&w=3840&q=100)
Qatar condemns Iran missile strike, Arab leaders avoid backing Tehran
Smoke billows in the distance from an oil refinery following an Israeli strike on the Iranian capital Tehran on June 17, 2025. Israel and Iran exchanged fire again, the fifth day of strikes in their most intense confrontation in history, fuelling fears of a drawn-out conflict that could engulf the Middle East. (Photo by ATTA KENARE / AFP)
Tehran seems to be becoming more and more isolated in the area as the ongoing conflict between Iran, the United States, and Israel intensifies.
The wider response from surrounding Arab countries indicates a reluctance to support the Islamic Republic, despite Iran's daring missile assault on a US facility in Qatar.
Qatar intercepts Iranian missiles and condemns attack
In retaliation for the American and Israeli bombardment, Iran fired missiles at the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar on Monday. However, Qatari forces intercepted the missiles and condemned the strike as a violation of national sovereignty.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Qatar's statement made no mention of the United States, instead highlighting the breach of its territorial integrity.
Arab states cautious, quietly supportive of US strikes
While leaders across the Middle East voiced concerns over escalating conflict, most stopped short of condemning the American attacks on Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
Statements from Turkey and Saudi Arabia merely expressed concern, while the United Arab Emirates and Qatar refrained from naming the United States in their remarks—marking a sharp contrast from their vocal criticism of Israel's recent actions.
Hezbollah's restraint reflects frustration with Iran
Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, historically a key Iranian proxy, has remained largely on the sidelines during this round of hostilities. Though a Sunday statement praised Iran's resilience, it notably suggested Tehran would confront the latest aggression independently.
'[Iran is] capable of confronting this aggression and delivering a bitter defeat to the American and Zionist enemy,' Hezbollah said.
Iran's influence eroding in Syria and Lebanon
Iran's support of groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Assad regime in Syria has traditionally extended its regional power. However, Israel's successful campaigns have destroyed much of this proxy infrastructure, and Assad's regime was ousted last year by Ahmad al-Sharaa.
The new Syrian leader has since reached out to the Trump administration and expressed openness to reducing tensions with Israel, further signalling Iran's waning influence in the region.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Arab leaders fear retaliation and regional spillover
Despite quiet satisfaction over Iran's diminished capacity, Arab nations remain wary of becoming targets. Iran has a history of retaliatory strikes, including the 2019 Houthi drone attack on Saudi Aramco facilities and the ballistic missile attacks on US bases in Iraq following Qassem Soleimani's killing.
Any Iranian strike on Gulf states could draw Washington deeper into conflict, as host nations may expect US military protection.
Regime change fears loom over the Gulf
A more aggressive US stance, such as pursuing regime change in Iran, could provoke anxiety among Gulf leaders, especially in nations with sizeable and restive Shia populations like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
World's major courts take growing role in climate fight
PARIS: The world's top court is poised to tell governments what their legal obligations are to tackle global warming, and possibly outline consequences for polluters that cause climate harm to vulnerable countries. Wednesday's highly anticipated advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice comes in the wake of landmark international decisions that experts say together have the potential to significantly shape climate action. How has climate litigation evolved? Andrew Raine, deputy director of the UN Environment Programme 's law division, said frustration over the pace of climate action had spurred people, organisations and countries to turn to the courts. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo "When political systems fall short, the law is increasingly seen as a tool for driving ambition and enforcing commitments that have been made," he told AFP. These have been bolstered by increasingly precise and detailed climate science, including from the UN's IPCC climate expert panel. Almost 3,000 climate cases have been filed up to the end of 2024, in nearly 60 countries, according to the Grantham Research Institute, using data compiled by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. While not all have been successful -- and some have tried to slow climate progress -- there have been notable cases in recent years that have pushed states to do more. Urgenda, an environmental organisation in the Netherlands, notched a win at the Dutch Supreme Court in 2019, with justices ordering the government to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by the end of the following year. And in 2021, the German Constitutional Court found that the government's failure to sufficiently cut planet-heating pollution placed an unacceptable burden on future generations. Raine said that litigation was increasingly crossing borders, with 24 cases brought before international or regional courts, tribunals or other bodies. "This marks a turning point and it reflects the transboundary and shared nature of the climate crisis," he said. Why have recent cases been deemed historic? Two in particular have been hailed as watershed moments that will help shape how courts, governments and businesses understand and act on their climate responsibilities. Last year, an advisory opinion by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea said carbon emissions can be considered a marine pollutant and that countries have a legal duty to take measures to reduce their effects on oceans. The tribunal made clear that the work of defining countries' obligations is not limited to the Paris climate agreement or the UN body that runs climate change negotiations. Major polluters have argued that the UN framework is sufficient and against courts taking climate decisions. Another major advisory opinion was issued this month, with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights reaffirming the right to a healthy climate system and acknowledging the rights of nature. But perhaps the court's most profound statement was to place protection against irreversible climate harms on the same level as international prohibitions on genocide and torture, said Cesar Rodriguez-Garavito, Professor of Law and Director of the Climate Law Accelerator at New York University. The court said "massive and serious harm to the climate system through emissions, through deforestation and so on, is absolutely forbidden by international law," he said. In his view this made it the strongest statement yet by any international court on states' duty to avoid causing severe ecological destruction. All eyes are now on the ICJ. What could be the impact? Vanuatu, one of many low-lying islands threatened by sea level rise, has asked the ICJ to give its opinion on states' obligations to reduce emissions. But the potentially more controversial request is what -- if any -- legal consequences there might be for major polluters who cause severe climate damages. "These are questions of global justice," said Rodriguez-Garavito, potentially touching on contentious issues of "reparations for climate harms" to those least responsible for emissions. While advisory opinions like the ICJ are not legally enforceable, Raine said they carry significant weight. "They clarify how international law applies to the climate crisis, and that has ripple effects across national courts, legislative processes and public debates," he said. "It doesn't force states to act, but it shows them where the law stands and where they should be headed."
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
US-Iran nuclear talks set for revive, negotiators to meet in Istanbul on Friday
Iran has agreed to resume nuclear talks with European powers in Istanbul this Friday, the first since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iranian nuclear sites a month ago, sharply escalating tensions in the region. read more A missile in front of a poster of the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during a military exhibition in Tehran, Iran. Representsational image: Hasan Sarbakhshian/AP Iran has said it will hold new talks with European powers in Istanbul on Friday, according to state media. This will mark the first round of dialogue since the United States and its ally Israel targeted Iranian nuclear sites a month ago. Iranian officials are expected to meet with representatives from Britain, France, and Germany — collectively known as the E3 — after the trio warned that sanctions could be reinstated if Tehran does not return to the negotiating table over its nuclear programme. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Western nations and Israel have repeatedly accused Iran of attempting to develop nuclear weapons — a charge Tehran has consistently denied. 'In response to the request of European countries, Iran has agreed to hold a new round of talks,' said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghai, as quoted by state television on Monday. More from World 'Uranium enrichment one of our red lines': Iran rules out conditional nuclear talks with US He emphasised that the talks would focus on Iran's nuclear programme. AFP reported that a German diplomatic source said on Sunday that the E3 nations — Germany, France, and the UK — remain in contact with Tehran, stressing that 'Iran must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.' The source added that the three countries are working closely within the E3 framework to secure a lasting and verifiable diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran and the United States had engaged in multiple rounds of nuclear negotiations through Omani mediation before Israel launched its 12-day military offensive against Iran. However, the talks collapsed after US President Donald Trump joined Israel in launching strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, effectively derailing the diplomatic process. Tensions between Israel and Iran have sharply escalated in recent weeks, with both sides engaging in direct military strikes and bombing each other's territory. Subsequently, the United States intensified its involvement by deploying B-2 bombers and bunker-busting munitions, targeting Iranian nuclear sites.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Houthi, Hezbollah Attack On Israel? Iran Rebuilds Proxy Network Amid Stalled Nuclear Talks With U.S.
Iran's regional proxy network is resurging as Tehran attempts to regain influence lost during nearly two years of Israeli military strikes. From Houthi attacks in the Red Sea to sabotage in Iraq's oil fields and intercepted arms bound for Hezbollah, Iran's strategy of supporting armed groups remains central to its deterrence. Despite high-profile Israeli assassinations of IRGC leaders, Iran continues supplying weapons, signaling defiance amid stalled nuclear talks. The growing proxy activity raises tensions as Tehran, Washington, and regional actors brace for further confrontation.#IranProxies #MiddleEastTensions #RedSeaCrisis #HouthiAttacks #HezbollahArms #IRGC #USIranTensions #ProxyWars #TehranVsTelAviv #OilSabotage #NuclearTalks #MiddleEastConflict #WeaponsInterception #IranNetwork Read More
