The US attacks on Iran have backfired horribly – but a path to peace is still possible
Fifty days on, nothing remotely positive has resulted from the illegal bombing raids and missile strikes mounted by the US president, Donald Trump, and Israel's leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, despite their boasts of world-changing success. Iran's nuclear facilities were not obliterated, as Trump claimed. Tehran has not abandoned uranium enrichment. The regime did not fall, despite Netanyahu's call for an uprising. If anything, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is more defiant. He has since launched a new crackdown on opponents, hence the executions.
Deploring last weekend's hanging of political prisoners Behrouz Ehsani and Mehdi Hassani, Amnesty International linked their fate to the US-Israeli attacks. Arrested in 2022, the two men were charged with rebellion and 'enmity against God'. They were tortured, forced to sign confessions and sentenced last year after a five-minute trial. The decision to execute them now 'highlights the authorities' ruthless use of the death penalty as a tool of political repression in times of national crisis to crush dissent and spread fear', Amnesty said.
Hundreds have been arrested since June in a regime drive to unmask spies and collaborators, real or imagined. Glaring intelligence failures that, for example, allowed Israel to locate and bomb a national security council meeting, injuring Iran's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, are officially blamed not on gross incompetence but supposed fifth columnists. Iran's parliament wants to expand use of capital punishment. Up to 60 political prisoners face execution.
This typically harsh reaction by clerical hardliners around Khamenei, and within the judiciary and Revolutionary Guards, comes despite a surge in patriotic sentiment after the attacks, which reportedly killed at least 935 people, mostly civilians, and injured more than 5,000. By intensifying repression, the regime squandered a chance to harness public anger, not least against Britain and European governments that turned a blind eye.
US-Israeli actions have had other far-reaching, negative consequences. The attacks breached the UN charter and international law, as the Brics group of 'global south' countries noted. They led Tehran to suspend UN nuclear inspections. They exacerbated US-Europe divisions. And, ironically, they increased the likelihood of Iran building a bomb for self-defence.
Iran insists it does not possess and does not want nuclear weapons. For all Israel's vaunted intelligence capabilities, neither Netanyahu nor anyone else has definitively proved otherwise. The decision to attack was based on a guess, driven by fear and hatred. It caused serious physical damage, but did not change mindsets. Iran is adamant it will continue to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. The bombing was a bust. Trump's angry threat to strike again is confirmation of failure.
What this reckless act of aggression did do is encourage rogue states such as Russia to believe they, too, may attack other countries with impunity. It reinforces the belief in Iranian ruling circles, and not only among rejectionist factions, that the west cannot be trusted and a closer alliance with China is necessary. It strengthens the hand of hardliners whose fondness for regional proxy warfare, and recently documented covert operations against Britain, has entrenched Iran's pariah status.
Historically speaking, Iran was and is an avoidable tragedy – one of the west's worst-ever geostrategic own goals. Unthinking support for the shah helped spur the 1979 revolution. The subsequent, far from inevitable ascendancy of conservative clerics plus abiding, irrational US animosity, feeding off memories of the humiliating Tehran embassy siege, rendered the rift permanent. Europe tried and failed to chart a middle path. In 2018, Trump reneged on the US-, UN- and EU-ratified nuclear deal with Tehran and reimposed sanctions. This last of many disastrous policy mistakes led directly to today's impasse. With wiser heads, it could have been very different.
All parties to this conflict should study the French Enlightenment philosopher Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu, a foe to tyranny in all its forms. Writing in his 1721 bestseller Persian Letters more than 300 years ago, he issues an impressively prescient warning about what were then imaginary weapons of mass destruction. 'You say that you are afraid of the discovery of some method of destruction that is crueller than those which are used now,' his fictitious Persian traveller Usbek writes to a friend. 'If such a fateful invention came to be discovered, it would soon be banned by international law. By the unanimous consent of every country the discovery would be buried.'
In the sense that nuclear weapons are outlawed, Usbek's optimistic prediction was correct. But not 'every country' complies. If the US and Israel are sincere about preventing Iran acquiring the bomb, they should set an example and reduce, and ultimately eliminate, their nuclear arsenals. They should stop threatening renewed attacks. And they should back talks on a regional nuclear pact, as proposed by Iran's former foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.
Only then, perhaps, will Tehran come in from the cold. Only then, perhaps, will its paranoid leaders stop hanging innocent people.
Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump orders colleges to prove they don't consider race in admissions
Colleges will be required to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions under a new policy ordered Thursday by President Donald Trump. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of affirmative action in admissions but said colleges may still consider how race has shaped students' lives if applicants share that information in their admissions essays. Trump is accusing colleges of using personal statements and other proxies to consider race, which conservatives view as illegal discrimination. The role of race in admissions has featured in the Trump administration's battle against some of the nation's most elite colleges — viewed by Republicans as liberal hotbeds. For example, the new policy is similar to parts of recent settlement agreements the government negotiated with Brown University and Columbia University, restoring their federal research money. The universities agreed to give the government data on the race, grade point average and standardized test scores of applicants, admitted students and enrolled students. The schools also agreed to be audited by the government and to release admissions statistics to the public. Conservatives have argued that despite the Supreme Court ruling, colleges have continued to consider race. "The persistent lack of available data — paired with the rampant use of 'diversity statements' and other overt and hidden racial proxies — continues to raise concerns about whether race is actually used in admissions decisions in practice,' says the memorandum signed by Trump. The memo directs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to require colleges to report more data 'to provide adequate transparency into admissions.' The National Center for Education Statistics will collect new data, including the race and sex of colleges' applicants, admitted students and enrolled students, the Education Department said in a statement. If colleges fail to submit timely, complete and accurate data, McMahon can take action under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which outlines requirements for colleges receiving federal financial aid for students, according to the memo. It is unclear what practical impact the executive order will have on colleges. Current understanding of federal law prohibits them from collecting information on race as part of admissions, said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, an association of college presidents. 'Ultimately, will it mean anything? Probably not,' Fansmith said. 'But it does continue this rhetoric from the administration that some students are being preferenced in the admission process at the expense of other students.' Because of the Supreme Court ruling, colleges have been barred from asking the race of students who are applying, Fansmith said. Once students enroll, the schools can ask about race, but students must be told they have a right not to answer. In this political climate, many students won't report their race, Fansmith said. So when schools release data on student demographics, the figures often give only a partial picture of the campus makeup. Diversity changed at some colleges — but not all The first year of admissions data after the Supreme Court ruling showed no clear pattern in how colleges' diversity changed. Results varied dramatically from one campus to the next. Some schools, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Amherst College, saw steep drops in the percentage of Black students in their incoming classes. But at other elite, selective schools such as Yale, Princeton and the University of Virginia, the changes were less than a percentage point year to year. Some colleges have added more essays or personal statements to their admissions process to get a better picture of an applicant's background, a strategy the Supreme Court invited in its ruling. 'Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected the applicant's life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in 2023 for the court's conservative majority. As an alternative to affirmative action, colleges for years have tried a range of strategies to achieve the diversity they say is essential to their campuses. Many have given greater preference to low-income families. Others started admitting top students from every community in their state. Prior to the ruling, nine states had banned affirmative action, starting with California in 1996. The University of California saw enrollment change after the statewide ban in 1996. Within two years, Black and Hispanic enrollments fell by half at the system's two most selective campuses — Berkeley and UCLA. The system would go on to spend more than $500 million on programs aimed at low-income and first-generation college students. The 10-campus University of California system also started a program that promises admission to the top 9% of students in each high school across the state, an attempt to reach strong students from all backgrounds. A similar promise in Texas has been credited for expanding racial diversity, and opponents of affirmative action cite it as a successful model. In California, the promise drew students from a wider geographic area but did little to expand racial diversity, the system said in a brief to the Supreme Court. It had almost no impact at Berkeley and UCLA, where students compete against tens of thousands of other applicants. Today at UCLA and Berkeley, Hispanic students make up 20% of undergraduates, higher than in 1996 but lower than their 53% share among California's high school graduates. Black students, meanwhile, have a smaller presence than they did in 1996, accounting for 4% of undergraduates at Berkeley. After Michigan voters rejected affirmative action in 2006, the University of Michigan shifted attention to low-income students. The school sent graduates to work as counselors in low-income high schools and started offering college prep in Detroit and Grand Rapids. It offered full scholarships for low-income Michigan residents and, more recently, started accepting fewer early admission applications, which are more likely to come from white students. Despite the University of Michigan's efforts, the share of Black and Hispanic undergraduates hasn't fully rebounded from a falloff after 2006. And while Hispanic enrollments have been increasing, Black enrollments continued to slide, going from 8% of undergraduates in 2006 to 4% in 2025. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
BBC News
20 minutes ago
- BBC News
Trump opens door for crypto in retirement accounts
US President Donald Trump is pushing to make it easier for Americans to use retirement savings to invest in cryptocurrencies, private equity, property, gold and other kinds of non-traditional assets. On Thursday, he ordered regulators to look for ways to change rules that might discourage employers from including such offerings in workplace retirement accounts, known in the US as 401ks. The move is intended to eventually give everyday workers new access to investments formerly reserved for wealthy individuals and institutions, while opening up previously untouched pools of funding for firms in those fields. But critics say it could increase risks for savers. Most employers in the US do not offer traditional pensions, which come with a guaranteed payout after retirement. Instead, employees are given the option of contributing part of their pay cheque to investment accounts, with employers typically bolstering with additional contributions. Government rules have historically held the firms offering the accounts responsible for considering factors such as risk and expense. In the past, employers have shied away from offering investments like private equity, which often have higher fees and face fewer disclosure requirements than public companies and can be less easy to convert to cash. The order gives the Department of Labor 180 days to review rules and experts said any change was unlikely to be felt immediately. But investment management giants such as State Street and Vanguard, known for their retirement accounts, have already announced partnerships with the likes of alternative asset managers Apollo Global and Blackstone to start offering private-equity focused retirement funds. Trump's personal business interests include firms involved with crypto and investment accounts. The Department of Labor in May rescinded guidance from 2022 that urged firms to exercise "extreme care" before adding crypto to investment menus in retirement Trump's first term, the Department of Labor issued guidance aimed at encouraging retirement plans to invest in private equity funds, but concerns about litigation limited take-up and former President Joe Biden later revoked it.
Reuters
20 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump's 'Alligator Alcatraz' construction temporarily halted by US judge
Aug 7 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Thursday temporarily halted new construction at an immigration detention facility in Florida dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz" while a lawsuit over its environmental impact plays out. At a hearing in Miami, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams blocked new construction at the site in the Florida Everglades through August 12 but did not suspend operations or otherwise interfere with the work of immigration officials there. Williams was expected to issue a written order later on Thursday. The ruling is a setback for U.S. President Donald Trump as he seeks to ramp up deportations of migrants and others living in the U.S. illegally. U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said the lawsuit ignores the fact that the land at issue has already been developed for a decade. "It is another attempt to prevent the President from fulfilling the American people's mandate for mass deportations," McLaughlin said in a statement. Trump has made Alligator Alcatraz emblematic of his hardline immigration policies, boasting of its location in a vast tropical wetland teeming with alligators, crocodiles and pythons. Officials have estimated the facility could cost $450 million annually and house some 5,000 people. In their lawsuit seeking to block construction at the site, environmental and tribal groups say it threatens sensitive wetland ecosystems, endangered species and essential waterways. "It's a relief that the court stepped in to protect the Everglades' sensitive waters, starry skies and vulnerable creatures from further harm while we continue our case,' said Elise Bennett, an attorney representing the Center for Biological Diversity in the lawsuit, in a statement on Thursday. Other critics of Alligator Alcatraz have condemned the facility as inhumane and dangerous to detainees. The American Civil Liberties Union is separately seeking to block deportations from the facility, saying detainees are being held without charges and denied their constitutional rights to speak to their lawyers. Trump, a Republican who maintains a home in Florida, pledged during his campaign to deport as many as one million people from the U.S. per year, but his efforts have run up against mass protests, legal challenges and employer demands for cheap labor. Trump's landmark tax-and-spending bill signed into law on July 4 provides roughly $170 billion in funding for immigration and border enforcement over four years.
