Lebanon's Hezbollah hails Iran's 'divine victory' over Israel
Image: Haitham Moussawi / AFP
Lebanese militant group Hezbollah on Wednesday hailed what it called its ally Iran's victory over Israel after 12 days of war, declaring it the start of a "new historical phase".
In a statement, Hezbollah offered its "most sincere congratulations" to the Islamic republic, praising its "glorious divine victory".
The victory, it said, was "manifested in the precise and painful strikes it launched" against Israel, as well as "the lightning response to the American aggression against its nuclear facilities".
On Sunday, the United States struck Iranian nuclear facilities following days of Israeli strikes, but a classified intelligence report concluded the attacks had only set back Tehran's nuclear programme by a few months.
"This is nothing but the beginning of a new historical phase in confronting American hegemony and Zionist arrogance in the region," Hezbollah said.
Hezbollah, which fought a devastating war against Israel last year, expressed its "firm and unwavering support for the Islamic republic, its leadership and people," emphasising that "any surrender, subservience or concession will only increase our enemies' arrogance and dominance over our region".
Israel launched a major bombardment of Iranian nuclear and military facilities on June 13, as well as targeted attacks on top scientists and commanders.
The Israeli strikes killed at least 627 civilians and wounded more than 4,800, according to the Iranian health ministry.
Iran's retaliatory attacks on Israel have killed 28 people, according to Israeli figures.
Later Wednesday, hundreds of people rallied outside the Iranian embassy in Beirut, responding to a call from Hezbollah to celebrate "the culmination of the struggle and sacrifices" of the Iranian people "who triumphed over the Israeli-American aggression".
Ahmed Mohebbi, 42, who was among the crowd, said: "We are very happy about this victory that Iran achieved, despite the hits it took and attacks by America and Israel to prevent it from continuing its nuclear programme.
"Our steadfastness is a victory," he told AFP.
The head of Hezbollah's parliamentary bloc Mohammed Raad said in a speech that Iran was "a regional deterrent force, like it or not."
"It proved this with its steadfastness" and by standing up against "a tyrannical enemy who sought to impose its hegemony on the whole region," he said.
Iran has backed Hezbollah since the group's founding in the 1980s, providing it with financial and military support.
The group was severely weakened in its latest confrontation with Israel, which killed most of its top leadership and destroyed much of its arsenal.
AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Gaza Genocide: University of Cape Town's Stand on Ethics and Solidarity
Journalists and activists at a protest in support of Palestine at St. George's Cathedral, in Cape Town on August 13, 2025. Image: Fouzia Van Der Fort University of Cape Town Alumni for Palestine For nearly two years, the world has watched Israel's unrelenting assault on the Gaza Strip, accompanied by intensified land invasions on the West Bank and supplementary regional wars in Iran and Syria. Most recently, the IDF has adopted a brutal strategy of mass starvation and attacks on those who try to access food as part of its genocidal campaign. Repeated legal guidance from the ICJ and ICC lay out the illegality of Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, the culpability of Israeli leaders in war crimes in Gaza, and the desperate need for a cessation of hostilities, protection of the rights of Palestinians, and unfettered access to humanitarian aid. This guidance has been ignored by Israel, which continues to act with impunity. Throughout this time, there have been growing demands from ordinary people, civilian activists, and governments across the world for a ceasefire and an end to Israel's eighteen-year illegal blockade of Gaza. It has become increasingly clear that the moral battle being fought in Palestine is also being fought across the globe within governments and institutions. We are all responsible, and we will all have to account for our response – or our silence - in the decades to come. The UCT resolutions The University of Cape Town's response, in June 2024, was to pass two resolutions. These aim to signal solidarity with Palestinians by protecting the freedom to criticize Israel and refusing to be complicit in its genocidal campaign. UCT's first resolution affirms the legitimacy of criticising Israel and Zionism and rejects the conflation of doing so with antisemitism. This suggests that UCT should distinguish carefully between criticism of Israel and antisemitism and take concrete steps toward preventing the former from being erroneously censored based on the latter. UCT's second resolution prohibits affiliations with the IDF. This is supported by a comprehensive body of international law that recognises IDF actions as illegal. There have been several attempts to pressure the university to rescind these resolutions, including the withdrawal of substantial donor contributions. More recently, a legal challenge to the resolutions has been brought by Prof. Adam Mendelsohn. Mendelsohn's challenge focuses on governance processes: he accuses the UCT Council of not acting in the best interests of the University by privileging moral concerns over financial sustainability and of limiting academic freedom. Mendelsohn's argument is not made on moral grounds. Instead, it is grounded in the view that those who have resources make the rules. And in this lies a question for UCT about the very soul of the university. What vision do the Vice-Chancellor, senior leadership, and academic staff offer in this moment? Will UCT take seriously its moral and democratic responsibilities to act for the public good, or will it bow to the will of the highest bidder? UCT's identity UCT's mission statement asserts that its practices are underpinned by 'values of engaged citizenship and social justice', and that it 'promotes a more equitable and non-racial society'. UCT's Vision 3030 reiterates a commitment to creating a 'fair and just society.' UCT's values commit it to acting in support of Gaza, where every single university has been completely obliterated over the past two years. The broader UCT community has signalled support for its Gaza resolutions, with majorities in the Senate, Council, and Convocation all having endorsed this direction. The donors' threats to withdraw funding are, in effect, an attempt to countermand UCT's internal democratic processes. Precedents from other universities Internationally, a growing number of universities have cut ties with Israeli universities and other institutions where these are seen to be associated with human rights violations. These include the Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), Trinity College, the University of Belfast, and the University of Florence. Closer to home, universities such as the University of the Western Cape and the University of Fort Hare have made similar commitments. UCT aspires to be the academic and thought leader on our continent. UCT's values and mission statement aspire to even higher ideals. We would do well to listen to our colleagues and peers from around the world who have been brave in confronting the genocide, some at great personal and professional cost. Calls from inside Israel and Palestine An increasing number of voices from inside Israel are calling for an end to the onslaught. These include 1300 Israeli academics who published a letter noting that, 'As academics, we recognize our role in these crimes. It is human societies, not governments alone, that commit crimes against humanity. Some do so using direct violence. Others do so by sanctioning the crimes and justifying them, before and after the fact, and by keeping quiet and silencing voices in the halls of learning. It is this bond of silence that allows evident crimes to continue unabated without penetrating the barriers of recognition.' Prominent Israeli genocide experts such as Amos Goldberg, Raz Segal, and Omer Bartov have emphatically described Israel's campaign in Gaza as genocide, Outside of academia, numerous Israeli organisations and individuals have spoken out against Israel's persecution of the Palestinians, including ordinary citizens, former politicians, and a leading member of Israel's legal team in the genocide case brought by South Africa at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Following growing protests, the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem has described what is happening in Gaza as a genocide. In addition to these calls from Israelis, an urgent appeal was made by the Emergency Committee of Universities in Gaza, calling for their 'friends and colleagues around the world to resist the ongoing campaign of scholasticide in occupied Palestine, to work alongside us in rebuilding our demolished universities, and to refuse all plans seeking to bypass, erase, or weaken the integrity of our academic institutions'. Academic freedom, funding, and collegiality In the face of this international outcry, UCT's management continues to vacillate about its support for the resolutions. The UCT Vice-Chancellor has repeatedly invoked the objectives of academic freedom, funding, and collegiality in discussions of the resolutions. All three are of critical importance to the university. However, academic freedom is first and foremost protected by valuing truth over power, which in the present instance would suggest standing firm with UCT's academics against Israel's assault on Gaza. Academic freedom should not be abused to engage in human rights violations. It should, instead, protect students and colleagues whose rights have been violated. While genuine academic freedom defends truth against power, deferring to financial incentives over ethical obligation would do the opposite. Nonetheless, the question of funding is critical to the sustainability of any institution. However, UCT's general operating budget depends almost entirely on funding from government, tuition, and merchandising. The threatened withdrawal of funding does not represent an existential threat to UCT. Furthermore, the majority of donors have not threatened to withdraw funds, and some have signalled explicit support for the resolutions. As for collegiality, critical engagement from diverse perspectives is to be encouraged. But this need not include the exaggerated appeasement of those who would act against the most basic moral, legal, and institutional imperatives. Indeed, the process of passing the resolutions encompassed exactly such critical engagement. How will UCT respond? In response to these developments, over 1600 UCT alumni have signed a statement calling on UCT to stand and act against the destruction of Gaza and its entire education system, including all of its universities, and to uphold the two resolutions. UCT's ethical, legal, democratic, historical, and academic commitments all point to an obligation to stand in solidarity with their Palestinian counterparts, and to speak and act resolutely against ongoing genocide. To this end, the UCT Alumni for Palestine group has called on UCT to reject any attempts to undermine the resolutions that condemn state-sponsored violence and the systematic destruction of education and healthcare in Gaza; to publicly denounce the withdrawal of funding intended to coerce or distract from UCT's commitment to ethical leadership and academic freedom and to articulate clearly UCT's legal and moral obligations by international law and the ICJ rulings, South Africa's Constitution, and UCT's own Vision 2030, ensuring that the university's actions are beyond reproach in the face of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and apartheid. The principle of the matter is very clear, and if UCT is to be taken seriously as an institution committed to 'social justice' and advancing 'the pace of transformation within our university and beyond,' then the sheer moral clarity of the moment should be enough to dispose the university to act accordingly. * This article is an abbreviated version of a statement signed by over 1600 UCT Alumni. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Trump shock spurs Japan to think about the unthinkable: nuclear arms
TOKYO, Aug 20 (Reuters) – By Tim Kelly, John Geddie, Ju-min Park, Joyce Lee, Josh Smith and David Lague Matsukawa, a former deputy defense minister, traveled in March to historic Fordham Abbey for a top-level bilateral conference. At the estate, now home to a Japanese-owned sake brewery, she said she learned from British lawmakers, diplomats and business leaders that a tectonic shift in their thinking was underway. U.S. President Donald Trump was openly berating America's European allies and tilting toward Russia. And Europe had 'awakened,' she said, to the fact it could no longer rely so heavily on America and must take more responsibility for its security. This was also true for Japan, currently the home to the largest overseas contingent of U.S. troops globally, she realized. 'You can't really take the U.S. presence for granted,' said Matsukawa, a member of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party's (LDP) influential national security policy council. Matsukawa is part of a contingent of senior Japanese lawmakers who are beginning to think the unthinkable in the only nation to have suffered an atomic bomb attack: Surrounded by nuclear-armed neighbours China, North Korea and Russia, Japan too might have to deploy those weapons of mass destruction. 'Trump is so unpredictable, which is his strength maybe, but I think we have to always think about Plan B,' Matsukawa said in an interview at her Tokyo office. 'Plan B is maybe go independent, and then go nukes,' she added, raising the possibility of Japan reducing its reliance on American security guarantees. The Trump shock is also reverberating in neighbouring South Korea, currently protected under the U.S. nuclear umbrella like Japan. Up to 75% of the South Korean public is in favor of the country building its own nuclear weapons, polling shows. The election of left-center President Lee Jae Myung in June has dampened some of the more overt talk of nuclear weapons in Seoul. But even some in his Democratic Party are increasingly recognizing the need, should U.S. security commitments falter, to achieve 'nuclear latency' – possessing the means to quickly build a usable atomic arsenal. Support in Japan for developing its own indigenous atomic weapons is smaller. Matsukawa, for instance, stresses that the U.S. remains an important ally and says Tokyo needs to persuade the Trump administration that it is in America's interest to defend her country and deter a crisis over Taiwan. But interviews with a dozen Japanese lawmakers, government officials and former senior military figures reveal there is a growing willingness to loosen Japan's decades-old pledge, formulated in 1967, not to produce, possess or host nuclear weapons in its territory – what is known as the 'Three Non-Nuclear Principles.' Among the Japanese public, too, opinion surveys show a greater readiness to rethink the nuclear stance. Hiroshima native Tatsuaki Takahashi, whose grandfather survived the atomic bomb attack on the city, told Reuters that views on the issue are changing as the tragedy of the past becomes more distant. The shifting attitudes in Japan and South Korea, both key pillars of America's decades of dominance in the Pacific, have been spurred by a growing loss of faith among U.S. allies in Washington's commitment to their security, in particular doubts about whether America will come to their aid in a conflict. Trump's election on an America-First platform and his spurning of America's traditional allies has turbo-charged these concerns, interviews with lawmakers and officials in Japan and South Korea show. The president's sowing of doubt about continued U.S. support for NATO, imposition of tariffs on Japan, South Korea and Australia, and talk of absorbing Canada into the U.S., have spooked many of America's long-time allies. The White House did not respond to a request for comment, but a senior Trump administration official told Reuters that there are 'no changes in U.S. policy' toward Japan and South Korea. Trump and his senior national security aides have repeatedly stressed their commitment to allies in Asia. Japan's foreign ministry said the government considers the Trump administration's commitment to the bilateral alliance 'to be unwavering.' The defense ministry said Japan has 'full trust in the U.S. fulfilling its obligations using all types of capabilities, including nuclear forces.' South Korea's foreign ministry said its decades-old alliance with the U.S. remains 'the foundation of our diplomacy and has played a key role in maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.' China's defense ministry said it opposed 'any attempt to hype up the so-called 'Chinese nuclear threat' in an effort to smear and defame China and deliberately mislead the international community.' China, the ministry added, continues to adhere to a no-first-use policy – 'not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones.' RETHINKING THE NUCLEAR UMBRELLA For Tokyo, which in recent years has taken historic steps away from its post-war pacifism to rebuild its military capabilities, the nuclear question is the final security taboo. Eighty years ago this month, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were devastated by atomic bombs at the end of World War Two. Japan renounced war and vowed never to possess the military means to attack other countries. It also became a vocal proponent of nuclear disarmament. Prime Minister Eisaku Sato, who formulated the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1974 for this policy achievement and for signing the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Last year, Nihon Hidankyo, an organization established by survivors of the atomic bomb attacks, also won the prize. Until now, Japan has relied on U.S. nuclear weapons, which once laid waste to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, to deter modern-day threats. In a security arrangement called 'extended deterrence,' Washington has committed to use the full range of its military capabilities, including nuclear, to defend Japan and other allies. In recent years, however, Tokyo has begun to adopt a more robust stance in its bi-annual closed-door talks on this arrangement with the U.S., Reuters has learned. Tokyo has been delving into subjects such as how its conventional military could practically support U.S. nuclear forces in a conflict, two former U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the talks said. This has included discussions on how Japan's ongoing efforts to acquire new, longer range 'counter-strike' missiles could allow it to take out enemy launch platforms to deter or assist in a nuclear conflict, said the two officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the talks. The two sides have also explored how Japan's surveillance and intelligence apparatus could support the U.S. nuclear mission and chalked out a roadmap for how the two governments and militaries would coordinate in a nuclear emergency, the former officials added. These details have not been previously reported. Japan's foreign ministry declined to comment on the details of the talks. The defense ministry said Japan and the U.S. 'have been working to strengthen extended deterrence,' but declined to comment further. The State Department said America's 'extended deterrence commitments' to Japan and South Korea 'are ironclad.' Now, lawmakers from Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party are considering how they can reinforce the credibility of the nuclear umbrella, according to interviews with Matsukawa and four other senior party members. They suggested that the non-nuclear principles could be revised or reinterpreted to allow U.S. nuclear weapons to enter Japanese territory, noting that the principles are not set down in legislation or legally binding. Matsukawa said the widely publicised visit of a U.S. submarine designed to carry nuclear weapons to South Korea in July 2023 provided an example Japan could follow to bolster deterrence. Matsukawa and three former senior military commanders said Tokyo should also prepare for the possibility of nuclear sharing, a concept that allows non-nuclear states to participate with its nuclear-armed allies in planning, training and use of nuclear weapons. Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, for instance, have been hosting U.S. nuclear weapons on their soil as part of NATO's nuclear-sharing strategy. In the event of a nuclear war, these non-nuclear states could deliver those weapons to targets on behalf of the U.S., using their own aircraft. Before taking office, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba advocated for an Asian version of NATO that could include nuclear sharing. Japan 'has no intention' of revising its non-nuclear principles, the Liberal Democratic Party said in response to questions. But Ishiba has instructed the party 'to examine Japan's future security arrangements in Asia,' it said. The foreign ministry said the government 'does not consider nuclear sharing to be permissible.' Japan, it said, 'will not possess nuclear weapons.' Ishiba's office said the foreign ministry's responses represented its views. CONFIDENCE SHAKEN Doubts about the reliability of American security guarantees didn't start with Trump. When the Obama administration didn't respond to Chinese island-building and reclamation in disputed territories of the South China Sea, starting in 2013, it raised questions about Washington's stomach for confrontation with Beijing, said Taro Kono, a ruling party lawmaker who previously served as foreign and defense minister. After Russia invaded Ukraine, President Joe Biden sent tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Kyiv. But Biden also said the U.S. wouldn't fight World War Three over Ukraine. The Biden administration's Ukraine policy rattled political and military strategists in Tokyo and Seoul. Russia has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons to limit outside intervention in the war. The apparent success of that nuclear intimidation has fueled anxiety over the readiness of the U.S. to protect its allies, said Tomohisa Takei, a retired admiral who helmed Japan's navy from 2014 to 2016. 'Out of concern for escalation, the United States became cautious even about the types and capabilities of weapons it provided to Ukraine,' Takei said. 'I believe that the credibility of extended deterrence has been significantly shaken for countries under the U.S. nuclear umbrella.' Song Seong-jong, a retired South Korean military officer, said Ukraine's fate after earlier giving up its nuclear weapons served as a warning. 'Do you think Trump will retaliate with nuclear weapons for the sake of South Korea?' he said, referring to a potential conflict with North Korea. Song doesn't think Trump would. 'This is an inconvenient truth,' he said. Trump and top administration officials have repeatedly stated in public that the U.S. is committed to remaining a Pacific power. In meetings last month with the Japanese and South Korean foreign ministers, Secretary of State Marco Rubio discussed enhancing security cooperation, according to State Department statements. Adding to the anxiety in Asia has been Beijing's rapid expansion of its nuclear arsenal, a decisive break with China's earlier preference for a small force sufficient to maintain deterrence. North Korea's fielding of increasingly sophisticated ballistic nuclear missiles has also heightened concern. China has the fastest-growing nuclear arsenal globally, adding about 100 new warheads per year since 2023, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said in its annual inventory of the world's most dangerous weapons published in June. China has some 600 nuclear warheads, while the U.S. and Russia have stockpiles of 3,700 and 4,309 warheads respectively, according to estimates by the research institute. In 2016, before the presidential election, Trump suggested Japan and South Korea might need nuclear weapons because of the threat posed by North Korea and China. Actions he has taken at the start of his second term have made some in Asia think he was right. Since his re-election, Trump and senior members of his administration have raised questions about America's commitment to NATO, with the president saying the U.S. wouldn't defend member countries unless they increase defense spending. Trump's trade war, which targets even U.S. allies, has further eroded faith in American commitment to long-time friends. After threatening to impose tariffs of 25% on Japan and South Korea, Trump last month reached deals with Tokyo and Seoul that put a 15% tax on imports from both countries. 'Trump's tariffs hit allies the hardest,' said Itsunori Onodera, a former defense minister and currently the ruling party's policy chief. 'The tariffs risk pushing them closer to China, the very countries the U.S. should be aligning with' to counter Beijing. Ryoichi Oriki, who served as chief of staff of the Joint Staff of Japan's Self-Defense Forces from 2009 to 2012, said the American president's 'volatility on trade' has created doubts about U.S. security commitments. 'The U.S. has become a variable, not a constant, which affects trust,' he said. In South Korea, former President Yoon Suk Yeol raised the prospect in early 2023 that Seoul could be forced to pursue nuclear weapons in the face of a mounting threat from North Korea. He backed off later that year when Seoul extracted extra security assurances from the Biden administration with the signing of the Washington Declaration. That pact included giving South Korea greater insight into U.S. nuclear planning for any conflict with North Korea. Yoon was impeached after plunging the country into crisis when he declared martial law in December last year. While newly elected President Lee Jae Myung has rejected the idea of nuclear armament, his intelligence agency chief, Lee Jong-seok, this year called for Seoul to secure the right to enrich uranium to demonstrate its 'potential nuclear capabilities.' It would be a mistake to 'interpret South Korean nuclear ambitions as a bluff,' says Ely Ratner, who served as assistant secretary of defense for Indo-Pacific security affairs in the Biden administration. South Korea's foreign ministry said the government isn't considering the acquisition of nuclear weapons. CHANGING ATTITUDES There is broad public support for acquiring nuclear weapons in South Korea, in the face of threats from nuclear-armed Pyongyang. In Japan, public opinion is constrained by the weight of its history – though attitudes are changing. A poll in March found that 41% of respondents were in favor of revising Japan's Three Non-Nuclear Principles. In a similar poll three years ago by the Kioicho Strategy Institute, a consultancy and think tank, just 20% backed the idea. Even some Japanese with personal connections to the atomic attacks are calling for a shift on the bomb. Tatsuaki Takahashi, the Hiroshima native, said his grandfather was just four years old when the bomb was dropped on the city at 8.15 am on August 6, 1945, but could still vividly recall the flash-and-boom and the windows in his home shattering. Some of Takahashi's relatives went missing during the disaster and were presumed to have died, he said. Growing up in Hiroshima, Takahashi believed that diplomacy and dialogue could help avert a repeat of that nuclear nightmare. Now 28, and living as an IT programmer in Tokyo, he thinks Japan may need a show of nuclear strength to achieve that goal. 'Personally, I think allowing U.S. nuclear weapons into Japan might be unavoidable as a form of deterrence,' said Takahashi, who runs a group called Youth Vote Hiroshima, which aims to engage young people in his home city in politics through social media. 'I'm still against using nuclear weapons, but just possessing them has strategic value.' Takahashi said Japanese views on the issue are changing as the memory of the bombings dims and younger people think more critically about the need for deterrence. There are signs that even in Hiroshima, where the 80th anniversary of the attack was commemorated earlier this month, some people are increasingly reluctant to dwell on the past. A survey published in April by public broadcaster NHK found more than 30% of people aged between 18 and 24 in the city and surrounding prefecture who had not heard the accounts of the city's atomic bomb survivors said that they did not wish to do so. That was more than 6 points higher than a similar survey five years ago and higher than a 25% figure for the rest of Japan. The most common reason given was that the accounts were too horrific. THRESHOLD STATE Both Japan and South Korea have committed not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons by signing the NPT. But security experts describe Japan as a threshold nuclear-weapons state – meaning it has the technical capacity, and could obtain the materials, to build and launch a bomb if it was determined to do so. Within a couple of years, Tokyo could build a nuclear device small enough to fit on a missile, said Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a Washington-based think tank. One senior lawmaker close to Ishiba told Reuters that Japan could build a nuclear weapon in as little as six months, and that it should consider doing so if trust in the U.S. nuclear umbrella broke down. Japan has advanced nuclear know-how with a long-established fleet of civilian reactors, a sophisticated defense industry and technology from its space program, including solid-fuel rockets. This would allow it to build ballistic missiles to deliver a nuclear payload, experts say. As a by-product of its nuclear fuel consumption, the government says Japan has about 45 tonnes of plutonium – the fissionable material needed to make a bomb. Japan also has the capacity to enrich uranium, another path to produce weapons-grade nuclear material. South Korea has also developed and deployed a number of weapons that analysts say could deliver nuclear bombs – including a submarine designed to launch conventional ballistic missiles, and increasingly powerful missiles that could reach North Korea or China. But South Korea is not as close to the threshold as Japan because it lacks the capacity to reprocess fuel to extract plutonium or enrich uranium, despite operating 26 reactors to generate power. Seoul aborted a clandestine weapons program in the 1970s under pressure from Washington and ratified the NPT in 1975. Experts predict it would take several years for Seoul to build a nuclear weapon, even if it overcame these hurdles. 'Even if we announce a state of emergency and throw all national resources behind it, the steelmaking, the facility building and making fissile materials and so on, it's not easy. I'd say four to five years,' said Cheon Myeong-guk, a researcher at the Korea Institute of Science and Technology. Beyond the technical hurdles, other factors inhibit U.S. partners from developing their own nuclear weapons. If Japan began to build a bomb in breach of its NPT commitments, it could face sanctions by the United Nations and lose access to the imported nuclear fuel it needs to feed its nuclear power industry. The densely populated archipelago also lacks an area suitable for nuclear testing. Despite Trump's earlier apparent openness to Japan and South Korea acquiring nukes, it remains unclear if his administration would ultimately agree. The State Department said Trump and Vice President JD Vance 'have spoken frequently about their opposition to the spread of nuclear weapons.' Beijing would be highly unlikely to remain passive if it learned that either Seoul or Tokyo were taking this path. A nuclear armed U.S. ally in East Asia could end up precipitating the conflict that acquiring nuclear weapons was intended to avoid, according to Alexandra Bell, a former Biden administration official who was directly involved in nuclear deterrence talks with Tokyo and Seoul. 'Having doubts about the U.S. commitment to extended deterrence and actually pursuing proliferation are two very different things,' Bell said. 'The latter action would certainly provoke a response from the Chinese.' Any move to acquire nuclear weapons might prompt China to further build up its nuclear stockpile or increase the likelihood of conflict if Beijing perceived such actions as being a prelude to war, she said. China's foreign ministry accused Japan and South Korea of 'promoting so-called 'extended deterrence' to justify military expansion and military provocation.' Japan in particular, it told Reuters, claims to 'advocate for a 'nuclear-free world,' while in reality relying on the U.S. 'nuclear umbrella' to cooperate with the deployment of U.S. strategic forces. These practices are hypocritical and self-contradictory.' Japan's evolving attitudes to the bomb have dismayed some survivors of the 1945 attacks. Atomic bomb survivor Kunihiko Sakuma, 80, said he cannot understand that today a growing number of Japanese people are coming around to the view that nuclear weapons can offer protection, given the horrors he and others in Hiroshima experienced. He was an infant when the bomb fell, curled up on a futon on the floor of his family home as his mother sorted the laundry. There was a flash and then suddenly everything went dark, his mother later recounted to him. She described how she had whisked him up and carried him on her back to a nearby shelter through a radioactive shower of soot and ash known as 'black rain.' 'Just because we're under the U.S. nuclear umbrella doesn't mean we're safe,' he said. 'If nuclear weapons are used, it's over, isn't it. Real security only exists when there's mutual trust between nations.'
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
An easy route to the Nobel Peace Prize but would he dare to take it?
Letters to the Editor. Image: Supplied It's an easy route to much-coveted prize Once again, Donald Trump works at complete cross-purposes with logic, reality, and practicability. He has failed to obtain a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia – and is most unlikely to do so in the future. Now, to save face, he boasts that he does not believe in ceasefires at all. Even arthritic armchair amateurs like me can predict this futile war will not end any time soon. Here's the crux of Trump's posturing: He's striving for the Nobel Peace Prize. And oddly enough, he's closer to it than he realises. Not by fiddling around at the cold borders of Alaska and Russia, but by addressing a far more urgent conflict. Journalists have asked repeatedly why Europe, the US, the UK, and the so-called 'Free World' are terrified of communism when true democracy barely exists anywhere anymore. Freedom of speech is all but extinct. It certainly isn't fear of religion – churches, mosques, and synagogues are freely found in that 'communist' country. Here then lies a golden opportunity for an American president: Simply turn off the armaments valve to Israel and say two little words – 'Tero! Buss!' (Hindi for 'Stop! Enough!'). That alone would qualify for an instant Nobel Prize, delivered straight to the wobbly floor of the Oval Office by courier – no delivery charge. | Ebrahim Essa Durban ANC's fate mirrored in that of the NP In that history has a habit of repeating itself, there is a significant correlation concerning internal and external circumstances which determined the destiny of the National Party and those which currently beset the ANC. Despite efforts to bottle up black people in economically unviable, spatially inadequate and geographically scattered ethnic homelands, socio-economic realities compelled the National Party to embark on political reforms which led to a half-baked form of power sharing. But that flawed dispensation served only to ignite massive black unrest, which coupled with international sanctions and disinvestment, led to the capitulation of the National Party and the accession of the ANC to power. In 2003 BEE was consolidated into Broad-based black economic empowerment (B-BBEE). Next month the third wave of B-BBEE is scheduled to commence with new sector specific targets. Despite its title, its application has neither alleviated black unemployment nor benefited the general black population. Instead, B-BBEE has entrenched and enriched an elite, promoted institutional decay and discouraged foreign 30 years the National Party had the sense to realise that its Bantustan policy was costly and unworkable. Since 2003 B-BBEE has been in operation without any tangible evidence that it is the solution to reducing unemployment and accelerating economic growth and investment. Yet the ANC is determined not only to persist with it but to further tighten its application. xpecting a virtuous outcome by repeating a failed policy, especially in an intensified form, is not only stupid but politically very risky. Yet that is exactly the position in which the ANC finds itself in 2025. At the same time, it is beset by the economically crippling prospect of American trade tariffs having been denied the continued tariff-free benefit of participation in Agoa (African Growth and Opportunity Act).Internal political strife coupled with severe international economic pressure on account of an established, well-orchestrated anti-apartheid campaign left the National party government with neither time nor credibility to attempt a survival trajectory. In place of its boast to deliver 'a better life for all,' the ANC's socialism has delivered unprecedented squalor, impoverishment, crime, corruption and dysfunctionalism. As a result, history indicates that its political fate is mirrored in that of its predecessor. However, the difference is the NP's loss of power did not leave South Africa in a state of ruin. | DR DUNCAN DU BOIS Bluff One can't but outsource to the best Once again we see a communist viewpoint creeping into Cosatu's advice. Cosatu does not seem to understand how complex society is and even more so how complex it is to run a successful government. One can only ask in trying to understand the reasoning when it calls for the end of outsourcing. Not only is government the biggest employer in South Africa, but they provide funding for some of the most complex services. These structures should be very carefully outsourced to ensure that service remains functional for the whole of society. Complexities in service abound. For instance, when the government has to litigate cases which could cost them millions of rand it would be wise to outsource those legal services to the best legal brains they can find. To try and insource that would be folly. | MICHAEL BAGRAIM Cape Town Minister's tardy visit prolongs suffering The DA notes yesterday's visit to KwaZulu-Natal by the national minister of human settlements, Thembi Simelane – a shocking three years after the 2022 floods – to engage with flood victims, introduce a contractor and hand over housing units. While the DA welcomes these long-overdue interventions, the response by the national human settlements minister has been unacceptably delayed. For her to only come to KZN now – to 'introduce a contractor' and hand over a small number of houses – is a failure of leadership and governance. The delays have not only prolonged the suffering of countless families, they have also deeply impaired their dignity, with many forced to endure years of uncertainty and instability in transitional emergency accommodation. It is unconscionable that disaster relief has been handled with such lethargy, leaving communities vulnerable and unsupported for so long. As climate change continues to bring unpredictable and extreme weather, climate-resilient infrastructure is essential and educating communities on disaster preparedness must take place. KZN cannot afford a repeat of this failure and our people deserve responsiveness when disasters strike, not three-year delays. | Hannah Lidgett, MPL DA spokesperson on Human Settlements Netanyahu: The assassin of peace How does Israel explain the piles of dead children pulled from rubble – were they all 'Hamas shields,' or just collateral damage in an intentional genocide? How does Israel's military rationalise shooting helpless and harmless protesters, medics, and press, then cal them 'terrorists'? How does Israel justify the arrest and torture of children?These are not rats to be poisoned or insects to be crushed underfoot. These are human beings, who have names, who have stories, dreams and families. Yet Israel treats their deaths as nothing more than statistics in a military report. Stop this madness: Stop packaging ethnic cleansing as 'public safety.'What kind of nation bombs babies in incubators before spinning it as victory? Only a nation that has lost all sanity. What kind of army destroys ambulances carrying the wounded and then poses for cameras? Only an army that has traded morality for tactical sadism. What kind of leaders watch mothers scream over the bodies of their children, yet still insist it is 'defence'? Only baby-killers wearing prime ministerial sashes. Israel has descended so far into its obsession with domination that it cannot even see the difference between resistance and survival, between a fighter with a weapon and a child holding bread in his hand. The bombs aren't targeting troops – they're massacring ordinary people: Grandparents, fathers, surgeons, and schoolchildren. Yet Israel repeats its lie: 'We are targeting terrorists.' But who is the terrorist here? The starving child searching for food, or the pilot pressing a button to erase an entire neighbourhood? Who is the terrorist? The prisoner in a cage, or the jailer who sets that cage on fire? The answer is in the doctors' coats, white at dawn, brown by noon, black by night, crusted with blood that never scrubs clean. Netanyahu has dragged Israel into a meat grinder of vengeance that its name is now synonymous with cruelty. He has turned the so-called 'right to self-defence' into a license for extermination. And while he face global condemnation, he doubles down – bombing harder, starving more, erasing faster. Stop this insanity! | Yumna Zahid Ali Karachi, Pakistan DAILY NEWS
