logo
The world picks a side in Israel-Iran conflict: How war in Middle East has exposed deepening East-West divisions as countries start to declare allegiances

The world picks a side in Israel-Iran conflict: How war in Middle East has exposed deepening East-West divisions as countries start to declare allegiances

Daily Mail​5 hours ago

The world is watching in horror as Israel and Iran spiral into a brutal exchange of strikes that has seen US-made warplanes batter targets across the Islamic Republic while hypersonic and ballistic missiles rain down over Tel Aviv.
The conflict now threatening to plunge the Middle East into war was triggered on Friday when Israel launched Operation Rising Lion - the culmination of work by the military and Mossad spy agency to sabotage Iran's ambition for nuclear weapons.
Attack drones emerged from a clandestine base on Iranian soil to destroy Tehran's air defence systems before fighter jets launched hundreds of strikes on strategic military assets and nuclear facilities.
Israel also wiped out top military chiefs, the head of the revolutionary guard's aerospace forces and more than a dozen nuclear scientists. Subsequent raids took out senior intelligence officers, according to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.
Iran struck back with fury, unleashing hundreds of missiles - including unstoppable hypersonic weapons - to target Israel's defence ministry, military sites and some residential areas.
Now, as the death toll rises and the risk of a wider regional war grows by the hour, the international community is urging restraint, but not without expressing support for one side or the other - some more vigorously than others.
Many have made their positions clear. The US and Europe have backed Israel's 'right to self-defence', albeit with varying levels of enthusiasm, while Iran's proxy forces and allied militias have issued scathing condemnations of Israel's actions.
But the conflict has also exposed nations whose self-interest appears to outweigh loyalty to traditional allies.
For example, Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine has been made possible by enduring support from Tehran, and the two signed a sweeping strategic partnership in January to formalise their military and political alignment.
Yet the Kremlin, while denouncing Israel's assault, has stopped short of backing Iran. Instead, Moscow is manoeuvring to present itself as a regional power broker.
A statement at the weekend reminded Tehran that 'the US is ready to hold another round of talks with Iran on the latter's nuclear programme in Oman' - while Vladimir Putin personally telephoned the White House on Saturday to offer himself as a mediator.
Here's a breakdown of the international reaction as the Middle East's most powerful foes come to blows - and a look at who stands where.
Condemning Israel
Iran has for decades used its so-called Axis of Resistance - a collection of political-military groups funded, armed and backed by Tehran - to expand its influence and advance its interests throughout the Middle East.
Unsurprisingly, each one of these groups has harshly condemned Israel's strikes and pledged its support to its chief backer.
But only one member of the group - Yemen's Houthi rebel group known as Ansar Allah - has openly committed to striking Israel on Iran's behalf.
The Houthis have launched intermittent attacks on Israel ever since the Jewish state's declaration of war against Hamas in response to the October 7, 2023 attacks.
They have also managed to significantly disrupt global shipping by sending missiles, drones and even fast boats to intercept cargo ships in the Red Sea.
A spokesperson for the group on Friday told Newsweek: 'We have been at war for some time with the Zionist enemy entity,' before vowing to continue attacking Israel in the wake of Operation Rising Lion against Iran.
Hours later, air raid sirens in Israel blared following the launch of a missile from Yemen which ultimately landed in Hebron - a city in the West Bank under partial Israeli control.
The other key members of the resistance - Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon - issued scathing retorts to Israel's strikes. But neither group volunteered to fight back in solidarity.
This is a testament to the efficacy of Israel's military operations, which have significantly eroded the capacities of both Hezbollah and Hamas.
Hezbollah last year suffered a vital blow as thousands of its members were killed or injured when their communications devices exploded in their hands - the product of a stunning operation by Mossad.
This, plus a campaign of punishing airstrikes that eliminated senior leadership, including longtime chief Hassan Nasrallah, forced the Lebanese outfit to strike a peace deal with Israel in November.
Hamas meanwhile has suffered horrific losses amid the ongoing war in Gaza, with Israel having bombed much of the territory into rubble and killed most of its senior leadership.
There are a smattering of other Shia Islamist militias, including the likes of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq (IRI) and Ka'taib Hezbollah, that are supporters of the Islamic Republic and would likely fight on behalf of Tehran in event of an all-out war.
But it is believed their leaders have been warned by Iraq's central government to avoid getting involved in the conflict.
Besides these groups, much of the Arab world has publicly denounced Israel's attacks on Iran.
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar, and Oman - the nation that this weekend was set to host more talks between US and Iranian negotiators until their cancellation amid Operation Rising Lion - have roundly objected to Israel's aggression.
But the support of these countries for Tehran is unlikely to extend beyond words given their relationships with the United States and their desire to expand their own influence in the region.
Besides Bahrain, all of the aforementioned countries are also majority Sunni Muslim, split across sectarian lines from Iran's Shia majority population.
The position of Russia, whose President Putin is evidently keen to inextricably insert himself into Israel and Iran's affairs, is tied closely to its war in Ukraine.
Not only does the conflict between Tehran and Jerusalem distract from the Russian armed forces' incessant assault of Ukraine's territory, but a successful resolution of the Israel-Iran hostilities thanks to Russian mediation would be hugely beneficial for Moscow's profile on the world stage.
It would also likely earn Putin a significant amount of good grace from his American counterpart for ongoing ceasefire negotiations in Ukraine.
Other key international players to have condemned Israel's attacks are China, Turkey Brazil and South Africa.
In a disquieting development, nuclear-armed Pakistan not only harshly criticised Israel's strikes but warned that it would deploy its thermonuclear weapons against the Jewish state should the Israeli military use any of its own nuclear devices on Tehran.
Meanwhile, the fall of former Syrian President and close ally of Iran Bashar al-Assad has dramatically weakened Iran's regional support base.
Under the leadership of Sunni Islamist group HTS, Syria severed ties with Iran and is now seemingly committed to preventing the flow of funds and arms from Tehran to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Condemning Iran
Israel is thus far going it alone in its assault on its arch nemesis, with no country openly taking part in attacking Iran on its behalf.
But it has a slew of powerful enemies that have expressed support for Israel's right to self-defence.
Others have generally warned against an escalation in the conflict but have not condemned Israel's actions - and all are quietly thankful for Operation Rising Lion amid fears Iran was closing in on developing nuclear weapons.
Chief among Israel's supporters is the United States.
President Donald Trump had for months cautioned Israel against attacking Iran as he attempted to negotiate with the Islamic Republic, offering sanctions relief in exchange for Tehran abandoning its nuclear enrichment programme.
But in the days before the launch of Operation Rising Lion, he reportedly became convinced of the need for Israel to strike - and was convinced on Thursday when the UN's nuclear watchdog officially warned that Iran was in breach of its nonproliferation requirements.
In the wake of the attacks he urged Iran to 'make a deal' with the US to avoid more bloodshed and at the weekend told reporters that it was 'possible' Washington could get involved.
'There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end. Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left,' he said. He also quipped that Israel's punishing attacks 'may have forced a deal to go quicker, actually'.
In the meantime, Washington appears to be taking steps to stabilise the situation - and discourage Iran from further aggression.
The USS Nimitz aircraft carrier, set to appear in Vietnam on June 20, has seemingly reversed course and his now heading back West, presumably on course for the Middle East.
British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer issued a general caution against further hostilities in the hours following initial attacks on Friday.
'Stability in the Middle East must be the priority, and we are engaging partners to de-escalate... Now is the time for restraint, calm and a return to diplomacy,' he said.
But in a phonecall, Starmer told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that London believes Israel has the right to 'self defence' and has 'grave concerns' over Iran's nuclear programme.
France took it a step further, with President Emmanuel Macron declaring that Tehran bore 'heavy responsibility in the destabilisation of the whole region'.
'If Israel were to be attacked in retaliation by Iran, France, if in a position to do so, would take part in protection and defence operations,' he said - though he added that Paris would not take part in any offensives on Iran.
And German Chancellor Friedrich Merz backed 'Israel's right to defend its existence and the security of its citizens', adding: 'The goal must remain that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons.'
Other Western aligned nations including Canada, Australia and Argentina equally denounced Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and perceived role in destabilising the region.
In Latin America, Javier Milei of Argentina took an opposing tack to neighbours Brazil, siding with Israel and condemning Iran's vile attack.
Milei's office also hit out at Iran's appointment of Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi as the new head of the Revolutionary Guard following the assassination of Hossein Salami.
Vahidi is one of several Iranian military members that Argentine authorities believe are responsible for the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1995 - a terror attack in which 85 people perished.
Beyond this, most countries have either issued general calls for de-escalation and restraint, without coming down on either side.
One notable abstainer from condemning Israel's attacks was India, which refused to join its fellow members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), a pan-Asian political and security bloc, in doing so.
New Delhi is playing a balancing act as a leading purchaser of Israeli military technology and defence equipment, but also as a key economic partner of Iran - not to mention its robust relationship with the United States.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

G7 expresses support for Israel, calls Iran source of instability
G7 expresses support for Israel, calls Iran source of instability

Reuters

time24 minutes ago

  • Reuters

G7 expresses support for Israel, calls Iran source of instability

WASHINGTON, June 16 (Reuters) - The Group of Seven nations expressed support for Israel in a statement, opens new tab issued late on Monday and labeled its rival Iran as a source of instability in the Middle East, with the G7 leaders urging broader de-escalation of hostilities in the region. The air war between Iran and Israel - which began on Friday when Israel attacked Iran with air strikes - has raised alarms in a region that had already been on edge since the start of Israel's military assault on Gaza in October 2023. "We affirm that Israel has a right to defend itself. We reiterate our support for the security of Israel," G7 leaders said in the statement. "Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror," the statement added and said the G7 was "clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon." Israel attacked Iran on Friday in what it called a preemptive strike to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. Since then the two Middle Eastern rivals have exchanged blows, with Iranian officials reporting over 220 deaths, mostly civilians, while Israel said 24 civilians were killed. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons and has said it has the right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, including enrichment, as a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel, which is not a party to the NPT, is the only country in the Middle East widely believed to have nuclear weapons. Israel does not deny or confirm that. President Donald Trump planned to leave the G7 summit in Canada early to return to Washington due to the Middle East situation. The United States has so far maintained that it is not involved in the Israeli attacks on Iran although Trump said on Friday the U.S. was aware of Israel's strikes in advance and called them "excellent." Washington has warned Tehran not to attack U.S. interests or personnel in the region. "We urge that the resolution of the Iranian crisis leads to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, including a ceasefire in Gaza," the G7 statement said, adding the nations were also ready to coordinate on safeguarding stability in energy markets. An Israeli strike hit Iran's state broadcaster on Monday while Trump said in a social media post that "everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran." Separately, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also discussed the Israel-Iran war in phone calls with his British, French and European Union counterparts on Monday. Washington said Trump was still aiming for a nuclear deal with Iran.

Javier Bardem sparks backlash with anti-Israel rant on The View as he is cut off after claiming he's suffering
Javier Bardem sparks backlash with anti-Israel rant on The View as he is cut off after claiming he's suffering

Daily Mail​

time28 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Javier Bardem sparks backlash with anti-Israel rant on The View as he is cut off after claiming he's suffering

Actor Javier Bardem was cut off on The View after suggesting he 'suffers on a daily basis' for the people of Gaza and said Israel was committing 'genocide.' The Oscar-winner was speaking to conservative panelists Alyssa Farah Griffin and Sara Haines, who wear yellow pins everyday to support Israeli hostages being held in Gaza. 'I see your [pins] and, of course, they have to return those hostages obviously,' Bardem said. 'But the situation in Gaza has come to a term now where I cannot express the pain that I, along with many millions of people there, suffer on a daily basis watching those horrible images of children being murdered and starving to death.' The actor stated his case for Israel committing 'genocide' based on his belief that international law and human rights experts and even Holocaust survivors agree with him. 'First of all, because the impunity that is taking Israel in doing these actions, and the lack of action on any government of course the back up of the United States with all those weapons and the economics, and also the silence of Europe, is creating a scenario where there is such impunity that if we really don't do something about that we are going towards, well, what is happening now,' he said. Host Whoopi Goldberg clearly wanted to get to a commercial break but Bardem tried to continue. 'And also, with this I will finish, the most important thing is to not lose the humanity and really denounce when we have to denounce and who we have to denounce,' he said. Abruptly, the show cut back to Goldberg, who said: 'Javier, come back.' The long-running ABC chatfest then went straight to commercial to a somewhat muted applause. A source at the show told Decider that they were simply running out of time and needed to head to break. However, several viewers were alarmed by Bardem's statements. 'Again, The View becomes a hot bed for political hatred and antisemitism,' wrote Nicholas Fondacaro of MRC and Newsbusters. 'Actor Javier Bardem claims he's suffering as much as the people in Gaza as he parrots Hamas propaganda.' Another social media user reminded people that 'ABC considers this part of their news product.' 'English is Javier Bardem's second language, stupid is his first,' added another on X. Leftist YouTube channel The Serfs spoke in favor of Bardem's comments and mocked the liberal ABC show for cutting away. 'Javier Bardem went so hard on the genocide of Palestinians that the View had to cut to commercial break.' None of the reaction nor the cut to break stopped Bardem from making similar statements at the premiere of his new movie, F1, later that night. 'Thousands of children are dying… It's a genocide happening before our eyes. The American support has to stop.' Many on the far left and even mainstream Democrats have accused the Israelis of genocide in their response to the October 7, 2023 Hamas terror attack on an Israeli music festival. Significant protesting has come from American college campuses, who have received smackdowns from the Trump administration for refusing to protect Jewish students and fostering antisemitism.

Why is the US so reluctant to fight Iran?
Why is the US so reluctant to fight Iran?

Spectator

time38 minutes ago

  • Spectator

Why is the US so reluctant to fight Iran?

MAGA (Make America Great Again) isolationists all agree: the United States must not be drawn into the Israel-Iran war. Donald Trump was not elected president to become entangled in pointless foreign conflicts. Over on Truth Social, Trump's hokey-pokey routine continues – in, out, in, out, send the Fifth Fleet out? – and America Firsters despair at the prospect of the US fighting 'a war for Israel'. In Jerusalem, the thinking is the exact opposite: Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly concerned that the unpredictable Trump could push Israel to conclude Operation Rising Lion before its military objectives are met. This is all very interesting as Kremlinology, but it also throws up a point of curiosity: why is the US so reluctant to get involved? This is, after all, an offensive conducted by its most reliable ally in the region against a regime where 'Death to America' practically doubles as the national anthem. It kills and kidnaps American citizens, funds Islamist groups that commit terror attacks against the US, and pours cash and arms into every conceivable conflict in the region. Lighting up Ayatollah Khamenei like a nuclear Christmas tree would fall squarely in the category of 'US interests'. Ah, but Iraq. And Afghanistan. And, for those of a certain vintage, Vietnam. Ever since the last Bell 204B took off from the roof of Saigon's Pittman apartments, the American collective consciousness has come to associate military invention with bloody and expensive quagmire, an instinct seemingly vindicated by Mogadishu, Afghanistan and Gulf War II. Why is that? The US armed forces are the mightiest military on the planet, a $1 trillion carnage factory that could obliterate an average-sized European country in the space of a morning – before breakfast if nukes were involved. Is it simply that the US now excels only in aerial firepower in a way it previously also did with boots on the ground? Is it poor leadership among the joint chiefs; substandard intelligence out of Langley, Fort Meade and Anacostia–Bolling; squeamishness in rules of engagement and norms of armed conflict; or hubris in planning and executing action against nations and forces the Pentagon underestimates as primitive or ill-prepared? Is it spiritual? Are civic and military elites so macerated in national and civilisational self-hatred, in an anti-Americanism pervasive in higher education, elite media and high-status culture, that they possess neither the confidence nor the will for American victory that were taken for granted among the pre-1960s generations? If any country should be morally paralysed at the thought of armed conflict, it ought to be Israel Whatever the answer, it prompts a corollary question: why doesn't tiny Israel, vulnerable on all fronts, with its own bitter memories of quagmires and retreats, its own self-lacerating institutions, and its own intelligence failures, evince a similar pessimism about military engagement? After all, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is a conscript army. In theory, every mother's son is on the frontline. If any country should be morally paralysed at the thought of armed conflict, it ought to be Israel. Perhaps in this contradiction lies an answer. Israel's is a drafted army because the threats the country faces are existential. As October 7 confirmed, it is not only possible but relatively easy to murder large numbers of Israelis in a short space of time. Americans are insulated by oceans and land mass and awesome firepower, whereas Israeli security is a much more fragile thing, not a definite but something that must be won and guarded every single day. American isolationists object to what they regard as foreign wars but for Israel, regardless of the theatre of engagement, every war takes place at home. The prospect of defeat, and the unbearable price that would come with it, does not grip Israeli leaders with the same paralysing pessimism as afflicts their US counterparts. When the next battle could be your last, wallowing in military or strategic inadequacies is an indulgence that can ill be afforded. The ability to win might well be downstream of the will to survive.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store