From bunker bombs to Nobel dreams: Trump's war for peace
The US seems to have learned no lessons from the post-Cold War phase of its unilateralism and regime-change policies in the Middle East. Instead of a new peaceful and stable order being established under Washington's tutelage, it ended in the collapse of countries – not merely regimes – chaos, civil war, and the rise of Islamic extremism and terrorism.
It is not clear what legitimate US core interests were served by its military interventions to re-order the political forces in the region.
If the objective was also to remove regimes that were a threat to Israel's security and erode Russian influence in the region, some success may have been achieved in Iraq and Syria, though in a divided Libya Moscow seems to have gained ground.
Giving Israel a freer hand in Lebanon and Syria, and a virtual carte blanche in Gaza and in the West Bank too, may have in the short term given it an upper hand in security terms but longer term the answer to Israel's security dilemmas may not lie in asserting its regional hegemony with the backing of the US.
Israel has long viewed its core security challenge as emanating from a nuclear-armed Iran. It has worked hard over the years to mobilize US and European opinion against Iran's nuclear program. That this program has been subject to stringent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards has not reduced the virulence of Israel's campaign against it. Israel has for years raised the specter of Iran becoming nuclear within months or even weeks even though no proof is produced to support this belief. The IAEA has not backed Israel's allegations.
These Israeli claims have resonated in the pro-Israel lobbies in the US to the point that President Donald Trump in his first term repudiated the nuclear agreement signed between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the UK and US) plus Germany. Under this agreement, Iran had accepted severe and even humiliating curbs on its nuclear program as a sovereign country, which included highly intrusive monitoring by the IAEA.
In his second term, Trump sought to negotiate a new, much tougher, nuclear agreement with Iran that would deny it even some rights it had under the first one. A couple of rounds of talks took place, and the date for another round had been slated. These talks were being held under the shadow of timelines and intimidating ultimatums by Trump. It is not improbable that the US was engaged in a show of negotiations while actually preparing for an aerial strike against Iran.
With Hamas and Hezbollah decimated and regime change having been carried out in Syria, Iran's hand was greatly weakened vis-à-vis Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu evidently calculated that this was the most opportune moment to do the unthinkable – attack Iran militarily and open the door to US military intervention in support of Israel.
In other words, for Israel the objective would be to prevent any possible negotiated agreement between the US and Iran, and for Trump to seize the opportunity to eliminate Iran's nuclear capability by force, in particular its underground facilities with the use of B2s armed with bunker-busting bombs.
That Trump has chosen a military solution over a negotiated one is a throwback to US unilateralism and regime-change policies. The US attack on Iran is a gross violation of international law. It infringes the UN Charter. The US had no mandate from the UN Security Council to act against Iran. There is no provision in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that would allow the recognized nuclear powers to eliminate a suspected nuclear program of a non-nuclear state in violation of the Treaty. The US attack also cannot be justified as a pre-emptive one as Iran was not threatening to attack the US. The rhetoric of a rules-based international order has been exposed for what it is.
The irony is that Trump's election rhetoric was against the US getting involved in wars abroad, which he believed had drained America's resources. His MAGA base wanted the US to focus on domestic priorities. Trump projected himself as against wars as such, as someone who would work to end conflicts. His position on the Ukraine conflict reflected this.
His unfounded claim that he brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, as well as his offer to mediate between the two countries on Kashmir, is part of how he projects himself as a peacemaker. He now claims to have brokered an agreement between Rwanda and Congo and between Egypt and Ethiopia, among others. His efforts should, as he says, entitle him to four or five Nobel Peace Prizes.
Pakistan tried to capitalize on Trump's obsession with a Nobel Prize by officially nominating him for one after his unprecedented invitation to a foreign military chief (the Pakistani field marshal) to lunch with him at the White House.
This sycophantic ploy recoiled on Pakistan when virtually the next day Trump attacked Iran militarily. Trump believes that now summoning Israel and Iran to a ceasefire shows his commitment to peace. Unsurprisingly, his supporters in the US Congress have nominated him for the Nobel Prize.
While Netanyahu publicly speaking of killing Ali Khamenei, Iran's spiritual leader, is one thing, Trump visualizing the possibility of assassinating him at an opportune moment on his social media account is egregious. Such talk of political assassination are being normalized in diplomatic discourse. Trump has also not ruled out regime change in Iran, potentially causing chaos in a country of over 90 million.
A ceasefire between Israel and Iran, even if it holds, is simply a pause. The underlying issues remain unresolved. Iran needs to give up its rhetoric that Israel has no right to exist. It is most unlikely that Iran will give up its nuclear program and its rights under the NPT. Iran has decided to end the monitoring of its program by the IAEA. Iran has accused the agency head of leaking information about its nuclear scientists to the US and Israelis and facilitating their assassination. Meanwhile, the whereabouts of Iran's highly enriched uranium are not known.
There are also some doubts about the extent of damage caused to Iranian nuclear sites by the US bombers, and therefore the assessment is that Iran's program could be revived quickly enough. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has questioned the integrity of IAEA Chief Rafael Grossi for pressuring Iran to allow renewed access to its nuclear facilities.
Meanwhile, the US attack has exposed the inability of Moscow and Beijing to give protection to Iran during the conflict. Russia signed a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement with Iran in January 2025. Iran is a member of BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), two organizations in which both Russia and China play dominant roles.
Putin has explained that Russia had offered to help build up Iran's air defenses but Tehran declined as it wanted to rely on its own capacities. The Iranian foreign minister went to Moscow and met Russian President Vladimir Putin, but whatever help is now given to Iran will be diplomatic – as well as potential assistance in building up its air defenses if Iran has learned the right lessons about its vulnerabilities.
China, which signed a 25-year strategic accord with Iran and is the biggest buyer of Iranian oil, has stood aloof from the conflict in practical terms although, unlike in the case of Russia, its rhetoric against Israel is harsh. Russia itself is involved in a major conflict and would want to avoid alienating Trump. China too has major stakes in managing its tense ties with the US.
Iran has suffered and so has Israel. The story is not yet over.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
US and Israeli strikes on Iran violate international law
The US and Israel have brazenly violated a host of international agreements by striking Iranian nuclear facilities, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has said. He warned that consequences of such actions could have been catastrophic. Israel launched strikes on Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure on June 13, a day after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed a resolution declaring Iran to be in breach of its Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations – something that Tehran has denied. Last week, the US carried out airstrikes targeting three Iranian nuclear facilities as well. 'The recent strikes on the Iranian nuclear facilities under the control of the IAEA are violating the norms of the international law in the most dangerous way,' the Belarusian leader told a summit of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) on Friday. Minsk is particularly aware of the potential consequences of such actions, the president said, citing the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, which caused vast territories to be contaminated with radioactive materials thrown into the atmosphere following an explosion at a Soviet nuclear power plant. 'Radioactive fallout was registered even in the UK, Germany and Sweden at the time,' Lukashenko noted. The US and Israel apparently believe they would be spared the same fate for some reason. The president also expressed his support to Iran and its people, wishing them to 'overcome all the difficulties' caused by the attacks. 'I want you to know that you are not alone in your resistance.' His words came a day after Moscow said that Washington's and West Jerusalem's actions dealt 'colossal damage' to the IAEA and put its very credibility in question. An agency responsible for the global verification system for various nation's nuclear activities was used 'as a source of information for planning the bombing,' the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at the time. The attacks posed 'real obstacles' to implementing agreements between the IAEA and Tehran, she warned. The Iranian Parliament has voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA until Iran is given security guarantees for its nuclear facilities.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Russia and Iran resume direct flights
Russia and Iran have resumed direct flights following a temporary flight ban imposed by Moscow due to the conflict between Israel and Iran. Flights have also been resumed between Russia and Iraq and Jordan. Major global carriers, including Lufthansa, Emirates, and Air France-KLM, also rerouted or canceled flights to avoid the airspaces of Israel, Iran, Jordan, and Iraq. Some 650 flights were scrapped during the period of hostilities between Israel and Iran, according to Eurocontrol, a pan-European air traffic organization. In a statement on Friday, Russia's civil aviation authority, Rosaviatsia, said it had lifted the ban on flights over Iran, Iraq, and Jordan following a 'continuous analysis' of the risks to civil aviation in the region. 'Rosaviatsia continues to monitor the situation in the Middle East,' the agency said. 'If there are any significant changes, airlines will be promptly informed.' The first post-ban arrival from Iran touched down at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport on Friday. The Mahan Air flight had departed from the northeastern city of Mashhad. A return flight left at noon. Russian flagship carrier Aeroflot has also resumed sales of tickets to Tehran. The first flight is scheduled for July 4. The route will operate three times a week. Israel launched a series of airstrikes on June 13 targeting Iranian military and nuclear sites, as well as senior commanders and nuclear scientists, in what it described as a mission to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The US later joined Israeli attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran, which denies that it is pursuing nuclear weapons, condemned what it called unprovoked attacks and retaliated by launching ballistic missiles and kamikaze drones at Israeli cities. A US-brokered ceasefire has since come into effect and has so far held, with both sides claiming victory.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Forget the Middle East: This region could be next to see a major crisis
The war in the Middle East poses a growing threat to Central Asia. If Iran undergoes a radical change in its political system or descends into internal turmoil, its territory could become a conduit for foreign infiltration into a region long seen as within Russia's strategic orbit. Anyone with a grasp of international affairs understands that Russia's most defining geopolitical feature is the absence of natural borders. Even where physical barriers exist, such as in the Caucasus, historical experience has taught Russians to treat them as illusory. In this context, central Asia has always been viewed as part of Russia's extended strategic space. Threats to the region's stability are thus perceived in Moscow not as distant disruptions, but as direct national security concerns. One of the central foreign policy challenges for Russia in the coming years will be determining how far it must go to prevent such threats from materializing. For the first time since gaining independence in the 1990s, Central Asia may now be seriously vulnerable to destabilizing forces. Geographically removed from the conflict-prone neighborhoods of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Israel, the region has enjoyed a period of relative calm. Only Mongolia, bordered by friendly Russia and China, is arguably more fortunate. Central Asia, until now, has been largely insulated. But this insulation is now under threat. Since the late 19th century, Afghanistan has been the primary concern. But the danger has rarely come from Afghan state actors. Instead, the country has served as a base for extremists targeting neighboring post-Soviet republics. Both Russia and China have long had a vested interest in shielding the region from such spillover, largely for their own domestic reasons. Both powers have large Muslim populations and strong incentives to keep Islamist radicalism at bay. It is precisely this self-interest that has formed the basis of effective cooperation and restraint in international relations. However, this relatively stable picture is beginning to change. Israel's current posture – driven by an elite seeking to maintain power through perpetual military confrontation – is creating ripple effects far beyond its borders. The escalation since October 2023 has triggered a direct conflict between Israel and Iran. There is even talk in some Israeli circles of targeting Turkey next, due to its regional ambitions. While many of Israel's Arab neighbors may prefer to stay out of such a spiral, the intensification of conflict makes neutrality increasingly untenable. This trajectory has implications not only for the Middle East, but for the wider Eurasian space. The possibility that Iran could be destabilized – either through external pressure or internal collapse – should concern all those who value regional stability. Iran is a key player in the Eurasian balance, and a descent into chaos could turn it into a launch pad for foreign interference aimed at Russia and China via Central Asia. Russia must therefore prepare for all scenarios. So far, Iran has shown resilience. The leadership is maintaining control, and the population remains broadly patriotic. But dramatic changes cannot be ruled out. Should Iran fracture, the security vacuum created could expose Central Asia to manipulation from actors who view the region not as a priority in itself, but as a lever against Moscow and Beijing. It bears emphasizing: Central Asia is not significant to the West in the way it is to Russia or China. The region's population of under 90 million is dwarfed by the likes of Iran or Pakistan. Its global economic footprint pales in comparison to Southeast Asian nations such as Vietnam or Indonesia. The West views it not as a partner, but as a resource base – useful insofar as it weakens Russia and China. Should Iran descend into disorder, foreign actors could use it as a staging ground to project influence or destabilize Central Asia, without facing any real consequences themselves. For Washington, Brussels, or London, events in the region are an abstraction – something to exploit diplomatically, not something to defend materially. Beyond the external threats, there are internal risks as well. Israel's aggressive foreign policy, when broadcast globally, generates resentment among Muslim populations. In Central Asia, where ties to Russian culture and the Soviet past are strong, many citizens have a finely tuned sense of justice. They are not passive observers. Perceived injustice in the Middle East could radicalize sections of the population, making them susceptible to extremist messaging. The governments of Central Asia have done much to avoid becoming pawns in global geopolitics. The creation of the 'Central Asian Five' – a regional platform for dialogue and coordination – has been a major step. Russia supports this initiative, recognizing the importance of local agency and regional cooperation. These states are wisely building stronger relations with key neighbors, including China and Russia, while maintaining a cautious stance towards Turkey's neo-Ottoman ambitions. Ankara's push for a 'Great Turan' is treated with polite skepticism. Its economic and military capacities remain limited, and Central Asian leaders understand that. Overall, the region's foreign policy is marked by pragmatism. It seeks flexibility without compromising core obligations to strategic partners such as Russia. Moscow has no reason to take offence. And yet, even the best foreign policy cannot insulate these states from chaos beyond their borders. Russia must be realistic. It cannot – and should not – assume total responsibility for defending Central Asia. History teaches caution. The First World War stands as a cautionary tale of Russia committing to allies at great cost, only to reap instability and collapse. Moscow should now make clear that the preservation of sovereignty in Central Asia is a matter for the region's governments themselves. Russia remains a friend, a neighbor, and a responsible partner. But it will not mortgage its future for vague promises or ill-defined obligations. In the age of collapsing norms and rising brute force, this sober, balanced approach is the only one that can ensure both regional peace and Russia's own long-term article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.
