Latest news with #Iran-Israeli
Business Recorder
24-06-2025
- Business
- Business Recorder
Middle East crisis: solar imports in Pakistan could become costlier on increased freight
The cost of solar panel imports was feared to increase in Pakistan if Iran-Israel conflict continued for a longer period, importers told Business Recorder on Tuesday. Israel's aggression in Gaza has continued for the last 18 months, but the Middle East crisis intensified after Israel began attacking Iran on June 13, saying its 'longtime enemy' was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Iran, which says its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes, retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel. After two weeks' clashes, US President Donald Trump said a ceasefire between Iran and Israel was in force on Tuesday, urging both sides to 'not violate it' on the 12th day of the war between the two arch-foes. However, Gaza crisis still persists along with chances of renewal of Iran-Israel conflict. 'Shipping costs are around $2,500 per container in Pakistan, and if the Middle East conflict intensifies, this cost could reach up to $3,000 per container,' said Diwan International Pvt Ltd Director Muhammad Faaz Diwan told Business Recorder. According to Diwan, the pre-container shipping cost (freight cost) rose more than 100% in the last two months, from $1,200 to now $2,500. Explaining the reasons behind the cost increase, he noted that the US had imposed duties on China, but the duties were suspended for 90 days. 'As a result, China received a surge of orders from the US, which led to increased freight costs.' Diwan said the freight costs would increase further if Iran-Israeli clashes continued for a longer period. He also mentioned that importers were paying an additional 3% advance tax on imports. 'If a 10% tax is imposed on solar panels, the total tax burden on importers would reach 13%, leading to higher solar panel prices.' It may be noted that the government, in its budget proposals for FY2025-26, suggested 18% tax on imported solar panels, and later reduced it to 10%. Diwan noted that the cost per watt of solar panel was approximately Rs28, and if the 13% tax was imposed, the cost would rise to Rs32 per watt for importers. He remarked that Pakistani citizens were facing dual challenges: high electricity rates and load shedding, which is why many opt for solar panels, according to Diwan. However, he emphasised that even with the tax, solar panels would remain within the consumer's budget if they calculated the long-term savings. Meanwhile, regarding Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb's statement accusing traders of hoarding and creating artificial shortages, Diwan rejected the claim, saying if traders were hoarding, solar panel prices would have skyrocketed — which has not happened. On the question of local solar panel manufacturing, Diwan stated that approximately 98% of the solar panels used in Pakistan were imported. 'The remaining 2% are locally made but substandard, mainly used in rural areas or for small-scale needs. These panels have low durability.' He stressed that until a top-tier 1 manufacturing facility was established in Pakistan, no kind of duty should be imposed on solar panels. 'Once a tier-1 factory is operational in Pakistan, the government can then impose GST [goods and services tax] and import duties to encourage local competition,' Diwan said. 'Imposing taxes on panels without local manufacturing is equivalent to blocking the entry of high-quality products into Pakistan.' 'Massive demand, lack of clarity on taxation' Inverex CEO Muhammad Zakir Ali told Business Recorder Pakistan imported 17 gigawatts worth of solar panels in 2024, while in 2025, imports have already reached 8 gigawatts so far, according to Ali. He explained that demand for solar panels in Pakistan was very high due to rising electricity rates and frequent load shedding, pushing people to shift towards alternative energy sources. Speaking about alternative energy, Ali stressed the need for clarity in taxation policies, as the government's announcement of 18% tax, followed by a reduction to 10%, created confusion among people. He also stated that setting up a solar panel industry in Pakistan had become inevitable. 'Currently, 95% of the solar panels used in the country are imported, and the remaining 5% are not up to international standards.' Ali emphasised that establishing such an industry would create employment opportunities and enable Pakistan to meet its growing demand locally. 'Need for immediate local manufacturing and financing' Fusion Tech chairman Salim Memon stressed that local manufacturing must begin at the earliest to meet the country's rising demand for solar panels. He also urged the government to introduce bank financing schemes for solar panels to make green energy accessible to the common man. He highlighted the need for complete local manufacturing—from solar panels to inverters, and criticised the current practice saying what was referred to as 'manufacturing' in Pakistan was 'merely assembling'. Memon stressed that the time had come for Pakistan to initiate a true solar panel manufacturing industry.
NDTV
24-06-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
As Trump Floats Regime Change In Iran, Lessons From US's Past In Middle East
As President Donald Trump floats the idea of "regime change" in Tehran, previous US attempts to remake the Middle East by force over the decades offer stark warnings about the possibility of a deepening involvement in the Iran-Israeli conflict. "If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???" Trump posted on his social media site over the weekend. It came after the US bombed Iran's nuclear sites but before that country retaliated by firing its own missiles at a US base in Qatar. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday insisted that Trump, who spent years railing against "forever wars" and pushing an "America first" world view, had not committed a political about-face. "The president's posture and our military posture have not changed," she said, suggesting that a more aggressive approach might be necessary if Iran "refuses to give up their nuclear program or engage in talks." Leavitt also suggested that a new government in Iran could come about after its people stage a revolt, not necessarily requiring direct US intervention. "If they refuse to engage in diplomacy moving forward, why shouldn't the Iranian people rise up," she asked. That's a perilous path that other US administrations have taken. And it's a long way from Trump's past dismissal of " stupid, endless wars," and his scoffing at the idea of nation-building championed by his Republican predecessors -- including in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the US helped overthrow governments. Some lessons learned from previous conflicts: Initial Success Is Often Fleeting US special forces and Afghan allies drove the Taliban from power and chased Osama bin Laden into Pakistan within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. American tanks rolled into Baghdad weeks after the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But then, both wars went on for years. The Taliban waged a tenacious, two-decade insurgency and swept back into power as the US beat a chaotic retreat in 2021. The overthrow of Saddam plunged Iraq into chaos, with Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias battling each other and US forces. Israel has so far largely succeeded in taking out Iran's air defences and ballistic missiles, and the US strikes on three sites with missiles and 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) bunker-buster bombs have wrecked its nuclear program, Trump says. But that still potentially leaves hundreds of thousands in the military, the Revolutionary Guard and forces known as the Basij, who played a key role in quashing waves of anti-government protests in recent years. Ground Forces Are Key - But Don't Guarantee Success Airstrikes have never been enough on their own. Take, for example, Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. His forces withstood a seven-month NATO air campaign in 2011 before rebels fighting city by city eventually cornered and killed him. There are currently no insurgent groups in Iran capable of taking on the Revolutionary Guard, and it's hard to imagine Israeli or US forces launching a ground invasion of a mountainous country of some 80 million people that is about four times as big as Iraq. A split in Iran's own security forces would furnish a ready-made insurgency, but it would also likely tip the country into civil war. There's also the question of how ordinary Iranians would respond. Protests in recent years show that many Iranians believe their government is corrupt and repressive, and would welcome its demise. But the last time a foreign power attacked Iran - the Iraqi invasion of 1980 - people rallied around the flag. At the moment, many appear to be lying low or leaving the capital. Be Wary Of Exiled Opposition Groups Some of the biggest cheerleaders for the US invasion of Iraq were exiled opposition figures, many of whom had left the country decades before. When they returned, essentially on the back of US tanks, they were marginalised by local armed groups more loyal to Iran. There are several large Iranian opposition groups based abroad. But they are not united, and it's unclear how much support any of them has inside the country. The closest thing to a unifying opposition figure is Reza Pahlavi, the son of the shah who was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution that brought theocracy to power. But many Iranians have bitter memories of repression under the shah, and others might reject Pahlavi over his outreach to Israel, especially if he tries to ride to power on the back of a foreign invasion. In Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya - and in Syria and Yemen after their 2011 uprisings - a familiar pattern emerged when governments were overthrown or seriously weakened. Armed groups emerged with competing agendas. Neighbouring countries backed local proxies. Weapons flowed in, and large numbers of civilians fled. The fighting in some places boiled over into full-blown civil war, and ever more violent extremist groups sprouted from the chaos. When it was all over, Saddam had been replaced by a corrupt and often dysfunctional government at least as friendly to Iran as it was to the United States. Gadhafi was replaced by myriad militias, many allied with foreign powers. The Taliban were replaced by the Taliban.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Donald Trump floats the idea of regime change in Iran after US bombings
This idea of a regime change came after the US bombed Iran's nuclear sites but before that country retaliated by firing its own missiles at a US base in Qatar AP Dubai As President Donald Trump floats the idea of regime change in Tehran, previous US attempts to remake the Middle East by force over the decades offer stark warnings about the possibility of a deepening involvement in the Iran-Israeli conflict. If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? Trump posted on his social media site over the weekend. This came after the US bombed Iran's nuclear sites but before that country retaliated by firing its own missiles at a US base in Qatar. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday insisted that Trump, who spent years railing against forever wars and pushing an America first world view, had not committed a political about-face. The president's posture and our military posture has not changed, she said, suggesting that a more aggressive approach might be necessary if Iran refuses to give up their nuclear program or engage in talks." Leavitt also suggested that a new government in Iran could come about after its people stage a revolt not necessarily requiring direct US intervention. If they refuse to engage in diplomacy moving forward, why shouldn't the Iranian people rise up, she asked. That's a perilous path that other US administrations have taken. And it's a long way from Trump's past dismissal of "stupid, endless wars," and his scoffing at the idea of nation-building championed by his Republican predecessors including in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the US helped overthrow governments. Some lessons learned from previous conflicts: Initial success is often fleeting US special forces and Afghan allies drove the Taliban from power and chased Osama bin Laden into Pakistan within months of the September 11, 2001, attacks. American tanks rolled into Baghdad weeks after the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But then, both wars went on for years. The Taliban waged a tenacious, two-decade insurgency and swept back into power as the US beat a chaotic retreat in 2021. The overthrow of Saddam plunged Iraq into chaos, with Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias battling each other and US forces. Israel has so far largely succeeded in taking out Iran's air defences and ballistic missiles and the US strikes on three sites with missiles and 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) bunker-buster bombs has wrecked its nuclear program, Trump says. But that still potentially leaves hundreds of thousands in the military, the Revolutionary Guard and forces known as the Basij, who played a key role in quashing waves of anti-government protests in recent years. Ground forces are key but don't guarantee success Airstrikes have never been enough on their own. Take, for example, Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. His forces withstood a seven-month NATO air campaign in 2011 before rebels fighting city by city eventually cornered and killed him. There are currently no insurgent groups in Iran capable of taking on the Revolutionary Guard, and it's hard to imagine Israeli or US forces launching a ground invasion of a mountainous country of some 80 million people that is about four times as big as Iraq. A split in Iran's own security forces would furnish a ready-made insurgency, but it would also likely tip the country into civil war. There's also the question of how ordinary Iranians would respond. Protests in recent years show that many Iranians believe their government is corrupt and repressive, and would welcome its demise. But the last time a foreign power attacked Iran the Iraqi invasion of 1980 people rallied around the flag. At the moment, many appear to be lying low or leaving the capital. Be wary of exiled opposition groups Some of the biggest cheerleaders for the US invasion of Iraq were exiled opposition figures, many of whom had left the country decades before. When they returned, essentially on the back of US tanks, they were marginalized by local armed groups more loyal to Iran. There are several large Iranian opposition groups based abroad. But they are not united and it's unclear how much support any of them has inside the country. The closest thing to a unifying opposition figure is Reza Pahlavi, the son of the shah who was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution that brought the theocracy to power. But many Iranians have bitter memories of repression under the shah, and others might reject Pahlavi over his outreach to Israel, especially if he tries to ride to power on the back of a foreign invasion. Chaos is practically guaranteed In Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and in Syria and Yemen after their 2011 uprisings a familiar pattern emerged when governments were overthrown or seriously weakened. Armed groups emerged with competing agendas. Neighbouring countries backed local proxies. Weapons flowed in and large numbers of civilians fled. The fighting in some places boiled over into full-blown civil war, and ever more violent extremist groups sprouted from the chaos. When it was all over, Saddam had been replaced by a corrupt and often dysfunctional government at least as friendly to Iran as it was to the United States. Gadhafi was replaced by myriad militias, many allied with foreign powers. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Hamilton Spectator
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
As Trump floats regime change in Iran, past US attempts to remake the Middle East may offer warnings
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — As President Donald Trump floats the idea of 'regime change' in Tehran, previous U.S. attempts to remake the Middle East by force over the decades offer stark warnings about the possibility of a deepening involvement in the Iran-Israeli conflict. 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' Trump posted on his social media site over the weekend. The came after the U.S. bombed Iran's nuclear sites but before that country retaliated by firing its own missiles at a U.S. base in Qatar . White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday insisted that Trump, who spent years railing against 'forever wars' and pushing an 'America first' world view, had not committed a political about-face. 'The president's posture and our military posture has not changed,' she said, suggesting that a more aggressive approach might be necessary if Iran 'refuses to give up their nuclear program or engage in talks.' Leavitt also suggested that a new government in Iran could come about after its people stage a revolt — not necessarily requiring direct U.S. intervention. 'If they refuse to engage in diplomacy moving forward, why shouldn't the Iranian people rise up,' she asked. That's a perilous path that other U.S. administrations have taken. And it's a long way from Trump's past dismissal of ' stupid, endless wars ,' and his scoffing at the idea of nation-building championed by his Republican predecessors — including in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. helped overthrow governments. Some lessons learned from previous conflicts: Initial success is often fleeting U.S. special forces and Afghan allies drove the Taliban from power and chased Osama bin Laden into Pakistan within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. American tanks rolled into Baghdad weeks after the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But then, both wars went on for years. The Taliban waged a tenacious, two-decade insurgency and swept back into power as the U.S. beat a chaotic retreat in 2021 . The overthrow of Saddam plunged Iraq into chaos, with Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias battling each other and U.S. forces. Israel has so far largely succeeded in taking out Iran's air defenses and ballistic missiles and the U.S. strikes on three sites with missiles and 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) bunker-buster bombs has wrecked its nuclear program, Trump says. But that still potentially leaves hundreds of thousands in the military, the Revolutionary Guard and forces known as the Basij, who played a key role in quashing waves of anti-government protests in recent years. Ground forces are key — but don't guarantee success Airstrikes have never been enough on their own. Take, for example, Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi . His forces withstood a seven-month NATO air campaign in 2011 before rebels fighting city by city eventually cornered and killed him . There are currently no insurgent groups in Iran capable of taking on the Revolutionary Guard, and it's hard to imagine Israeli or U.S. forces launching a ground invasion of a mountainous country of some 80 million people that is about four times as big as Iraq. A split in Iran's own security forces would furnish a ready-made insurgency, but it would also likely tip the country into civil war. There's also the question of how ordinary Iranians would respond. Protests in recent years show that many Iranians believe their government is corrupt and repressive, and would welcome its demise. But the last time a foreign power attacked Iran — the Iraqi invasion of 1980 — people rallied around the flag. At the moment, many appear to be lying low or leaving the capital. Be wary of exiled opposition groups Some of the biggest cheerleaders for the U.S. invasion of Iraq were exiled opposition figures , many of whom had left the country decades before. When they returned, essentially on the back of U.S. tanks, they were marginalized by local armed groups more loyal to Iran. There are several large Iranian opposition groups based abroad. But they are not united and it's unclear how much support any of them has inside the country. The closest thing to a unifying opposition figure is Reza Pahlavi, the son of the shah who was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution that brought the theocracy to power. But many Iranians have bitter memories of repression under the shah, and others might reject Pahlavi over his outreach to Israel , especially if he tries to ride to power on the back of a foreign invasion. Chaos is practically guaranteed In Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya — and in Syria and Yemen after their 2011 uprisings — a familiar pattern emerged when governments were overthrown or seriously weakened. Armed groups emerged with competing agendas. Neighboring countries backed local proxies. Weapons flowed in and large numbers of civilians fled . The fighting in some places boiled over into full-blown civil war, and ever more violent extremist groups sprouted from the chaos . When it was all over, Saddam had been replaced by a corrupt and often dysfunctional government at least as friendly to Iran as it was to the United States. Gadhafi was replaced by myriad militias, many allied with foreign powers. The Taliban were replaced by the Taliban. ___ Weissert reported from Washington. 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 .
San Francisco Chronicle
23-06-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
As Trump floats regime change in Iran, past US attempts to remake the Middle East may offer warnings
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — As President Donald Trump floats the idea of 'regime change' in Tehran, previous U.S. attempts to remake the Middle East by force over the decades offer stark warnings about the possibility of a deepening involvement in the Iran-Israeli conflict. 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' Trump posted on his social media site over the weekend. The came after the U.S. bombed Iran's nuclear sites but before that country retaliated by firing its own missiles at a U.S. base in Qatar. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday insisted that Trump, who spent years railing against 'forever wars' and pushing an 'America first' world view, had not committed a political about-face. 'The president's posture and our military posture has not changed,' she said, suggesting that a more aggressive approach might be necessary if Iran 'refuses to give up their nuclear program or engage in talks." Leavitt also suggested that a new government in Iran could come about after its people stage a revolt — not necessarily requiring direct U.S. intervention. 'If they refuse to engage in diplomacy moving forward, why shouldn't the Iranian people rise up,' she asked. That's a perilous path that other U.S. administrations have taken. And it's a long way from Trump's past dismissal of " stupid, endless wars," and his scoffing at the idea of nation-building championed by his Republican predecessors — including in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. helped overthrow governments. Initial success is often fleeting U.S. special forces and Afghan allies drove the Taliban from power and chased Osama bin Laden into Pakistan within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. American tanks rolled into Baghdad weeks after the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But then, both wars went on for years. The Taliban waged a tenacious, two-decade insurgency and swept back into power as the U.S. beat a chaotic retreat in 2021. The overthrow of Saddam plunged Iraq into chaos, with Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias battling each other and U.S. forces. Israel has so far largely succeeded in taking out Iran's air defenses and ballistic missiles and the U.S. strikes on three sites with missiles and 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) bunker-buster bombs has wrecked its nuclear program, Trump says. But that still potentially leaves hundreds of thousands in the military, the Revolutionary Guard and forces known as the Basij, who played a key role in quashing waves of anti-government protests in recent years. Ground forces are key — but don't guarantee success Airstrikes have never been enough on their own. Take, for example, Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. His forces withstood a seven-month NATO air campaign in 2011 before rebels fighting city by city eventually cornered and killed him. There are currently no insurgent groups in Iran capable of taking on the Revolutionary Guard, and it's hard to imagine Israeli or U.S. forces launching a ground invasion of a mountainous country of some 80 million people that is about four times as big as Iraq. A split in Iran's own security forces would furnish a ready-made insurgency, but it would also likely tip the country into civil war. There's also the question of how ordinary Iranians would respond. Protests in recent years show that many Iranians believe their government is corrupt and repressive, and would welcome its demise. But the last time a foreign power attacked Iran — the Iraqi invasion of 1980 — people rallied around the flag. At the moment, many appear to be lying low or leaving the capital. Be wary of exiled opposition groups Some of the biggest cheerleaders for the U.S. invasion of Iraq were exiled opposition figures, many of whom had left the country decades before. When they returned, essentially on the back of U.S. tanks, they were marginalized by local armed groups more loyal to Iran. There are several large Iranian opposition groups based abroad. But they are not united and it's unclear how much support any of them has inside the country. The closest thing to a unifying opposition figure is Reza Pahlavi, the son of the shah who was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution that brought the theocracy to power. But many Iranians have bitter memories of repression under the shah, and others might reject Pahlavi over his outreach to Israel, especially if he tries to ride to power on the back of a foreign invasion. Chaos is practically guaranteed In Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya — and in Syria and Yemen after their 2011 uprisings — a familiar pattern emerged when governments were overthrown or seriously weakened. Armed groups emerged with competing agendas. Neighboring countries backed local proxies. Weapons flowed in and large numbers of civilians fled. The fighting in some places boiled over into full-blown civil war, and ever more violent extremist groups sprouted from the chaos. When it was all over, Saddam had been replaced by a corrupt and often dysfunctional government at least as friendly to Iran as it was to the United States. Gadhafi was replaced by myriad militias, many allied with foreign powers. The Taliban were replaced by the Taliban.
