WW3 fears explained and if world is safer or more dangerous after US bombs Iran
Iranian foreign minister Abbas Aranghchi warned the Donald Trump-ordered bombing campaign would "have everlasting consequences" amid fears Tehran will carry out a strong retaliation to avoid regime collapse
Donald Trump's call to bomb key nuclear sites in Iran has sparked fears Tehran could retaliate - with mounting concerns that instability in the region could spark World War Three.
Over the weekend the US attacked three nuclear sites in Iran, including the deep underground Fordow facility, with President Trump claiming they had been "completely and fully obliterated." The US President ordered the strikes - dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer - after Israel carried out attacks against the country's nuclear, energy and military infrastructure last week.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Iran had been wanting to develop a nuclear weapon to threaten the Jewish-majority state, and said the strikes were to damage its nuclear programme. The International Atomic Energy Agency also found the Fordow site had enriched uranium to 83.7 per cent, which was close to the 90 per cent required to develop nuclear weapons.
But Mr Netanyahu has warned of an imminent threat from Iran for decades, including him using a drawing of a bomb at a 2012 session at the United Nations to warn "by next spring" Iran would have moved onto the final stage of its enrichment programme. The Israeli leader has also called for regime change in Iran without explaining how this would take place and what the impacts of instability in the region could have.
The attacks have split the American electorate, who are grappling with President Trump's move to go against his campaign promise of no more wars in the Middle East. They also have the possibility of splitting the US and its allies over what the next steps in the Middle East, with defence analyst Michael Clarke warning it could be the mark the "real end" of the Transatlantic relationship.
What are the risks facing the world following the Iran bombing campaign?
Cyber attacks 'likely'
The US Department of Homeland Security warned on Sunday that cyber attacks against networks in the country were a distinct possibility. In an advisory shared on its national terrorism advisory system website, a Homeland Security expert said: "The ongoing Iran conflict is causing a heightened threat environment in the United States.
"Low-level cyber attacks against US networks by pro-Iranian hacktivists are likely, and cyber actors affiliated with the Iranian government may conduct attacks against US networks." The department also revealed that both hacktivists and the Iranian government have previously targeted "poorly secured" US networks and internet-connected devices as part of their cyber attacks in the past.
Iran out for revenge
Iranian government officials primarily blame the US over the death of its general Qasem Soleimani who was killed in a drone strike near Baghdad in January, 2020. US security officials warned Iran's government held a long-standing commitment "to target" US government officials in retaliation for the attack.
In a statement shared over the weekend, a Homeland Security advisory warned: "The likelihood of violent extremists in the Homeland independently mobilizing to violence in response to the conflict would likely increase if Iranian leadership issued a religious ruling calling for retaliatory violence against targets in the Homeland.
"Multiple recent Homeland terrorist attacks have been motivated by anti-Semitic or anti-Israel sentiment, and the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict could contribute to US-based individuals plotting additional attacks."
End of Transatlantic relationship
Defence analyst Michael Clarke told The Mirror that the attacks on the nuclear facilities could spell the "real end" of the Transatlantic relationship. He added: "The politics of this will be impossible to smooth over and the lack of the common values that the Transatlantic Relationship has always been based on will from now on become very evident.
"This week's NATO Summit will be the real breaking point - whatever the very short communique says."
Iran's warning
Following the American bombing of its nuclear sites, Iran's president Masoud Pezeshkian warned: "The Americans must receive a response to their aggression." His warning was joined by the country's foreign minister Abbas Aragchi stating the strikes would have "everlasting consequences."
While Iran's capabilities to coordinate terror attacks across the Middle East has been severely dented after Israel carried out devastating strikes against its terror proxies Hamas, in Gaza, and Hezbollah, in southern Lebanon, there remains concerns its networks could inflict some significant damage on the US and its allies.
Middle East 'regime change'
Mr Trump's strikes have opened the door on further American involvement in the Middle East, just months after he vowed to put an end to the country's militaristic involvement in the region. The Republican even made mention of an increasingly loathed phrase in the US, namely "regime change" which invokes doomed projects to establish flourishing democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq following the 9/11 attacks.
In a post shared to his social media platform TruthSocial, Mr Trump said: "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??? MIGA!!"
The post reflects a change in tone from Mr Trump, who previously slammed both Democrats and Republicans over their support for regime change rhetoric over Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
Military bases on red alert
British forces stationed across the Middle East are now on red alert for potential drone strikes from Iran, Defence Secretary John Healey warned. He added protection of UK Armed Forces was now at its "highest level" following the bombing campaign.
In a column in The Telegraph, he said: "The safety of UK personnel and bases is my top priority. Force protection is at its highest level, and we deployed additional jets this week."
Strait closure risks 'economic suicide'
Iran has warned it could shut down a vital Middle East oil "choke point" that could send oil prices spiking across the globe. The US has warned any closure of the Strait of Hormuz would be a "terrible mistake."
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Fox News: "I encourage the Chinese government in Beijing to call them about that, because they heavily depend on the Straits of Hormuz for their oil.
"If they do that, it will be another terrible mistake. It's economic suicide for them if they do it. And we retain options to deal with that, but other countries should be looking at that as well. It would hurt other countries' economies a lot worse than ours."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
When US presidents talk of regime change, we must be careful what they wish for
US president Donald Trump once boasted that he was a 'stable genius'. Well, it never had much of a ring of truth to it. He is in fact, and probably always has been, extremely erratic, a trait lauded by his cult followers as a mystical style of instinctive leadership that all Maga disciples must simply trust, as if he were a latter-day Jesus Christ or, more likely, a tangerine Charles Manson. Either way, Trump is more dangerous than ever. Only a few days ago, we may recall, he was publicly taunting the Ayatollah Khamenei, head of the Iranian theocracy, an 86-year old mullah of unyielding, medievally cruel convictions. Trump took to social media to declare: 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – we are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' It's almost as if the guy had spent all his life in the gangsterish world of New York real estate, isn't it? Then, at the weekend, having bombed the hell out of some mountains (the experts say those crafty Iranians cheated by getting their precious enriched uranium out before the bunker busters dropped), Trump allowed his closest lieutenants to go and tell the world it's all about the nukes, and not the old monster who rules the country – Khamenei, not Trump. JD Vance, for example, rumoured to be sceptical about intervention, said that 'has been very clear that we don't want a regime change '. Marco Rubio, secretly still more of a George W Bush style neocon, and thus probably more sympathetic to the idea of getting rid of the 'regime', nonetheless sought to please his boss with what was supposed to be the collective line on Operation Midnight Hammer: 'It was not an attack on Iran, it was not an attack on the Iranian people. This wasn't a regime change move.' Now? Not so much. Trump has revived the idea, in his trademark menacing-playful way, in a post of Truth Social: '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??? MIGA!!!'. Trump apologists say he was only kidding; but how do we know when to take the guy seriously – apart from 'always and never'? Perhaps Trump dreams of the Iranian people rising up and creating a new pluralistic democracy – a country where elections are free and fair, where the losers always gracefully accept the result and participate in the ceremonial peaceful transfer of power, and would never incite a mob to storm the parliament building where the will of the people is being ratified, and deny the parliamentary authorities the use of troops to defend themselves and the overwhelmed police officers…? The Iranians, especially, are unlikely to be impressed by such talk from the Americans, and, indeed, the Israelis. If they're paranoid about the CIA and MI5, they have reason to be. On numerous occasions in the past, the 'Great Satan' of America – and before that, Little Satan (Britain) – have interfered in Iranian affairs, including deposing two shahs and a prime minister, Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had the temerity to want take control of Iran's oil riches away from 'British' Petroleum. The various coups engineered by the imperialists – a fair description – worked, but not indefinitely; and the seeds of their own eventual destruction were sown in Iran as elsewhere. A period of misrule by the last shah ended up with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and all that has followed since. We should all be worried when an American president talks about regime change. To be fair, Trump is hardly the first, and it rarely ends well, whether it succeeds or not. Historically, the leader the Americans would most have loved to be rid of was their troublesome Communist neighbour Fidel Castro, parked from 1959 to his death in 2016 (natural causes) on what amounted to a giant Russian aircraft carrier 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The CIA considered all manner of ways to assassinate him, including, famously, an exploding cigar. Whether this was inspired by a trip to a joke shop is still classified. A more serious, but still bungled, attempt at an invasion and a coup d'etat in Cuba failed when the US-trained rebels were cornered in what came to be known as the Bay of Pigs fiasco. That was in 1961, and was hardly the first or the last time they tried to oust Fidel, but this failed plot merely made him even more popular and humiliated the Kennedy administration, who inherited the plan from President Eisenhower's team: regime change has always been a bit of a bipartisan affair. JFK went on, a couple of a years later, to at least acquiesce in the murder of the Diem brothers who ran South Vietnam, replacing them with a chap named Nguyen Van Thieu, who was more to American tastes but no more democratic, nor effective in resisting the Communist conquest of his country. It was an even greater American humbling when they lost that war. The regime change sideshow in that Indo-China conflict was Cambodia, where the Americans helped depose the jolly Prince Sihanouk with a more pro-American general, who was, inevitably, himself deposed when the Khmer Rouge took over and the killing fields were filled with the corpses of more than a million Cambodians. Such disastrous CIA escapades during the cold war were why Congress in the 1970s passed laws banning such covert activities – including the War Powers Act, to try to prevent presidents circumventing the Congressional power to declare war. That oversight didn't persist, and minor, US-inspired coups followed in Grenada (1984) and Nicaragua (1989). The greatest blunder in regime change was, of course, Iraq. To be fair to the second President Bush and Tony Blair, as people tend not to be, it's only right that we recall that their definition of regime change was more nuanced. Regime change could mean a change of policy under an existing dictator. So if Saddam Hussein had genuinely renounced weapons of mass destruction (instead of pretending he had them to scare people away), and allowed comprehensive inspections by the UN, he might still be in business now, albeit unlikely. The alternative, increasingly obvious, was that he'd be forcibly removed. That would also end the mortal threat to the stability of the region. Which it didn't; it just created new ones. As we all know, things didn't turn out any better for the West when Islamic State turned up in post-Saddam Iraq, and turned the Middle East upside down. Much the same may be said about post-Gadaffi Libya, and post-invasion Afghanistan. It all sounds wearily familiar, doesn't it? The Americans upturn one unsatisfactory regime and somehow contrive to make matters worse. Rather like when they re-elected Trump last year.
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Palestine Action's behaviour ‘totally unacceptable', Chancellor says
Rachel Reeves condemned Palestine Action ahead of an update from the Home Secretary to Parliament on the Government's plan to proscribe it under terror laws. A protest in support of Palestine Action is also due to take place in London on Monday. The group posted on X that the protest location has moved to Trafalgar Square after the Metropolitan Police banned action from taking place at the Houses of Parliament. Asked whether Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley should be able to ban Monday's demonstration, the Chancellor told broadcasters: 'What I would say about Palestine Action is that their behaviours in the last few weeks, and particularly in the last few days, are totally unacceptable. 'To cause damage to military assets, but also to cause such damage to privately owned assets, it is unacceptable whatever your views are on what's happening in the Middle East. 'These actions are unacceptable and the Home Secretary will be making a statement to Parliament later today.' On Sunday, Metropolitan Police chief Sir Mark said he was 'shocked and frustrated' at the protest supporting the 'organised extremist criminal group' as the force imposed an exclusion zone around Westminster. He said that until the group is proscribed, the Met has 'no power in law' to prevent the protest taking place, adding that breaches of the law would be 'dealt with robustly'. In a statement on Sunday, Sir Mark said: 'I'm sure many people will be as shocked and frustrated as I am to see a protest taking place tomorrow in support of Palestine Action. 'This is an organised extremist criminal group, whose proscription as terrorists is being actively considered. 'Members are alleged to have caused millions of pounds of criminal damage, assaulted a police officer with a sledgehammer and last week claimed responsibility for breaking into an airbase and damaging aircraft. 'The right to protest is essential and we will always defend it but actions in support of such a group go beyond what most would see as legitimate protest.' Palestine Action posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on Friday morning. The clip shows one person riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. The incident is being investigated by counter-terror police. Palestine Action has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising US President Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire. But Baroness Shami Chakrabarti told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Monday that plans to ban the group would mark a very serious step. The former shadow attorney general said: 'From what I can tell, this is a militant protest group that engages in direct action and that includes criminality, no question, but to elevate that to terrorism so anybody who attends a meeting, or who promotes the organisation, or is loosely affiliated with it, is branded a terrorist – that is a serious escalation I think.' The former director of the Liberty human rights group added: 'No doubt the Home Secretary will come to Parliament today and she will explain her reasoning and announce what she is actually going to do. 'I think this is a very serious step and I would share the concerns of Amnesty International, of Liberty, my former group, and others that this may be an escalation too far.' A spokesperson for Palestine Action previously accused the UK of failing to meet its obligation to prevent or punish genocide. The spokesperson said: 'When our Government fails to uphold their moral and legal obligations, it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to take direct action. The terrorists are the ones committing a genocide, not those who break the tools used to commit it.' The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Proscription will require Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company the Wagner Group. Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. The Campaign Against Antisemitism welcomed the news that Ms Cooper intended to proscribe Palestine Action, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.'
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Palestine Action's behaviour ‘totally unacceptable', Chancellor says
Rachel Reeves condemned Palestine Action ahead of an update from the Home Secretary to Parliament on the Government's plan to proscribe it under terror laws. A protest in support of Palestine Action is also due to take place in London on Monday. The group posted on X that the protest location has moved to Trafalgar Square after the Metropolitan Police banned action from taking place at the Houses of Parliament. Asked whether Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley should be able to ban Monday's demonstration, the Chancellor told broadcasters: 'What I would say about Palestine Action is that their behaviours in the last few weeks, and particularly in the last few days, are totally unacceptable. 'To cause damage to military assets, but also to cause such damage to privately owned assets, it is unacceptable whatever your views are on what's happening in the Middle East. 'These actions are unacceptable and the Home Secretary will be making a statement to Parliament later today.' On Sunday, Metropolitan Police chief Sir Mark said he was 'shocked and frustrated' at the protest supporting the 'organised extremist criminal group' as the force imposed an exclusion zone around Westminster. He said that until the group is proscribed, the Met has 'no power in law' to prevent the protest taking place, adding that breaches of the law would be 'dealt with robustly'. In a statement on Sunday, Sir Mark said: 'I'm sure many people will be as shocked and frustrated as I am to see a protest taking place tomorrow in support of Palestine Action. 'This is an organised extremist criminal group, whose proscription as terrorists is being actively considered. 'Members are alleged to have caused millions of pounds of criminal damage, assaulted a police officer with a sledgehammer and last week claimed responsibility for breaking into an airbase and damaging aircraft. 'The right to protest is essential and we will always defend it but actions in support of such a group go beyond what most would see as legitimate protest.' Palestine Action posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on Friday morning. The clip shows one person riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. The incident is being investigated by counter-terror police. Palestine Action has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising US President Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire. But Baroness Shami Chakrabarti told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Monday that plans to ban the group would mark a very serious step. The former shadow attorney general said: 'From what I can tell, this is a militant protest group that engages in direct action and that includes criminality, no question, but to elevate that to terrorism so anybody who attends a meeting, or who promotes the organisation, or is loosely affiliated with it, is branded a terrorist – that is a serious escalation I think.' The former director of the Liberty human rights group added: 'No doubt the Home Secretary will come to Parliament today and she will explain her reasoning and announce what she is actually going to do. 'I think this is a very serious step and I would share the concerns of Amnesty International, of Liberty, my former group, and others that this may be an escalation too far.' A spokesperson for Palestine Action previously accused the UK of failing to meet its obligation to prevent or punish genocide. The spokesperson said: 'When our Government fails to uphold their moral and legal obligations, it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to take direct action. The terrorists are the ones committing a genocide, not those who break the tools used to commit it.' The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Proscription will require Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company the Wagner Group. Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. The Campaign Against Antisemitism welcomed the news that Ms Cooper intended to proscribe Palestine Action, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.'
