Middle East Press On: Famine, Gaza, Regime Change, Iran: New Age Islam's Selection, 1 July 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
1 July 2025
Israel Must Be Pressured Into A Full Ceasefire
Pre-emptive Strikes Against Iran Are Self-Defence
Europe Slams Israel, Then Buys Its Weapons
Will US Back Israeli Pre-emptive Actions?
Checkmate In Tehran: The Fall Of Israeli And American Strategy
-----
Israel Must Be Pressured Into A Full Ceasefire
Chris Doyle
June 30, 2025
For a dozen days, the eyes of the world were focused on Israel’s aggression on Iran and its consequences. The ramifications could have been 100 times worse, with the region plunged into a catastrophic war.
Yet, in those two weeks, Israel’s genocide in Gaza was not on hold, with more than 860 Palestinians killed in that time. The regime of occupation and apartheid in the West Bank also intensified. Palestinians can only dream of a ceasefire.
Unlike the rest of the world, the Israeli leadership has shown itself willing and capable of prosecuting multiple fronts at the same time. Yes, European leaders did make references to Gaza throughout the Iran war, but they made no new policy shifts. Netanyahu successfully distracted them, releasing the pressure that was building on Israel and obtaining bizarre commitments to the country’s right to self-defense even though it was undeniably the aggressor.
Palestinians also have a right to self-defense, in theory, but it is akin to blasphemy to invoke it — ditto for Syrians, Lebanese and Iranians. In more than 30 years, I have yet to hear this expressed a single time by a European or American leader. Selective morality is barely camouflaged.
Palestinians in Gaza await their doom. A lethal lottery of life haunts their existence. The death rattle may come courtesy of bombs, disease or starvation. Families have told me how they crave instantaneous collective death, not the macabre and tortuous process of emaciation, the transition from human to spectral presence.
The horrors in Gaza have become normalized. When Israel first bombed a hospital, a degree of shock wafted around the globe. Since then, every single one of Gaza’s 35 hospitals has endured an Israeli attack. When one Israeli hospital was struck by an Iranian missile, Israelis stood appalled.
The starvation of Palestinians in Gaza continues unabated. The fuel blockade is in force, meaning water wells cannot be pumped. Potable water is akin to liquid gold. A fresh way to die is imminent — death by thirst.
The Gaza hunger games has food distribution points nestled in the heart of militarized zones. This means walking miles to join the starving hordes who dare to dodge the bullets and shells to scrap for lifesaving food boxes. Thus far, at least 549 Palestinians have been killed at these four locations since May 26, according to Gaza Health Ministry figures. Sixty lives alone were terminated by a barrage of tank shells.
Anti-Palestinian groups ranted that Israeli forces had not committed these atrocities. This latest lie fell apart when even Israeli officials conceded the point. Israeli forces have also admitted they were ordered to open fire at unarmed Palestinians in food queues, even if they posed no threat.
Who knows how many of Gaza’s 2.3 million inhabitants remain alive? The official death toll hovers at about 56,000, but academic evaluations show the figure could be far higher. Two surveys indicate the official figures may be as much as 40 percent too low. One survey estimated that excess mortality — those who have died due to the indirect consequences of Israel’s genocide — may have been 8,500 in January. The survivors have been hemmed in to just 17 percent of the Gaza Strip.
Rumours encircle Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as ever. Does he want to prepare the way for elections? Will he bring military operations in Gaza to a halt? This does not guarantee the release of the hostages. Given that he has just terminated the last remaining UN food distribution program in the north, the militarized food distribution system will not be abandoned. Can the hostages’ families dent the bloodied will of the coalition’s leaders? Their cause is backed by as many as three-quarters of Israelis, who want a ceasefire in exchange for the return of hostages.
The ceasefire with Iran must be buttressed with an end to the genocide in Gaza. Halting the genocide in Gaza requires a reheating of the cauldron of pressure on Israel that saw two Cabinet ministers sanctioned last month by the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway. It means retreading the weary debates of what other measures are required.
Above all, it requires determined steps from the US and European powers that compel Israel to stop. President Donald Trump last week issued the most dramatic ultimatum in recent history, ordering Israeli planes back from their mission to bomb Iran. “All planes will turn around and head home, while doing a friendly ‘Plane Wave’ to Iran,” he posted on social media.
It is time for just such a decisive blow to the Netanyahu solar plexus from Trump by demanding that Israel permanently halt its attacks on Gaza and the West Bank and allow all humanitarian agencies full unhindered access to Gaza, while Hamas releases the remaining hostages. Trump should also insist on an end to the Israeli occupation and the creation of a viable Palestinian state — but that is wishful thinking. Trump could back this up by encouraging, in private if needs be, European states to be even tougher on Israel. Do this and the president could be heading to Oslo in October to pick up a much-cherished peace prize.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2606396
-----
Pre-emptive Strikes Against Iran Are Self-Defence
By Micah Halpern
JULY 1, 2025
My circle of friends and colleagues, it turns out, is rather unique.
In my innermost circle, the talk is about Israel’s 12-day historic attack on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile infrastructure. It’s about heaping praise on Israel’s actions and pride in the United States’ bunker-buster bombs and the precision and prowess of US airstrikes.
But then again, I do live in a unique circle.
What is so very obvious to us, is not at all obvious to so very many others. Most perturbing is that it is in no way obvious – or acceptable – to leaders from around the world.
To date, fewer than a handful of world leaders have publicly supported Israel and the United States on their strikes on Iran’s nukes. Argentinian President Javier Milei is an outstanding exception to that group. Speaking shortly after returning from a trip to Israel, he clearly conveyed his point and wrote that the strikes were “a great day for Western civilization.”
Those six words signaled the Argentinian president’s ideological support for the actions of Israel, the Jewish state. Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala similarly applauded the extraordinary feat accomplished by the United States and Israel. He termed it “an effort to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.” Then, without caveats and in clear terms, he said that he “supported Israel’s efforts.”
In the US Congress, Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania) raised his typically profound and lonely Democrat voice in support of Israel’s strikes and the US strikes. And then he asked that Israel and the US continue with the mission and said, “keep wiping out Iranian leadership and the nuclear personnel.”
The support expressed by these leaders, these visionaries, stands in stark contrast to the widespread international condemnation being heaped on Israel and the United States of America.
Those who support the attacks against Iran by the United States and Israel understand that the history-making bombings were preemptive strikes. They were carried out in order to prevent future Iranian threats against Israel, against the region and against the world. They know, as should everyone else, that preemptive strikes are both legal in international law and are just or ethical in the philosophy of war.
Preemptive strikes are considered self-defense. In other words, in the laws of war and the ethics of war, a country need not be attacked first in order to defend itself.
Those who argue that Israel and the United States violated international law, simply – and sadly – do not know or understand international law. Or perhaps they just choose to ignore what they should know to be true. And that group includes the 20 foreign ministers who composed a joint statement condemning the strikes as a violation of Iran’s sovereignty.
Of all people, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres should know better. Yet it was he who expressed: “grave alarm over the escalation…” It was Guterres who called the actions “a direct threat to international peace and security.”
Guterres, who after all that had transpired, the years of failed efforts, of fruitless conversation, of Iran’s flaunting of international directives, returned to his same old mantra and said, “There is no military solution; only diplomacy and peace.”
In response to the near impossible feat accomplished by Israel and the United States, I prayed that at least a respectable cross section, if not most, of the world would not just support Israel, but would actually thank them for making their futures brighter and safer by risking the lives of their military and bombing Iran’s nuclear centers for the good of all.
Turning to AI for support and gratitude
When I realized that their support would not be forthcoming, using what I thought would be their natural intelligence, I called upon artificial intelligence. AI responded that it would be a tall task to receive thanks, and that most countries have already condemned the mission. AI confirmed what I sadly know: that thanks or gratitude for destroying the threat to us all was a pipe dream. It was a far cry from reality.
The words “thank you” are not expressed as often as they should be; not by individual people, and not by the countries in which they live.
Israel – and Israelis, thanked the United States and thanked President Donald Trump. Of course they did.
Giving thanks is part of Jewish culture and Jewish prayer. As far back as the time of ritual sacrifices in the ancient Temple in Jerusalem, a special sacrifice was offered. That sacrifice was known as the thankful or thanksgiving offering, the Korban Todah.
It is also part of their name. In Hebrew, Jews are called Yehudim after Yehuda, the fourth son of the patriarch Jacob. His mother Leah gave him that name because she said “this time I will thank (odeh) God” for giving her more than three sons.
American pilgrims knew about giving thanks. The holiday of Thanksgiving is exactly that. It is about assessing a situation and saying thank you.
The English word “thanks” derives from the Latin word for think or, even better, for remember. I remember and I am grateful for what you did. The Spanish word “gracias” comes from the Latin word for grateful. “Merci” in French is from the Old French, “mercit” which means kindness or grace. It is from there that our English word “mercy” was derived.
The majority of the world does not have the moral clarity to understand the lengths that Iran is willing to go to in order to destroy its enemies. They do not realize that they are – that we are, Iran’s enemies. The world interprets these strikes in Iran as illegal and acts of aggression.
Most of the world is not just ungrateful – they are simply wrong.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-859494
------
Europe Slams Israel, Then Buys Its Weapons
By Ilan Mor
JULY 1, 2025
Across European capitals, a familiar duality is taking shape. In official statements and international forums, EU governments harshly criticize Israel’s conduct in Gaza, invoking humanitarian concerns and calling for restraint.
Yet, within security establishments and strategic circles, these same governments quietly seek out Israel’s battle-proven expertise and defense cooperation.
This paradox is more than political optics. It reflects a deeper tension between public posturing and strategic necessity. As global threats rise and European security structures face increasing strain, especially along NATO’s eastern flank, many capitals have come to depend on the capabilities developed by Israel, not through theory or simulation, but through sustained operational experience.
Israel’s defense ecosystem is shaped by necessity and refined through real-time confrontation with persistent threats. This unique context produces groundbreaking technology alongside – and more importantly – a depth of institutional knowledge and operational agility that European states, many of which lack comparable combat exposure, increasingly find indispensable.
The appeal of a defense partnership with Israel lies in its demonstrated ability to adapt swiftly, integrate intelligence with operational planning, and respond decisively under pressure. These attributes resonate strongly in an era where geopolitical certainties are eroding and traditional deterrents are being tested.
Europe's calculated stance toward Israel
Yet, despite this growing appeal, much of Europe’s defense engagement with Israel remains discreet. At defense expos, Israeli firms may be present but not prominently featured. Strategic dialogues unfold quietly. Procurement decisions are pursued with minimal publicity. It is a calculated posture: benefit from Israeli know-how, while minimizing public association amid political sensitivities.
This contradiction has sharpened in recent months. The war in Gaza has inflamed European public opinion, prompting calls for sanctions and reevaluation of bilateral ties. Still, behind the scenes, defense cooperation continues. Governments are navigating a fine line, condemning Israel in public while embracing its capabilities in private.
At its core, this is not a matter of public relations. It is a test of Europe’s strategic coherence and moral clarity. European leaders must ask themselves: is Israel a democratic partner facing real, ongoing threats, or merely a convenient repository of military expertise? The current approach, drawing on Israel’s experience while withholding solidarity, amounts to a form of strategic opportunism.
Such a framework is unsustainable. Partnerships grounded in quiet reliance and overt political distancing are inherently unstable. If Europe acknowledges the value of Israel’s contributions and its consistent actions suggest that it does, then that recognition must be reflected not only in policy but in rhetoric and diplomacy.
Except for a few high-profile deals, including Germany’s acquisition of the Arrow missile defence system, most transactions with Israel’s defence industry remain under the radar. This discrepancy, between private reliance and public hesitation, creates a contradiction that undermines Europe’s strategic coherence and weakens mutual trust.
Recognition must go beyond a transactional view of technology; it demands an open acknowledgment of Israel’s status as a democracy with a legitimate right to self-defence. While the European Union affirms this right, it simultaneously insists on strict compliance with international law and the laws of armed conflict. This legal framework, though vital, subjects Israel to disproportionate scrutiny (even hypocrisy) as it confronts immediate and complex security threats. Navigating these demands while safeguarding its citizens remains a constant challenge for Israel.
In an era of rapidly evolving threats, effective defense requires more than advanced technology. It calls for proven operational experience. With all due respect to political considerations, the imperative to protect civilian lives is real, and Israel has consistently demonstrated its reliability in doing so.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-859490
------
Will US Back Israeli Pre-Emptive Actions?
By Eric R. Mandel
JULY 1, 2025
John Spencer, head of West Point’s Urban Warfare Institute, wrote that the US and Israel “achieved overwhelming success at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels… shatter[ing] the myth of Iran’s invulnerability.” Yet, as The Wall Street Journal observed, despite the blow to the “pillars of Iran’s theocracy, the regime remains intact – wounded but capable of regrouping in more dangerous and unpredictable ways.”
This moment calls for strategic clarity, not triumphalism. Tactical gains must not lead to strategic complacency. As ceasefires take hold across the region, US and Israeli policymakers must approach “the day after” with foresight and humility, recognizing that the forces driving instability remain deeply entrenched.
History offers a sobering precedent. Following Israel’s stunning 1967 victory in the Six Day War, overconfidence contributed to the devastating surprise of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Today, the cost of misjudging the threat is even higher. Iran’s leadership is already working to reconstitute its nuclear infrastructure, rebuild its missile stockpiles, and accelerate arms transfers to its regional proxies – Hezbollah, the Houthis, and others.
If Washington signals restraint or pressures Jerusalem to temper its response to provocations – for diplomatic, electoral, or political reasons – Iran will interpret that as a green light to escalate.
We’ve seen this dynamic before. In the 1990s, Israel was urged to overlook terrorism from Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to preserve the Oslo peace process, contributing to the outbreak of the Second Intifada. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) offered Iran a legal glide path to nuclear capability and billions in sanctions relief, much of which funded proxy warfare across the region.
After Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, the doctrine of “mowing the grass” (periodic limited operations to manage rather than eliminate Hamas) proved insufficient. The devastating October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas made that clear.
More than a year before October 7, Israeli intelligence reportedly downplayed Hamas’s plans for a major assault as a mere “raid.” In the North, repeated Hezbollah provocations, including placing armed outposts (“tents”) on Israeli territory, elicited little response. I witnessed the tension first-hand while visiting Har Dov just four days before the October 7 massacre.
Will the US back Israel?
Today, the key question remains: Will the US support Israel’s new post-October 7 doctrine of preemption and deterrence, or will Washington revert to urging Israeli restraint once ceasefires are established?
US President Donald Trump’s recent suggestion that China should be allowed to purchase Iranian oil is concerning, especially just days after US forces targeted Iran’s underground nuclear sites. Current US sanctions prohibit such transactions.
Whether under president Joe Biden or potentially under President Trump again, a failure to enforce these sanctions would enable Iran to rebuild its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, expand its network of terrorism, and increase its influence in the region.
Why would Washington tolerate China financing Iran’s resurgence through discounted crude oil? The answer likely lies in domestic political calculations aimed at keeping oil prices low. However, the strategic consequences are significant and could bring the next conflict in the Middle East much closer.
A potential rift may be developing between Netanyahu and Trump regarding whether Israel can launch preventive actions against Iranian provocations, similar to its current operations in Lebanon against Hezbollah. The recent joint US and Israeli strikes on Iranian assets provide a model for future strategic cooperation, one based not only on reactive defense but also on calibrated deterrence.
Adversaries like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) are already preparing for the next round by silencing dissent at home, rebuilding arsenals abroad, and exploiting any division between Washington and Jerusalem. The only question is how soon the next conflict will erupt.
The US should clearly support Israel’s doctrine of pre-emption following the events of October 7, even after ceasefires are established. This includes the ongoing military actions in southern Lebanon aimed at weakening Hezbollah’s capabilities. Extending this doctrine to Iran – not through open-ended wars, but through timely and targeted Israeli deterrence – would reduce the likelihood of a wider conflict and future US involvement.
Any perception of US vacillation will be interpreted as weakness and exploited. A steady, firm approach with preventive actions can help delay or avoid war.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-859474
-------
Checkmate In Tehran: The Fall Of Israeli And American Strategy
June 30, 2025
The Middle East has in recent weeks witnessed one of its most intense military confrontations in decades: a full-scale war between Iran and Israel that has transformed regional dynamics in ways few could have predicted. This conflict, which was designed to weaken the Iran-led “Axis of Resistance” and consolidate Israel’s regional hegemony, has produced outcomes entirely contrary to what its planners in Washington and Tel Aviv envisioned. Israel’s military superiority, intended to strengthen its geopolitical position, has not only failed to achieve that goal but has also pushed Arab states away from normalizing ties with Israel and toward diplomacy with Iran. These developments are the direct result of unilateral, short-sighted policies that relied on military power instead of diplomacy and ignored the complex geopolitics of the Middle East. This report argues that the new Middle East, contrary to American and Israeli expectations, is being reshaped to the advantage of their rivals—revealing the strategic failure of their aggressive policies.
Military superiority, diplomatic defeat
In its recent war with Iran, Israel once again demonstrated its military capabilities. Precision strikes on Iranian military infrastructure, backed by US logistical and intelligence support, did achieve a relative weakening of the defensive stronghold of the Axis of Resistance. At first glance, this military success seemed like a major victory for Israel. However, this superiority, which was expected to reinforce Israel’s position in the region and advance the process of normalisation with Arab states, has had the opposite effect. The scale of the attacks and their human toll—including widespread destruction and civilian casualties—sparked a wave of anger and resentment among Arab publics. Countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, which had previously taken steps toward normalization with Israel under the Abraham Accords, now find themselves under domestic pressure to reassess these policies.
Analysts argue that this outcome stems from the Israeli and American policymakers’ disregard for the social and political realities of the region. They assumed military dominance would break resistance to normalization, but this assumption does not align with today’s complex Middle Eastern realities. Instead, this display of force has pushed Arab countries closer to Iran, which, by leveraging its role as a supporter of the Palestinian cause, has managed to garner more regional sympathy. This paradox shows that military victories without diplomatic foundations not only fail to achieve political objectives but can also lead to diplomatic isolation.
Arab states pivot toward diplomacy with Iran
One of the most unexpected consequences of the war has been the growing inclination of Arab states toward diplomacy with Iran. Following the conflict, reports emerged of secret talks between Iran and several Arab countries—including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman—aimed at restoring diplomatic relations and expanding economic cooperation. This shift, particularly among Gulf Cooperation Council members, reflects a new understanding of the need to balance regional relationships. Arab states, having witnessed the failure of military-centered policies to bring regional stability, now see engagement with Iran as a way to reduce tensions and bolster their standing in a reshaped Middle East.
This diplomatic pivot is especially notable in the case of Saudi Arabia. After years of fierce rivalry with Tehran, Riyadh has concluded that continuing hostile policies could lead to its diplomatic isolation. Talks to restore bilateral ties, which had repeatedly stalled in the past, are now moving forward with renewed momentum. These developments indicate that US and Israeli aggressive strategies have not weakened Iran but rather enhanced its diplomatic position in the region. Iran, seizing these new opportunities, has positioned itself as a reliable partner for Arab states seeking to lessen their dependence on Western powers.
The limits of America’s unilateralism
As Israel’s main backer in this conflict, the United States played a central role in planning and executing military operations against Iran. But this support—intended to consolidate U.S. regional hegemony—has yielded paradoxical results. Instead of reinforcing America’s standing in the Middle East, Washington’s unilateral policies have eroded its influence among traditional allies. Arab countries that once depended on US military and economic support are now actively diversifying their foreign relations to reduce this dependence. This trend is particularly evident in countries like Egypt and Jordan, long-standing US partners.
America’s short-sighted policies, which focused on unconditional support for Israel, have come at the cost of its diplomatic credibility. Ignoring the humanitarian consequences of the war and dismissing Arab calls for mediation have severely undermined trust in the US as an impartial broker. This vacuum has opened the door for other actors—including China and Russia—to play a more active role in regional diplomacy. These shifts underscore America’s strategic failure in the Middle East, where an overreliance on military power over diplomacy has, in the final analysis, diminished its influence.
Rebuilding a new Middle East: Opportunities and challenges
The new Middle East emerging from the Iran–Israel war is taking shape in ways very different from what the United States and Israel anticipated. The region is moving toward multipolarity, where no single player can impose its hegemony. Iran, through active diplomacy and its championing of the Palestinian cause, has managed to strengthen its role as a key regional actor. Meanwhile, Israel, despite its military superiority, faces increasing diplomatic isolation.
A major feature of this new Middle East is the rise of regional diplomacy. Arab states that once depended heavily on external support are now working to build alliances more independent of Western powers. Although this process faces challenges such as historical disputes and economic rivalries, it holds the potential to ease regional tensions. For the US and Israel—who had expected the war to solidify their dominance—this amounts to a strategic defeat.
A critique of the hegemonic illusion
The recent war between Iran and Israel has laid bare a harsh truth: the illusion that military superiority can deliver geopolitical hegemony has not only failed to achieve American and Israeli goals but is actually strengthening their rivals and reshaping the Middle East against their interests. The unilateral, aggressive policies of Washington and Tel Aviv—crafted with little regard for the region’s social, political, and cultural complexities—have ended up boosting Iran’s diplomatic standing and drawing Arab states closer to Tehran. This strategic failure is the direct result of prioritising hard power over diplomacy and ignoring regional realities.
The new Middle East, contrary to US and Israeli expectations, is a multipolar region where diplomacy and regional cooperation take precedence. Arab countries, recognizing the futility of militarized approaches, are redefining their ties with Iran and reducing their reliance on Western powers. These developments serve as a stark warning to American and Israeli policymakers: continuing down the current path, built on the illusion of military victory, will only lead to greater isolation and weakened influence. This new Middle East is not a product of Washington and Tel Aviv’s designs, but rather the outcome of regional resistance to their short-sighted, unilateral strategies.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250630-checkmate-in-tehran-the-fall-of-israeli-and-american-strategy/
-----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/famine-gaza-regime-change-iran/d/136035
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism