Middle East Press On: Iran, Israel, GCC, War, Mccarthyism: New Age Islam's Selection, 18 June 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
18 June 2025
Iran Vs. Israel: Adults In The Room Need To Act Quickly
GCC Takes A Stand On The Iran-Israel War
European Double Standards On Parade Over Israel’s War On Iran
Genocide Goes Squid Game As Israel Outsources 'Aid' To Gaza Gangs
Criminalization Of Conscience: On Palestine And British ‘Cultural Mccarthyism’
When The Mad Dog Bites: Netanyahu, Iran, And The Empire That Feeds It
History Says The Genocide In Gaza Will Be Recognised – Eventually
After The Strike: Israel's Opportunity For A Diplomatic Breakthrough With Iran
Behind The Gulf’s Condemnations: A Strategic Interest In Israel's Strikes On Iran
Innovation And Investment: Israel's Path To National Resilience
Iran Wants To Kill Israelis; We Just Want To Live!
Self-Defence And Acceptable Murder: Netanyahu Dreams Of Regime Change
A Mad Dog And A Muzzled Empire: Israel, Iran, And The Limits Of Strategic Patience
-------
Iran Vs. Israel: Adults In The Room Need To Act Quickly
Faisal J. Abbas
June 17, 2025
The Middle East is once again at a dangerous crossroads as tensions between Israel and Iran escalate. This latest round of hostilities threatens to drag the region into yet another prolonged conflict — one that benefits no one except those who thrive on instability. At a time when aggression is outpacing diplomacy, it is imperative for rational voices to intervene before the situation spirals beyond control.
Saudi Arabia has taken swift action, demonstrating its commitment to regional peace through intense diplomatic engagement. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has personally communicated with leaders around the world, emphasizing the urgent need to de-escalate tensions and unify international efforts to prevent further violence. Riyadh recognizes that unchecked military confrontation will not only destabilize nations but also hinder progress, development and the fight against violent extremism.
The Kingdom has unequivocally condemned the attack on Iran and the violation of its sovereignty, denouncing it as a clear breach of international laws. However, Saudi Arabia understands that words alone are insufficient. Proactive measures must be taken to prevent the situation from deteriorating further. Riyadh is rallying diplomatic channels to reduce tensions, working to ensure that strategic decisions prioritize stability over reckless militarization.
One of the most critical aspects of Saudi Arabia’s approach is preventing its airspace from being exploited for military operations. Riyadh has firmly stated that it will not permit any party to use its territory to fuel hostilities. The Kingdom’s primary concern is the protection of its people, ensuring that Saudi citizens and residents are shielded from the repercussions of war. National security remains a top priority and the Saudi leadership will take every step necessary to maintain it.
Saudi Arabia was among the first nations to condemn Israel’s strikes on Iran, highlighting the severity of the situation and its potential consequences. Riyadh has repeatedly urged the international community — particularly the UN Security Council — to take decisive action against Israel’s pattern of violating sovereignty across the Middle East. The world cannot afford to ignore these aggressions — and it is the responsibility of the global powers to hold Israel accountable for its actions.
Beyond the immediate military confrontation, the risks extend into the broader ideological landscape. War in the Middle East does not remain confined to battlefields — it fuels violent extremism. A drawn-out conflict would create opportunities for extremist groups to exploit, further entrenching instability in the region. Saudi Arabia categorically rejects such an outcome. The Kingdom remains committed to safeguarding the region from regression into turmoil and ensuring that its people can move toward a secure and prosperous future.
There is also a strategic element to consider. Israel’s repeated aggression is not merely reactionary; it is calculated. Disorder serves as a convenient justification for further violations, allowing Israel to strengthen its position under the pretense of security. The governments of the Middle East must recognize this tactic and actively work to counter efforts that threaten national sovereignty. Stability is not just about safeguarding borders — it is about rejecting geopolitical maneuvers that thrive on instability.
Saudi diplomacy continues to play a pivotal role in ensuring that the crisis does not escalate beyond repair. Riyadh’s engagement in diplomatic channels serves as a buffer against widespread conflict. Its steadfast commitment to rational negotiation over impulsive warfare has established Saudi Arabia as a stabilizing force at a time when volatility is at its peak.
However, the burden of responsibility does not rest solely on Saudi Arabia. Global powers must act with maturity and wisdom, recognizing the stakes involved. Hesitation is not an option — only swift, strategic interventions can prevent this conflict from spiraling further. Efforts aimed at mediation must be supported and amplified, ensuring that rational discourse prevails over reckless aggression. The success of these diplomatic efforts is crucial, as failure would come at an immeasurable cost.
Saudi Arabia’s approach to regional conflicts has always been clear: diplomacy is the key. The Kingdom firmly rejects military escalation, advocating instead for diplomatic resolutions that secure peace and stability. War is not a solution, it is a distraction from the real goal: progress.
This is more than just policy — it is principle. And today, more than ever, it is a principle the world must uphold.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2604732
-------
GCC Takes A Stand On The Iran-Israel War
Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg
June 17, 2025
As the Israel-Iran war entered its fourth day on Monday, with the fighting intensifying and reaching dangerous levels that could disrupt life beyond the two warring parties, the Gulf Cooperation Council foreign ministers met to coordinate their policy. The six GCC member states, plus the bloc as a whole, had already put out similar statements calling for a ceasefire and condemning Israel for starting the war on Friday.
At Monday’s meeting, the six GCC ministers went beyond those initial statements to address some of the risks involved and suggested ways to handle them other than war. While the GCC and Iran have at times strongly disagreed on important issues, the organization and its member states have opted for diplomacy to settle those disputes. Oman, one of the GCC member states, has actively mediated between Iran and the US on the nuclear issue. Saudi Arabia and Iran reached an agreement two years ago, with the help of China, to resume diplomatic relations after many years of disruption. Other member states have been in regular touch with Iran on its regional policies, over which the two sides have diverged greatly. All six foreign ministers met with their Iranian counterpart last October to work on this diplomatic approach. It is still a work in progress.
A paramount concern for the ministers was how Israel’s unilateral action has undermined respect for international law, including the UN Charter, in the region, which was already at a low point after 20 months of Israel’s unlawful war of extermination against Palestinians in Gaza. The ministers therefore condemned attacks on Iran as a “clear violation of international law and the United Nations Charter.” They called for an “immediate ceasefire” and a quick return to the diplomatic track, to “spare the region and its people the dangers of war” and to “safeguard regional security and stability.”
The approach was balanced, calling on “all parties to exert joint efforts” to de-escalate, “exercise maximum restraint” and choose diplomacy to resolve their conflict.
Nuclear proliferation has been a major concern for the GCC, especially as the International Atomic Energy Agency has voiced criticisms of Iran’s nuclear program, most recently in last week’s Board of Governors decision, which found Tehran to be in breach of its nonproliferation obligations. That decision, which was the first of its kind in 20 years, raised the prospect of reporting the breach to the UN Security Council, especially following Iran’s defiant reaction at the time.
Israel’s unilateral attack undermined that lawful process and raised the risk of a dangerous environmental fallout as it attacked nuclear targets with abandon, in violation of international law and international humanitarian law, which prohibit the targeting of nuclear facilities and installations, as clearly stipulated in Article 56 of the First Protocol of the Geneva Conventions.
The IAEA has raised the alarm about likely radioactive contamination as a result of these attacks, as did the GCC ministers in their statement issued following Monday’s meeting. They stressed the IAEA’s important role in preventive nuclear security and safety and warned of the “serious humanitarian and environmental consequences” of attacks on nuclear facilities, which clearly constitute a threat to safety and the international IAEA-run comprehensive safeguards system.
By attacking nuclear facilities, Israel has triggered a race to the bottom, if Iran retaliates in kind, for example. While the resulting contamination so far appears to be contained, according to IAEA statements, the potential for widespread radioactive contamination is real.
To prepare for nuclear and other environmental disasters, the GCC in 2012 established an emergency response center in Kuwait and put together various risk assessments and plans to meet any contingencies. On Monday, the ministers reviewed ongoing security coordination between member states under the GCC Joint Military Command and the ministries of defense, interior and other agencies dealing with these matters.
The GCC Ministerial Council also stressed the need to safeguard maritime security, including the security and safety of waterways in the region. They called for “confronting activities that threaten the security and stability of the region and the world, including targeting commercial vessels, threatening shipping lanes, international trade, and oil facilities.”
It is clear that, unless the war is stopped, it will soon pose a serious threat not only to the region but it could spread way beyond. This week’s news indicates that the US, for example, could get more deeply involved. Other powers also appear to be moving in that direction. The GCC ministers therefore called on the UN Security Council and world powers to “assume their responsibilities toward bringing an immediate end to this war and preventing escalation.” In particular, it called for the resumption of nuclear talks between the US and Iran.
What is quite clear is that there is a serious deficit in the region in upholding international law and deferring to the UN Charter, which clearly calls for settling disputes through political means and refraining from the use of force. Norms that many thought were well established in the relations between nations have been torn asunder, including the principles of good neighbourliness, respect for the sovereignty and equality of states, their territorial integrity and non-interference in their internal affairs.
This lawlessness has been a mark of this region in recent years. If the regional order breaks down completely here, other parts of the world could follow. No matter how worthy the cause, disregard for international law and the rules-based order, centered on the UN and anchored in international law, can only lead to chaos and disasters like those we are witnessing in the Middle East today.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2604804
------
European Double Standards On Parade Over Israel’s War On Iran
Osama Al-Sharif
June 17, 2025
Of all the reactions to Friday’s unprovoked Israeli blitz on Iran, the European leaders’ was the worst. None had the courage or the moral capacity to call it what it was: naked aggression against a sovereign state and a member of the UN. Interestingly, it was the leaders of the neighboring countries with a history of troubled ties to the Islamic Republic who were quick to condemn the Israeli attack as a clear violation of international law.
One must view the European leaders’ shameless position from a historical perspective. Whether it was the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, NATO’s bombardment of Libya in 2011, the genocidal war Israel is carrying out in Gaza or the stark aggression on Iran, European governments have been either directly and openly complicit or stood by and done nothing other than to lecture the world on the need to respect international law.
European leaders have also proven time and again that they are merely blind followers of the US as it dictates controversial and often illegal policies about the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Israeli occupation and persecution of Palestinians.
French President Emmanuel Macron’s quick justification of Israel’s attack on Iran was probably the worst. Other European leaders soon followed, parroting the ambiguous and misguided phrase that “Israel has the right to defend itself.” Almost immediately, the UK’s Keir Starmer, Germany’s Friedrich Merz and the European Commission’s Ursula von der Leyen were lining up to protect Israel and blame Iran for the most dangerous military escalation in the region since the first Gulf War.
One can understand the US bias in favor of Israel, no matter what it does. This has become a trait of successive American administrations, which have denied the Middle East a just and lasting settlement to the core of its instability and conflicts for decades. Israel’s grip over US politics is well known. But one almost got duped by recent statements made by various European leaders who claimed that Europe must disengage and free itself from America’s orbit.
The illusion of such an awakening presented itself in the past few months, when European leaders attempted to distance themselves from the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over its genocidal war in Gaza. The EU tried, but failed, to make a distinction between its position against Russia’s alleged crimes in Ukraine and its initial support of Israel waging a full-scale war on 2.2 million Palestinians in Gaza.
Despite their apparent denunciation of Israel’s Gaza war, the UK and Germany have continued to supply Israel with weapons that are being used against civilians in Gaza. So much for the crocodile tears European officials pretend to shed over the 55,000 Palestinians Israel has killed so far.
But to go back to the Iran debacle, not one European leader has had the integrity to point to the fact that Israel launched its attack two days before the US and Iran were to hold a crucial sixth round of negotiations in Oman. US President Donald Trump had hinted that the two sides were close to an agreement on a nuclear deal.
Not one leader even cited the testimony before Congress in March by US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she clearly stated: “The intelligence community continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon,” adding “that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had not reauthorized the program he suspended in 2003.”
And not one European leader pointed to the danger to the lives of millions in Iran and the entire region that might come from Israel’s direct bombardment of Iran’s numerous nuclear facilities. Not one leader bothered to denounce Netanyahu for his irresponsible call for regime change in Iran and the assassination of Iran’s supreme leader. There was not one condemnation of Israel’s killing of civilians, including Iranian nuclear scientists and their families.
Also, European leaders have omitted to mention that Iran had already reached a deal with them, as well as the US, under which it agreed to put its entire civilian nuclear program under inspection and provided guarantees limiting its uranium enrichment. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action deal was derailed by Trump, not Iran, under Netanyahu’s relentless attacks and lies. That agreement was deposited at the UN. Iran was not the party that withdrew from the deal.
European countries were threatened by Trump not to end economic sanctions imposed on Iran, even as Iran had honored its commitments. Even then, European leaders opted to throw Tehran under the bus rather than challenge Washington or point the finger at the warmongering Netanyahu.
The application of double standards has become a trademark of European leaders’ approach to this region’s conflicts, especially where Israel’s interests are concerned. Israeli violations of international law and conventions are treated with the utmost delicacy and tolerance. Whatever Israel does, it does with impunity because it knows that European leaders will not dare challenge it.
Macron had mustered some courage recently and denounced Israel’s use of humanitarian aid as a collective punishment against Gazans, only to be branded as an antisemite by Israel. He had contemplated recognizing a Palestinian state but was reprimanded by Israel, and now it appears he has decided to defer any move. He has even offered to join Israel in fighting Iran.
Once again, we have proof of how Western leaders are intimidated by Washington when it comes to averting what could spiral into a regional and possibly a global war in the Gulf.
It is worth remembering that it is Israel that refuses to join the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons or allow independent inspection of its nuclear program. And it was France that assisted Israel by supplying it with a nuclear reactor back in the 1950s. Israel deceived even the US by concealing the truth about its Dimona reactor while reportedly stealing, over a few years, between 200kg and 300kg of highly enriched uranium from a private nuclear materials processing facility, the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, in Apollo, Pennsylvania, in the 1960s.
By the end of the 1960s, Israel was believed to have built the first of at least 100 nuclear bombs. Israel is the country that has brought nuclear weapons into this region, with the help of France and the US.
European leaders’ feverish support of Netanyahu, a wanted war criminal, in his reckless war against Iran is inexcusable and shameless. It is an insult to European values and the people of this region. It proves once again that those leaders are sacrificing Europe’s interests for the sake of an Israel gone rogue. And it demonstrates that, while Europe might be an economic giant — for now — it is, in fact, a political dwarf.
Meanwhile, Israel’s mass slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza continues unabated. Europe’s silence is deafening.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2604784
------
Genocide Goes Squid Game As Israel Outsources 'Aid' To Gaza Gangs
17 June, 2025
Another of Israel's worst-kept secrets is out: Shin Bet is arming and funding 600 to 1,000 Palestinian mercenaries from the al-Shabab clan in Gaza to sow chaos and counter Hamas by proxy.
These gunmen fire directly at starving Palestinians seeking the aid provided by Israeli-US disaster humanitarianism, with over 100 killed since the program began in what's been described as human "hunger games."
Israel claims that it doesn't supply either light weapons or salaries to these thugs and that the weapons are captured from Hamas. But given the Israeli army's history of lying, there's reason to be sceptical.
Writing in Haaretz, Yossi Melman exposed another covert layer of Israel's aid effort, designed in part to sideline independent NGOs. This is, of course, the shadowy group called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which has funded and managed the operation, aided by former US Special Forces operatives. Melman reveals for the first time that Mossad created the dummy foundation in Switzerland.
Its opaque funding, it turns out, came directly from Israel's Defense Ministry, to the tune of $140 million per month.
Reuters reports that McNally Capital, a Chicago-based private equity firm and financial arm of Ward McNally, a sixth-generation heir of the Rand McNally publishing family, has ownership in GHF.
The investment is obscured through a second entity, Safe Research Solutions (SRS), which appears to be a "cut-out" designed to conceal McNally Capital's involvement.
SRS was incorporated in Wyoming in November. The SRS website lists no staff under "Our Team". During the same period, an Israeli group developed the original concept for GHF.
Despite denials from US ambassador Mike Huckabee, The New York Times reports otherwise: "The project is an Israeli brainchild, first proposed by Israeli officials in the earliest weeks of the war, according to Israeli officials, people involved in the initiative, and others familiar with its conception, who spoke on condition of anonymity to speak more freely of the initiative...The broad contours of the plan were first discussed in late 2023, at private meetings of like-minded officials, military officers and business people with close ties to the Israeli government."
The project was devised around November 2024, when SRS was first registered, clearly a move to enlist US funders and further obscure Israel's role.
A parallel proxy scheme involving the Al-Shabab clan was devised by Israel’s intelligence apparatus and approved by Prime Minister Netanyahu and the defense minister. Yet, true to form, Netanyahu deflected blame, claiming the “security apparatus” was behind it:
“On the advice of security officials, we activated clans in Gaza that oppose Hamas. What’s wrong with this?”
If nothing was wrong, why shift responsibility to Shin Bet, who executed the plan under his direction? In a further display of hubris, and despite international condemnation for partnering with gang-linked groups, Netanyahu doubled down in an Instagram post, repeating, “What’s wrong with this?”
Neither the Knesset, security cabinet, nor senior army command was informed, an unusual and telling lack of oversight.
The mercenary group is loosely affiliated with a Gaza-based Bedouin clan. Some members have ties to Fatah security circles, but the group’s leader, Yasser Abu Shabab, has been disavowed by his own tribe as an Israeli collaborator.
The Israeli army enables this by standing by during the attacks and allowing Abu Shabab's men to operate freely in zones under its control.
While the Israeli army has long tolerated gangs in Gaza, reports that Shin Bet is now arming and funding them mark a serious escalation. Shin Bet believes Hamas's command structure has been weakened enough to allow proxies like Abu Shabab to gain real influence over the population. As with many Israeli strategems, the plan seems far-fetched.
Israel tried something years ago, but it failed. Hamas reportedly killed the leader of a clan accused of collaborating with Israel. But conditions are different now.
With the Israeli army occupying most of Gaza, it can offer protection to Abu Shabab, whose fate may not be as swift, or as grim.
Israel's sordid history with proxies
Israel's divide-and-conquer strategy is nothing new. It has repeated this approach many times: creating the South Lebanon Army to counter the PLO, funding and arming al-Nusra and the Syrian Druze as buffers against Hezbollah in the Golan.
Yossi Melman explains in Haaretz:
"These are mercenaries similar to those established by colonial regimes. France did so in Algeria and Syria. The British in their colonies in Africa and Asia, and the United States through the CIA in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Israel operated similarly in the 1970s as it created the Village Leagues, the Phalange and South Lebanese Army and rural [Druze] militias in Syria’s Golan Heights. In most cases, these militias of collaborators and mercenaries have failed."
The US supplied massive weapons to the Taliban to fight the Russian invasion. After driving the Russians out, the Taliban turned on the US, sheltering Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, and killing thousands of American troops, just as they had done to the Russians.
Be careful what you wish for: today’s proxy can become tomorrow’s mortal enemy.
Proxies bought with weapons and logistics rarely stay loyal. They develop their own interests and often turn lethal, like Hezbollah and Hamas. Some Israeli experts warn that the policy could backfire spectacularly if multiple militias emerge after Hamas’s fall.
Though catastrophic to many, this outcome may be exactly what Netanyahu wants. Israel favours failed states and regularly sows chaos among rivals like Syria, Lebanon, and Iran.
The weaker these states are, the less they can resist Israel’s security goals. Disruption and dysfunction aren’t flaws in the system; they’re features.
A security source warned The New Arab that yesterday’s 20-year failure in southern Lebanon could repeat in Gaza:
"This ‘South Gaza Army’ reminds me of the South Lebanon Army. I hope it doesn’t mean the IDF will stay in Gaza for 18 years, as it did in Lebanon.
This concern is serious, especially since Netanyahu and his extremist ministers have declared the Israeli occupation of Gaza indefinite, mirroring Israel’s open-ended presence in southern Lebanon and the Golan.
If so, Israel likely sees these clans as long-term proxies to govern Gaza, much like the Palestinian Authority has become a security errand boy. The only scenario that might end this collaboration is if Israel opts to remove all Palestinians from Gaza, a grim but real possibility.
https://www.newarab.com/opinion/genocide-goes-squid-game-israel-contracts-aid-gaza-gangs
------
Criminalization Of Conscience: On Palestine And British ‘Cultural Mccarthyism’
By Asim Qureshi
June 17, 2025
In the United Kingdom today, the line between political expression and criminal offence has never been more perilously thin – as witnessed through the lens of Palestine solidarity – the extent of Britain’s encroachment upon basic freedoms becomes painfully clear.
The ongoing proscription of Hamas is being used as a blunt instrument to suppress, not acts of terrorism, but the articulation of political belief, emotional solidarity and moral outrage. In doing so, the British state has entrenched a system that penalises thought, stigmatizes empathy and punishes dissent.
CAGE International has submitted an application to the UK Secretary of State for the Home Department calling for the deproscription of Harakat al-Muqawwamah al-Islamiyyah (Hamas). The submission documents a disturbing pattern: across universities, hospitals, workplaces, and even primary schools, people are being harassed, suspended, or deported for speech or actions that have been interpreted as expressions of support for a proscribed group.
The breadth of the legislation means that there can be no commonsense approach to legitimate debate and discussion – as the legislation creates an environment of hyper-criminalisation.
Let us be clear: the individuals profiled in these cases were not caught plotting violence, nor were they accused of material support for any armed organization. Their crime, if one can call it that, was voicing grief, solidarity, or political critique. A student speaks emotionally about the war in Gaza — her visa is revoked. A child wears a Palestinian flag — he is interrogated. A doctor tweets in support of Palestinian resistance — she is suspended. The pattern is unmistakable.
Under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, it is an offence to express support for a proscribed organization. The statute’s vagueness is not a bug but a feature; it is precisely this ambiguity that has allowed for the criminalisation of conscience. What counts as “support” is often inferred through the most tendentious of readings. A reposted article. A throwaway comment. A badge on a jacket. Each is reimagined through a securitised lens as a potential act of extremism.
Yet, as CAGE International’s application shows, it is not only the accused who suffer. What emerges is a society that has turned suspicion into orthodoxy. In schools, children are pulled aside for uttering “Free Palestine”. In universities, academics face disciplinary action for exploring resistance literature.
In the workplace, Muslim professionals are doxed, suspended, and interrogated. The state has effectively deputised educators, HR managers, and immigration officers to act as arbiters of political acceptability.
This moral panic did not emerge in a vacuum. It is the direct consequence of the UK’s post-9/11 counterterrorism regime — a system built not to secure safety, but to discipline dissent. As Dr Sophie Haspeslagh notes in Proscribing Peace, the labeling of political groups as “terrorist” serves a political, not legal, function.
It allows states to silence opposition, foreclose negotiation, and construct an artificial moral binary between legitimate and illegitimate actors. In this schema, Hamas is a terrorist group, while armed Ukrainian militias are celebrated as freedom fighters. The inconsistency is not just a double standard — it is the very architecture of state power.
What makes this repression particularly insidious is its reach. The cases collected by CAGE include international students, NHS doctors, primary school children, and teachers. In each instance, the response from institutions — whether schools, hospitals, or universities — has been one of overcompliance. There is no room for nuance, no space for context. Employers and administrators, desperate to avoid controversy, act pre-emptively, often without evidence or procedural fairness. The result is a chilling effect that ripples far beyond the initial target. Solidarity becomes dangerous while grief becomes seditious.
To speak of Hamas in anything but condemnation is, under the current legal framework, an invitation to investigation. Yet as history teaches us, today’s “terrorists” are often tomorrow’s statesmen. Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress were once proscribed. Sinn Féin’s inclusion in peace negotiations required dropping the “terrorist” label. As Haspeslagh argues, a linguistic ceasefire — recognizing the conflict, removing the terrorist frame, and distinguishing between acts and actors — is essential to any path forward.
Instead, Britain’s proscription regime has entrenched a cultural McCarthyism, where political speech on Palestine is policed not just by the state but by the institutions that claim to protect democratic discourse. Consider the case of “M”, a Palestinian student whose offhand comment to a journalist about 7 October was seized upon by politicians and media outlets.
Her student visa was revoked, only for a judge to later declare that the Home Office’s actions violated her rights to free speech and due process. The reversal is welcome, but the damage was done. For months, she lived in fear, hounded by media, demonised by politicians, and stripped of the ability to complete her education.
Or consider the children: a nine-year-old boy weeping after being interrogated for a sticker. A student isolated for wearing the colours of a flag. A teenager compared to Shamima Begum for questioning state violence. These are not isolated incidents. They are symptoms of a society that has allowed its security apparatus to criminalise compassion and curiosity.
At the heart of this crisis is a fundamental misunderstanding — or deliberate misrepresentation — of what it means to express solidarity. To call for the deproscription of Hamas is not to endorse violence. It is to demand space for political discussion. It is to insist that peace cannot emerge from silence, that justice cannot be achieved through censorship. As CAGE International rightly points out, international law provides mechanisms for prosecuting war crimes. We do not need blunt instruments that collapse politics into criminality.
The United Kingdom government now finds itself in breach of its own commitments under the Human Rights Act 1998 through the repression of freedom of speech and expression. The Prevent strategy, far from achieving its stated objective of safeguarding national security, has always been a tool for racialised surveillance and ideological conformity. The right to dissent, especially on matters of foreign policy, has been eroded under the guise of counterterrorism.
Britain must reckon with this reality. It must acknowledge that its proscription regime, and the counterterrorism laws that underpin it, are no longer fit for purpose. In doing so, it must recognize the cost — not just to the individuals whose lives it has upended – but to the very claims of what it portends to be in a liberal rights-based order.
To speak for Palestine should not be an act of courage. It should be an act of conscience. It is time for Britain to listen — not with suspicion, but with humility.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/criminalization-of-conscience-on-palestine-and-british-cultural-mccarthyism/
-------
When The Mad Dog Bites: Netanyahu, Iran, And The Empire That Feeds It
June 17, 2025
There are moments in history when diplomacy dies with a whimper, not a bang. But this time, it may die with both. Israel, drunk on decades of unpunished aggression, has now hurled itself off the ledge of military recklessness, dragging its American enablers and the wider Middle East into yet another chapter of chaos. The target of this new Zionist tantrum? Iran—a nation of 90 million with a long memory, a steady hand, and a remarkable tolerance for provocation. Until now.
For over a year, Iran has exercised something bordering on saintly restraint. While Israeli airstrikes lit up Damascus, assassins lurked in the streets of Tehran, and mysterious “technical failures” befell Iranian infrastructure, the Islamic Republic did not take the bait. It could have retaliated a dozen times over, and with justification.
But instead, it opted to keep the regional powder keg dry, all while engaging in serious, good-faith negotiations with the United States over its nuclear program. To say Iran was the adult in the room is not a compliment—it’s a condemnation of everyone else in it.
But Netanyahu, Israel’s increasingly unstable prime minister, has now crossed the final line. Israeli jets have struck Iranian territory directly, in a shocking escalation that reveals the full scope of Tel Aviv’s lunacy. This was not a response to a threat. It was the threat. A nuclear-armed apartheid state just launched preemptive attacks on a non-nuclear state engaged in diplomacy.
Even by the low standards of Israeli bellicosity, this is unhinged.
The world should be screaming. But the world, once again, is silent—because Washington is complicit. As always.
The Belligerent State with a Messiah Complex
Let us dispense with illusions: Israel’s foreign policy is not defensive. It is expansionist, supremacist, and governed by a messianic impulse to dominate the region militarily while playing the eternal victim diplomatically. Whether in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, or now Iran, the modus operandi is the same—instigate, provoke, strike first, cry foul, and expect a standing ovation from Capitol Hill.
This pattern is not new. But what is new is the scale and brazenness of Israeli aggression. What began as a genocidal war on Gaza—ongoing now for over twenty months—has metastasized into a regional campaign of destabilization.
In Syria, Israel bombs airports and infrastructure with impunity. In Lebanon, it inches toward war with Hezbollah, hoping to drag the country into a devastating conflict. And now, the unthinkable: open war against Iran.
Netanyahu’s strategy is not just reckless; it is suicidal. But like many dangerous ideologues, he doesn’t mind taking the world down with him. His calculus is simple: provoke Iran until it retaliates, then scream “existential threat” and demand American intervention. It’s a cynical, high-stakes game, and one that only works because Washington plays along.
America: The Empire That Enables
One might have thought that after Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, the United States would have learned a thing or two about the costs of blind loyalty to Israeli security fantasies. But here we are again: the Pentagon nods, Congress claps, and the President mutters something about “Israel’s right to defend itself,” as if Iran had randomly decided to bomb itself and blame Tel Aviv for sport.
The Biden administration, much like its predecessors, had chosen to subcontract U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East to a right-wing ethnostate with a bunker mentality. And while the Bidenites have at times seemed less enthusiastic than the Trump-era neocons, their actions (or inaction) speak volumes. Every Israeli bomb dropped on Iranian or Arab soil is American-approved, American-funded, and American-shielded at the UN.
But make no mistake—Trump is hardly an alternative. The idea that Donald Trump, that tweeting embodiment of impulse control failure, will tell Netanyahu to stand down is laughable. Trump has long worn his servility to the Zionist right like a badge of honor. From moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, to recognizing Israel’s annexation of Syrian land, to greenlighting whatever Netanyahu wants short of nuking Tehran, Trump has proven himself more court jester than commander.
And yet, ironically, Trump might be the only American figure with the personal sway over Netanyahu to dial things down—if he were not completely compromised by the very neocons he once pretended to scorn. His sporadic instincts toward de-escalation are always crushed by the whisperings of Kushner and company. So, don’t bet on The Donald becoming the dove.
Iran: The Last Adult in the Room
That leaves Iran—still standing, still sober. It is a country that has been demonized, sanctioned, infiltrated, and attacked, yet still insists on a negotiated path forward. Its leadership has made clear, repeatedly, that it seeks nuclear energy, not nuclear weapons. This is not merely rhetoric; it is codified in the very document the United States once championed: the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Iran signed decades ago and Israel still refuses to even acknowledge.
Iran has lived up to its obligations more than any other state in the region. The UN’s own nuclear watchdog has consistently confirmed Iran’s compliance with nuclear agreements—until, of course, the U.S. unilaterally tore up the JCPOA under Trump, to Netanyahu’s applause.
Even after that betrayal, Iran offered to return to the deal. It waited. It negotiated. It tolerated assassinations of its scientists. It endured economic warfare. And still, it waited.
No more.
Iran’s recent military response to Israeli aggression was not impulsive, nor was it disproportionate. It was the logical endpoint of a year-long campaign of patience met with violence. The message was clear: Israel will no longer strike without consequence.
And while Western media are quick to hyperventilate about Iranian “provocations,” it’s worth remembering that Iran has never attacked another country unprovoked in modern history. Israel, by contrast, makes a sport of it.
Two Roads Out: Capitulation or Consequence
The question now is: Who can rein in Netanyahu?
Path one is theoretical: Trump tells him to stop. But that would require Trump to be both politically independent and intellectually coherent—two traits he has never displayed simultaneously. It’s far more likely he’ll throw Israel more weapons while congratulating himself for “bringing peace.”
Path two is brutal but real: a military defeat so undeniable that Israel’s deterrence myth shatters. That defeat could come from a coordinated front of state actors like Iran and Syria, or from non-state actors like Hezbollah, whose arsenal and experience far outstrip anything the Israeli military has faced in recent years.
A real loss—not just in PR or the court of global opinion, but on the battlefield—might be the only language Tel Aviv understands. Only then might its leaders reconsider the wisdom of perpetual war as a national ideology. Until then, the mad dog will keep biting, and the empire will keep pretending it’s a misunderstood puppy.
The Path Forward—or the Plunge
This is not a call for war, but a warning about where one-sided diplomacy ends. The current trajectory is unsustainable. Israel cannot continue to bomb every neighbor that resists its hegemony, all while demanding the world view it as a besieged democracy. Iran cannot be expected to absorb aggression forever without retaliating. And the United States cannot keep pretending to be a neutral arbiter while funding and arming one side to the teeth.
The Middle East is being pushed toward an abyss—not by Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but by Israel’s sense of impunity and America’s addiction to double standards. The real danger isn’t that Iran will develop a bomb; it’s that Israel will keep acting like it already used one.
The irony, of course, is that the only player showing any rationality, any restraint, any desire for long-term regional stability, is the one demonized most loudly in Western capitals. Iran, with all its flaws and complexities, has acted like the grown-up in a room full of arsonists.
But even adults lose patience. And when they do, history doesn’t care who claimed to be the victim—it only remembers who lit the match.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/when-the-mad-dog-bites-netanyahu-iran-and-the-empire-that-feeds-it/
--------
History Says The Genocide In Gaza Will Be Recognised – Eventually
Somdeep Sen
17 Jun 2025
Over the past 20 months, I have often asked myself: how long does it take to recognise crimes against humanity?
In Gaza, one would think the genocidal intent of the Israeli military campaign and the scale of the tragedy are self-evident. And yet, the genocide continues. Why?
It turns out the world has a dismal record when it comes to recognising – and acting against – crimes against humanity while they are being committed.
Take, for instance, the case of colonial-era genocides.
Between 1904 and 1908, German colonists massacred 65,000 Herero and 10,000 Nama people in Namibia in what is often considered the first genocide of the 20th century. This campaign of extermination was Germany’s response to a tribal uprising against the colonial seizure of Indigenous lands.
The atrocities of this period were described as “one long nightmare of suffering, bloodshed, tears, humiliation and death”. Oral testimonies from survivors were recorded and published in a British government document known as the Blue Book in 1918. At the time, it was “a rare documentation of African voices describing the encounter of African communities with a colonial power”.
But in 1926, all copies of the Blue Book were destroyed in an effort to ensure that the African perspective on the genocide would “no longer be found and preserved in a written form”.
Germany formally recognised the massacre as a genocide and issued an apology only in 2021.
A similar pattern unfolded during the Maji Maji uprising in present-day Tanzania in 1905, which was triggered by German attempts to force the Indigenous population to grow cotton. Germany’s scorched earth response killed an estimated 300,000 people. Rebels were publicly hanged, and some of their skulls and bones were sent to Germany for use in pseudoscientific experiments intended to “prove” European racial superiority.
An apology for these atrocities came only in 2023 when German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier spoke at the Maji Maji memorial in Songea, southern Tanzania.
Even in the years leading up to the Holocaust, little was done to protect Jewish people fleeing persecution.
Following the Nazi rise to power in 1933, Jews in Germany were subjected to a growing number of laws stripping them of their rights, along with organised pogroms. Well before the outbreak of the second world war, many German Jews had already begun to flee. Yet while many host countries were well aware of the rise of antisemitism under Adolf Hitler’s regime, they maintained highly restrictive immigration policies.
In the United Kingdom, a rising tide of anti-Semitism shaped government policies. Authorities enforced strict immigration controls and declined to dedicate significant resources to provide shelter or humanitarian aid for Jewish refugees. The United States similarly maintained restrictive quotas and systematically denied visa applications from German Jews, citing what contemporaneous officials described as an “anti-alien climate” in Congress and “popular opposition to the prospect of a flood of Jewish newcomers”.
Today, apartheid in South Africa evokes near-universal condemnation. But this was not always the case.
The UK’s relationship with apartheid South Africa is revealing. Historians have shown that successive Labour and Conservative governments between 1960 and 1994 – prioritising colonial ties in Southern Africa and economic interests – repeatedly refused to impose economic sanctions on the apartheid regime.
History casts an equally harsh light on President Ronald Reagan and Henry Kissinger.
Reagan’s policies of “constructive engagement” and opposition to sanctions were driven by the desire to undermine the African National Congress (ANC), which his administration viewed as aligned with communism. After receiving the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize, Archbishop Desmond Tutu described Reagan’s approach as “immoral, evil and totally un-Christian”.
Kissinger, as US secretary of state under President Gerald Ford, gave prestige and legitimacy to the apartheid regime with a visit to South Africa in 1976 – just three months after the Soweto massacre, when security forces gunned down unarmed students protesting against the forced use of Afrikaans as a medium of instruction. Reportedly, neither apartheid nor the massacre were discussed during his visit.
In 1994, more than 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered in Rwanda over 100 days. Sexual violence was systematically used as a weapon of war, with an estimated 250,000 women raped. Hutu militias reportedly released AIDS patients from hospitals to form “rape squads” to infect Tutsi women.
Despite warnings from human rights groups, United Nations staff, and diplomats that genocide was imminent, the world did nothing. UN peacekeepers withdrew. France and Belgium sent troops – not to protect Rwandans, but to evacuate their own nationals. US officials even avoided using the word “genocide”.
It was only in 1998 that US President Bill Clinton issued a formal apology during a visit to Kigali: “We did not act quickly enough after the killing began … We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name: genocide.”
Given this history, it is hard to feel hopeful about the situation in Gaza. But as with other crimes against humanity, a day of reckoning may come.
What Israel has carried out in Gaza is a genocide in real time – one that is being livestreamed, documented, and archived in unprecedented detail.
Sniper fire killing Palestinian children. The assassination of poets. The bombing of hospitals and schools. The destruction of universities. The targeted killing of journalists. Each act has been captured and catalogued.
Israeli politicians have made public statements indicating that the campaign’s goal is ethnic cleansing. Videos show Israeli soldiers looting Palestinian homes and boasting of the destruction.
Human rights groups have meticulously documented these crimes. And a growing number of governments are taking action, from diplomatic rebukes to the imposition of sanctions.
There is a saying in Hindi and Urdu: Der aaye, durust aaye. It is often translated as, “Better late than never.” But as a colleague explained, the phrase originates from Persian, and a more accurate translation would be: “That which comes late is just and righteous.”
Justice for Palestine may come late. But when it does, let it be correct. And let it be righteous.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/6/17/history-says-the-genocide-in-gaza-will-be-recognised-eventually
-------
After The Strike: Israel's Opportunity For A Diplomatic Breakthrough With Iran
By Yoram Dori
June 17, 2025
The strike Israel carried out against Iran was precise, resolute, and technologically advanced. It reflected extraordinary intelligence capabilities and bold operational execution. Its reverberations were felt not only in Tehran but also in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. Israel made clear its red lines – and its determination to defend them.
Still, let us not be under any illusions: this was a tactical victory, not a strategic solution. Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains largely intact. The scientific expertise behind the program cannot be bombed. Its ballistic missile arsenal has not been dismantled. And above all, its ideological and strategic intent to threaten Israel – directly or via proxies in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, and Yemen – remains undeterred.
A window for a diplomatic initiative
Precisely now, when deterrence has been temporarily reestablished and the world’s attention is focused, a narrow but exceptional window has opened for a diplomatic initiative. Israel, together with the United States and other global partners, must act boldly to launch a political process aimed at curbing Iran’s ambitions and restoring regional stability.
This is not a task for Israel alone. Regional players – especially moderate Arab states who also view a nuclear Iran as a dire threat – have a critical role to play. The Abraham Accords created a foundation of trust and common interest. That foundation can now be expanded into a broader coalition for peace and security. A united front of Arab and Western nations pressing for deescalation and non-proliferation would carry far greater weight than any military strike.
Such a diplomatic move should demand:
A verifiable halt to uranium enrichment beyond civilian levels.
Dismantling of long-range missile capabilities that could deliver nuclear payloads.
An end to support for militias and terror groups targeting Israel and destabilizing neighboring states.
Now is the time for statesmanship
This would not be a gesture of naivete. It would require strength, perseverance, and international coordination. But it is the only path to convert operational success into enduring strategic benefit.
Yes, there is a natural sense of pride – even triumph. But this is not the time for complacency: It is the time for statesmanship. The next phase must be political – backed by diplomacy, vision, and responsibility.
After years of war, uncertainty, and rising regional tension, the opportunity exists to turn a dangerous moment into a turning point. It is time to think not only tactically but strategically – and not only nationally, but regionally and globally.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-858026
------
Behind The Gulf’s Condemnations: A Strategic Interest In Israel's Strikes On Iran
By Moran Zaga
June 17, 2025
For decades, the primary security goal of the Gulf monarchies has been to contain and diminish the military capabilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Its conventional threat, its relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons, and its campaign of regional subversion via proxies pose a fundamental threat to their stability and, in some cases, their very existence.
Nevertheless, in the immediate aftermath of Israel’s recent strike against Iran, a chorus of condemnation echoed from Arab Gulf capitals. This was accompanied by a rather monolithic analysis from many regional commentators and Gulf-based think tanks, portraying the attack as an act of aggression misaligned with Gulf interests.
According to these interpretations, Israel’s actions destabilize the region, damage the path of dialogue the Gulf monarchies worked hard to achieve, and risk a retaliation from Iran that will harm their own security.
The factors shaping public discourse
This public discourse has been shaped by three primary factors. First are the official condemnations themselves, which are often treated as the definitive expression of Gulf policy. This creates an apparent dissonance between public statements and underlying strategic imperatives.
Second is the ongoing dialogue that nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have opened with Iran, a pragmatic shift after years of a more hawkish approach and being physically targeted by Iranian aggression. It wasn’t long ago that these states led vocal, and at times military campaigns against Iran and its proxies.
Third, and critically, is the current Arab sentiment towards Israel. The deeply emotive images emerging from Gaza and the low standing of the current Israeli government can reasonably shape public opinion on any action it undertakes.
Shared strategic interests
However, a more complex reality lies beneath this surface. The Israeli strike aligns with the core strategic interest of all six Gulf states to reduce Iran’s dominance and weaken the extremist ayatollahs’ regime. This shared interest bridges states from Iran-friendly Qatar to a Saudi Arabia in the midst of a new rapprochement, and even to a traditionally neutral Oman.
One of many examples is the reported elimination of the senior Iranian commander who orchestrated the devastating 2019 attack on Saudi Arabia’s Aramco facilities. With that single act, Israel effectively delivered a form of justice for the kingdom. It is therefore safe to assume that it prompted a few smiles in Riyadh.
The diplomatic dialogue initiated in recent years was born not of newfound trust, but of pragmatism. After a decade of confronting Iran, this diplomatic track provided a temporary, vital quiet. It created the stability needed for the UAE to host the Expo, for Qatar to host the World Cup, and for Saudi Arabia to concentrate on its Vision 2030, part of a regional pivot toward economy-based diplomacy.
This quiet, however, while productive, is both deceptive and fragile. It may have paused the threat, but the fundamental Iranian danger has not changed. In that context, the public denouncements are a tactical move to deflect potential retaliation from Iran, not a strategic goal to protect Iranian empowerment.
A more nuanced perspective from Gulf scholars might be expected. What seems to be missing is a deeper analysis that acknowledges the not-so-distant past of the Gulf leaderships’ attitudes toward Iran, questioning the current dialogue approach, and recognizes the long-term interest of the Arab Gulf in a safer, more stable Middle East, a goal Israel’s actions may be helping to realize.
Beyond public statements, Gulf leaders face a genuine strategic dilemma between hedging and choosing a credible coalition. With a real possibility that the United States will join Israel’s campaign against Iran, and with international legitimacy for countering Iran’s military entrenchment at an unusual high, the Arab Gulf states have a rare opportunity to help reshape the regional order to serve their long-term interests.
Coordinated action could significantly degrade Iran’s military infrastructure and disrupt the foundations of its extremist regime, potentially setting back its regional ambitions by decades. Such a move holds a great promise of a safer Middle East for all.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-858036
-------
Innovation And Investment: Israel's Path To National Resilience
Byyigal Bracha
June 17, 2025
For decades, the State of Israel invested in building military superiority – developing advanced defense systems, nurturing a robust defense industry, and maintaining a technological and intelligence edge. This investment paid off: Israel gained global recognition as a powerhouse capable of anticipating and confronting threats with strength.
However, in the reality of 2025 – as Israeli society faces accumulating traumas, repeated attacks, economic uncertainty, and ongoing civil tension – a new form of superiority is required: superiority in resilience. Our mental and communal resilience is just as crucial as our military might.
Today, as the gap widens between emotional burden and the system’s capacity to respond, we must understand that mental resilience is no longer a matter of social welfare – it is an integral part of Israel’s national security.
The current situation requires a different systemic solution
Following major military operations and amid prolonged crises, we see a sharp rise in psychological distress among the public. In places like Sderot, the Gaza border region, and frontline communities, this reality is experienced daily. Resilience centers operate beyond capacity, waiting times for emotional support are long, and many affected individuals never receive treatment – either due to lack of accessibility or because the system fails to identify them in time. This situation demands a change in approach – a systemic solution that thinks differently.
At the Innovation Hub in Sderot, we encounter this reality up close. Alongside teenagers raised in emergency conditions, there are entrepreneurs working from within the crisis – not from high-rise towers in central Israel, but from life itself.
Today, technologies already exist that can detect hidden anxiety in children, monitoring systems that provide early alerts for stress conditions, and platforms offering immediate emotional support at the press of a button. These tools do not replace therapists – but they break the barrier to seeking help, make assistance accessible, and enable early detection. They can ease the burden on existing systems, support preventive care, and add a real-time protective layer.
The state must invest in solving the crisis
Despite all this, the field still lacks focused national investment in Israel. Mental and community resilience is not yet at the center of national innovation efforts, and entrepreneurs in the field often encounter regulatory hurdles, lack of incentives, and real difficulty breaking through. Yet this is a domain with tremendous economic, therapeutic, and social potential – and Israel, with its accumulated experience in daily threat management, can become a global leader.
We already have what it takes: accumulated knowledge, resilient communities, existing support systems, and groundbreaking innovators. If the state manages to connect these dots, not only will it help millions better cope with crises, but it will also generate a new, value-based growth engine. This need extends far beyond the southern region. Burned-out teachers, overwhelmed medical staff, anxious teenagers, and isolated senior citizens all need accessible, tailored solutions – not just delayed responses.
If we understood that to protect the physical borders of our country we needed Iron Dome, it’s time to understand that to protect the borders of our inner selves, we need a Dome of Resilience. This is not just a moral statement: it is a strategic vision. Investing in resilience technologies and mental health is not a luxury – it is essential to our continued existence as a strong, stable, and secure society.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-858049
------
Self-Defence And Acceptable Murder: Netanyahu Dreams Of Regime Change
By Dr Binoy Kampmark
June 17, 2025
These are the sorts of things that tend to be discussed in bunkered facilities and grimy locker rooms. Now, very much in the open and before the presses, the head of state of one country is openly advocating murdering another head of state before news outlets with little reaction. Lawbreaking has become chic, and Israel has taken the lead.
The pre-emptive, illegal strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure by Israel was not merely an attempt to arrest an alleged existential threat from yielding fruit (that weapons of mass destruction canard again); it was also a murderous exercise of institutional decapitation. Instead of receiving widespread condemnation in the halls of Washington, Brussels and other European capitals, there was cool nonchalance: Israel was within its right to limitlessly expand its idea of self-defence, a concept now so broad it has become a crime against peace.
We have seen how that self-defence so far operates. In Gaza, it functions on the level of starvation, the levelling of critical infrastructure, the killing of scores of civilians in each strike, the displacement of populations by the hundreds of thousands, the murdering of aid workers, and shooting those desperately in need of humanitarian aid as it is rationed by private security companies.
Regarding Iran, the flexible scope of Israeli self-defence includes the killing of a thick layer of military leaders, preferably while sleeping in the bosom of their families. Such figures include Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces; Hossein Salami, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC); Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the air force wing of the IRGC; Esmail Qaani, commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force; and Ali Shamkhani, an aide to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Of the scientists associated with Iran’s nuclear program, some 25 are on the assassination list, what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu libellously designated “Hitler’s nuclear team”. Thus far, the murders of 14 have been confirmed by sources cited in the Times of Israel. The Israeli Defense Forces have published some of their names, including nuclear engineering specialist Fereydoon Abbasi; physics expert Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi; chemical engineer Akbar Motalebi Zadeh; and nuclear physicist Ahmadreza Zolfaghari Daryani. Many of the figures are said by Israel to have been the intellectual progeny of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the touted father of the Iranian nuclear project.
Having killed the father in 2020, Israel has, with biblical brutality, sought to exterminate the brood and rob the cradle. With a mechanical formality bordering on the glacial, an IDF statement declared that, “The elimination of the scientists was made possible following in-depth intelligence research that intensified over the past year, as part of a classified and compartmentalized IDF plan.”
The attacks have broadened, suggesting a nationwide program of destabilisation. Oil and gas facilities have been struck, including the world’s biggest gas field, the South Pars. Not satisfied, Defence Minister Israel Katz promised to attack Iran’s media outlets, having an eye on Iranian state broadcaster IRIB: “The Iranian propaganda and incitement mouthpiece is on its way to disappear.” True to his word, the outlet was attacked even as TV anchor Sahar Emami was broadcasting, a crime captured in real time. In doing so, Israel replicates its own efforts in Gaza, which have seen the killing of 178 journalists since October 2023, the most lethal conflict ever recorded for media workers.
Netanyahu will not stop there. He smells the vapours of regime change and societal chaos, and, as his American counterparts did on eve of their illegally led invasion of Iraq in 2003, merrily feeds the notion that foreign interference can masquerade as liberation. “I believe the day of your liberation is near,” he haughtily proclaimed to Iran’s downtrodden subjects.
His most wishful target yet remains the religious leaders of the country. In an interview with ABC news, the Israeli PM was frank that killing Khamenei would not escalate the conflict so much as end it. He had been reluctantly dissuaded from doing so by US President Donald Trump, according to Reuters, Associated Press, Axios and Israel’s Channel 13. To Axios, a US official said that the administration had “communicated to the Israelis that President Trump is opposed to that. The Iranians haven’t killed an American, and discussion of killing political leaders should not be on the table.” Given Israel’s elastic stretching of self-defence, such restraint is likely to change.
Not wishing to be too modest, Netanyahu would have you think that he has done the world a moral service. “I’ll tell you what would have come if we hadn’t acted,” he boasted in a video message. “We had information that this unscrupulous regime was planning to give the nuclear weapons that they would develop to their terrorist proxies. That’s nuclear terrorism on steroids. That would threaten the entire world.”
These words are a chilling echo of the rationale used by the George W. Bush administration in attacking Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, ostensibly to disarm him of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that had already been eliminated. (The US had, as cheer leaders and supporters, those other fine students of international law: the United Kingdom and Australia.) As part of Washington’s “Global War on Terror”, President Bush explained in his 2002 State of the Union address that North Korea, Iran and Iraq constituted an “axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.” By seeking WMDs, such states “could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred.” Many justifications for using force in international relations, especially regarding the language of illegal war, are reruns of plagiarism.
For Netanyahu, killing Iranian leaders and the scientific intelligentsia was a salvaging antidote, a point he was trying to impress upon his US allies. “Our enemy is your enemy… We’re dealing with something that will threaten all of us sooner or later. Our victory will be your victory.” Forget international law and its contrivances, its disciplining protocols and hindering conventions. In its place, an unvarnished rogue state which, by any other name, would be as criminally dangerous.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250617-self-defence-and-acceptable-murder-netanyahu-dreams-of-regime-change/
------
A Mad Dog And A Muzzled Empire: Israel, Iran, And The Limits Of Strategic Patience
By Junaid S. Ahmad
June 17, 2025
There are moments in history when diplomacy dies with a whimper, not a bang. But this time, it may die with both. Israel, drunk on decades of unpunished aggression, has now hurled itself off the ledge of military recklessness, dragging its American enablers and the wider Middle East into yet another chapter of chaos. The target of this new Zionist tantrum? Iran—a nation of 90 million with a long memory, a steady hand, and a remarkable tolerance for provocation. Until now.
For over a year, Iran has exercised something bordering on saintly restraint. While Israeli airstrikes lit up Damascus, assassins lurked in the streets of Tehran, and mysterious “technical failures” befell Iranian infrastructure, the Islamic Republic did not take the bait. It could have retaliated a dozen times over, and with justification. But instead, it opted to keep the regional powder keg dry, all while engaging in serious, good-faith negotiations with the United States over its nuclear program. To say Iran was the adult in the room is not a compliment—it’s a condemnation of everyone else in it.
But Netanyahu, Israel’s increasingly unstable Prime Minister, has now crossed the final line. Israeli jets have struck Iranian territory directly, in a shocking escalation that reveals the full scope of Tel Aviv’s lunacy. This was not a response to a threat. It was the threat. A nuclear-armed apartheid state just launched preemptive attacks on a non-nuclear state engaged in diplomacy.
Even by the low standards of Israeli bellicosity, this is unhinged.
The world should be screaming. But the world, once again, is silent—because Washington is complicit. As always.
The belligerent state with a messiah complex
Let us dispense with illusions: Israel’s foreign policy is not defensive. It is expansionist, supremacist, and governed by a messianic impulse to dominate the region militarily while playing the eternal victim diplomatically. Whether in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, or now Iran, the modus operandi is the same—instigate, provoke, strike first, cry foul, and expect a standing ovation from Capitol Hill.
This pattern is not new. But what is new is the scale and brazenness of Israeli aggression. What began as a genocidal war on Gaza—ongoing now for over twenty months—has metastasized into a regional campaign of destabilization. In Syria, Israel bombs airports and infrastructure with impunity. In Lebanon, it inches toward war with Hezbollah, hoping to drag the country into a devastating conflict. And now, the unthinkable: open war against Iran.
Netanyahu’s strategy is not just reckless; it is suicidal. But like many dangerous ideologues, he doesn’t mind taking the world down with him. His calculus is simple: provoke Iran until it retaliates, then scream “existential threat” and demand American intervention. It’s a cynical, high-stakes game, and one that only works because Washington plays along.
America: The empire that enables
One might have thought that after Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, the United States would have learned a thing or two about the costs of blind loyalty to Israeli security fantasies. But here we are again: the Pentagon nods, Congress claps, and the President mutters something about “Israel’s right to defend itself,” as if Iran had randomly decided to bomb itself and blame Tel Aviv for sport.
The Biden administration, much like its predecessors, had chosen to subcontract U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East to a right-wing ethnostate with a bunker mentality. And while the Bidenites have at times seemed less enthusiastic than the Trump-era neocons, their actions (or inaction) speak volumes. Every Israeli bomb dropped on Iranian or Arab soil is American-approved, American-funded, and American-shielded at the UN.
But make no mistake—Trump is hardly an alternative. The idea that Donald Trump, that tweeting embodiment of impulse control failure, will tell Netanyahu to stand down is laughable. Trump has long worn his servility to the Zionist right like a badge of honor. From moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, to recognizing Israel’s annexation of Syrian land, to greenlighting whatever Netanyahu wants short of nuking Tehran, Trump has proven himself more court jester than commander.
And yet, ironically, Trump might be the only American figure with the personal sway over Netanyahu to dial things down—if he were not completely compromised by the very neocons he once pretended to scorn. His sporadic instincts toward de-escalation are always crushed by the whisperings of Kushner and company. So, don’t bet on The Donald becoming the dove.
Iran: The last adult in the room
That leaves Iran—still standing, still sober. It is a country that has been demonized, sanctioned, infiltrated, and attacked, yet still insists on a negotiated path forward. Its leadership has made clear, repeatedly, that it seeks nuclear energy, not nuclear weapons. This is not merely rhetoric; it is codified in the very document the United States once championed: the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Iran signed decades ago and Israel still refuses to even acknowledge.
Iran has lived up to its obligations more than any other state in the region. The UN’s own nuclear watchdog has consistently confirmed Iran’s compliance with nuclear agreements—until, of course, the U.S. unilaterally tore up the JCPOA under Trump, to Netanyahu’s applause.
Even after that betrayal, Iran offered to return to the deal. It waited. It negotiated. It tolerated assassinations of its scientists. It endured economic warfare. And still, it waited.
No more.
Iran’s recent military response to Israeli aggression was not impulsive, nor was it disproportionate. It was the logical endpoint of a year-long campaign of patience met with violence. The message was clear: Israel will no longer strike without consequence.
And while Western media are quick to hyperventilate about Iranian “provocations,” it’s worth remembering that Iran has never attacked another country unprovoked in modern history. Israel, by contrast, makes a sport of it.
Two roads out: Capitulation or consequence
The question now is: who can rein in Netanyahu?
Path one is theoretical: Trump tells him to stop. But that would require Trump to be both politically independent and intellectually coherent—two traits he has never displayed simultaneously. It’s far more likely he’ll throw Israel more weapons while congratulating himself for “bringing peace.”
Path two is brutal but real: a military defeat so undeniable that Israel’s deterrence myth shatters. That defeat could come from a coordinated front of state actors like Iran and Syria, or from non-state actors like Hezbollah, whose arsenal and experience far outstrip anything the Israeli military has faced in recent years.
A real loss—not just in PR or the court of global opinion, but on the battlefield—might be the only language Tel Aviv understands. Only then might its leaders reconsider the wisdom of perpetual war as a national ideology. Until then, the mad dog will keep biting, and the empire will keep pretending it’s a misunderstood puppy.
The path forward—or the plunge
This is not a call for war, but a warning about where one-sided diplomacy ends. The current trajectory is unsustainable. Israel cannot continue to bomb every neighbor that resists its hegemony, all while demanding the world view it as a besieged democracy. Iran cannot be expected to absorb aggression forever without retaliating. And the United States cannot keep pretending to be a neutral arbiter while funding and arming one side to the teeth.
The Middle East is being pushed toward an abyss—not by Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but by Israel’s sense of impunity and America’s addiction to double standards. The real danger isn’t that Iran will develop a bomb; it’s that Israel will keep acting like it already used one.
The irony, of course, is that the only player showing any rationality, any restraint, any desire for long-term regional stability, is the one demonized most loudly in Western capitals. Iran, with all its flaws and complexities, has acted like the grown-up in a room full of arsonists.
But even adults lose patience. And when they do, history doesn’t care who claimed to be the victim—it only remembers who lit the match.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250617-a-mad-dog-and-a-muzzled-empire-israel-iran-and-the-limits-of-strategic-patience/
-------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/iran-israel-gcc-war-mccarthyism/d/135903
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