His Majesty, leaders discuss rising regional tensions
Muscat – His Majesty Sultan Haitham bin Tarik received phone calls on Sunday from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to discuss rising regional tensions and the importance of joint international efforts to restore calm and maintain stability.
In his call with Chancellor Merz, His Majesty the Sultan reviewed the ongoing conflict affecting the region. Both leaders stressed the urgent need for stronger diplomatic action to prevent further deterioration and protect regional and global security.
The German Chancellor praised Oman's balanced foreign policy and its steady efforts to promote peace and dialogue. He commended Oman's role in bridging divides and supporting peaceful solutions, highlighting its contributions to global cooperation.
His Majesty, in turn, acknowledged Germany's work to uphold peace and stability, noting Berlin's commitment to dialogue and respect among nations.
In a separate call, His Majesty spoke with President Erdoğan on the latest developments following Israeli attacks on Iran. The two leaders discussed the risks of further escalation and the need to prevent wider instability.
Both sides agreed on prioritising diplomacy and compliance with international law, calling for a return to negotiations as the best way to resolve disputes.
The calls reflect Oman's ongoing diplomatic engagement and commitment to peace, dialogue and regional cooperation.
In this regard, Sayyid Badr al Busaidi, Foreign Minister, has intensified talks with counterparts in several countries to support de-escalation through constructive diplomacy. He called for stronger political and diplomatic pressure to end what he described as an illegal act of aggression and reaffirmed Oman's stand on peaceful resolution.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Muscat Daily
2 hours ago
- Muscat Daily
Oman urges unified global response to regional escalation
Muscat – The Sultanate of Oman has been involved in a flurry of diplomatic activity, reaffirming its steadfast commitment to regional peace and stability amid escalating tensions triggered by Israel's aggression against Iran. His Majesty Sultan Haitham bin Tarik received two phone calls from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The leaders discussed the grave regional developments and the urgent need for coordinated international efforts to contain the crisis and prevent further escalation. In parallel, Sayyid Badr al Busaidi, Foreign Minister, held a meeting in Muscat with his German counterpart Johann David Wadephul, who paid a visit to the capital for high-level talks. Their discussions centred on Israel's military strikes on Iran, which targeted vital sovereign sites and resulted in significant casualties. The two ministers also addressed the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, marked by widespread destruction, displacement, and loss of civilian life. Sayyid Badr strongly condemned the violations of international law and norms, particularly the infringement of state sovereignty. He reiterated the importance of a two-state solution and called for broader international recognition of the State of Palestine. Both sides emphasised the urgent need to intensify diplomatic efforts in support of peaceful resolutions and long-term regional stability. In continuation of Oman's diplomatic outreach, Sayyid Badr has also held a series of phone calls with foreign ministers from Arab, Islamic, and friendly nations, as part of a broader campaign to mobilise political and legal pressure to halt Israeli military actions. The discussions highlighted the importance of unified international action to confront ongoing violations of international humanitarian law and prevent further deterioration of the regional security landscape. All parties agreed that diplomatic engagement remains the only viable path to lasting peace and security. These sustained efforts underscore Oman's balanced and principled foreign policy – rooted in dialogue, justice, and respect for international law – aimed at preserving global peace and ensuring prosperity for all.
Observer
14 hours ago
- Observer
Israel airspace remains closed for third day
TEL AVIV: Israeli authorities said that the country's airspace was closed on Sunday for a third consecutive day, after two nights of deadly missile strikes from Iran in response to Israel's military campaign. "Due to the security situation and in accordance with the instructions of security authorities, Israeli airspace is currently closed to civilian aviation — no incoming or outgoing flights are operating," said a joint statement from the transport and foreign ministries. Israeli media reported that thousands of Israeli nationals were stranded abroad since Friday when the Israeli military began striking military and nuclear targets in Iran. Iran responded firing hundreds of ballistic missiles into Israeli cities, destroying residential buildings and leaving 13 people dead. A statement from the Israel airports authority spokesperson confirmed that Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv would remain closed, saying "a notice regarding its reopening will be given with at least 6 hours' advance warning". "A decision to resume flights to Israel will only be made once it is deemed safe to do so," the statement said. Meanwhile, Israel's land border crossings to Jordan and Egypt's Sinai Peninsula remain open. — AFP
Observer
14 hours ago
- Observer
The New Middle East War
In its air strikes across Iran, Israel reportedly killed senior military leaders as well as prominent figures in the country's nuclear programme. It also appears that Israel further degraded Iranian air defences, struck additional military targets and attacked at least one nuclear-related installation – and possibly more. Despite Israel's claim that it was acting preemptively, the attacks constitute a classic preventive action, mounted against a gathering threat, rather than an imminent danger. The difference has legal and diplomatic implications, as preventive military attacks tend to be far more controversial, falling under the heading of wars of choice. Preemptive attacks are seen as a form of self-defence and tend to be accepted as necessary. These are likely to be distinctions without meaningful differences for Israel, which has carried out such strikes (though more limited) against nascent Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programmes in the past. Moreover, acting against Iran plays well domestically: It is one of the few issues that most Israelis – deeply divided over the war in Gaza, the role of the courts in their democracy, and the country's secular-religious balance – can agree on. Why Israel chose to conduct this operation now has yet to be satisfactorily explained. According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, 'In recent months, Iran has taken steps that it has never taken before, steps to weaponise [its] enriched uranium.' But it will be important to see if the Israeli government had new intelligence or developed a new assessment of Iranian capabilities and intentions. We know from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran was actively producing highly enriched uranium and had not been forthcoming about its nuclear-related activities. In recent weeks, however, US intelligence officials confirmed their assessment was that Iran had not yet decided to produce a nuclear weapon. According to reports, largely based on statements from Israeli officials, the US knew about the intended attack in advance and did not attempt to stop it. While we will likely learn whether it truly gave a green as opposed to a yellow light, it seems all but certain that it did not flash a red one, as it has at other times over the years. Still, US officials have sought to distance America from the Israeli action, stating that Israel acted unilaterally and making it clear that Iran should not attack US forces in response. The degree to which the US is prepared to assist Israel in any future military actions against Iran, or in buttressing its ability to defend itself from Iranian retaliation, is unclear. Prospects for reviving US-Iran nuclear negotiations, which President Donald Trump has suggested should continue, seem remote. It is too early to offer a definitive assessment of this operation's success. That assessment will depend on several factors, beginning with the extent and consequences of the damage. A related question is whether and how the attack will affect the Iranian regime's hold on the country, which the Israeli attack may have been designed to weaken. A second consideration is the scope of future Iranian retaliation. Iran's initial response was relatively modest: some one hundred drones launched towards Israel, against which Israel is well prepared to defend. But subsequently Iran launched several waves of ballistic missiles. The obvious question is what else will Iran choose to do against Israel and Israeli targets around the world. It is far from clear, though, that Iran has an attractive set of options, given its demonstrated vulnerabilities. Also to be seen is whether Iran acts against the US, which withdrew many of its personnel from the region in anticipation of retaliation, or against one or more of its Arab neighbours. Despite Iran's ongoing efforts to improve relations with the GCC states, an Iranian effort to interfere with the region's energy industry cannot be ruled out. That would jeopardise its standing in the Gulf but raise the price of oil (already up in the wake of Israel's attack), inflicting pain on the West and possibly increasing Iranian revenues at a time when sanctions relief, a subject of the nuclear negotiations with the US, is no longer imminent. There is also the prospect of additional Israeli military strikes against known and suspected nuclear sites. This, too, would require an assessment of what was accomplished and what the consequences might be. Iran, seeking to deter an attack like the one that just occurred, will have to decide whether to redouble its nuclear efforts, reconstitute its programme in more difficult-to-destroy facilities and continue to cooperate with the IAEA. Adding to the complexity is whether outside partners – such as China, Russia and North Korea, all of which have experience developing nuclear weapons – will lend assistance, and how both the US and Israel will respond if they do. Before determining whether military action was the best available policy, we will also need to learn more about what could have been negotiated and verified between the US and Iran. This could affect the political reactions in both Israel and Iran concerning whether the attacks could and should have been avoided. For now, there are more questions than answers about what happened or what could happen next. The only certainty is that this latest chapter in the conflict-torn Middle East is just beginning. Project Syndicate, 2025.
