
I spent 31 years advising US on the Iran threat – it's the last gaps of a dying regime, Trump's next move is crucial
IRAN'S repressed nation should be encouraged to overthrow its barbaric regime by the US, an ex-Congress adviser said.
Calls for regime overhaul in the rogue nation have rumbled louder since a 12-day war broke out between Israel and Iran erupted.
7
7
7
Donald Trump unleashed the biggest blow of the conflict last Sunday when he ordered America's military to bomb Iran's nuclear sites.
The US leader even hinted at toppling the regime as he wrote on Truth Social: "If the current Iranian regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a regime change? MIGA!".
Authorities in the US insisted ousting the Ayatollah was not one of its goals - but question marks hang over whether his cruel regime can survive.
Supreme leader Ali Khamenei has led a blood-soaked reign over Iran since 1989 following the death of his ruthless predecessor Ruhollah Khomeini.
But the chorus of voices demanding regime change in Iran has amplified after decades of its people suffering a catalogue of human rights violations.
Fears have also escalated that the wounded regime could deploy a dirty bomb in desperation after its nuclear ambitions were largely obliterated by the US and Israel.
Kenneth Katzman, who spent 31 years briefing Congress on Iran as a top Middle East Analyst, believes the US should now take little action - except incentivise life under a new regime.
Merciless Khamenei, 86, has been in hiding since Israel began a campaign to destroy his nuclear sites - and many senior figures believe his rule could be on its last legs.
Katzman told The Sun: "These are the last gasps of a dying regime.
"It's still in control nominally but I personally believe this regime is basically lost. Only the real diehards right now are behind this regime.
"That doesn't mean it's going to collapse any day now, but it will eventually. This regime is in big trouble."
Katzman, who retired in 2022 but has continued to watch Iran cut a menacing figure, said if it was still advise Congress to now "do as little as possible".
The analyst, who worked at the US Congressional Research Service, added: "There is a war fever going on now, with a lot of piling on and dredging up past incidents with Iran, past grievances.
'If it were up to me I would say to send some kind of signal that if there is a new regime, the US is willing to lift sanctions, provide humanitarian aid, welcome defectors and investment from Iran.
'Signalling that if the people can get rid of this regime they can have the same future that Syria is now experiencing, where they got rid of a dictator and have had sanctions lifted.
'That would be the tone I would take. The regime can be toppled very suddenly, although it's not toppling just yet.
'If you take it from the Iranian people's perspective, there's no prospect of getting sanctions relief, they're in a war with Israel with no air defense.
Evil Ayatollah could unleash dirty bomb, exiled prince warns
Exclusive by Katie Davis, Chief Foreign Reporter (Digital), in Paris
IRAN'S brutal regime could kill tens of millions of people by smuggling nuclear material and unleashing it on Europe, the rogue nation's exiled prince told The Sun.
Reza Pahlavi warned while the US and Israel have eliminated the "immediate threat" of its atomic ambitions, barbaric leaders could still acquire a dirty bomb.
Pahlavi, the son of Iran's last Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, warned callous Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could still attempt to utilise his warped allies in a bid to get his hands on nuclear matter.
Speaking to The Sun at an undisclosed location in Paris just hours before the ceasefire this week, he said: "Terrorism has many means of hurting big time. Nobody anticipated 9/11. It was a terrorist attack.
"What keeps people not to worry about the fact that the call of these terrorist networks of sleeper cells could smuggle in a few grams of enriched plutonium, throw it in a lake in Europe, and instantaneously kill tens of millions of people who will be radioactively attacked.
"You don't need a missile or warhead for that.
"We have at least eliminated the imminent threat of the regime. Does that mean that the regime still doesn't have the capability to acquire nuclear weapons or a dirty bomb by purchasing it from the North Koreans?
"It doesn't eliminate that, that's the entire point."
Pahlavi, whose family was forced to leave Iran after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, warned unless the Islamist regime is toppled, the threat of nuclear material being weaponised looms large.
The self-styled crown prince - who has been advocating for regime change for decades - announced on Monday he is offering to lead a transitional government to make Iran a democratic, secular country.
'The regime has now brought them into a war with the United States, although that may not continue. I think the people can only take so much.'
Last week the US bombed nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan after Iran's devastating missile exchange with Israel.
President Donald Trump has since announced a precarious ceasefire, but the world continues to nervously await what happens next.
While Iran is currently in a ceasefire with Israel, fears continue to grow as to how long this will last.
Trump was this week hailed a 'daddy' by Nato chief Mark Rutte at a landmark meeting in the Netherlands.
Iran also finally admitted the US strikes had left their nuclear facilities 'badly damaged'.
But it came after Trump made the astonishing claim on Tuesday that Israel and Iran 'don't know what the f*** they're doing' following doubts the agreement had been kept.
Katzman believes Iran is very far away from developing a nuclear weapon.
And even if it did get one, it would be extremely difficult for it to ever threaten a launch given US and Israeli intelligence.
He added: 'I think US intelligence is good enough to detect if they were actually going to try to use a nuclear weapon.
'You need a lot of steps to do that. It's not that easy to conceal, especially with the Mossad agents crawling all over the place as they are right now.
'There are radioactivity detectors. There's a lot of intelligence gathering going on.
'So I don't think it would be that easy for them to just go from where they are now with these destroyed facilities to suddenly producing a nuclear weapon.
'I could be wrong, but I don't think it's that easy.'
Asked how the Iranian people could conceivably overthrow the regime, Katzman said he doesn't expect anything to happen soon.
7
7
7
He believes the conflict must settle first.
Katzman added: 'It can be toppled. Is it close to being toppled? No, but it can be.
'Anything can really spark it. We had a partial prison break at Evin Prison.
'You can get incidents. I hear the IRGC is already cracking down by stopping every car that goes by to see if there are Mossad agents in there.
'They're sort of doubling down on their strategy in a way. That can work for a while, but the population is pretty fed up.
'Obviously the population has to get through this crisis first and then it can reassess what to do about the regime.
'So it's not going to do anything right now while the conflict is going on, but ultimately though, there's going to be a reckoning.'
On Wednesday Nato leaders pledged to increase their annual defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP by 2035.
Trump also said he no longer believes the organisation is a 'rip-off'.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
25 minutes ago
- Reuters
Even as markets rally, Trump's policymaking causes market angst
June 28 (Reuters) - As Wall Street puts April's tariff shakeout in the rearview mirror and indexes set record highs, investors remain wary of U.S. President Donald Trump's rapid-fire, sometimes chaotic policymaking process and see the rally as fragile. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq composite index advanced past their previous highs into uncharted territory on Friday. Yet traders and investors remain wary of what may lie ahead. Trump's April 2 reciprocal tariffs on major trading partners roiled global financial markets and put the S&P 500 on the threshold of a bear market designation when it ended down 19% from its February 19 record-high close. This week's leg up came after a U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Iran brought an end to a 12-day air battle that had sparked a jump in crude prices and raised worries of higher inflation. But a relief rally started after Trump responded to the initial tariff panic that gripped financial markets by backing away from his most draconian plans. JP Morgan Chase, in the midyear outlook published on Wednesday by its global research team, said the environment was characterized by "extreme policy uncertainty." "Nobody wants to end a week with a risk-on tilt to their portfolios," said Art Hogan, market strategist at B. Riley Wealth. "Everyone is aware that just as the market feels more certain and confident, a single wildcard policy announcement could change everything," even if it does not ignite a firestorm of the kind seen in April. Part of this wariness from institutional investors may be due to the magnitude of the 6% S&P 500 rally that followed Trump's re-election last November and culminated in the last new high posted by the index in February, said Joseph Quinlan, market strategist at Bank of America. "We were out ahead of our skis," Quinlan said. A focus on deregulation, tax cuts and corporate deals brought out the "animal spirits," he said. Then came the tariff battles. Quinlan remains upbeat on the outlook for U.S. stocks and optimistic that a new global trade system could lead to U.S. companies opening new markets and posting higher revenues and profits. But he said he is still cautious. "There will still be spikes of volatility around policy unknowns." Overall, measures of market volatility are now well below where they stood at the height of the tariff turmoil in April, with the CBOE VIX index now at 16.3, down from a 52.3 peak on April 8. "Our clients seem to have become somewhat desensitized to the headlines, but it's still an unhealthy market, with everyone aware that trading could happen based on the whims behind a bunch of" social media posts, said Jeff O'Connor, head of market structure, Americas, at Liquidnet, an institutional trading platform. Trading in the options market shows little sign of the kind of euphoria that characterized stock market rallies of the recent past. "On the institutional front, we do see a lot of hesitation in chasing the market rally," Stefano Pascale, head of U.S. equity derivatives research at Barclays, said. Unlike past episodes of sharp market selloffs, institutional investors have largely stayed away from employing bullish call options to chase the market higher, Pascale said, referring to plain options that confer the right to buy at a specified future price and date. Bid/ask spreads on many stocks are well above levels O'Connor witnessed in late 2024, while market depth - a measure of the size and number of potential orders - remains at the lowest levels he can recall in the last 20 years. "The best way to describe the markets in the last couple of months, even as they have recovered, is to say they are unstable," said Liz Ann Sonders, market strategist at Charles Schwab. She said she is concerned that the market may be reaching "another point of complacency" akin to that seen in March. "There's a possibility that we'll be primed for another downside move," Sonders addded. Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital in Washington, said he came up with the term "Snapchat presidency" to describe the whiplash effect on markets of the president's constantly changing policies on markets. "He feels more like a day trader than a long-term institutional investor," Spindel said, alluding to Trump's policy flip-flops. "One minute he's not going to negotiate, and the next he negotiates." To be sure, traders seem to view those rapid shifts in course as a positive in the current rally, signaling Trump's willingness to heed market signals. "For now, at least, stocks are willing to overlook the risks that go along with this style and lack of consistent policies, and give the administration a break as being 'market friendly'," said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at Interactive Brokers.


The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Just when the world desperately needs wise elders, its fate is in the hands of old and ruthless patriarchs
Let's attempt something delicate: talking about age without slipping into ageism. Never before in modern history have those with the fate of the world in their hands been so old. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are both 72. Narendra Modi is 74, Benjamin Netanyahu 75, Donald Trump 79, and Ali Khamenei is 86. Thanks to advances in medical science, people are able to lead longer, more active lives – but we are now also witnessing a frightening number of political leaders tightening their grip on power as they get older, often at the expense of their younger colleagues. This week, at their annual summit, the leaders of Nato – including Emmanuel Macron and Mette Frederiksen (both 47), Giorgia Meloni (48) and Pedro Sánchez (53) – were forced to swallow Trump's demand for increased military spending. The average age of Nato heads of state is 60. Germany's Friedrich Merz is 69, Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is 71. All bowed to a new 5% defence spending target – an arbitrary figure, imposed without serious military reasoning or rational debate, let alone serious democratic debate at home. It was less policy, more deference to the whims of a grumpy patriarch. Nato's secretary general, Mark Rutte – himself just 58 – went so far as to call Trump 'Daddy'. That's not diplomacy. That's submission. This generational clash plays out in other arenas. Ukraine's 47-year-old president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is resisting the imperial ambitions of septuagenarian Putin. Septuagenarian Xi eyes a Taiwan led by a president seven years his junior. Netanyahu, three-quarters of a century old, is overseeing devastation in Gaza, where almost half the population is under 18. In Iran an 86 year old rules over a population with an average age of 32. Cameroon's Paul Biya, 92, has been in power since 1982 in a country where the median age is 18 and life expectancy just 62. There is no gerontocratic conspiracy at work here – no senior citizens' club bent on global domination. But there is something disturbing about a world being dismantled by the very people whose lives were defined by its postwar architecture. Khamenei was six when the second world war ended. Trump was born in 1946, the year the United Nations held its first general assembly. Netanyahu was born a year after Israel was founded. Modi was born in 1950, as India became a republic. Putin entered the world in October 1952, months before Stalin died. Xi in June 1953, just after. And Erdoğan was born in 1954, two years after Turkey joined Nato. These men are the children of the postwar world – and as they near the end of their lives, they seem determined to tear it down. It almost looks like revenge. Dylan Thomas urged us to 'Rage, rage against the dying of the light'. Rarely has the line felt so literal. Yes, the rules-based international order was always messier in practice than on paper. But at least the ideal existed. There was a shared moral framework – shaky, yes, but sincere – built on the conviction that humanity must never repeat the atrocities of the first half of the 20th century and that dialogue and diplomacy were better. That conviction has now evaporated, not least in the minds of those who should cherish it most. This is an unprecedented moment. The architects of the previous global disorder – Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao – were all in their 30s or 40s when they rose to power. A new generation built a new world, and lived with its consequences. Today, that new world is being unmade by an old generation – one that will not live to see the wreckage it leaves behind. It's easier to shout 'drill, baby, drill' when you're statistically unlikely to experience the worst of climate collapse. Après nous le déluge, as the French say. You might think that a generation so fortunate to benefit from longevity would leave behind a legacy of care, gratitude and global stewardship. Instead, we are witnessing the worst resurgence of repression, violence, genocide, ecocide and contempt for international law in decades – waged, more often than not, by ruthless septuagenarians and octogenarians who appear more interested in escaping prosecution than preserving peace. But it doesn't have to be this way. After leaving office, Nelson Mandela founded the Elders, a network of former world leaders working to promote peace, justice and human rights. Inspired by African traditions of consensus and elder wisdom, the Elders are an example of how age can bring clarity, compassion and conscience – not just clout. The problem isn't old age. It's how some have chosen to wield it. The world doesn't need more ageing strongmen clinging to power. It needs elders who are willing to let go – and guide. The kind who think about legacy not as personal glory, but as the world they leave behind. In this age of age, what we need is not domination, but wisdom. And that, in the end, is what separates a ruler from a leader. David Van Reybrouck is philosopher laureate for the Netherlands and Flanders. His books include Revolusi: Indonesia and the Birth of the Modern World and Congo: The Epic History of a People Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.


Reuters
30 minutes ago
- Reuters
Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. "There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well." She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. "I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality." Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit, opens new tab in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. "Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. "Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. "He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. "It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. "That is really chaotic." Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. "I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. "She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?"