Middle East Press On: Regime Change War, Iran, UNRWA, Nuclear: New Age Islam's Selection, 19 June 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
19 June 2025
Why Israel’s Regime Change War on Iran Could Trigger Its Own Demise
Sweden and UNRWA: Time for the Three ‘Wise’ Ones to Reveal Their Sources on Gaza
The Great Disconnect: Unpacking America’s Chaotic Middle East Policy
Israel Fears A Confident Muslim Power—And That’s Exactly What The Region Needs
The War-Within-A-War: The Silent Front Of Israel's Mental Health
Understanding Pakistan’s Risky Alignment With Iran
Shared Society In Crisis And Hope: Education’s Role In Israel’s Recovery
The Clock Is Ticking For Israel To Stop Iran From Advancing Its Nuclear Ambitions
----
Why Israel’s Regime Change War on Iran Could Trigger Its Own Demise
By Robert Inlakesh
June 18, 2025
Late last week, Israel launched an unprovoked illegal war of aggression against Iran. The original goal was likely to trigger a battle that could be contained, but now it appears as if the goal is an attempted regime change operation. If the US-Israeli alliance truly seeks to destroy Iran, an unimaginable situation is afoot.
As the situation is constantly developing, making precise predictions of anything is a fruitless exercise, yet all the tell-tale signs that led to the war we see today can help us better understand the bigger picture.
For the past few months, I have written articles here for Palestine Chronicle in which I argued that Israel would lead an attack on Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, also noting that the alleged “feud” between Donald Trump and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu was nothing more than theatre.
I note this, not to try and brag about a prediction, as I am far from the only one who came to this conclusion, but in order to highlight my reasoning, which could also provide some clarity amidst the ongoing war against Iran.
When reading what pro-war think tanks in Washington DC were saying, it was clear that across the board the message was more or less uniform: Iran is weak, now is the time to strike their nuclear sites in a containable battle.
The Heritage Foundation, which is the most influential think tank over the Trump administration, published a 6-page brief on May 22, in which it stated that Israel and the US can “effectively end Iran’s nuclear program without significant civilian casualties” and “deter significant retaliation.”
It is no coincidence that it employed the language “peace through strength” in the brief’s title, which is precisely the rhetoric of the Trump administration today.
Then there were the pro-Israel think-tanks like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), both instrumental in pushing the US into its illegal regime change war on Iraq back in 2003.
Both of these think tanks said basically the same thing. Even the Atlantic Council was pushing anti-Iran propaganda, aimed at collapsing the US-Iran nuclear negotiations.
In addition to this, reading between the lines of both Trump’s and Netanyahu’s statements, it became clear that the US was going to allow the Israelis to lead the attack on Iran. On the other hand, Israel’s ground operation in Gaza had proven to be a flop and demonstrated a lack of ground capabilities.
The Israelis sought to fight their “7 front war”, which Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to take to “total victory”, yet he hadn’t managed to destroy any of the adversaries he was at war with, and instead faced intense internal pressure.
The Israeli prime minister pushed all nay-sayers out of the circles of power, replacing them with yes men and personal allies, all to ensure he runs the executive decision-making.
So Where Could This All Go?
While I argued that Israel would launch an attack on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, while also attempting assassinations of senior officials, their initial assault went way beyond what could have been imagined. Therefore, my previous analysis is wrong in its conclusions.
In a bid to score an opening propaganda victory, while also throwing the Iranian military’s chain of command into disarray, Israel blew up civilian infrastructure in Tehran. Tel Aviv succeeded at assassinating senior Iranian commanders and, to date, ten nuclear scientists, but also committed civilian massacres while doing so. This changed everything.
The images of women and children trapped under rubble, the video of a dead toddler lying in the streets of Tehran, these will now never leave the minds of the Iranian people.
At the time, I spoke to four military analysts, three of whom were formerly part of the US military, all of them gave estimates that Iran was going to take between 2 to 5 days to recover from the initial blow, as a conservative estimate.
Shockingly, the Iranians managed to not only replace their slain leaders and get their air defences back online, but also launch a devastating missile attack on Tel Aviv, all within 15 hours.
The indiscriminate nature of Israel’s attacks has killed around 400 Iranians, most of whom are civilians. This has triggered a response inside Iran, even from opponents of the government, where the people are now standing in opposition to the Israeli attack.
Twice now, the son of the deposed Shah of Iran, overthrown in a popular revolt back in 1979, has made addresses desperately calling upon Iranians to overthrow the government. So far, despite many old videos being shared online, no anti-government protests have occurred.
The Shah’s son even stunned the BBC by defending the bombing of his own people, simply claiming Israel wasn’t intending to kill civilians. He is overtly a puppet of Israel and the US. Most of his supporters are concentrated in the Iranian diaspora and some wealthy suburbs of Tehran.
It appears as if Iran’s opening series of strikes against Israel shook them to the core, as all previous estimates had hedged upon Iranian restraint, which seems to have been thrown to the wind when the second civilians were killed in Tehran.
Although the Israelis could well score more tactical victories on the ground in Iran, this conflict thus far has demonstrated that the Islamic Republic is militarily superior. In fact, if it weren’t for the constant flow of American weapons and logistical support, the Israelis would be incapable of continuing their offensive campaign.
The one area where the regime in Tel Aviv certainly flourishes, however, is in the intelligence sphere. Thousands of spies and paid agents appear to be on the Mossad payroll, which has been revealed since the beginning of the war.
These Iranian collaborators with Israel have carried out drone, spike-guided missile, and even car bombing attacks. Another activity that these agents are engaged in is setting fires during Israeli attacks to make it seem as if the air assaults are bigger and more successful than they truly are.
What happens next is somewhat limitless in its scope, but it is important to note that any US involvement may not end up actually dealing any kind of decisive blows to Iran. In fact, all indications here point towards Tehran being able to quickly recover from an American assault.
When the US used its B-2 bombers to drop bunker-busting munitions on missile bases in Yemen, they failed to destroy them. In Iran, these B-2s will have to face much more sophisticated air defense systems that could force them to fire their missiles from further distances and make the attacks less effective. In Yemen, the US still failed, despite there being no threat to shoot down their aircraft.
Iran, on the other hand, has many cards that it hasn’t played. Hezbollah and the Iraqi PMU are yet to enter the war, oil continues to be shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, and American bases in the region remain unscathed by Iranian missiles.
There is still a possibility that this could end through a diplomatic settlement, but the chance is indeed slim for a range of reasons right now. So, instead, escalation appears to be the current trajectory.
Either Israel is in total meltdown mode, or is poised to implement the next steps in a well-oiled plan alongside the US. All indications now point to option one, which is why the US may also be dragged in.
The Iranians possess enormous stockpiles of ballistic missiles and can fight a long, drawn-out war of attrition if necessary. Israel, on the other hand, will be almost completely out of air defense missiles within two weeks and completely open to wave after wave of new model ballistic missiles.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is already releasing statements claiming to be responding in retaliation for the massacres inflicted on the people of Gaza. If any negotiated settlement occurs, it is very possible that Tehran could include a Gaza ceasefire as one of its conditions.
If this transforms into a broader regional war, eventually both Hamas and Hezbollah will play a greater role, as will Yemen’s Ansarallah and the Iraqi PMU. It is not an exaggeration to say that instead of regime change in Tehran, the regime in Tel Aviv could be the one facing collapse. There is also, on the flip side, the danger of Israel suddenly using nuclear weapons.
The true goal of Israel has always been regime change in Iran. Yet, regional and international powers will not support this. Russia, China, Turkiye, and Pakistan have a vested interest in preventing Iran from becoming a new Syria or Libya.
Instead of preventing Iran from producing a nuclear weapon, this conflict could indeed do the very opposite, driving a nation that was not pursuing the bomb to acquire it for defensive purposes. Either way, this was a reckless and dangerous illegal war of aggression launched by the Israelis, one that will not likely end well for them.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/why-israels-regime-changewar-on-iran-could-trigger-its-own-demise/
------
Sweden and UNRWA: Time for the Three ‘Wise’ Ones to Reveal Their Sources on Gaza
By Mats Svensson
June 18, 2025
Sweden has suspended its support to the UN relief agency UNRWA—against the recommendations of both the UN Secretary-General and the world’s largest humanitarian organizations.
What do our decision-makers know that the rest of the world does not? It is time for the three “wise” ones—Foreign Minister, Maria Malmer Stenergard, Minister for International Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade, Benjamin Dousa, and the State Secretary, Diana Janse, in the government—to disclose their sources.
For several years, I have worked for Palestine and spent periods in the Gaza Strip, where I’ve witnessed both human resilience and immense suffering.
I am part of a large group of people from Sweden and many other countries who have worked on the ground—often under difficult conditions—through the UN, governmental, or nonprofit organizations. Our work has been made possible through international support, not least from Sweden.
A crucial prerequisite for humanitarian aid to reach those in need is UNRWA—the UN agency for Palestinian refugees. Since 1949, it has provided education, healthcare, food, and safety for millions of people, especially in Gaza but also in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and the West Bank
Today, Gaza lies in ruins. Over 60,000 people have been murdered since October 2023. We don’t know how many children have lost their families, their health, or their future. But we do know that UNRWA is the only organization with the capacity to carry out large-scale humanitarian work in the area—and that they are still there, while others have been forced to leave.
Despite this, the Swedish government has chosen to stop support for UNRWA. This decision is based on accusations from the Israeli government, while an internal UN investigation is still ongoing and no decisive evidence has yet been presented.
Meanwhile, humanitarian organizations such as Save the Children, the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, and the World Food Programme have all made it clear: no one else can replace UNRWA.
Sweden’s government is thereby going against the UN Secretary-General and virtually the entire international community.
This makes me wonder: What does Sweden’s Foreign Minister, International Development Cooperation Minister and State Secretary know that the rest of us don’t? What sources are they relying on? Where does the information come from that gives them the confidence to take their own path—despite the catastrophic consequences already suffered by the Palestinian people?
If Sweden’s three “wise” ones do indeed possess crucial information, it’s time they present it. Not just for those of us who have worked in Gaza, but for the entire Swedish population, whose tax money has made these efforts possible. I’m sure that many, many people in other countries would like to get the same information
Sweden has a responsibility—as a donor nation and a member of the UN. At a time when the people of Gaza are crying out for help, we must ask ourselves: Are we on the right side of history?
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/sweden-and-unrwa-time-for-the-three-wise-ones-to-reveal-their-sources-on-gaza/
------
The Great Disconnect: Unpacking America’s Chaotic Middle East Policy
By Ramzy Baroud
June 19, 2025
US foreign policy in the Middle East appears to be adrift, no longer guided by fixed strategies or clear goals. Instead, a chaotic process, akin to political decentralization, is underway. While the Trump administration contributed significantly to this disarray, the ensuing bedlam was arguably inevitable. This situation arises when a nation prioritizes the interests of another over its own.
Consider the perplexing statements emanating from the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. It is often impossible to discern whether he speaks on behalf of the United States, Israel, Christian fundamentalists or himself. In his latest outlandish remarks, Huckabee offered a unique interpretation of old ideas advanced by Israel’s most extremist elements.
“Muslim countries have 644 times the amount of land that are controlled by Israel,” Huckabee told the BBC. “If there is such a desire for the Palestinian state,” he added, “there would be someone who would say we’d like to host it, we’d like to create it.”
This diatribe followed Huckabee’s suggestion that Palestinians relocate to France, reacting to an official French announcement of its intention to recognize a Palestinian state.
Such defensiveness is neither diplomatic nor indicative of a country with a clear and articulate foreign policy agenda. If anything, it mirrors Israel’s own defensive stance towards anyone who dares criticize its military occupation, apartheid or genocide in Palestine.
Israel’s Foreign Minister, Israel Katz, is a master of political defensiveness. Overwhelmed by growing pro-Palestine sentiment among world governments, Katz, hardly a seasoned diplomat, retorted with equally vindictive language. When Ireland, Spain and others indicated a willingness to recognize a Palestinian state, Katz said that these countries “are legally obligated to allow any Gaza resident to enter their territories”.
To an extent, the shift in Israel’s foreign policy discourse is understandable. Before the war, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu devoted much of his time to celebrating Israel’s increasing integration into global affairs, particularly its supposed embrace by the Global South.
Now, the tables have turned. Israel is essentially a pariah state. Its leaders, including Netanyahu himself, are either wanted by the International Criminal Court, officially sanctioned or under investigation for war crimes.
But why does Huckabee exhibit the same degree of defensiveness, attacking other world governments on behalf of Israel? The story becomes even more bizarre. When questioned about Huckabee’s BBC theories regarding a Palestinian state, a US State Department spokeswoman, Tammy Bruce, told reporters, “I think he certainly speaks for himself.”
Bruce’s remarks raise further questions: Why is the US ambassador to Israel “speaking for himself” and not his own country? And why is he conveying Israel’s political sentiments? More urgently, what exactly is ‘American policy’, according to Bruce, and where does the president stand, not only on Palestinian statehood but also on the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza?
Delving deeper into this would likely yield only confusion and contradictions, some of which are evident in Huckabee’s own recent political statements. For example, he contended in a May 10 interview that “the United States isn’t required to get permission from Israel to make some type of arrangement that would get the Houthis from firing on our ships.”
Coupled with news that the US was involved in indirect talks with the Palestinian group, Hamas, some analysts concluded that the US was steering its policies away from the Israeli agenda, heavily promoted daily by the pro-Israel lobby in the US.
Yet, Huckabee soon reverted to his peculiar brand of politics, which, more strangely, is publicly disavowed by the White House.
Traditionally, US foreign policy has always tilted in favor of Israel, a historical balancing act between US and Israeli interests. The complete shift towards Israel began taking shape during George W. Bush’s terms, thanks to Israel’s ability to insert itself as a critical player in the US’ so-called “war on terror”.
Despite Barack Obama’s generosity towards Israel, he did, at least towards the end of his second term, attempt to return to the old balancing act. This culminated in the largely symbolic gesture of abstaining from a United Nations Security Council vote on December 23, 2016, condemning Israel’s illegal settlements.
The pro-Israel agenda returned with a vengeance during Trump’s first term, with David Friedman and Mike Pompeo serving as US Ambassador to Israel and Secretary of State, respectively. Friedman perfected the art of offensive language, reportedly calling members of J Street “capos”, and embodied the most fundamentalist and extremist notions adopted by the Israeli right. Pompeo was an equally ardent pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian diplomat.
The difference between Trump’s first administration and the current one is that the former was largely coherent. This current administration, however, is as confused as it is confusing. It neither subscribes to the fraudulent pro-Israel balancing acts of the Democrats, nor is it committed to a singular agenda that unifies all its foreign policy actors.
It is obvious that US foreign policy in the Middle East is no longer operating based on a clear, complex but dynamic strategy that integrates military, economic, and geostrategic interests. This has been exploited by figures like Netanyahu to prolong the chaos in the region and to push further his extremist, settler-colonial agenda.
However, this chaotic state could also present an opportunity for those striving for a just, peaceful and stable Middle East. Indeed, US contradictions and the absence of true leadership should compel regional and international players to activate a multilateral approach to conflict resolution that prioritizes the interests of the occupied and subjugated Palestinians, in accordance with international law.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/the-great-disconnectunpacking-americas-chaotic-middle-east-policy/
-------
Israel Fears A Confident Muslim Power—And That’s Exactly What The Region Needs
By Wan Naim Wan Mansor
June 18, 2025
What happens when a nuclear-armed state bombs a non-nuclear one—and the world shrugs? Israel’s June 2025 strike on Iran was not just another Middle East flashpoint. It was a strategic broadside against the very idea of Muslim deterrent power. By assassinating top Iranian scientists and targeting its nuclear infrastructure, Israel wasn’t merely confronting a rival, it was sending a chilling message: no Muslim nation will be allowed the tools to assert sovereign parity. The real target wasn’t Iran alone. It was the possibility of a confident, self-reliant Muslim power shaping the region independently.
For the first time in decades, a Muslim-majority nation with real deterrent capacity responded with calibrated, direct force. On the first few days of the retaliation, Iran launched over 200 ballistic missiles and drone swarms in retaliation, reaching deep into Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv and Haifa. The age of impunity is ending.
Much of the Western media has framed Israel’s attack as a defensive act. This is laughable, because the reality is more troubling: a nuclear-armed Israel, operating with impunity, launched a pre-emptive strike on a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which possesses no nuclear weapons. This is not self-defence nor deterrence. This is monopoly. And monopolies do not seek stability; they seek submission.
Israel remains the region’s only undeclared nuclear power, unsupervised by the IAEA, while Iran, with no weapons, faced 15 IAEA inspections in 2024.
Israeli military superiority has not brought peace; it has entrenched a strategic asymmetry that fuels cycles of violence. From Gaza to Damascus, Beirut to Tehran, Israel’s doctrine of pre-emption and escalation is built on the belief that its dominance must remain unchallenged. And that domination, to its belief, is preserved by waging war and military attacks on any country that it believes to be a threat to such dominance. That belief is the problem.
The tragic consequence of this imbalance is most evident in Gaza. The 2023–2025 genocidal campaign has killed over 56,000 Palestinians, including thousands of civilians and children. Entire neighbourhoods lie in rubble. The international system has failed to stop this not because it lacks moral outrage, but because it lacks a countervailing power capable of enforcing limits on Israeli conduct.
From Osirak in Iraq (1981) and again the Gulf Wars which destroyed Iraq, to Syria (2007) to post-Qaddafi Libya, every attempt at Muslim strategic autonomy has been crushed, militarily or diplomatically.
If peace is the goal, then strategic balance must be the foundation. The region does not need more managed instability enforced by drones and airstrikes. It needs the emergence of confident, capable Muslim powers that can deter aggression, uphold sovereignty, and demand mutual respect.
This is not merely about geography or weapons. It is about reclaiming agency for a civilisation that has, for decades, been denied its place in the regional security calculus. The Muslim world must not be consigned to permanent observer status in a conflict that implicates its history, peoples, and sacred sites. If deterrence is to be credible and just, it must emerge from within the civilisational sphere most acutely impacted. No actor, Western or Eastern, can substitute the legitimacy that a confident Muslim power brings to the table.
Iran, for all its internal complexities, has become a lightning rod because it defies this imposed inferiority. Its scientific progress and resistance to Israeli hegemony are treated as existential threats, not because of what Iran is, but because it disrupts the hierarchy. When Israel possesses nuclear arms, it’s framed as responsible deterrence. When Iran seeks strategic self-reliance, it’s branded a rogue.
This double standard is no longer tenable. Strategic self-reliance is not extremism. It is a basic sovereign right.
Some argue that parity invites conflict. History shows it is the opposite. The Cold War never became a direct clash between the U.S. and USSR precisely because deterrence held. In contrast, Israel’s unchecked superiority invites adventurism, a temptation to strike first, define the rules, and dictate the outcome. Peace without balance is not peace. It is conditional surrender.
Critics might ask: why must this counterweight be Muslim? Because the suppression has been civilisational. The dispossession of Palestinians, the targeting of Muslim-majority states’ strategic programs, and the broader narrative that paints Muslim power as inherently destabilising—these are not random. They form a pattern of marginalisation that only a Muslim power can credibly challenge. Western states are compromised by alliances. China and Russia lack the historical, moral, and religious stake. Brazil or South Africa may offer solidarity, but they are not of the region. Muslim powers are.
Religious double standards must be redressed by religious equals. Just as Israel falsely claims Jewish identity as a strategic asset, Muslim states must assert their own civilisational legitimacy, not as a threat, but as rightful participants in shaping regional order.
This is not a call for proliferation. It is a call for strategic dignity. For too long, the Muslim world has been told to disarm, defer, and depend. That formula has delivered neither justice nor security. Deterrence is not the exclusive right of the West or its allies. It is the prerogative of any nation seeking to live in freedom, not fear.
Malaysia, along with other principled voices in the Global South, must speak clearly: this war is not just about Israel and Iran; it is about the Islamic world’s right to chart its own destiny. As several OIC leaders have rightly noted, the silence in the face of Israel’s unilateral aggression reveals a deeper double standard. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has consistently called out these hypocrisies, urging that Muslim nations must no longer be viewed as passive subjects in a rigged world order.
As the rubble settles in Tehran and Tel Aviv alike, the choice before us is stark: return to one-sided domination, or forge a new equilibrium where peace is sustained not by bombs, but by balance.
If the world truly wants peace, it must stop demanding Muslim obedience and start enabling Muslim agency. Only then can justice and stability be achieved not through fear, but through fairness.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250618-israel-fears-a-confident-muslim-power-and-thats-exactly-what-the-region-needs/
-----
The War-Within-A-War: The Silent Front Of Israel's Mental Health
By Yifat Reuveni
JUNE 18,
Sirens in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem once signalled a rocket from Gaza; today they more often herald an Iranian missile. The Israel-Hamas War is now overlaid by an openly declared Israel-Iran confrontation, creating what many Israelis feel is a new war inside the pre-existing one – a second, long-range enemy suddenly at our doorstep.
Overnight barrages have already cost Israeli lives and exposed gaps in the thousand-kilometre-long home-front shield.
That layered threat is draining civilian energy in ways the original war did not. When the foe is distant, faceless, and seemingly omnipresent, our understanding blurs, fatigue deepens, and the line between vigilance and exhaustion erodes.
Home-front cohesion buckles as families argue over whether to leave the center for the North or South that have suddenly become safe, and public discourse resounds with the question, “Can we fight two wars at once – and still stay ourselves?”
Nowhere is the strain clearer than on NATAL’s trauma helplines. In the last 24 hours alone, they logged more than 500 calls – twice last week’s peak. Sixty calls came in during one sleepless night.
Anxiety about shelters, re-triggered PTSD, panic at sirens, and the grief of bereaved Druze, Bedouin, and Jewish families now collide in a single switchboard queue. Yet every call is also a testament to courage: people are choosing to speak their fear instead of swallowing it.
How can we navigate the challenging days, weeks, or even months ahead?
The ground is shifting again, and it is cracking the entire emotional, occupational, and economic foundation we built after October 7. This is a blow upon a blow. Trauma upon trauma.
It is an assault on meaning: What is a state of emergency? What is resilience? In the face of this ongoing collective trauma, a new model of organization must be built – and that is what NATAL is doing with those who reach out to it and with the wider public.
How to cope during challenging times
A good place to start is by naming the challenges and the feelings they stir. It’s important to help children – and us – understand that the rockets from Iran don’t erase the ongoing war in Gaza; rather, they expand its scope. Recognizing both conflicts helps bring a sense of order and clarity amid the uncertainty.
Maintaining daily routines can offer a vital refuge in turbulent times. Keeping schoolwork, household chores, and even Friday-night dinners consistent whenever alarms are silent creates comforting rituals that help anchor the nervous system and provide stability.
When alerts sound, pause before explaining what’s happening. Guiding children through a slow, deep breath in and out before sharing information can ease their anxiety and help them better process the situation.At the same time, it’s wise to manage media exposure carefully. Limiting news consumption to brief, scheduled times – say, two 15-minute sessions per day – can prevent overwhelming feelings and reduce the temptation to fall into endless doom-scrolling.
Turning preparation into action can also be empowering. Taking time together to pack a safe-room kit and calmly rehearse the quick dash to shelter transforms fear into muscle memory, helping to build confidence and a sense of control.
Above all, don’t hesitate to seek help early. NATAL’s Helpline (*3362) is available 24/7, along with the Health Ministry’s support lines and municipal psychologists. Reaching out for support is a powerful act of resilience, not a sign of weakness.
Finally, policymakers must recognize that mental health capacity is national security infrastructure: National Resilience.
Extra budgets for Helpline counsellors, mobile trauma teams, and in-school therapists are as essential as interceptor missiles.
A nation fighting on two fronts cannot afford to neglect the silent battlefield of our mental health – because victory there will decide how, and who, we are when the rockets stop.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-858180
-----
Understanding Pakistan’s Risky Alignment With Iran
By Divya Malhotra
JUNE 19, 2025
As tensions in the Middle East soar after Israeli strikes on Iranian military sites and Iran’s retaliatory missile attacks, a provocative new dimension has emerged: Pakistan’s explicit alignment with Tehran.
Recent statements from Iranian officials claim that Pakistan, promising “complete solidarity” with Tehran, has promised nuclear retaliation against Israel if Iran faces a nuclear attack. This pledge, if genuine, marks a dramatic shift in Pakistan’s stance and raises alarms in Israel and Washington about Islamabad’s alignment in the region.
Since last October, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and the Foreign Ministry have condemned Israeli strikes as grave violations of Iran’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity.” On multiple occasions, Islamabad has urged the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the UN Security Council to question and contain Israeli actions in Israel, Gaza, and the greater Middle East in general. This solidarity extends far beyond rhetoric.
Last month, Sharif visited Tehran, where he and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stressed the need for collective action against Israel’s actions in Gaza. Notably, Sharif voiced support for Iran’s peaceful nuclear program – at the risk of antagonizing the US and its Gulf allies.
The most explosive assertion comes from Iran’s Mohsen Rezaei, an IRGC commander and national security council member, who publicly stated that Pakistan would “launch a nuclear strike on Israel if Israel were to use nuclear weapons against Iran,” and noted that Pakistan’s Shaheen-3 missile could reach Tel Aviv. Whether symbolic deterrence or actual policy intention, these statements signify a major escalation.
Iranian nuclear rhetoric is not new. Still, attaching Pakistan – a fellow nuclear state – to Iran’s strategic deterrence equation is unprecedented. Should such a promise be taken seriously, it would blur lines between deterrence and offense, arguably emboldening hardline factions in Tehran.
Moreover, Pakistan’s participation in such messaging crosses a threshold, entangling Islamabad in the strategic calculus of a broader nuclear confrontation. Though Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif reportedly dismissed the suggestion in a cautious tone, he refrained from issuing a categorical denial. This ambiguity fuels speculation and reflects Islamabad’s attempt to walk a tightrope between strategic signalling and plausible deniability.
Pakistan strengthens ties with Iran
Pakistan's newfound assertiveness with Iran stems from a confluence of moral solidarity, regional repositioning, and domestic strategy. Pakistan remains one of the few Muslim-majority nations refusing to normalize relations with Israel, consistently affirming Palestinian rights. This garners domestic political support and bolsters Pakistan’s identity as a defender of Islamic causes.
Strengthening ties with Iran aligns Islamabad more closely with China and Russia – Pakistan’s strategic partners – creating a counterbalance to US influence in South Asia. Economic ventures like the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline, long stalled by US pressure, could resume under renewed strategic confidence.
Additionally, with Pakistan grappling with inflation, political instability, and border tensions – some involving Iran – Sharif’s government might calculate that a bold foreign policy helps consolidate nationalist support at home. Turkey’s parallel criticism of Israeli military actions adds regional weight to the Iran-aligned bloc and may have indirectly emboldened Islamabad’s current posture.
Pakistan’s tilt toward Iran may carry significant costs. Washington has warned that countries doing business with Tehran could face secondary sanctions. Any revival of energy cooperation – such as the Iran-Pakistan pipeline – could provoke US financial retaliation at a time when Islamabad’s economy is under pressure.
While the US still considers Pakistan an important counterterrorism partner, the prospect of Islamabad sharing intelligence or military support with Iran – let alone engaging in nuclear coordination – would risk a diplomatic rupture.
Pakistan’s nuclear posture has long been framed as defensive, particularly vis-à-vis India. An overt alignment with Iran undermines this image, inviting scrutiny and weakening its standing in global non-proliferation frameworks. The symbolism of Pakistan being seen as Tehran’s nuclear partner further erodes the limited trust Islamabad has managed to retain in the Western capitals.
This shift also threatens to recalibrate Pakistan’s role in the greater Middle East. A nuclear-linked alignment with Iran complicates Pakistan’s traditional role as a mediator between Sunni and Shi’ite blocs. Jerusalem and New Delhi – both wary of Tehran’s regional ambitions – are watching closely and may adjust their security postures in response.
China, Pakistan’s closest economic ally, may view this stance as useful to its Belt and Road ambitions. However, Beijing also enjoys strong relations with Israel. A deeper Pakistani entanglement with Iran risks dragging Beijing into complex regional tensions it may prefer to avoid.
Pakistan now stands at a critical juncture. One path is deeper alignment with Iran – entailing military cooperation and nuclear coordination – which would almost certainly fracture ties with the US, trigger sanctions, and deepen international isolation. The more likely course is calibrated solidarity: rhetorical and humanitarian support for Iran, paired with strategic ambiguity and indirect coordination through allies like Turkey and China.
This approach allows Islamabad to project ideological consistency while avoiding direct confrontation with Washington. Yet even symbolic nuclear posturing, like the recent claim of Pakistani backing for Iranian reprisal, risks crossing a dangerous Rubicon. This escalatory rhetoric will not go unnoticed in Washington or Jerusalem.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-858182
----
Shared Society In Crisis And Hope: Education’s Role In Israel’s Recovery
By Michal Sella
JUNE 19, 2025
My country is at a pivotal crossroads. We Israelis – Jews and Arabs – have made great strides in strengthening relations between our two communities. Still, the impact of October 7, 2023, and the ensuing war and humanitarian crisis in Gaza, on Jewish-Arab relations in Israel is palpable. The multifront war has challenged in unprecedented circumstances how we view one another.
Givat Haviva’s annual survey earlier this year found 72% of Israeli Jews do not trust the majority of Arab citizens, while 43% of Israeli Arabs do not trust the majority of Jewish citizens.
Yet the foundation for a shared society remains intact. The fact that Israel’s Arab and Jewish citizens recognize they are fated to be together and want to continue finding ways to better Israeli society is reflected in the lack of intercommunal violence since October 7 that exploded during the last Hamas-Israel clash in May 2021.
A recent aChord Centre at Hebrew University survey found two-thirds of Jewish and Arab 10th to 12th graders want to improve relations. That’s encouraging in the current situation, as well as in the context of Israel’s educational system. Young Israeli Arabs and Jews have few opportunities for meaningful interaction. They attend separate schools, religious Jews have their own schools, all overseen by different Education Ministry departments.
The urgent need to invest in building trust is evident. Education offers the best approach to return to the well-trodden path of enduring efforts to advance sound Jewish-Arab relations. Further, in our young 77-year-old nation, reinforcing appreciation for shared society among all citizens boosts our respect for democratic values and institutions.
There is a lot of work to do. Israeli governments, regrettably, have not sufficiently promoted the necessity of a shared Jewish-Arab society. Israel’s State Comptroller pointed out four years ago that the government does not invest in educating Israeli children to live in a mixed society. The Education Ministry allocates only two million shekels (about $560,000) annually to shared society education.
How to promote a shared society
Civil society, supported by philanthropy, has assumed the responsibility for developing and implementing effective programs. Givat Haviva, for example, has brought together at our campus in central Israel thousands of Arab and Jewish schoolchildren and adolescents for decades. We also have facilitated Arab educators going to Jewish schools and Jewish instructors to Arab schools.
The number of organizations active in advancing shared living has grown admirably over the years in response to the genuine desire among Jews and Arabs to participate in meaningful, sustainable interactions. The frequency of these efforts was increasing before October 7, even though certain ministers in the current government, installed in December 2022, had already begun, and continue now, to threaten to end the small shared society education budget.
Israel’s government, democratically elected by Jewish and Arab citizens, has a vested interest, indeed a responsibility, to design a comprehensive educational plan that will teach all our children how to live in a shared, prosperous society. Education is key to building trust between Israel’s Jewish majority and Arab minority – not simply by reading textbooks or engaging an occasional guest speaker, but actually sitting down together, partaking in conversations, sharing narratives.
If students have opportunities to learn from Jewish and Arab teachers, if they study each other’s histories and cultures, if they can communicate in both Hebrew and Arabic, that will go a long way toward deepening mutual understanding that is a basis for shared society progress.
The fact that Givat Haviva educational programs resumed very soon after October 7 is indicative of Arab and Jewish citizens’ desires to come together in activities advancing their respective communities and our country. Tragic conflict has not deterred Jewish and Arab citizens, who comprise about 21% of the population, from their dedication to pursuing constructive relationships. The potential to expand shared society education programs is tangible. Communities, Arab and Jewish, are eager to participate.
Education for democracy and equality is challenging normally, even more so in an environment of conflict and polarization. Attaining the promise of equality for all citizens, set forth in Israel’s Declaration of Independence, remains an unfulfilled yet achievable goal.
It is an aspiration championed by American Jews and many in the US Christian community. Their advocacy, based on shared American and Israeli values, is a key element of the American-Israeli partnership. By investing in Jewish-Arab relations projects, Americans help boost shared society efforts that also strengthen Israeli democracy.
When the current war ends, necessary healing in Arab and Jewish societies, rebuilding harmonious ties, will take time. Preserving and expanding what’s been accomplished to strengthen Israeli society for all citizens will require more determination than ever.
Solid investing in majority-minority relations will strengthen our collective appreciation for the values that undergird our precious democracy. That should be an urgent Israeli government priority.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-858169
------
The Clock Is Ticking For Israel To Stop Iran From Advancing Its Nuclear Ambitions
By Jpost Editorial
JUNE 19, 2025
Israel has long regarded a nuclear-armed Iran as perhaps the gravest existential threat it faces – a reality grounded not only in rhetoric but in Tehran’s actions and capacity.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly called for Israel’s elimination, saying only a couple of days ago, “Israel won’t exist in 25 years.”
That notion is not mere bluster. Iran has amassed a stockpile of at least 409 kg. of 60%-enriched uranium, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. That is enough to turn Iran nuclear within weeks if further processed.
These facts combine to produce a stunning change in regional dynamics: a nuclear-capable, ideologically hostile Iran is soon not a distant threat but an impending crisis.
As its proxy networks – namely, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis – weaken amid Israeli airstrikes, Iran’s internal debate on weaponization grows louder. Tehran now sees nuclear arms not merely as symbolic weapons of mass destruction but as instruments to reassert regional influence and deter Israeli or US interference.
The consequence of Iran crossing the nuclear threshold would extend far beyond Israeli concerns. Regional rivals – Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt – might begin their own nuclear programs, shattering decades of nonproliferation and triggering a Middle East arms race. Such a scenario would transform the region, with nuclear weapons easily capable of falling into volatile hands in what is already a tinderbox.
Diplomatic measures – such as reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear deal ushered in under former US president Barack Obama – remain the most globally accepted path to halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But that route has repeatedly faltered. The US exit under President Donald Trump, internal Iranian resistance, and distrust among Western powers mean that time is ticking against containment.
Critics argue that pre-emptive military strikes risk escalating the very danger they seek to prevent. This course of action could push Iran toward the bomb, they argue. Iran itself recently said an attack on its nuclear facilities could force it “to change doctrine” – euphemistically implying that it could revoke its supposed fatwa against nuclear arms.
Yet, let’s consider the delusive assumption of inaction. Iran’s breakout window has already shrunk – from months to mere weeks – in recent years.
If the world chooses the path of passivity, each passing day will bring with it the risk that Iran would build at least one bomb, test it covertly, and use it as a shield for its proxies. Once operational, even targeted diplomatic pressure or sanctions may be powerless, and with it, a Pandora’s box opens. It only takes one bomb to annihilate everything.
Israel follows the Begin Doctrine
Israel’s strategy of pre-emption against nuclear threats – known as the Begin Doctrine – has proven to be effective, as with Operation Opera, the bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981; and Operation Outside the Box, an attack on Syria’s Al-Kibar reactor in 2007.
These strikes bought time – but Iran today is vastly more advanced and deeply networked. A surgical strike may delay Iran’s progress by months, but critical facilities are buried (such as Fordow), dispersed, and shielded.
By launching Operation Rising Lion, Israel was wildly successful in achieving its immediate military goals: striking the nuclear facilities of Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow, killing nuclear scientists, and targeting missile infrastructure.
These actions may have set back enrichment time lines by months and demonstrated Israel’s ability to degrade Iran’s air defenses. But they also sparked fears that Iran might escalate and accelerate its nuclear drive.
Preemption, if reckless and ill-considered, carries the potential for enormous danger, including regional war, international condemnation, civilian casualties, and ecological fallout. On the other hand, a nuclear-armed Iran would shatter global nonproliferation efforts, ignite a Middle East arms race, and embolden extremists in Sanaa, the Sinai, and elsewhere.
If Israel fails to act, the world may very well face a far more volatile region in which nuclear weapons are normalized and deterrence collapses. Preventing this outcome is vital for global stability.
The clock is ticking. Iran advances in uranium enrichment and nuclear infrastructure every day. Its proxies may be weakened, but its ambitions are strengthened.
Israel can strike decisively – but not forever. This is a moment of existential choice: Act now to forestall catastrophe, or risk living in a world where deterrence has failed, and the region is barred from safety.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-858229
-------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/regime-change-war-iran-unrwa-nuclear/d/135914
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