The Editor’s Note
Welcome back to this week’s edition of Outside OX1! With term half-way over already, the deadlines are coming through thick and fast for many. In the midst of term, it can oftyen be difficult to know what’s going on outside the Oxford bubble. Why not take a break and catch up on some of last week’s biggest stories?
Elana Roberts explores a prolonged U.S. government shutdown, the longest in the country’s history, which has halted federal funding and suspended vital services, including food assistance. Over 42 million Americans, including 16 million children, faced the sudden suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits on 1 November. The shutdown stems from a political deadlock between Republicans and Democrats over the federal budget, with disagreements centred on healthcare and welfare spending.
Saba Ahmadzadeh Noughani writes that Turkey and Iraq have finalised a ten-year “Oil-for-Water” agreement linking Iraqi oil exports to Turkish-led water infrastructure projects. Turkish companies will build and manage dams, reclamation projects, and irrigation systems in Iraq, financed through oil revenues deposited in special accounts. The deal is intended to address Iraq’s severe drought and water scarcity.
Gabriela Austin examines the conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which has claimed over 150,000 lives and displaced 12 million people, making it one of the worst humanitarian disasters in modern history. Ethnic cleansing, famine, and mass civilian casualties have been reported, particularly in El Fasher and Kadugli. The war has drawn in regional powers: Egypt, Iran, and Saudi Arabia back the SAF, while the UAE supports the RSF. Although a recent U.S.-backed ceasefire has been announced, many view it as insincere, intended to legitimise the RSF rather than secure peace.
Loss of SNAP Benefits Amidst US Government Shutdown Affects Millions
Elana Roberts
In late October, forty-two million people in the US received the devastating news that the food-assistance funds provided by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) would not be provided on 1 November. This has come as a consequence of the US government shutdown, which has been in effect since 1 October, and has already become the longest shutdown on record in US history.
When the previous federal budget expired, the US Congress was responsible for creating and approving a new spending plan, which then needed to be passed to US President Donald Trump for signing and therefore acceptance into law. However, Congress has been divided between the Democrats and the Republicans, who have vastly different ambitions for the spending plan. As a result of this impasse, the government automatically shut down, and many US government services have been suspended for an undetermined length of time.
It is not unusual that Congress is unable to pass bills before its self-imposed deadlines. Over 2025, the Budget Resolution plan was passed by Congress, the Reconciliation Bill was also passed (despite being very close to not passing), but the Senate (the upper chamber of Congress) was unable to pass the spending bill, which establishes the federal budget for the upcoming year. The bill needed 60 votes in favour to advance to Trump, but by 1 October the Republicans, who are the party in control of Congress, were still short of the 60 votes required.
The Democrats have capitalised on this impasse to gain some leverage. They primarily want the bill to prevent the rise of healthcare insurance costs for Americans registered with ‘Obamacare’, as well as the reversal of cuts to Medicaid, a federal and state program providing health insurance for people with limited income. Without these concessions, the Democrats have held firm against the new bill, voting 14 times against it.
The government shutdown has led to the closure of several federal departments and services due to a lack of funding, although the military and the border protection departments have not been affected to the same extent. The Transportation Department has seen a shortage of air traffic controllers expected to work without pay, leading to the cancellation and delay of flights across the country. On 31 October, this nearly came to head as two planes had a near miss while taking off from Los Angeles Airport.
Yet perhaps most significantly, the SNAP program has lost funding. Since the first announcement, done with very little notice, that SNAP would be cut off for the entirety of November, numerous lawsuits have been brought forward by federal judges ordering the government to reinstate SNAP benefits. First, two lawsuits argued that at least partial benefits must be kept flowing to the many people who would be left in immense food insecurity otherwise.
The Trump Administration agreed to use $4.6 billion in contingency funds to provide approximately 65 percent of the SNAP benefits typically distributed, as SNAP typically costs around $8 billion a month. However, US District Judge John McConnell ordered the Administration to provide the full SNAP benefits by 7 November through the use of contingency funds and any other funds available. McConnell has argued that only partial reinstatement would result in great harm and that “not making payments to them [SNAP beneficiaries] for even another day is simply unacceptable.”
In response, the Trump Administration submitted an appeal on 7 November, requesting that the federal appeals court block McConnell’s order. White House Press Secretary Karoline Levitt has claimed that the president is complying with all court orders in the meantime.
The Trump Administration has also blamed the Democrats for the loss of SNAP. On the website of the US Department of Agriculture, a statement highlights that the Senate Democrats’ decision to vote against the bill has prevented the reopening of the government and flow of the federal budget. The Senate Democrats are stated to be “withholding services to American people in exchange for healthcare for illegals, gender mutilation, and other unknown ‘leverage’ points.”
Forty-two million people rely on SNAP, including 16 million children. As the weather gets colder, people are concerned about balancing already tight household budgets between the growing cost of energy and being able to provide nutritious, regular meals. SNAP benefits can normally alleviate the pressure of these choices, as they free up the budget for household bills due to being exclusively applicable for groceries. The removal of SNAP benefits will have, and has already had, a drastic effect on people’s capacity to feed themselves.
In the meantime, people have been flocking to food banks and community centres in the thousands, increasing the pressure on these vital services. The longer that the reinstatement of SNAP and the US government shutdown are dragged out, the more that states will struggle to fill the gap left behind by SNAP.
Oil-for-Water: Turkey to Assist Iraq in Managing Its Water Crisis
Saba Ahmadzadeh Noughani
In April last year, Turkey and Iraq formalised an agreement to implement an “Oil-for-Water” deal. The agreement stated that Turkish companies would take charge of water infrastructure projects in Iraq, financed by revenue from Iraqi oil sales to Turkey. In November 2025, a second agreement has been signed, finalising the steps for a ten-year cooperation deal. The recent agreement moves beyond previous informal agreements made in April 2024, to more specific water projects.
Oil for Water Deal: Plan and Financing
The agreement states that Iraqi oil revenues will pay Turkish infrastructure companies that carry out water infrastructure projects in Iraq. These projects include the building of water harvesting dams, as well as land reclamation efforts. The deal aims to provide sustainable solutions to Iraq’s “water crisis”, and to develop the nation’s declining water and irrigation systems. Currently, initial construction projects include constructing three water-harvesting dams and three land reclamation initiatives. Other projects include improving water quality, reducing water pollution in Iraq’s rivers, and improving Iraq’s outdated irrigation methods.
Turkish companies have been granted a five-year mandate to manage and supervise the dam and infrastructure projects, after which the responsibility will be transferred back to Iraqi authorities. In the meantime, the Iraqi government is planning on establishing a committee to oversee the projects and encourage bids for more projects from Turkish companies. The financing model of the deal involves Turkish companies purchasing Iraqi oil and depositing the proceeds into a specific account. This fund will then be used to pay Turkish infrastructure companies that work on the water projects in Iraq. This is a unique way of funding the project linking two vital sectors of the Iraqi economy.
Motivations Behind the Deal
Iraq suffers from severe water scarcity and drought in some regions. A large portion of the nation’s water is derived from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which originate in and flow through Turkey. This agreement will therefore improve Iraq’s water resources and management. Additionally, the Turkish government has pledged to manage water releases into Iraq, and so far has agreed to an initial release of one billion cubic meters of water.
The water deal, however, is simply part of a wider plan to improve bilateral relations between Iraq and Turkey. The two nations are also cooperating on security issues, such as eradicating the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) militants, as well as trade issues, like the “Development Road” corridor project.
Despite this, some critics do not feel positive regarding the cooperation between the two nations, arguing that the deal essentially sees Iraq providing oil to Turkey, for Turkey to then temporarily supervise and manage Iraq’s water distribution. It is therefore no surprise that the deal is raising concerns about the potential negative impacts on Iraq’s sovereignty over its water resources.
Sudan’s Silent War
Gabriela Austin
On 6 November, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan agreed to a US-backed ceasefire proposal to the current civil war raging across the country. Sudan’s third civil war, which erupted on 15 April 2023, has unfolded largely in the shadows of global attention. Despite more people having died in the past week in El Fasher, the capital of the North Darfur State in western Sudan, than in the past two years in Gaza, the world’s focus has been fixed elsewhere. With Sudan becoming increasingly difficult for journalists to access, the country has been unravelling in a humanitarian crisis largely outside of the global public eye.
The conflict pits the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) against the RSF, a paramilitary group born from the Janjaweed Arab nomad militia group of Darfur. Both were once collaborators in enforcing Omar al-Bashir’s regime. When a popular uprising in 2018–2019 overthrew Bashir, the military seized control, promising a transition to democracy. Instead, a 2021 coup ended any pretence of civilian governance, and by 2023 tensions between the SAF and RSF erupted into a full-scale war. As evidenced by the death toll, neither side has shown interest in protecting civilians. More than 150,000 people have died, considered a genocide according to the UN’s standards.
The siege and fall of the city of El Fasher, after eighteen months of brutal fighting, epitomise the war’s cruelty. The fighting saw signs of ethnic cleansing, with mass killings captured by satellite, as well as the deliberate starvation of civilians. Famine has already been confirmed in El Fasher and Kadugli, with experts predicting that twenty additional areas could soon tip into famine, and over 21.2 million people face severe food insecurity. Even if the fighting were to end, missed harvests and disrupted agriculture mean hunger will persist for years to come, condemning Sudan’s future.
The 12 million displaced civilians,the highest displacement figure ever recorded for a single country, do not just signal disaster for the preservation of Sudan, but also for the country’s fragile neighbours. Sharing its borders with seven other African nations, the conflict’s ripple effects threaten to destabilise the wider region; Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, and Chad all stand on the brink of further unrest.
More internationally, Sudan has become a theatre of regional proxy warfare. Egypt and Iran have backed the SAF; Saudi Arabia has leaned in the same direction, while the United Arab Emirates has funnelled weapons to the RSF. All seek to profit from this devastating crisis. The United States, despite its rhetorical concern (and Donald Trump’s desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize, claiming he has so far ended 8 wars), has refrained from any military, aggressive action, and experts believe this hesitation could have been interpreted by many as tacit approval, encouraging these international players to add fuel to the fire of the war.
Despite the recent ceasefire agreement, the past has proven that such promises are often hollow, and the Sudanese people have not allowed themselves to hope. Especially given the timing of the agreement, issued after reports that the SAF would reject any deal unless the RSF withdrew from the cities it controls, which appears to signal that the RSF is seeking legitimacy in the eyes of the international community, rather than a genuine pursuit of peace.
The country’s agony continues, mostly unheeded, and it is Sudan’s starved people bearing the cost of global indifference. Between airstrikes and street murders, the question of how the country will recover and what it will take for the world to act in these unrepresented areas, echoes.