000.

    That occupation was a debacle for Israel’s military and ended in unilateral withdrawal.

    Israeli analysts are already drawing the modern parallels as the cost of holding ground in southern Lebanon rises, driven by Hezbollah’s deployment of cheap fibre‑optic first‑person‑view (FPV) drones that inflict a steady drip of Israeli casualties and losses.

    As with Russia in Ukraine, Tel Aviv is being tactically embarrassed by the advent of these fibre‑optic drones, which are immune to jamming and – of particular concern to Israeli forces – are too small to be reliably detected and intercepted by conventional counter‑drone systems.

    This leap in Hezbollah’s operational threat – based on cheap technology that can be locally assembled – has sharply raised the price of maintaining a military presence in the country.

    In an attempt to exact a retaliatory price, Israel’s air strikes rose by 110% between 19-22 May and 23-26 May as Hezbollah’s drone successes accumulated, according to conflict monitor Acled. But the underlying tactical dilemma remains.

    Israeli politicians, irate at the situation, have demanded escalation and intensified strikes on civilian areas, including in Beirut  – only to face US pushback.

    Tehran as the lever

    Planned strikes on Beirut, including on 3 June, have been held off in recent weeks under pressure from Washington after Tehran made Lebanon a bargaining chip in its wider negotiations with the US, repeatedly suspending talks following Israeli escalation in the Levant country.

    Tehran has also gone further than walkouts, warning it could respond directly if Israel strikes Beirut – adding an explicit threat of retaliation to diplomatic pressure.

    With a Gulf ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz both riding on the outcome, Washington is strongly motivated to keep Israel from striking Beirut.

    In this way, Iran is one of the few powers wielding any leverage over Israel’s actions in Lebanon – even if that leverage is a source of discomfort for Lebanon’s leaders, for whom Tehran’s clout contrasts starkly with their own lack of influence.

    That protection nevertheless remains narrowly tied to the Lebanese capital, with Washington turning a blind eye to Israel’s ongoing destruction of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon’s south.

    Within the border belt that Tel Aviv has dubbed the “yellow line” – amounting to about 7% of Lebanese territory – Israeli forces have accelerated the demolition of villages since the April truce and barred residents from returning.

    More than a million people, overwhelmingly Shia from the south and the Bekaa, have been displaced since March, and UN human-rights experts have pointed to the blanket evacuation orders and levelling of housing as mirroring Israel’s conduct in Gaza.

    The Lebanese state remains trapped in inaction, partially of its own making. Beirut was initially close to indifferent to renewed strikes on Hezbollah, whose unilateral re-entry into the war it had condemned for endangering the state.

    But as the strikes have shifted methodically towards civilian areas, Beirut’s restraint satisfies no one: the domestic audience wants protection, while Israel and the US want decisive Lebanese army action against Hezbollah.

    Yet the Lebanese army – still adhering in spirit to the November 2024 ceasefire framework and loath to move seriously against Hezbollah for fear of stoking civil war – has remained aloof from the conflict.

    Parliament speaker Nabih Berri, who is close to Hezbollah and maintains dialogue with the group, says it would honour a genuine ceasefire if only Washington could deliver one.

    But repeated attempts to shore up the ceasefire have remained conditional on the Lebanese army stepping up to rein in Hezbollah, while failing to guarantee an end to Israel’s destruction of civilian structures in areas it is occupying.

    On 3 June, a fourth round of US‑mediated trilateral talks produced a fresh ceasefire announcement, hailed in Washington as a step towards comprehensive peace.

    Yet its conditions – a complete halt to Hezbollah fire, the group’s withdrawal south of the Litani and Lebanese army control of undefined “pilot zones”– merely reiterate past failed protocols. The declaration was unsigned by Hezbollah and unenforceable by Beirut.

    Within hours, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem rejected the declaration, stating that any ceasefire must cover the south and begin with Israeli withdrawal, not Hezbollah’s.

    Both Israeli strikes and Hezbollah attacks have continued since the ostensible deal.

    Recovery on hold

    The economic cost to Lebanon, meanwhile, compounds by the day. The country entered 2026 already in crisis: cumulative GDP down close to 40% since 2019, the pound down 98%, public debt at 150% of GDP, and reserves as low as $11bn as of June 2025.

    The government of President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam staked its credibility on a long‑deadlocked IMF programme finally unlocking external support. The war has upended this, driving away investment and delaying reform.

    The World Bank’s November 2024 assessment – covering only the previous round of fighting, before the March resumption – placed the economic cost at $14bn and recovery needs at $11bn, figures that the current war is now inflating by the day.

    Lebanon’s Bank Audi has warned of zero growth this year if the war continues, versus a pre‑escalation projection of reconstruction‑led recovery. Tourism, historically a fifth of the economy and the engine of the 2024 rebound, has been the biggest casualty.

    Looking ahead, no reconstruction can be financed while the destruction continues, and no IMF programme can advance while the state cannot ensure stability.

    Iran’s leverage may be keeping the bombs off Beirut, but the south’s entrenchment as a war zone is only deepening – with hopes for recovery receding further with every village levelled.

    While the costly occupation is imposing a rising political price on the Israeli government that may, in time, bring it to an end, this will be little consolation for those displaced – many of whom now have no communities to return to, and homes built over decades that are gone.

    https://image.digitalinsightresearch.in/uploads/NewsArticle/17120249/main.gif
    John Bambridge
  • Iraq tenders three cement plant projects

    5 June 2026

     

    Register for MEED’s 14-day trial access 

    The government-owned Iraq Cement State Company (ICSC) has invited companies to bid for three projects to develop cement plants in the country.

    The first and second projects are focused on developing two new plants to produce Portland cement, each with a capacity of 6,000 tonnes a day (t/d).

    The first facility is due to be developed in the Kufa quarries area in Al-Najaf Al-Ashraf Governorate, and the second is due to be developed in the Mosul district of Iraq’s Nineveh Governorate.

    The third project is focused on expanding the existing Hadbaa cement plant, which is also located in the Mosul district.

    The scope of this project includes establishing a new dry-process, gas-fuelled line capable of producing 3,200 t/d of ordinary and resistant Portland cement.

    Normally, this kind of production line includes a raw mill that grinds and dries the raw materials before they are fed into the kiln.

    It also typically includes a preheater, precalciner, rotary kiln, clinker cooler and associated equipment.

    The new line needs to be capable of producing cement suitable for dam filling, according to ICSC.

    ICSC has invited “Iraqi and Arab investors” to participate in the projects, as well as companies specialised in developing cement plants.

    The deadline for submitting bids for all three projects is 23 June 2026.

    Iraq’s state-owned cement producer produced more than 676,000 tonnes of cement across its plants in February, with key plants posting double-digit growth compared to production levels in 2025.

    Its Kubaisa cement plant produced 37% more than it did in 2025, according to a statement by the company’s director general, Awad Kazem Abd Al-Amir, in April.

    Its Qaim plant was producing cement at a rate 17% higher than in 2025, and its Sinjar plant at a rate 14% higher.

    Fallout from the regional conflict that broke out after the US and Israel bombed Iran on 28 February has had a significant negative impact on Iraq’s energy sector and wider economy.

    It has disrupted a wide range of projects and is likely to create uncertainty about future cement demand in the country.

    Prior to the war breaking out, Beijing-based Sinoma won a contract from Iraq’s Nargis Group for engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) work on a 6,000 t/d cement production line in Basra.

    Sinoma’s scope of work under the contract, awarded in February, covers the EPC of the complete production system, from raw materials handling and clinker preparation to cement grinding, storage and shipping.

    MEED’s June 2026 report on Iraq includes:

    > COMMENT: Iraq’s reform window narrows
    > GOVERNMENT: Al-Zaidi takes Iraq’s premiership under US shadow
    > BANKING: Financial challenge tests Iraq’s resolve
    > ECONOMY: Iraq enters era of resilience, reform and rising risks 
    > OIL & GAS:     Iraqi oil and gas sector in crisis
    > POWER & WATER: Focus shifts to delivery of Iraq utilities expansion
    > CONSTRUCTION: Momentum builds in Iraq’s post-war construction sector

    To see previous issues of MEED Business Review, please click here
    https://image.digitalinsightresearch.in/uploads/NewsArticle/17119561/main.jpg
    Wil Crisp
  • Iraq’s economy stalls amid oil exports impact

    5 June 2026

    https://image.digitalinsightresearch.in/uploads/NewsArticle/17120659/main.gif
    MEED Editorial
  • Oman opens bids for 1GW battery storage advisory role

    4 June 2026

    Oman’s Authority for Public Services Regulation (APSR) has opened technical bids for a consultancy contract supporting a planned 1,000MW/four-hour battery energy storage system (bess) project.

    The tender seeks independent regulatory, technical and commercial validation services for the scheme. The project is planned with a rated capacity of 1,000MW and a storage duration of four hours, equivalent to 4,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) of energy storage.

    According to a tender board notice, technical bids were opened on 25 May.

    Thirteen companies submitted proposals including:

    • Afry Management Consulting (Sweden)
    • CESI Middle East (Italy)
    • DNV Dubai Branch (Norway)
    • Engineering Systems Group (Kuwait)
    • ILF Consulting Engineers (Austria)
    • Innovision Engineering Consultancy (UAE) 
    • Mott MacDonald (UK)
    • Sargent & Lundy Abu Dhabi (US)
    • Surbana Consultants Dubai Branch (Singapore)
    • Tractebel Engineering Consultancy (Belgium)
    • TUV Rheinland (Germany)
    • Universal Consulting Engineering (Egypt)
    • WSP International (Canada)

    As previously reported, APSR issued the request for proposals in April as part of wider plans to increase the share of renewable energy in the sultanate.

    The sultanate’s first utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) plant integrated with battery energy storage (Ibri 3) entered construction at the beginning of the year, comprising a 500MW solar PV plant and a 100MWh bess system.

    Last month, state offtaker Nama Power & Water Procurement Company signed a power-purchase agreement with local firm O-Green for Oman’s first round-the-clock renewable energy project.

    The company is also seeking consultants to provide separate environmental, social and governance and legal advisory services.

    Renewable energy is expected to increase from 4% of the generation mix in 2024 to 30% by 2030, driving the push for more utility-scale storage projects.

    Over roughly the same period, demand is forecast to double, reaching 10 terawatt-hours by 2031.

    READ THE JUNE 2026 MEED BUSINESS REVIEW – click here to view PDF

    GCC looks beyond the Strait; Iraq’s reform window narrows as fiscal assumptions shatter; MEED Top 100 companies.

    Distributed to senior decision-makers in the region and around the world, the June 2026 edition of MEED Business Review includes:
    To see previous issues of MEED Business Review, please click here
    https://image.digitalinsightresearch.in/uploads/NewsArticle/17106014/main.jpg
    Mark Dowdall
  • Building around the strait

    4 June 2026

    Commentary
    Colin Foreman
    Editor

    The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has turned a lingering, and previously unlikely, threat into reality in 2026. The shutdown of the maritime chokepoint, which is about 33 kilometres wide at its narrowest point, has plunged the global economy into crisis, with fuel prices spiking and fears of energy shortages growing. While diplomatic efforts are under way to resolve the disruption, the GCC’s geographic Achilles heel remains.

    The closure has also highlighted the importance of alternative logistics and energy corridors. Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline has enabled the export of 7 million barrels a day of oil from the Gulf coast across the kingdom to the Red Sea, while the UAE has rapidly scaled up operations at Fujairah and directed Adnoc to accelerate development of its 520km West-East pipeline.

    Others have had fewer options. Geographically constrained states such as Kuwait recorded zero crude exports in April, reflecting their near-total dependence on shipping oil through the Strait of Hormuz.

    For the projects market, the crisis is already having, and will continue to have, a significant impact. Ongoing projects are struggling with disrupted supply chains and resulting cost escalation, while future spending is likely to be diverted towards schemes that improve the GCC’s access to markets outside the Gulf.

    For the projects market, the crisis is already having, and will continue to have, a significant impact

    For oil and gas exports, proposed pipeline routes would run south from Kuwait through Saudi Arabia and the UAE and into Oman, enabling shipments from expanded ports on the Arabian Sea. For goods entering the region, the GCC railway scheme has taken a step forward, with procurement starting in May.

    These projects will cost tens of billions of dollars and will take years to complete, which means the events of 2026 will shape the region’s infrastructure priorities for the coming decade.

    READ THE JUNE 2026 MEED BUSINESS REVIEW – click here to view PDF

    GCC looks beyond the Strait; Iraq’s reform window narrows as fiscal assumptions shatter; MEED Top 100 companies.

    Distributed to senior decision-makers in the region and around the world, the June 2026 edition of MEED Business Review includes:
    To see previous issues of MEED Business Review, please click here
    https://image.digitalinsightresearch.in/uploads/NewsArticle/17105852/main.gif
    Colin Foreman