Ramin Jahanbegloo writes: After Iran-Israel war, a different Middle East
It has now become customary for people around the globe to take sides easily in the war between Israel and Iran and respond to the strategic and political needs of this confrontation rather than to answer to their own conscience. Right now, the correct question to ask is why we got here and, of course, the right answer is that the ideological face-to-face between the state of Israel and the Iranian regime during the past 40 years has been all about hegemony in the Middle East. On the one hand, the Iranian Shiite clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards in Iran lived, until very recently, with the illusion that Iran was so powerful that it could fight back Israel and the US at the same time. For nearly five decades, the Iranian regime made the mistake of being immensely loudmouthed about its rhetoric against the state of Israel and minimising the US power in the Levant. This was intensified after the end of the eight-year war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, with the starring role played by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, especially the Quds Force. The unexpected killing of Qassem Soleimani by the American military in Iraq during Donald Trump's first presidency was a decisive step against the mastermind of Iran's proxy wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Despite the assassination of Soleimani, the Iranian regime continued to push forward its hegemonic perception of international relations in the Middle East and beyond.
In the past five years, the Iranian regime has tried to attack Israeli and American interests in the Middle East through its proxies, like the Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis of Yemen. The Iranian people had to pay the price of the presence of this 'syndrome of hegemony' by being isolated economically and politically through Trump's maximum pressure campaign and the EU sanctions against Iran in response to its human rights abuses, nuclear proliferation activities and military support for Russia's war in Ukraine. However, despite this, Iran continued to play a diplomatic game with the Biden administration and the EU, leaving Israel out of the equation each time in talks on the nature of Iranian nuclear sites. It also did not get involved in direct clashes with these two countries. However, on October 1, 2024, Iran fired more than 180 ballistic missiles at Israel, and on October 26, Israel responded with three waves of strikes against Iranian military targets. Unlike the recent war between the two countries, though, Iran and Israel did not aim at each other's citizens, army officers or sensitive installations.
Things have been different in the present war between Iran and Israel. First and foremost, Israel could count fully on Trump's political and military support in an attack against Iran's military and its nuclear installations. On the other hand, Ayatollah Khamenei is said to have been asked by advisers not to escalate the war after the bombing of Iran's main nuclear sites — Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Third, the Iranian regime kept open the option of firing missiles and drones at Israel, as it did hours after the US suggestion of an unconditional ceasefire, knowing perfectly well that the survival of the Islamic Republic of Iran was at stake — as in the case of the 1988 Iran-Iraq war, Iran might run out of missiles and ammunition. Last but not least, though some of the Iranian military commanders might have suggested a crushing response to the US by closing the Strait of Hormuz — through which more than a quarter of the world's seaborne crude oil passes — even Russia and China, the two key allies of Iran, have not supported such a folly.
The Arab leaders of the Persian Gulf region, notably Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar, have tried to calm the tensions between Iran and the US, while not entertaining a Shiite Iran in search of regional hegemony. But they seem to be preoccupied by the sudden isolation of Iran from its weakened proxies and its two political allies, Russia and China, who are deeply embedded in the global economy and have much to lose from the turmoil in the Middle East.
Regime change in Iran is not an easy task. Until now, Israel and the US have been able to set back Iran's nuclear capacities without permanently removing its nuclear and ballistic missile threats. Many questions remain after the United States joined Israel in the war against Iran. First, what are the immediate consequences of Trump's 'spectacular military success'? Second, would the Iranian authorities still go for a comprehensive nuclear deal with the US and Europe? Third, will the fragile US-brokered ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold? Last, will the Iranian regime turn its guns once again against its civilians who dare to ask about the moral legitimacy of the country's leadership?
One way or another, Iran post-June 2025 will lay the groundwork for a new Middle Eastern roadmap.
The writer is director, Mahatma Gandhi Centre for Nonviolence and Peace Studies, OP Jindal Global University
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
32 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize? After Pakistan, now Congo joins the push
Donald Trump Brokers Congo-Rwanda Peace Deal Congo's President Said to Be Considering Trump for Nobel Peace Prize Nomination Live Events A Turning Point After 30 Years of War FAQs (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel As the US president Donald Trump, once again positioned himself as a global peacemaker, this time by brokering a peace deal signed by the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda, he may even have gotten Congo's support in nominating him for a Nobel Peace Prize after Pakistan, as per a pointed out that he was able to broker a deal for "one of the worst wars anyone's ever seen," adding, "I was able to get them together and sell it," Mr Trump said. "And not only that, we're getting for the United States a lot of the mineral rights from Congo," as quoted by Sky the signing ceremony started, the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt invited an African reporter and 'friend' Hariana Veras to address the press and attendees in the Oval Office, which included US vice president JD Vance, secretary of state Marco Rubio, and the foreign ministers from the two African countries, according to a Daily Beast READ: Who is Hariana Veras, the woman Trump flirted with? President says she is beautiful and wishes more were like her Veras, who is a White House correspondent based in Cong, told Trump that the president of Congo wants to nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize, as she said, "President Félix Tshisekedi is thinking of nominating you for the Nobel Peace Prize. You deserve it," as quoted by Sky pointed out that "You have been working to bring peace in the world, not only in the Congo, and he's very hopeful to meet you in the future," adding, "Tshisekedi told me that for many years, American presidents have overlooked this conflict. They didn't do anything," as quoted by Sky READ: Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill sparks panic among MAGA voters: 'We'd lose everything' Her remarks came as both the African nations signed the peace deal, which Rubio called it "an important moment after 30 years of war," according to the foreign minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner also pointed out about the millions of victims of the conflict, while signing the agreement with Rwandan foreign minister Olivier Nduhungirehe, as per the Sky News per a copy seen by Reuters, the peace agreement, which was signed by the foreign ministers, pledges to implement a 2024 deal that would see Rwandan troops withdraw from eastern DRC within 90 days, as reported by Sky said that, "Some wounds will heal, but they will never fully disappear," adding, "Those who have suffered the most are watching. They are expecting this agreement to be respected, and we cannot fail them," as quoted in the Nduhungirehe pointed out the "great deal of uncertainty" as earlier agreements were not put in place, according to Sky News. He said, "There is no doubt that the road ahead will not be easy," and added, "But with the continued support of the United States and other partners, we believe that a turning point has been reached," as quoted by Sky READ: California's AB5 Law under fire, nail techs sue state over worker classification – what the law states? A Congolese reporter said President Tshisekedi wants to nominate Trump for the Nobel, but it hasn't been made official yet, as per Sky News helped bring leaders from DRC and Rwanda together to sign a peace agreement, with the aim to end a decades-long war, as per the report.
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize? After Pakistan, now Congo joins the push
Donald Trump facilitated a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. The deal aims to end a thirty-year conflict. As part of the agreement, Rwandan troops will withdraw from eastern Congo. The President of Congo is reportedly considering nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. The foreign ministers of both nations signed the agreement. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Donald Trump Brokers Congo-Rwanda Peace Deal Congo's President Said to Be Considering Trump for Nobel Peace Prize Nomination Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads A Turning Point After 30 Years of War Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads FAQs As the US president Donald Trump, once again positioned himself as a global peacemaker, this time by brokering a peace deal signed by the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda, he may even have gotten Congo's support in nominating him for a Nobel Peace Prize after Pakistan, as per a pointed out that he was able to broker a deal for "one of the worst wars anyone's ever seen," adding, "I was able to get them together and sell it," Mr Trump said. "And not only that, we're getting for the United States a lot of the mineral rights from Congo," as quoted by Sky the signing ceremony started, the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt invited an African reporter and 'friend' Hariana Veras to address the press and attendees in the Oval Office, which included US vice president JD Vance, secretary of state Marco Rubio, and the foreign ministers from the two African countries, according to a Daily Beast READ: Who is Hariana Veras, the woman Trump flirted with? President says she is beautiful and wishes more were like her Veras, who is a White House correspondent based in Cong, told Trump that the president of Congo wants to nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize, as she said, "President Félix Tshisekedi is thinking of nominating you for the Nobel Peace Prize. You deserve it," as quoted by Sky pointed out that "You have been working to bring peace in the world, not only in the Congo, and he's very hopeful to meet you in the future," adding, "Tshisekedi told me that for many years, American presidents have overlooked this conflict. They didn't do anything," as quoted by Sky READ: Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill sparks panic among MAGA voters: 'We'd lose everything' Her remarks came as both the African nations signed the peace deal, which Rubio called it "an important moment after 30 years of war," according to the foreign minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner also pointed out about the millions of victims of the conflict, while signing the agreement with Rwandan foreign minister Olivier Nduhungirehe, as per the Sky News per a copy seen by Reuters, the peace agreement, which was signed by the foreign ministers, pledges to implement a 2024 deal that would see Rwandan troops withdraw from eastern DRC within 90 days, as reported by Sky READ: US unleashes 30,000-pound bunker-busters on Iran — but scientists say Tehran's concrete may have won the day Wagner said that, "Some wounds will heal, but they will never fully disappear," adding, "Those who have suffered the most are watching. They are expecting this agreement to be respected, and we cannot fail them," as quoted in the Nduhungirehe pointed out the "great deal of uncertainty" as earlier agreements were not put in place, according to Sky News. He said, "There is no doubt that the road ahead will not be easy," and added, "But with the continued support of the United States and other partners, we believe that a turning point has been reached," as quoted by Sky READ: California's AB5 Law under fire, nail techs sue state over worker classification – what the law states? A Congolese reporter said President Tshisekedi wants to nominate Trump for the Nobel, but it hasn't been made official yet, as per Sky News helped bring leaders from DRC and Rwanda together to sign a peace agreement, with the aim to end a decades-long war, as per the report.
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
With Supreme Court ruling, another check on Trump's power fades
WASHINGTON : The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Donald Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision on Friday, by a vote of 6-3, could allow Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country -- even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to immigrants without legal status or foreign visitors without green cards could be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Jesus' Tomb Is Opened And Scientists Find Something Unbelievable Novelodge Undo The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. Live Events But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the "imperial presidency." Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors general and sidelining the Justice Department 's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits, and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorized and appropriated. Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorization from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, recently told her constituents that "we are all afraid" of Trump. While the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing the president's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. Still, in concurring opinions, two other key members of the conservative bloc, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned lower-court judges not to lower standards for using alternative means to issue sweeping orders in an effort to circumvent the ruling. Alito wrote that "district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors" of legal rules. Thomas added that if judges do not "carefully heed this court's guidance" and act within limits, "this court will continue to be 'duty bound' to intervene." In a rare move that signaled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. "Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship," she wrote. "Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief." Sotomayor also said the administration did not ask to entirely halt the multiple injunctions against its order because it knew the directive was patently illegal, and accused the majority of playing along with that open gamesmanship. She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. All six of the justices who voted to end universal injunctions were Republican appointees, including three Trump installed on the bench in his first term. The same supermajority has ruled in ways that have enhanced his power in other avenues. Last year, the bloc granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts as president. The ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, asserted that presidents have absolute immunity for anything they do with the Justice Department and their supervision of federal law enforcement power. Emboldened, Trump this year has built on his approach from his first term, when he informally pressured prosecutors to investigate his political foes. He has issued formal orders to scrutinize specific people he does not like, shattering the post-Watergate norm of a Justice Department case independent from White House political control. The supermajority also has blessed Trump's gambit in firing Democratic members of independent agency commissions before their terms were up. The conservative justices have made clear that they are prepared to overturn a long-standing precedent allowing Congress to establish specialized agencies to be run by panels whose members cannot be arbitrarily fired by presidents. In a separate concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a realpolitik take. The majority's exegesis of what powers Congress understood itself to be granting lower courts when it created them in 1789 was a smokescreen of mind-numbing "legalese," she wrote, obscuring the question of whether a court can order the executive branch to follow the law. "In a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law -- and it must," she wrote before striking a cautionary note. "Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by law," she added. "By duty and nature, federal courts say what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute), and require those who are subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law." But Barrett accused her of forgetting that courts, too, must obey legal limits. "Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary," Barrett wrote. "No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law. But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation -- in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so." This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
