Israel, Iran exchange fresh attacks in week-old air war as diplomacy takes shape
Israel and Iran exchanged strikes a week into their air war Friday as US President Donald Trump weighed US military involvement and new diplomatic efforts appeared to be under way.
Trump has been weighing whether to attack Iran by striking its well-defended Fordo uranium enrichment facility, which is buried under a mountain and widely considered to be out of reach of all but America's 'bunker-buster' bombs.
He said he would decide within two weeks whether the US military will get directly involved in the war given the 'substantial chance' for renewed negotiations over Tehran's nuclear programme.
Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi appeared headed to Geneva for meetings with the European Union's top diplomat and counterparts from the United Kingdom, France and Germany.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. File photo: AP
A plane with his usual call sign took off from the Turkish city of Van, near the Iranian border, flight-tracking data from FlightRadar24 showed. Iran typically acknowledges his departure hours afterwards.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
2 hours ago
- Asia Times
Trump's path to Tehran: the making of a global bargaining chip
The second Trump administration no longer needs to prove its foreign policy instincts. They are clear, unmistakable and anchored in brute transactionalism. If the world learned anything from the former—and now resurgent—President Donald Trump, it is that he views diplomacy not as a delicate art of engagement but as a zero-sum game of power projection. His latest rhetoric and posturing over Iran, especially in the wake of Israeli operations and heightened regional tensions, suggest a dangerous and deliberate strategy: to reduce Iran to rubble, not only for the sake of containment but to bolster American dominance in trade negotiations with China and recalibrate all relationships—friends and foes alike—on Washington's terms. At the heart of this approach is Trump's insistence that Tehran must surrender unconditionally. This is not just hyperbole; it is a method. Trump thrives on spectacle and brinkmanship. His entire worldview is predicated on the belief that America is losing because it has been too nice, too generous and too forgiving. Therefore, for Trump to extract what he perceives as 'better deals' from China, Europe, ASEAN, Mexico and Canada, he must first demonstrate that the United States is willing and able to destroy one of its most intransigent adversaries—publicly, unmistakably and with overwhelming force. Trump's obsession with bunker-buster bombs is not new. During his first term, he repeatedly floated the idea of using high-yield ordnance to obliterate Iran's underground nuclear sites. While the Pentagon and international allies balked at the prospect, Trump's inner circle entertained such military options as ways to force diplomatic capitulation. In Trump's view, diplomacy begins only when the enemy lies broken or at least battered enough to come to the table begging. A full-fledged strike on Tehran, targeting its military-industrial infrastructure, would mark not only a significant escalation in the Middle East but a cornerstone of Trump's new foreign policy doctrine: militarized deal-making. The point is not merely to neutralize Iran but to demonstrate to Beijing, Brussels and beyond that Trump's America is prepared to shatter international norms to reassert dominance. By pulverizing Iran's defenses and forcing a surrender, Trump can create a shockwave that ripples through multiple geopolitical theaters. First and foremost is China. Beijing, already embroiled in a tit-for-tat tariff war with Washington, is being forced to reconsider its risk calculus. A United States that can unilaterally take down a major regional power signals a willingness to escalate beyond traditional economic warfare. Trump clearly wants China's leadership to understand that their negotiation counterpart is not a rational actor bound by global rules—but a strongman driven by prestige, leverage and personal victory. Second, Washington's allies would be caught in the moral and strategic dilemma of either backing Trump's new militarist campaign or risking their ties to the US economy and defense umbrella. Members of the European Union—especially France—may voice concern, but ultimately, many of them remain economically and strategically tied to the United States. The same dynamic plays out in Asia, where regional powers depend on US security guarantees while also being wary of American unpredictability. Third, Trump can use the devastation in Iran to undermine Russia's remaining influence in the region. With Iran weakened, Moscow's capacity to counterbalance US interests in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq will be significantly diminished. In this sense, Iran becomes both a target and a message: defiance will be punished, and accommodation will be rewarded—on American terms. Of course, bombing Iran is not without consequences. Trump's team understands the potential for a regional conflagration. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia militias in Iraq and the remnants of the Houthis in Yemen may launch retaliatory attacks on American interests and allies. But Trump, emboldened by a Republican-controlled Congress and the politics of spectacle, is likely to argue that such blowback is manageable—collateral damage in a global campaign to reassert American primacy. Israel, already engaged in shadow wars with Iran, would likely welcome such US involvement, seeing it as a decisive moment to dismantle the Islamic Republic's regional ambitions. For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this could be the culmination of a decades-long security doctrine centered on preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power or a hegemon. For Trump, Israel's support is not just strategic—it is deeply political. It energizes his evangelical base and signals to Washington's hawkish establishment that he is not just a deal-maker but a wartime president. In many ways, this is a return to a form of Nixonian 'madman theory'—showing unpredictability to coerce adversaries into submission. But Trump takes it one step further: unpredictability is no longer a tactic but a brand. From tariffs to trade deals, embassy relocations to drone strikes, Trump has shown that chaos is not a byproduct—it is the plan. Once Iran is bombed and coerced into surrender—should that scenario come to pass—Trump will likely position the act as proof that America is back, that it no longer tolerates deadbeat allies, hostile regimes or trade cheats. He will then pivot to Beijing, pressuring China to remove barriers to US exports, agree to more stringent intellectual property protections and halt its support for Iran and Russia. 'Look what happened to Tehran,' Trump might warn. 'Don't be next.' In Southeast Asia, where countries are watching this dynamic closely, the message is equally stark. Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand—economies with strong trade linkages to both China and the US—will face renewed pressure to pick sides. Trump's version of 'with us or against us' will come cloaked in tariffs, sanctions and security demands. Even countries that enjoy exemptions today—such as Malaysia's semiconductor sector—could find those favors withdrawn if they do not align with America's broader geopolitical stance. Trump's strategic calculus rests on one core principle: raw power, not persuasion. His demands for Iran's unconditional surrender are not driven by fear of a nuclear Iran—there is little concrete evidence Tehran is on the brink of weaponization but by a need to demonstrate overwhelming power. In other words, Iran is not the final goal—it is the opening move. In this worldview, multilateralism is obsolete, diplomacy is for the weak, and war—so long as it is winnable—serves a purpose beyond the battlefield. It is the ultimate bargaining chip. What the world must understand is this: Trump's warnings are not rhetorical flourishes. They are statements of intent. The drive to bomb Iran is neither about containment nor about peace. It is about leverage. It is about rebalancing global power by unbalancing the world. And in this dangerous recalibration, Tehran is just the first domino. Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is professor of ASEAN Studies, International Islamic University Malaysia, former head teaching fellow, Harvard University, and Cambridge Commonwealth Scholar Luthfy Hamzah is senior research fellow , Strategic Pan Indo Pacific Arena , Kuala Lumpur
HKFP
4 hours ago
- HKFP
EU bans Chinese firms from major state medical equipment contracts
The European Union on Friday banned Chinese firms from government medical device purchases worth more than five million euros (US$5.8 million) in retaliation for limits Beijing places on access to its own market. The latest salvo in trade tensions between the 27-nation bloc and China covers a wide range of healthcare supplies, from surgical masks to X-ray machines, that represent a market worth 150 billion euros in the EU. 'Our aim with these measures is to level the playing field for EU businesses,' the bloc's trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic said. 'We remain committed to dialogue with China to resolve these issues.' In response, China accused the EU of 'double standards'. 'The EU has always boasted that it is the most open market in the world, but in reality, it has gradually moved towards protectionism', foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said at a regular press briefing. 'Under the guise of fair competition (the EU) actually carries out unfair competition, which is a typical case of double standards.' The European Commission said in a statement the move was in 'response to China's longstanding exclusion of EU-made medical devices from Chinese government contracts.' Brussels said just under 90 percent of public procurement contracts for medical devices in China 'were subject to exclusionary and discriminatory measures' against EU firms. In addition to barring Chinese firms from major state purchases, 'inputs from China for successful bids' would also be limited to 50 percent, it said. Over the last three years, Brussels and Beijing have come into conflict in a number of economic sectors, including electric cars, the rail industry, solar panels and wind turbines. The decision on medical devices comes at a time of heightened trade tensions with President Donald Trump's United States, which has imposed customs surcharges on imports from all over the world, including Europe. The EU has decided to take a tougher stance on trade in recent years, adopting a vast arsenal of legislation to better defend its businesses against unfair competition. In April 2024, the commission opened an investigation into Chinese public contracts for medical devices, the first under a new mechanism introduced by the EU in 2022 to obtain better access to overseas state purchases. China, on the other hand, accuses Europe of protectionism. After a year of negotiations, the commission, which manages trade policy on behalf of the 27 member states, said it had failed to make any progress with China. 'The measure seeks to incentivise China to cease its discrimination against EU firms and EU-made medical devices and treat EU companies with the same openness as the EU does with Chinese companies and products,' Brussels said.
South China Morning Post
4 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
United States of Israel's war on Iran endangers the whole world
SCMP managing editor Yonden Lhatoo warns that the US and Israel are risking Armageddon with their latest war in the Middle East.
