Middle East Press On: World War III, Inhumanity, Iran, Nuclear: New Age Islam's Selection, 14 June 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
14 June 2025
Can Netanyahu Persuade Trump To Start World War III?
Why Europe’s Israel Sanctions Talk Rings Hollow
When The ‘Civilised World’ Allows Inhumanity To Thrive, We Are All In Deep Trouble
Last Minute Strike: Israel's Attack On Iran Prevented An Existential Threat
Editor's Notes: What’s Left? Is There Still A Left Wing In Israel?
Attack On Iran: Who Were The Iranian Commanders And Scientists Killed By Israel?
Israel May Have Just Pushed Iran Across The Nuclear Line
As Israel Strikes Iran, What Happened To ‘America First’?
------
Can Netanyahu Persuade Trump To Start World War III?
By Ihsan Aktaş
JUN 14, 2025
As the world knows, whenever Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces intense global pressure, he makes a move to relieve the psychological burden on himself. I am now convinced that those who worship the devil draw inspiration from him and employ tactics so ruthlessly that even the Devil would not conceive them. This signals the end of humanity — a truly tragic state of affairs.
Recently, the "Madleen" yacht set sail for Gaza with 12 activists aboard, drawing worldwide attention. However, upon reaching Israeli waters, it was intercepted, and its passengers faced a fate similar to that of the Mavi Marmara flotilla in 2010.
While the Mavi Marmara had participants from 54 countries, most were Turkish and Muslim, leading to a direct assault by Israeli forces that left seven martyrs. This time, since the activists were predominantly European, Israel exercised more caution, avoiding the same mistakes. Nevertheless, under the pretext of distributing aid, they herded hundreds of Palestinians together and carried out a massacre.
The situation on the ground is surreal: While distributing aid under U.S. guidance, Israeli forces simultaneously open fire on crowds with machine guns. It is as if we are witnessing Hitler reincarnated in the form of a devil. May God protect the world and humanity from this man’s calamity.
Netanyahu’s diversion tactics
Just a day prior, global outrage had erupted against Netanyahu and his rogue state, with protests across Europe, the Islamic world and beyond, and even in Israel. But as always, when cornered, Netanyahu shifts the narrative.
In the past, he assassinated Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, later attempted to kill Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and launched attacks on Lebanon. Now, as of the other night, he organized strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities – another distraction tactic.
The global media and opinion-makers have grown so accustomed to Netanyahu’s vile schemes that they, like idiots, now passively follow his lead. He makes a grotesque move, and the world’s media obediently trails behind.
Trump’s role, Netanyahu’s ambition
When Donald Trump came to power in the U.S., Netanyahu hoped they would stand shoulder-to-shoulder to bomb Iran. He believed that by dragging the U.S. and NATO into a war, he could save his own skin.
However, Trump did not turn out as expected. Far from starting World War III, he projected an image of seeking global peace, particularly regarding Iran. He made it clear that any attack on Iran would be Israel’s doing, not America’s, emphasizing diplomacy instead.
Yet Netanyahu has not abandoned his plans. He is determined to drag Trump into a war with Iran.
Reality of global power
The Oct. 7 events revealed a harsh truth: There is only one true power in the world – the Zionist state. The U.S., the U.K., France and Germany have no independent will. They merely follow Zionist dictates. Had there been any other will in play, this war would have been stopped, or at least a moral outcry would have emerged.
To put it plainly, there is no difference between Daesh, which claims to act in the name of Muslims, and Netanyahu’s radical religious faction. Zionism has seized control of the world and manipulates it at will. Now, serious tension brews between the U.S. and Israel.
In the coming days, we will see whether Netanyahu, increasingly cornered over the Gaza genocide, can push the U.S. into war with Iran.
History shows that when the Germans failed to rid themselves of their deranged leader, Adolf Hitler, it cost 40 million European lives. Now, humanity –Jews and Americans alike – must make a choice: Will they eliminate this Hitler-cloaked madman, Netanyahu, or will he succeed in plunging the world into World War III?
Recent politics and diplomacy have reached unprecedented tension. The U.S. and the entire world know that a war with a nation like Iran would turn the planet into a bloodbath. If America falls into this trap, it will earn the eternal enmity of Iran and its people.
The question remains: Will Trump’s path prevail or Netanyahu’s? If Netanyahu succeeds in convincing Trump, then we might as well say, "Welcome to World War III."
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/can-netanyahu-persuade-trump-to-start-world-war-iii
-----
Why Europe’s Israel Sanctions Talk Rings Hollow
By Ahmet Alioğlu
JUN 13, 2025
For decades, the European Union’s approach to Israel was one of calibrated diplomacy: opting for cautious neutrality, tempered criticism and unwavering alignment with Washington’s Middle East policy. But as the war in Gaza grinds on, the facade of unity is cracking.
Spain, Ireland and Belgium have moved beyond diplomatic murmurs, openly demanding sanctions, the suspension of trade deals and official recognition of Palestine, positions once relegated to the political fringe. Across the continent, the tectonic plates are shifting: the EU is reassessing its Association Agreement with Israel, Britain has frozen trade negotiations, Norway has blacklisted Israeli companies and France, the U.K. and Canada have all floated unprecedented sanctions. Even Germany, Israel’s staunchest European ally, has broken its cautious silence with rare public rebukes.
On paper, this appears to mark a historic rupture with Europe’s traditionally cautious stance. Nonetheless, the real test lies not in rhetoric, but in resolve. Similar warnings rang out in 2024, yet the war continued unabated. Today, the question is whether Europe’s "pristine" boldness signals a genuine reckoning or merely the illusion of one. The difference, if it exists at all, will be measured not in words but in deeds.
€50 billion dilemma
The EU’s threat to "review" its relationship with Israel is no mere diplomatic formality; it is a direct challenge to one of Israel’s most critical economic lifelines. The EU-Israel Association Agreement, the bedrock of a 50 billion euros annual trade relationship, is now under scrutiny, casting uncertainty over a vast network of bilateral and multilateral accords. The nations spearheading this push, Spain, Ireland and Belgium, are not marginal voices but central economic players in Israel’s trade ecosystem.
Europe absorbs 31% of Israel’s exports and supplies 37% of its imports, making it by far the country’s largest trading partner. Israel is a modest but strategic market for the EU, ranking as its 31st largest global partner, making up about 0.8% of the bloc’s total goods trade in 2024, and third in the Mediterranean after Morocco and Algeria. Yet for Israel, the stakes are existential: 32% of its total goods trade flows to and from Europe, with machinery, chemicals and advanced manufacturing forming the backbone of this exchange.
The question is no longer whether Europe can exert pressure, but whether it will.
Domestic fury, diplomatic provocations
Europe’s hardening stance is no accident. It is the product of boiling public outrage, relentless protests and the political calculus of leaders facing an electorate that refuses to look away. From London to Berlin to Madrid, streets have been filled with citizens, young and progressive and from Europe’s Muslim and Arab communities, demanding an end to the European governments’ complicity in Gaza’s devastation.
For instance, back in April 2024, an Israeli airstrike's killing of seven World Central Kitchen aid workers in Gaza didn't just claim lives, it shattered diplomatic restraint. The deaths of international humanitarian workers transformed muted criticism into unprecedented demands for accountability, exposing the fraying patience of Israel's traditional allies. Also, the genocidal bombardment of civilian zones with the denial of international media to cover from within the enclave exacerbated the criticism. Israel’s defiant rhetoric has turned the tide of European opinion.
The backlash extends beyond foreign capitals as Israel’s own establishment is sounding alarms. Israel’s political elite now warn of self-inflicted ruin. For instance, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak calls the Gaza campaign “strategically disastrous.” Likewise, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert condemns the Gaza offensive as a “war without purpose” that has descended into war crimes, while ex-deputy military chief Yair Golan, once a contender for Israel’s top security post, predicts pariah status awaits. When Israel's own security architects sound the alarm, it transcends mere dissent – it constitutes an institutional vote of no confidence.
Brussels has taken note. In the meantime, the geopolitical landscape is shifting unpredictably. Trump’s reported backchannel talks with Hamas and the Houthis, while simultaneously negotiating with Iran behind Israel’s back, along with his claim of having warned Netanyahu privately, have shattered Jerusalem’s assumptions about ironclad American support, forcing Europe to recalculate its own position after sensing a vacuum, may now see an opening to assert its own diplomatic weight, testing whether Israel’s once-unshakable Western backing is beginning to erode.
EU’s moral reckoning
This is Europe’s moment of truth. For years, the EU has proclaimed itself a guardian of human rights and international law, yet its actions have often betrayed a different reality. The decision to reassess the trade pacts with Israel is a tentative step toward accountability, as are growing calls to halt arms sales to the rogue state. But declarations are meaningless without enforcement. Will the EU honor International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants if they target Israeli officials? Will it support South Africa’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) case, or quietly defer to Washington’s opposition?
Europe’s response to ICC and ICJ cases against Israel is rather a cacophony of contradictions, where Germany decries "lawfare" while Spain demands accountability, exposing the EU’s impossible straddle between moral posturing and geopolitical loyalty. Thus, the contradictions are glaring. Even as some member states condemn Israel’s actions, others continue supplying weapons and intelligence support. Similarly, the bloc remains split on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, with some governments decrying it as antisemitic while simultaneously denouncing Israeli policies. Such dissonance raises an unavoidable question: Is Europe serious about consequences, or merely performing moral outrage?
Credibility or hypocrisy?
What hangs in the balance is not just policy but also Europe’s soul. If the EU fails to act, it will confirm what critics have long argued: its commitment to justice is selective, situational and ultimately hollow. The images from Gaza and even the West Bank, the pleas of humanitarian agencies and the demands of European citizens have made neutrality impossible.
History will judge this moment. Will Europe wield its economic and diplomatic leverage to demand accountability? Or will it retreat into the familiar shadows of realpolitik, where principles dissolve when confronted with power? The answer will define not only Europe’s relationship with Israel, but also its identity on the world stage.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/why-europes-israel-sanctions-talk-rings-hollow
-------
When The ‘Civilised World’ Allows Inhumanity To Thrive, We Are All In Deep Trouble
by Ibrahim Hewitt
June 13, 2025
As the predictable calls for “restraint by both sides” are rolled out by Western politicians and officials, let us be clear that Israel’s latest attack against Iran could not, and would not, have happened without the support that those same politicians and officials have given the occupation state throughout the ongoing genocide against the people of occupied Palestine. The most far-right regime in Israel’s history has been emboldened by the likes of Keir Starmer and Ursula von der Leyen, allowing Benjamin Netanyahu to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, as well as genocide, without restraint.
Yvonne Ridley warned in an article in MEMO last October that, “Netanyahu will not stop until he drags the US and UK into Middle East war.” Her words are hugely relevant today.
In Netanyahu’s warped worldview, his “mad dog” of a state is part of the “civilised world” that he sought to “assure” in his reported comment about the Iran attacks in which he said: “…we will not let the world’s most dangerous regime get the world’s most dangerous weapons, and Iran plans to give those weapons — nuclear weapons — to its terrorist proxies that would make the nightmare of nuclear terrorism all too real.” Then he went into full “Saddam’s 45-minute WMDs” mode: “The increasing range of Iran’s ballistic missiles would bring that nuclear nightmare to the cities of Europe and eventually to America.”
The “world’s most dangerous regime” at the moment is, however, none other than the settler-colonial state of Israel, the same state that was founded on the barbarity of Zionist terrorists and has used state terrorism against the Palestinians and others ever since.
Which other state is committing war crimes on a daily basis (every illegal settlement is a war crime, remember) and letting its army loose on civilians, killing tens of thousands of women and children, destroying civilian infrastructure in the process, including hospitals, schools and places of worship? Which other state has weaponised humanitarian aid and is using starvation as a weapon of war? That’s what Israel is doing against the Palestinians in Gaza. At the same time, it has invaded and occupied parts of Lebanon and Syria while conducting a brutal military operation against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, especially the city of Jenin and its refugee camp. All the while, it has imposed apartheid on the Palestinians, including those who are Israeli citizens, according to major human rights groups B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Apartheid is akin to a crime against humanity.
And this regime has nuclear weapons. The French are usually credited, if that’s the correct term, with giving Israel support for its nuclear ambitions in the late 1950s. However, according to Andrew and Leslie Cockburn in their 1992 book Dangerous Liaison: The inside story of the US-Israeli covert relationship and the international activities it has served to conceal,” Israel also carried out acts of “nuclear espionage” against the US, the evidence of which had been “carefully buried at the request of at least one [US] president.” The espionage involved, it was said, included the “disappearance” of “at least 206 pounds of highly enriched uranium” from the Apollo nuclear development plant in Pennsylvania.
Today, Israel is believed to have up to 400 nuclear warheads, as well as the means to deliver them, at its Dimona nuclear facility in the Negev Desert. The world does not know for certain how many warheads, because the apartheid state has not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and refuses to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to visit Dimona.
Once again, the hypocrisy of Israel and its supporters in the West — Zionists one and all — is laid bare for all to see; only Israel must be allowed to be armed to the teeth, with conventional as well as nuclear weapons, and use them, where and when it wants, in “self-defence”. Nobody else in the region is given this right. Only Israel.
And yet we are being asked to believe that it is the genocidal, nuclear-armed mad dog of a settler state lashing out at anyone who dares to question its “right to exist” on Palestinian land (“People have a right to exist,” UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese noted not so long ago, “not states.”), which is a force for good in the world. Who are they kidding?
We are being conned. When the bad guys are portrayed as good people, and vice versa; and when illegality is acceptable, and what is lawful is criminalised, we need to acknowledge that we are on a slippery slope towards a huge test which threatens humanity itself. If the general response by world leaders to events in Gaza is anything to go by, however, either the message just isn’t getting through, or they are complicit in the trashing of international laws and conventions. The evidence to date points very much to the latter. We can’t say that we haven’t been warned.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250613-when-the-civilised-world-allows-inhumanity-to-thrive-we-are-all-in-deep-trouble/
-------
Last Minute Strike: Israel's Attack On Iran Prevented An Existential Threat
By Shuki Friedman
JUNE 14, 2025
In the heart of Tehran, a clock counts down to Israel’s annihilation. This is not mere rhetoric. The Iranian regime has, with unwavering resolve, pursued a project of destruction aimed squarely at the State of Israel. Despite the heavy toll on its economy and repeated Israeli strikes on its soil, Iran never abandoned its goal. The operation reportedly launched by Israel marks a decisive move in “injury time” — an eleventh-hour attempt to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It reflects a deep internalization of the horrors of October 7, especially the stark realization that when your enemy proclaims his intention to destroy you and has the means to do so — he likely will, unless you act.
In June 2017, the Iranian regime erected a doomsday clock in Tehran’s “Palestine Square,” predicting Israel’s end by 2040. This spectacle, while classic propaganda, was part of something much more sinister. Unlike other Middle Eastern actors who often traffic in bombast, Iran invested decades in its campaign of elimination. This campaign stood on two pillars: the creation of Iranian proxy militias — Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, Iraqi Hezbollah, and others — all armed and trained by Tehran; and the nuclear project aimed at achieving a deliverable atomic bomb.
The Supreme Leader and his advisors envisioned these proxies as tentacles of a strategic octopus that would eventually choke the “Zionist entity” — either through conventional warfare or nuclear force.
Did the October 7 massacre stop a genocide?
Ironically, the catastrophic October 7 assault, launched unilaterally by Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar before the Iranian noose had fully tightened, may have spared Israel from a far greater calamity. Had Israel been ambushed in similar fashion on all five fronts — Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and beyond — the existential threat would have been immeasurably graver. Painful as this war has been, it dealt a critical blow to Iran’s strangulation strategy.
What remains is the nuclear file. Iran’s pursuit of atomic weapons was first exposed in 2002. Since then, the West — led by Israel, the United States, and several European nations — has tried to halt the program through a mixture of sabotage, diplomacy, and sanctions. According to open sources, Israeli and American forces have taken out key scientists and facilities over the years. But most of the international effort rested on softer tools: negotiations, oversight, and economic pressure.
This strategy revealed a fundamental disconnect between Western rationality and Iranian ideology. The West genuinely believed that oversight and agreements — like the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — could slow Iran’s march toward the bomb. The Iranians, however, treated those agreements as elaborate deception.
The regime’s determination was laid bare by its priorities: while ordinary Iranians endured spiraling economic hardship, the leadership remained singularly focused on realizing its nuclear dream.
Israel, too, was divided. Many respected voices in the defense and political establishment dismissed then–Prime Minister Netanyahu’s fierce opposition to the JCPOA. When he floated the idea of a military strike in 2011 and beyond, critics branded it reckless. But in the end, rhetoric gave way to action.
While the full extent of the reported Israeli strike remains unclear, initial reports suggest that key facilities in Iran’s nuclear infrastructure were destroyed. This mission may not be over. Yet one thing is certain: the trauma of October 7 has finally penetrated the highest echelons of Israeli decision-making.
Classified intelligence about Iran’s “weaponization group” and recent reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency pointed to flagrant violations and signaled that Iran was nearing a point of no return. When facing an adversary with genocidal intent and a credible path to a nuclear bomb, there may be no alternative but to strike — even unilaterally.
In this context, Prime Minister Netanyahu deserves recognition. For 30 years, he has led Israel’s campaign against Iran’s nuclear project. Until now, he refrained from ordering the one decision that would truly change the equation. That changed on this historic night.
With Israeli fighter jets still in the skies over Iran, it is too early to assess the full scope of the achievement or the price Israel will pay. One can only hope for optimal outcomes — that Israeli air defense will mitigate retaliation, and that deterrence will be restored. But the message to Israel’s fiercest enemies is unmistakable: we will no longer accept a knife at our throat. And if it’s placed there — we will strike, with resolve and without hesitation.
These are also days of Israeli pride — and of a profound understanding of what Zionism truly means, and what it means to have a Jewish state. The ongoing struggle for survival is matched by a willingness to bear heavy costs, so that our people, too, may have a state — a home.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-857657
-----
What’s Left? Is There Still A Left Wing In Israel?
By Zvika Klein
JUNE 13, 2025
Israel’s political map has always been fluid, but never has it tilted so decisively to one side as in the 20 months since the Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023.
In cafés and classrooms that once brimmed with debate, the old “peace camp” now feels like an endangered species. Headlines ask whether the Israeli Left can survive; Shabbat-table conversations often assume it has already died. Yet the numbers and the people behind them tell a more complicated story – one that mixes retreat with reinvention.
Even before the war began, the Zionist Left was shrinking. In the November 2022 election, the Labor Party limped in with just four Knesset seats, and Meretz failed to cross the electoral threshold, together winning barely 7% of the vote. (By comparison, Yitzhak Rabin’s Labor captured 44 seats in 1992.)
The two parties formally merged last June to create “The Democrats,” a move Labor chair Yair Golan called “historic” as he signed the agreement, perhaps because survival, not victory, was at stake (The Jerusalem Post, June 30, 2024).
Public opinion data traced the same downward slope. According to the Israel Democracy Institute’s Israeli Voice Index, roughly 20% of Israeli Jews placed themselves on the Left in 2019; by early 2025, that share had slid to about 12% (IDI monthly surveys, Viterbi Center).
Demography amplifies the trend: Among 18- to 24-year-olds, 73% identify as right-wing, the IDI reported in a pre-war 2023 benchmark poll. In other words, the pipeline of future voters was already tilting right long before Hamas attacked.
October 7 and the great lurch right
Then came the massacre. Channel 12’s “N12” poll on November 24, 2023, found 36% of Israelis saying they had moved further right since October 7, while just 6% had shifted left. Even 10% of self-described center- or left-wing voters acknowledged a rightward turn. The trauma of seeing 1,200 people slaughtered – and of sending children and reserves into a drawn-out Gaza war – turned security into the only political currency that mattered.
The Pew Research Center quantified the same phenomenon this month: Only 21% of Israelis now believe a peaceful two-state coexistence is possible, the lowest number Pew has measured since 2013 and down 14 points since spring 2023. Gallup’s parallel tracking shows hope for permanent peace at a record-low 13%.
Celebrity chef Meir Adoni captured the raw emotion in an Instagram post that went viral days after the massacre: “The delusional Left in me died on October 7… I repent my sin.” Across social media, thousands “liked” the confession and reiterated it.
Converts, critics, and a crisis of belief
The most dramatic voices are those who once carried a leftist banner and now wave the opposite flag. Historian Dr. Gadi Taub, a former Peace Now activist, wrote in Tablet, “The October 7 massacre sealed the fate of the two-state solution on the Israeli side.” Taub accuses the remaining progressives of “clinging to dovish generals” while ordinary Israelis “can see the failure of the peace framework quite plainly.”
Likewise, ex-Labor MK Einat Wilf, still liberal on many fronts, told this newspaper that Israel’s “natural government” should be “a Mapai-type, hawkish centrist coalition… aware of the ruthlessness of our enemies, while still striving for peace.” Pure left-wing governments, she argued, also “failed” to win public trust. Her message resonates with voters who no longer believe in utopia but still want governance that is competent and democratic.
Not everyone abandoned the old ideals. Uri Zaki, a veteran Meretz activist who lost friends on October 7, told The Jerusalem Post Magazine that the massacre “has not changed my views but only confirmed them… I believed we should fight Hamas like a terrorist organization and still pursue a diplomatic solution.” For Zaki and a stubborn minority, Hamas’s brutality proves that hard security and a political horizon are both indispensable.
Grass-roots organizer Alon-Lee Green of Standing Together has tried to hold a centrist line of solidarity. Speaking to Haaretz in May, he insisted that “both peoples deserve life and security” and warned that extremists thrive on dividing Jewish and Arab citizens. Such voices are scarce on prime-time television these days, but they have not disappeared.
A Left pulse, but faint
Where does all this leave the ballot box? After the Labor-Meretz merger, most polls give The Democrats 5-9 projected seats, barely above the four-seat threshold and a fraction of the Left’s historic weight. Meanwhile, Benny Gantz’s National Unity and Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid, both stylistically centrist but hawkish on security, harvest the lion’s share of opposition votes.
Yair Golan is gambling that military credibility can rescue the brand. “Reject separation and adopt annexation, and what we get is a messianic dictatorship,” he warned in an interview last year with the Post’s Eliav Breuer. Whether that warning cuts through wartime anger remains unknown; Maariv’s May 2025 poll suggested Golan’s party actually lost four seats after he criticized IDF tactics.
The war also narrowed the space for dissent. When 18-year-old Tal Mitnick became the first to refuse IDF service after October 7, he was jailed for 30 days and blasted as a traitor.
“More killing won’t bring back lives,” he told The Guardian on his release, adding that Israelis were “manufacturing consent to keep bombing Gaza.” Mitnick’s pacifism won praise abroad but hostility at home, another sign of how lonely the remaining Left can feel.
Is the Left finished? Two scenarios loom:
Rebirth as a tough-minded liberal center. Figures like Wilf and Golan believe Israelis could rally behind a party that marries iron-clad security credentials to democratic guardrails and social liberalism. If centrist giants such as Gantz ultimately strike alliances with them, a new bloc could emerge – more “Ben-Gurionist” than Oslo-era Meretz but still distinct from today’s nationalist-religious Right.
Continued eclipse. Many former Left voters now see Israeli politics as a binary choice between Right and “responsible Right.” If the war in Gaza drags on, if fighting with Hezbollah escalates, or if 2026 brings another security shock, caution may trump any appetite for diplomatic daring. In that climate, the Left could stay in single digits for the foreseeable future.
Much depends on the war’s endgame. A painfully prolonged campaign without a clear political horizon could renew interest in separation. Conversely, a decisive Israeli victory–or a wider regional conflict–might entrench hawkish sentiment for a generation. The only certainty in Israeli politics is volatility.
So what’s left of the Left? According to the most recent IDI survey, roughly one in eight Jewish Israelis still calls themselves left-wing, and perhaps twice that number share a vote for left-branded parties. That is a remnant, not a movement. Yet within that remnant are activists, ex-generals, academics, and ordinary citizens who refuse to surrender the idea that Israel can be both secure and liberal.
Their challenge is twofold. First, they must translate moral language into a security discourse that the mainstream trusts. Second, they must forge alliances with centrists who share a commitment to democratic norms, if not the full peace-camp catechism. If they fail, the political spectrum will continue to narrow until even moderate dissent sounds radical. If they succeed, they could offer Israelis a patriotic alternative.
Many left-wing and center-left Israelis – but not all – have focused their energy in recent years on combating anything that had to do with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This camp is called by people on the Right, rak lo Bibi, or anyone but Bibi (Netanyahu).
The Zionist Left may not be dead, but it is unrecognizable. What remains is a scattered collection of individuals clinging to ideas few want to hear. They speak of peace to a nation that no longer believes in it and of coexistence while rockets still fly. For now, the Israeli mainstream has chosen clarity over complexity, survival over sympathy. Whether history will vindicate that choice is another matter.
In the next few weeks, I will focus on this issue in the column, as well as through interviews with fascinating Israelis who will provide their analysis of the political Left’s situation in Israel in The Jerusalem Post Studio.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-857558
------
Attack on Iran: Who Were the Iranian Commanders and Scientists Killed by Israel?
June 13, 2025
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and official state media have confirmed the deaths of several senior military commanders and nuclear scientists following Israeli airstrikes on multiple locations across Iran at dawn on Friday.
Khamenei emphasized that “their successors and colleagues will immediately resume their duties,” signaling Iran’s intent to maintain operational continuity despite the losses.
According to the US-based outlet Axios, an Israeli official stated that the strikes deliberately targeted top Iranian military leaders and nuclear scientists.
These are the most prominent figures Tehran has announced were killed in the attack:
Hossein Salami
Born in 1960 near Golpayegan in Isfahan Province, Hossein Salami was a prominent Iranian military figure and commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
He studied mechanical engineering in Tehran before joining the IRGC following the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), where he held command over several air and naval divisions on the western and southern fronts.
In 1992, Salami founded the IRGC’s Command and Staff University in Tehran, known as the “Davos Course,” aimed at training specialized military personnel.
He led the institution until 1996 before assuming the role of Deputy Chief of Operations of the IRGC Joint Staff, a position he held until 2005.
In that same year, Salami was appointed commander of the IRGC Air Force, serving until 2009. He was then named deputy commander-in-chief of the IRGC, a role he maintained for a decade until 2019.
In addition to his field responsibilities, he also taught at the National Defense University and briefly served as acting assistant director of IRGC coordination in 2018.
In April 2019, Supreme Leader Khamenei promoted Salami to the rank of major general and appointed him commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guards, making him the eighth official to lead the military body that operates parallel to Iran’s national army. That same year, the US imposed sanctions on him and other senior IRGC commanders.
Mohammad Hossein Bagheri
Also known as Mohammad Hossein Afshordi, Bagheri was born in 1958 and became one of Iran’s most senior military commanders. A veteran of the Iran-Iraq War, he was the younger brother of Hassan Bagheri, a founding figure of the IRGC’s intelligence and operations division.
Bagheri joined the IRGC in 1980, abandoning his mechanical engineering studies due to the Cultural Revolution and university closures. He later earned a PhD in political geography from Tarbiat Modares University and taught at the National Defense University.
His career included key roles in field operations, intelligence, and military planning. He served during the Kurdish insurgency in the country’s northwest in the early 1980s and played a leading role in IRGC operations against Kurdish opposition groups throughout the 1990s. Bagheri also held intelligence roles in the Karbala and Khatam al-Anbia headquarters—the latter being the engineering arm of the IRGC.
In 2008, he was promoted to major general. Between 2002 and 2014, he served as Deputy Chief of the Intelligence and Operations Division of the Armed Forces General Staff. On June 28, 2016, Khamenei appointed him Chief of Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces, succeeding Major General Hassan Firouzabadi.
Fereydoun Abbasi Dawai
Born on September 8, 1958, in Abadan, Fereydoun Abbasi Dawai was a nuclear physicist, senior IRGC officer, and university professor. He earned his PhD in nuclear physics from Shahid Beheshti University and joined the IRGC in 1978.
Abbasi played a key role in Iran’s uranium enrichment efforts and served as head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) from 2010 to 2014. He was also appointed Vice President under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and later elected to parliament in 2019, representing the Kazerun and Kohjnar constituency.
He was affiliated with several leading academic institutions, including Shiraz University, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, and Amir Kabir University of Technology, and served as head of the Physics Department at Imam Hussein University.
A target of multiple Israeli assassination attempts, Abbasi was injured along with his wife in a 2010 car bombing that also killed fellow scientist Majid Shahriari. Prior to his death, he was considered one of Iran’s most influential nuclear experts.
Gholam Ali Rashid
Major General Gholam Ali Rashid, commander of the Khatam al-Anbia Central Headquarters of the IRGC, was also confirmed killed.
Rashid was a key strategist responsible for overseeing coordination among Iran’s military branches and planning high-level defense operations.
Iranian media also reported the deaths of:
Unconfirmed reports suggest that Ali Shamkhani, a senior advisor to Supreme Leader Khamenei and former Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, was critically injured in the Israeli strikes and has been hospitalized in serious condition.
These strikes represent a major escalation in the shadow war between Israel and Iran, targeting the very core of Iran’s military and scientific leadership.
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/attack-on-iran-who-were-the-iranian-commanders-and-scientists-killed-by-israel/
-----
Israel May Have Just Pushed Iran Across The Nuclear Line
By Ibrahim Al-Marashi and Mohammad Eslami
13 Jun 2025
Historians may well mark June 13, 2025, as the day the world crossed a line it may not easily step back from. In a move that shocked the international community and sent global markets reeling, Israel launched a wide-scale military operation against Iran in the early hours of the morning, striking targets across at least 12 provinces, including the capital, Tehran, and the northwestern hub of Tabriz. Among the targets were suspected nuclear facilities, air defence systems, and the homes and offices of senior military personnel. Iranian state media confirmed the deaths of several top commanders in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The Israeli government officially confirmed responsibility for the attacks, naming the campaign Operation Raising Lion. Iranian officials described it as the most direct act of war in the countries’ decades-long shadow conflict.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to be pursuing two objectives. First, Israeli officials fear that Iran is nearing the technical capability to build a nuclear weapon – something Netanyahu has repeatedly promised to prevent, by force if necessary. Second, Israel hopes a dramatic escalation will pressure Tehran into accepting a new nuclear agreement more favourable to United States and Israeli interests, including the removal of its enriched uranium stockpiles. Just as Netanyahu has failed to destroy Hamas through military force, both goals may ultimately serve only to perpetuate a broader regional war.
While the prospect of all-out war between Iran and Israel has long loomed, Friday’s events feel dangerously different. The scale, audacity and implications of the attack – and the near-certain Iranian response – raise the spectre of a regional conflict spilling far beyond its traditional bounds.
Since the 2011 Arab Spring, a Saudi-Iranian cold war has played out across the region as each country has sought to expand its influence. That rivalry was paused through Chinese mediation in March 2023. But since October 2023, a war of attrition between Israel and Iran has unfolded through both conventional and asymmetrical means – a conflict that now threatens to define the trajectory of the Middle East for years to come.
Whether this confrontation escalates further now hinges largely on one man: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. If Iran’s supreme leader comes to view the survival of the Islamic Republic as fundamentally threatened, Tehran’s response could expand far beyond Israeli territory.
In recent months, Israeli leaders had issued repeated warnings that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities was imminent. Intelligence assessments in Tel Aviv claimed Iran was only weeks away from acquiring the necessary components to build a nuclear weapon. Although this claim was disputed by other members of the international community, it nonetheless shaped Israel’s decision to act militarily.
At the same time, indirect negotiations between Iran and the US had been under way, focused on limiting Iran’s uranium enrichment and reducing tensions through a revised nuclear agreement. US President Donald Trump publicly supported these diplomatic efforts, describing them as preferable to what he called a potentially bloody war. However, the talks faltered when Iran refused to halt enrichment on its own soil.
The US administration, while officially opposing military escalation, reportedly gave tacit approval for a limited Israeli strike. Washington is said to have believed that such a strike could shift the balance in negotiations and send a message that Iran was not negotiating from a position of strength – similar to how Trump has framed Ukraine’s position in relation to Russia. Although US officials maintain they had advance knowledge of the attacks but did not participate operationally, both the aircraft and the bunker-busting bombs used were supplied by the US, the latter during Trump’s first term.
Initial reports from Iranian sources confirm that the strikes inflicted significant damage on centrifuge halls and enrichment pipelines at its Natanz facility. However, Iranian officials insist the nuclear programme remains intact. Iran’s nuclear infrastructure includes multiple deeply buried sites – some more than 500 metres (550 yards) underground and spread across distances exceeding 1,000km (620 miles). As a result, the total destruction of the programme by air strikes alone in this initial phase appears unlikely.
Iranian officials have long warned that any direct military aggression on their territory by Israel would cross a red line, and they have promised severe retaliation. Now, with blood spilled on its soil and key targets destroyed, Khamenei faces enormous internal and external pressure to respond. The elimination of multiple high-ranking military officials in a single night has further intensified the demand for a multifaceted response.
Iran’s reply so far has taken the form of another wave of drone attacks, similar to those launched in April and October – most of which were intercepted by Israeli and Jordanian defences.
If Iran does not engage with the US at the upcoming talks in Oman on Sunday regarding a possible nuclear deal, the failure of diplomacy could mark the start of a sustained campaign. The Iranian government has stated that it does not view the Israeli operation as an isolated incident, but rather as the beginning of a longer conflict. Referring to it as a “war of attrition” – a term also used to describe Iran’s drawn-out war with Iraq in the 1980s – officials have indicated the confrontation is likely to unfold over weeks or even months.
While retaliatory missile and drone strikes on Israeli targets are likely to continue, many now anticipate that Iran could also target US military bases in the Gulf, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and even Jordan. Such an escalation would likely draw US forces directly into the conflict, implicate critical regional infrastructure and disrupt global oil supplies, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz. That, in turn, could trigger a steep rise in energy prices and send global markets spiralling – dragging in the interests of nearly every major power.
Even if an immediate, proportionate military response proves difficult, Iran is expected to act across several domains, including cyberattacks, proxy warfare and political manoeuvring. Among the political options reportedly under consideration is a full withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Iran has long used the NPT framework to assert that its nuclear programme is peaceful. Exiting the treaty would signal a significant policy shift. Additionally, there is growing speculation within Iran’s political circles that the religious decree issued by Khamenei banning the development and use of nuclear weapons may be reconsidered. If that prohibition is lifted, Iran could pursue a nuclear deterrent openly for the first time.
Whether Israel’s strikes succeeded in delaying Iran’s nuclear ambitions – or instead provoked Tehran to accelerate them – remains uncertain. What is clear is that the confrontation has entered a new phase. Should Iran exit the NPT and begin advancing its nuclear programme without the constraints of international agreements, some may argue that Israel’s campaign – intended to stop a bomb – may instead end up accelerating its creation.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/6/13/israel-may-have-just-pushed-iran-across-the-nuclear-line
-----
As Israel Strikes Iran, What Happened To ‘America First’?
13 Jun 2025
Early this morning, Israel conducted unprecedented strikes on Iran, killing civilians along with senior military officials and scientists and basically forcing the Iranian government into a position in which it must retaliate – as if there already was not enough going on in the Middle East, particularly with Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
Israel, of course, thrives on perpetual upheaval and mass killing, all the while portraying itself as the victim of the folks it is slaughtering and otherwise antagonising. True to form, the Israelis have now cast Iran as the aggressor, with the country’s nonexistent nuclear weapons allegedly posing a “threat to Israel’s very survival”, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared in his statement announcing the launch of “Operation Rising Lion”.
Unlike Iran, Israel does happen to possess nuclear weapons – which just renders the whole situation all the more flammable. But for Netanyahu, at least, keeping the region in flames is a means of saving his own skin from domestic opposition and embroilment in various corruption charges.
The United States, for its part, has denied collaboration in the Israeli attacks, although just yesterday US President Donald Trump acknowledged that an Israeli strike on Iran “could very well happen”. The US head of state, who in March trumpeted the fact that he was “sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job” in Gaza, has more recently gotten under Netanyahu’s skin by urging a diplomatic solution with Iran, among other insufficiently belligerent moves.
By launching a so-called “preemptive strike” on Iran, then, Israel has effectively preempted the prospect of any sort of peaceful solution to the issue of whether or not the Iranians should be permitted to pursue a civilian nuclear enrichment programme.
Already on Wednesday, Trump confirmed that US diplomatic and military personnel were being “moved out” of certain parts of the Middle East “because it could be a dangerous place, and we’ll see what happens”.
Now that the place appears to have become definitively more dangerous, the White House has scheduled a National Security Council meeting in Washington – with Trump in attendance – for 11 am local time (15:00 GMT). In other words, perhaps, there is no rush to deal with a potentially impending apocalypse without leaving US officials ample time for a leisurely breakfast first.
Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio has, however, already weighed in on developments, stating: “We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region.”
Rubio additionally warned: “Let me be clear: Iran should not target US interests or personnel.”
To be sure, the United States is no stranger to targeting Iranian interests and personnel. Recall the case of the January 2020 US assassination by drone strike of Qassem Soleimani, head of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which simply further enshrined imperial double standards.
The assassination, which took place in Baghdad during Trump’s first stint as president, constituted a violation of international law – hardly an aberration in US foreign policy. The killing was so exciting even to members of the liberal US media that, for example, The New York Times swiftly published the opinion by its resident foreign affairs columnist that “one day they may name a street after President Trump in Tehran”.
That day has yet to come – though Trump would have undoubtedly been regarded with less ill will in Tehran had he stuck to the “America First” policy that is the cornerstone of his second administration. As the name suggests, this policy ostensibly promotes a focus on US citizens and their needs rather than on, you know, bombing people in other countries.
And yet the at least tacit endorsement extended by Trump for today’s attacks on Iran would seem to call into question American priorities – and raise the possibility that the US is instead putting “Israel First”.
Indeed, this would not be the first time the US government is accused of placing Israel’s policy objectives ahead of its own. The billions upon billions of dollars in lethal aid that Republican and Democratic administrations alike have showered upon Israel can scarcely be said to benefit the average US citizen, who would certainly be better off if said billions were invested in, say, affordable housing or healthcare options in the US itself.
Understandably, such financial arrangements lend themselves to rumours that Israel is in fact calling the shots in Washington. But at the end of the day, key sectors of US capitalism make a killing off of Israel’s regional savagery; you’re not going to hear the US arms industry, for instance, complaining that today’s assault on Iran doesn’t put America first.
The Reuters news agency reports that the spokesperson for Iran’s armed forces has “said Israel and its chief ally the United States would pay a ‘heavy price’ for the attack, accusing Washington of providing support for the operation”.
And whatever that price is, Israel’s chief ally will no doubt ultimately find that it was all worth it.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/6/13/israel-strikes-iran-what-happened-to-america-first
------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/world-war-iii-inhumanity-iran-nuclear/d/135864
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