Iran does not want conflict with Israel to expand but will defend itself, foreign minister says
DUBAI (Reuters): Iran does not want its conflict with Israel to expand to neighbouring countries unless the situation is forced, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Sunday (June 15), adding its response had been based on self-defence.
Araqchi said Tehran had been responding to foreign aggression and that if this aggression stopped, Iranian reactions would also cease.
The foreign minister said the Israeli strikes on the offshore South Pars gas field Iran shares with Qatar were "a blatant aggression and a very dangerous act".
"Dragging the conflict to the Persian Gulf is a strategic mistake, and its aim is to drag the war beyond Iranian territory," he said.
The foreign minister accused Israel of seeking to sabotage ongoing Iran-United States nuclear talks, which according to him could have opened the way for an agreement. Tehran was set to present a proposal this Sunday during a sixth round of talks, which were cancelled following recent escalations.
"Israel's attack would never have happened without the US green light and support," Araqchi said, adding Tehran does not believe American statements that Washington had taken no part in recent attacks.
"It is necessary for the United States to condemn Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities if they want to prove their goodwill."
Meanwhile, Israel issued an evacuation warning to Iranians residing near weapons facilities in Iran, an Israeli military spokesperson said in a post on X in Arabic and Farsi.
The spokesperson said the evacuation warning includes all weapons factories and supporting facilities.
Trump weighs in
US President Donald Trump said the conflict could be easily ended while warning Tehran not to strike any US targets.
Israeli rescue teams combed through the rubble of residential buildings destroyed in strikes, using flashlights and sniffer dogs to look for survivors after at least 10 people, including children, were killed, authorities said.
The Israeli military warned Iranians living near nuclear reactors to evacuate, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the attacks by Israel so far were nothing compared with what Iran would see in the coming days.
"If we are attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the US Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before," Trump said in a message on Truth Social. "However, we can easily get a deal done between Iran and Israel, and end this bloody conflict."
Trump gave no details of any possible deal.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said Israel's attacks, which began on Friday, were aimed at sabotaging the nuclear talks with the United States. that were to resume in Oman on Sunday. He said Israel's attacks had the support of the United States and that Iran was acting only in self-defence.
Israel has said the campaign's goal is to stop Iran from developing atomic weapons and taking out its ballistic missile capabilities. Officials have acknowledged the military strikes were unlikely to fully halt Iran's nuclear programme and voiced hopes they would lead to a comprehensive US-Iran deal.
Araqchi has previously said the Oman talks could not take place while Iran was being subjected to Israel's "barbarous" attacks.
Iran has said 78 people were killed there on the first day of Israel's campaign, and scores more on the second, including 60 when a missile brought down a 14-storey apartment block in Tehran, where 29 of the dead were children.
The Shahran oil depot in Tehran was targeted in an Israeli attack, Iran said, but added the situation was under control. A fire had erupted after an Israeli attack on an oil refinery near the capital while Israeli strikes also targeted Iran's defence ministry building, causing minor damage, the semi-official Tasnim news agency said on Sunday.
In Israel, the latest wave of Iranian attacks began shortly after 11pm on Saturday (2000 GMT), when air raid sirens blared in Jerusalem and Haifa, sending around a million people into bomb shelters.
Around 2.30am local time (2330 GMT Saturday), the Israeli military warned of another incoming missile barrage and urged residents to seek shelter. Explosions echoed through Tel Aviv and Jerusalem as missiles streaked across the skies as interceptor rockets were launched in response. The military lifted its shelter-in-place advisory nearly an hour after issuing the warning.
Houthis attack Israel
Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthis said on Sunday they targeted central Israel's Jaffa with several ballistic missiles in the last 24 hours, the first time an ally of Iran has joined the fray.
Tehran has warned Israel's allies that their military bases in the region would come under fire too if they helped shoot down Iranian missiles.
However, 20 months of war in Gaza and a conflict in Lebanon last year have decimated Tehran's strongest regional proxies, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, reducing its options for retaliation.
Israeli authorities said at least 10 people were killed overnight, including three children, and more than 140 injured by missiles that had hit homes in northern and central Israel.
Israeli media said at least 35 people were missing after a strike hit Bat Yam, a city south of Tel Aviv. A spokesperson for the emergency services said a missile hit an 8-storey building there and while many people were rescued, there were fatalities.
So far, at least 13 people in Israel have been killed and over 300 others injured since Iran launched its retaliatory attacks on Friday.
In the first apparent attack to hit Iran's energy infrastructure, Tasnim news agency said Iran partially suspended production at South Pars, the world's biggest gas field, after an Israeli strike caused a fire there on Saturday.
The South Pars field, offshore in Iran's southern Bushehr province, is the source of most of the gas produced in Iran.
Fears about potential disruption to the region's oil exports had already driven up oil prices 9% on Friday even though Israel spared Iran's oil and gas on the first day of its attacks.
Share markets in the region opened for the first time since the Israeli strikes, with Tel Aviv stocks down more than 1% and Saudi shares falling 3.6% in early trade.
With Israel saying its operation could last weeks, and Netanyahu urging Iran's people to rise up against their Islamic clerical rulers, fears have grown of a regional conflagration dragging in outside powers.
Israel sees Iran's nuclear programme as a threat to its existence, and said the bombardment was designed to avert the last steps to production of a nuclear weapon.
Tehran insists the programme is entirely civilian and that it does not seek an atomic bomb. The UN nuclear watchdog, however, reported Iran this week as violating obligations under the global non-proliferation treaty. – Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
US trade war enters precarious 'Slow Grind' phase
US trade negotiations have transitioned from their opening act, with its many twists and turns, into a new, protracted chapter: the Slow Grind. It may be less turbulent than this past spring's drama, but no less worrying for investors. Now that the US and China have the framework for a trade agreement, attention may start to turn to the European Union, which appears next in line to strike a deal with the Trump administration. But the prospect of a swift resolution seems remote. Finding significant common ground to meaningfully reduce the EU's substantial goods surplus with the US, roughly US$200 billion annually, presents a formidable challenge, as major avenues appear blocked. The EU is highly unlikely to concede on agricultural market access given the region's strong and comprehensive policy for protecting local agriculture. Large-scale aircraft deals also seem improbable given the Airbus-Boeing rivalry. The contentious issue of pharmaceutical pricing will complicate any healthcare deals. While Europe could theoretically increase purchases of US defence equipment or relax "Buy European" policies in defence procurement, the political palatability of such moves is low. Consequently, the focus may inevitably shift towards the services sector, where the EU runs an approximately US$100 billion annual deficit with the US, driven largely by the operations of American technology giants. Here, a potential landing zone exists: the EU could conceivably ease some of its more burdensome technology regulations with limited immediate downside, offering a tangible, albeit partial, lever to address the overall trade imbalance. In fact, Section 899 in the Trump administration's proposed "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" — which threatens to increase taxes on entities from countries with "unfair foreign taxes" — appears to be aimed directly at digital taxes levied by EU countries on US technology companies. This suggests that this area could be a focal point in US-EU negotiations. US negotiations with the EU are also occurring against a markedly different backdrop than the one that prevailed in May during the earlier round of trade talks with China. Back then, the US was just emerging from a significant bout of financial market volatility and facing the risk of "empty shelves" if onerous tariffs on China remained in place, so both investors and business leaders were demanding urgent action. Importantly, EU exports to the US are predominantly industrial and luxury goods, not the daily consumables that directly impact the average American's pocketbook. Adding to this calmer backdrop, capital markets have shown signs of adapting to the current administration's seemingly unpredictable trade tactics. The S&P 500 index has rebounded 20 per cent since its post-Liberation Day low and is only around 2.0 per cent below its all-time high. One major risk, however, is that the US starts taking a harder line with Europe for fear of looking weak. Central to the US negotiation strategy is the perceived credibility of threats. Given the Trump administration's emphasis on the president's deal-making prowess, the US fundamentally cannot afford to be seen as backing down consistently, a scenario some critics have labelled "Trump Always Chickens Out" (TACO). Being perceived as unreliable with ultimatums would critically undermine the administration's negotiating power, not just with the EU, but globally. This need to maintain a credible hard line could add friction to the process, making concessions harder to make and progress slower to achieve. On the currency front, the euro may continue to appreciate against the US dollar — ending a more than decade-long trend of greenback strength — if wary European investors bring more capital back home. This could give the European Central Bank greater leeway to implement interest rate cuts, with less immediate concern about imported inflation. However, such euro strength has historically been negatively correlated with the performance of risk assets more broadly, adding another layer of complexity to the investment landscape. Further complicating the picture is the risk that the tentative deal just reached with China could unravel, reflecting the ongoing tug-of-war within the US administration between China hawks and pragmatists. The frenetic pace of the trade war's opening chapter has given way to a more arduous phase. This "Slow Grind" promises to generate more uncertainty, testing the patience of markets and policymakers alike, with progress likely measured in inches rather than miles.
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
The US is dooming the UN
SAY you are president of the United States and you've been clear that you put America First and that you disdain 'globalists' and all their organs of international multilateralism, chief among them the United Nations. How do you go about discrediting those institutions? One option is to withdraw the US formally. For example, Donald Trump began his second term by announcing that he'll pull the country out of parts of the UN system, including its Human Rights Council, the World Health Organisation and the Paris Agreement on climate change. That just about hobbles these conventions, since fighting, say, pandemics or global warming without American participation seems futile. But the attack doesn't need to be so blunt. You could also nominally remain a member of an institution while ignoring, undermining or sabotaging it. The US still belongs to the World Trade Organisation, for example, even though Trump has inverted its foundational idea by launching a trade war on the world. America also remains, for now, the backbone of Nato, although Trump has undermined its credibility by casting doubt on the US commitment to Article 5, the alliance's mutual-defence clause and thus its reason for being. Something similar is happening at the UN. In 2015 all its members, including the US, adopted an updated mission statement in the form of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These were meant to be answers to humanity's biggest problems, from ending hunger and poverty to improving health and education and reducing inequality. Even though progress on most of these efforts is running behind schedule, it's hard to fault the intention. And yet the US now does. In March, it formally rejected the SDGs. It was a bizarre spectacle. The task fell to a mid-level diplomat named Edward Heartney, and the occasion was a vote in the General Assembly to adopt an 'International Day of Peaceful Coexistence'. An anodyne ritual, you might think, but you'd be wrong. Heartney got up and delivered a philippic against the 'soft global governance that is inconsistent with US sovereignty'. Such 'globalist endeavours... lost at the ballot box', Heartney went on – referring to the US election in 2024 – which is why America 'rejects and denounces' the SDGs. The audience, more used to hearing such outbursts from rogue states, was stunned. Mark Leon Goldberg, a veteran UN watcher, told me that even Heartney, a career foreign service officer, looked as though he had a gun to his head and was recording a hostage video. And yet, the speech set the tone for what was to come. The US now regularly gums up every proceeding it can. In June, it cast the only no vote (compared with 169 in favour) against a Mongolian resolution to introduce a World Horse Day. Why? To protest against those SDGs, of course, and everything that 'impinges upon state sovereignty as a soft form of global governance'. America's opposition to the SDGs is more than symbolic. This past week, almost all member states are gathering in France for the UN Ocean Conference to make progress on SDG No 14, on saving the world's oceans and seas (which are in at least as much trouble as our atmosphere). The Trump administration is boycotting that meeting. Instead, Trump recently ordered a push to mine international seabeds for minerals, one of the things the conference is most urgently trying to regulate. He and the Republican Congress are also planning to defund the UN system and other international organisations. Since the US has been the largest contributor to UN coffers since the organisation's founding in 1945 (its share of the regular budget was 22 % in 2024), the cutbacks will force the UN to shrink or close programmes (even if it becomes more efficient, as it should). Reform of the UN's Security Council – an aspiration of the Biden administration – is also off the table. The US, like Russia and China, instead exacerbates its dysfunction: In June, 14 of the council's 15 members voted for a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza; the US vetoed it. Goldberg hopes that the nomination of Michael Waltz as the US ambassador to the UN might provide some relief: Waltz was Trump's national security adviser until May and with his high profile might be 'able to explain the value the UN gives to American security interests'. I doubt it. Waltz's move to the UN was meant as a demotion. If anything, it confirms that Trump views the institution as a dead end. Cumulatively, this trend away from multilateralism, which Trump didn't start but is turbo-boosting, is already changing the world, and for the worse. 'There hasn't been a binding international agreement on any matter – any transnational issue of importance' for years, laments Shivshankar Menon, a former national security adviser of India; 'we're a world adrift'. The historical echoes are ominous. The UN's forerunner was the League of Nations. Conceived by leaders such as then US President Woodrow Wilson at the end of World War I, it was meant to prevent a second. But Wilson's own country then failed to ratify the treaty after Republicans in the Senate turned isolationist. Without American support, the League was powerless to stop the aggression of fascist Italy, Japan and Germany, and gradually became irrelevant as the world went up in flames. Even so, it was formally dissolved only in 1946, when the new UN – finally backed by the US – took its place. Say you're that American president again and, like Trump, you want to be remembered as a 'peacemaker'. Wouldn't you start by broadening your understanding of the UN's reason for existing, and of the bleak scenarios if the UN went the way of the League? If Waltz wants to redeem his career and legacy – a long shot – he should muster the courage to educate the White House that the United Nations isn't America's enemy, but potentially its best friend, if not its last best hope. — Bloomberg Opinion/TNS Andreas Kluth is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering US diplomacy, national security and geopolitics.
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Trump: US involvement in Iran-Israel war 'possible'
WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump told a news network Sunday the United States could become involved in the Iran-Israel conflict, and that he would be "open" to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin being a mediator. The Republican president, according to ABC News, also said talks over Iran's nuclear programme were continuing and that Tehran would "like to make a deal," perhaps more quickly now that the Islamic republic is trading massive strikes with Israel. "It's possible we could get involved" in the ongoing battle between the Middle East arch-foes, Trump said in an off-camera interview with ABC News senior political correspondent Rachel Scott that was not previously publicised. He stressed that the United States is "not at this moment" involved in the military action. As for Putin being a potential mediator in the conflict, "he is ready. He called me about it. We had a long talk about it," Trump said. Israel and Iran traded heavy aerial assaults for a third straight day Sunday, with casualties mounting following Israel's large-scale attacks aimed at crippling Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure, sparking retaliation. Oman, which has acted as a mediator on the nuclear issue, has said a sixth round of talks between Iran and the United States planned for this weekend had been cancelled. But Trump said the two sides were continuing discussions. "No, there's no deadline" on negotiations, he told ABC when asked whether there was a time limit for Tehran to come to the table. "But they are talking. They'd like to make a deal. They're talking. They continue to talk," Trump said, according to Scott. Trump suggested that something like the clash between Israel and Iran "had" to happen to spur talks on a nuclear agreement. It "may have forced a deal to go quicker, actually," Trump said.--AFP
