Latest news with #Armageddon-like
Egypt Independent
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Egypt Independent
Prophecy, not politics, may also shape America's clash with Iran
When most people contemplate the future of America's conflict with Iran, they hunt for clues in grainy satellite photos, statements from military analysts and President Trump's social media posts. But when scholar Diana Butler Bass considers what could happen next, her thoughts turn toward another group she says is now thinking more about prophecy than politics. She recalls warnings from her childhood about the rise of an Antichrist, stories about weeping mothers clutching their empty blankets after their babies were suddenly 'Raptured' to heaven and paintings of an angry Jesus leading armies of angels to an Armageddon-like, final battle in modern-day Israel. Those stories terrified and thrilled Bass when she heard them growing up in a White evangelical church in the 1970s. It was a time when the end always seemed near, and books like the bestseller 'The Late Great Planet Earth' warned Christians to gird their loins for a period of Great Tribulation and prepare for Jesus' triumphant return to Jerusalem. Bass, a prominent, progressive religious author who hosts a popular Substack newsletter called 'The Cottage,' no longer believes those stories. Yet when she considers why the US struck three nuclear facilities in Iran this month and what could happen next, she now offers a prophecy of her own: Bombing Iran will reinforce Trump's status as God's 'Chosen One' and Israel as His chosen nation among many of the President's White evangelical supporters. Many of these supporters dismiss the dangers of a larger war, she tells CNN, because such a clash would mean the world is approaching the 'end times' — a series of cataclysmic events ushering in the Second Coming of Christ and the rise of Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecies. 'There's almost a kind of spiritual eagerness for a war in the Middle East,' says Bass, describing attitudes among some White evangelicals. 'They believe a war is going to set off a series of events that will result in Jesus returning.' Trump's decision to bomb Iran has so far been examined almost exclusively through the lens of politics or military strategy. Yet there is a religious dimension to his decision – and what could happen next – that's been underexplored. President Donald Trump speaks from the East Room of the White House on June 21, 2025, after the U.S. military struck three Iranian nuclear and military sites, directly joining Israel's effort to decapitate the country's nuclear program. Joining him are Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Carlos Barria/AP America's approach to Iran and Israel may not just be driven by sober assessment of geopolitics. Bass and other religious scholars say US policy in the Middle East is also influenced by the controversial teachings of a pugnacious 19th century Anglo-Irish clergyman and a series of lurid, 'Left Behind' doomsday Christian books and films. This is dangerous, says Jemar Tisby, a historian and best-selling author of 'Stories of the Spirit of Justice.' 'Trump's action underscores how these theological beliefs are not abstract; they have direct, dangerous, and deadly consequences,' Tisby wrote recently in his 'Footnotes' newsletter. He elaborated in an interview this week with CNN, saying that that apocalyptic visions from the Bible should not influence America's policy in Israel or Iran in any way. 'You layer on this prophecy about the rise of Israel and now all of a sudden you have this very literalistic interpretation of the Bible informing US foreign policy,' he says. Are Christians obligated to support Israel? White evangelicals who see America's conflict with Iran as primarily a spiritual battle instead of a political one tend to be motivated by several beliefs. One belief is that Trump is God's 'chosen one,' saved from assassination last year to do God's work and protect Israel. He is, to borrow from the parlance of evangelical subculture, called 'for such a time as this.' This belief is reflected in a text message to Trump from Mike Huckabee, the prominent evangelical and former Arkansas governor who was appointed by Trump to be US ambassador to Israel. Mike Huckabee, US ambassador to Israel, has been a staunch defender of the country for years and has led tours there of biblical the text, which was shared by Trump, Huckabee alluded to the two assassination attempts Trump survived last year in saying that God spared him 'to be the most consequential President in a century—maybe ever.' He added, 'I trust your instincts,' because 'I believe you hear from heaven,' and that 'You did not seek this moment. This moment sought YOU!' Huckabee's ambassadorship to Israel is not surprising. Many White evangelicals believe the church is obligated by the Bible to provide unwavering support to Israel. They view the ancient Israel described in the Bible as the same as the modern nation-state of Israel, which was created in 1948. Trump reinforced this view during his first term when he broke from decades of American policy to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. The move thrilled many White evangelical leaders, two of whom attended a ceremony marking the occasion. There is a long history of White evangelical leaders urging American presidents and politicians to treat Israel as a divinely favored nation. Many White evangelicals believe Israel's existence is a fulfillment of biblical prophecies that would usher in Jesus' return. Some cite a scripture from Genesis 12:3, which recounts God saying, 'I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you, I will curse.' That passage depicts God addressing Abraham, the Jewish patriarch and 'father of all nations.' But some White evangelicals say that passage also refers to Israel — both then and now. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz alluded to that scripture when he defended his support of Israel's war with Iran in a recent interview. 'Growing up in Sunday School, I was taught from the Bible that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed,' he said. Other evangelical leaders have made similar claims. Pastor John Hagee, a prominent evangelical leader, has said that supporting Israel is not a political issue — it's a biblical one. Hagee is the founder and chairman of Christians United for Israel, which boasts 10 million members and bills itself as the largest pro-Israel organization in the US. 'It is not possible to say, 'I believe in the Bible' and not support Israel and the Jewish people,' he once declared. Trump won the support of about 8 out of 10 White evangelical Christian voters in the 2024 presidential election. And in a CNN poll after the airstrikes on Iran, 87% of Republicans said they trust Trump to make the right decisions about US' use of force against the country. Franklin Graham, son of the late evangelical leader Billy Graham, said on X after the bombing of Iran 'that the world is in a much safer place.' The Rev. Robert Jeffress, a prominent evangelical leader, suggested last week that opposition to Israel is rebellion against God. While delivering a Sunday sermon praising Trump's decision, Jeffress sermon was interrupted by applause and a standing ovation from his congregation. President Donald Trump visits the Western Wall, the holiest site where Jews can pray, in Jerusalem's Old City on May 22, 2017. Ronen Zvulun/Pool/AFP/Getty Images 'Those who oppose Israel are always on the wrong side of history, and most importantly, they are on the wrong side of God,' Jeffress said. 'And I thank God we finally have a president who understands that truth in Donald Trump.' Such unconditional support of Israel might make spiritual sense to evangelicals. But some scholars say it's a risky stance for a multiracial and multireligious democracy like the US to take. Americans' support for Israel had dropped to historic lows before the US' use of force in Iran. Tisby, the religious historian, tells CNN that the Israel depicted in the Bible is not the same as the modern-day country. 'If you conflate the two, you end up supporting all kinds of actions that hurt people in the name of politics,' Tisby says. 'It leads to the reluctance to recognize the rights of Palestinians. It blinds us to the human rights and justice issues that are at stake in the Middle East.' A controversial form of Christianity drives evangelical views on the Middle East Tisby and other religion scholars say America's bombing of Iran is also influenced by another source: a form of Christianity pioneered in the 19th century by John Nelson Darby, an Anglo-Irish pastor. Darby looked at certain passages in the Bible's book of Revelations and devised the concept of 'dispensationalism.' It divides history into distinct 'dispensations,' or periods through which God interacts with humanity differently. Many adherents to this tradition believe in a fiery apocalypse and the 'Rapture' — a moment when Christians are suddenly lifted to heaven before a period of tribulation on Earth. Darby's views were amplified a century later by the popular 'Left Behind' novels and films of the 1990s and 2000s, which reached millions of evangelicals with apocalyptic visions of the end times. The book series, inspired by Rapture theology and gory scenes in the Book of Revelation, has sold more than 65 million copies. Cassi Thomson in 'Left Behind,' a 2014 film based on theories of the Rapture and which depicts the world plunging into chaos after millions of people suddenly disappear. Stoney Lake/Gonella Productions/Kobal/Shutterstock The 'Left Behind' books were marketed as fiction, but they were treated as biblical truth by many evangelicals. Views of dispensationalism were taught in many evangelical churches, youth camps and Sunday schools, bringing them into the mainstream. Central to dispensationalism is the role of Israel in the last days. Its adherents believe that the establishment of the modern state of Israel marks the beginning of the end times — heralding the Second Coming of Christ. Israel's geopolitical success and security are seen as necessary preconditions for Christ's return, Tisby says. Dispensationalism has permeated White evangelical culture so much that many evangelicals today have adopted its tenets without being familiar with the term, Tisby says. 'Just because you don't have the name doesn't mean you're not actually adhering to the beliefs,' he says. 'It's so common now that it doesn't need to be named anymore.' She calls the Rapture a 'completely invented theology' Prophecies about angelic armies battling demonic armies in an apocalyptic Middle East sound implausible to many, but such beliefs gripped many of the White evangelical pastors and families she grew up with, says Bass, author of 'Freeing Jesus.' She recalls evangelical pastors preaching that whenever Israel gained more territory, it was God's will. Some pastors condemned Iran as evil. Jews, they said, would finally accept Jesus as their savior. But Jesus' return would be preceded by a series of cataclysmic events like the sudden disappearance of God's faithful and those 'left behind' — the non-believers who didn't accept Jesus. The belief that Christians could be teleported to heaven in the twinkle of an eye traumatized many young people at the time, she says. 'I had friends who would literally wake up in the middle of the night. And if their house was really quiet they would get very frightened and they'd sneak into their parents' bedroom to make sure their parents were still in their house,' she says. A paradegoer holds a sign at the Israel Day Parade celebrating the nation's 64th birthday on June 3, 2012, in New York. Anthony Behar/Sipa Most mainstream biblical scholars say the word 'rapture' does not appear in most translations of the Bible or the Book of Revelation. Many mainstream Biblical scholars say the Book of Revelation does not depict the literal end of the world: It's an anti-Roman tract that used coded language to tell Christians that God would destroy Rome's evil empire. Bass calls belief in the Rapture a 'completely invented theology' and 'one of the most wildly successful heresies in the history of Christianity.' A belief system that says God will end the world through violence offers no incentive for a political or religious leader to avoid war — or backtrack when events spiral out of control, she says. 'In the framework of this 'end times' theology, destruction is always a sign that God is working and is about to return,' Bass says. 'In this theology, the worse things become, the closer it is to the end. There is no motivation to do good, care for the poor, make sure that wars don't happen, and care for the planet.' Why prophecy and politics don't mix Apocalyptic visions about the end of the world are common in many religions. And it's not unusual for a political leader to invoke God before going to war. But when citizens in a democracy believe political leaders are divinely appointed and driven by prophecies, it leaves no room for debate, Tisby says. 'There's a sort of fundamentalism to it all,' he says. 'It's unbending, unchanging and it can't be critiqued because its divine. Who are we to question? 'Any uncritical, unyielding support of a political actor, no matter what the conflict, is dangerous,' he says. If this is part of the dynamic that guides the US' future actions in the Middle East, it could lead to another final question. Many critics of Iran say it is a theocracy led by someone who reduces the world to a clash between good and evil and whose foreign policy is driven by apocalyptic religious myths. What if America's clash with Iran is driven in part by some of the same religious forces? John Blake is a CNN senior writer and author of the award-winning memoir, 'More Than I Imagined: What a Black Man Discovered About the White Mother He Never Knew.'
San Francisco Chronicle
25-06-2025
- San Francisco Chronicle
Attacker who killed a London schoolboy with a samurai sword is convicted of murder
LONDON (AP) — A man armed with a samurai sword who killed a London teenager on his way to school and injured five other people during what the prosecution said was a psychotic episode triggered by drug use was convicted of murder on Wednesday. A jury at London's Central Criminal Court found Marcus Arduini Monzo guilty of murdering 14-year-old Daniel Anjorin, along with three counts of attempted murder and one count each of grievous boldily harm, aggravated burglary and possessing a bladed article. The 37-year-old had admitted to carrying two samurai swords but denied all other charges. Monzo, who has dual Spanish and Brazilian citizenship, killed Anjorin during a 20-minute rampage in April 2024 in the Hainault area of northeast London that began when he struck a pedestrian with his van. He told the victim he was going to kill him and slashed the man's neck. The wounded man was able to get away and survived. Monzo then ambushed Anjorin, who was wearing headphones, and did not hear a neighbor yelling to warn him. "We were shouting and waving towards Daniel as he came out,' Aiste Dabasinskaite said after the attack. 'He had his headphones in so he wouldn't hear us. It just happened right before our eyes, it was horrible.' Monzo nearly beheaded the teen with the 2-foot (60 cm) blade and stabbed him as he lay on the ground. When police officers arrived and tried to help the boy, Monzo sprang from bushes nearby and bolted. Constable Yasmin Mechem-Whitfield gave chase and suffered what police said were 'brutal and life-changing' injuries including a fractured skull and severe nerve damage when he lunged at her. Monzo then broke into a nearby home, where he awoke a couple who had been sleeping with their 4-year-old daughter. He shouted about believing in God and attacked the girl's father, wounding him in the neck and arm. In his final act of violence, he struck police Inspector Moloy Campbell once with the sword before he was subdued with a stun gun and arrested. Monzo said he had turned to yoga and went on a spiritual quest after being injured doing mixed martial arts. He said he formed his views after traveling to India and consuming ayahuasca, a hallucinogen, and frequently smoking marijuana. Prosecutors said Monzo's social media use showed an interest in violence, far-right extremism and conspiracy theories. He had shared vaccine misinformation and liked posts on X praising Adolf Hitler. During the trial, Monzo told jurors he believed the Earth was flat and that the 9/11 terrorist attack was 'probably' a conspiracy. He also spoke about his practice of drinking his own urine. He wept during his testimony and said he didn't intend to kill anyone when he bought two swords, which he claimed he intended to put on display. Also, Monzo said a voice in his head told him to kill his cat and then eat it to replenish the energy the animal sapped from him. He killed but did not eat the pet, then had a feeling an Armageddon-like ending was happening and panicked and embarked on what became a 20-minute attack, he said. Monzo is due to be sentenced on Friday. Jurors had to determine whether Monzo was responsible for his actions. Prosecutors said he carried out his rampage during a psychotic episode, but argued that it was brought on by his cannabis use, rather than an underlying mental health condition. Kirsty O'Connor, from the Crown Prosecution Service, said that meant Monzo "was fully responsible for the devastation he caused last year. 'The jury, by their unequivocal verdicts, have accepted the prosecution case,' she said. 'Our hearts go out to Daniel Anjorin's family and friends who have suffered his unimaginable loss in horrific circumstances, and our thoughts remain with all of the victims who continue to recover from their injuries and trauma."
Hamilton Spectator
25-06-2025
- Hamilton Spectator
Attacker who killed a London schoolboy with a samurai sword is convicted of murder
LONDON (AP) — A man armed with a samurai sword who killed a London teenager on his way to school and injured five other people during what the prosecution said was a psychotic episode triggered by drug use was convicted of murder on Wednesday. A jury at London's Central Criminal Court found Marcus Arduini Monzo guilty of murdering 14-year-old Daniel Anjorin, along with counts of attempted murder, wounding with intent, aggravated burglary, and possessing a bladed article. The 37-year-old had admitted to carrying two samurai swords but denied all other charges. Monzo, who has dual Spanish and Brazilian citizenship, killed Anjorin during a 20-minute rampage in April 2024 in the Hainault area of northeast London that began when he struck a pedestrian with his van. He told the victim he was going to kill him and slashed the man's neck. The wounded man was able to get away and survived. Monzo then ambushed Anjorin, who was wearing headphones, and did not hear a neighbor yelling to warn him. 'We were shouting and waving towards Daniel as he came out,' Aiste Dabasinskaite said after the attack. 'He had his headphones in so he wouldn't hear us. It just happened right before our eyes, it was horrible.' Monzo nearly beheaded the teen with the 2-foot (60 cm) blade and stabbed him as he lay on the ground. When police officers arrived and tried to help the boy, Monzo sprang from bushes nearby and bolted. Constable Yasmin Mechem-Whitfield gave chase and was 'horrifically' injured when he lunged at her, police Commissioner Mark Rowley said. He said she nearly lost one of her hands in the attack. Monzo then broke into a nearby home, where he awoke a couple who had been sleeping with their 4-year-old daughter. He shouted about believing in God and attacked the girl's father, wounding him in the neck and arm. In his final act of violence, he struck Inspector Moloy Campbell once with the sword before he was subdued with a stun gun and arrested. Monzo said he had turned to yoga and went on a spiritual quest after being injured doing mixed martial arts. He said he formed his views after traveling to India and consuming ayahuasca, a hallucinogen, and frequently smoking marijuana. Prosecutors said Monzo's social media use showed an interest in violence, far-right extremism and conspiracy theories. He had shared vaccine misinformation and liked posts on X praising Adolf Hitler. During the trial, Monzo told jurors he believed the Earth was flat and that the 9/11 terrorist attack was 'probably' a conspiracy. He also spoke about his practice of drinking his own urine. He wept during his testimony and said he didn't intend to kill anyone when he bought two swords, which he claimed he intended to put on display. Also, Monzo said a voice in his head told him to kill his cat and then eat it to replenish the energy the animal sapped from him. But he didn't eat the pet. He then had a feeling an Armageddon-like ending was happening and panicked and embarked on what became a 20-minute attack, he said. Monzo is due to be sentenced on June 27. Jurors had to determine whether Monzo was responsible for his actions. Prosecutors said he carried out his rampage during a psychotic episode, but argued that it was brought on by his cannabis use, rather than an underlying mental health condition. Kirsty O'Connor of the Crown Prosecution Service, said that meant Monzo 'was fully responsible for the devastation he caused last year. 'The jury, by their unequivocal verdicts, have accepted the prosecution case,' she said. 'Our hearts go out to Daniel Anjorin's family and friends who have suffered his unimaginable loss in horrific circumstances, and our thoughts remain with all of the victims who continue to recover from their injuries and trauma.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
'You Can't Kill All of Their Nuclear Scientists': A Top Diplomat on Why the Israeli-Iranian Conflict Won't End Soon
Early Friday, Israel changed the face of the Middle East by launching an unprecedented attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and killing a slew of senior Iranian commanders. Iran retaliated with a massive drone and missile strike on Israel. What happens next? President Donald Trump has expressed optimism that the Israeli attack will force Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, back to the bargaining table following weeks in which Khamenei rejected Trump's demand that Tehran cease all uranium enrichment. But former ambassador Ryan Crocker, one of America's most experienced diplomats in the region, believes that would be 'an unthinkable humiliation and capitulation' for Khamenei — meaning the conflict is likely to drag on and grow even riskier. 'The capabilities that Israeli intelligence has displayed — again, stunningly — is that they have the Iranian national security infrastructure thoroughly penetrated,' he said. 'So one has to assume that, if they wanted, they are positioned to also target the political leadership. If the Israelis do that, it could lead to an Armageddon-like response on the part of Iran.' This interview has been edited for length and clarity. How do the Israeli attacks on Iran alter the situation in the Middle East? We're at a totally new level in the Iran nuclear issue. This is not one that Israel is going to back away from until they feel that they have achieved their goal, which is the elimination of Iran's nuclear weapons capability. And, following from that is the question: Can they do it? I'm struck that so far they have hit Iran's uranium processing center in Natanz, but apparently not at the uranium enrichment facility in Fordow, which is a deeper and more inaccessible target. Not yet anyway. The Israelis say this could go on for days or weeks and include commando raids. And it raises the question, is destroying Fordow something that the Israelis are counting on the U.S. to do? And that, of course, leads to the third main consideration: What is the U.S. going to do? There was a sense, at first, that Trump wanted to move ahead with nuclear negotiations with Tehran and may have been opposed to these strikes. But at the same time, he didn't flash some sort of bright red light saying 'stop.' The Israelis are saying that meant he was really giving them a green light to attack. Clearly the United States was informed of the attack plan. We saw the decision to draw down the embassy in Baghdad, the departure of U.S. military dependents from the region, all pretty clear signals in retrospect that we knew this was coming. And I have to assume, therefore, there was no red light from Trump. Common sense would indicate that he is playing something like a good cop who's suggesting that, 'My buddy Bibi [Netanyahu] is completely nuts, and you, the Ayatollah Khamenei, had better get to the table and do the deal before worse happens.' So Trump may expect that Iran will return to the table. But do you think that there's any prospect that that the Iranians could actually come back to the table? Certainly not immediately. That would be kind of an unthinkable humiliation and capitulation that is hard for me to imagine them making. Also, we don't know what worse there is to come. The Israelis have not targeted Iran's energy infrastructure, and they have not targeted the political leadership. The capabilities that Israeli intelligence has displayed — again, stunningly — is that they have the Iranian national security infrastructure thoroughly penetrated. So one has to assume that, if they wanted, they are positioned to also target the political leadership. If the Israelis do that, it could lead to an Armageddon-like response on the part of Iran. What would an Armageddon-like response be at this point, given that there are serious questions about what Iran's retaliatory capabilities actually are? I would think that it would involve targeting regional states and the U.S. in the region. And on the latter, if not the former, that would, of course, invite or necessitate a major U.S. response. Iran's drones and missiles have not been effective. And they've been stripped of many of their asymmetric capabilities and proxies. Israel has decimated Hezbollah and Hamas. And clearly the Israelis are moving now, in part because they think that those retaliatory capabilities have been decimated. What damage do you think Iran could really do? I don't think they're going to do much damage to Israel in the short term. I think their target list would include, as I suggested, the regional states. The Gulf defenses are not nearly as robust, and there, they presumably could do some significant damage. But the other parties including the U.S. are reluctant to get involved. Did you see [Iraqi Shia leader] Moqtada al Sadr's statement? He, of course, vigorously and vociferously condemned this naked Israeli aggression, and then said that Iraq needs to stay the hell out of this fight. There is also the question of whether Israel believes it has the capabilities unilaterally to put Iran out of operation on its energy infrastructure. That would certainly trigger Iranian retaliation against other Gulf energy infrastructure, and that is something I think the United States might draw a red line against, given the damage to the economy that would bring. So Iran has very meager options. Does that suggest that it has no choice but to negotiate – and soon? Especially if Khamenei suspects he too could be killed if he doesn't? God knows what goes on in the minds of Khamenei or his closest political allies. But given that he was present at the creation of the Islamic Republic and has been supreme leader since 1989, I think it is by no means probable that he would capitulate in some dramatic way. I think it is much more likely that he would resist that. And then it comes down to a question of, assuming the Israelis have the capability to kill him, what would they gain by doing so? Perhaps because this is an attempt at regime change by Israel? That would be highly optimistic on the part of the Israelis. What we've seen with authoritarian regimes is they're very powerful until they're not, as in Syria, but the degree to which that can be determined or even decisively influenced from the outside is questionable. Can this trigger a revolution? Recall the Green Revolution from 2009. It seems to me the same dynamic still persists, that there is widespread discontent and dissatisfaction with the regime inside Iran, but the problem is the same: There is no discernible leadership of a viable opposition. So what do you think happens now? Is there going to be the kind of wider war that many fear, or would Iran be leery of dragging in the U.S. and instead just fire off strikes against, say, the more vulnerable Arab states? Just to show that they can do something? Apart from the token firing of missiles and drones against Israel, my best guess is that Iran will strike back in some other surprising fashion, probably not against Israel, and probably not against the U.S. for fear of pulling us into it. That would leave Arab states as the most likely target. I could see some effort with missiles and or drones against Arab capitals. We don't have an air defense umbrella that covers the entire Arabian peninsula by any means. For example, in the Gulf states, air defense capabilities themselves are limited and somewhat uncoordinated. So if I were calling the shots from Tehran and I were determined to take a shot, I would want to make it have an impact. What would be the object of that, just to show that they could do it? Yes, I think that would be it. Because, frankly, to do nothing otherwise is complete humiliation. That raises the question of how Sunni-Shia rivalries could play into this. Until now, Iran appeared to be trying some rapprochement with the Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia. Could those Sunni-Shia tensions erupt again? It wouldn't be so much along sectarian lines, but to target these states as simply some ally of the West writ large, so they could show that countries with whom Israel has relations are taking a pasting from the Islamic Republic. Because it's the only thing they can do. The only other option is just sit there and take it. And that would call into question the fundamental legitimacy of the Islamic Republic. Do you think, looking at the way the Biden administration handled this, that they dropped the ball in trying to negotiate with Iran? I think that the JCPOA [the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration] was probably our best shot at it. Yeah, and when Trump tore that up, I'm not sure there was a viable diplomatic Plan B that would have worked at all, or even been worth trying. So now do you see the Iranians settling into a long-term war mentality against Israel? In other words, they may not be able to hit back now, but five years, 10 years from now, they can? I could easily imagine a scenario where over the long haul, Iran just hunkers down, does not give up its nuclear weapons aspirations, and continues to find ways to develop that program. With the failure of Iran's other elements of projection of power, first its proxies and then its missile program, that leaves them with just that one option. You can't kill all of their nuclear scientists. The nuclear weapons capability is there intellectually, and you're not going to eliminate all of that. How would you assess the power balance right now in the Middle East? Israel seems to be in a supremely dominant position right now with its military power and its intelligence capabilities. We've seen tactical brilliance on the part of Israel, aided by some good fortune in Syria. The Israelis had nothing to do with the Syrian revolution, but they certainly benefited from it [by removing Bashar Assad, Iran's ally, and helping them eliminate the threat from Hezbollah]. Whether that can translate into strategic success is an open question. We don't really know where this gamble on decisively eliminating Iran's nuclear weapons capability is going to go. I'm not sure they can do it, and I'm not even sure that we [the U.S. and Israel] can do it together. I would go so far as to say that the most likely outcome of this is going to be that, whatever devastation is wrought in Iran and in the region, you will still have an Iran that will be determined to pursue a nuclear weapons capability, whatever it takes. I don't think that determination is going to change. It'll probably be reinforced.
Politico
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Politico
‘You Can't Kill All of Their Nuclear Scientists': A Top Diplomat on Why the Israeli-Iranian Conflict Won't End Soon
Early Friday, Israel changed the face of the Middle East by launching an unprecedented attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and killing a slew of senior Iranian commanders. Iran retaliated with a massive drone and missile strike on Israel. What happens next? President Donald Trump has expressed optimism that the Israeli attack will force Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, back to the bargaining table following weeks in which Khamenei rejected Trump's demand that Tehran cease all uranium enrichment. But former ambassador Ryan Crocker, one of America's most experienced diplomats in the region, believes that would be 'an unthinkable humiliation and capitulation' for Khamenei — meaning the conflict is likely to drag on and grow even riskier. 'The capabilities that Israeli intelligence has displayed — again, stunningly — is that they have the Iranian national security infrastructure thoroughly penetrated,' he said. 'So one has to assume that, if they wanted, they are positioned to also target the political leadership. If the Israelis do that, it could lead to an Armageddon-like response on the part of Iran.' This interview has been edited for length and clarity. How do the Israeli attacks on Iran alter the situation in the Middle East? We're at a totally new level in the Iran nuclear issue. This is not one that Israel is going to back away from until they feel that they have achieved their goal, which is the elimination of Iran's nuclear weapons capability. And, following from that is the question: Can they do it? I'm struck that so far they have hit Iran's uranium processing center in Natanz, but apparently not at the uranium enrichment facility in Fordow, which is a deeper and more inaccessible target. Not yet anyway. The Israelis say this could go on for days or weeks and include commando raids. And it raises the question, is destroying Fordow something that the Israelis are counting on the U.S. to do? And that, of course, leads to the third main consideration: What is the U.S. going to do? There was a sense, at first, that Trump wanted to move ahead with nuclear negotiations with Tehran and may have been opposed to these strikes. But at the same time, he didn't flash some sort of bright red light saying 'stop.' The Israelis are saying that meant he was really giving them a green light to attack. Clearly the United States was informed of the attack plan. We saw the decision to draw down the embassy in Baghdad, the departure of U.S. military dependents from the region, all pretty clear signals in retrospect that we knew this was coming. And I have to assume, therefore, there was no red light from Trump. Common sense would indicate that he is playing something like a good cop who's suggesting that, 'My buddy Bibi [Netanyahu] is completely nuts, and you, the Ayatollah Khamenei, had better get to the table and do the deal before worse happens.' So Trump may expect that Iran will return to the table. But do you think that there's any prospect that that the Iranians could actually come back to the table? Certainly not immediately. That would be kind of an unthinkable humiliation and capitulation that is hard for me to imagine them making. Also, we don't know what worse there is to come. The Israelis have not targeted Iran's energy infrastructure, and they have not targeted the political leadership. The capabilities that Israeli intelligence has displayed — again, stunningly — is that they have the Iranian national security infrastructure thoroughly penetrated. So one has to assume that, if they wanted, they are positioned to also target the political leadership. If the Israelis do that, it could lead to an Armageddon-like response on the part of Iran. What would an Armageddon-like response be at this point, given that there are serious questions about what Iran's retaliatory capabilities actually are? I would think that it would involve targeting regional states and the U.S. in the region. And on the latter, if not the former, that would, of course, invite or necessitate a major U.S. response. Iran's drones and missiles have not been effective. And they've been stripped of many of their asymmetric capabilities and proxies. Israel has decimated Hezbollah and Hamas. And clearly the Israelis are moving now, in part because they think that those retaliatory capabilities have been decimated. What damage do you think Iran could really do? I don't think they're going to do much damage to Israel in the short term. I think their target list would include, as I suggested, the regional states. The Gulf defenses are not nearly as robust, and there, they presumably could do some significant damage. But the other parties including the U.S. are reluctant to get involved. Did you see [Iraqi Shia leader] Moqtada al Sadr's statement? He, of course, vigorously and vociferously condemned this naked Israeli aggression, and then said that Iraq needs to stay the hell out of this fight. There is also the question of whether Israel believes it has the capabilities unilaterally to put Iran out of operation on its energy infrastructure. That would certainly trigger Iranian retaliation against other Gulf energy infrastructure, and that is something I think the United States might draw a red line against, given the damage to the economy that would bring. So Iran has very meager options. Does that suggest that it has no choice but to negotiate – and soon? Especially if Khamenei suspects he too could be killed if he doesn't? God knows what goes on in the minds of Khamenei or his closest political allies. But given that he was present at the creation of the Islamic Republic and has been supreme leader since 1989, I think it is by no means probable that he would capitulate in some dramatic way. I think it is much more likely that he would resist that. And then it comes down to a question of, assuming the Israelis have the capability to kill him, what would they gain by doing so? Perhaps because this is an attempt at regime change by Israel? That would be highly optimistic on the part of the Israelis. What we've seen with authoritarian regimes is they're very powerful until they're not, as in Syria, but the degree to which that can be determined or even decisively influenced from the outside is questionable. Can this trigger a revolution? Recall the Green Revolution from 2009. It seems to me the same dynamic still persists, that there is widespread discontent and dissatisfaction with the regime inside Iran, but the problem is the same: There is no discernible leadership of a viable opposition. So what do you think happens now? Is there going to be the kind of wider war that many fear, or would Iran be leery of dragging in the U.S. and instead just fire off strikes against, say, the more vulnerable Arab states? Just to show that they can do something? Apart from the token firing of missiles and drones against Israel, my best guess is that Iran will strike back in some other surprising fashion, probably not against Israel, and probably not against the U.S. for fear of pulling us into it. That would leave Arab states as the most likely target. I could see some effort with missiles and or drones against Arab capitals. We don't have an air defense umbrella that covers the entire Arabian peninsula by any means. For example, in the Gulf states, air defense capabilities themselves are limited and somewhat uncoordinated. So if I were calling the shots from Tehran and I were determined to take a shot, I would want to make it have an impact. What would be the object of that, just to show that they could do it? Yes, I think that would be it. Because, frankly, to do nothing otherwise is complete humiliation. That raises the question of how Sunni-Shia rivalries could play into this. Until now, Iran appeared to be trying some rapprochement with the Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia. Could those Sunni-Shia tensions erupt again? It wouldn't be so much along sectarian lines, but to target these states as simply some ally of the West writ large, so they could show that countries with whom Israel has relations are taking a pasting from the Islamic Republic. Because it's the only thing they can do. The only other option is just sit there and take it. And that would call into question the fundamental legitimacy of the Islamic Republic. Do you think, looking at the way the Biden administration handled this, that they dropped the ball in trying to negotiate with Iran? I think that the JCPOA [the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration] was probably our best shot at it. Yeah, and when Trump tore that up, I'm not sure there was a viable diplomatic Plan B that would have worked at all, or even been worth trying. So now do you see the Iranians settling into a long-term war mentality against Israel? In other words, they may not be able to hit back now, but five years, 10 years from now, they can? I could easily imagine a scenario where over the long haul, Iran just hunkers down, does not give up its nuclear weapons aspirations, and continues to find ways to develop that program. With the failure of Iran's other elements of projection of power, first its proxies and then its missile program, that leaves them with just that one option. You can't kill all of their nuclear scientists. The nuclear weapons capability is there intellectually, and you're not going to eliminate all of that. How would you assess the power balance right now in the Middle East? Israel seems to be in a supremely dominant position right now with its military power and its intelligence capabilities. We've seen tactical brilliance on the part of Israel, aided by some good fortune in Syria. The Israelis had nothing to do with the Syrian revolution, but they certainly benefited from it [by removing Bashar Assad, Iran's ally, and helping them eliminate the threat from Hezbollah]. Whether that can translate into strategic success is an open question. We don't really know where this gamble on decisively eliminating Iran's nuclear weapons capability is going to go. I'm not sure they can do it, and I'm not even sure that we [the U.S. and Israel] can do it together. I would go so far as to say that the most likely outcome of this is going to be that, whatever devastation is wrought in Iran and in the region, you will still have an Iran that will be determined to pursue a nuclear weapons capability, whatever it takes. I don't think that determination is going to change. It'll probably be reinforced.
