Striking Fordow will not solve the Iran problem
The world is watching Donald Trump to see if he will green light the use of one of America's most deadly weapons, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (Mop), to destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities at Fordow. As a man with a seemingly inexhaustible need for attention, this is a gratifying position for him to be in. But a potentially dangerous one for the rest of us.
'Trump doesn't have a taste for war,' someone said to me recently. 'War's bad for business.' This appears to be true so far; we have certainly seen Trump try his hand at peace-making in Gaza, Ukraine and Iran with consistently poor results. But history is full of examples of far more principled men than Trump acquiring a taste for war through a thirst for power and money. And we all know what Donald thinks about power and money. If this war, and America's involvement in it, could be presented to Trump as a step towards peace and money and more power, then we should not be surprised in the slightest if he says, 'Ok. Go ahead.'
We hear the 'no surrender' messages coming out of Tehran (notwithstanding rumours of Khamenei's death overnight). It seems then a question of when not if America joins in.
But striking Fordow will not solve the problem that this war has created. Iran's threats to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (hidden among the news cycle) give us a glimpse of the real pariah state in Tehran that might follow; unmoored from global norms, driven by a strong sense of vengeance and injustice and still limping on somehow. And with not an IAEA weapons inspector in sight, very much like the situation we have in North Korea. A decisive defeat for the Islamic Republic is now the only option left for America and Israel, for anything less than this would almost certainly give the world yet another broken nation in a troubled region full of conflict. Does Trump's administration possess the strategic attention span or will require to construct a strategy to rebuild what he has destroyed? Not a chance. And especially not now that the USA doesn't have a civilian aid agency (previously USAID) through whom this essential work would be carried out. Israel has no appetite or expertise for that sort of thing, either.
This scenario is what worries the Gulf countries, of whom Saudi Arabia is the most prosperous and diplomatically powerful. Had you asked Riyadh four years ago if they'd have liked to see a non-Islamic Republic Iran, they'd have said yes. There is no love lost between Tehran and Riyadh, placing to one side the petro-dollar fuelled hiatus when the Shah was in power. But from Riyadh to Ankara, to Bahrain and beyond, the fear now is that perhaps the price to pay for removing Khamenei (decades of instability and conflict) is simply too high, no matter sectarian fault lines. And so, they are caught between desiring a swift end to the conflict and knowing that swift ends to conflicts in this region are illusory goals that belong to the fevered imagination of people like Netanyahu and Trump. And these views are distorted by the fog of war and ego respectively.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump dropped an F-bomb this week – and just for a moment, I warmed to him
I did not get out of bed this morning expecting to praise the public use of an expletive, but such is 2025. If any president was going to break this presidential norm, as NPR put it, it was always going to be Donald Trump. 'We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing,' the president told a group of reporters this week. 'Do you understand that?' he asked, before storming off. It appears to be the first time a president has deliberately used the F-word live on camera to a press scrum or in a public forum, instead of being 'caught' using the term accidentally on a hot mic (even that has only happened a handful of times). Cue plenty of puns from journalists about the 'dropping of the F-bomb'. For the record, Trump actually used the F-word about Iran in 2020, but the slightly delayed radio broadcast bleeped it out. Plus, as this 2016 video compilation shows, it's not unusual for him to swear. But what was different about this time – coming as it did at a moment of heightened global anxiety about military escalation – is that it came across as … authentic. Many people watching will have felt, heard and even shared that frustration about Israel and Iran's alleged breaking of the ceasefire. Trump's swearing made the point more forcefully than any diplomatic 'disappointment' could have done. It wasn't eloquent, but I believed it. We know other presidents – such as Lyndon Johnson, and especially Richard Nixon – swore in private. They wouldn't have dreamed of risking the reputational damage to do so in public, and would have had to apologise if they did. No British prime minister has ever said 'fuck' publicly to my knowledge. Few world leaders ever have. Which is potentially part of the problem. The most common complaint about the political elite is that they're out of touch; that we can't trust a word that comes out of their mouths because it's all untrustworthy scripted spin. Yet at the same time we believe they're swearing like sailors – and saying what they really think – behind closed doors (a perception bolstered by iconic roles such as Peter Capaldi's Malcolm Tucker, the foul-mouthed spin doctor in The Thick of It, or the blue-mouthed Roger Furlong from Veep.) Of course, swearing doesn't equate to honesty. And, in Trump's case, the obscenity only masked his own complicity in creating the situation that frustrated him – from pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 to his 'monumental' airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend. But my point is that the public clearly doesn't trust the polished and sanitised scripts that characterise so much political speech. I'm not suggesting world leaders all suddenly disrespect the gravitas of their office. Can you imagine Keir Starmer being encouraged to swear? He'd sound like a headteacher attempting to rap. What I am saying is there's power in judicious swearing. You want to appear more human to voters? Act more like one. YouGov polling reported in April revealed that just 8% of Britons never swear. Perhaps an occasional curse or two would allow politicians to ally themselves with the 92% of us who do. Linguistic norms are always changing. For six years, I wrote a regular column for the Guardian's Mind your language section. During that time, I saw changes that would incense any purist. For instance, the BBC made even less use of those with received pronunciation accents and started broadcasting more voices that really sound like people across the country. Such 'real' accents are supposed to make the institution seem less remote and more trustworthy. The same is true of the institution of politics. Sounding more like real people does nobody any real harm. If the stakes are literally life and death, and people aren't listening, a well-placed, truly meant expletive will wake everyone up. At time of writing, the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran is holding. Maybe the F-bomb did the job after all. Gary Nunn is a freelance journalist and author
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Trump says he is terminating trade talks with Canada over tax on tech firms
Mr Trump, in a post on his social media network, said Canada had just informed the US that it was sticking to its plan to impose the digital services tax, which applies to Canadian and foreign businesses that engage with online users in Canada. The tax is set to go into effect on Monday. 'Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period,' Mr Trump said in his Truth Social post. Mr Trump's announcement was the latest move in the trade war he has launched since taking office for a second term in January. Progress with Canada has been a roller coaster, starting with the US president repeatedly suggesting it would be absorbed as a US state. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Friday that his country would 'continue to conduct these complex negotiations in the best interests of Canadians. It's a negotiation'. Mr Trump later said he expects that Canada will remove the tax. 'Economically we have such power over Canada. We'd rather not use it,' Mr Trump said in the Oval Office. 'It's not going to work out well for Canada. They were foolish to do it.' When asked if Canada could do anything to restart talks, he suggested Canada could remove the tax, predicted it will but said: 'It doesn't matter to me.' Mr Carney visited Mr Trump in May at the White House. Mr Trump last week travelled to Canada for the G7 summit in Alberta, where Mr Carney said Canada and the US had set a 30-day deadline for trade talks. The digital services tax will hit companies including Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb with a 3% levy on revenue from Canadian users. It will apply retroactively, leaving US companies with a two billion US dollar (£1.4 billion) bill due at the end of the month. 'We appreciate the Administration's decisive response to Canada's discriminatory tax on US digital exports,' Matt Schruers, chief executive of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, said in a statement. Canada and the US have been discussing easing a series of steep tariffs Mr Trump imposed on goods from America's neighbour. The Republican president earlier told reporters that the US was soon preparing to send letters to different countries, informing them of the new tariff rate his administration would impose on them. Mr Trump has imposed 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium as well as 25% tariffs on cars. He is also charging a 10% tax on imports from most countries, though he could raise rates on July 9, after the 90-day negotiating period he set would expire. Canada and Mexico face separate tariffs of as much as 25% that Mr Trump put into place under the auspices of stopping fentanyl smuggling, though some products are still protected under the 2020 US-Mexico-Canada Agreement signed during Mr Trump's first term. Addressing reporters after a private meeting with Republican senators on Friday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declined to comment on news that Mr Trump had ended trade talks with Canada. 'I was in the meeting,' Mr Bessent said before moving on to the next question. About 60% of US crude oil imports are from Canada, and 85% of US electricity imports as well. Canada is also the largest foreign supplier of steel, aluminium and uranium to the US and has 34 critical minerals and metals that the Pentagon is eager to obtain. About 80% of Canada's exports go to the US. Daniel Beland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal, said it is a domestic tax issue, but it has been a source of tensions between Canada and the US for a while because it targets US tech giants. 'The Digital Services Tax Act was signed into law a year ago so the advent of this new tax has been known for a long time,' Mr Beland said. 'Yet, President Trump waited just before its implementation to create drama over it in the context of ongoing and highly uncertain trade negotiations between the two countries.'
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Beijing deal will speed China's export of minerals to US
The agreement comes after China retaliated against steep import tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on Chinese goods, and moved to slow the export of rare earth minerals and magnets much needed by US industrial interests. Mr Bessent said on Fox Business Network's Mornings With Maria that US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping 'had a phone call' previously 'and then our teams met in London, ironed this out, and I am confident now that we, as agreed, the magnets will flow'. 'Part of the agreement was tariffs coming down and rare earth magnets starting to flow back to the US,' Mr Bessent said. 'They formed the core of a lot of our industrial base. They were not flowing as fast as previously agreed.' His comments come after Mr Trump announced two weeks earlier an agreement with China that he said would ease exportation of magnets and rare earth minerals That pact cleared the way for the trade talks to continue. The US has previously suspended some sales to China of critical US technologies like components used for jet engines and semiconductors. But it has also agreed to stop trying to revoke visas of Chinese nationals on US college campuses. Mr Bessent added of critical mineral exports: 'What we're seeing here is a de-escalation.' Commerce secretary Howard Lutnick told Bloomberg TV that the deal was signed earlier this week. China's commerce ministry said on Friday that the two sides had 'further confirmed the details of the framework', though its statement did not explicitly mention US access to rare earths that have been at the centre of the negotiations. 'China will, in accordance with the law, review and approve eligible export applications for controlled items. In turn, the United States will lift a series of restrictive measures it had imposed on China,' it said. Initial talks in Geneva in early May led both sides to postpone massive tariff hikes that were threatening to freeze much trade between the two countries. Later talks in London set a framework for negotiations and the deal mentioned by Mr Trump appeared to formalise that agreement, setting the stage for Mr Bessent's comments on Friday.
