Latest news with #IsraeliIranianConflict
Asharq Al-Awsat
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
The Israel-Iran War Is Bigger Than Its Protagonists… And Its Spectators
The ongoing exchange of missiles, and the accompanying psychological and intelligence warfare, seems like a foregone conclusion, because all the supposed dividing lines in the Israeli-Iranian conflict have collapsed. These lines collapsed as the possibility of saving the Middle East, alongside the United States and Israel, from an ominous unknown began to vanish. In the Arab portion of the Middle East, we are witnessing two distinct realities: One that has already surrendered to an imbalanced and inherently lopsided status quo. And another, existentially threatened, because its political discourse had long relied, albeit out of necessity, on formulas that now belong to the past. In the first case, the rapid pace of unfolding events suggests that those who advocated accepting this imbalance may have won the wager of engagement with Israel. This outcome is, of course, understandable in light of the United States' clear and forceful insistence on tying its relations with any country in the world to that country's relationship with Israel. Normalization is no longer just an option. Washington no longer treats it as negotiable. For the record, I cannot recall a comparable situation in modern international relations between sovereign, independent states that are members of the United Nations. Arguably, the current scenario differs even from the United States' alliance with Taiwan. There, Washington's 'carrot and stick' policy regarding the world's dealings with Beijing and Taipei was primarily driven by hostility and apprehension toward China, not out of fondness for Chiang Kai-shek's regime. By contrast, the situation with Israel is entirely different. Every Israeli government enjoys near-unanimous support in both houses of the US Congress, a level of bipartisan backing that no American president can claim. The deeply entrenched and influential Israeli lobbies in Washington's political, economic, and cultural fabric have long monopolized narratives such as the 'shared Judeo-Christian values,' weaponized accusations of 'anti-Semitism,' and bankrolled electoral campaigns from Capitol Hill to the White House and state legislatures. Even though recent weeks have exposed an unprecedented rift since the Cold War's end, between the hardline Jewish Likud movement and the white evangelical Christian right, most observers doubt that this 'dissonance' will escalate into open hostility or soften the Trump administration's zeal in supporting Benjamin Netanyahu's military and political agenda. As for the second Arab reality, it concerns the Arab entities currently under full or partial Iranian influence. Here, the picture is far from reassuring either in terms of sovereignty or internal security. Any military defeat or serious threat to Iran's regime is likely to destabilize countries like Iraq and Lebanon, and certainly Yemen. Iranian-backed militias, which took center stage in Iraqi politics following the 2003 US invasion, remain a powerful force across both political and military arenas. As such, any radical shift within Iran is likely to produce unpredictable consequences in Iraq. This becomes even more apparent when considering the intricate ties between Washington and Iraq's Kurdish population, as well as the transformations that have unfolded in Syria and their far-reaching effects on both Syria and Lebanon. On the Kurdish front, I would argue that the Iraqi state cannot prevent full Kurdish secession if that's the course chosen by Kurdish leadership, especially if this decision aligns with American endorsement of Israel's regional vision and Türkiye proves incapable of stopping it. Regarding Syria: Should Iranian influence be expelled, and a new government emerge in Damascus that explicitly deprioritizes confrontation with Israel, we'd be looking at a significant transformation, one that must not be overlooked. Most importantly, Syria and Lebanon share long borders with Israel that remain unstable, fluid and volatile. Another critical factor: both countries suffer from deep internal sectarian fragility. This latest Israeli campaign against Iran pours salt into wounds long opened by decades of Assad family dictatorship, propped up by Iran and its Revolutionary Guard. A third factor is the Syrian-Lebanese diaspora in the United States, particularly its Christians, who are poised to play an influential role in reconfiguring the political futures of both Syria and Lebanon. Already, there are American figures of Syrian and Lebanese descent, closely tied to the current US administration and not hostile to Israel, moving behind the scenes in various key posts, such as Ambassador Tom Barrack, President Trump's envoy to Syria. With all this in mind, if we acknowledge that the current war is, above all, an American–Iranian confrontation, then we must also admit, at least in my view, that Iran's chances of enduring it are very slim. But that's not the end of the story. There are urgent questions still awaiting answers that are unlikely to be simple or come without a heavy price. Chief among them: What will the region's map look like when the dust settles? Which entities will remain, and which ones will be transformed? And how will Israel's radical expansionist right capitalize on the outcome?
Asharq Al-Awsat
22-06-2025
- Business
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Israeli-Iranian Conflict Alarms Residents of Beirut's Southern Suburbs
As the Israeli-Iranian conflict intensifies, many Lebanese, particularly in Hezbollah strongholds such as South Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and Beirut's southern suburbs, are bracing for the worst. The possibility of Hezbollah's involvement in the war has heightened fears of a broader escalation that could drag Lebanon into the conflict once again. In Beirut's southern suburb of Hayy al-Sellom, 44-year-old Hassan has already packed a bag, as have his siblings. He says they are waiting for the moment they might have to leave, hoping war doesn't reach their doorstep. Similarly, Abir, a resident of Burj al-Barajneh, says her family spends most of their time following the news. With an elderly and sick mother at home, she is worried about how they would evacuate if needed and has already begun looking for a temporary alternative place to stay. The atmosphere in the southern suburbs is tense but quiet. Commercial activity has dropped noticeably, with shop owners reporting a decline in sales of fresh goods. Many families have already relocated to safer areas in the Bekaa and South Lebanon, especially after the school year ended. Amina, a homemaker in her forties who lives near the airport road, is one of them. She plans to move to her village with her daughter while her husband remains in Beirut for work. She worries about the possibility of an Israeli strike near her home, which has already been targeted multiple times since the last ceasefire in November. Even without open war, she fears a sudden strike might occur nearby. Still, not everyone is ready to leave. Kawthar, 30, says her family will stay put unless evacuation becomes absolutely necessary. She notes that in view of her limited financial means, moving isn't a viable option. Despite the stress and constant presence of Israeli drones overhead, they are trying to maintain a sense of normalcy. Outside Beirut, the fear is just as real. Mustafa, 77, from Bint Jbeil, says the South has been under near-daily fire, and any new war would only worsen an already fragile situation. He fears Hezbollah could be drawn into battle under Iranian pressure, especially if the US becomes involved. In the Bekaa, residents like Hussein from Hermel echo similar concerns. Having homes in both Hermel and the southern suburbs - areas frequently targeted - he asks the question on everyone's mind: Where would we go this time?
Fox News
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Trump weighs military action against Iran amid mounting legal concerns
President Donald Trump is contemplating whether to order U.S. on Iran and will make a decision within two weeks, White House officials said Thursday, capping days of intense speculation about the president's plan in the region—and touching off new fears of escalation, retaliation, and long-term engagement in another foreign conflict. Trump spent much of the week musing publicly about the prospect of involving the U.S. more directly in the Israeli-Iranian conflict, as the two countries continued to carry out deadly strikes against one another. As the week went on, Trump continued to break with attempts by Cabinet officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who had attempted to distance the role the U.S. played in helping Israel. Trump warned on social media Wednesday that the U.S. has "complete and total control of the skies over Iran," and demanded an "unconstitutional surrender" from Iran. He has also repeatedly refused to rule out the prospect of carrying out a direct strike on Iran. "I may do it. I may not do it," he told reporters Wednesday. "I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do," he said. That statement, more than any others, illustrates the central question thrumming through much of Washington this week, as Trump continues to huddle with advisers for meetings in the Situation Room, including at least one meeting where he reportedly approved attack plans against Tehran, in the event they failed to put an end to their nuclear program, as the administration demanded. (News of that meeting was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.) White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to elaborate on the nature of U.S.-Iranian talks on Thursday, telling reporters only that Trump planned to make a decision on how to proceed within the two-week period. Meanwhile, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected negotiations with the U.S. on Wednesday, warning that if it attacked Iran, the U.S. "without doubt, will face irreparable harm." Here's what we know about Trump's options, should he choose to order U.S. strikes on Iran— and the risks, legal and otherwise, the U.S. could encounter as a result. War Powers Resolution Trump has been weighing ordering the U.S. to conduct a strike against Iran, including the possibility of targeting the country's nuclear enrichment facility at Fordow, a key nuclear facility located south of Tehran. But while Trump huddles with his advisers at the White House, lawmakers have been convening on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue for closed-door meetings of their own. Trump's remarks have done little to quell mounting fears of escalation in the Middle East— both from some MAGA supporters, who rallied around his promises of ending "forever wars," and Democrats, who fear retaliation that an offensive would bring. Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., announced new bipartisan legislation this week that would require Trump to obtain congressional approval before signing off on any meaningful engagement in Iran, such as offensive strikes on its nuclear facilities. The bill has attracted the support of an odd coalition of bipartisan lawmakers, including Trump supporters who are opposed to U.S. engagement in more foreign wars, and Democrats, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. Those lawmakers argue that Trump, in acting unilaterally, would violate standing U.S. laws— namely, limitations enumerated in the War Powers Resolution, or the law passed by Congress in 1973 aimed at codifying the instances in which a president can authorize the use of force in foreign conflicts without a formal war declaration. "The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war," Massie said in announcing the bill. "Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution." But in the decades since the law was passed, presidents have expanded their powers here significantly absent congressional authorization, including under both Democrat and Republican presidents. This has, to some degree, been reflected by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which has taken a broader view of the Article II powers granted to presidents when initiating the use of force— especially when it is in the "national interest" to do so. These broader powers have been used by Republican presidents, and during both the Obama and Biden administrations, officials told Fox News Digital. Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, stressed this in an interview with Fox News. "There's lots of precedents of presidents ignoring the technicalities" of the War Powers Regulation, he said in an interview Thursday. Ultimately, Rubin said, the president "has the ability to act without it for a set period of time. And so [the law] really only applies if we're going to be going into a major operation rather than a one-time bombing." "The fact of the matter is, the worst option for American security is allowing Iran to reconstitute its program because of what it has buried in Fordow," said Rubin, a former Pentagon official whose work at AEI focuses largely on issues in the Middle East. Fears of escalation In the interim, however, Trump's threats have sparked concerns from some critics, who see his remarks as both dangerous and potentially rife for possible retaliation from Tehran. Critics have suggested they could also endanger U.S. officials stationed overseas, including those within the strike range of Iran. "It should be the interest of the White House to use U.S. leverage to stop the fighting," Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, told Fox News in an interview. "The U.S. is assisting Israel with missile defense right now," he said. The business of defense "is to stop the fight," he said. International law There are also fears that the U.S. could be acting in violation of international law, including the United Nations charter that "prohibits the threat or use of force except in certain limited circumstances, such as self-defense," according to a white paper published in 2019 by Just Security. In this situation, critics say the U.S. has no pretext to authorize a strike against Iran. "I don't think there's any plausible self-defense argument for U.S. military action against Iran," Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, told Fox News in an interview. "So any U.S. military action against Iran would violate the UN Charter and thus breach the president's duty of the Constitution to take care that the laws are faithfully executed," he said. Others on the Hill and beyond have taken a more supportive posture as Trump weighs his next steps. Speaking in an interview Thursday morning on "Fox & Friends," Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., praised Trump's actions so far in the region, saying Trump is "doing absolutely the right thing to keep America safe." "He has been very consistent for 10 years saying Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon," Barrasso said. "He said it strongly. He's read it repeatedly because he knows that Iran with a nuclear weapon is a threat to the people of the United States. We stand with the people [of] Israel." Sen. Lindsey Graham has been among Trump's most vocal supporters, and said in interviews earlier this week that he believes Trump has a desire to "finish the job" in destroying Fordow. "I don't think Israel can finish Fordow without our help, and it's in our interest to make sure this program is destroyed, as much as it's Israel's," he said in an interview. "And so if there's something you need to do to help Israel, do it," he said. Rubin, the AEI fellow, also sought to differentiate Trump's actions from other presidents who have engaged in lengthy foreign conflicts. "The issue with Iran is we're not entangling the United States in war," Rubin said. "We're taking an opportunity to end a crisis once and for all. It seems to be a one-shot deal." Next steps Still, it's unclear what Trump's end game will be, should he choose to strike Iran. That's in part by design, said Finucane, the adviser at the International Crisis Group, who previously spent a decade in the Office of Legal Counsel for the State Department. "The Constitution, very deliberately, gives the power to declare war to Congress," he said. "And it does so to make going to war hard," he said. "It requires collective decision-making, and prior public debate; deliberation [of] the cost and benefits of the most consequential decision that the U.S. government can make, in terms of blood and treasure," he said. "Therefore, if the U.S. wants to minimize the risk of getting dragged into an unnecessary war in the Middle East, and at least minimize risks to people in the region, including Americans in the region, then it should be in the interest of the White House to put a stop to the fighting— whether or not it wants to get involved,"
Bloomberg
16-06-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Israel-Iran Conflict Begins to Disrupt Global Supply Chains
In their fourth day of fighting, with no end in sight, ripples from the Israeli-Iranian conflict are beginning to rock global supply chains. Some oil tanker owners and managers have paused offering their vessels for Middle Eastern routes as they assess the risks, fueling concerns over export flows from the region. The stability of shipping in and around the Middle East will be closely watched by markets in coming weeks. The region is home to about a third of the world's oil production, and major exporters such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have little room to divert exports should shipping be affected. Navigation signals from more than 900 vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf went awry over the weekend, creating confusion in the shipping chokepoint as the fighting intensified
Al Jazeera
15-06-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
The real reason Israel attacked Iran
As the Israeli-Iranian confrontation enters its third day, casualties on both sides are mounting. At least 80 people have been killed in Iran and at least 10 in Israel. Despite the deadly response from Iran, Israeli officials have continued to insist that attacks on various Iranian nuclear and military facilities were necessary. A number of justifications have been broadcast to the Israeli public, but none explains the true reasons why the Israeli government decided to carry out the unilateral, unprovoked assault. The Israeli government claims that the strike was a 'preventive' one, meant to address an immediate, inevitable threat on Iran's part to construct a nuclear bomb. There appears to be no evidence for this claim. Israel's strike was undoubtedly meticulously planned over a long period of time. A preventive attack must carry an element of self-defence, which, in turn, is generated by an emergency. No such emergency appears to have occurred. Additionally, Israel has suggested that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report released on June 12 that condemned Iran for material violations of its Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) commitments until the early 2000s constitutes such an emergency. But even the IAEA seems to reject that claim. There was nothing in the report that was not already known to the relevant parties. The Israeli government has also suggested, in direct relation to the notion of a 'preventive' strike, that it aimed to 'decapitate' Iran's nuclear programme. It is generally agreed by scholars and policymakers that Israel lacks the ability to destroy the programme, especially if it attempts to carry out such a strike on its own. The nature of the campaign as it unfolds also seems to indicate that Israel never meant to wipe out Iranian nuclear activities. The Israeli army has been bombing various military and governmental targets, from missile bases to a gasfield and an oil depot. It has also carried out a string of assassinations against senior Iranian military leaders, most prominently Ali Shamkhani, a former defence minister who was also a close adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He is believed to have been a leading figure in the talks with the United States over the past months. His assassination, alongside others', reflects a favourite Israeli modus operandi. Israel often attempts to 'eliminate' specific people in the hope that their deaths would bring about the unravelling of the systems and institutions they lead. The death of Shamkhani can be construed as an attempt to sabotage talks between Iran and the US. In any case, assassinations also seem to indicate the existence of a thorough plan to demonstrate Israel's might at all levels of Iranian official life and practices. This is not a 'decapitation' of the Iranian nuclear programme. A third suggestion is that Israel has its heart set on jumpstarting 'regime change' in Tehran. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this overtly when he called on the 'proud people of Iran' to stand up for their 'freedom from an evil and repressive regime'. The assumption that Iranians would simply do Israel's bidding as it bombs them relentlessly and unilaterally seems akin to the notion that if Israel starves and exterminates the Palestinians in Gaza to the required extent, they would rise against Hamas and remove it from power. Even if that were the case, presuming that all the Iranians are waiting for is an Israeli strike to move against the regime demonstrates a profound lack of understanding with regard to the forces driving Iranian politics. While many Iranians undoubtedly oppose the Islamic Republic, Iranians of all political persuasions are consistently 'patriotic', committed to supporting Iranian sovereignty and independence from any attempts by external elements to impose their agendas on their country. In fact, just as numerous Israelis who would consider themselves uncompromising critics of Netanyahu jumped to attention when the Israeli attack began and are now vocally supporting the government – most egregiously, members of the parliamentary 'opposition' – so are numerous opponents of the Islamic Republic now rallying behind the flag in support of Iran's violated sovereignty. Claiming that Israel is merely 'laying the groundwork' for a popular Iranian rebellion by striking is, at best, a cynical manipulation. Israel has not struck Iran for all these reasons. So, what drove the attack? Amid the genocidal campaign in Gaza, Netanyahu is very much aware that his government is running out of options. The international community, as well as regional allies, have started to criticise Israel vocally. Some have also been preparing to carry out unilateral measures, like the mass recognition of a Palestinian state. The International Criminal Court's warrant of arrest for Netanyahu is looming, and the decision of the International Court of Justice about the legality of Israel's occupation is waiting to be fulfilled. Israel and its military have continuously carried out massacres, denied them, and have been found to be lying. There is no doubt that Netanyahu planned the strike on Iran for years, waiting for just the right time. This time came on Friday. It is a desperate attempt to rally the world behind Israel, just as preparations are made to deny it the absolute impunity it has enjoyed since its creation. Iran is still considered a potential threat by many leading powers of the Global North. By invoking the known tropes associated with unilateral lethal Israeli action – from divine promises to the Holocaust – Netanyahu hoped to re-establish the status quo; Israel can still do whatever it wants. This is Israel's current definition of 'security', the most hallowed principle at its core. It is the seemingly apolitical genesis of Israeliness, the site devoted wholly to Jewish supremacy, which is the only 'real' way to ensure the integrity of Jewish lives. 'Security' means that Israel can kill whoever it wants for as long as it wants and wherever and whenever it wants without paying any sort of price for its actions. This 'security' is what has motivated Israel's actions from Gaza to Yemen to Lebanon and Syria, and now in Iran. Such a 'security regime' must expand continuously, of course. It can never stop. By striking Iran, Netanyahu has gone for broke, staking a claim for complete and absolute impunity for Israel as well as for himself, in The Hague as well as in domestic courts. Will this be Netanyahu's salvation? Will the Israeli public forgive him for his abject failures at home and horrid transgressions in Gaza? When observing the current sense of jubilation in public Israeli discourse, this may very well be the case. The long lines stretching from every open store, hardware to food, demonstrate that Israelis have entered blank survival mode. A docile citizenry may be good for Netanyahu, but it portends ill for any attempt to build and defend a robust Israeli society. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
