Without talks, there is no good outcome to the Iran-Israel war
As the war between Israel and Iran enters its seventh day, many are rightly asking what the endgame is. The answer to that question is surprisingly straightforward: without de-escalation and talks, just about every outcome is bad in one way or another.
As civilian casualties mount, buildings are reduced to rubble and fear sets in across the Middle East, a volatile situation is made even worse by demands for surrender, veiled threats to kill a head of state and an ineffective international response, the latest example of which was the G7 summit 's failure to produce a comprehensive roadmap for peace.
Amid this uncertainty, talk of regime change in Iran has emerged. In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested that the abrupt end of the Iranian government could be one outcome of his country's unilateral military action. In a separate interview, he urged the Iranian people to rise up and topple their rulers.
Such reckless talk does not constitute a responsible strategy. Aside from the affront to Iranian sovereignty, regime change would have serious consequences. The reality is that regime collapse not regime change would be the likely outcome. Whether Israel's leadership thinks their country's security will be improved by living in a wildly destabilised region seems to be a question that it has failed to consider.
On the contrary, Israel's attacks have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Iran's fear of being attacked has been confirmed and there is the danger of Tehran widening its retaliation or activating its remaining armed proxy forces if it senses that defeat is close.
Given the current escalation, international mediation remains the only realistic option for defusing this crisis. This is not a far-fetched call; there is widespread regional support – including from US partners – for de-escalation and talks. A joint statement from Arab and Islamic countries on Monday called for a 'swift return to the path of negotiations as the only viable means to reach a sustainable agreement regarding the Iranian nuclear programme'.
For that path to negotiations to be successful, the institutions of multilateralism need to take the lead
For that path to negotiations to be successful, the institutions of multilateralism need to take the lead. In a statement released on Tuesday, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs said the UAE was calling on the UN and the Security Council 'to fully uphold their responsibilities by preventing further escalation and taking urgent and necessary measures to achieve a ceasefire and reinforce international peace and security'.
Such measures are needed immediately. The longer this war goes on, the only certainty will be more uncertainty. No amount of scenario planning or wargaming by either side can predict how this crisis will end, and armed conflicts often develop their own, uncontrollable momentum. There may be precious little trust between the warring sides, but the only credible strategy left is to listen to the sound counsel of Arab and Muslim countries when they say it is time to talk.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Zawya
10 minutes ago
- Zawya
Mideast Stocks: Major Gulf markets decline as regional conflict escalates
Major stock markets in the Gulf fell in early trade on Thursday amid investor jitters over potential U.S. involvement in the escalating Israel-Iran conflict. Israel struck a key Iranian nuclear site on Thursday and Iranian missiles hit an Israeli hospital while President Donald Trump kept the world guessing about whether the U.S. would join air strikes seeking to destroy Tehran's nuclear facilities. Saudi Arabia's benchmark index dropped 0.2%, dragged down by a 0.4% fall in Al Rajhi Bank and a 0.6% decrease in oil behemoth Saudi Aramco. The Saudi index is on course for its biggest weekly fall in over two months. However, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal-backed airline Flynas advanced 3% to 79.60 riyals per share, a day after falling over 3% on its debut. The airline, which sold a 30% stake to investors in the first IPO by a Gulf airline in almost 20 years, was priced at the top of its range at 80 riyals per share. Dubai's main share index declined 1.3%, dragged down by a 2.4% slide in blue-chip developer Emaar Properties and a 2% retreat in sharia-compliant lender Dubai Islamic Bank. Elsewhere, budget airliner Air Arabia was down 1.6%. In Abu Dhabi, the index eased 0.1%. Overnight, the Federal Reserve held rates steady as expected but retained projections for two quarter-point rate cuts this year. The Fed's decisions impact monetary policy in the Gulf, where most currencies, including the riyals, are pegged to the U.S. dollar. The Qatari benchmark fell 0.8%, with Qatar Islamic Bank losing 1.6%.
Middle East Eye
23 minutes ago
- Middle East Eye
War on Gaza: How the BBC sanitises Israel's genocide
The BBC, Britain's most powerful media institution, has played a pivotal role in shaping public understanding of Israel's war on Gaza - and in doing so, has repeatedly chosen to obscure, minimise and sanitise one of the most brutal military campaigns of the 21st century. A comprehensive new report by the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) reveals a damning pattern in the BBC's coverage of the war: a relentless privileging of Israeli voices, a dehumanisation of Palestinian suffering, and a willful refusal to name - let alone interrogate - the context of occupation, siege and apartheid that underpins this catastrophe. This is not about minor editorial missteps. It is about a systematic failure to treat Palestinians as fully human - as people whose lives and deaths deserve to be represented with the same dignity, gravity and moral clarity afforded to Israelis. It is about a publicly funded broadcaster abandoning its duty of impartiality in favour of a deeply politicised, one-sided narrative. From the outset of Israel's assault on Gaza following Hamas's 7 October 2023 attack, the BBC framed the war not as a continuation of decades of colonisation, blockade and dispossession, but as a symmetrical clash between two sides. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Articles that failed to mention the word 'occupation' were not the exception but the rule. Terms like 'settlements', 'blockade' and 'apartheid' - used by the UN and Amnesty International - were almost entirely absent. Instead, the conflict was flattened into a series of tit-for-tat exchanges, with Palestinian resistance divorced from any historical or legal context. Grotesque distortion The result? A grotesque distortion of reality in which the structural violence inflicted by one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the world, against a besieged population of two million people, is erased in favour of empty euphemisms and passive constructions. The death toll of Palestinians in Gaza now exceeds 55,000, most of them women and children. But in BBC coverage, the CfMM report shows, Palestinians were most often described as having 'died' or been 'killed' in air strikes, with no mention of who launched them. Israeli victims, by contrast, were described using more emotive language, such as 'slaughtered', 'massacred' and 'butchered'. Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war The CfMM report, published this week, examined more than 35,000 pieces of BBC content related to Israel's war on Gaza between 7 October 2023 and 6 October 2024. The BBC used the word 'massacre' 18 times more often to describe Israeli deaths than Palestinian ones. It offered almost equal numbers of victim profiles for both populations - even though a vastly higher number of Palestinians have been killed. This is not a neutral editorial choice; it is a devaluation of Palestinian lives. And it doesn't stop there. Palestinian guests on BBC programmes were routinely interrogated, interrupted, and pushed to condemn Hamas - as if that were the price of being allowed to speak. Israeli spokespeople, many of whom defended war crimes on air, were treated with deference. Not one Israeli guest was asked to condemn the deliberate bombing of hospitals, refugee camps or schools - despite mountains of evidence and international outrage. This type of editorial blindness is not accidental. It flows from a deeper institutional culture that refuses to see Palestinians as people The asymmetry extends to reporting on hostages and prisoners. Israeli hostages were the subject of intense coverage, complete with emotional interviews, wall-to-wall updates, and sombre, humanising details. Palestinian prisoners - thousands of whom have been held without charge or trial - barely registered. Even in cases of prisoner exchanges, BBC coverage focused almost exclusively on Israeli returnees. Who were the Palestinian prisoners? How long had they been imprisoned? Were they tortured, abused, or denied due process? These questions were largely left unasked and unanswered. This type of editorial blindness is not accidental. It flows from a deeper institutional culture that refuses to see Palestinians as people with legitimate grievances, aspirations and rights; a culture that demands Palestinians speak only as victims or terrorists, never as human beings resisting subjugation. Nowhere is this clearer than in the BBC's treatment of language. The report documents more than 100 instances in which presenters interrupted or challenged guests for using the term 'genocide' to describe Israel's actions in Gaza - even as the International Court of Justice ruled that South Africa's case accusing Israel of genocide could proceed. Profound betrayal When it comes to Ukraine, the BBC has no problem platforming such language, with journalists freely invoking allegations of 'war crimes' when describing Russian aggression. But on Israel, the BBC ties itself into rhetorical knots to avoid saying what millions around the world can see with their own eyes: a systematic, unrelenting campaign of annihilation. This is not balance. This is censorship - one that shields the powerful and silences the oppressed. The betrayal is perhaps most profound when it comes to journalists themselves. More than 170 journalists have been killed in Gaza over the course of the war - the deadliest period for media workers in living memory. Yet the BBC saw fit to report on just six percent of those deaths. The graver Israel's atrocities in Gaza, the quieter the BBC grows Read More » These were not nameless casualties. They were mothers, fathers, sons and daughters, documenting their people's suffering with extraordinary courage. Many died with their cameras still in hand. Their deaths should have been a central part of any newsroom's self-reflection. Instead, they were treated as background noise. Compare this with Ukraine, where 62 percent of journalist deaths were covered by the BBC. The disparity speaks volumes. In Gaza, even the deaths of journalists - the people through whom we see the world - are deemed unworthy of sustained attention. Late last year, more than 100 BBC staff signed an open letter warning that the broadcaster was failing in its duty to report fairly on Gaza. They pointed to a culture of fear, editorial double standards, and an unwillingness to allow Palestinian voices and perspectives to be aired without hostility. The BBC defended its coverage of Gaza, saying it was 'transparent' when mistakes were made and 'clear with our audiences on the limitations' of its work due to access restrictions on reporting from the ground. The concerns raised by BBC staff echo those raised in the CfMM's report - and they demand more than a defensive PR response. What's at stake here is not just the BBC's credibility, but the role of media in times of mass violence. The BBC likes to position itself as a global gold standard for journalism. But when its coverage consistently amplifies the voices of the powerful while muting those facing obliteration, it ceases to be a neutral observer. Silence in the face of injustice is not impartiality. The public deserves better. So do the dead Palestinians - and those still living. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
The National
24 minutes ago
- The National
'Iran can defend itself': Will Tehran's proxies join fight against Israel?
As the conflict between Israel and Iran dramatically escalates, with the US considering whether to intervene to back its long-time ally, a pressing question has emerged: will Tehran's proxies rush to the rescue of their patron? Hostilities between Iran and Israel have reached unprecedented levels, entering a seventh day of confrontation, after Israel launched attacks last Friday on Iran claiming to prevent the country from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The strikes prompted a series of retaliatory missile barrages from Iran. Sources in Iran's proxy groups have shared differing views on whether they will join the fight with Iran. A Hezbollah source says it will remain on the sidelines, regardless of whether the US intervenes, while Yemen's Houthi rebels are the only proxy to have announced attacks against Israel in support of Iran. The proxy groups, however, have stressed their autonomy from Tehran. The so-called Axis of Resistance is an Iran-led network that includes Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and armed groups in Iraq, whose aim is to deter Israel from conducting military action and countering its influence in the region. Many of these groups have fought against Iran's enemies in their respective countries. The groups launched attacks against Israel as part of a support campaign for Hamas and the Palestinian people after the Gaza war broke out on October 7, 2023. But months of fighting with Israel, which holds clear military dominance, has considerably eroded the operational capacity of the axis. Hezbollah, once a formidable militia and Iran's most powerful proxy, was battered by nearly 14 months of conflict with Israel that ended in November, leaving much of its chain of command dismantled and its arsenal decimated. The group has made it clear that it does not intend to take part in any retaliatory action to support Iran. Lebanese MP Hassan Fadlallah described Iran as a 'key regional power' that is capable of defending itself, in an interview with pro-Hezbollah outlet Al Mayadeen. 'It does not ask others to fight on its behalf,' he said. The group is under pressure to disarm and faces growing discontent from those in Lebanon who accuse it of dragging the cash-strapped country into a war it could not afford, and causing damage worth several billion dollars. Once a kingmaker, Hezbollah is now grappling with a loss of influence within the Lebanese political scene. A Lebanese official told The National that the army sent a message to Hezbollah, urging it not to intervene in the Iran-Israel conflict and warning against dragging the country into yet another devastating war. 'They said they wouldn't,' the official said. 'We're doing everything we can, calls, meetings, to prevent any escalation,' the official added. 'This is not our war." Some fear a potential US intervention against Iran might compel Hezbollah to join the fight. Statements attributed to an Iranian official suggested that, if the US became directly involved – an idea President Donald Trump has been publicly floating for days – Hezbollah would join forces with Tehran. A Hezbollah source firmly denied the claim. 'I don't think the statement is true … who is this source? Iran can defend itself,' the source told The National. 'This is a Hezbollah decision, not an Iranian decision and unfortunately the media fabricates fake news." Cautious but ready In Iraq, which is home to several Tehran-backed militias that, unlike Hezbollah, remain largely intact, a senior militant leader told The National that the decision to open a front would depend 'on developments". 'The current situation calls for caution and wisdom, but also readiness to respond if Iran comes under full-scale attack,' he said. The militant said US intervention could be a game-changer in how the groups perceive their role in the conflict. 'We advise the United States not to get involved in the war – it has tried before and ended in failure," he said. "Any American aggression against Iran will directly affect Iraq, and Iraqis have the right to defend their sovereignty, religious beliefs and dignity." He warned that any attempt at regime change in Iran – which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shown increasing interest in, beyond merely destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities – would lead to regional chaos. 'Iraq lies between two blazing arenas, and the resistance factions will not stand idly by," he added. Yemen's Houthis are the only proxy group to have announced joint military co-operation with Tehran since the recent escalation. The Houthis have launched attacks against Israel and ships in the Red Sea in support of Palestinians in Gaza since October 2023. On Sunday, the group said it fired ballistic missiles at Israel in support of 'the oppressed Palestinian and Iranian peoples". A Yemeni source in the capital Sanaa said there was 'no joint operations room between the Iranians and the Houthis", but rather continued co-ordination. 'When Houthis are required to strike, they carry out the strike independently," the source added. "This is what we've observed in the nature of their operations. This is also what Sanaa and Iranian officials have affirmed since the beginning of the operations, that Yemen acts on its own, deciding when it is in its interest to escalate, de-escalate, or strike a particular area."
