Latest news with #USIranWar
Arab News
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
The end of a confrontation or just a break?
Every side in the war has declared victory. Donald Trump announced the US attack with 14 bunker-busting bombs and the destruction of three Iranian nuclear facilities, before calling for a peace deal. Israel described its campaign as historic. It assassinated leaders and experts and destroyed half of its adversary's ballistic missile capability. Iran, which named its operation 'True Promise III,' inflicted unprecedented destruction on greater Tel Aviv and Beersheba. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei wrote: 'It was a strong slap to America.' What happened over the past two weeks was not just a clash, but a unique and dangerous military development — the first direct war between the US and Israel on one side and Iran on the other. It has stopped for now, but the current halt is no more than a pause — unless we see an agreement between the three parties. That is how wars end. With all sides claiming victory, who among them will offer concessions? Only the Americans quickly proposed a peace plan — exposed after President Trump grew angry at the supreme leader's rhetoric. Trump said he had prevented Israel from carrying out an assassination plot and that he would agree to release $6 billion in frozen Iranian funds. He is also ready to allow the immediate lifting of some sanctions. These are rumored to be goodwill gestures to ease the atmosphere for negotiations. And it is said that Washington offered to help Iran rebuild its nuclear program for civilian purposes only. The Israeli military's chief of staff Eyal Zamir said the war is not over and that the list of remaining targets is long. Regardless of what he says, we know that Tel Aviv's decisions are tied to the White House. A key event took place — Trump rushed to save Benjamin Netanyahu, who was on the verge of falling, and rescued him from the noose of his trial. He declared solidarity with 'Bibi' and said Israelis should neither isolate nor prosecute him. This intervention carries a price that the prime minister must repay to Trump, who is eyeing a grand peace deal between the two enemies. To end the confrontation, Iran must accept the principle of regional coexistence and join the train of regional countries. Abdulrahman Al-Rashed In any case, the key to this crisis lies in Tehran — not in Washington or Tel Aviv. It holds the power to say no and continue the conflicts, or to say yes. To end the confrontation that has lasted since 1980, Iran must accept the principle of regional coexistence and join the train of regional countries. All of them have now either entered into bilateral agreements with Israel or have abandoned any confrontational project. Syria was the last passenger — thus ending the so-called axis of resistance. With Hezbollah and Hamas weakened and the fall of Bashar Assad's regime, the resistance front has collapsed, leaving Iran alone to face Israel. Backing down from 45 years of confrontation will not be easy for the Iranian regime, but the results of the 12-day war with Israel may hasten that retreat and increase the pressure on Tehran. Regardless of the toll, Iran still retains some elements of power. It possesses enriched uranium — important whether for building a rudimentary nuclear weapon or to negotiate over. It quickly replaced the leaders it lost and managed to regain control of the internal situation. Israel's gains include winning over Trump, who carried out what Israel alone could not: the destruction of key nuclear facilities. So, if Tehran holds the key to peace, the upper hand in war belongs to Tel Aviv, which has succeeded in eliminating the Iran-aligned regional threats. And who knows, perhaps this confrontation is the final chapter in these wars.
RNZ News
18-06-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Why NZ's involvement in possible US-Iran war may hang on Europe
File photo. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone An expert in warfare law says New Zealand might struggle to stay out of a US-Iran war if the Europeans get involved. As Israel continues its attacks on Iran, the US has moved additional fighter jets and ships to the region and President Donald Trump is warning that "patience is wearing thin". Professor and specialist in the laws of war, Al Gillespie of Waikato University, said the White House may seek military or diplomatic backing from its partners. "It will be hard if the Europeans get involved because the the British and the French appear to be willing to deploy something and if we get pulled more towards the European line then it will become harder, and it will depend also what Australia does," he said. In 2003, New Zealand stood aside from Australia when it joined in the American war on Iraq. This time around, on the diplomatic front, "I really wouldn't want to call it", Gillespie said. "We [have] showed a willingness to get involved. We've been involved in the defence of the Red Sea recently. This is a step further. This is a significant step further." To back an offensive war by the US when other means had not been exhausted would be an "extreme inconsistency" with the government's stated support for the international rules-based order. Israel's attack was launched when the US and Iran were about to resume talks on Tehran's nuclear programme. Iran has accused the US of helping Israel in the attack already, with " weapons, intelligence and political backing". Legally, Trump would need approval from Congress to launch an offensive war outside the US. "In theory he can't, but he is very good at trying to sidestep these rules," Gillespie said. "If he can argue that the United States was at risk and imminent risk, then he could potentially use his authority. "Congress would probably support him if you put it to them and made the case." New Zealand was speaking the right language about adhering to the International Court of Justice, and "in theory" an illegal war by Trump could be brought to the UN Security Council, Gillespie said. The Security Council held an emergency session on 13 June where its Under-Secretary-General for political affairs said, "We must at all costs avoid a growing conflagration which would have enormous global consequences." In 1981, the council condemned an attack by Israel on nuclear site in Iraq. "You won't get that kind of consensus on the Security Council anymore," Gillespie said. New Zealand had "lost our voice" recently... such as on the war in Gaza in part, so silence might be an option over Iran, he said. "I'm not sure whether we would speak with any certainty about the illegality of what's just happened. "I'd say it's a diplomatic choice, but many of the reasons we do that are so that we don't incur the wrath of Mr Trump. "There's so many things to balance right now. There's the relationship with China, the relationship with the Middle East, there's the relationship with America, there's trade negotiations, there's security negotiations, there's AUKUS in the background, a lot of things get muddied. And so it's not clear which way New Zealand would go." Trump's "grand plan for the Middle East" was another unknown quantity. "No one's quite sure how all this fits into his equations." Emily Mosley of the Australian Institute of International Affairs said Trump was not all-powerful over Republicans in Congress and this allowed people even outside the US, to look for ways to have influence. The voting record, in how it sometimes contrasted with the social media posts emanating from the White House, showed there was room for pushback, she told an international affairs conference in Wellington on Tuesday. "The choice before us is clear: Engage with the whole breadth of American institutions and demand accountability and stability, or panic and risk eroding one of the most effective checks." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
