New Deal or Full-Scale War Can Halt Iran's Nuclear Progress: Former Israeli PM
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak has described Iran as a 'threshold nuclear power,' and noted that military action by Israel alone will not be enough to stop Iran's nuclear progress, according to Arab News. Several Possibilities
During a video interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, Barak stated that Israeli government's ability to put an end to Iran's nuclear program was limited.
'In my judgment, it's not a secret that Israel alone cannot delay the nuclear program of Iran by a significant time period. Probably several weeks, probably a month, but even the US cannot delay them by more than a few months,' he said.
However, he noted that such possibility does not mean that Iran will have nuclear weapons as they probably still have to complete certain weaponization. Moreover, they 'probably have to create a crude nuclear device to explode it somewhere in the desert to show the whole world where they are.'
Barak also called Israeli strikes on Iran 'problematic,' but Israel has justifications for its actions. 'Instead of sitting idle, Israel feels that they have to do something. Probably together with the Americans we can do more.' New Deal or Full-Scale War
'Israel alone cannot delay the nuclear program of Iran by a significant time period. Probably several weeks… a month,' says Israel's former PM Ehud Barak. 'Even the US cannot delay them by more than a few months.' So what's the strategy here? I asked him. See his response. pic.twitter.com/U793ue66A1
— Christiane Amanpour (@amanpour) June 13, 2025
Importantly, he mentioned that there are only two ways to stop Iran's progress whether to reach a diplomatic breakthrough or change the Iranian regime. 'My judgment is that because Iran is already what's called a threshold nuclear power, the only way to block it is either to impose upon it a convincing new agreement or alternatively a full-scale war to topple down the regime,' Barak added.
Moreover, he said that Israel could do this with the support of the US, but the US seemed to have no willing for this move. 'I don't believe that any American president, neither Trump nor any one of his predecessors, would have decided to do that,' he added. Israeli-Iranian Conflict
On June 13, Israel launched a wave of airstrikes on Iran under the name of Operation Rising Lion. The military campaign targeted Iran's nuclear facilities and killed top military commanders and nuclear scientists.
As a response, Iran launched a retaliatory wave of missiles against Israel and targeted Tel Aviv. Israel also killed three more Iranian nuclear scientists, raising the total number of scientists slain to nine, according to Gulf News.
Currently, both countries are trading missiles and attacks amid intensifying efforts to halt the conflict.
Related Topics:
Trump Hints at US Involvement in Iran-Israel Conflict
Putin, Trump Discuss Iran-Israel Conflict
Iran-Israel Escalation: Houthis Join Fighting, UK Moves Assets to Middle East
Short link :
Post Views: 5
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
35 minutes ago
- Arab News
European powers must push for Iran-Israel ceasefire
An Israeli war against Iran, which so many have feared for decades, today threatens to engulf the world in a dangerous conflict with disastrous human, political, economic and environmental consequences. Israel has unilaterally jeopardized global security with a reckless gamble. Many debate the position of the Trump administration. How much did it know and when? Was President Donald Trump opposed to the action but unable to stop belligerent Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu or did he quietly acquiesce? Is Netanyahu out of control? The White House has been supportive but not enthusiastic. The risk of Netanyahu sucking Trump into his war is genuine, not least if Israeli attacks on Iranian oil and gas infrastructure triggers Iran to block the Strait of Hormuz or attack oil and gas sites in neighboring states. What are the options for major European powers? The Trump administration had excluded them from the Oman talks on a new Iran nuclear deal and kept them at arm's length, even though they had been crucial in securing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement in 2015. But Europe will not be immune to the consequences of this war. The British, French and German leaders have resorted to calling for de-escalation and restraint. This is limp. Israel could reduce the number of daily strikes and that might qualify, but it would resolve nothing. Iran might send a missile salvo half the size of its usual barrage. Calling for a ceasefire is a minimum. The reality is that none of these leaders wish to be publicly seen calling for Israel to stop, as that might invoke lazy accusations of appeasement. But this position hardly looks credible when UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announces that Britain is building up its forces in the region. Ministers state that the UK may help defend Israel from Iranian strikes. This is the very path of escalation that will give Israel a comfort blanket from which to continue its chosen path of aggression against Iran. Working together and with regional and other actors, they must root their positions in international legitimacy Chris Doyle European powers need this like a hole in the head. The impact on the price of oil and gas will harm their economies just as many are facing dire economic conditions and are being forced into spending cuts. Defense spending increases were designed to cope with the threat from Russia, not wars in the Middle East. This is why Britain, France and Germany have offered Iran immediate talks on the nuclear issue. But this train has well and truly left the station. Iran is unlikely to be willing to negotiate while under bombardment. The most likely answer will be: 'make Israel stop and then let's see.' Moreover, if Israel and the US are not on board, why would Iran engage? But as well as engaging in whatever diplomacy is available, European powers should ensure a posture of no direct involvement in this war. Working together and with regional and other actors, they must root their positions in international legitimacy. Both Israel and Iran should be made to understand that their future relations with Europe depend on ending this conflict. Wherever possible, European actors should encourage the Trump administration to cooperate in bringing this to a close. European actors can also work hard to prevent this conflict from spreading. They will have to protect their assets in the region, but also do everything to stop the situation from deteriorating. Netanyahu has engaged in a war of choice against Iran. European leaders should make this clear and condemn it as such. Israel was not acting in self-defense and to suggest so risks contempt, not respect. They can also express understanding as to why Israel had fears about the Iranian enrichment program, but at the same time make it clear that military action was not warranted. The US-Iran talks should have been allowed a chance to succeed, not be bombed into oblivion. To the extent that it was a preemptive strike, it was against any possibility of a nuclear deal between the US and Iran. Only by returning to a moral high ground and a rules-based approach can European actors regain any respect Chris Doyle European powers should also be clear to Iran that, while the Israeli attacks were an aggression, Iran's unwillingness to abandon its nuclear program and its threats against Israel were also unacceptable. Arming nonstate actors across the Middle East to disrupt and undermine regional security was wrong and counterproductive. Palestine should also not drop off the agenda. International actors have so far failed to halt the genocide in Gaza and the settlement frenzy in the West Bank. The message to Israeli leaders should be crystal clear: committing these war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against Palestinians is unacceptable, cannot continue and will have consequences. Only by returning to a moral high ground and a rules-based approach can European actors regain the respect they have occasionally benefited from internationally. Judicial bodies should be encouraged to pay close attention as to how both Israel and Iran conduct this war and what they target. This is a casino war, a reckless gamble in which the stakes are far too high. European leaders cannot be passive observers. They must be at the forefront of a relentless diplomatic onslaught that matches or even surpasses Netanyahu's fondness for war and Iran's desire for retaliation.
Asharq Al-Awsat
36 minutes ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Iran Missile Attacks on Israel Kills 5, While Israel Claims It Now Has Air Superiority over Tehran
Iran fired a new wave of missile attacks on Israel early Monday, killing at least five people, while Israel claimed in the fourth day of the conflict that it had now achieved 'aerial superiority' over Tehran and could fly over the Iranian capital with impunity. After days of attacks on Iranian air defenses and missile systems, the Israeli military said its aircraft now control the skies from western Iran to Tehran and had destroyed more than 120 surface-to-surface missile launchers that had been firing at Israel in overnight missions. 'Now we can say that we have achieved full air supremacy in the Tehran airspace,' said military spokesperson Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin. Iran, meantime, announced it had launched some 100 missiles and vowed further retaliation for Israel's sweeping attacks on its military and nuclear infrastructure, which have killed at least 224 people in the country since last Friday. One missile fell near the American consulate in Tel Aviv, causing minor damage, US Ambassador Mike Huckabee said on X. There were no injuries to American personnel. Iran announced it had launched some 100 missiles and vowed further retaliation for Israel's sweeping attacks on its military and nuclear infrastructure, which have killed at least 224 people in the country since last Friday. Israel said so far 24 people have been killed and more than 500 injured as Iran launched more than 370 missiles and hundreds of drones. In response the Israeli military said fighter jets had struck 10 command centers in Tehran belonging to Iran's Quds Force, an elite arm of its Revolutionary Guard that conducts military and intelligence operations outside Iran. Explosions rock Tel Aviv and Petah Tikva Powerful explosions, likely from Israel's defense systems intercepting Iranian missiles, rocked Tel Aviv shortly before dawn on Monday, sending plumes of black smoke into the sky over the coastal city. Authorities in the central Israeli city of Petah Tikva said that Iranian missiles had hit a residential building there, charring concrete walls, shattering windows and ripping the walls off multiple apartments. The Israeli Magen David Adom emergency service reported that two women and two men — all in their 70s — and one other person were killed in the wave of missile attacks that struck four sites in central Israel. 'We clearly see that our civilians are being targeted,' said Israeli police spokesman Dean Elsdunne outside the bombed-out building in Petah Tikva. 'And this is just one scene. We have other sites like this near the coast, in the south.' Petah Tikva resident Yoram Suki rushed with his family to a shelter after hearing an air raid alert, and emerged after it was over to find his apartment destroyed. 'Thank God we were OK,' the 60-year-old said. Despite losing his home, he urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to keep up the attacks on Iran. 'It's totally worth it,' he said. 'This is for the sake of our children and grandchildren.' In addition to those killed, the MDA said paramedics had evacuated another 87 wounded people to hospitals, including a 30-year-old woman in serious condition, while rescuers were still searching for residents trapped beneath the rubble of their homes. 'When we arrived at the scene of the rocket strike, we saw massive destruction,' said Dr. Gal Rosen, a paramedic with MDA who said he had rescued a 4-day-old baby as fires blazed from the building. No sign of conflict letting up During an earlier barrage of Iranian missiles on central Israel on Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that Iran will stop its strikes if Israel does the same. But after a day of intensive Israeli aerial attacks that extended targets beyond military installations to hit oil refineries and government buildings, the Revolutionary Guard struck a hard line on Monday, vowing that further rounds of strikes would be 'more forceful, severe, precise and destructive than previous ones.' Health authorities also reported that 1,277 were wounded in Iran, without distinguishing between military officials and civilians. Rights groups, like the Washington-based Iranian advocacy group called Human Rights Activists, have suggested that the Iranian government's death toll is a significant undercount. Human Rights Activists says it has documented more than 400 people killed, among them 197 civilians. Israel argues that its assault on Iran's top military leaders, uranium enrichment sites and nuclear scientists was necessary to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iran has always insisted its nuclear program is peaceful, and the US and others have assessed that Tehran has not pursued a nuclear weapon since 2003. But Iran has enriched ever-larger stockpiles of uranium to near weapons-grade levels in recent years and was believed to have the capacity to develop multiple weapons within months if it chose to do so. Ahead Israel's initial attack, its Mossad spy agency positioned explosive drones and precision weapons inside Iran, and since then Iran has reportedly detained several people on suspicion of espionage. On Monday, Iranian authorities hanged a medical doctor identified as Esmail Fekri, who had been in prison since 2023 after being convicted of supplying the Mossad with 'sensitive and classified' information, Iranian state-run television reported.
Arab News
38 minutes ago
- Arab News
Unpacking America's Middle East policy
US foreign policy in the Middle East appears to be no longer guided by fixed strategies or clear goals. While the current administration has contributed significantly to this disarray, the bedlam was arguably inevitable. This situation arises when a nation prioritizes the interests of another over itself. Consider the perplexing statements emanating from US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. It is often impossible to discern whether he speaks on behalf of the US, Israel, Christian fundamentalists or himself. In his latest outlandish remarks, Huckabee last week offered a unique interpretation of old ideas advanced by Israel's most extremist elements. 'Muslim countries have 644 times the amount of land … controlled by Israel,' Huckabee said. '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 early this month that Palestinians relocate to France, reacting to Paris' 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 toward anyone who dares criticize its military occupation, apartheid or genocide in Palestine. Traditionally, US foreign policy has always tilted in favor of Israel, a historical balancing act between US and Israeli interests Dr. Ramzy Baroud Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz is a master of political defensiveness. Overwhelmed by growing pro-Palestine sentiment around the world, Katz, hardly a seasoned diplomat, retorted with equally vindictive language. After Ireland, Spain and others indicated a willingness to recognize a Palestinian state and criticized Israeli actions in Gaza, Katz said that these countries 'are legally obligated to allow any Gaza resident to enter their territories.' To an extent, the shift in Israeli foreign policy discourse is understandable. Before the war, 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 theories regarding a Palestinian state, a US State Department spokeswoman, Tammy Bruce, told reporters: 'I think he certainly speaks for himself.' Bruce's remark raises 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 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.' It is obvious that US foreign policy in the Middle East is no longer operating based on a clear, complex and dynamic strategy Dr. Ramzy Baroud Coupled with the 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, which is heavily promoted 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 toward Israel began taking shape during George W. Bush's presidency, 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 toward Israel, he did, at least toward 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 UN Security Council vote condemning Israel's illegal settlements. The pro-Israel agenda returned with a vengeance during Trump's first term. The difference between Trump's first administration and the current one is that the former was largely coherent. This administration is as confused as it is confusing. It neither subscribes to the fraudulent pro-Israel balancing act 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 and 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 further push 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, America's contradictions 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.
