Since the end of the Second World War, diplomatic missions around the world have been attacked at least 800 times, according to data compiled by Prof Gabor Kajtar at Eotvos Lorand University in Hungary. Until Israeli jets apparently fired missiles at an Iranian consular building in the Syrian capital on Monday, killing at least 11 people, none of those attacks were initiated directly and intentionally by a country that was not at war with the one it attacked.
As the Belgian law professor Tom Ruys put it in a 2021 paper in the European Journal of International Law: “One could wonder whether there has ultimately been even a single instance where one state intentionally and openly attacked the diplomatic or consular premises of another state in the absence of an ongoing armed conflict between the two.”
Embassies are sacrosanct spaces in the world of international relations. The idea of one being targeted in a military air strike was hitherto inconceivable.
Why does that matter? With diplomatic missions being attacked so frequently, is it important to distinguish who is doing the attacking, and why?
In international law, the answer is yes, and the reason is that those two factors (who and why) determine how the state under attack is entitled to respond. Israel has not yet claimed responsibility for Monday’s air strike, but if it is proven to have carried it out using its own air force, then we may be witnessing, for the first time in modern history, an instance in which a state has committed an act of aggression in this way. And by extension, it would be the first time in modern history that an embassy attack provides a legal justification for a war of self-defence, should Iran take such a step in response.
International lawyers – in Tel Aviv, Tehran and elsewhere – will be debating this right now. Military lawyers in Tel Aviv have likely already considered the implications.
It is not as though no country has ever tried to invoke a right to military self-defence in response to an attack on its embassy. Since 1945, only one has – the US. And it has done it only five times (a small number, considering America is the victim in about 20 per cent of all attacks on diplomatic missions).
But in each of those five instances, the aggressor was a non-state actor – either a terrorist group or an angry mob, meaning no government was held directly responsible. The US responded with military operations or air strikes on facilities it deemed instrumental to the attacks, citing self-defence in its reports to the UN Security Council. And in all five instances, there was no clear consensus – either among UN member states or international courts – that the self-defence justification was valid.
Embassies are sacrosanct - the idea of one being targeted in a military strike was hitherto inconceivable
Among legal scholars, the question of whether countries can take self-defence measures in another country’s territory in response to the actions of non-state actors is both controversial and murky. Since 9/11 and the US-led “War on Terror”, there has been growing agreement that such actions could be taken, but international law on the subject is far from settled. Where non-state actors have targeted embassies, in all cases but the five raised by the US the affected countries have treated them as diplomatic or criminal matters – not acts of war.
What is settled, however, is that self-defence is justified when one state attacks another. In fact, it is the only universally accepted justification for self-defence.
In international law, the technical term for an attack that triggers the right to self-defence is an “armed attack”. Amazingly, there is no exhaustive definition as to what exactly constitutes an armed attack, but it is well-established that armed attacks are a subset of the crime of aggression. Consequently, many scholars look to UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974), which defines “aggression”, for examples. Among other things, it includes any attack by the armed forces of one state against the territory or armed forces of another state.
Less clear is whether embassies are covered by that definition. Many argue they are not. Contrary to popular belief, embassies are not legally the physical territory of the state they represent. They are, instead, premises with special privileges, considered "inviolable" under international law. Nonetheless, some formidable legal scholars – notably including Christopher Greenwood, a former judge at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – argue that embassies are “organs of a state” akin to armed forces in this context, and so targeting them would meet the “armed attack” threshold.
And as Prof Ruys points out, the fact that attacks on embassies are not explicitly mentioned in Resolution 3314 may itself be “a consequence of the fact that states do not attack other states’ embassies and that the drafters of the Definition of Aggression therefore simply did not contemplate that such a scenario could materialise”.
As I mentioned earlier, Iranian government lawyers are no doubt preparing arguments to that effect right now. Whether Tehran chooses to use them to justify a military response against Israel is another matter.
We should hope not. Such a response would have devastating consequences in a Middle East that is already beset by violence – including Iran-sponsored violence carried out in several countries via armed proxies. If the Israeli army’s past statements on the subject are any guide, Israeli military lawyers would no doubt have already prepared their own arguments citing that very fact.
Most of the people killed in the Iranian mission – and presumably the main targets of Monday’s air strike – were members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the entity responsible for directing Iranian proxies like Hezbollah in attacks against Israel. Even if Israel resists claiming responsibility for the air strike, its internal logic will have been that the strike itself was an act of self-defence, not aggression.
But it is important to say that diplomatic missions are considered civilian targets in the context of war. Even if a person inside is a member of a hostile military, targeting an embassy for the sake of killing that person is almost certainly illegal. If it was indeed behind the attack, as the available evidence suggests, Israel has exposed itself very clearly to charges of aggression, and given Iran the upper hand in meeting the legal threshold for self-defence.
Aside from its potential to ignite a war, the air strike in Damascus may also further drive a wedge between Israel and its closest ally, the US. At the very least, it puts the US in an incredibly awkward position on the international stage. America is the country that perhaps most subscribes to the notion that “an attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents”. The US State Department has said so, in those exact words, in a section of its website titled “Diplomacy 101”. And again, the US is the only country to have considered such attacks on its premises to meet the threshold for self-defence – most famously (and now ironically) when it argued that point at the ICJ in a legal case about its own embassy being attacked in Iran.
In his 2021 paper, Prof Ruys called the hypothetical scenario of one country attacking another’s embassy a “black swan” event – that is, something we’ve never seen before that could invalidate all of our prior assumptions built on past experience. The international community has assumed for decades that embassy attacks don’t launch wars, because up until now they were never serious enough – legally speaking – for the injured state to feel justified in going down that path.
But now, the black swan has arrived.
Specs
Engine: Dual-motor all-wheel-drive electric
Range: Up to 610km
Power: 905hp
Torque: 985Nm
Price: From Dh439,000
Available: Now
Real estate tokenisation project
Dubai launched the pilot phase of its real estate tokenisation project last month.
The initiative focuses on converting real estate assets into digital tokens recorded on blockchain technology and helps in streamlining the process of buying, selling and investing, the Dubai Land Department said.
Dubai’s real estate tokenisation market is projected to reach Dh60 billion ($16.33 billion) by 2033, representing 7 per cent of the emirate’s total property transactions, according to the DLD.
360Vuz PROFILE
Date started: January 2017
Founder: Khaled Zaatarah
Based: Dubai and Los Angeles
Sector: Technology
Size: 21 employees
Funding: $7 million
Investors: Shorooq Partners, KBW Ventures, Vision Ventures, Hala Ventures, 500Startups, Plug and Play, Magnus Olsson, Samih Toukan, Jonathan Labin
How to wear a kandura
Dos
- Wear the right fabric for the right season and occasion
- Always ask for the dress code if you don’t know
- Wear a white kandura, white ghutra / shemagh (headwear) and black shoes for work
- Wear 100 per cent cotton under the kandura as most fabrics are polyester
Don’ts
- Wear hamdania for work, always wear a ghutra and agal
- Buy a kandura only based on how it feels; ask questions about the fabric and understand what you are buying
ALL THE RESULTS
Bantamweight
Siyovush Gulmomdov (TJK) bt Rey Nacionales (PHI) by decision.
Lightweight
Alexandru Chitoran (ROU) bt Hussein Fakhir Abed (SYR) by submission.
Catch 74kg
Omar Hussein (JOR) bt Tohir Zhuraev (TJK) by decision.
Strawweight (Female)
Seo Ye-dam (KOR) bt Weronika Zygmunt (POL) by decision.
Featherweight
Kaan Ofli (TUR) bt Walid Laidi (ALG) by TKO.
Lightweight
Abdulla Al Bousheiri (KUW) bt Leandro Martins (BRA) by TKO.
Welterweight
Ahmad Labban (LEB) bt Sofiane Benchohra (ALG) by TKO.
Bantamweight
Jaures Dea (CAM) v Nawras Abzakh (JOR) no contest.
Lightweight
Mohammed Yahya (UAE) bt Glen Ranillo (PHI) by TKO round 1.
Lightweight
Alan Omer (GER) bt Aidan Aguilera (AUS) by TKO round 1.
Welterweight
Mounir Lazzez (TUN) bt Sasha Palatkinov (HKG) by TKO round 1.
Featherweight title bout
Romando Dy (PHI) v Lee Do-gyeom (KOR) by KO round 1.
Results
United States beat UAE by three wickets
United States beat Scotland by 35 runs
UAE v Scotland – no result
United States beat UAE by 98 runs
Scotland beat United States by four wickets
Fixtures
Sunday, 10am, ICC Academy, Dubai - UAE v Scotland
Admission is free
Indika
%3Cp%3E%3Cstrong%3EDeveloper%3A%3C%2Fstrong%3E%2011%20Bit%20Studios%3Cbr%3E%3Cstrong%3EPublisher%3A%3C%2Fstrong%3E%20Odd%20Meter%3Cbr%3E%3Cstrong%3EConsole%3A%3C%2Fstrong%3E%20PlayStation%205%2C%20PC%20and%20Xbox%20series%20X%2FS%3Cbr%3E%3Cstrong%3ERating%3A%3C%2Fstrong%3E%204%2F5%3C%2Fp%3E%0A
Timeline
2012-2015
The company offers payments/bribes to win key contracts in the Middle East
May 2017
The UK SFO officially opens investigation into Petrofac’s use of agents, corruption, and potential bribery to secure contracts
September 2021
Petrofac pleads guilty to seven counts of failing to prevent bribery under the UK Bribery Act
October 2021
Court fines Petrofac £77 million for bribery. Former executive receives a two-year suspended sentence
December 2024
Petrofac enters into comprehensive restructuring to strengthen the financial position of the group
May 2025
The High Court of England and Wales approves the company’s restructuring plan
July 2025
The Court of Appeal issues a judgment challenging parts of the restructuring plan
August 2025
Petrofac issues a business update to execute the restructuring and confirms it will appeal the Court of Appeal decision
October 2025
Petrofac loses a major TenneT offshore wind contract worth €13 billion. Holding company files for administration in the UK. Petrofac delisted from the London Stock Exchange
November 2025
180 Petrofac employees laid off in the UAE
COMPANY%20PROFILE
%3Cp%3E%3Cstrong%3EName%3A%3C%2Fstrong%3E%20SupplyVan%3Cbr%3E%3Cstrong%3EBased%3A%3C%2Fstrong%3E%20Dubai%2C%20UAE%3Cbr%3E%3Cstrong%3ELaunch%20year%3A%3C%2Fstrong%3E%202017%3Cbr%3E%3Cstrong%3ENumber%20of%20employees%3A%3C%2Fstrong%3E%2029%3Cbr%3E%3Cstrong%3ESector%3A%3C%2Fstrong%3E%20MRO%20and%20e-commerce%3Cbr%3E%3Cstrong%3EFunding%3A%3C%2Fstrong%3E%20Seed%3C%2Fp%3E%0A
The biog
Favourite Emirati dish: Fish machboos
Favourite spice: Cumin
Family: mother, three sisters, three brothers and a two-year-old daughter
ASHES FIXTURES
1st Test: Brisbane, Nov 23-27
2nd Test: Adelaide, Dec 2-6
3rd Test: Perth, Dec 14-18
4th Test: Melbourne, Dec 26-30
5th Test: Sydney, Jan 4-8
Leaderboard
63 - Mike Lorenzo-Vera (FRA)
64 - Rory McIlroy (NIR)
66 - Jon Rahm (ESP)
67 - Tom Lewis (ENG), Tommy Fleetwood (ENG)
68 - Rafael Cabrera-Bello (ESP), Marcus Kinhult (SWE)
69 - Justin Rose (ENG), Thomas Detry (BEL), Francesco Molinari (ITA), Danny Willett (ENG), Li Haotong (CHN), Matthias Schwab (AUT)
Avatar%20(2009)
%3Cp%3E%3Cstrong%3EDirector%3A%20%3C%2Fstrong%3EJames%20Cameron%3C%2Fp%3E%0A%3Cp%3E%3Cstrong%3EStars%3A%20%3C%2Fstrong%3ESam%20Worthington%2C%20Zoe%20Saldana%2C%20Sigourney%20Weaver%3C%2Fp%3E%0A%3Cp%3E%3Cstrong%3ERating%3A%20%3C%2Fstrong%3E3%2F5%3C%2Fp%3E%0A
Mercer, the investment consulting arm of US services company Marsh & McLennan, expects its wealth division to at least double its assets under management (AUM) in the Middle East as wealth in the region continues to grow despite economic headwinds, a company official said.
Mercer Wealth, which globally has $160 billion in AUM, plans to boost its AUM in the region to $2-$3bn in the next 2-3 years from the present $1bn, said Yasir AbuShaban, a Dubai-based principal with Mercer Wealth.
“Within the next two to three years, we are looking at reaching $2 to $3 billion as a conservative estimate and we do see an opportunity to do so,” said Mr AbuShaban.
Mercer does not directly make investments, but allocates clients’ money they have discretion to, to professional asset managers. They also provide advice to clients.
“We have buying power. We can negotiate on their (client’s) behalf with asset managers to provide them lower fees than they otherwise would have to get on their own,” he added.
Mercer Wealth’s clients include sovereign wealth funds, family offices, and insurance companies among others.
From its office in Dubai, Mercer also looks after Africa, India and Turkey, where they also see opportunity for growth.
Wealth creation in Middle East and Africa (MEA) grew 8.5 per cent to $8.1 trillion last year from $7.5tn in 2015, higher than last year’s global average of 6 per cent and the second-highest growth in a region after Asia-Pacific which grew 9.9 per cent, according to consultancy Boston Consulting Group (BCG). In the region, where wealth grew just 1.9 per cent in 2015 compared with 2014, a pickup in oil prices has helped in wealth generation.
BCG is forecasting MEA wealth will rise to $12tn by 2021, growing at an annual average of 8 per cent.
Drivers of wealth generation in the region will be split evenly between new wealth creation and growth of performance of existing assets, according to BCG.
Another general trend in the region is clients’ looking for a comprehensive approach to investing, according to Mr AbuShaban.
“Institutional investors or some of the families are seeing a slowdown in the available capital they have to invest and in that sense they are looking at optimizing the way they manage their portfolios and making sure they are not investing haphazardly and different parts of their investment are working together,” said Mr AbuShaban.
Some clients also have a higher appetite for risk, given the low interest-rate environment that does not provide enough yield for some institutional investors. These clients are keen to invest in illiquid assets, such as private equity and infrastructure.
“What we have seen is a desire for higher returns in what has been a low-return environment specifically in various fixed income or bonds,” he said.
“In this environment, we have seen a de facto increase in the risk that clients are taking in things like illiquid investments, private equity investments, infrastructure and private debt, those kind of investments were higher illiquidity results in incrementally higher returns.”
The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, one of the largest sovereign wealth funds, said in its 2016 report that has gradually increased its exposure in direct private equity and private credit transactions, mainly in Asian markets and especially in China and India. The authority’s private equity department focused on structured equities owing to “their defensive characteristics.”
Marathon results
Men:
1. Titus Ekiru(KEN) 2:06:13
2. Alphonce Simbu(TAN) 2:07:50
3. Reuben Kipyego(KEN) 2:08:25
4. Abel Kirui(KEN) 2:08:46
5. Felix Kemutai(KEN) 2:10:48
Women:
1. Judith Korir(KEN) 2:22:30
2. Eunice Chumba(BHR) 2:26:01
3. Immaculate Chemutai(UGA) 2:28:30
4. Abebech Bekele(ETH) 2:29:43
5. Aleksandra Morozova(RUS) 2:33:01
Tips to avoid getting scammed
1) Beware of cheques presented late on Thursday
2) Visit an RTA centre to change registration only after receiving payment
3) Be aware of people asking to test drive the car alone
4) Try not to close the sale at night
5) Don't be rushed into a sale
6) Call 901 if you see any suspicious behaviour
UAE currency: the story behind the money in your pockets
Terror attacks in Paris, November 13, 2015
- At 9.16pm, three suicide attackers killed one person outside the Atade de France during a foootball match between France and Germany
- At 9.25pm, three attackers opened fire on restaurants and cafes over 20 minutes, killing 39 people
- Shortly after 9.40pm, three other attackers launched a three-hour raid on the Bataclan, in which 1,500 people had gathered to watch a rock concert. In total, 90 people were killed
- Salah Abdeslam, the only survivor of the terrorists, did not directly participate in the attacks, thought to be due to a technical glitch in his suicide vest
- He fled to Belgium and was involved in attacks on Brussels in March 2016. He is serving a life sentence in France
