German foreign minister alters Middle East trip after Israel strikes Iran
BERLIN, June 13 (Reuters) - German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul had to change his trip in the Middle East, dropping a stop in Israel, after the country launched a barrage of strikes across Iran earlier on Friday.
Speaking in Cairo after talks with his Egyptian counterpart Badr Abdelatty, Wadephul said that he would travel from Egypt to Saudi Arabia for further talks on Saturday.
He initially had planned to visit Jordan, Lebanon and Syria as well. The foreign ministry left open on Friday if he would still make stops at those locations.
Israel said it attacked nuclear facilities and missile factories and killed a swathe of military commanders in what could be a prolonged operation to prevent Tehran from building an atomic weapon.
Wadephul said earlier on Friday that no one benefits from further escalation in tensions between Israel and Iran and called for all parties to return to the negotiating table.
The German foreign ministry also issued a warning to its citizens against travel to Israel and the Palestinian territories, saying on its website that "Israel is still formally in a state of war."
The ministry added that German citizens currently in Gaza and the West Bank should leave those territories, if possible.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Thanks to the humbling of Iran, a new reshaped, peaceful Middle East is within our grasp
Several years ago, I stood at the northernmost tip of Israel, just behind the border with Lebanon. A pale-grey concrete wall divided the two countries. Just a few yards away, on the other side, a road snaked into the distance. It turned sharp right, then left, a physical manifestation of the absurdity of the arbitrary lines drawn across the dun-coloured scrubland. A blue road sign was clearly visible, indicating the way to Beirut, and a stream of cars headed up the Lebanese coast. Behind us, in Israel, were the green fields of a border kibbutz. On the other side, the hills were dotted with large, multi-storey villas, shimmering in the heat. For a moment, I imagined that the frontier was open, that it was possible to drive north from Tel Aviv to Tyre, Sidon and then Beirut. Back in the 1960s, the Lebanese capital was a smart, sophisticated city, renowned for its glamorous nightlife and known as the Paris of the Middle East. It's still one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the Levant, and would be a natural tourism partner for Tel Aviv. A few yards behind us was one key reason that has not happened yet. Operatives for Hezbollah, the Shi'ite terrorist organisation that controls much of southern Lebanon, had dug a tunnel under the fence. The tunnel had been discovered a few yards inside Israeli territory and blocked up. There was little doubt that had the Hezbollah operatives succeeded in infiltrating, they would have carried out atrocities such as those committed by Hamas on October 7. Hamas documents captured during the Gaza war, published by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, in Israel, outline a plan for a joint Hamas-Hezbollah onslaught on Israel, together with militias from other Arab states, co-ordinated with Iran. For now, at least, such an attack is much less likely. America's bunker-buster bombs not only destroyed – or severely damaged – Iran's nuclear capabilities, but also its power as regional hegemon. Hezbollah, Iran's client terrorist militia in southern Lebanon, had already been crippled by Israel's audacious 'beeper' operation, which killed or wounded thousands of operatives. Hamas, also a client of Tehran, is still killing Israeli soldiers in Gaza, but will soon be written out of any future peace settlement, its leaders likely exiled and living in hiding for the rest of their lives. As the dust settles over Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz, Iran's nuclear sites, the contours of a new Middle East can be glimpsed. Far in the distance, perhaps, but visible none the less. Much of the Middle East's current woes can be traced back to the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, which carved up the dying Ottoman empire into areas of British and French control. The British zone, for example, included much of Mesopotamia in modern-day Iraq, while France was granted what became Syria and Lebanon. After the Second World War, when the Western powers retreated, unitary nation-states were imposed on multi-ethnic societies with little sense of national identity. Minorities, fearful for their future, took control and instituted reigns of terror. The Assad dynasty in Syria was Alawite. Saddam Hussein in Iraq was a Sunni Muslim. The Kurds, spread across the region, were denied any kind of state. Yet even if the borders of the Arab states are not redrawn, Sykes-Picot and its legacy are not immutable. An autonomous de facto Kurdistan exists in part of north-eastern Iraq, with its own elected parliament and government. Shimon Peres, the late veteran Israeli statesman, once proposed a 'Jordanian option', where Israel, a Palestinian entity and Jordan would form a confederation, with open borders, free movement internally and shared institutions. The European Union, where open borders and free trade have largely rendered old territorial disputes irrelevant, could offer a model for a new Middle East. The Abraham Accords, between Israel and several Arab countries, most notably the United Arab Emirates, provide a foundation for a future regional settlement. The UAE is reportedly already mediating secret talks between Syria and Israel. The way is clearing for a gradual opening of diplomatic and economic relations. Where Syria goes, Lebanon will soon follow. Saudi Arabia's accession to the accords is regarded in Jerusalem as the greatest prize. Normalisation with Israel's immediate neighbours would bring rapid economic benefits for all parties. Shared tourism could bring substantial investment to Jerusalem, Damascus and Beirut. Such a vision, of a Middle East with open borders and modern transport links, where Israel and its neighbours trade freely, may still seem remote. There remains widespread anger in Arab countries about the devastation in Gaza. Islamist movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood, resolutely opposed to any normalisation with the Jewish state, remain influential. In public, Arab leaders have condemned Israel's attack on Iran, even though the theocracy also menaced its neighbours, such as Saudi Arabia. But in private, there is widespread relief that the ayatollahs have been severely weakened, and their client terrorist movements disabled. Before the 1948 war, after Israel declared independence, taxis would go back and forth from Clock Tower Square in Jaffa to Beirut. Nowadays, such a journey still seems fanciful – but less so by the day. The potential rewards of normalisation for Israel and its neighbours are enormous. As Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, wrote of his own plan for a Jewish state: 'If you will it, it is no dream.'
Telegraph
35 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Israel close to accomplishing objectives in Gaza, says IDF
Israel is close to accomplishing its current objectives in Gaza, according to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Their claim comes amid reports that ceasefire prospects between Israel and Hamas are improving, again raising hopes that the 20-month conflict could come to an end. The White House is putting increasing pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, to bring an end to the war, which began when Hamas attacked Israel on Oct 7 2023. Also suggesting an end is in sight, Qatar, who have mediated ceasefire talks, urged Israel and Hamas to take the 'window of opportunity' for a new hostage deal in the wake of the end of Israel's 12-day war with Iran. Lt Gen Eyal Zamir, the IDF chief of staff, said on Friday that Israel's operation would soon 'reach the lines' defined by the government, which would see the military assert control over 75 per cent of Gaza territory. 'In the near future, we will reach the lines we defined for the current phase within the framework of Gideon's Chariots,' Mr Zamir said during a visit to the Gaza Strip. The IDF's operational plans for Gideon's Chariots, reported by The Times of Israel, had indicated that it would take two months to capture 75 per cent of Gaza. Now the government will need to decide if it pushes for full control or ends the operation, analysts have said, with the options expected to be put to the cabinet on Sunday. 'From there, operational options will develop that will be presented to the political echelon,' said Mr Zamir, adding that the IDF 'will continue to act with determination to achieve the two objectives of the campaign, the release of the hostages and the defeat of Hamas.' Mr Netanyahu has so far said only that Israel would carry on in its attacks until it had completely destroyed Hamas, and Right-wing members of his coalition – upon whom he relies in order to govern – have called for him to seize full control of the Strip. However, Donald Trump, the US president, is pushing Israel to conclude its offensive following what he has deemed a successful 12-day war against Iran. Speaking to reporters on Friday, Mr Trump suggested that a Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal would be reached 'within the next week', having said earlier in the week that 'great progress' had been made in ceasefire talks. Mr Netanyahu may calculate that he must keep Mr Trump onside and therefore work towards a deal, secure the release of the remaining Gaza hostages, and call an election in an attempt to capitalise on a bump in popularity in the wake of the war with Iran. Mr Zamir also said of Israel's war with Iran: 'Iran took a heavy blow. There is potential that the blow caused to Iran will advance our goals in Gaza,' he said. Gaza mediators are engaging with Israel and Hamas to build on momentum from the ceasefire with Iran and work towards a truce in the Palestinian territory, Majed al-Ansari, a Qatar foreign ministry spokesman, said. 'If we don't utilise this window of opportunity and this momentum, it's an opportunity lost amongst many in the near past. We don't want to see that again,' said Mr Ansari, who is also an adviser to Qatar's prime minister. An official with knowledge of the situation said that Ron Dermer, the Israeli minister for strategic affairs, would arrive in Washington next week for talks on a Gaza ceasefire, Iran and other subjects. Mr Zamir's comments came the day before Israeli strikes killed at least 62 people across Gaza, according to reports from inside the Hamas-run territory. Three children and their parents were killed in an Israeli strike on a tent camp in Muwasi near the southern city of Khan Younis. They were struck while sleeping, relatives said. 'What did these children do to them? What is their fault?' said Suad Abu Teima, the children's grandmother, as reported by the Associated Press. Also among the dead were 12 people near the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, which was sheltering displaced people, and eight more in apartments, according to staff at Shifa hospital. More than 20 bodies were taken to Nasser hospital, according to health officials. The war has killed over 56,000 Palestinians, according to the health ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. It said more than half of the dead were women and children, and that they included 6,089 people killed since the end of the latest ceasefire. Hamas massacred more than 1,200 Israelis, and took 254 hostages inside Gaza. About 50 remain in Gaza, at least 20 of whom are believed to be alive.
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘There's a significant lack of knowledge': Iranian American legislator on countries' tangled history amid conflict
Arizona congresswoman Yassamin Ansari brings an unusually personal perspective to the US's fraught relationship with Iran. The daughter of two Iranian parents who fled their homeland – her father as a student in the 1970s who couldn't return after the 1979 revolution, her mother as a 17-year-old in 1981 escaping the new regime's restrictions on women – Ansari grew up immersed in the complexities of US-Iran relations. This deep familiarity with both Iranian domestic politics and the tangled history between Washington and Tehran has given the Democratic freshman a distinctive edge in debates over military strikes, sanctions and diplomatic engagement. As tensions teetered for 12 days, culminating in the direct US bombardment on Iranian nuclear facilities, Ansari finds herself navigating between hawkish calls for regime change and concerns about empowering Iran's authoritarian government. We spoke to Ansari about how her background influences her approach to one of foreign policy's most intractable issues. It's a topic I not only grew up learning about at home but also studied formally during my undergraduate years. I have a minor in Iranian studies, I speak the language [Farsi], and I wrote my college thesis on Iran's nuclear breakout capacity. So I've been working on and thinking about these issues for a long time. When it comes to US-Iran policy – especially during the Trump administration – I think there has been a significant lack of knowledge. And even within Congress, there's often limited information about the historical and political context – not just since 1979, but also what led up to that point and how we arrived at the current situation. I don't believe the strikes were the right move for several reasons. First and foremost, we wouldn't even be in this position if Trump hadn't unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA [in 2018]. That agreement would have prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and created a framework for diplomacy. Even after the withdrawal, we were in the midst of negotiations. Based on briefings I've received from subject matter experts, those negotiations were progressing – until the US suddenly shifted the goalposts and demanded zero uranium enrichment, which had never been part of the deal. That effectively derailed talks. Beyond that, Trump never made the case to Congress or the American public. There was no presentation of intelligence justifying strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. In a country with such a fraught history of military interventions in the Middle East – from the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup in Iran to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – that lack of transparency is especially dangerous. I'm not familiar with all the specifics of that proposal, but I see what you're getting at. And I do think Trump's actions have emboldened the Islamic Republic, a regime that is deeply unpopular with the majority of Iranians. Since the recent escalation, we've seen reports that hundreds of people have been arrested on espionage charges – charges often used by the regime to imprison political opponents. Iran's most notorious prison, Evin, is full of some of the country's brightest minds, including Nobel laureates. It's heartbreaking. Trump's actions have not only hurt US foreign policy interests and increased the risk of a wider war, but they've also given the regime cover to intensify its domestic repression. During the past two weeks, we've even seen the government black out the internet to prevent communication with the outside world. This is a regime focused entirely on its own survival – and it will do whatever it takes, including more arrests and crackdowns. We should be supporting Iranian civilians, not strengthening the regime or risking another war. Exactly. I think any sort of US-led military intervention or regime change would be a terrible mistake. I was genuinely terrified during the days Trump was making contradictory threats – one moment urging civilians in Tehran to evacuate, the next talking about regime change, and then suddenly calling for peace. That kind of unpredictability is dangerous. There are also groups like the MEK – a cult-like organization that was once designated a terrorist group by the US – that are trying to position themselves as the alternative. They've paid people like John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani to support them, but they could be even more repressive than the current regime. That said, there are ways the US could support the Iranian people – like helping provide secure internet access or advocating for the release of political prisoners. But instead we're seeing more crackdowns because the regime feels threatened and is reacting in the only way it knows: repression. Not directly, but many of us are still pushing for the War Powers Resolution to come to a vote so members of Congress can make their positions clear. It's important that we reassert Congress's constitutional authority over decisions of war and peace. Unfortunately, the Republican lead on the resolution, Representative Thomas Massie, recently said he no longer sees the need for [the resolution] due to the ceasefire. I strongly disagree. The resolution isn't just about this moment – it's about reaffirming that only Congress has the power to declare war, as the constitution lays out. Trump should never have taken unilateral military action. We've already seen the consequences. I know the Senate is moving forward with it, and it'll be important to see where key leaders stand. You're right, I'm definitely not the spokesperson for all Iranian Americans, but I can share some perspective. Nearly all Iranian Americans strongly oppose the regime. That's because most of our families came here after fleeing it, either during the revolution in 1979 or in the years since. But there's a wide range of views on what the solution should be. Some Iranian Americans, including a sizable portion who voted for Trump, believed he would help topple the regime. I remember when Trump posted 'Make Iran great again', a segment of the diaspora was genuinely excited. Many of those people support the son of the former Shah as a potential leader. Others – myself included – strongly oppose US-led regime change. The US has a bad track record in this region. The 1953 coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mosaddeq is still remembered bitterly by many Iranians. He was democratically elected and wanted to nationalize Iran's oil, but the US and UK didn't want that. So they overthrew him. Then came the Shah, then the revolution, and now this regime. So while we all oppose the current regime, there's disagreement about what comes next and how to get there. I think most Iranian Americans fear war and want a better future for Iranians – without more violence, repression or foreign intervention. My dad came to the US in the early 1970s on a student visa to attend the University of Oregon for his engineering degree. He planned to go back but once the revolution happened, it wasn't safe to return, so he stayed. My mom fled in 1981. Women's rights had already been severely restricted – forced hijab, schools being shut down. She happened to be a US citizen because her father had done a medical residency in the US in the 60s. So her parents sent her here alone at 17 to live with a family in Delaware. She talks about it a lot, about how she and her family opposed the revolution even though it was popular at the time. Coming here alone was traumatic. She went through deep depression for years before the rest of her family could join her. That experience shaped a lot of how I was raised. She always stressed not taking freedom and democracy for granted, and that's something I carry with me in my work today, especially when I see authoritarian threats here in the US.
