Latest news with #IslamicExtremism
Russia Today
2 days ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
From bunker bombs to Nobel dreams: Trump's war for peace
The US seems to have learned no lessons from the post-Cold War phase of its unilateralism and regime-change policies in the Middle East. Instead of a new peaceful and stable order being established under Washington's tutelage, it ended in the collapse of countries – not merely regimes – chaos, civil war, and the rise of Islamic extremism and terrorism. It is not clear what legitimate US core interests were served by its military interventions to re-order the political forces in the region. If the objective was also to remove regimes that were a threat to Israel's security and erode Russian influence in the region, some success may have been achieved in Iraq and Syria, though in a divided Libya Moscow seems to have gained ground. Giving Israel a freer hand in Lebanon and Syria, and a virtual carte blanche in Gaza and in the West Bank too, may have in the short term given it an upper hand in security terms but longer term the answer to Israel's security dilemmas may not lie in asserting its regional hegemony with the backing of the US. Israel has long viewed its core security challenge as emanating from a nuclear-armed Iran. It has worked hard over the years to mobilize US and European opinion against Iran's nuclear program. That this program has been subject to stringent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards has not reduced the virulence of Israel's campaign against it. Israel has for years raised the specter of Iran becoming nuclear within months or even weeks even though no proof is produced to support this belief. The IAEA has not backed Israel's allegations. These Israeli claims have resonated in the pro-Israel lobbies in the US to the point that President Donald Trump in his first term repudiated the nuclear agreement signed between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the UK and US) plus Germany. Under this agreement, Iran had accepted severe and even humiliating curbs on its nuclear program as a sovereign country, which included highly intrusive monitoring by the IAEA. In his second term, Trump sought to negotiate a new, much tougher, nuclear agreement with Iran that would deny it even some rights it had under the first one. A couple of rounds of talks took place, and the date for another round had been slated. These talks were being held under the shadow of timelines and intimidating ultimatums by Trump. It is not improbable that the US was engaged in a show of negotiations while actually preparing for an aerial strike against Iran. With Hamas and Hezbollah decimated and regime change having been carried out in Syria, Iran's hand was greatly weakened vis-à-vis Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu evidently calculated that this was the most opportune moment to do the unthinkable – attack Iran militarily and open the door to US military intervention in support of Israel. In other words, for Israel the objective would be to prevent any possible negotiated agreement between the US and Iran, and for Trump to seize the opportunity to eliminate Iran's nuclear capability by force, in particular its underground facilities with the use of B2s armed with bunker-busting bombs. That Trump has chosen a military solution over a negotiated one is a throwback to US unilateralism and regime-change policies. The US attack on Iran is a gross violation of international law. It infringes the UN Charter. The US had no mandate from the UN Security Council to act against Iran. There is no provision in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that would allow the recognized nuclear powers to eliminate a suspected nuclear program of a non-nuclear state in violation of the Treaty. The US attack also cannot be justified as a pre-emptive one as Iran was not threatening to attack the US. The rhetoric of a rules-based international order has been exposed for what it is. The irony is that Trump's election rhetoric was against the US getting involved in wars abroad, which he believed had drained America's resources. His MAGA base wanted the US to focus on domestic priorities. Trump projected himself as against wars as such, as someone who would work to end conflicts. His position on the Ukraine conflict reflected this. His unfounded claim that he brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, as well as his offer to mediate between the two countries on Kashmir, is part of how he projects himself as a peacemaker. He now claims to have brokered an agreement between Rwanda and Congo and between Egypt and Ethiopia, among others. His efforts should, as he says, entitle him to four or five Nobel Peace Prizes. Pakistan tried to capitalize on Trump's obsession with a Nobel Prize by officially nominating him for one after his unprecedented invitation to a foreign military chief (the Pakistani field marshal) to lunch with him at the White House. This sycophantic ploy recoiled on Pakistan when virtually the next day Trump attacked Iran militarily. Trump believes that now summoning Israel and Iran to a ceasefire shows his commitment to peace. Unsurprisingly, his supporters in the US Congress have nominated him for the Nobel Prize. While Netanyahu publicly speaking of killing Ali Khamenei, Iran's spiritual leader, is one thing, Trump visualizing the possibility of assassinating him at an opportune moment on his social media account is egregious. Such talk of political assassination are being normalized in diplomatic discourse. Trump has also not ruled out regime change in Iran, potentially causing chaos in a country of over 90 million. A ceasefire between Israel and Iran, even if it holds, is simply a pause. The underlying issues remain unresolved. Iran needs to give up its rhetoric that Israel has no right to exist. It is most unlikely that Iran will give up its nuclear program and its rights under the NPT. Iran has decided to end the monitoring of its program by the IAEA. Iran has accused the agency head of leaking information about its nuclear scientists to the US and Israelis and facilitating their assassination. Meanwhile, the whereabouts of Iran's highly enriched uranium are not known. There are also some doubts about the extent of damage caused to Iranian nuclear sites by the US bombers, and therefore the assessment is that Iran's program could be revived quickly enough. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has questioned the integrity of IAEA Chief Rafael Grossi for pressuring Iran to allow renewed access to its nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, the US attack has exposed the inability of Moscow and Beijing to give protection to Iran during the conflict. Russia signed a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement with Iran in January 2025. Iran is a member of BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), two organizations in which both Russia and China play dominant roles. Putin has explained that Russia had offered to help build up Iran's air defenses but Tehran declined as it wanted to rely on its own capacities. The Iranian foreign minister went to Moscow and met Russian President Vladimir Putin, but whatever help is now given to Iran will be diplomatic – as well as potential assistance in building up its air defenses if Iran has learned the right lessons about its vulnerabilities. China, which signed a 25-year strategic accord with Iran and is the biggest buyer of Iranian oil, has stood aloof from the conflict in practical terms although, unlike in the case of Russia, its rhetoric against Israel is harsh. Russia itself is involved in a major conflict and would want to avoid alienating Trump. China too has major stakes in managing its tense ties with the US. Iran has suffered and so has Israel. The story is not yet over.
Telegraph
4 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Migrant can stay in UK because he does not want to shave
An asylum seeker from Tajikistan has been allowed to stay in the UK because he would have had to shave his beard off if he was deported. The unnamed man won an appeal after arguing that he could be tortured and have his facial hair forcibly removed if he was sent back home. The Home Office tried to deport him back to the Central Asian state, but an asylum court has now ruled that he may be entitled to international protection in the UK because of his beard. In Tajikistan, beards are unofficially banned by the Government and hundreds of thousands of men have been arrested for having one in the last decade. Men in the country with beards are arrested, shaved against their will and have their fingerprints taken by police. It is part of a government campaign to try to prevent men from becoming radicalised and joining Islamic extremist terror groups. The man's claim was initially dismissed but he appealed and secured a further hearing of his case after it was ruled that being forced to have his hair removed amounted to persecution rather than being the result of social pressures. The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example uncovered by The Telegraph where illegal migrants or convicted foreign criminals have used human rights laws to try to halt their deportations. Ministers are proposing to raise the threshold to make it harder for judges to grant the right to remain based on Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which protects the right to a family life, and Article 3, which protects against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. After his claim was initially rejected, the Tajik man, who was granted anonymity, appealed on the basis that the judge at the first-tier tribunal made 'contradictory' findings about his fear of persecution. He claimed that the tribunal had not properly assessed whether he would shave his beard because of 'social pressures' or because of a 'fear of being persecuted'. The Tajik man said he would shave off his beard if he was sent back but only because he would have 'no option' as he would be at risk of persecution. Parminder Saini, the Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal, said: 'The [First-tier Tribunal] judge has failed to assess whether the [Tajik man] is shaving off his beard because of 'social pressures' or due to a 'fear of being persecuted'. 'We find that this represents inadequate and incomplete reasoning in relation to the key issue of why the [Tajik man] is willing to shave his beard on return to Tajikistan. 'If he wears a beard out of religious conviction but will conform for reasons of securing his safety, he may be entitled to international protection. 'If, however, he would conform because of social or other pressures, or simply because wearing a beard is not an act of faith for him, and not because of the risk of persecution, then he may not be a refugee.' He added: 'We also note that the judge has failed to consider the objective risk to the [Tajik man] by reference to the background material before him. '[His lawyer] took us to several examples... which pointed to torture and mistreatment remaining widespread, arbitrary arrest being commonplace, thousands of Tajik men having their beards forcibly shaved and being fingerprinted and recorded by the authorities etc. 'Thus, these examples of background material before the judge were relevant to, and should have informed, his assessment of whether the [Tajik man] was at risk on return as well as the likelihood of whether [he] would feel compelled to shave due to fear, but they find no mention in the decision.' Judge Saini ruled that the previous decision was set aside and that his case must be heard again at the First-tier Tribunal.
Washington Post
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Wagner Group leaving Mali after heavy losses but Russia's Africa Corps to remain
DAKAR, Senegal — The Russia-backed Wagner Group said Friday it is leaving Mali after more than three and a half years of fighting Islamic extremists and insurgents in the country. Despite Wagner's announcement, Russia will continue to have a mercenary presence in the West African country. The Africa Corps, Russia's state-controlled paramilitary force, said on its Telegram channel Friday that Wagner's departure would not introduce any changes and the Russian contingent will remain in Mali.
The Sun
31-05-2025
- General
- The Sun
Convicted murderer and ‘Islamist fanatic' gets thousands in legal aid to argue about his anxiety
A CONVICTED murderer has got thousands in legal aid to argue that separating him from other lags made him feel too anxious. Islamic convert Denny De Silva, 32 — said to be an 'extremist enforcer' — had taxpayers fund his human rights challenge. He has previously been found guilty of smuggling in phones to share IS material and there were complaints he was battering other inmates at HMP Full Sutton, East Yorks. He was sent to a separation unit but in January went to the High Court to argue limiting access to the gym, library, and educational opportunities violated his right to a private life under the European Court of Human Rights. He won the case — adding more to his legal aid bill. De Silva had already run up costs of £42,000 for barristers and £24,000 for solicitors at his 2016 murder trial. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said: 'This shocking case shows how the ECHR is has become a charter for criminals. "I couldn't care less if a dangerous Islamist fanatic has 'anxiety' from separation centres. 'Governors must be able to lock up radicalising prisoners in isolation without worrying about mad human rights laws.' De Silva was jailed in 2016 for a minimum of 27 years for shooting dead a gangland rival. He converted to Islam in prison but is said to intimidate and incite other Muslim prisoners. The Ministry of Justice confirmed the £66,000 figure was correct but billing was not finalised. Inside evil Southport killer's cushy jail life where he STILL gets Maltesers, crisps & other treats despite guard attack 1
Daily Mail
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Pakistan has devolved into an 'extremist Islamic state' with a 'low threshold' for activating its nuclear arsenal, Indian security analyst Sarjan P Shah tells the Mail's 'Apocalypse Now?' podcast
The world has not fully woken up to the fact that Pakistan has become an 'Islamic extremist, nuclear-powered state', Indian security analyst Sarjan P Shah warned on the latest episode of the Mail's 'Apocalypse Now?' podcast. Tensions between India and Pakistan reached their highest level in almost a decade on Wednesday after 31 people were killed in missile strikes against Islamabad controlled Kashmir. India claims the strikes targeted 'terrorist infrastructure' in the disputed region. Many view the attack as retaliation for the killing of 22 Indian tourists by four gunmen in Pahalgam on the 22nd of April. Indian officials described the perpetrators as terrorists who had 'cross-border links' to Pakistan. Speaking to the Mail's special correspondent David Patrikarakos, security analyst Mr Shah said the latest escalation between the two countries is a result of Pakistani officials increasingly extreme and hawkish rhetoric towards India. He explained: 'A week before the 22nd of April, Pakistan's army general, Asim Munir, delivered an incendiary speech. 'What stood out to me, and I think all close observers of Pakistan, was the intransigence and almost Islamofascist ideology that the general expressed. 'To resounding applause, he described Kashmir as Pakistan's jugular vein – and then a week later, we saw this incident. 'What most people have not yet recognised is the gradual seep of extremist interpretations of Islam throughout Pakistani society. 'The world has failed to see that, in many ways, Pakistan is truly an extremist Islamic, nuclear-powered state.' On Thursday, both sides accused the other of using drones to attack its separate territory inside of Kashmir. Kashmir is claimed by both India and Pakistan. When British India was partitioned, the contested region sought independence but later acceded into India after Pakistan tried to invade the entire territory. Kashmir is now a hotbed for tensions, with India, Pakistan and China all controlling swathes of the majority Muslim province. Mr Shah then described what he called Pakistan's 'crazy Ivan strategy', denoting the nation's low threshold for the use of its nuclear weapons. India fired missiles at Pakistani territory early on May 7, killing several people, according to Pakistan, which said it had begun retaliating in a major escalation Pakistan is assumed to possess around 170 nuclear warheads, making it the world's sixth greatest nuclear power. Due to its small economy and population size compared to India, Pakistan has always threatened it would deploy its warheads in the event of a war between the two nations. 'India has consistently maintained a no first strike policy', Mr Shah said. 'In contrast, Pakistani nuclear doctrine maintains the right to first strike – which makes sense given their conventional inferiority against India's armed forces. 'But there's an additional layer to this – there's a phrase in Hindi I like to use, which translated into English, would be something like, Pakistan's crazy Ivan strategy. 'Pakistan's nuclear doctrine tries to send a message to the world that the country is actually crazy enough to use these things. 'The message is, we have a low threshold to activate our nuclear arsenal, as Pakistan believes it is its best deterrent against India, or any adversaries. 'India has now started calling their bluff – and are seeing how it can go, in order to express a zero-tolerance policy as far as terrorism in Kashmir is concerned.'
