Will the Iran war trigger a refugee crisis?
Since Israel's strikes began Tehran has been gripped by fear. So far at least 585 Iranians have been killed, according to Human Rights Activists, a Washington-based group. But Israel says it will conduct at least a week more of aerial attacks. The war could yet become a full-scale regional conflagration. It is possible that Iran's clerical regime will fall, too. In the meantime basic services are collapsing. Cyberattacks have put banks out of action. Most shops are shuttered. And nurses are leaving hospitals just as they are preparing to deal with a rush of injuries.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Toppling Iran's Supreme Leader could be a mistake
Are we already seeing an ominous mission creep in Israel's blistering attack on Iran? First, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's air assault was all about ending Iran's covert nuclear weapons programme, a day after the International Atomic Energy Agency declared Tehran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations. Then, within a few hours of launching 'one of the greatest military operations in history', Netanyahu was telling Iranians that Israel was 'clearing the path for you to achieve your freedom'. Encouraging them to 'stand up' and overthrow the 'evil and oppressive' government of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, he noted that Israel had been friends with Iran since the time of Cyrus the Great, founder of the Achaemenid Empire, ruler of Persia from around 559-530 bc, and liberator of the exiled Jews of Babylon. Israel, Netanyahu said, would stand with the brave Iranian people. So, as Iran faces its greatest external threat since the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, what are the prospects for regime change in Tehran and who might come next after Khamenei? Nicholas Hopton, director-general of the Middle East Association, and former British ambassador to Iran, Libya, Yemen and Qatar, is sceptical. 'It seems to me that in appealing to the Iranian people, Prime Minister Netanyahu is possibly being either disingenuous or overoptimistic in hoping that will lead to regime change, or at least a regime more palatable to Israel and the West. The one thing likely to unite sentiment within Iran is opposition to external interference, as the country's long, complicated history shows us.' In other words, faced with an Israeli air assault that is progressively more damaging and humiliating – if the US joins in with bigger bombs, it will only get worse – the long-suffering, famously resilient Iranian people may start feeling the same way about Khamenei as FDR did about the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza: he 'may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch'. We would do well to consider carefully what might follow a revolutionary regime that has been in power since 1979. 'It's more likely than not that a harder-line leadership, whether it's an individual, a cleric, a secular leader or a group, would emerge, at least initially,' warns Hopton. 'Remember that the current regime was open to negotiations and engagement with the US and the West.' Who will succeed 86-year-old Khamenei? Currently the Supreme Leader is said to be holed up with his family in an underground bunker in northeastern Tehran, or far beyond, safe for now from Israel's astonishingly effective decapitating strikes – supposedly only Trump prevented a direct assassination attempt on him. Notwithstanding Netanyahu's desire to remove the head of the snake, Khamenei's poor health regularly invites predictions of his imminent demise and anxious consideration of the succession. With the death of President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash in May last year, the field of potential successors has thinned distinctly in the interest of Khamenei's 55-year-old son Mojtaba. Though he is a more unknown quantity and does not have the reputation for cold-blooded brutality enjoyed by Raisi, who earned his 'Butcher of Tehran' sobriquet for his role in the mass execution of political prisoners in 1988, Mojtaba is no shrinking violet. Widely seen as a hardliner, he is said to be a powerbroker with considerable influence over the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the regime's muscle, and of course has backing at the very top. The secretive Assembly of Experts, the body which will select Khamenei's successor, is heavy on hardliners and is thought to have been influenced in Mojtaba's favour, but this does not rule out the possibility for surprises. Mojtaba is not popular and lacks prestige. He does not have the formal religious qualifications for the role, but neither did his father back in 1989. Then, the constitution required the Supreme Leader to be a marja-e taqlid, a top-ranking Twelver Shia cleric. So that stipulation was removed, clearing the way for Khamenei's appointment. No one seriously expects that this sort of finessing and finagling will be beyond the ayatollahs when the time comes to choose the old man's successor. Mojtaba is also associated with vote-rigging during the 2009 elections, the savage suppression of the anti-government protests which followed those elections, and the embezzlement of state funds. To this extent, he appears eminently qualified to lead the revolutionary republic: a nepo baby ayatollah. Also in the frame is Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani, a close aide to Khamenei, chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council and a former chief justice of Iran with blood on his hands. His staunchly anti-democratic views put him firmly within the hardliner camp. Devoted to the doctrine of Velayat-e faqih, the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, he has said that 'votes do not bestow legitimacy on the government'. Larijani prefers divine authority, as mediated by male clerics of a certain age. Reza Pahlavi, son of the last and ultimately despised shah, is also on manoeuvres, arguing that the end of the revolutionary regime is nigh. His candidacy – reports say he is 'not necessarily' looking for the restoration of the monarchy – has a tone-deaf shamelessness that is briefly entertaining, but the less said about him the better. He reminds me of the late Sharif Ali bin al-Hussein, the charming, self-styled Crown Prince of Iraq who popped up in Baghdad in 2004 and did the rounds, claiming to be the legitimate heir to a nonexistent throne. Of course, Netanyahu's encouragement of a popular uprising may be bluster, but there is still no doubting the seriousness of this moment for Tehran in terms of regime survival. Ali Ansari, a professor of Middle East history at St Andrews, reckons Netanyahu's tilt at toppling Iran's leadership brings enormous risks and dangers. 'To be blunt, declaring 'regime change' as one of your goals makes the current campaign hostage to fortune and potentially open-ended. There is likely to be a reckoning for the regime, but this is only likely to happen once the conflict is over and the dust has settled – and not as a response to Netanyahu.' What other clues are there to help assess the likelihood and desirability of a new leadership emerging in Tehran? History lessons can be boring because they distract from more exciting things like wars, but let us dwell for a moment on some recent western interventions. They might suggest that we should be careful what we wish for. Let's start with Afghanistan. In 2001, a US-led alliance swiftly removed the Taliban because they had been hosting al-Qaeda, the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks. That was the easy bit – and don't forget that Iran offered to assist the US in that mission. But then there was a bit of mission creep and we decided it would be nice to have a western-friendly government in Kabul. Cue 20 years of nation-building and a procession of puppet presidents, some – such as Hamid Karzai in his striped silk chapan coats and jaunty karakul hats – highly photogenic and adept at conning gullible western leaders. In rushed the international advisors on gender, good governance, human rights, anti-corruption, counter narcotics, security sector reform, agronomy, communications, Uncle Tom Cobley and all. But the 'governments' we propped up turned out to be little more than kleptocratic mayoralties in Kabul, the Taliban never gave up, and eventually we pulled the plug. Since 2021, the mullahs have been back in charge, waging war on women and girls and cracking down on anything resembling dissent with arbitrary arrests, detention, torture, amputation and extrajudicial executions. Job done. Next, Iraq. In 2003, as we charged into war with Saddam Hussein, we were told that Iraqis couldn't end up with a regime worse than that of the Butcher of Baghdad. So in we went and ousted him, only to hand the country over, first, to spectacularly venal Shia governments and the murderous terrorists of al-Qaeda – which hadn't existed in Iraq before the invasion – next to Daesh, leaders of the short-lived 'caliphate', and ultimately to Iran, the West's most potent adversary in the Middle East. Mission accomplished. Roll on to Libya, 2011. Same script, different cast, this time featuring Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama, America 'leading from behind', i.e. not leading. In came the British and French jets, out went Gaddafi, dead in a ditch with a bayonet up his bottom, and then it was a case of civil war, warlords, militias, atrocities, and not much liberal democracy if we're going to be really picky about it. The civil war is still raging 14 years later. To this hapless trio of western campaigns, we might add the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen in 2015. That was also meant to be a lightning strike, to decapitate the Houthi leadership, but it hasn't gone as well as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, now Riyadh's de facto leader, assured everyone it would. The civil war continues. All of which is to suggest that when leaders launch ambitious military interventions and dangle the tantalising, headline-grabbing prize of regime change before us, a smidgen of caution is advisable. As for those hoping for a sudden outbreak of liberal democracy in Iran – or post-Assad Syria for that matter – Charles Gammell, a former Foreign Office official and Iran expert, has a stark warning. Given that the ayatollahs have already driven the opposition abroad, underground or into their graves, he doubts there are many suitable candidates left. 'The patterns of repression, corruption and vice that we saw under the Pahlavi regime have simply been repeated – on steroids – by the Islamic Republic, and there is every chance that the psychological wounds inflicted by Khamenei and his ilk would produce an anti-western, anti-liberal and repressive post-Islamic Republic Iran. Beware those who promise the sunlit uplands of liberal democracy.' Netanyahu referenced Cyrus the Great when launching a war that will define his legacy. The mullahs will be hoping he proves more like Darius I and Xerxes I. Both kings mounted audacious campaigns beyond their borders, only to find their well-laid plans doomed to defeat, destruction and nemesis.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US moves some military assets in Middle East vulnerable to Iranian attack, officials say
WASHINGTON, June 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. military has moved some aircraft and ships from bases in the Middle East that may be vulnerable to any potential Iranian attack, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Wednesday. The officials, who were speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the move was a part of planning to protect U.S. forces. They declined to say how many aircraft or ships had been moved and where they would be going. One of the officials said U.S. naval vessels had been moved from a port in Bahrain, where the military's 5th fleet is located, while aircraft that were not in hardened shelters had been moved from Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. "It is not an uncommon practice. Force protection is the priority," the official said. Reuters was first to report this week the movement of a large number of tanker aircraft to Europe and other military assets to the Middle East, including the deployment of more fighter jets. An aircraft carrier in the Indo-Pacific is also heading to the Middle East. It comes as President Donald Trump kept the world guessing whether the U.S. will join Israel's bombardment of Iranian nuclear and missile sites, as residents of Iran's capital streamed out of the city on the sixth day of the air assault. Israel launched an air war on Friday after saying it had concluded Iran was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons. Iran has conveyed to Washington that it will respond firmly to the United States if it becomes directly involved in Israel's military campaign, the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva said on Wednesday.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Trump faces uproar from MAGA base over possible Iran strike
WASHINGTON, June 18 (Reuters) - The prospect of a U.S. strike against Iran has exposed divisions in the coalition of supporters that brought President Donald Trump to power, with some of his base urging him not to get the country involved in a new Middle East war. Some of Trump's most prominent Republican allies, including top lieutenant Steve Bannon, have found themselves in the unusual position of being at odds with a president who largely shares their isolationist tendencies. Bannon, one of many influential voices from Trump's "America First" coalition, on Wednesday urged caution about the U.S. military joining Israel in trying to destroy Iran's nuclear program in the absence of a diplomatic deal. "We can't do this again," Bannon told reporters at an event sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor in Washington. "We'll tear the country apart. We can't have another Iraq." The anti-interventionist part of the Republican Party is watching with alarm as Trump has moved swiftly from seeking a peaceful diplomatic settlement with Iran to possibly having the United States support Israel's military campaign, including the use of a 30,000-pound "bunker buster" bomb. The criticism shows the opposition Trump could face from his right-leaning "Make America Great Again" flank should he join the fight, a step that Iran has warned would have big consequences for Americans without specifying what that might be. A decision by Trump to enter the conflict would be a sharp departure from his usual caution about foreign entanglements. It could impact his campaign to foster good relations in the Gulf and could be a distraction from his efforts to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine and make tariff deals with countries around the world. The MAGA coalition propelled Trump into office in the 2016 and 2024 elections and remains critically important to him even though he is prevented by the U.S. Constitution from running for a third term. Upsetting that base could erode Trump's popularity and factor into whether Republicans hang on to control of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections. Asked about the rift on Wednesday, Trump appeared unconcerned that some in his base could be turning its back on him, at least on this issue. "My supporters are more in love with me today, and I'm in love with them more than they were even at election time," Trump told reporters at the White House. "I only want one thing: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon." He said some of his supporters "are a little bit unhappy now" but that others agree with him that Iran cannot become a nuclear power. 'I'm not looking to fight. But if it's a choice between them fighting or having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do," Trump said. Marc Short, an ally of former Vice President Mike Pence who served as Trump's legislative director during his first term, called the division over Iran within Trump's party a "pretty large rift." He said he thought Trump's base would stay with him despite the differences, however. "The divisions are obviously coming out in the open in this moment, but ultimately I think that most of the president's followers are loyal to him more so than any worldview," he said. Short said standing with Israel could help Trump politically, too. Traditionally conservative voters favor standing by Israel. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in March, 48% of Republicans agreed with a statement that the U.S. should use its military power to defend Israel from threats no matter where the threats come from, compared to 28% who disagreed. Among Democrats, 25% agreed and 52% disagreed. International experts believe Iran has been intent on developing a nuclear weapon, despite Tehran's denials, and Israel believes it would be at risk as a result. U.S. officials believe if Iran possessed an atomic weapon it would trigger an nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Bannon, host of the popular "War Room" podcast, said "the Israelis need to finish what they started" and that Trump should slow down deliberations over U.S. involvement and explain his decision-making. "This is one of the most ancient civilizations in the world, okay, with 92 million people. This is not something you play around with. You have to think this through at this level, and the American people have to be on board. You can't just dump this on them," he said. Other influential MAGA voices with similar messages of worry include former Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson and U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican and long-time Trump ally. "Anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA," Greene said in a social media post on Sunday. "We are sick and tired of foreign wars. All of them." The rift was on full display when Carlson, on his streaming program, clashed with Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas late on Tuesday. A clip from Carlson's interview with Cruz went viral with Carlson strongly criticizing the senator for seeking regime change in Iran, and Cruz expressing support for the president. "You don't know anything about Iran!' Carlson told Cruz. 'I am not the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran,' Cruz fired back. 'You're a senator who's calling for the overthrow of the government,' Carlson retorted. Vice President JD Vance tried to tamp down talk of a rift on Monday with a social media post defending the president. "People are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue," he said. Now allies and opponents are waiting on Trump's decision-making process. The president said on Wednesday afternoon he had some ideas on how to proceed but had not made a final decision.
