A Turkish diplomatic source said representatives from Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Qatar, Syria, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates would attend.

The meeting comes amid limited signs of de-escalation nearly three weeks into the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, which has disrupted the region and affected global energy supplies. The conflict has heightened concerns over broader instability across the Middle East.

Hakan Fidan is expected to stress the need for a negotiated and peaceful resolution, warning that a prolonged conflict could inflict lasting damage on ties between regional countries, the Turkish source said. He is also expected to visit additional countries following the Riyadh talks.

Turkey, a member of the NATO and a neighbour of Iran, had sought to mediate between Tehran and United States before the war began. Ankara has since condemned U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran as violations of international law, while also criticising Iranian attacks on Gulf states as unacceptable.

The Riyadh meeting is expected to focus on coordinated diplomatic efforts to contain the conflict and mitigate its economic and security repercussions across the region.

Carriers across Europe, North America and Asia reported widespread suspensions, with routes to key destinations such as Tel Aviv, Beirut and Gulf cities either halted or significantly curtailed.

Greece’s Aegean Airlines said it had cancelled flights to Tel Aviv, Beirut and Amman until April 22, and to Erbil and Baghdad until May 24, while suspending Dubai routes until April 19 and Riyadh until April 18.

Latvia’s airBaltic halted Tel Aviv services until April 5 and Dubai flights until October 24.

Air Canada suspended Tel Aviv flights until May 2 and Dubai routes until March 28, while Spain’s Air Europa cancelled Tel Aviv operations until April 10.

Air France said it had cancelled flights to Tel Aviv and Beirut until March 21 and to Dubai and Riyadh until March 20. KLM suspended services to Riyadh, Dammam and Dubai until March 28 and paused Tel Aviv flights for the rest of its winter season.

Hong Kong’s Cathay Pacific said all passenger and cargo flights to Dubai and Riyadh would remain cancelled until April 30, reflecting continued uncertainty in regional airspace.

U.S. carrier Delta Air Lines said flights between New York and Tel Aviv were cancelled through the end of March, with further suspensions extending into August for some routes.Israel’s El Al said regular flights were cancelled until March 21.

Gulf carriers Emirates and Etihad Airways said they were operating reduced and limited schedules respectively following a partial reopening of regional airspace.

Finnair said it had cancelled Dubai flights until March 29 and Doha flights until April 2, continuing to avoid the airspace of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Israel.

The restriction, imposed last week and expected to remain in place until at least the end of March, aims to prevent domestic shortages in China, the world’s largest oil importer, according to market sources.

The move curtails exports that were valued at about $22 billion last year.War disruptions amplify supply strainEven before the export curbs, Asian refiners were seeking alternative crude supplies as the conflict in the Middle East disrupted flows from the Gulf.

Several refineries in the region, a key supplier of fuel to Asia, have shut operations as shipping through the Strait of Hormuz was halted.

The combined impact has intensified competition for available cargoes, leaving import-dependent economies exposed to supply shocks.

Australia, Bangladesh and the Philippines, which rely heavily on Chinese refined fuel exports, are expected to face immediate challenges in meeting demand.

China accounted for roughly one-third of Australia’s jet fuel imports last year and about half of supplies to Bangladesh and the Philippines in 2024.

China ranks as Asia’s fourth-largest exporter of refined, or “clean,” fuels after South Korea, India and Singapore, and plays a pivotal role as a swing supplier when regional demand fluctuates.

Analysts say the sudden halt in exports leaves limited room for other suppliers to compensate. “The remaining Asian exporters simply do not have the spare volumes to replicate China’s role as the region’s swing supplier,” Kpler analyst Zameer Yusof said.

Benchmark refining margins in Singapore, known as “cracks,” are expected to continue rising as markets adjust through higher-priced replacement cargoes or reduced demand.

Fuel prices across Asia have climbed sharply. Diesel derivatives rose to $150 per barrel on March 17, while jet fuel swaps reached $163 per barrel, up from about $92 before the war, according to LSEG data.

Gasoline traded at $139.80 per barrel on Monday, compared with $79.30 on February 27.The tightening market is already affecting downstream sectors. Vietnam has warned airlines to prepare for potential flight cuts from April due to fuel shortages linked to export restrictions.

China’s Foreign Ministry said on Monday that military action in the Middle East should cease and that Beijing is willing to work with other countries to ensure energy security.

Speaking during a meeting with broadcasters from Italy’s TG2 television news programme at the Vatican, Leo called on reporters to portray the realities of war through the experiences of its victims.

He appealed to journalists “to show the face of war and tell it through the eyes of the victims, so as not to turn it into a video game.”

Leo warned that in periods of intense conflict, information can easily drift into propaganda if journalists fail to carefully verify facts and maintain editorial independence.

“In the dramatic circumstances of war, such as those we are experiencing, information must guard against the risk of turning into propaganda,” he saidJournalists must work to verify news and ensure they do not become “a megaphone of power,” he added.

Although the pope did not reference a specific conflict in Monday’s remarks, he has intensified appeals in recent days for an end to the expanding U.S.–Israeli war with Iran.

On Sunday, Leo called for an immediate ceasefire in what he described as the “atrocious violence” of the conflict, marking some of his strongest comments since hostilities escalated.

Leo’s warning about portraying war as entertainment echoed comments earlier this month from Blase Cupich, who criticized the White House for sharing a social media video featuring footage from the Iran conflict intercut with scenes from video games and action films.

Cupich described the video as “sickening,” arguing that such imagery risks trivializing the realities of war and the suffering of civilians.

In an interview published Sunday by the Financial Times, Trump said the timing of the meeting could shift depending on progress in restoring navigation through the key oil transit route.

“We’d like to know before (the summit),” Trump said, adding that “we may delay,” without specifying how long a postponement might last.

The Strait of Hormuz, which connects Gulf energy producers to global markets, has come under heightened strain during the conflict with Iran, raising concerns about disruptions to international oil shipments.

Washington has sought diplomatic and security cooperation from major powers to ensure the passage remains open as tensions across the Middle East escalate.

Trump’s remarks suggest the United States is looking to China to play a role in stabilizing the situation. Beijing maintains significant economic ties with Iran and is a major importer of Gulf energy supplies that pass through the strait.

The proposed summit in Beijing had been expected to focus on trade and geopolitical issues between the two powers, but Trump indicated that progress on the maritime corridor could influence whether the meeting proceeds on schedule.

The discussions inside the White House reflect competing priorities among economic, political and national security advisers as the United States and Israel continue military operations targeting Iran.

Officials involved in the internal discussions said there is no unified view on the desired end point of the conflict, prompting debate among Trump’s advisers over how long military pressure should be maintained.

Some national security hawks are urging the administration to sustain operations against Iran, arguing that continued pressure could weaken the Islamic Republic’s military capabilities and regional influence.

Other advisers are advocating a more limited campaign that would allow the president to declare victory quickly while avoiding a prolonged conflict that could expand across the region.Those differing views have contributed to fluctuations in Trump’s public remarks about the war’s trajectory and possible outcomes.

Members of the administration’s economic team have warned that the conflict could have domestic political consequences if energy prices rise significantly.

The war has already unsettled global energy markets, raising concerns within the administration about the potential for higher gasoline prices in the United States.

Officials familiar with the discussions said economic advisers have cautioned that sustained disruptions to oil supply routes in the Middle East could place additional pressure on consumers and financial markets.

Political advisers close to Trump have argued for a limited and swift operation, according to people familiar with the deliberations. They contend that a shorter campaign could reduce economic fallout while allowing the president to frame the military action as a strategic success.

The competing recommendations have produced what one person close to the discussions described as a complex internal debate over how the administration should define victory and manage the conflict’s political and economic implications.

As the war continues, the policy discussions within the White House are expected to remain fluid as officials monitor developments across the Middle East and assess the broader impact of the confrontation.

Writing in the Saudi-based outlet Arab News, Egyptian journalist and analyst Abdellatif El-Menawy said the conflict has exposed the limits of American power, the reach of Israeli military deterrence and Iran’s enduring role in the regional balance, while simultaneously revealing vulnerabilities in the Gulf’s security architecture.

The war, he argued, may prolong the Middle East’s crises rather than produce the stable “new Middle East” often invoked in policy debates.

The United States’ strategic thinking surrounding the conflict reflects an assumption seen during the Iraq war era that weakening a hostile regional power could pave the way for a more favorable political order.

.Under this logic, military pressure on Iran’s leadership and infrastructure was expected either to weaken Tehran to the point of strategic retreat or trigger domestic unrest that could alter the country’s political trajectory.

But Iran’s position in the region extends beyond the structure of its government, he argued. The country has established institutions, a complex social structure and networks of influence across several parts of the Arab world.

Because of those factors, analysts say the collapse or severe weakening of Iran could introduce additional instability rather than immediately stabilize the region.

The war has already expanded beyond limited strikes, with Iranian attacks targeting Israel, U.S. military installations and other strategic locations across the Gulf region, according to the analysis.

The conflict’s effects have also spread into global economic systems, particularly energy markets and maritime shipping routes.

Oil infrastructure across the Gulf has faced rising risks, with key pipelines, refineries and export terminals in countries including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Iraq and Bahrain placed under heightened security pressure as hostilities intensify.

At the same time, the Strait of Hormuz one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints through which roughly one-fifth of global oil trade passes has come under renewed scrutiny amid the conflict.

Any disruption to shipping through the strait could quickly reverberate through oil prices, insurance markets and international trade flows, analysts note, underscoring the region’s continued strategic significance to the global economy.

The broader implication, is that the Middle East’s geopolitical stability cannot be separated from the vulnerabilities of the global energy system.

The conflict has also raised questions in the Gulf about the long-standing security model built around U.S. military protection.

For decades, American bases in the region were viewed primarily as deterrents against external threats. However, the current conflict has highlighted how those same installations can also become targets during periods of confrontation.

This concern has roots in earlier regional shocks, including the 2019 attack on Saudi oil facilities that temporarily disrupted global oil supply and raised doubts about the effectiveness of external security guarantees.Such developments have already encouraged Gulf states to diversify their diplomatic and strategic relationships.

A notable example came in March 2023, when Saudi Arabia and Iran agreed to restore diplomatic relations in a deal brokered by China. The agreement was widely viewed as part of a broader effort by Gulf states to reduce regional tensions while balancing relations among major global powers.

Despite such diplomatic efforts, the current war has underscored the limits of de-escalation initiatives in a region shaped heavily by geography and military positioning.

As long as U.S. bases remain in the Gulf and Iran perceives those deployments as a strategic threat, regional states will remain exposed to confrontation regardless of their diplomatic preferences, analysts say.

Even if Iran emerges weakened from the conflict, the country is unlikely to disappear from the Middle East’s strategic landscape.

Instead, Tehran may rely more heavily on asymmetric strategies that aim to raise the costs of confrontation for its adversaries.

These strategies could include leveraging maritime chokepoints, economic pressure points and regional alliances to challenge what Tehran views as an American-led security structure.

Iran has historically used such methods as part of a broader deterrence approach that extends beyond conventional military confrontation.The evolving dynamics also raise questions about Israel’s role in the region.

Israel is widely viewed as having demonstrated strong intelligence and airpower capabilities through strikes deep inside Iranian territory. Yet military superiority does not necessarily translate into a stable regional order under Israeli leadership.

Accordingly a weakened Iran could in some ways heighten concerns among Arab states about the emergence of a more assertive Israel.The resulting regional balance may therefore resemble a complex triangular dynamic involving a militarily capable Israel, an injured but resilient Iran and Gulf states with substantial economic resources but growing security uncertainty.

Beyond the Middle East, the conflict also carries wider geopolitical implications.A prolonged confrontation with Iran could absorb American military and diplomatic attention, potentially creating opportunities for rival powers such as Russia and China to expand influence in other regions.

Some analysts have also warned that a shift in U.S. focus toward the Middle East could affect Washington’s ability to manage simultaneous international crises.For now, however, the conflict’s long-term consequences remain uncertain.

While the war has challenged assumptions about the durability of the existing regional order, analysts say it has not yet produced a clear alternative.Instead, the emerging picture is of a Middle East entering a period of greater fluidity, where established security arrangements face new tests and geopolitical alignments continue to evolve.

Mohammad Mohaddesin, head of foreign policy at the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), said during a news conference in Paris that sustained airstrikes had weakened elements of Iran’s military and security apparatus but would not be sufficient to remove the ruling system.

“The 12-day war in June, and the current war, now in its 12th day, proved that bombings cannot overthrow the regime,” Mohaddesin said, adding that political change would require widespread public mobilization inside Iran.

Mohaddesin said that even a substantial deployment of foreign troops would be unlikely to achieve regime change without support from the Iranian population.

“You need a popular uprising,” he said, arguing that internal resistance combined with popular protest would be necessary to challenge the country’s leadership.

He added that he did not consider a deployment of U.S. ground troops a realistic scenario in the current conflict.

Nearly two weeks of fighting have killed around 2,000 people in Iran, including the country’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei, according to figures cited in the conflict, while military strikes have damaged parts of Iran’s defence and security infrastructure.

Iran has responded with retaliatory actions that have widened tensions across the Middle East and disrupted global energy markets and transport routes. The country’s powerful security force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has tightened its control and warned it would suppress any unrest.

The NCRI, also known by its Farsi name Mujahideen-e-Khalq, was designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States until 2012 and remains banned in Iran. Analysts say its level of support inside the country is difficult to assess.

Along with monarchist groups supporting Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s former shah, it is among the few opposition movements outside the country capable of organizing political gatherings and advocacy efforts.

Mohaddesin acknowledged that his organisation alone could not bring down Iran’s political system but said large-scale protests similar to demonstrations earlier this year could re-emerge once airstrikes cease and eventually shift the balance of power.

Israeli officials have said weakening Iran’s security structures is among the objectives of the campaign, arguing it could enable Iranians to determine their own political future.

The estimate, presented to members of Congress on Tuesday, represents only a partial accounting of the costs incurred since the military campaign began on Feb. 28 with coordinated U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets.

The White House has not publicly released an overall assessment of the war’s cost or provided a timeline for how long the conflict might continue.

Several congressional aides said the administration is expected to submit a request to lawmakers for additional war funding in the coming weeks. Estimates discussed among officials suggest the request could reach about $50 billion, though some aides cautioned that figure may underestimate the eventual cost.

Members of Congress will likely be required to approve any additional funding package as the Pentagon seeks resources to sustain operations and replenish weapons stocks used during the campaign.

Administration officials told lawmakers that roughly $5.6 billion worth of munitions were expended during the first two days of strikes alone, underscoring the intensity of the opening phase of the campaign.

Some lawmakers have voiced concern that the pace of weapons use could strain U.S. military inventories at a time when defense manufacturers are already working to expand production capacity to meet global demand.

Last week, Trump met with executives from seven defense contractors as the Pentagon explored ways to accelerate replenishment of critical weapons systems and other military supplies.

Democratic lawmakers have called for public testimony under oath from administration officials to clarify the strategy and objectives of the war, including its expected duration and Washington’s plans for Iran once active combat operations end.

Speaking during a visit to Kentucky on Wednesday, Trump said “we won” the war but indicated that U.S. forces would remain engaged until operations were completed.

The conflict has expanded beyond Iran’s borders into Lebanon and has disrupted global energy markets and maritime transport routes. Around 2,000 people have been killed so far, most of them in Iran and Lebanon, according to figures cited in the briefing.

Finance Minister Wale Edun convened the country’s Economic Management Team to assess how rising geopolitical tensions could affect crude oil prices, capital flows and logistics costs, the ministry said in a statement.

Officials said instability linked to the conflict is already pushing up global crude prices, with concerns centred on possible disruptions near the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical oil shipping routes.

The ministry said higher oil prices could translate into increased domestic costs for fuel, diesel, cooking gas and fertiliser, potentially placing additional pressure on households and businesses.

Authorities warned that prolonged instability in the Middle East could also intensify inflationary pressures and raise living costs.

Government officials said they are closely tracking a range of economic indicators, including crude price movements, exchange-rate pressures, capital flows, fiscal risks and foreign reserve levels.

The review comes as policymakers weigh potential spillover effects from global market volatility on the country’s financial stability.

The finance ministry said Nigeria entered the period with strengthening macroeconomic fundamentals, citing gross domestic product growth of 4.07% in the fourth quarter of 2025.

Authorities said policies would remain under review to protect households and businesses while maintaining investor confidence as global market conditions evolve.