Middle East Press On: Israel, Iran, War, Diplomacy, Jewish, Hamas: New Age Islam's Selection, 17 June 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
17 June 2025
The High Horse Of Jewish Dissent: Why Some Jews Attack Israel And Support Hamas
If Israel Is Going To Survive War With Iran, Its People Cannot Lose Hope
No Time For Diplomacy: The West Must Stand With Israel Against Iran
Israel Shouldn't Let Up On The Houthis While Attacking Iran
Israel Cannot Settle For A Temporary Military Win, It Must Topple The Islamic Regime
Condemning The Right To Self Defence: Iran’s Retaliation And Israel’s Privilege
Iran Vs. Israel: Adults In The Room Need To Act Quickly
Settling For Half A Victory In The Iran-Israel War
European Powers Must Push For Iran-Israel Ceasefire
Israel’s Strikes On Iran Spark Growing Dissent In US Congress
No Turning Back: Israel And Iran Locked In Direct Military Confrontation
-----
The High Horse Of Jewish Dissent: Why Some Jews Attack Israel And Support Hamas
Bymicah Halpern
June 17, 2025
Why do so many Jews deride Israel? It’s a question I have encountered countless times since that horrific day, October 7, 2023. A question phrased in so very many different ways. It is a question that I am being asked again, in the aftermath of Israel’s dazzling attack against Iran on June 13.
Today, “Why is it that so many Jews side with Hamas?” has morphed into a movement of young people and pensioners who seem to hate what Judaism and Israel stand for. A movement that is powered by their hate, disdain, and distrust of their own heritage for Judaism. A movement that stands in stark contrast to the values held dear by their mothers and fathers, and the generations of Jews who fought to live as Jews and fought for the existence of the Jewish state.
While the Jews who hate Jews are large in number and louder still in expressing their vitriol, the majority of Jews, lovers of Judaism and Israel, are stunned. For them, the looming question is: How can Jews give credibility to the attacks on Jews and cheer on attacks against Israel? They ask: What are these self-hating Jews thinking? What are they hoping to gain?
I take these questions seriously. If Jews see other Jews as self-hating, imagine what non-Jews are thinking.
MY FIRST answer is that the terminology is wrong. These Jews are not self-hating Jews; they actually like themselves. They don’t deny being Jewish. And many believe that their critique and attacks on other Jews, and on Israel, are very much what their definition of Judaism demands of them.
Essentially, what these hypercritical Jews despise are “Jewish Jews.” What they cannot, and will not countenance are proud Jews. Their disdain and derision are reserved for Jewish-looking Jews and, in their minds, that category most certainly means Israeli Jews.
Personally, I do not use the term self-hating Jews. I do not encourage its use.
Self-Jews is a misnomer: They are on their high horse
Self-hating simply does not accurately describe those Jews who join in pro-Hamas activities and attacks on other Jews. The term trivializes the impact of Jews who attack Israel for striking at enemies of the Jewish state and strafing Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. These groups, young and old, derive perverse pleasure from jumping on their high horses and proudly pronouncing to the world what we know to be their mistaken, self-serving, and thoughtless drivel.
I use the idiom “high horse” for a reason. The meaning is clear. To jump on your high horse means to arrogantly look down upon those with whom you disagree. Once, one’s status was tied to the height of their horse; the higher their horse, the higher their stature in society.
Everyone who has read Cervantes’s Don Quixote (or has seen Man of La Mancha) knows this is true. Sancho, the sidekick, rode a small donkey while Don Quixote, the hero of this amazing tale, rode a tall horse.
THE LIST OF Jews who separated themselves from mainstream Jewish interests and sided with those who attacked Jews is both long and illustrious. Henry Kissinger is a classic example. In his spectacular biography, Kissinger: A Biography, Walter Isaacson quotes Kissinger – as prominent a Jew as one could be in appearance and background – as saying: “If it were not for the accident of my birth, I would be antisemitic.”
The author also quoted the master of “shuttle diplomacy” as saying: “Any people who have been persecuted for 2,000 years must be doing something wrong.”
This is from the revered diplomat who crafted the US Middle East foreign policy and influenced the attitudes toward Israel of both US presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.
The term self-hating Jew is not new. The expression was coined in 1930 by the controversial German-Jewish writer Theodor Lessing in his book Der Jüdische Selbsthasser (The Jewish Self-Hater). Even before that, Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, was termed by some as a self-hating Jew. Maybe because Herzl celebrated Christmas and even had a Christmas tree in his home.
Norman Podhoretz, the conservative political commentator who wrote about “self-hating Jews,” used the term quite often. For him, a self-hater was a Jew who was unduly critical of Israel. Today, there are many Jews – too many Jews – who fit that criteria.
We must brace ourselves. Their voices will be loud and their conduct unbecoming. But solace comes in knowing that those Jews are far outnumbered by proud and supportive Jews, and by lovers of Israel.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-857936
------
If Israel Is Going To Survive War With Iran, Its People Cannot Lose Hope
By Jpost Editorial
June 17, 2025
Amid the pain and devastation caused by the Iranian ballistic missile barrages – by the loss of life and the destruction of homes and neighbourhoods – Israel must not lose heart.
Yes, the stories of innocent civilians killed in their homes are heart-wrenching. The images of familiar streets reduced to rubble are gut-churning. But Israel must not lose heart.
That, precisely, is what the enemy wants.
The damage caused by Iran’s missile salvos – while real and painful – pales in comparison to the damage Israel is inflicting on Iran.
Israel is relentlessly striking at Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, its intelligence capabilities, and key installations of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and is doing so systematically and with precision.
There is no alternative, we must not lose hope
Iran is launching volleys of 40, 50, or 60 missiles at a time, gambling that a few will break through Israel’s missile defense network and cause maximum carnage. And yes, some do slip through, causing loss of life. But even then, Israel must not lose heart.
Nor resolve.
The pain is real, the pictures are hard to look at, and the reality is cruel and often feels unbearable. But it is something this country – if it wants to survive in this region – must bear. There is no alternative. A nuclear-armed Iran is not something Israel can tolerate.
As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said repeatedly, Israel cannot allow a regime ideologically and theologically committed to its destruction to acquire the means to carry out that destruction.
If Iran were ever to obtain those capabilities – or build an arsenal of tens of thousands of long-range ballistic missiles, which it is actively trying to do – then the devastation of the past few days would look minor by comparison.
Israelis understand this. Despite deep political divisions and the personal sacrifices everyone is being asked to make, an overwhelming majority of the public backs Netanyahu’s decision to attack Iran.
If Israel learned anything from October 7, it is that enemies who are ideologically committed to your destruction cannot simply be wished away. They will act on their ideology.
The lesson is clear: stop them while you still can. The internalization of that lesson – that painful but necessary shift in mindset – is what this war is all about. Alongside the imperative not to lose heart, Israelis must also do something else: believe in themselves – and in the country’s extraordinary capabilities.
Over the years, that self-confidence has been steadily chipped away, eroded by the drip-drip of voices insisting Israel can’t.
It can’t act alone. It can’t take out Iran’s nuclear program. It can’t defeat its enemies without help. It doesn’t have the leadership. It doesn’t have the will or the staying power.
But over the last week, it has shattered the assumption that it can’t fight back.
This is not a call for arrogance or overconfidence. That, too, can be fatal, as we saw on October 7 – overconfidence in our deterrence, technology, and intelligence capabilities – all of which helped pave the way to catastrophe.
But a lack of confidence can be just as crippling and dangerous.
Before October 7, Israel feared decisive action. We told ourselves that our enemies were only getting stronger, that Hezbollah’s arsenal was now untouchable, and that any strike on it would trigger a brutal barrage on Israeli cities.
We said the same about Iran – that the head of the octopus couldn’t be reached, only the tentacles. That hitting Tehran was off-limits. That the cost would be too high. That we didn’t have the capabilities. That we couldn’t do it alone.
But we can. And we are.
It’s not as if our enemies have spent the last two decades advancing while we’ve stood still. Yes, they’ve developed capabilities. But so have we – at an even faster rate. We’ve innovated. We’ve built. We’ve countered.
It’s dangerous to underestimate your enemies. But it’s just as harmful to underestimate yourself. Do that, and you may fail to act in time to neutralize a metastasizing threat before it becomes irreversible.
The amount of skill, patience, and cunning required to carry out Friday’s strikes in Iran – strikes that took years to plan – proves we didn’t underestimate Iran. It does not take these types of resources to defeat an enemy you underestimate.
But that we executed those strikes shows something no less important: we did not underestimate ourselves either.
And holding onto that belief – faith in our abilities, our resilience, and our purpose – is essential. Especially now, as the difficult and painful images continue to fill our screens, day after day.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-857970
------
No Time For Diplomacy: The West Must Stand With Israel Against Iran
Bymihai Razvan Ungureanu
June 17, 2025
The Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites, and Tehran’s retaliation against Israeli cities, have shaken the geopolitical landscape. Some observers urge restraint, as if that were a moral or strategic end in itself. But as a former prime minister of a NATO-member country, I must say clearly: There comes a time when restraint becomes cowardice, and ambiguity becomes complicity. This is one of those moments.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is not merely a rival to Israel. It is not merely a regional power with an inconvenient foreign policy. It is a rogue regime that has hijacked one of the world’s oldest and most cultured civilizations and weaponized it for terror, repression, and destabilization.
Iran has been at the heart of nearly every major crisis in the Middle East over the past two decades – not by accident but by design.
From its support of the Houthi rebels in Yemen, who have fired missiles at civilian and commercial targets; to Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has held an entire country hostage while amassing a rocket arsenal larger than that of most national armies; to the Shi’ite militias that have gutted the sovereignty of Iraq — this regime has methodically cultivated a network of proxies designed to destroy the regional order.
It has bankrolled and armed Hamas, whose horrific massacre on October 7, 2023, of Israeli civilians, including children and the elderly, should have erased all doubt about the nature of this network. The regime propped up Bashar al-Assad’s bloody dictatorship in Syria, helping it crush a popular uprising with chemical weapons and barrel bombs, before it finally collapsed last December.
It has worked to destabilize Jordan, a key Western ally and a pillar of regional moderation. And all the while, it has pursued a nuclear program shrouded in deceit so persistent and shameless that even the International Atomic Energy Agency has run out of diplomatic ways to express concern.
Yet too many in the West continue to pretend there is moral or strategic equivalence between this regime and the democratic state of Israel, which – whatever one’s opinion of its government – is an open society, an ally of the West, and a victim of repeated aggression. Too many equivocate, fearing to appear one-sided, even when the facts scream otherwise.
Iran's Islamic regime cannot be reformed or fixed
LET US BE absolutely clear: Iran’s regime is not misunderstood. It is not moderate in disguise. It is not reformable in its current form. It is a theocratic dictatorship that relies on repression at home and chaos abroad to sustain itself.
The West’s refusal to acknowledge this reality with clarity has already caused grave damage. The policies of appeasement and false balance have created a vacuum that Iran has rushed to fill. Diplomacy should never be abandoned, but diplomacy cannot exist in a vacuum of principle. When Iran uses negotiations not to seek peace but to buy time, as it has done for years, engaging in diplomacy for diplomacy’s sake becomes a dangerous illusion.
I have served in intelligence, foreign policy, and national leadership. My country has always had a special relationship with Israel, reflected in the fact that even during the Communist period, relations were not cut off. But this is a broader, universal matter.
I understand well the calculations that underlie official restraint. But I also understand history. Europe in the 1930s showed what happens when democracies, seeking calm above all else, engage in self-deception. Hitler’s rise was not inevitable. It was enabled by the West’s failure to act decisively when his power was still fragile. The doctrine of non-confrontation, of avoiding entanglements at all costs, did not prevent war; it guaranteed a catastrophic one.
In 1956, the West erred by failing to stand clearly with Hungary when Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest. In 2013, it erred by allowing Assad to cross the “red line” with chemical weapons, only to suffer no consequences. Today, we must not add another failure to that list.
Today, some Western voices caution that Israel’s strike on Iranian facilities could provoke further escalation. But the truth is, Israel did what many in the West privately admit needed to be done. It struck because it had no choice. It struck because Iran’s progress toward nuclear breakout, and its increasing impunity, left it no other option.
The alternative was to watch a genocidal regime complete the final piece of its destructive arsenal. No responsible government could accept that. And no ally of Israel should expect it to. Let us not confuse Israel’s imperfect democracy with Iran’s perfect tyranny. Let us not demand of Israel a standard of behavior we would not impose on ourselves under the same threats. And above all, let us not confuse diplomacy with delusion.
THIS IS A time for the Western alliance to show unity, not just behind closed doors, not just with leaks to friendly reporters, but publicly and proudly. We must say what should be obvious: that Israel acted in defense of itself and, indirectly, in defense of a regional and global order increasingly menaced by Iranian adventurism.
I call on NATO member states and EU leaders to abandon the language of “both sides” and speak clearly. Support for Israel does not mean uncritical endorsement of its every policy. It means recognizing the existential threats it faces, and the right it has to meet them with force when necessary.
There is a path forward. The United States and its allies must now lead a coordinated diplomatic initiative that does not merely seek a ceasefire, but demands something more fundamental: the rollback of Iran’s proxy network, the cessation of support for terrorist militias, and binding constraints on its nuclear program. And yes, we must make clear that the Iranian people deserve better than a regime that has squandered their wealth and heritage on a campaign of regional subversion.
In the long run, the only sustainable peace in the region is one in which Iran rejoins the family of nations as a normal country – not an ideological revolution in permanent confrontation with the world. But this will not be achieved through illusions or timidity.
There is a time for diplomacy, and there is a time for clarity. The world must now recognize which moment we are in.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-857942
----
Israel Shouldn't Let Up On The Houthis While Attacking Iran
Bynoa Lazimi
June 17, 2025
Late Saturday night, as part of Iran’s promised retaliation, in the form of a missile barrage that claimed the lives of 10 Israelis in the Western Galilee and in Bat Yam, missiles were also launched from Yemen.
According to a statement the next morning by the Houthi spokesperson, the attacks were coordinated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). In the background of these events, reports emerged that the chief of staff of the Houthi armed forces, Al-Karim Al-Omari, was targeted in a precision strike during a senior leadership meeting.
Weakening the Houthis
The Houthis are striving to project strength and resilience, even as their patrons come under attack. However, they enter this campaign from a relatively weakened position – having suffered significant damage to their military infrastructure, which they are struggling to rebuild, while facing a steady depletion of weapons and missiles, as well as eroding support on the home front. To this must be added the ongoing plans of Yemen’s legitimate government to carry out a ground operation to retake Hodeidah.
While US President Donald Trump’s ceasefire announcement took some of the wind out of their sails, it is likely that these plans have not been entirely abandoned. Given these conditions, the Yemeni rebels will not be able to devote their full attention to Israel and will be forced to remain on high alert.
At a time when Israeli attention is focused on Tehran, Israel’s operation against the Houthis is of strategic importance. It demonstrates that Israel is capable of operating simultaneously across multiple and even distant fronts. Any assumption within Hezbollah or among Iran-backed militias in Iraq that Israel is too preoccupied to respond is now being challenged.
Moreover, the operation underscores Israel’s ability to reach even senior commanders within the Yemeni militia. Targeting such high-level figures can damage the group’s morale and slow its operational momentum. This is of special significance in light of the recent American retreat from the Yemeni arena, which the Houthis have interpreted as a victory.
The integration of the navy in fighting the Houthis
In a notable shift from previous strikes, Israel has begun deploying its navy against the Houthis. While this development is partly due to the air force’s current heavy engagement in Iran, naval operations began even prior to June 13. Just last week, advanced Sa’ar 6-class warships launched long-range precision missiles at critical infrastructure in the port of Hodeidah. Unlike fighter jets, missile ships are designed for prolonged presence in the Red Sea, enabling greater operational flexibility and precision at long distances.
The integration of the navy may therefore mark a strategic shift; this is not a brief raid followed by immediate withdrawal but the beginning of a potentially sustained campaign.
Israel must continue to respond to Houthi attacks with firmness and consistency, sending a clear message to both the Iranians and their proxies that it is engaged in an all-out war against the axis of evil. Tehran must be made to understand that it cannot rely on its already faltering proxy network to tighten the noose around Israel.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-857923
-------
Israel Cannot Settle For A Temporary Military Win, It Must Topple The Islamic Regime
Bysaeed Ghasseminejad
June 16, 2025
The calls for restraint will come, as they always do. As Israeli military successes against the Islamic Republic of Iran mount, a chorus of international voices will urge Jerusalem to “take the win” and seek a diplomatic off-ramp. They will argue from a well-worn script, advising Israel to consolidate its victory from a position of strength. It is a tempting and logical-sounding argument that would be a catastrophic mistake.
For Israel, this is not a conventional conflict that can be concluded with a ceasefire and a treaty. It is a confrontation with an ideologically driven regime whose very identity is predicated on Israel’s destruction. To settle for anything less than the removal of the Islamist regime in Tehran is to merely pause a clock that is ticking towards a more dangerous future: a defeat in disguise.
A remarkable consensus is forming across the Israeli political spectrum on this critical point. When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks directly to the Iranian people, urging them that “your light will defeat their darkness,” he is doing more than scoring rhetorical points.
His words, echoed by key opposition figures like former prime minister Naftali Bennett, who has long expressed a desire to see the Iranian people freed from their oppressors, signal a fundamental shift. The debate in Israel is no longer about whether to confront Iran, but how to ensure the confrontation yields a permanent solution. The answer is clear: the regime must go.
Israel has degraded critical threats, it must do more
Israel’s immediate military actions have, by all accounts, been successful in degrading Tehran’s most critical threats. The three pillars of the regime's threat – its nuclear program, its ballistic missile arsenal, and its global terror network – have been shaken. But to believe these setbacks are permanent is to ignore decades of history.
The Islamic Republic’s ambition is resilient. Its nuclear program, though damaged, retains its most crucial asset: the knowledge to build a bomb. The scientists may be gone, the centrifuges shattered, but the blueprints remain. History shows us that after every setback, Tehran has rebuilt its program with greater speed, sophistication, and secrecy. To allow this regime to survive is to guarantee that it will rise from the rubble more determined than ever to cross the nuclear threshold, this time building deeper, more fortified sites, and learning from every Israeli success.
Similarly, its ballistic missile program is not merely a strategic asset; it is a core pillar of its regional dominance and its primary threat against the Israeli home front. While stockpiles can be destroyed and launch sites cratered, the industrial base and the engineering expertise remain. The regime’s leaders are driven by ideological and strategic imperative to maintain and advance this capability. They will rebuild, and they will aim for missiles that are faster, more precise, and capable of overwhelming any defense system.
Finally, the regime’s tentacular support for terrorism has been its primary method of waging war for decades. From Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Houthis in Yemen and militias in Iraq, this proxy network is Iran’s way of bleeding its enemies without risking a direct state-on-state war. Disrupting weapons convoys and eliminating commanders are necessary tactical actions, but they do not address the source of the cancer. As long as the head of the snake remains in Tehran, it will continue to fund, arm, and direct its legion of proxies to sow chaos and violence on Israel’s borders.
The nature of this regime is not subject to negotiation. It will not be pacified by diplomacy or deterred by temporary military defeats. Its commitment to regional hegemony and the destruction of Israel is woven into its very DNA.
Therefore, Israel faces a stark choice. It can heed the calls for de-escalation, enjoy a fleeting moment of victory, and allow a wounded and vengeful regime to reconstitute its strength for the next, more lethal, round. Or, it can commit to a policy that sees this conflict through to its only logical conclusion: to topple the regime once and for all. It is time to stop trimming the branches of the poison tree and focus on uprooting it entirely.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-857974
-------
Condemning The Right To Self Defence: Iran’s Retaliation And Israel’s Privilege
By Dr Binoy Kampmark
June 16, 2025
There is a throbbing complaint among Western powers, including those in the European Union and the United States. Iran is not playing by the rules. Instead of accepting with dutiful meekness the slaughter of its military leadership and scientific personnel, Tehran decided, promptly, to respond to Israel’s pre-emptive strikes launched on 13 June. Instead of considering the dubious legal implications of such strikes, an act of undeclared war, the focus in the European Union and various other backers of Israel has been to focus on the retaliation itself.
To the Israeli attacks conducted as part of Operation Rising Lion, there was studied silence. It was not a silence observed when it came to the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 by Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Then, the law books were swiftly procured, and obligations of the United Nations Charter cited under Article 2(4): “All members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any state.” Russia was condemned for adopting a preventive stance on Ukraine as a threat to its security: that, in Kyiv joining NATO, a formidable threat would manifest at the border.
In his statement on the unfolding conflict between Israel and Iran, France’s President Emmanuel Macron made sure to condemn “Iran’s ongoing nuclear program”, having taken “all appropriate diplomatic measures in response.” Israel also had the “right to defend itself and ensure its security”, leaving open the suggestion that it might have been justified resorting to Article 51 of the UN Charter. All he could offer was a call on “all parties to exercise maximum restraint and to de-escalate.”
In a most piquant response, Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories stated that, “On the day Israel, unprovoked, has attacked Iran, killing 80 people, the president of a major European power, finally admits that in the Middle East, Israel, and only Israel, has the right to defend itself.”
The German Foreign Office was even bolder in accusing Iran of having engaged in its own selfish measures of self-defence (such unwarranted bravado!), something it has always been happy to afford Israel. “We strongly condemn the indiscriminate Iranian attack on Israeli territory.” In contrast, the foreign office also felt it appropriate to reference the illegal attack on Iran as involving “targeted strikes” against its nuclear facilities. Despite Israel having an undeclared nuclear weapons stockpile that permanently endangers security in the region, the office went on to chastise Iran for having a nuclear program that violated “the Non-Proliferation Treaty”, threatening in its nature “to the entire region – especially Israel.” Those at fault had been found out.
The President of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, could hardly improve on that apologia. She revealed that she had been conversing with Israeli President Isaac Herzog about the “escalating situation in the Middle East.” She also knew her priorities: reiterating Israel’s right to self- defence and refusing to mention Iran’s, while tagging on the statement a broader concern for preserving regional stability. The rest involved a reference to diplomacy and de-escalation, toward which Israel has shown a resolute contempt with regards Iran and its nuclear program.
The assessment offered by Mohamed ElBaradei, former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was forensically impressive, as well as being icily dismissive. Not only did he reproach the German response for ignoring the importance of Article 2(4) of the Charter prohibiting the use of force subject to the right to self-defence, he brought up a reminder: targeted strikes against the nuclear facilities of any party “are prohibited under Article 56 of the additional protocol of the Geneva Conventions to which Germany is a party”.
ElBaradei also referred anyone exercised by such matters to the United Nations Security Council 487 (1981), which did not have a single demur in its adoption. It unreservedly condemned the attack by Israel on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear research reactor in June that year as a violation of the UN Charter, recognised that Iraq was a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and had permitted the IAEA inspections of the facility, stated that Iraq had a right to establish and develop civilian nuclear programs and called on Israel to place its own nuclear facilities under the jurisdictional safeguards of the IAEA.
The calculus regarding the use of force by Israel vis-à-vis its adversaries has long been a sneaky one. It is jigged and rigged in favour of the Jewish state. As Trita Parsi put it with unblemished accuracy, Western pundits had, for a year and a half, stated that Hamas, having started the Gaza War on October 7, 2023 bore responsibility for civilian carnage. “Western pundits for the past 1.5 days: Israel started the war with Iran, and if Iran retaliates, they bear responsibility for civilian deaths.” The perceived barbarian, when attacked by a force seen as superior and civilised, will always be condemned for having reacted most naturally, and most violently of all.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250616-condemning-the-right-to-self-defence-irans-retaliation-and-israels-privilege/
------
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
----
Settling For Half A Victory In The Iran-Israel War
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
June 16, 2025
This war had been brewing for two decades — long anticipated but repeatedly avoided. Both the Iranian and Israeli sides had succeeded in avoiding direct confrontation, limiting themselves to proxy wars, until the Oct. 7, 2023, attack happened. At that point, the Israelis decided to eliminate the sources of threat and shift their strategy from “mowing the lawn” — targeting the proxy threats as they grew — to destroying the entire octopus. They started with Hamas, then dismantled Hezbollah’s capabilities, exposed the Assad regime in Syria, and now the war has reached Iran.
There, Iran is developing its nuclear and missile capabilities, which have rendered Israel’s deterrence doctrine obsolete — making war necessary to restore the balance of power in Israel’s favour and reinforce deterrence.
When it comes to the Israeli concept of deterrence, the country’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion said: “A long war is not an option for us; deterrence is our true weapon.” Moshe Dayan explained it further: “We must scare them from even thinking of waging war, not just win it.”
Deterrence remains a cornerstone of Israel’s military policy and that is why it seeks — at least in theory — to strip Iran of its threatening capabilities. But fighting between two heavily armed and destruction-ready forces is an extremely dangerous affair. We have seen in recent history how wars have spun out of control.
Hassan Nasrallah never imagined that he and his group would be wiped out when he launched a few rockets. Bashar Assad never thought he would end up an isolated refugee in a suburb of Moscow. And Yahya Sinwar never envisioned the horrific destruction of Gaza when he planned the Oct. 7 attack.
It has only been a few days of fighting, yet the losses are significant. The Iranians have lost top-tier commanders and their nuclear and missile facilities have sustained major damage. The Israelis are bleeding too — Jaffa, Israel’s third-largest city, has suffered massive destruction not seen since the 1948 war, due to Iranian missile attacks. The Iron Dome did not offer full protection for a small country in terms of both population and land.
This confrontation differs from previous wars in terms of how victory and defeat are defined.
The Israelis are now prepared to tolerate heavy human losses. In the past, governments would fall if as few as five people were killed. So far, Israel has lost more than 400 soldiers in the Gaza war, and it has not stopped. That is what makes this different — both Israelis and Iranians are willing to bear the cost, and each side sees it as an existential war.
Each party accuses the other of crossing red lines by targeting civilians — seemingly laying the groundwork to justify expanding the war, just as happened in the Iran-Iraq War, when most missiles were deliberately aimed at cities. Israel’s defense minister warned that “Tehran will burn” if Iranian attacks on Israeli cities continue. This in turn will lead to the targeting of political leaders — who were considered off-limits at the start of the war.
Can the war be stopped in its first week? Israeli sources say they have achieved immediate success by dismantling Iran’s defenses — systems, missiles and command centers — but strategic Iranian capabilities remain, as not all facilities have been destroyed.
Will both sides settle for half a victory to halt the war and return to nuclear negotiations? Perhaps Tehran is willing in order to stop the ongoing destruction, while the Israelis do not yet seem satisfied with the results — they want to “complete the mission” to ensure Iran will not threaten them for the next 20 years.
There are other players too — particularly US President Donald Trump — who are likely inclined to stop the war. Will President Trump act in the second week, before things spiral out of control? How could it spiral? The Russia-Ukraine war began with two countries; today, it includes North Korean troops, Iranian drones and Western European experts.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2604710
-----
European Powers Must Push For Iran-Israel Ceasefire
Chris Doyle
June 16, 2025
An Israeli war against Iran, which so many have feared for decades, today threatens to engulf the world in a dangerous conflict with disastrous human, political, economic and environmental consequences. Israel has unilaterally jeopardized global security with a reckless gamble.
Many debate the position of the Trump administration. How much did it know and when? Was President Donald Trump opposed to the action but unable to stop belligerent Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu or did he quietly acquiesce? Is Netanyahu out of control? The White House has been supportive but not enthusiastic. The risk of Netanyahu sucking Trump into his war is genuine, not least if Israeli attacks on Iranian oil and gas infrastructure triggers Iran to block the Strait of Hormuz or attack oil and gas sites in neighboring states.
What are the options for major European powers? The Trump administration had excluded them from the Oman talks on a new Iran nuclear deal and kept them at arm’s length, even though they had been crucial in securing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement in 2015. But Europe will not be immune to the consequences of this war.
The British, French and German leaders have resorted to calling for de-escalation and restraint. This is limp. Israel could reduce the number of daily strikes and that might qualify, but it would resolve nothing. Iran might send a missile salvo half the size of its usual barrage. Calling for a ceasefire is a minimum. The reality is that none of these leaders wish to be publicly seen calling for Israel to stop, as that might invoke lazy accusations of appeasement.
But this position hardly looks credible when UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announces that Britain is building up its forces in the region. Ministers state that the UK may help defend Israel from Iranian strikes. This is the very path of escalation that will give Israel a comfort blanket from which to continue its chosen path of aggression against Iran.
European powers need this like a hole in the head. The impact on the price of oil and gas will harm their economies just as many are facing dire economic conditions and are being forced into spending cuts. Defense spending increases were designed to cope with the threat from Russia, not wars in the Middle East.
This is why Britain, France and Germany have offered Iran immediate talks on the nuclear issue. But this train has well and truly left the station. Iran is unlikely to be willing to negotiate while under bombardment. The most likely answer will be: “make Israel stop and then let’s see.” Moreover, if Israel and the US are not on board, why would Iran engage?
But as well as engaging in whatever diplomacy is available, European powers should ensure a posture of no direct involvement in this war. Working together and with regional and other actors, they must root their positions in international legitimacy. Both Israel and Iran should be made to understand that their future relations with Europe depend on ending this conflict. Wherever possible, European actors should encourage the Trump administration to cooperate in bringing this to a close. European actors can also work hard to prevent this conflict from spreading. They will have to protect their assets in the region, but also do everything to stop the situation from deteriorating.
Netanyahu has engaged in a war of choice against Iran. European leaders should make this clear and condemn it as such. Israel was not acting in self-defense and to suggest so risks contempt, not respect. They can also express understanding as to why Israel had fears about the Iranian enrichment program, but at the same time make it clear that military action was not warranted. The US-Iran talks should have been allowed a chance to succeed, not be bombed into oblivion. To the extent that it was a preemptive strike, it was against any possibility of a nuclear deal between the US and Iran.
European powers should also be clear to Iran that, while the Israeli attacks were an aggression, Iran’s unwillingness to abandon its nuclear program and its threats against Israel were also unacceptable. Arming nonstate actors across the Middle East to disrupt and undermine regional security was wrong and counterproductive.
Palestine should also not drop off the agenda. International actors have so far failed to halt the genocide in Gaza and the settlement frenzy in the West Bank. The message to Israeli leaders should be crystal clear: committing these war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against Palestinians is unacceptable, cannot continue and will have consequences.
Only by returning to a moral high ground and a rules-based approach can European actors regain the respect they have occasionally benefited from internationally. Judicial bodies should be encouraged to pay close attention as to how both Israel and Iran conduct this war and what they target.
This is a casino war, a reckless gamble in which the stakes are far too high. European leaders cannot be passive observers. They must be at the forefront of a relentless diplomatic onslaught that matches or even surpasses Netanyahu’s fondness for war and Iran’s desire for retaliation.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2604693
------
Israel’s Strikes On Iran Spark Growing Dissent In US Congress
June 16, 2025
On Monday, June 16, Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) introduced legislation, a War Powers Resolution, to prevent President Trump from using military force against Iran without Congressional authorization.
This will force all Senators to go on record supporting or opposing the following: “Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran.”
Sen. Kaine, a longtime advocate for exerting congressional authority over war, blasted Israel for jeopardizing planned US-Iran diplomacy. “The American people have no interest in another forever war,” he wrote.
When Israel launched a surprise military strike on Iran last week, it did more than risk igniting a catastrophic regional war. It also exposed long-simmering tensions in Washington—between entrenched bipartisan, pro-Israel hawks and a growing current of lawmakers (and voters) unwilling to be dragged into another Middle East disaster.
“This is not our war,” declared Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), a Republican and one of the House’s most consistent antiwar voices. “Israel doesn’t need US taxpayers’ money for defense if it already has enough to start offensive wars. I vote not to fund this war of aggression.” On social media, he polled followers on whether the US should give Israel weapons to attack Iran. After 126,000 votes (and 2.5 million views), the answer was unequivocal: 85% said no.
For decades, questioning US support for Israel has been a third rail in Congress. But Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran—coming just as the sixth round of sensitive US-Iran nuclear talks were set to take place in Oman—sparked rare and unusually direct criticism from across the political spectrum. Progressive members, already furious over Israel’s war on Gaza, were quick to condemn the new offensive. But they weren’t alone.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) called Israel’s strike “reckless” and “escalatory,” and warned that Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to drag the US into a broader war. Rep. Chuy García (D-IL) called Israel’s actions “diplomatic sabotage” and said, “the US must stop supplying offensive weapons to Israel, which also continue to be used against Gaza, & urgently recommit to negotiations.”
Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) was even more blunt. “The war criminal Netanyahu wants to ignite an endless regional war & drag the US into it. Any politician who tries to help him betrays us all.”
More striking, however, were the critiques from moderate Democrats and some Republicans.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned that strikes “threaten not only the lives of innocent civilians but the stability of the entire Middle East and the safety of American citizens and forces.”
Some pro-Israel Democrats are feeling comfortable speaking out on this conflict because it fits their anti-Trump critique. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said: “We are at this crisis today because President Trump foolishly walked away from President Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement under which Iran had agreed to dismantle much of its nuclear program and to open its facilities to international inspections, putting more eyes on the ground. The United States should now lead the international community towards a diplomatic solution to avoid a wider war.”
Adding to this diverse chorus of opposition are some Republicans from the party’s non-interventionist wing. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) declared, “War with Iran is not in America’s interest. It would destabilize the region, cost countless lives, and drain our resources for generations.” Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) lamented that “some members of Congress and US Senators seem giddy about the prospects of a bigger war.”
And in a rare show of agreement with progressive critics, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) blasted the hawks in both parties. “We’ve been told for the past 20 years that Iran is on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb any day now. The same story. Everyone I know is tired of US intervention and regime change in foreign countries. Everyone I know wants us to fix our own problems here at home, not bomb other countries.”
Of course, many in Congress rushed to support Israel. Senate Republican leader John Thune said, “Israel has determined that it must take decisive action to defend the Israeli people.” Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) voiced full support for the strike and urged the US to provide Israel “whatever is necessary—military, intelligence, weaponry.” The most crass was Senator Lindsey Graham, who posted: “Game on. Pray for Israel.”
But these crude pro-war responses, once guaranteed to go unchallenged, are now being met with resistance–and not just from activists. With public opinion shifting sharply–especially among younger voters, progressives, and “America First-ers” – the political calculus on unconditional support for Israel is changing. In the wake of Israel’s disastrous war in Gaza and its widening regional provocations, members of Congress are being forced to choose: follow the AIPAC money and the old playbook–or listen to their constituents.
If the American people continue to raise their voices, the tide in Washington could turn away from support for a war with Iran that could plunge the region into deeper chaos while offering no relief for the suffering people of Gaza. We could finally see an end to decades of disastrous unconditional support for Israel and knee-jerk support for catastrophic wars.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israels-strikes-on-iran-spark-growing-dissent-in-us-congress/
-------
No Turning Back: Israel And Iran Locked In Direct Military Confrontation
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
16 June ,2025
What had long been feared and anticipated has finally erupted into full-blown war. After years of rising tensions, covert and limited strikes, and proxy battles, a direct and massive confrontation broke out last week between Iran and Israel. The long-standing animosity and threats culminated in an Israeli surprise offensive of unprecedented scale – signaling that the shadow war has now become an open and expansive military conflict. What was once looming has now broken into the open, unleashing consequences that may reshape the Middle East for decades.
From Israel’s perspective, this war is not just a reaction to threats; it is a preemptive act of survival. Officials in Tel Aviv had increasingly warned that Iran was approaching a nuclear threshold, and that time was running out to stop the Islamic Republic from acquiring the capability to develop and potentially use nuclear weapons. For months, military and intelligence agencies in Israel had reportedly drawn up extensive plans for a decisive strike – a scenario that would cripple Iran’s nuclear ambitions in one swift blow. That moment came last week, as waves of Israeli fighter jets, drones, and cyber units launched a surprise offensive, striking deep inside Iranian territory.
The operation, reportedly called “Operation Rising Lion,” was massive in scope and shockingly effective. Within a span of less than 48 hours, Israeli forces conducted coordinated strikes on over one hundred critical targets, including uranium enrichment facilities in Natanz and Fordow, missile production plants, and weapons storage sites. Even more strikingly, Israel successfully assassinated multiple senior Iranian nuclear scientists and top military commanders, including figures seen as central to Iran’s nuclear program and regional military strategy. These were not symbolic casualties – among the dead were General Hossein Salami, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), General Mohammad Bagheri, Iran’s military chief of staff, and General Gholam Ali Rashid, a key strategic planner. The sudden loss of such high-ranking officials has left Iran’s military leadership severely fragmented and scrambling to regain control.
In addition to the airstrikes, the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, reportedly carried out precision ground operations within Iran to sabotage radar systems, disable air defense units, and guide airstrikes to their intended targets. The element of surprise was total. Iran, which had long anticipated Israeli threats, was caught off guard. According to both Western intelligence and regional analysts, the effectiveness of the attack was not only due to Israel’s superior technology but also its ability to exploit internal disorganization and political distractions within Iran.
Iran’s response was swift but lacked the coordination and impact of the Israeli assault. Within hours of the attacks, the Iranian military launched a barrage of over one hundred drones and several hundred ballistic missiles toward Israeli territory. The Islamic Republic declared that it would retaliate and vowed to exact revenge for what it called an act of war and a violation of its sovereignty.
What makes this confrontation different from past escalations is its sheer scale and direction. Unlike previous episodes, which often involved a few strikes, some limited retaliation, and a quick return to uneasy quiet, this conflict appears to be heading into uncharted territory. Both sides seem to have abandoned any pretense of restraint. Israeli officials have hinted that they are prepared to continue operations. Iran, for its part, has issued statements signaling that it sees this as an existential conflict and will not cease until Israel “pays a heavy price.” The language and actions on both sides suggest that this is not another tit-for-tat exchange – it is an all-out war, and it may not stop until one side suffers a definitive military defeat.
The key question now is: Who holds the upper hand – geopolitically, strategically, and militarily?
The answer, at least for now, appears to favor Israel. Iran is entering this war from a position of profound weakness. Its strategic alliances and regional influence have been severely diminished. The al-Assad regime in Syria, once a reliable partner and host to Iranian forces, collapsed following internal revolt and international isolation. Hezbollah in Lebanon, long considered Iran’s most powerful proxy, has been depleted by war and Israeli airstrikes. Hamas has suffered significant setbacks in Gaza, both militarily and politically. The Iranian regime, therefore, finds itself more isolated than ever before, with its regional influence waning at a critical moment.
At home, Iran faces a deeply discontented population. Widespread protests in recent years have laid bare the depth of frustration within Iranian society, particularly among the younger generation. Decades of economic hardship, international sanctions, government repression, and unmet political promises have created a volatile environment. Although the regime maintains tight control through the Revolutionary Guards and internal security forces, public morale is low and trust in leadership is deteriorating. Launching a major war at such a time poses extraordinary risks. If the military suffers major defeats or if civilian casualties mount, the government could face another wave of mass protests, this time fueled by both anger and despair.
In contrast, Israel sees itself in a far stronger position. Having systematically weakened Iran’s regional proxies, it now finds itself freer to act directly against Tehran without the immediate fear of multi-front retaliation. Strategically, the collapse of the Syrian regime has eliminated one of the key platforms through which Iran projected force toward Israel. Hezbollah’s diminished arsenal and Hamas’s recent defeats mean fewer distractions at Israel’s northern and southern borders. Most importantly, Israel enjoys steadfast support from the United States, which has provided air defense coordination.
From a military standpoint, the war is not expected to involve ground invasions. Instead, it is being waged almost entirely through air and missile power. And in this arena, Israel enjoys a clear and overwhelming advantage. Its air force, among the most technologically advanced in the world, includes stealth fighters, satellite-guided munitions, and electronic warfare capabilities that Iran cannot match. Israeli pilots are highly trained, and the country’s air defense systems have proven themselves again and again under intense pressure. Iran, by contrast, relies heavily on older aircraft, drones, and ballistic missiles that are often intercepted before reaching their targets. While Iran can inflict damage, it lacks the ability to deliver sustained, precision strikes at the scale Israel can.
Cyber capabilities also play a role, and again, Israel leads. As the dust settles from the first week of this conflict, one thing is clear: Iran’s government finds itself in a deeply vulnerable and constrained position. With senior leadership eliminated, nuclear progress rolled back, air defense systems compromised, and limited retaliatory capacity, Tehran faces an uphill battle. Its options are few, and none of them are without risk. Escalation may lead to further destruction and internal unrest. Concessions may appear as weakness and erode legitimacy further.
Israel, while facing inevitable costs and the unpredictability of extended war, has so far executed a well-coordinated, high-impact campaign. It controls the pace and scope of escalation and holds most of the tactical advantages. Whether it chooses to press forward with further strikes or negotiate from a position of strength will depend on evolving strategic calculations. But for now, it holds the military and geopolitical upper hand.
As the world watches anxiously, the future of the Middle East hangs in the balance. This is not merely a military clash – it is a historic showdown between two regional powers, one weakened and cornered, the other emboldened and empowered. The coming weeks will determine whether this war reshapes regional order, or ignites an even wider and more devastating conflagration.
https://english.alarabiya.net/views/2025/06/16/no-turning-back-israel-and-iran-locked-in-direct-military-confrontation
-------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/israel-iran-war-diplomacy-jewish-hamas/d/135887
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