Irish Examiner view: There is no endgame in Iran-US conflict
Those of us who awoke to notifications of the American attack on Iranian nuclear sites must be forgiven the sense of creeping dread that the blaze lit by Israel's strikes is about to become a forest fire.
Donald Trump — who ordered the attacks without congressional approval and campaigned on keeping America out of wars — seems to think this single big-stick action will be sufficient, saying 'now is the time for peace'.
He has already called for Iran's 'unconditional surrender' in the face of Israel's military actions. However, with his rambling speeches and moments of confusion having given rise to concerns about the sort of deteriorating mental capabilities he would have accused Joe Biden of demonstrating, alongside an increasingly incoherent approach to foreign policy (he was the one who withdrew from Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran in the first place), he is capable of anything at any time.
Let us be clear that Europe, Israel, and the US have valid reasons to be concerned about Iran's potential to build a nuclear weapon. It has funded and armed proxies across the Middle East, and the country's human rights violations at home are egregious.
However, even Trump's own director of intelligence said Iran was not close to building a nuclear bomb — though when told this during a doorstep interview, he simply said she was wrong. How do you tackle that sort of wilful ignorance?
It cannot be surprising that Iran has ruled out diplomacy for the time being, given that its ministers have said it was engaging in diplomacy when it was attacked by Israel. The door is not locked, just shut gently for now.
Jaw-jaw may be better than war-war, but it requires both sides to engage.
That we are now looking at escalation across the Middle East, where the US has 40,000 troops and myriad business and military interests, seems especially depressing given that Iran claims to have largely evacuated the targeted nuclear sites before they were hit. So bringing in the big guns may have been for nought but carnage. The art of the deal indeed.
In the era of drone and cyberwarfare, brute force attacks seem almost a throwback or a relic, though they are still effective.
But, given that Ukraine has shown how a smaller, nimbler force powered by modern tech can outwit bigger forces, what's to stop Iran doing something similar — and on a longer timescale than just an immediate retaliation?
The only thing for certain is that we are not near the endgame, whether that be measured in days, weeks, or years.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
3 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Trump says he is open to regime change in Iran
President Donald Trump has called into question the future of Iran's ruling theocracy, seemingly contradicting his administration's earlier calls to resume negotiations and avoid an escalation in fighting. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' Mr Trump posted on social media. 'MIGA!!!' The posting on Truth Social marked something of a reversal from defence secretary Pete Hegseth's Sunday morning news conference that detailed the aerial bombing on three of the country's nuclear sites. 'This mission was not and has not been about regime change,' Mr Hegseth said. "The damage to the Nuclear sites in Iran is said to be 'monumental.' The hits were hard and accurate. Great skill was shown by our military. Thank you!" –President Donald J. Trump — The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 22, 2025 Secretary of state Marco Rubio warned on Fox News that any retaliation against the US or a rush toward building a nuclear weapon would 'put the regime at risk'. Mr Trump's warning to Iran's leadership comes as the US has demanded that Iran not respond to the bombardment of the heart of a nuclear programme it spent decades developing. The Trump administration has made a series of intimidating statements even as it has simultaneously called to restart negotiations, making it hard to get a complete read on whether the president is simply taunting an adversary or using inflammatory words that could further widen the war between Israel and Iran that began earlier this month. Up until the president's post on Sunday afternoon, the coordinated messaging by Mr Trump's vice president, Pentagon chief, top military adviser and secretary of state suggested a confidence that any fallout would be manageable and that Iran's lack of military capabilities would ultimately force it back to the bargaining table. Mr Hegseth had said that America 'does not seek war' with Iran, while Vice President JD Vance said the strikes have given Tehran the possibility of returning to negotiate with Washington. But the unfolding situation is not entirely under Washington's control, as Tehran has a series of levers to respond to the aerial bombings, which could intensify the conflict in the Middle East with possible global repercussions. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks during a news conference at the Pentagon on Sunday (Alex Brandon/AP) Iran can block oil being shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, attack US bases in the region, engage in cyber attacks or double down on a nuclear programme might seem like more of a necessity after the US strike. Mr Trump, who had addressed the nation from the White House on Saturday night, returned to social media on Sunday to lambast Republican Congress member Thomas Massie, who had objected to the president taking military action without specific congressional approval. 'We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the 'bomb' right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!)' Mr Trump said as part of the post on Truth Social. At their joint Pentagon briefing, Mr Hegseth and Air Force General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said 'Operation Midnight Hammer' involved decoys and deception, and met with no Iranian resistance. General Caine indicated that the goal of the operation — destroying nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan — had been achieved. 'Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,' he said. An electronic billboard beams an image of president Donald Trump alongside the message 'Thank you, Mr. President' referring to the US involvement in the war between Israel and Iran (Bernat Armangue/AP) While US officials urged caution and stressed that only nuclear sites were targeted by Washington, Iran criticised the actions as a violation of its sovereignty and international law. Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said Washington was 'fully responsible' for whatever actions Tehran may take in response. 'They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities,' he said at a news conference in Turkey. 'I don't know how much room is left for diplomacy.' China and Russia, where Araghchi was heading for talks with President Vladimir Putin, condemned the US military action. The attacks were 'a gross violation of international law,' said Russia's Foreign Ministry, which also advocated 'returning the situation to a political and diplomatic course.' A Turkish Foreign Ministry statement warned about the risk of the conflict spreading to 'a global level'. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the United Kingdom was moving military equipment into the area to protect its interests, people and allies. His office said he talked on Sunday with Mr Trump about the need for Tehran to resume negotiations, but Mr Trump would have posted his remarks about regime change after their conversation. The leaders of Italy, Canada, Germany and France agreed on the need for 'a rapid resumption of negotiations.' France's Emmanuel Macron held talks with the Saudi Crown Prince and the Sultan of Oman.
Irish Examiner
3 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Is Ireland sliding into a gerontocracy where the older generation dominates?
A gerontocracy is a system where the elderly hold sway, governing by and for their own interests. The concept traces back to the classical period, with Plato describing a society where 'the elder man rules, and the younger submits.' In Sparta, the Gerousia, a council of elders including two kings and nearly 30 elite full-citizen men of the city state of Sparta over 60, wielded significant judicial and legislative power, embodying this structure. The term 'senate' derives from the Latin senex, meaning old man. From antiquity to today, gerontocracy persists in places such as China, where CCP leaders seldom retire before their late 80s, perhaps adhering to that Confucian adage that 'when you meet someone older, you must respect and submit to that person's wisdom and power because he must have come across problems you encounter'. Perhaps the most vivid example of modern gerontocracy is in the world's superpower the United States where an octogenarian and septuagenarian candidate dominated the field during the last presidential election in a country where the average age is 38. Polling showed that many voters in the US were uneasy with 81-year-old Donald Trump and 78-year-old Joe Biden, before being replaced by his 60-year-old vice president Kamala Harris, as the two early nominees with age a major factor in their discontent. Beyond the executive branch, the second branch of government - the legislative - is dominated by elders. The current Senate is the second oldest, with an average age of 63, and the House of Representatives is the third oldest, averaging 57 years of age, since the foundation of the US Congress in 1789. It was president Ronald Reagan who, at the ripe old age of 78, in 1984 said he would not make age an issue during his presidential campaign against Walter Mondale. But while candidates may not make age an explicit issue during the campaign it certainly dominates their time in office. Currently, about a third of the federal budget is dedicated to Social Security and Medicare payments which benefits those over 60, who make up less than 20% of the US population. These costs are mainly borne by young workers and employers even as older generations are financially better off than younger cohorts. Talk of cuts to such programmes are usually met with voter rage as candidates and office holders alike walk a tightrope in accommodating older voters and promising to balance budgets. Aside from international examples, Ireland offers a closer look at gerontocratic rule. A recent study carried out by the Electoral Commission reveals the older generation's outsized influence on Irish elections. Titled the National Election & Democracy Study General Election 2024, the findings, carried out by Red C, indicates that 90% of those aged 65+ voted in last year's general election. But while the older generation enthusiastically headed to polling stations in their droves, young people, for the most part, stayed at home - their parents' home, that is. Housing between the generations Housing, the top electoral issue, underscores this divide. While voters express frustration with the crisis, 89% of those who turned out to vote are homeowners, with two-thirds reporting stable or improved economic conditions. Since the Troika's exit in 2013, house prices have doubled, boosting wealth for homeowners — mostly older generations. Meanwhile, wages, especially for younger people, have lagged, rising just 27% since the crash from 2013-2022. The ESRI highlights Ireland's stark generational homeownership gap: nearly 80% of those over 40 own homes, compared to just a third of those under 40. In 1993, 70% of 25-34-year-olds were homeowners; by 2016, 60% of this group were renters, and the 2022 census showed over two-thirds of 18-34-year-olds still living with their parents - way above the EU average. With 30% of Ireland's population aged 18-39, the over-40 cohort, around 10% larger, dominates both homeownership and voter turnout. Despite desperate attempts by the Millennial 'TikTok Teesh' Simon Harris to appeal to the youth, the 34th Dáil's power rests on older homeowners' support. This influence is reflected in government policy. Pensions In 2020, nearly every party opposed raising the state pension age from 66, with Sinn Féin, popular among under-65s, pledging to lower it to 65. A post-election Commission on Pensions recommended gradually raising the age to 67 by 2031. With the average life expectancy standing at 87, it only makes sense that the pension age rise concurrently. Yet the government, seemingly wary of older voters, rejected the recommendation, offering higher pensions for those retiring at 70 and proposing PRSI hikes — largely borne by younger workers. With birth rates declining and the worker-to-pensioner ratio projected to drop to 2:1 by 2050, PRSI costs will likely climb, further impacting working age people. Pensions, like housing, favour the old. Only 30% of 20-24-year-olds have some sort of pension plan, compared to over 70% of 45-54-year-olds, often tied to property wealth. Maybe the government's refusal to raise the pension age is informed by the last time geriatric rage was elicited. Following the crash, and the imposition of brutal austerity, the Fianna Fáil-Green-PD government did away with the automatic entitlement for over 70s to free healthcare and a medical card. This sparked major protests with opposition leaders, including Fine Gael's Enda Kenny and Labour's Eamon Gilmore, addressing some demonstrators. Fearing the electoral repercussions, the coalition government backtracked on their plans but ploughed ahead with gruelling cuts for mainly younger, working-age people. Shortly after the crash, Ireland registered one of the highest unemployment rates among those aged 15-24 at over 40%. Many young people emigrated — nearly 10% during the recession — rather than protest. The housing trap Housing remains the starkest indicator of youth disenfranchisement. Average rents now exceed €2,000 monthly, and post-crash rules requiring 10-20% deposits trap young people in a cycle of paying more in rent than a mortgage would cost. House prices are seven times the average income, compared to 1.5 times in the 1980s. A new report from the Central Bank of Ireland found that the wealthiest 10% of households held just below half of the total net wealth in 2024 mainly due to high house prices. According to the bank, Irish households have financial assets worth €570bn. For them, rising house prices are a positive development with politicians equally richly rewarded at the ballot box. When Mary Lou McDonald proposed lowering house prices to €300,000, her party was accused of recklessness. Fine Gael Senator John Cummins warned: 'We'd see our construction sector and economy crash.' Similar sentiments were echoed by then Taoiseach Leo Varadkar when he stated that "one person's rent is another person's income" when voicing his opposition to rent caps. Such Freudian slips reveal how politicians view housing: as an asset whose rising price must be maintained in order to satisfy the equity of a homeowners' property and yields for a landlord. Meanwhile, those desperate to get onto the property ladder and stuck paying gargantuan rents are left scraping by and politically unrepresented. Independent TD Barry Heneghan, at just 27 years of age, is one of the youngest candidates to sit in the current Dáil. Photo: Sam Boal/Collins Photos While some younger candidates did manage to get elected during the last general election, including Barry Heneghan at age 27, the spectre of career politician and septuagenarian Michael Lowry giving Paul Murphy the two fingers in the Dáil chamber as the new government was formed could not have shown more clearly whose interests they will represent. Minister of state for international development and the diaspora, Neale Richmond, recently mentioned that Ireland's greatest export was its people. With 70% of young people in Ireland contemplating emigration, you can expect bumper figures for exports in the future if this situation continues. The fissures between old and young are widening with housing causing the rupture and youth despair filling the crevice. Going back to first principles and re-examining who housing policy should represent and what the purpose of a home is would go a long way in stabilising that societal chasm.
RTÉ News
3 hours ago
- RTÉ News
UN Security Council meets amid push for a ceasefire
The UN Security Council met to discuss US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites as Russia, China and Pakistan proposed the 15-member body adopt a resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the Middle East. "The bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States marks a perilous turn," UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres told the Security Council yesterday. "We must act - immediately and decisively - to halt the fighting and return to serious, sustained negotiations on the Iran nuclear programme," he added. Russia and China condemned the US strikes. "Peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved by the use of force," said China's UN Ambassador Fu Cong. "Diplomatic means to address the Iranian nuclear issue haven't been exhausted, and there's still hope for a peaceful solution," he added. But acting US Ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea told the council the time had come for the US to act decisively, urging the Security Council to call upon Iran to end its efforts to eradicate Israel and terminate its drive for nuclear weapons. "Iran long obfuscated its nuclear weapons programme and stonewalled our good-faith efforts in recent negotiations," she said. "The Iranian regime cannot have a nuclear weapon." Russia's UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia recalled former US Secretary of State Colin Powell making the case at the UN Security Council in 2003 that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein constituted an imminent danger to the world because of the country's stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. "Again we're being asked to believe the US's fairy tales, to once again inflict suffering on millions of people living in the Middle East. This cements our conviction that history has taught our US colleagues nothing," he said. Cost of inaction 'catastrophic' Iran requested the UN Security Council meeting yesterday. Iran's UN Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani accused Israel and the US of destroying diplomacy, said all US allegations are unfounded and that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty "has been manipulated into a political weapon." "Instead of guaranteeing parties' legitimate rights to peaceful nuclear energy, it has been exploited as a pretext for aggression and unlawful action that jeopardise the supreme interests of my country," Mr Iravani told the council. Israel's UN Ambassador Danny Danon praised the US for taking action against Iran, saying: "This is what the last line of defence looks like when every other line has failed." He accused Iran of using negotiations over its nuclear programme as camouflage to buy time to build missiles and enrich uranium. "The cost of inaction would have been catastrophic. A nuclear Iran would have been a death sentence just as much for you as it would have been for us," he told the council. It was not immediately clear when the council could vote on the draft resolution. Russia, China and Pakistan have asked council members to share their comments by this evening. A resolution needs at least nine votes in favour and no vetoes by the US, France, Britain, Russia or China to pass. The US is likely to oppose the draft resolution, seen by Reuters, which also condemns attacks on Iran's nuclear sites and facilities. The text does not name the United States or Israel. "Military action alone cannot bring a durable solution to concerns about Iran's nuclear programme," Britain's UN Ambassador Barbara Woodward told the council. "We urge Iran now to show restraint, and we urge all parties to return to the negotiating table and find a diplomatic solution which stops further escalation and brings this crisis to an end," she added. UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi said that while craters were visible at Iran's enrichment site buried into a mountain at Fordow, "no one - including the IAEA - is in a position to assess the underground damage." Mr Grossi told the Security Council that entrances to tunnels used for the storage of enriched material appear to have been hit at Iran's sprawling Isfahan nuclear complex, while the fuel enrichment plant at Natanz has been struck again. "Iran has informed the IAEA there has been no increase in off-site radiation levels at all three sites," said Mr Grossi, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency.
