Latest news with #IslamicRevolutionof
NDTV
23-06-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
What If Trump Has Just Started Another 'Forever War'?
For a President who was elected on the promise of putting an end to the wars the US had been involved in for the last few years, it has been a dramatic turnaround to bring the region of the Middle East to the precipice of a new major war. With the US striking several key Iranian nuclear facilities early Sunday, including Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, it is now squarely part of a regional conflict that at one point Trump had claimed he would be able to end. After giving Iran two weeks to enter into substantial negotiations before striking, Trump decided to take a chance within two days by striking Iran. In his address at the White House, Trump said Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities have been "totally obliterated" and warned the US could go after additional targets if Iran does not make peace. For its part, Iran has condemned the US strikes as "outrageous", warning of "everlasting consequences" and underlining that it was reserving "all options to defend its sovereignty". 'Bunker Buster' Strikes In the first operational use of its kind, the US forces deployed the 30,000-pound GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bomb, known as a "bunker buster", to target the deeply buried nuclear facilities of Iran. It's not clear how successful the US operation has been, but the Iranians have claimed that they had already moved all the nuclear material out of the sites. There is indeed a window of opportunity. If the nuclear sites targeted are indeed out of operation, Israel's Prime Minister can use that to de-escalate, citing the achievement of his primary war objective. The US is also hinting in that direction. After the most aggressive display of power - unlike any against Iran since the Islamic Revolution of 1970 - the US signalled that, for now, its military action was over and that it was not aimed at bringing down the regime in Iran. Later on Sunday, however, Trump, contradicting his own administration's stand, said on Truth Social, "It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA [Make Iran Great Again]!!!" Will Iran Inflict 'Irreparable Damage'? It may not be enough for the Iranian government to save face. Iran's Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, has acknowledged that he does not know how "much room is left for diplomacy" after the US attacks by underscoring that the US "crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities". "We have to respond based on our legitimate right to self-defence," he said. Just last week, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had vowed to hit back at the US were it to enter the war. "The Americans should know that any US military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage," he had thundered. And, as if on cue, the key allies of Iran, the Houthis in Yemen, had threatened to target US ships passing through the Red Sea if America joined Israel in the war. The Iranian parliament has already approved a plan to close the Strait of Hormuz, though its operationalisation will depend on the cost-benefit calculus in Tehran about its wider ramifications. Khamenei's political legitimacy rests on his ability to stand up to the 'Great Satan', the US. While America may not be targeting the regime directly, these attacks are a clear challenge to his authority, which he won't be able to let go of without a response. Don't Forget Iran's History For Trump, too, this is a turning point. While he seems to be betting that Israeli and American defanging of Iran will make it come to the negotiating table in a position of weakness, Iran's defiance when under duress is legendary; the Iranian regime would be loath to be seen as negotiating under pressure. Trump is likely to be disappointed in that regard. And, if Tehran continues to be defiant, then it will become politically difficult for Trump not to strike again to dial up the pressure further. The Iranian reprisals, which will come in some form in the foreseeable future, may also increase pressure on the US to enter the war in a bigger way if US bases or personnel in the Middle East become targets. US President Donald Trump's decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities will "change history", Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has suggested. For someone who actually managed to get what he had wanted for a long time, Netanyahu is right in assessing that Trump may have changed the course of history with his actions. But the final chapter in this history is yet to be written. His attacks will be viewed as an apogee of US power in the region if the Iranian nuclear capability is finally demolished and a new balance of power favouring Washington, Israel and their allies, gets re-established. But if these attacks become another symbol of American overreach without accomplishing the core objective, then Trump's actions would have pushed the world to a point of no return, with Iran striking back and American credibility hanging in the balance.
News18
22-06-2025
- Politics
- News18
Opinion: Islamist Ideology, Proxy Wars Stigmatised Iran's Nuclear Programme
Last Updated: Iran has refused to settle down as a normal country more than four decades since the Islamic Revolution While opinions might differ on whether Iran's nuclear programme has a hostile purpose, which necessitated punitive air strikes by Israel upon the former's nuclear reactor sites (by itself a potential hazardous act), the Islamic Republic is ultimately paying for its refusal to settle down as a normal country in the comity of nations since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Its founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1902-1989) made no secret of his antagonism towards the USA and Israel. He made no secret either of his designs on the entire world through Jihad— as evident in his collection of fatwas titled The Little Green Book (1985)— but then it is a matter of priority and feasibility. His aging successor Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (86) sees no reason either to depart from that policy. Iran made no efforts to resume diplomatic ties with the United States since they broke after the excruciating 444-day hostage crisis (1979-1981) at the US embassy in Tehran. Contrast this Mao Zedong's pragmatic approach in establishing People's Republic of China's diplomatic relations with the United States (1972) though the political philosophy of Peking (now Beijing) and Washington DC were antipodal. Mao chose the USA after his relations soured with his former ally viz. USSR. In the very first month of the American Embassy hostage crisis in Tehran in November 1979, there was a similar attack on the American Embassy in Islamabad wherein the diplomatic mission was set ablaze by protesters based on a canard that the USA had attacked the Grand Mosque in Mecca. While the attack, praised by Ayatollah Khomeini, was disapproved by General Zia-ul-Haq. Zia, conscious that the attack might turn Pakistan into an international pariah, played his cards well with Washington DC. When in the ensuing month the USSR invaded Afghanistan, Zia emerged as the leader of a pro-US frontline state fighting against Communism. This act turned Pakistan into a 'stalwart ally" of the USA. The question is not an ethical one, whether Pakistan did the right or wrong thing. The question is how smartly Zia played his hand, though he was no friend of the Western value system. Zia created the Afghan Mujahideen, which had a major blowback effect on Pakistan, besides Islamizing the jurisprudence in the country. The US State Department reports, and the US Congressional research briefs, contain extensive data on how Pakistan is home to several internationally designated terror groups, many of which are anti-US and they are anti-India. Yet, whether we like it or not, Pakistan remains in the good books of the US even under the watch of President Donald Trump, who made boisterous claims about eliminating Islamic terrorism in the world. Pakistan has smartly manipulated the USA, to the extent that despite the return of Taliban in Afghanistan, which has diminished the role of Islamabad in the region, Trump praises Pakistan's leadership. Thus Pakistan, despite being as much a sponsor of terror as Iran, and actually possessing nukes, which Iran is only suspected of developing, has smartly managed Washington DC. The Islamic republic, on the other hand, in pursuit of its ideology, has put itself on the wrong side of the global order. Khomeini's Islamist rhetoric was aimed at capturing the centre-stage in the Islamic world. This could not happen because Shias constituted less than 15 per cent of the global Muslim population. Moreover, the belief that Muslim governments would be swayed by Islamic sentiments alone in diplomatic matters is patently erroneous. No Arab country, whether republic or monarchy, would officially go against Israel, or come to the aid of their Arab brethren in Gaza, despite the fact that more than 50,000 of Arab Palestinian civilians have perished as a result of Israel's campaign against Hamas. Thus Iran could never become the leader of the Islamic world. Its following is limited to the Shia population of West Asia, which makes it a suspect in the eyes of the Sunni Arabs. It built up Hezbollah in Lebanon, a militant group promising Islamic government, and supported the secular regime of Hafez al-Assad (later his son Bashar al-Assad) as both are Shia. In Iraq it supported the Arab Shias, who despite constituting the majority, had been dominated by the Sunni Arabs from General Abdul Karim Qasim to Saddam Hussein. That Iran's expectation was naive, was recently proven when Pakistan on predictable lines contradicted Iranian top general Mohsen Rezaei's claim that Pakistan would nuke Israel if Israel used a nuclear bomb on Iran. Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir obviously does not want to meet the same fate as Iran's Chief of Army Staff Mohammed Bagheri and IRGC Commander Hossein Salami! II Israel and Iran, at their closest points, are around 2,000 km apart. Not sharing boundaries, and belonging to different economic zones, they were not destined to be rivals. While it is true that Islamic Revolution, 1979 terminated the warm ties between the two countries during the reign of Shah of Iran viz. Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, both countries actually but covertly cooperated during Iran-Iraq War (1980-88). 'In early 1980"— says a RAND Corporation report (2011)—'Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin approved the shipment of tires for Phantom fighter planes, as well as weapons for the Iranian Army" (Israel and Iran: A Dangerous Rivalry, p. 14). Israel's action to oblige Iran was in violation of the US policy that no weapons be sent to the Islamic republic until the safe release of US hostages. Iran, in return for Israel's assistance, allowed a large number of Iranian Jews to migrate to Israel or the United States. Israel later acted as conduit for secretive sale of American weapons to Iran, which desperately needed those in the war against Iraq. Though this covert cooperation diminished by the 1990s, after the Iran-Iraq war came to an end, Israel and Iran did not yet view themselves overtly as rivals. While it is true Iran's nuclear and missile development programmes made Israel's security establishment somewhat jittery, the threat from Iran was not yet a matter of public discourse. The civil war in Lebanon had also come to an end, as a result of the Taif Agreement (1989), and though Israel had discovered Iranian support behind Hezbollah (Mossad even tried to assassinate Iranian cleric, who was the architect of Hezbollah, in 1984 at Damascus through a parcel bomb) it was believed that things in Levant would settle down. With Iran's detractor Saddam Hussein still in the saddle, and an unfriendly Taliban establishing itself in Afghanistan, Iran's preoccupations were still limited to its neighbourhood. However, with the collapse of Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, followed by fall of Saddam Hussein from power in 2003, Iran's influence was in the ascendant. Hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected as the President of Iran in 2005. On December 14, 2005 he made a statement at a public rally in Zahedan, a city in south-eastern Iran, that Holocaust of Jews in Third Reich was a myth; and even if it was not a myth land should have been given to the persecuted Jews in Europe, United States, Canada or Alaska rather than in Palestine at the cost of the Arabs. It was a completely unnecessary statement. His public statement caused a furor not only in Israel, but also Europe and the USA. Throughout his tenure (2005-13) Ahmadinejad never recanted his statement, but rather repeated it with gusto. Historically, whereas Holocaust was a reality, Israel did not owe its existence to it. It was rather the pogroms in the Russian Empire in the late 19th century that triggered settlement of the eastern Jews in Palestine then under the Ottoman Empire. There was also a movement called Hovevei Tzion (The Lovers of the Zion) in Eastern Europe from 1860 to settle in the Holy Land. The two leading Jewish institutions of higher education in Palestine viz. Technion and Hebrew University of Jerusalem had been inaugurated in 1925 in pre-Holocaust era. Most political leaders of Israel like Chaim Weizmann, David Ben Gurion, Golda Meir and Yitzhak Shamir came from the Czarist Empire. The questioning of the Holocaust, a highly sensitive matter, was meant only to humiliate Israel. It was, however, a marker of Islamic Republic antipathy towards Israel. III The American view of a country's nuclear programme is governed by the quality of the regime's relationship with Washington DC and its record of threatening American interests. As T.V. Paul (a US-based Indian scholar) explains in The Warrior State: Pakistan in the Contemporary World (2014), the Bush administration treated Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, lightly despite the CIA uncovering the successful nuclear proliferation ring that Khan ran, by seizing the centrifuges to enrich uranium destined for Libya in October 2003. Letting Pakistan scot-free despite being the biggest source of nuclear proliferation in the contemporary era, contrasts sharply with the US invasion of Iraq (2003) over alleged weapons of mass destruction, locking horns with Iran and North Korea, and forcing the Gaddafi regime to abandon its nuclear programme in 2003. What explains this contrasting attitude of the USA for different countries during the same period? 'The answer lies"—says Paul— 'in Pakistan's geostrategic salience and its elite's willingness and ability to carry out or thwart US policy objectives in the region" (The Warrior State, P.18). Iran's nuclear programme was stigmatized by its outlook on the West and Israel. The rest is only a matter of details. Whereas Iran holds that it had complied with its international obligation, like the Non-Proliferation Treaty, IAEA Protocols and Additional Protocols, and Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that Tehran concluded with China, France, Germany, Russia, Britain and the United States certain loose ends repeatedly crop up. This casts a doubt on the motive of the Iranian nuclear programme. Jared Mokowitz, the Democratic member representing Florida, in the US House of Representatives moved a resolution ( 105) on February 4, 2025, on affirming the threats to world stability from a nuclear weapons-capable Islamic Republic of Iran. Several points from there would be worth quoting. On May 20, 2022, the IAEA reported that the Islamic Republic of Iran had achieved a stockpile of 43.3 kilograms (95.5 pounds) of 60 percent highly enriched uranium, roughly enough material for a nuclear weapon. In February 2023, the IAEA reported that Islamic Republic of Iran had enriched uranium to 83.7 percent, which is just short of the 90-percent threshold for weapons-grade fissile material. On September 4, 2023, an IAEA report estimated the total uranium stockpile of the Islamic Republic of Iran to be 3795.5 kilograms (8367.65 pounds) and that Islamic Republic of Iran has enough fissile material that, if further enriched, would be sufficient to produce nuclear weapons. Whereas on October 18, 2023, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2213 (2015) lapsed, and many proliferation-related penalties and restrictions were lifted, allowing the Islamic Republic of Iran to test or transfer ballistic missiles, which may contribute to the further development of a nuclear weapon delivery system. The resolution further states that on November 24, 2024, the Islamic Republic of Iran informed the IAEA that it planned to start enriching uranium with thousands of advanced centrifuges at its Fordow and Nantz plants, while also installing more uranium-enrichment centrifuges at those locations. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence published an assessment on December 5, 2024, which stated that Iran's 20-percent and 60-percent enriched uranium stockpiles were far greater than needed for what it claims it would use the uranium for, and Iran could produce more than a dozen nuclear weapons if its total uranium stockpile were further enriched. This might explain why Israel went in for air strikes on nuclear and military facilities in Iran. Israel, a small country, could not leave its security to chance and good intentions of opponents. Its surprise air strike on Iraq's nuclear reactor viz. Osirak near Baghdad on June 7, 1981 became the stuff of legend. It crippled the Iraqi nuclear programme. Similarly, its air strike on September 6, 2007 at a suspected nuclear reactor at Deir ez-Zor region in Syria also sent a strong message. The strikes on Iran nuclear plants were expected many times over the last 20 years. However, Meir Dagan, the then Director of Mossad, went in for a low-cost strategy of assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists. His strategy lent its rather provocative title to Ronen Bergman's comprehensive but controversial book Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations (2018). 'The goal is to liberate Palestine"—declared Ayatollah Khamenei on December 4, 1990 at the First Islamic Conference on Palestine— 'and wipe out the Israeli government. There is no difference between the territories occupied before and after the year 1967. Every inch of Palestinian lands is Muslims' homeland. Any non-Muslim and non-Palestinian rule over Palestine is illegitimate rule. As our magnanimous Imam Khomeini said, 'Israel must disappear.' If Palestinian Jews accept Islamic rule, they may live in Palestine. It is not a matter of anti-Semitism. The problem is that a Muslim homeland has been occupied" (The Most Important Problem of the Islamic World: Selected Statements by Ayatollah Khamenei About Palestine, P.11-12). top videos View all Naturally, Israel could not wait to see the enrichment of this hostile ideology with fissile material. Hence, it went for air strikes. The writer is the author of 'The Microphone Men: How Orators Created a Modern India' (2019) and an independent researcher based in New Delhi. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 22, 2025, 18:22 IST News opinion Opinion: Islamist Ideology, Proxy Wars Stigmatised Iran's Nuclear Programme
The Hill
20-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
What happens if Iran falls? Nothing good.
Since Israel launched its campaign against Iran, the whispers of regime change have swelled into roars. President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now openly entertain the possibility of removing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Western press, as usual, salivates. Opinion writers speak of 'freedom,' of 'liberation,' of 'a new democratic dawn.' They should know better. We all should. This isn't the first time America has overthrown a government in Tehran. In 1953, the CIA helped orchestrate the ousting of Mohammad Mossadegh — a democratically elected prime minister who had the audacity to nationalize Iran's oil. That coup installed the Shah, a brutal monarch who fed dissidents into the meat grinder of SAVAK, his secret police. Torture chambers, disappearances, censorship — the entire Cold War authoritarian playbook was handed to Tehran on U.S. government stationery. That regime change led not to liberty, but to the Islamic Revolution of 1979. In short: the last time America meddled, it turned a secular democracy into a theocratic furnace. We have made this mistake before, and we are about to make it again. Let's not pretend the fall of the Islamic Republic would yield some Instagram-filtered liberal utopia. That fantasy is for people who read Foreign Affairs magazine like it's a Marvel comic book. The reality? Chaos. Deep, tribal, sectarian chaos. A power vacuum that would make Iraq look smart. If the Iranian regime collapses, the dominoes won't fall politely. Iran isn't just a nation — it's a spider at the center of a vast web of proxy forces and regional entanglements. Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Shia militias in Iraq and Syria — what happens to them when the spider dies? Do they disband? More likely, they go rogue. Unleashed, uncoordinated and angry. They won't sit for peace talks — they'll torch what's left of the map. And these groups aren't ragtag militias. They are disciplined, battle-hardened and ideologically committed. With Tehran gone, they would no longer be restrained by any centralized strategy. They would become freelance war machines, pursuing old vendettas with new ferocity — armed, funded and furious. What about the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? They are not going to hang up their boots and go quietly into retirement. They are a state within a state, with their own army, economy and ideology. They run ports, banks, and oil fields. They have more institutional muscle than many small nations. If the regime fractures, these war-hardened ideologues will carve out fiefdoms. Think Taliban with oil money. Think Lebanon's civil war, but on steroids. And unlike the Taliban, they don't aim for isolation — they export chaos. Now imagine ten different Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps offshoots, each with its own turf war, trying to seize Iran's critical infrastructure while gunning down ideological rivals. That's not liberation. That's Mogadishu, possibly with nukes on the menu. And then there's the nuclear wildcard. A destabilized Iran, fractured between militias and factions, becomes the world's most terrifying flea market: ballistic missiles for sale, enriched uranium changing hands with no adult supervision. Intelligence services across the globe would scramble to secure loose weapons, only to find they have already vanished into the black market. You think ISIS with a truck bomb is bad? Try Hezbollah with a suitcase nuke. Try a warlord with enriched uranium looking to make a name. The dream of a free Iran could birth a nightmare of a dozen failed mini-republics, each with its own flag, their own grudge and their own appetite for vengeance. Let us not forget what happens when Washington gets high on its own mythology. Regime change never ends with ticker tape and smiling schoolgirls holding flowers. It ends with boots in sand, contractors feeding at the trough, and entire cities flattened because someone in D.C. thought history was a choose-your-own-adventure book. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan — how many more lessons do we need? How many broken nations do we walk away from before admitting we are not exporters of democracy but arsonists in suits? And those arsonists still don't carry water. They still don't rebuild. They hold press conferences. They slap flags on blown-up convoys. And when it all fails — again — they blame 'tribalism' or 'regional instability' instead of their own god complex. And what of the wider Middle East? Saudi Arabia will see an opening to expand influence, while Turkey eyes northern Iran like a hawk. The Gulf States, already teetering on paranoia, will bankroll private armies and surveillance empires to keep the revolution from spilling over. The Sunni-Shia divide won't heal — it'll erupt. Not a Cold War. A regional wildfire. Religious factions with tanks. Nationalist militias with drones. Oil fields turned battlegrounds. Refugee crises so large they dwarf Syria. All because the West once again mistook force for foresight. Meanwhile, the people of Iran — those who've suffered under theocracy and deserve better — will get caught in the crossfire of empires and ideologues. Again. The same people who rose up in the streets for women's rights, for secularism, for freedom of speech — shot in the back by snipers under Khamenei — will now be crushed between collapsing regimes and foreign opportunists. They'll be the first to die, and the last to be remembered. The truth is ugly, but it must be said: toppling Khamenei won't liberate Iran. It will unhinge it. The Ayatollah's fall, however deserved, would not be a curtain call; it would be an opening act for something far more brutal. Revolution, after all, is rarely the final chapter. It's the prelude to civil war. And civil war in a country with roughly 90 million people, ballistic missiles, and regional reach isn't a footnote. It's a global event. The West doesn't need more regime changes. It needs a regime change of thought. The idea that we can shape the world in our image with drones and platitudes has led to an era of smoldering ruins and refugee camps. This isn't just hubris; it's homicide dressed up as humanitarianism. And the victims aren't dictators. They are doctors, shopkeepers, little girls clutching backpacks instead of rifles. If Iran falls, it won't be freedom that rises. It will be fire, and we lit the match. John Mac Ghlionn is a writer and researcher who explores culture, society and the impact of technology on daily life.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
20-06-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
What Happens if Trump Decides to Strike Iran or Assassinate Its Leader?
If President Trump decides to send American bombers to help Israel destroy an underground uranium enrichment facility in Iran, it will likely kick off a more dangerous phase in the war. And if the United States assassinates Iran's supreme leader, as Trump hinted was possible, there are no guarantees he will be replaced by a friendlier leader. Iran's autocratic clerical leadership, which has ruled for nearly half a century since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, has proved its staying power, even in the face of multiple domestic uprisings. Demolishing Fordo, the enrichment site buried deep in a mountain, may not obliterate Iran's nuclear program and could lead the country to broaden the war or accelerate that program. Here are some ways it could play out if the United States enters the war. Iran could negotiate Before Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran's nuclear program and other targets last week, Iran and the United States were discussing limits on Iran's uranium enrichment program. It was rapidly producing fuel close to the levels needed for nuclear weapons, and in exchange for new limits on the program, Iran would win relief from economic sanctions. The two sides were nowhere near a final agreement, but signs of a possible compromise had emerged by early June. When Israel attacked Iran, the negotiations collapsed. Yet Iran has signaled that it remains willing to talk, and even a strike on Fordo would not necessarily wipe out prospects of a return to the negotiating table. If the Trump administration follows an attack on Iran with an enticing offer, such as large-scale sanctions relief or peace guarantees, there is still a chance that Iran would consider making concessions, said Vali Nasr, an Iran expert and a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. 'Is there an offer on the table that the Iranian people in this moment can actually rally around?' he said. 'If it's only a stick, then they're going to fight.' So far, Trump has not extended many carrots. He called in a social media post on Tuesday for Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.' Iran may lean into nuclear activity All eyes are on Fordo. But it is possible that Iran has secret nuclear sites aimed at producing weapons that the United States and Israel do not know about, though no public evidence has emerged of such places. If they do exist, Iran could use whatever it has left to try to accelerate its nuclear program in the wake an American attack. With the damage Israeli airstrikes have done to nuclear facilities and the killings of top nuclear scientists, Iran probably lacks the capacity to build a nuclear weapon quickly, analysts said. Still, it could move in that direction and would have fresh incentive to do so. 'You would begin to see that broader escalation that they've held back on,' said Sanam Vakil, the director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at Chatham House. After all, Iran would have few other options left for deterring future attacks, she added. Iran's Parliament has publicly discussed a withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The treaty, of which Israel is not a signatory, currently requires Iran to submit to oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency and other transparency obligations and to commit to not building a nuclear bomb. So far, the government has reiterated its longstanding insistence that Iran's nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes. But Iran has firmly refused to capitulate to a central American demand that it give up uranium enrichment, saying it has the right to a civilian nuclear program. The war could get bigger and messier Over the past week, Iran has avoided striking American troops or other targets that could pull the United States into the war. Its leaders may still be hoping to make a deal with the Trump administration to end the conflict and wary of taking on the US military on top of Israel's. Though Iran has responded to Israeli attacks with missiles and threats of its own, it has refrained from hitting American troops or bases in the Middle East. It has also not struck Arab countries allied with the United States, such as Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. Nor has it sent global oil prices soaring by sealing off or harassing traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil shipping channel to Iran's south. But at least one Iranian official has warned that Iran could do so if the United States enters the war. And Iran's allied militias in the region, including the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and armed groups in Iraq, have not joined the fight. Many of them have been seriously weakened over the past two years. But those Iranian allies could still join the fray if the Trump administration decides to strike. If the United States tries to force Iran to capitulate, 'Iran will keep hitting until the end of the missile capabilities,' said Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Talk of regime change Trump said on social media this week that the United States is weighing whether to kill Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but had decided 'not for now.' Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said in a Fox News interview this week that changing Iran's regime 'could certainly be the result' of this war. Even if the United States assassinates Khamenei, however, the religious-military establishment that has tightly held power in Iran for nearly five decades may not fall. With a war raging, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the most powerful branch of Iran's military, could seize control of the country, said Nasr, the professor. They might put in place a more Western-friendly government, or, more likely, replace Khamenei with a more extreme figure who would dig in for a long fight, Nasr added. If the military does not assert itself quickly, some analysts fear that Iran could plunge into chaos or civil war as different factions struggle for control. But they see little chance for Iran's liberal opposition, which has been weakened and brutally repressed by the regime, to prevail. Iran's people could rise up again Netanyahu encouraged the Iranian people last week to capitalize on Israel's attacks on their government and 'rise up' against their 'evil and oppressive regime.' Iranians have staged mass protests against clerical rule several times in recent history, most recently with the 'Women, Life, Freedom' demonstrations of late 2022. Each time, the opposition has faced a harsh crackdown by government security forces. Some Iranians so despise the clerical leaders that they have at times looked to Israel as an ally and openly hoped for the United States to install new leadership. Some Iranian opponents of the regime cheered Israel's initial attacks on Iran, which they saw as more evidence of their government's incompetence and mismanagement. But the growing death toll, the attacks on civilian infrastructure and the panic gripping Iranian cities are hardening many in the country against Israel. Iranian social media platforms have been full of patriotic posts in recent days, expressing unity against foreign intervention, if not exactly support for the regime.
New York Post
20-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Douglas Murray: President Trump can end the nuclear threat from Iran with one phone call
Would you mind if someone tried to kill you? For both Donald Trump and for the state of Israel the answer is 'Yes.' Last August, under President Joe Biden, federal prosecutors in New York charged Afghan-born Farhad Shakeri in a plot to assassinate Trump. Shakeri is currently believed to be in Iran. Shakeri was tasked with killing Trump in the US before or after last year's election. President Trump will have to live with such threats from the Iranian regime for the rest of his life. After all, none other than the Supreme Leader of Iran — Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — has used his social-media accounts to promise to assassinate Trump. A lurid video recently put out by the ayatollah even showed Trump being assassinated by Iran on a golf course. Israel has to live with the same threat. Ever since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, successive Iranian leaders — both so-called 'moderate' and extreme — have all said that they wish to annihilate the state of Israel and destroy the United States of America. Israel is closer to Iran than this country is. And so it has to take this threat more seriously than the United States does. But every reasonable voice agrees that Iran cannot ever acquire nuclear weapons. First because they have promised that they will use them. But secondly because if Iran ever did get the bomb, then every other country in the Middle East would rush to go nuclear next. If that happened, then the world's most dangerous region would become full of the world's deadliest weaponry. But how to stop it? Brink of nukes The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently confirmed that the Iranians were on the brink of acquiring enough enriched uranium to produce around 10 nuclear weapons. The Israelis have acted on their own intelligence and last week began bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. In doing so they did what no other country would do. They also did what almost every other country wanted. For decades every Western democracy has said that Iran cannot get the bomb. For years almost every non-democratic ally of the US in the Middle East has also said that Iran must not get the bomb. But for years successive administrations in this country and abroad have failed to do anything much. The Israelis have done plenty to slow things down. They are believed to have released tools like the Stuxnet virus (in 2010), which did enormous damage to Iran's nuclear program. Along with dissidents inside Iran, they are also believed to be behind the killing of a number of people involved in Iran's nuclear race. So, yes, the Israelis managed to set the Iranian project back. But they could not stop it. Until now. Now they have been pushed to the final stage. While everyone else has continued to talk. And then talk about talks, Israel knew the world was running out of time. So last week they began bombing Iran's nuclear sites. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters End the tyranny Praise for their actions has come from surprising places. On Tuesday the chancellor of Germany — Friedrich Merz — spoke the truth. He said that through its bombing campaign, Israel was doing the 'dirty work for all of us.' He continued, 'We are all affected by this regime. This mullah regime has brought death and destruction to the world.' For once a German chancellor is right. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has colonized Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and many other countries in their region. They have brought terrorism as far abroad as Buenos Aires and London and killed hundreds of American troops — in Lebanon and Iraq. Now all eyes are on President Trump. The president has a very difficult decision. A number of the most crucial nuclear sites in Iran, like the facility at Fordow, can only be destroyed by a bunker-buster bomb that only the US has. Successive US administrations have refused to sell this weapon to the Israelis. Now, almost a week into the war, Israel has been unable to stop Iran's nuclear program entirely. If the Israelis destroy only 70%, or 80% or even 90% of the Iranian nuclear project, then there is still the possibility that Iran can restart its nuclear race. Meaning that the world will always have this gun to its head. For many years, President Trump has made it plain that he will never allow this. But the mullahs may be happy to wait until some other Sleepy Joe-like figure is in the White House. Trump knows he cannot let that happen. But this is the one chance in our lifetimes to once and for all stop the world's worst regime getting their hands on the world's worst weapon. As a poll published in yesterday's Post showed, President Trump's MAGA base is keen for him to follow through on his promise. A whopping 65% of MAGA Republicans support US strikes to finish off Iran's nuclear project. Just 19% oppose it. Which shows that the president's noisy online critics are just as kooky and irrelevant as he senses them to be. Who's in control? 'But what will happen next,' some of his critics say. There is an easy answer to that. President Trump's campaign promise is that he will never allow Iran to have nukes. In the coming hours and days he has the opportunity to make good on that promise. But what about 'regime change?' In truth those words do not need to be anywhere near his lips or his agenda. If the Iranian people want to rise up and overthrow the death-cult regime that has held their country in terror for 46 years, then they should. Many of us will wish them well. But that is their affair. The president's only need is to make good on his promise to the American electorate. If he does that, then he will send a sharp but necessary message to a regime that has too long threatened his own life, the life of Israel and indeed the world.
