Middle East Press On: Iran, Israel, Palestine, America, Nuclear: New Age Islam's Selection, 23 June 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
23 June 2025
History is Watching: Will the World on Iran Legitimize Israel?
The Iran Attack: A War for the Future of the Middle East and Palestine
Iran-Israel War: An economic storm for America and the world
Nukes or Be Bombed: How US and Israeli Strikes On Iran Legitimised Nuclear Weapons
The Architects of Instability: How Israel and The US Ignited the Middle East Nuclear Crisis
Why Does the World Think Israel Is the Aggressor?
-----
History is Watching: Will the World on Iran Legitimize Israel?
By Jeremy Salt
June 23, 2025
When the British Prime Minister justifies the American-Israeli aggression against Iran by citing Britain’s alliance with both countries, he is saying much more than that. His statement also implies that Britain does not regard the Palestinians as allies.
This should come as no surprise. It was, after all, British hostility and enmity toward the Palestinian people that enabled the colonization of Palestine and the dispossession of its indigenous population.
I have often wondered whether my recent observations about the particularly low caliber of today’s British politicians were an exaggeration. And yet, once again, a statement like this comes along and proves me right. Starmer’s response reveals not only ignorance but also a disturbing lack of compassion and a complete absence of moral backbone.
But he is not alone. Those who held power in recent years in Britain and Europe, from both Left and Right, have consistently been exposed in such moments—moments in history that demand knowledge, humanity, and moral courage. We are in such a moment now, as we were in 2003.
We are witnessing an unprovoked Israeli aggression against a state that does not have, to put it mildly, the best record of respecting civil and human rights. A state that supports the Palestinian struggle, while many other countries in the region are normalizing relations with Israel and allowing it to continue its destruction of Palestine.
This is a complex situation, as is the broader reality of civil and human rights in the Middle East. Western leaders lack the capacity to engage with such complexity, because their policies are shaped by narrow electoral interests and capitalist expediency, not by moral values.
If they did, they would need to be able to distinguish between key aspects of the current reality. For example, they would have to recognize the difference between people who are oppressed by their regimes—some in the most extreme ways, others more subtly—and people who are the object of elimination and extermination. This is the crucial distinction between those who suffer from abuses of rights in many Middle Eastern countries and the Palestinians.
They would also need to recognize the difference between repression and lack of freedoms in the decolonized Middle East and life within the only part of the region that is still under colonial rule: Palestine.
They would have to acknowledge that the ongoing colonization of Palestine is not just an Israeli project, but first and foremost a Western-Israeli venture. And as long as Palestine is not decolonized, two unfortunate phenomena will continue to trouble the people of the region.
First, it will allow unscrupulous regimes to use support for Palestine as an excuse for not improving the freedom of their own citizens; and second, it will provide the West with a shield of impunity for the project of eliminating the Palestinians.
Israel chooses allies to normalize the colonization and dispossession — Palestinians cling to anyone who, at this point in time, might help prevent their elimination as a country and as a nation.
Western politicians, quite astonishingly, use the most disturbing yardstick for deciding which of the oppressive regimes in the Middle East should be condemned and which should be regarded as allies. There is only one test that either includes or excludes you from the family of “civilized nations”: your regime’s willingness to normalize the colonization and dispossession of Palestine.
This seems to be too complex for Keir Starmer. Iran is against Israel, and therefore it is deemed an abuser of civil and human rights—not because of its poor record of respecting its citizens’ basic rights. The horrible truth is that, should the Shah or his ilk return to power in Iran and continue their old regime of oppression, they would once again become the West’s and Britain’s best allies—as long as they renew Iran’s alliance with Israel and normalize the project of eliminating Palestine.
What we demand from Western politicians is not just that they end their double standards and exceptional hypocrisy, but that they internalize a few facts of life—which, I am sorry to say, this current political elite is as unable as it is unwilling to do.
First, they must clearly see the connection between ending the oppression in Palestine and the West’s ability to intervene constructively in matters of civil and human rights in the region. These two are inextricably connected. The more Palestinians are liberated from oppression, the more likely it is that other people in the region will be liberated as well.
Secondly, it is important to adopt a universal approach to civil and human rights—one that is not based on capitalist or strategic interests, but rather on values—and to apply it globally, without exceptionalism. This includes its application to the West, where oppression is perhaps subtler, yet remains institutional, and becomes far more visible when Western societies dare to show solidarity with the Palestinians.
Finally, there is no doubt that we should all stand with those who are imprisoned, tortured, or executed for opposing repressive regimes. But this must not overshadow the urgent need to prioritize ending an ongoing genocide unfolding on our doorstep.
As members of society, we can—and must—do both: fight for the rights of citizens under oppressive regimes worldwide, and work relentlessly to stop an ongoing and escalating genocide.
For governments, the choice is even clearer: they must act more urgently and decisively to end a genocide, while continuing to strive for a better world in which no regime is allowed to abuse its citizens under any pretext.
The Anglo-American bombing of Iraq in 2003 led to the death of one million Iraqis and was based on the false accusation that the Iraqi army possessed weapons of mass destruction ready to be used against the UK.
Today, Iran is being bombed under the false pretext of preparing a nuclear attack on Israel. In essence, both attacks were carried out as part of a broader effort to strengthen Israel—that is, to further normalize the project of colonization and dispossession.
Europe—and Britain in particular—refuse to come to terms with the fact that their idea of building a European Jewish state in the heart of the Arab world, at the expense of the Palestinians, was a bad idea. It also failed to resolve the very problem it claimed to address: Europe’s inability to accept its Jews as Europeans.
This project became an established fact because it appealed to Christian fundamentalists, who saw it as a prelude to the return of the Messiah, and attracted Islamophobic imperialists, eager to dominate the Arab world and build a bastion against the “barbarians” who, in their view, threaten the “civilized world.”
It had to be established and maintained through the constant use of violence and force. Bombing Iran is just another chapter in this maintenance work. But it will not make Israel any safer or more legitimate in the eyes of much of the world, because its main outcome will be an Israeli assertion that the project of eliminating Palestine can now proceed without hindrance.
Fortunately, history has taught us that such projects of elimination fail when they are met with resistance and resilience—resistance supported by millions of people who still possess a modicum of decency. The Palestine they envision is one that serves as a model of a country free from oppression of any kind.
Will our politicians in Britain ever be part of this group of people? Or will they find themselves on the wrong side of history, leaving us to wait for more decent human beings to help end this terrible chapter in our shared human story?
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/history-is-watching-will-the-world-on-iran-legitimize-israel/
------
The Iran Attack: A War for the Future of the Middle East and Palestine
By Jeremy Salt
June 22, 2025
After centuries of dominating the Muslim and Arab worlds through war, invasion, occupation and subversion, the ‘west’ is close to what must be the apogee of its unbridled, insensate, racist violence. A reminder, of course, that the war on Muslim countries has been all along a subset of the half-millennium war by the imperial ‘west’ on the rest of the world.
The outcome of the war on Iran will reset the scene for the next century. Either Iran successfully resists or the Middle East will fall under the ‘western’ hammer for the next century.
Iran is defending more than Iran. It is defending Palestine, it is defending the hopes and aspirations of Arabs and Muslims everywhere to decide their own future instead of constantly having it wrenched away from them. By extension, it is defending the same hopes and aspirations of the entire global south.
The conquest of the Middle East and North Africa began with the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt in 1798. It collapsed after a few years but set off the race for domination, which gradually embraced the entire region. The language was ‘civilization’, the means the most technically superior weapons of the time, available only to the Europeans.
Thus the date pit bullets coated with lead the Algerians shot at the French in the 1830s, thus the spears and rifles the Sudanese warriors had against the Maxim guns lined up by the British at Omdurman in 1898; thus the ‘stealth fighters’ and ‘smart bombs’ used in the war on Iraq in 2003; thus the armed drones killing women and children in Yemen and Palestine; thus the ‘bunker buster’ bombs about to be dropped on Iran; thus the nuclear weapons readily available if all else fails.
This is not the supposed moral superiority of a civilization but the superiority produced by technology generated by wealth in a modern industrial society. It does not always win and can fail when the unexpected happens, such as when Japan defeated Russia in their war of 1904-05. The military triumph of an ‘Asian’ power shocked the ‘west’ but showed that Europeans could be defeated at their own game, and gave hope to the oppressed of the world everywhere.
In the 19th century ‘great game’ between Russia and Britain, Iran was right at the crossroads between British India and Russian-dominated Central Asia. The efforts of Iranians to free themselves from the menace of these two powers and the misrule of the corrupt Qajar shahs began in the late 19th century.
The ‘tobacco revolt’ of 1890, when Iranians refused to smoke tobacco until the shah withdrew full control over the growth, harvesting, and sale of tobacco he had given to a British national, was a key event. Successful, it was followed by the rise of a constitutional movement supported by all sectors of Iranian society in which women played a powerful and even radical role.
In 1906, mass protests forced the shah to declare a constitution and then open a parliament. The battle between the people and the shah over constitutional government continued until the Shah called in thousands of Russian troops in 1911 and closed the Majlis. The disruption of the First World War ended with the downfall of the Qajar shahs and the British-backed installation of the first Pahlavi shah.
These events need to be seen in the context of imperial aggression against other Muslim lands at the time even as their thirst for territory was bringing the European powers closer to a war amongst themselves.
Almost all of Africa had been brought under their control when the ‘Agadir crisis’ of 1911 brought Germany and France close to open conflict. In the same year, an Italian army invaded Ottoman Libya, and in 1912, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro invaded Ottoman Macedonia, with the scarcely concealed covert support of their powerful imperial allies.
By this time, the discovery of oil at Masjid al Sulaiman in 1908 had locked Iran in as an indispensable ‘western’ asset to be held, whatever the cost to others. Oil and not coal was now the energy source of ‘western’ military and industrial power. Countries with it could not be allowed to be independent.
In 1911, an outsider, an American, W. Morgan Shuster, was appointed Iran’s Treasurer-General. While his job was to reorganize Iran’s finances, it brought him face to face with British and Russian intrigues.
He sums up his reaction in his book The Strangling of Persia (1912) when he writes of how difficult it was to “adequately portray the rapidly shifting scenes attending the downfall of this ancient nation – scenes in which two powerful and presumably enlightened Christian countries played fast and loose with truth, honor, decency and law.” The same phrases are apt to describe the unprincipled and lawless wars the ‘west’ has launched against Muslim countries since 9/11 created the opportunity. 1
Shuster’s book foreshadows Trump’s intention to murder Ayatullah Khamenei. Occupying Tabriz in 1911, the Russian military governor hanged the senior religious figure in the city. As Shuster writes, quoting a British journalist, “the effect of this outrage on the Persians was that which would be produced on the English people by the hanging of the Archbishop of Canterbury on Good Friday.”
In 1951, a nationalist government led by Muhammad Mossadegh nationalized oil, then in the hands of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. In 1953, he was overthrown in a joint operation by the CIA and M16. Fleeing the country shortly beforehand, Shah Reza Pahlavi was reinstalled, this time determined to rule and not just reign, which he did largely through his infamous SAVAK secret police and intelligence network.
Time finally ran out in 1979 when he fled the country ahead of the return from exile of the Ayatullah Ruhullah Khomaini, who had been launching open attacks on the regime since the 1940s, had been thrown out of his country and had helped to orchestrate the overthrow of the regime from France.
This was an Iranian Islamic revolution. One of the first acts of the new government was to hand the Israeli embassy over to the PLO, which brings us to the central point of what the current attack on Iran is all about: Palestine.
Had Iran dropped the Palestine question. it could have had peace with the US at any time. That is all it had to do. In fact, from President Rafsanjani’s time onwards, Iran made it clear it was ready to work with the US, and allow US corporations to set up businesses in Iran under favorable conditions. President Khatami extended the same olive branch in his time, only for sanctions to be tightened.
The problem always was Palestine. Iran stuck to the letter of international law and would not budge despite all the threats and inducements. Moreover, Israel was continuously engaged in brutal military attacks on the Palestinian civilian population and on virtually all countries surrounding Palestine.
The attack on Lebanon alone in 1982 took the lives of 20,000 people and was a harbinger of much worse to come, as seen in the attacks on Gaza leading up to October 7, 2023, and on Beirut and southern Lebanon in the year after that event.
Through all of this, Iran never budged from its principled position as the anchor in the ‘axis of resistance.’ The US tried to destroy it in the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-1989, but failed. It suffered terrible casualties but soon recovered and became a leading figure in BRICS, the contemporary equivalent of the non-aligned movement in the 1950s.
Thwarted, Israel tried to pull it down at every opportunity, assassinating its scientists in Iran, its military commanders in Syria and attempting to cause chaos through electronic warfare sabotage.
Netanyahu was obsessed but could not persuade the US to launch a joint attack. The second-best choice was the proxy war on Syria (2011-2024), which was an attempt by the ‘west’ and Israel to destroy the central arch in the strategic alliance between Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.
This succeeded in December 2024, when the Syrian government collapsed and a puppet installed himself as president. By this time, in September, Israel had killed or maimed hundreds of Lebanese civilians in its pager attacks and had assassinated key figures in Hezbollah’s military and political chain of command. It had previously assassinated Hamas’ chairman Ismail Haniyeh when he was in Tehran for the inauguration of President Raisi, himself soon to die in a helicopter ‘accident’ that has all the hallmarks of a Mossad assassination.
From Israel’s perspective, these were very successful years; genocide in Gaza without anyone to stop it; the overthrow of the Syrian government and the crippling of Hezbollah’s leadership.
Sykes-Picot placed the Middle East in the hands of the ‘west’ for the last century, and if Iran can now be dismembered, it will be ‘safe’ for the next century, too. The great beneficiary will be Israel, free to expand to its biblical borders, at the expense of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps even Turkey.
Trump seems to be in two minds about whether to join Israel in a mass attack on Iran, but that could be propaganda. The plans have already been drawn up, but if he hesitates, it’s because he does not have his administration, the Congress, the American people or even his own MAGA movement behind him. Moreover, Americans have had enough of Middle East wars and do not want to be caught up in another one, especially on behalf of one that is widely recognized in the US as a genocidal state.
Even taking all this into account, Trump seems ready to go. He prefers Netanyahu’s lies to the findings of his own intelligence network, as summarized by Tulsi Gabbard, that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon. Not that the attack on Iran is about nuclear weaponry anyway, but rather Israel seeking the destruction of a state standing in the way of its full regional hegemony.
This is Netanyahu’s big moment in history, the one he has planned for decades, and he is not about to let it slip away. He is already indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, but there will be plenty of time for future generations to wonder why such a depraved criminal was not stopped before he pulled the world to the edge of the abyss. Over it remains to be seen.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/the-iran-attack-a-war-for-the-future-of-the-middle-east-and-palestine/
-------
Iran-Israel War: An economic storm for America and the world
by Greg Pence
June 22, 2025
As the war launched by Israel against Iran sets the Middle East ablaze, the global economy teeters on the brink of an unprecedented crisis. Israel’s strikes on Iran’s key infrastructure, and Tehran’s retaliatory responses, have shaken energy markets and sounded alarm bells for the economies of the US, Israel, and the wider world. The Strait of Hormuz—through which 20% of the world’s oil and a quarter of its liquefied natural gas flows—is under threat of closure, and even the mere possibility of such a scenario has driven energy prices to catastrophic levels. For the United States—already burdened with $37 trillion in debt, chronic inflation, and widespread fatigue from foreign entanglements—full-scale involvement in this conflict could spell economic and geopolitical suicide.
Relentless shock to energy markets
Above all, the Iran-Israel war has imperiled global energy markets. The Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 million barrels of oil—one-fifth of the global supply—and a quarter of global LNG pass daily, now faces crisis due to Iranian threats of closure. Israeli attacks on Iranian oil infrastructure, including Kharg Island—responsible for over 90 per cent of Iran’s oil exports—have disrupted global supply. According to Bloomberg, Brent crude prices rose from $72 in early June 2025 to $78 per barrel, and Goldman Sachs analysts warn that the closure of Hormuz could push prices to $150 or even higher.
For the US, such an oil shock would have devastating consequences. Every $10 increase in oil prices raises consumer inflation by 0.5%. If prices hit $130 per barrel, inflation in the US could jump to 5.5 per cent, forcing the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates—an action that could derail the fragile economic recovery. Gasoline prices, currently around $4 per gallon, could surge to $7 or more, placing unbearable pressure on American households already struggling with high living costs. Clear View Energy Partners estimates that such a price spike could add up to $2,500 annually to household fuel expenses. Key sectors like transportation, manufacturing, and agriculture would face rising costs, threatening the 2 per cent economic growth forecast by the IMF for 2025.
Israel is not immune to this energy shock either. Shutdowns of the Leviathan and Karish gas fields—which supply two-thirds of the country’s gas—have forced Israel to rely on more expensive fuels like coal and fuel oil. This has increased domestic energy costs and halted gas exports to Egypt and Jordan, reducing Israel’s foreign currency earnings.
Global fallout: Inflation, recession, and supply chain collapse
The Iran-Israel war threatens the global economy through rising energy prices, supply chain disruptions, and inflationary pressures. Higher oil prices raise production costs in critical sectors like petrochemicals, plastics, and agriculture, driving up consumer goods prices worldwide. Asian countries such as India, Japan, and South Korea—which are heavily reliant on oil imports—face these shocks with limited reserves and mounting currency pressure. In Europe, which turned to Gulf LNG after Russian gas was cut off, disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could cause energy prices to skyrocket and push already sluggish economies into recession.
Global financial markets are also trembling. After Israel’s initial strikes on June 13, 2025, the U.S. S&P 500 index fell by 2 per cent and Europe’s STOXX 600 dropped by 1.8 per cent. Capital Economics predicts that a broader regional war could cut global growth by 0.4 per cent and increase inflation by 1.5 per cent, pushing the world toward 1970s-style “stagflation.” Escalated attacks by Iranian proxies, such as the Houthis in the Red Sea, have raised maritime insurance costs by up to 30 per cent, disrupting global supply chains. For the US—highly dependent on Asian imports—this means higher prices and shortages of essential goods.
Israel, too, faces a deepening domestic economic crisis. According to Middle East Monitor, the war is costing the country $200 million daily—equal to 5 per cent of its 2025 GDP. Israeli economist Yaakov Sheinin has warned that a prolonged conflict with Iran could wipe out 20 per cent of Israel’s GDP and push the country into a full-blown financial crisis.
Strategic risks for the United States
Full-scale US involvement in this war carries unprecedented economic and geopolitical risks. With $37 trillion in national debt and a $1.8 trillion annual deficit, the US cannot afford another Middle East war. The Iraq experience—which cost over $2 trillion—shows how such interventions drain national resources. General Douglas Macgregor has warned that defending against Iran’s cheap $20,000 drones with $4 million Patriot missiles would rapidly deplete the US military budget. Moreover, the 40,000 US troops stationed in the Persian Gulf are vulnerable to Iranian missile attacks, risking heavy human and financial losses.
Geopolitically, American intervention threatens its global alliances. European countries, which support nuclear diplomacy with Iran, are likely to oppose unilateral US military action. China and Russia—both diplomatically aligned with Iran—could exploit the chaos to expand their influence in the Middle East, further weakening America’s global position. Kyle Rodda, a financial markets analyst, told Al Jazeera that a major war could jeopardize the US-China strategic rivalry by diverting American resources into the Middle East.
Domestically, public support for military intervention is low. A YouGov poll in June 2025 showed that a clear majority of Americans oppose involvement in the Iran-Israel war, with only a small minority in favor. Rising gas prices and inflation could fuel public discontent and political instability, especially as the 2026 midterm elections approach.
A war that could break the global economy
The Iran-Israel war is an existential threat to the economies of the US, Israel, and the world. Oil shocks, soaring inflation, and supply chain disruptions are only part of the fallout. For America, entering this war would mean skyrocketing gas prices, economic recession, and a weakened global standing—all while its public and allies oppose such a move. Israel faces devastating financial and economic costs that could cripple its economy. Diplomacy, however difficult, remains the only way to avert this economic storm. The United States must learn from its past mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan and exercise restraint, paving the way for negotiations. The world is on the edge of a cliff—and only diplomatic wisdom can pull it back from the brink.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250622-iran-israel-war-an-economic-storm-for-america-and-the-world/
--------
Nukes Or Be Bombed: How US And Israeli Strikes On Iran Legitimised Nuclear Weapons
by Mazlum Özkan
June 22, 2025
In mid-June 2025, tensions in the Middle East took a sharp and dangerous turn. On 13 June, Israel launched a targeted airstrike inside Iranian territory. Just days later, On 21–22 June, the United States joined in—striking Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.
The justification was predictable: prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. But the deeper, unintended effect was far more consequential. These strikes did not dissuade nuclear ambitions, they rationalised them. For Iran, and for many others watching, the lesson is becoming impossible to ignore: in the absence of nuclear deterrence, no nation is safe.
A strike meant to prevent what it may have justified
Iran has no confirmed nuclear weapon. It remains a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and its Supreme Leader upholds a religious fatwa banning weapons of mass destruction. And yet, it was bombed twice by two nuclear-armed powers acting outside international authorisation.
US President Donald Trump praised the airstrikes as a “spectacular success,” claiming Iran’s nuclear sites had been “completely obliterated.” He later warned Tehran that “many more targets” were on the list. The message was clear: disarmament does not protect you, compliance is not enough.
This logic undermines decades of diplomatic effort. It creates a world where restraint is punished and power, once again, becomes the only guarantee of sovereignty.
Psychological warfare by other means
Iran’s nuclear program has long existed under scrutiny. But what made these June strikes different was their psychological impact. They exposed the limits of legal and moral arguments against nuclear arms. Iran’s leaders, who had once proudly cited religious and diplomatic justifications for restraint, now face a stark reality: none of that stopped the bombs.
What does this teach other countries? That not having a bomb makes you more likely to be attacked. That treaties, religious principles, and inspections offer no real protection when a hegemon decides it’s time to strike.
The effect is contagious. From the Middle East to South Asia and beyond, regional powers are watching and reconsidering whether restraint is still a viable strategy.
The double standard at the heart of the crisis
The United States and Israel both maintain robust nuclear arsenals. Yet they reserve for themselves the right to decide who else may or may not acquire such weapons. This is the structural hypocrisy embedded in the non-proliferation regime: one rule for the powerful, another for the rest.
Israel has never acknowledged its nuclear arsenal, but it is widely believed to possess over 90 nuclear weapons, including submarine-launched capabilities. Meanwhile, the United States maintains one of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals—3,700 warheads as of January 2025, with 1,770 actively deployed across land, air, and sea platforms. Yet the US continues to frame its Middle East policy as one of containing proliferation, even as it shields Israel from scrutiny and excludes its arsenal from all regional non-proliferation discussions.
Instead of discouraging proliferation, these strikes affirm its necessity, at least in the eyes of those who feel increasingly exposed.
Proliferation as the new rationality
The true damage of the US-Israeli attacks may not be measured in craters or casualties, but in strategic shifts. Iran still publicly rejects the pursuit of nuclear arms, but its political calculus has shifted. What once seemed like a dangerous or immoral option now looks like the only way to ensure national survival.
This shift is not limited to Tehran. In Riyadh, Ankara, Cairo, and even in capitals far beyond the Middle East, the idea of nuclear deterrence is gaining appeal, not out of aggression, but out of fear.
The logic is harsh, but persuasive. When a non-nuclear state is bombed by nuclear ones, what incentive remains for restraint? For many nations, the answer is shifting from faith in treaties to faith in deterrence.
The stated goal of the strikes was to stop Iran from going nuclear. Instead, they may have sent a clearer message to the world; only nuclear powers are safe.
This is the new strategic reality in a world where great powers strike with impunity, the nuke become more than a weapon, it becomes a shield.
And so, far from halting proliferation, these strikes may mark the beginning of a new era; one where more nations quietly, urgently, and rationally decide to pursue nuclear arms; not as a threat, but as a shield.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250622-nukes-or-be-bombed-how-us-and-israeli-strikes-on-iran-legitimised-nuclear-weapons/
-----
The Architects of Instability: How Israel and The US Ignited The Middle East Nuclear Crisis
by Peter Rodgers
June 22, 2025
Israel and the United States, through aggressive policies and exaggerated narratives, have created a threat in the Middle East that did not previously exist. Israel’s large-scale attacks on Iran in June 2025, known as Operation “Lion’s Rise,” along with the US’s implicit support of these actions, have pushed Iran toward a path it had previously avoided: moving toward nuclear weapons as a deterrent. These attacks, targeting both military and civilian Iranian facilities and causing dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries, took place while Iran was engaged in indirect negotiations over its nuclear program. Instead of weakening Iran, these attacks have strengthened the country’s determination to acquire nuclear capability because Iran’s conventional deterrence against Israeli attacks has proven inadequate. These aggressive policies, rooted in baseless claims of an “imminent threat” from Iran, have not only destabilized the region but also pushed Iran toward an option it had previously avoided.
Before the June 2025 attacks, Iran was negotiating with global powers to revive the JCPOA, talks that could have eased tensions and kept Iran’s nuclear program under international supervision. However, Israel, with tacit support from the Trump administration, disrupted these talks with its strikes. These attacks, carried out under the pretext of preventing a “nuclear threat,” happened while the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had reported no evidence of Iran moving toward nuclear weapons. In fact, Iran had for years followed a “nuclear threshold” policy—maintaining the technical capability to build a nuclear weapon without crossing the red line of actual production. But Israeli attacks, which damaged the Natanz facility and targeted nuclear scientists, have put Iran in a position where nuclear deterrence might be seen as the only way to preserve its sovereignty. These attacks could motivate Iran to accelerate its nuclear program because its conventional defenses against Israeli strikes have proven weak. This shift is a direct result of Israeli and American policies that sacrificed diplomacy for military adventurism.
A history of provocation and unintended consequences
Israel and the US have previously created threats through similar actions that could have been managed through diplomacy. Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor is a historical example. That attack, justified as preventing Iraq’s weapons program, not only failed to stop Iraq’s nuclear ambitions but pushed Iraq to pursue its program covertly underground. Today, Israel’s attacks on Iran, which targeted Natanz but failed to destroy the key Fordow facility, increase the risk of repeating this scenario. Instead of eliminating the threat, these attacks have strengthened Iran’s motivation to acquire nuclear weapons, as Iran now sees its conventional deterrence as insufficient. US support for these attacks—even if indirect, through withdrawing diplomats from the region before the strikes and failing to intervene—reflects alignment with this risky strategy. These policies have not only pushed Iran toward nuclear weapons but also increased the risk of a regional arms race.
Israel’s attacks on Iran, backed implicitly by the US, have had broad consequences for the Middle East and the world. Conducted amid nuclear negotiations, these strikes weakened diplomacy and brought the region closer to wider conflict. Iran responded with missile and drone attacks on Israel, causing deaths and significant damage. This cycle of action and reaction, rooted in Israel’s initial strikes, could further destabilize the region—especially as Iranian-backed groups like the Houthis continue to disrupt stability. Beyond the region, this conflict threatens global energy supply chains, since Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz and could disrupt oil flow. Moreover, escalating tensions raise the risk of a nuclear arms race, as countries like Saudi Arabia may seek similar weapons in response to Iran’s nuclear progress. These outcomes—direct results of aggressive Israeli policies and US backing—demonstrate a threat created that could have been avoided through diplomacy.
Iran’s deterrence dilemma
Iran, which for years avoided developing nuclear weapons, now faces a situation where it may see nuclear arms as the only deterrent against repeated Israeli aggression. Reports indicate Iran possesses enough material for nine nuclear bombs but had refrained from crossing its nuclear threshold. Recent attacks targeting civilian sites and scientists have shifted this calculus. The New York Times reports that Iran may accelerate its nuclear program to prevent future strikes. This change in approach is a direct consequence of Israeli and American policies that sidelined diplomacy and pushed Iran toward an option it had long avoided. Iran may now conclude that acquiring nuclear capability is the only way to preserve its sovereignty and deter Israel—a threat that did not exist prior to these attacks.
By creating a nuclear threat that previously did not exist, Israel and the US have endangered the region and the world. The June 2025 attacks not only failed to halt Iran’s nuclear program but strengthened Iran’s resolve to obtain nuclear weapons. The world now faces the risk of a regional arms race and global instability—circumstances that diplomacy could have altered. The international community, especially the West, must end its blind support for Israeli actions and instead focus on reviving nuclear talks with Iran. Only through diplomacy can escalation be prevented and the region kept from the brink of nuclear war. Israel and the US, through their flawed policies, have created a threat that didn’t have to exist—now is the time to correct this mistake.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250622-the-architects-of-instability-how-israel-and-the-us-ignited-the-middle-east-nuclear-crisis/
------
Why Does the World Think Israel Is the Aggressor?
By Irwin J. (Yitzchak) Mansdorf
JUNE 23, 2025
Where in the civilized world is a shopping trip to the supermarket considered risky behavior? For anyone living in Israel right now, the answer is obvious.
Iran’s indiscriminate missile attacks that Israelis have been experiencing are different from anything experienced before. The missiles are bigger and better, and there are many, many more of them to contend with.
When they hit, the results can be deadly. Anywhere other than a secure and proper shelter is dangerous. Being out in the open when an attack happens exposes oneself to this risk making going to the supermarket and getting back quickly, a real adventure.
Since October 7, 2023, Israel has been engaged in two “types” of war. The first type of obvious, observable war is the military type, where Israel’s edge is considerable. The second, less obvious but just as important type is the psychological or “perception” war, where Israel’s edge lags.
As we are now clearly into a long-awaited confrontation with Iran, the focus is noticeably on Israel’s military abilities – but as in many conflicts, what may determine who “wins” will be how the world perceives the battle.
The goal is not just to hurt Iran militarily but to make sure that the threat from the land of ayatollahs is not only diminished but eliminated completely and for good.
For Israelis and many other like-minded people, this is a clear choice between right and wrong, between good and evil.
Moral inversion
But as we have learned since October 7, when the distinction was so clear, so obvious – or so we thought – the perception battle may turn out quite differently from what we all think. If recent history is at all a guide, we can’t afford to take anything for granted.
The concept of moral inversion is one that was first introduced by scholar Michael Polanyi and has come to be understood today as the process of confounding values with one another. Moral becomes immoral, good becomes bad, and right becomes wrong.
Nowhere has the process of moral inversion become clearer than in the fight Israel has been leading against Islamic terror. One only needs to look to the streets and campuses of the West to see putatively intelligent, moral people advocating on behalf of what seemed on October 7 to be so obviously wrong.
Moral inversion takes Jewish victimhood in the Holocaust and inverts it to create a false “genocide” against a force that has planned just that against Israel. Jews become Nazis and Palestinians become Jews – a strange scene reminiscent of Rod Serling’s Twilight Zone.
With Iran, a country that denies that a Holocaust ever took place, the enlightened world of moral inverters now has another “victim” they can turn their attention to in their battle against Israel.
This is another example of asymmetric warfare, the psychological kind, where any “victim” has the advantage over the opposing side and where objectivity fades away.
The Iranians, masters in psychological warfare, have already begun to apply the lessons of victimhood. Israel’s elimination of much of Iran’s military leadership – leaders planning the destruction of the Jewish state – took place in a residential neighborhood.
Israel has already been accused of attacking civilian targets, even though the operation was surgical. It conducted a preemptive strike, and now Iran has charged Israel with being an aggressor and starting a war.
Already, terms like “de-escalation” are being used by certain leaders to describe what is expected between Iran and Israel, as if de-escalating before a legitimate threat is verifiably eliminated is a morally good thing.
Hitting civilian targets, starting a war, refusing to end the violence – these are all morally reprehensible actions, but without placing these actions in the framework of fact, they lack objectivity or truth and are detached from reality.
They become morally inverted, and instead of being used to create justice, are used to perpetrate injustice. In its place, we are told that the supermarkets and residential buildings targeted in Israel are in fact military targets.
In the coming days and weeks, we will all see the results of the military confrontation that Israel did not seek but was forced to undertake against Iran. The concerted psychological manipulation that Iran will engage in against Israel will be less obvious but will have the goal of taking these military gains and washing them down.
We live in a world that has not always looked at morality in a clear and proper manner. Defending against the moral inversion that is sure to come from places we don’t expect will be the challenge. Let us hope that the enlightened West will be up to it.
And hopefully, going to the supermarket in Israel will once again become a boring and uninteresting activity.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-858541
-------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/iran-israel-palestine-nuclear/d/135949
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