Latest news with #anti-Israeli
Newsweek
3 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Iran Says US Plotted to Overthrow Government
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Iran's top spy agency on Monday accused the United States and Israel of plotting to install a puppet government in Tehran led by the exiled son of the last Iranian monarch. The alleged operation in June, which coincided with Israeli and U.S. airstrikes on Iran's nuclear enrichment sites, was part of "a premeditated and multifaceted war," Iran's Intelligence Ministry said, according to the semi-official Tasnim news agency. Newsweek has reached out to the U.S. State Department and Israel's Foreign Ministry for comment. Why It Matters Tehran is intensifying efforts to root out alleged espionage following its two-week missile war with Israel. It said the conflict was publicly centered on Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities, with a parallel objective of regime destabilization in line with longstanding U.S. and Israeli interests. Tensions between Iran and the United States have escalated sharply despite the ceasefire brokered by President Donald Trump. Iran claimed political and symbolic success by surviving the Israeli attack, while the Israeli and U.S. militaries said their bombing campaign dealt significant damage Iran's strategic infrastructure, setting back its nuclear ambitions for years. Iranian worshippers chant slogans as they hold up posters of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in an anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli protest after their Friday prayers in Tehran, Iran, Friday, July 25, 2025. Iranian worshippers chant slogans as they hold up posters of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in an anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli protest after their Friday prayers in Tehran, Iran, Friday, July 25, 2025. Vahid Salemi/AP Photo What To Know The Iranian Intelligence Ministry said the United States and Israel attempted to deploy armed security forces to Tehran as part of the "regime-change scheme" to put in power Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of Iran's last Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. A CIA-backed coup in 1953 had restored the pro-Western shah, only for the 1979 Islamic Revolution to topple the monarchy and usher in the current theocracy. Mohammed Reza Pahlavi fled the country that year, while U.S.-based Reza Pahlavi has long pushed for non-violent regime change, but has limited support inside Iran. "The U.S. and the Zionist regime plotted to install a puppet exile government headed by the disgraced Pahlavi heir, coordinating closely with known Zionist operatives," Iran's spy agency said. The ministry said it seized arms including rocket launchers, explosives and U.S.-made weaponry in its border areas, and alleged that Israel had coordinated with separatist groups, including ISIS elements, to spark internal unrest. Tehran said it arrested dozens of people accused of participating in the plot, "disguised as civil or religious groups," seeming confirming the wider security crackdown on alleged Mossad agents following the 12-day conflict, in which Israel attacked nuclear and military sites across the country and killed top Iranian commanders and scientists. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei avoided assassination by relocating to a fortified underground bunker during the Israeli strikes. Israeli defense chief Israel Katz publicly acknowledged that Israel had intended to kill Khamenei. Israeli media said this week that Iranian authorities arrested at least 35 Jews suspected of spying, including two Americans. What People Are Saying Iran's Intelligence Ministry said via the Tasnim news agency: "The war preparation included deceptive negotiations, misuse of international organizations, illegal resolutions from the IAEA Board of Governors, media propaganda, and intelligence operations by [U.S. Central Command], the Pentagon, and Zionist-linked corporations utilizing advanced satellite and cyber technologies. "However, Western intelligence agencies, relying on delusional analysis and misinformation from anti-Iran groups, underestimated Iran's resilience. The enemy's strategy, modeled on failed U.S. regime change operations, was crushed by Iran's unified defense." Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said in June: "If he had been in our sights, we would have taken him out. Khamenei understood this, went very deep underground, broke off contact with the commanders…so in the end it wasn't realistic." U.S. President Donald Trump said on Truth Social in June: "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!!!" What Happens Next The United States has supported European demands for Iran to demonstrate compliances with nuclear regulations or face new sanctions at the United Nations.
Spectator
7 days ago
- Business
- Spectator
Why one US diplomat thinks Ireland has ‘fallen into a vat of Guinness'
US diplomat Mike Huckabee was dead right to question whether Ireland had 'fallen into a vat of Guinness.' Huckabee, the United States ambassador to Israel, played into stereotypical tropes on the Irish and alcohol when he made that comment last week. But it is, he reckoned, the only possible explanation for Ireland's looming ban on Israeli settlement goods, despite ominous soundings from the US over the potentially ruinous consequences. This bill is so stupid it amounts to 'diplomatic intoxication', he concluded. To answer his question, Ireland is not drunk. More's the pity. It is preparing to commit economic suicide while cold stone sober, just to tighten the screws on Israel. Huckabee's remarks, which point to a deepening rift between Dublin and Washington, have certainly focused minds in the US. Twelve prominent US politicians and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations have now warned Ireland of the economic and diplomatic fallout of the Israeli Settlements (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill (PIGS). This row is gaining traction on Capitol Hill and ensuring Ireland is making global headlines – for all the wrong reasons. International law expert Eugene Kontorovich explained in the Wall Street Journal how banning trade with Israeli settlements could force American companies operating in Ireland to violate US federal law on illegal Israeli boycotts. 'Dublin seeks to take the place of Damascus as the centre of Israeli boycotts. But Syria was an economic backwater. Ireland has a lot more to lose,' he said. When it was first introduced in 2018, what was then the 'Occupied Territories Bill,' quickly sparked a backlash. Former US Ambassador to Ireland, Dan Mulhall, said he was deluged with calls asking, 'What is Ireland at?' Riddled with legal problems from the start, it was left to wither on the vine. That was until October 2023, when pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli groups thought it the perfect time to resurrect it and ramp up the pressure. They were pushing against an open door with foreign affairs minister Simon Harris. Instead of sending them packing, he caved in and re-introduced the ban on trading with settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank under a new name. It isn't clear that this is what Irish voters actually want. The general nervousness about the blowback from Ireland's largest export market, the US, was reflected in a recent national opinion poll in Ireland: 48 per cent want the bill dropped altogether or paused until the economic consequences are fully examined, with a further 17 per cent undecided. Harris and Taoiseach Micheal Martin face a stark choice; drop the bill and be crucified by the hard left and hostile anti-Israeli NGOs. Or continue to push it and hope Ireland's economy doesn't sink if US multinationals quit, leaving 370,000 job losses in their wake. Martin must know all too well that the Irish economy is artificially propped up by billions in revenue from US tech giants. Last November, Martin said Ireland could lose €10 billion (£8.7 billion) in corporation tax if just three US multinationals were repatriated under a hostile Donald Trump administration. The context then was Trump's tariffs, but it underlined the scale of Ireland's dependency on US multinationals. The Irish Fiscal Advisory Council reported that foreign-owned multinationals – the majority US-owned – contributed 84 per cent of the total corporation tax revenue in 2023. This swelled Ireland's coffers by €20 billion (£17.36 billion), roughly equating to the combined spending on hospitals and schools in that year. As one US senator put it: 'If Ireland wanted to end foreign direct investment into Ireland, it could not have chosen a better way to do it.' Former justice minister Alan Shatter labelled the bill a 'Father Ted' measure reminiscent of the comedy set on a craggy island off Ireland's west coast – something Ireland's Taoiseach took great umbrage at. The Taoiseach was asked directly if the government had sought legal opinion on the position of US multinationals if this bill is enacted. We are none the wiser. Irish business leaders are not so coy; they say the consequences for Ireland are real and significant. Ireland is not up against the might of Israel on this, but that of the US. And that is before we get to the added risk of infringing EU law by imposing a unilateral trade ban, as UK international law expert Natasha Hausdorff told the Dail pre legislative hearings in painstaking detail earlier this month. The glazed eyes of the assembled politicians and the blustering, emotive, responses made for depressing viewing. Whatever one thinks about the moral argument, this bill is a massive overreach that will not save a single life in Gaza. Yet the entire Irish political establishment is ideologically wedded to it. Junior foreign affairs minister Thomas Byrne let the cat out of the bag last week when asked by Ireland's national broadcaster, RTE, if he was concerned about the potential cost to Ireland. 'Of course,' he replied, but I am more concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza.' Martin also offered some insight into the government's mindset by saying he wanted the bill passed while ensuring Ireland's economy did not suffer 'unduly.' Which presupposes there will be some suffering, it's just a question of degree. Should the worst happen, and tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of Irish workers lose their jobs if US multinationals shut up shop, well, they can take comfort knowing Ireland 'did the right thing' as they make their way to the dole queue. Unless, as Ambassador Huckabee suggests, Ireland 'sobers up' before it is too late.
Sydney Morning Herald
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Segal's antisemitism plan takes us down a path we should fear to tread
This week, the federal government joined 27 other nations in condemning Israel's 'drip-feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic need of water and food'. That same government's own antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, also published a report which proposed that universities, arts organisations and perhaps even public broadcasters should have funding stripped if they 'engage in or facilitate antisemitism'. This raises a question: if the words of the Australian government came instead from an academic, or artist at a festival, would it risk their public funding? The government is making grave allegations against Israel – ones that enrage its Israeli and American counterparts. It's possible some people could misuse those allegations to bolster their hatred of Jews, especially in the cesspit of social media. Could the government's words be taken to 'facilitate antisemitism' under their own envoy's plan? Personally, I think not. Trump and Netanyahu might disagree. And that's a worry. The definition of antisemitism Segal wants used to determine when institutions fall foul of it – drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance – states 'criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic'. Accordingly, those suggesting the envoy's report condemns all criticism of Israel as antisemitism overstate the position. But the trouble is it's very difficult to know by how far. By what criteria, exactly, is someone to determine when anti-Israeli commentary becomes antisemitic? It's a crucial question when you're specifically proposing to make research grants terminable if the academic receiving those funds 'engages in antisemitic … speech or actions'. Or when you propose to strip charities of their tax deductibility if they 'promote speakers' who 'promote antisemitism'. Define this too broadly and you silence perfectly legitimate debate. Define it too narrowly, and these proposals have no purpose at all. Either way, it would need to be defined extremely clearly. The IHRA definition doesn't quite match this brief in two ways. Firstly, it is deliberately drafted vaguely because it describes itself merely as a working definition: guiding, illustrative and non-binding. Its drafters intended it more for the purposes of data collection than meting out punishment: a filter, not a sword. Loading Secondly, the illustrative examples attached to the definition, which outline the kinds of criticisms of Israel that would amount to antisemitism, were not unanimously adopted by those drafting it. One drafter, Antony Lerman, recalls there was so much disagreement about them that they were severed from the part of the definition to be formally adopted, to obtain a consensus. That's significant because it is in the examples that most of the controversy resides. It leaves a breach, now flooded by the most febrile cacophony, largely because this has become a contest to draw sharp lines to define something that simply cannot be defined that way. Take one common example, most recently reiterated by the chair of one of Australia's most influential Jewish advocacy organisations: that it is antisemitic, amounting to a 'blood libel', to accuse Israel of genocide. Fine, if the allegation rests on some trope that Jews by their nature delight in slaughtering children and are merely searching for an excuse to do so. Or if the accusation is so wildly fanciful that only the most prejudiced, conspiratorial mind could entertain it.
The Age
24-07-2025
- Politics
- The Age
Segal's antisemitism plan takes us down a path we should fear to tread
This week, the federal government joined 27 other nations in condemning Israel's 'drip-feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic need of water and food'. That same government's own antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, also published a report which proposed that universities, arts organisations and perhaps even public broadcasters should have funding stripped if they 'engage in or facilitate antisemitism'. This raises a question: if the words of the Australian government came instead from an academic, or artist at a festival, would it risk their public funding? The government is making grave allegations against Israel – ones that enrage its Israeli and American counterparts. It's possible some people could misuse those allegations to bolster their hatred of Jews, especially in the cesspit of social media. Could the government's words be taken to 'facilitate antisemitism' under their own envoy's plan? Personally, I think not. Trump and Netanyahu might disagree. And that's a worry. The definition of antisemitism Segal wants used to determine when institutions fall foul of it – drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance – states 'criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic'. Accordingly, those suggesting the envoy's report condemns all criticism of Israel as antisemitism overstate the position. But the trouble is it's very difficult to know by how far. By what criteria, exactly, is someone to determine when anti-Israeli commentary becomes antisemitic? It's a crucial question when you're specifically proposing to make research grants terminable if the academic receiving those funds 'engages in antisemitic … speech or actions'. Or when you propose to strip charities of their tax deductibility if they 'promote speakers' who 'promote antisemitism'. Define this too broadly and you silence perfectly legitimate debate. Define it too narrowly, and these proposals have no purpose at all. Either way, it would need to be defined extremely clearly. The IHRA definition doesn't quite match this brief in two ways. Firstly, it is deliberately drafted vaguely because it describes itself merely as a working definition: guiding, illustrative and non-binding. Its drafters intended it more for the purposes of data collection than meting out punishment: a filter, not a sword. Loading Secondly, the illustrative examples attached to the definition, which outline the kinds of criticisms of Israel that would amount to antisemitism, were not unanimously adopted by those drafting it. One drafter, Antony Lerman, recalls there was so much disagreement about them that they were severed from the part of the definition to be formally adopted, to obtain a consensus. That's significant because it is in the examples that most of the controversy resides. It leaves a breach, now flooded by the most febrile cacophony, largely because this has become a contest to draw sharp lines to define something that simply cannot be defined that way. Take one common example, most recently reiterated by the chair of one of Australia's most influential Jewish advocacy organisations: that it is antisemitic, amounting to a 'blood libel', to accuse Israel of genocide. Fine, if the allegation rests on some trope that Jews by their nature delight in slaughtering children and are merely searching for an excuse to do so. Or if the accusation is so wildly fanciful that only the most prejudiced, conspiratorial mind could entertain it.
Daily Tribune
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Tribune
US to leave UNESCO, citing anti-Israel bias
AFP | Paris The United States said yesterday i t would quit UNESCO, saying the UN cultural and education agency, best k n o w n f o r establishing world heritage sites, is biased a g a i n s t Israel and promotes "divisive" causes. P r e s i d e n t Donald Trump had already ordered withdrawal from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation once before, in 2017 during his first term. President Joe Biden then reestablished US membership. "Continued involvement in UNESCO is not in the national interest of the United States," State D e p a r t m e n t spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said. UNESCO called the US departure -- which it said will take effect in December 2026 -- regrettable, but unsurprising, and said its financial impact would be limited. " I d e e p l y regret President Donald Trump's de - cision to once again withdraw the United States of America from UNESCO," Director-General Audrey Azoulay said, adding the move contradicted fundamental principles of multilateralism. "However regrettable, this announcement was expected, and UNESCO has prepared for it," she said. In recent years, Azoulay said, UNESCO had "undertaken major structural reforms and diversified our funding sources", including with private and voluntary governmental contributions. The US share of UNESCO's total budget currently stands at eight percent, she said. This compares to an estimate of nearly 20 percent a decade ago, according to a UNESCO source who asked not to be named. No staff redundancies were planned, Azoulay said. Bruce described UNESCO as working "to advance divisive social and cultural causes" and being overly focused on UN sustainability goals, which she described as a "globalist, ideological agenda". 'Same as seven years ago' Bruce also highlighted what she said was the body's anti-Israeli position in admitting Palestine as a state. "UNESCO's decision to admit the 'State of Palestine' as a member state is highly problematic, contrary to US policy, and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organisation," Bruce said. The administration has also objected to UNESCO's recognition of heritage sites in the occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem as Palestinian. Azoulay said the reasons put forward by the United States "are the same as seven years ago" although, she said, "the situation has changed profoundly, political tensions have receded, and UNESCO today constitutes a rare forum for consensus on concrete and action-oriented multilateralism". Washington's claims "contradict the reality of UNESCO's efforts", she added, "especially in the field of Holocaust education and the fight against antisemitism". The source at UNESCO described the US move as "purely political, without any real factual base". The organisation had already been "forced" to do without US money for several years after their departure in 2017, the source told AFP. UNESCO adapted but new sources of funding would still need to be found, the source said. 'Always welcome' Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar welcomed on X the US decision: "This is a necessary step, designed to promote justice and Israel's right for fair treatment in the UN system." "The United Nations requires fundamental reforms in order to remain relevant," he said. Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, called UNESCO "an organisation that has lost its way" and praised the US for demonstrating "moral clarity in the international arena". French President Emmanuel Macron said on X that UNESCO had his "unwavering support" that would not weaken after the US departure. The UN organisation describes its mission as promoting education, scientific cooperation and cultural understanding. It oversees a list of heritage sites aimed at preserving unique environmental and architectural gems, ranging from Australia's Great Barrier Reef and the Serengeti in Tanzania to the Acropolis of Athens and Pyramids of Egypt. Twenty-six world heritage sites are located in the United States. The UNESCO source said that the United States will continue to be represented on the world heritage committee even after leaving the organisation formally, just as it had in 2017
