Israel wants to topple Iran's regime. New leadership won't necessarily be friendly to the West
The timing and targets of Israel's attacks on Iran tell us that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's short-term goal is to damage Iran's nuclear facilities in order to severely diminish its weapons program.
But Netanyahu has made clear another goal: he said the war with Iran "could certainly" lead to regime change in the Islamic republic.
These comments came after an Israeli plan to assassinate the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was reportedly rebuffed by United States President Donald Trump.
It's no secret Israel has wanted to see the current government of Iran fall for some time, as have many government officials in the US.
But what would things look like if the government did topple?
Founded in 1979 after the Iranian Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has democratic, theocratic and authoritarian elements to its governing structure.
The founding figure of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, envisioned a state run by Islamic clerics and jurists who ensured all policies adhered to Islamic law.
As Iran was a constitutional monarchy before the revolution, theocratic elements were effectively grafted on top of the existing republican ones, such as the parliament, executive and judiciary.
Iran has a unicameral legislature (one house of parliament), called the Majles, and a president (currently Masoud Pezeshkian). There are regular elections for both.
But while there are democratic elements within this system, in practice it is a "closed loop" that keeps the clerical elite in power and prevents challenges to the supreme leader. There is a clear hierarchy, with the supreme leader at the top.
Khamenei has been in power for more than 35 years, taking office following Khomeini's death in 1989. The former president of Iran, he was chosen to become supreme leader by the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member body of Islamic jurists.
While members of the assembly are elected by the public, candidates must be vetted by the powerful 12-member Guardian Council (also known as the Constitutional Council). Half of this body is selected by the supreme leader, while the other half is approved by the Majles.
The council also has the power to vet all candidates for president and the parliament.
In last year's elections, the Guardian Council disqualified many candidates from running for president, as well as the Majles and Assembly of Experts, including the moderate former president Hassan Rouhani.
As such, the supreme leader is increasingly facing a crisis of legitimacy with the public. Elections routinely have low turnout. Even with a reformist presidential candidate in last year's field — the eventual winner, Masoud Pezeshkian — turnout was below 40 per cent in the first round.
Freedom House gives Iran a global freedom score of just 11 out of 100.
The supreme leader also directly appoints the leaders in key governance structures, such as the judiciary, the armed forces and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
So, Iran is far from a democracy. But the idea that regime change would lead to a full democracy that is aligned with Israel and the US is very unlikely.
Iranian politics is extremely factional. Ideological factions, such as the reformists, moderates and conservatives, often disagree vehemently on key policy areas. They also jockey for influence with the supreme leader and the rest of the clerical elite. None of these factions is particularly friendly with the US, and especially not Israel.
There are also institutional factions. The most powerful group in the country is the clerical elite, led by the supreme leader. The next most powerful faction would be the IRGC.
Originally formed as a kind of personal guard for the supreme leader, the IRGC's fighting strength now rivals that of the regular army.
The IRGC is extremely hardline politically. At times, the IRGC's influence domestically has outstripped that of presidents, exerting significant pressure on their policies. The guard only vocally supports presidents in lockstep with Islamic revolutionary doctrine.
In addition to its control over military hardware and its political influence, the guard is also entwined with the Iranian economy.
The IRGC is heavily enriched by the status quo, with some describing it as a "kleptocratic" institution. IRGC officials are often awarded state contracts, and are allegedly involved in managing the "black economy" used to evade sanctions.
Given all of this, the IRGC would be the most likely political institution to take control of Iran if the clerical elite were removed from power.
In peacetime, the general consensus is the IRGC would not have the resources to orchestrate a coup if the supreme leader died. But in a time of war against a clear enemy, things could be different.
So, what might happen if Israel were to assassinate the supreme leader?
One scenario would be a martial law state led by the IRGC, formed at least in the short term for the purposes of protecting the revolution.
In the unlikely event the entire clerical leadership is decimated, the IRGC could attempt to reform the Assembly of Experts and choose a new supreme leader itself, perhaps even supporting Khamenei's son's candidacy.
Needless to say, this outcome would not lead to a state more friendly to Israel or the US. In fact, it could potentially empower a faction that has long argued for a more militant response to both.
Another scenario is a popular uprising. Netanyahu certainly seems to think this is possible, saying in an interview in recent days:
The decision to act, to rise up this time, is the decision of the Iranian people.
Indeed, many Iranians have long been disillusioned with their government — even with more moderate and reformist elements within it. Mass protests have broken out several times in recent decades — most recently in 2022 — despite heavy retaliation from law enforcement.
We've seen enough revolutions to know this is possible — after all, modern Iran was formed out of one. But once again, new political leadership being more friendly to Israel and the West is not a foregone conclusion.
It is possible for Iranians to hold contempt in their hearts for both their leaders and the foreign powers that would upend their lives.
Andrew Thomas is a lecturer in Middle East studies at Deakin University. This piece first appeared on The Conversation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
In international law, is Israel's use of force against Iran justified by self-defence? - ABC Religion & Ethics
On 12 June 2025, Israel launched a major military operation against Iran targeting its nuclear programme — including facilities, individual scientists and military leadership. I want here to inquire into the legality of Israel's use of force against Iran as a matter of the jus ad bellum . As I will explain, Israel's use of force against Iran is, on the facts as we know them, almost certainly illegal. The only justification that Israel can provide for its use of force is self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter — which legitimises the use force to repel an armed attack, subject to the criteria of necessity and proportionality. The first point to clarify here is that the nature and stated goals of Israel's use of force — damaging Iran's nuclear programme and preventing it from developing a nuclear weapon — are explicitly about deflecting a future armed attack by Iran against Israel. Which is to say, it seeks to prevent an attack that is yet to occur. In other words, this is not a situation in which Israel is allegedly responding to an Iranian attack occurring now , whether directly or through proxies such as the Houthis in Yemen or Hezbollah in Lebanon. Prior uses of force between these two states can be legally and factually relevant as context, but the issue here is squarely about stopping a future nuclear attack by Iran. Assessing the legality Israel's use of force against Iran thus depends on the legal conception of self-defence being applied and on the facts to which the legal rules can be applied. There are three possible legal positions (with some variations on a spectrum) on uses of force in response to future armed attacks: 1. That states can act preventively to deflect threats, especially existential threats. 2. That states can act to deflect future armed attacks that are imminent. 3. That states can only act to deflect armed attacks that have occurred. If one regards the third position as correct, then Israel's use of force against Iran would be manifestly illegal. But, while it is difficult to reliably establish what the majority view on some of these issues is, I think we can say that reasonable scholars and states have argued that the third position is too restrictive. We can easily say, however, that there is unanimous agreement among international lawyers that the first position is legally untenable. It is associated, for example, with some of the arguments that lawyers in the Bush administration used to justify force against Iraq — that it might give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist actors who might use them against the United States, and that the threat is so grave that the United States would be defending itself from Iraq. It is also similar to arguments that Russia has used to justify its invasion of Ukraine — that after joining NATO, Ukraine might attack Russia at some future point. The facts of these two examples aside, the problem with this approach is that it is so boundless that it completely eviscerates the prohibition on the use of force: a state could act whenever it perceives an existential threat. After all, Russia, the United States and China have the ability to destroy each other within hours, but that kind of capability cannot automatically mean that they can start a war and call it 'self-defence'. In short, this 'preventive' form of self-defence is simply not self-defence at all. With regard to Iraq, even the UK — America's closest ally — expressly disavowed such a legal theory, and the United States itself did not formally rely on this argument internationally. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei attends an event in Tehran, Iran, on 10 May 2025. (Photo by IRANIAN LEADER PRESS OFFICE / Anadolu via Getty Images) Therefore, Israel could only justify its use for against Iran by relying on the second, intermediate position — that Iran's nuclear attack on Israel was imminent . The question of anticipatory self-defence against imminent attacks has been much debated. Broadly speaking, there are two theories of what constitutes an 'imminent' attack is. The first, restrictive one is temporal in character: an imminent attack is one that is about to happen. The second, more expansive understanding is causal in character: an imminent attack is one where the state concerned will obtain the capability to conduct the attack and intends (has irrevocably committed itself) to the attack at some point in the future. This more expansive approach is often coupled with the necessity of an immediate response — that now is the 'last possible window of opportunity' to act to stop the attack. On the temporal understanding of an imminent attack, there is simply no plausible way of arguing that Iran was about to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, which it doesn't even possess. Thus, the only plausible legal theory of self-defence that Israel could invoke would be the causal, non-temporal one. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that this theory is correct. If so, Israel could justify its use of force only if the following two propositions of fact were both true: 1. That Iran's leadership has irrevocably committed itself to attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon, once such a weapon has been developed — which is to say, it intends to attack Israel in the future once it has the capability to do so. 2. That today was the last window of opportunity to stop the attack from happening — it was necessary to act now and no non-forcible alternative could have removed either Iran's future capability or its intention to attack Israel. Now, obviously, I am not privy to the information that, say, Israeli, American or British intelligence services have about the intentions of Iran's leadership. Working solely from information that is publicly available, I would say that the situation as it stands is as follows: There are many public statements by various Iranian officials over the years calling, expressly or impliedly, for Israel's destruction. There are many public statements by various Iranian officials over the years calling, expressly or impliedly, for Israel's destruction. That kind of rhetoric, however, is mainly meant for domestic political purposes in Iran and does not, in itself, directly translate to an intention of the Iranian leadership to use a nuclear weapon against Israel, despite the fact that Israel itself already has nuclear weapons and could retaliate against Iran decisively. That kind of rhetoric, however, is mainly meant for domestic political purposes in Iran and does not, in itself, directly translate to an intention of the Iranian leadership to use a nuclear weapon against Israel, despite the fact that Israel itself already has nuclear weapons and could retaliate against Iran decisively. Maybe Israeli officials do have some intelligence about the intentions of Iran's leaders — especially Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — to attack Israel with nuclear weapons, but they have not provided the public with any such intelligence. Maybe Israeli officials do have some intelligence about the intentions of Iran's leaders — especially Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — to attack Israel with nuclear weapons, but they have not provided the public with any such intelligence. This means that the first prong of the test above fails — there is little evidence, as things stand, that Iran intends to use a nuclear weapon against Israel once it obtains the capability to do so. Inflammatory, even genocidal, public statements by some Iranian officials do not suffice on their own, because they are not sufficiently probative about the intent of those Iranian officials who actually make the relevant decisions. This means that the first prong of the test above fails — there is little evidence, as things stand, that Iran intends to use a nuclear weapon against Israel once it obtains the capability to do so. Inflammatory, even genocidal, public statements by some Iranian officials do not suffice on their own, because they are not sufficiently probative about the intent of those Iranian officials who actually make the relevant decisions. Even according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran was months from building a bomb, while negotiations between the United States and Iran were actively taking place. (It is significant that the UN Secretary-General expressed his concern about 'Israeli attacks on nuclear installations in Iran while talks between Iran and the United States on the status of Iran's nuclear programme are underway'.) Even according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran was months from building a bomb, while negotiations between the United States and Iran were actively taking place. (It is significant that the UN Secretary-General expressed his concern about 'Israeli attacks on nuclear installations in Iran while talks between Iran and the United States on the status of Iran's nuclear programme are underway'.) Thus, while militarily Israel undoubtedly found itself in a convenient position to attack Iran — which was already weakened due to prior engagements between the two states — it is difficult to see how this was the 'last possible window of opportunity' to deflect a future nuclear attack. In other words, that the use of force was necessary, the only available option to stop this attack. Even if the broadest possible (legally plausible) understanding of anticipatory self-defence was taken as a correct, Israel's use of force against Iran would be illegal. This is because there is little evidence that Iran has irrevocably committed itself to attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon, once it develops this capability. And even if such an intention was assumed — again, it would be for Israel to provide any further evidence of such intention — I don't see how it could plausibly be argued that using force today was the only option available. I have limited myself here to an ad bellum analysis. In short, unless Israel is able to provide substantially more compelling evidence than is currently available to the public, it cannot reasonably be argued that Iran would imminently attack Israel, or that using force was the only option to stop that attack. Israel is therefore using force against Iran unlawfully, in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Which is to say, it is committing an act of aggression. There are also in bello issues to be discussed. One point that I found particularly problematic is the apparent direction of attacks specifically against Iranian scientists working for the nuclear programme. If such scientists are members of Iran's armed forces, they are combatants and can lawfully be targeted as a matter of international humanitarian law. But scientists who are civilians — and most probably are — cannot (as persons) lawfully be made the object of an attack. Simply working on a weapons programme as a researcher does not entail direct participation in hostilities that could remove civilian immunity from an attack. To give an analogy, the hundreds of civilian scientists or engineers who worked on the Manhattan Project would not (in today's terms) be qualified as combatants or civilians taking a direct part in hostilities. The facilities in which they worked would qualify as military objectives — as would a munitions factory, for instance. But the scientists themselves as persons would not. Marko Milanovic is Professor of Public International Law at the University of Reading School of Law, and Director of the Global Law at Reading (GLAR) research group. An earlier version of this article was published on EJIL:Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law, and appears here with permission.
SBS Australia
2 hours ago
- SBS Australia
When Australia 'couldn't help', Ron took leaving Israel into his own hands
Ron Gelberg arrived in Israel shortly before the Israel-Iran conflict erupted. Source: SBS News Nearly 2,000 Australians want to leave Israel and Iran as the conflict between the two countries continues to intensify, with family members fretting and some abroad taking matters into their own hands to leave. As speculation grows that the United States is preparing to enter the conflict, more than 1,000 Australians have registered with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for help to leave Israel. A further 870 Australians and family members want to leave Iran, after Friday's escalation in the conflict with Israel attempting to wipe out Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Iran's airspace, and Israel's main airport, Ben Gurion International, are both closed "until further notice". Ron Gelberg arrived in Israel shortly before the conflict escalated and had planned to holiday there as part of an international trip. The Australian had been staying put at his hotel, where he and other guests had been sent to its bomb shelter on several occasions, and while he felt relatively safe there, he wanted to return home. Gelberg, who was in Israel's capital Tel Aviv, told SBS News on Monday he had called Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) which he said couldn't do much to help because there were no scheduled repatriation flights. "So I took matters into my own hands," he said. Gelberg said he had paid a driver who would take him across the border into Jordan and fly from there to Denmark and then on to Australia. He said he would have preferred to have been repatriated from Tel Aviv. He acknowledged the difficulties the Australian government may face in organising such flights amid missile fire, but believed they could have offered assistance getting to Jordan and repatriating from there. Meanwhile, Asal (not her real name) is helplessly watching from Melbourne as missiles fall around her mother's home in Iran. A brief phone call each day is the only contact she can make with the eighty-year-old, who has now fled north of the capital. "My mum is quite a strong woman. All my life, I never … heard her being that vulnerable," she told SBS News. "But I could see her voice was shaking." The journey to what Asal called a "safer city where there are not many military bases" took her mother more than 12 hours, with traffic gridlocked for hundreds of kilometres out of Iran's capital, Tehran. Many of the Iranian capital's nearly 10 million residents have either left the city or taken shelter indoors as Israeli airstrikes continue to pound major cities across the country for six consecutive days. "It's pretty much everywhere being bombed now," Asal said. Iranian officials said at least 224 people have been killed, mostly civilians, and another 1,200 injured in the recent strikes. Israel says 24 civilians have been killed in attacks by Iran. Kambiz Razamara, who is the vice-president of the Australian Iranian Society of Victoria, said the difficulty in getting hold of people in Iran had exacerbated the worry many in the community were feeling. While his own family has been confirmed as safe after the bombing attacks, he was concerned about an escalation of violence in the region. "A big part of my family is near where the main nuclear reactors are, and if the reactors are bombed, then my whole family is exposed," he said. "People are trying to reach people, but you can't contact people online and you can't call." Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the Australian government was examining options for those who want to return, but evacuations were proving difficult due to airspace being closed. "We're obviously working very closely with those Australians via the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade," he told ABC Radio on Wednesday. "We're monitoring developments in that very dangerous part of the world very closely. The treasurer said Australia and other countries were examining US President Donald Trump's statement about the conflict. The president has demanded Iran unconditionally surrender . "The US President has signalled that he wants a deal. I think there's a broad, there is broad international support for a return to dialogue and diplomacy," Chalmers said. "It's a perilous place, the Middle East right now, it's a perilous time for the global economy." DFAT is asking anyone in the region who wants to return home to register with the government's Smartraveller website. Israel launched its air war, its largest ever on Iran , on Friday after saying it had concluded the Islamic Republic was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons and has pointed to its right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, including enrichment, as a party to the international Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel, which is not a party to the NPT, is the only country in the Middle East believed to have nuclear weapons. Israel does not deny or confirm that. Netanyahu has stressed that he will not back down until Iran's nuclear development is disabled, while Trump says the Israeli assault could end if Iran agrees to strict curbs on enrichment. Before Israel's attack began, the 35-nation board of governors of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in almost 20 years. With reporting by the Australian Associated Press and Reuters news agencies.
The Advertiser
4 hours ago
- The Advertiser
G7 abandons joint Ukraine statement as wars head agenda
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy will leave the G7 summit with new aid from host Canada for its war against invader Russia but without a joint statement of support from members or a chance to meet with US President Donald Trump. The G7 wealthy nations struggled to find unity over the conflict in Ukraine after Trump expressed support for Russian President Vladimir Putin and left a day early to address the Israel-Iran conflict from Washington. Canada dropped plans for the G7 to issue a strong statement on the war in Ukraine after resistance from the United States, a Canadian official told reporters. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Ottawa would provide C$US2 billion ($1.47 billion) in new military assistance for Kyiv as well as impose new financial sanctions. Carney said when G7 leaders met for dinner in the Rocky Mountain resort area of Kananaskis on Monday before Trump left, they stressed the importance of using "maximum pressure against Russia" to force it to start serious peace talks. "Even if the American President is not putting enough pressure on Russia right now, the truth is that America still has the broadest global interests and the largest number of allies. All of them will need strong protection," he said in a post on his Telegram account. Although Canada is one of Ukraine's most vocal defenders, its ability to help Kyiv is far outweighed by the US, the largest arms supplier. Zelenskiy had said he hoped to talk to Trump about acquiring more weapons. When the summit ends, Carney plans to issue a chair statement calling for more pressure on Russia through sanctions and saying the G7 backs US-led peace efforts, two G7 sources said. Canada holds the rotating G7 presidency this year. Other leaders do not need to sign off on G7 chair statements. A European official said leaders had stressed to Trump their plans to be hard on Russia and Trump seemed impressed, though he does not like sanctions in principle. Three European diplomats said they had heard signals from Trump that he wanted to raise pressure on Putin and consider a US Senate bill drafted by Senator Lindsey Graham, but that he had not committed to anything. "I am returning to Germany with cautious optimism that decisions will also be made in America in the coming days to impose further sanctions against Russia," German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said. G7 leaders agreed on six statements, about migrant smuggling, artificial intelligence, critical minerals, wildfires, transnational repression and quantum computing. Trump said on Monday he needed to be back in Washington as soon as possible due to the situation in the Middle East, where escalating attacks between Iran and Israel have raised risks of a broader regional conflict. He later said his early departure from the summit had "nothing to do with" working on a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, however, denying comments by French President Emmanuel Macron, who had said the US president leaving could be a sign of a potential deal. A White House official on Tuesday said Trump explained that he returned to the US because it is better to hold high-level National Security Council meetings in person, rather than over the phone. Trump did agree to a group statement published on Monday calling for a resolution of the Israel-Iran conflict. The statement said Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror and that Israel has the right to defend itself. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy will leave the G7 summit with new aid from host Canada for its war against invader Russia but without a joint statement of support from members or a chance to meet with US President Donald Trump. The G7 wealthy nations struggled to find unity over the conflict in Ukraine after Trump expressed support for Russian President Vladimir Putin and left a day early to address the Israel-Iran conflict from Washington. Canada dropped plans for the G7 to issue a strong statement on the war in Ukraine after resistance from the United States, a Canadian official told reporters. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Ottawa would provide C$US2 billion ($1.47 billion) in new military assistance for Kyiv as well as impose new financial sanctions. Carney said when G7 leaders met for dinner in the Rocky Mountain resort area of Kananaskis on Monday before Trump left, they stressed the importance of using "maximum pressure against Russia" to force it to start serious peace talks. "Even if the American President is not putting enough pressure on Russia right now, the truth is that America still has the broadest global interests and the largest number of allies. All of them will need strong protection," he said in a post on his Telegram account. Although Canada is one of Ukraine's most vocal defenders, its ability to help Kyiv is far outweighed by the US, the largest arms supplier. Zelenskiy had said he hoped to talk to Trump about acquiring more weapons. When the summit ends, Carney plans to issue a chair statement calling for more pressure on Russia through sanctions and saying the G7 backs US-led peace efforts, two G7 sources said. Canada holds the rotating G7 presidency this year. Other leaders do not need to sign off on G7 chair statements. A European official said leaders had stressed to Trump their plans to be hard on Russia and Trump seemed impressed, though he does not like sanctions in principle. Three European diplomats said they had heard signals from Trump that he wanted to raise pressure on Putin and consider a US Senate bill drafted by Senator Lindsey Graham, but that he had not committed to anything. "I am returning to Germany with cautious optimism that decisions will also be made in America in the coming days to impose further sanctions against Russia," German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said. G7 leaders agreed on six statements, about migrant smuggling, artificial intelligence, critical minerals, wildfires, transnational repression and quantum computing. Trump said on Monday he needed to be back in Washington as soon as possible due to the situation in the Middle East, where escalating attacks between Iran and Israel have raised risks of a broader regional conflict. He later said his early departure from the summit had "nothing to do with" working on a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, however, denying comments by French President Emmanuel Macron, who had said the US president leaving could be a sign of a potential deal. A White House official on Tuesday said Trump explained that he returned to the US because it is better to hold high-level National Security Council meetings in person, rather than over the phone. Trump did agree to a group statement published on Monday calling for a resolution of the Israel-Iran conflict. The statement said Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror and that Israel has the right to defend itself. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy will leave the G7 summit with new aid from host Canada for its war against invader Russia but without a joint statement of support from members or a chance to meet with US President Donald Trump. The G7 wealthy nations struggled to find unity over the conflict in Ukraine after Trump expressed support for Russian President Vladimir Putin and left a day early to address the Israel-Iran conflict from Washington. Canada dropped plans for the G7 to issue a strong statement on the war in Ukraine after resistance from the United States, a Canadian official told reporters. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Ottawa would provide C$US2 billion ($1.47 billion) in new military assistance for Kyiv as well as impose new financial sanctions. Carney said when G7 leaders met for dinner in the Rocky Mountain resort area of Kananaskis on Monday before Trump left, they stressed the importance of using "maximum pressure against Russia" to force it to start serious peace talks. "Even if the American President is not putting enough pressure on Russia right now, the truth is that America still has the broadest global interests and the largest number of allies. All of them will need strong protection," he said in a post on his Telegram account. Although Canada is one of Ukraine's most vocal defenders, its ability to help Kyiv is far outweighed by the US, the largest arms supplier. Zelenskiy had said he hoped to talk to Trump about acquiring more weapons. When the summit ends, Carney plans to issue a chair statement calling for more pressure on Russia through sanctions and saying the G7 backs US-led peace efforts, two G7 sources said. Canada holds the rotating G7 presidency this year. Other leaders do not need to sign off on G7 chair statements. A European official said leaders had stressed to Trump their plans to be hard on Russia and Trump seemed impressed, though he does not like sanctions in principle. Three European diplomats said they had heard signals from Trump that he wanted to raise pressure on Putin and consider a US Senate bill drafted by Senator Lindsey Graham, but that he had not committed to anything. "I am returning to Germany with cautious optimism that decisions will also be made in America in the coming days to impose further sanctions against Russia," German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said. G7 leaders agreed on six statements, about migrant smuggling, artificial intelligence, critical minerals, wildfires, transnational repression and quantum computing. Trump said on Monday he needed to be back in Washington as soon as possible due to the situation in the Middle East, where escalating attacks between Iran and Israel have raised risks of a broader regional conflict. He later said his early departure from the summit had "nothing to do with" working on a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, however, denying comments by French President Emmanuel Macron, who had said the US president leaving could be a sign of a potential deal. A White House official on Tuesday said Trump explained that he returned to the US because it is better to hold high-level National Security Council meetings in person, rather than over the phone. Trump did agree to a group statement published on Monday calling for a resolution of the Israel-Iran conflict. The statement said Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror and that Israel has the right to defend itself. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy will leave the G7 summit with new aid from host Canada for its war against invader Russia but without a joint statement of support from members or a chance to meet with US President Donald Trump. The G7 wealthy nations struggled to find unity over the conflict in Ukraine after Trump expressed support for Russian President Vladimir Putin and left a day early to address the Israel-Iran conflict from Washington. Canada dropped plans for the G7 to issue a strong statement on the war in Ukraine after resistance from the United States, a Canadian official told reporters. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Ottawa would provide C$US2 billion ($1.47 billion) in new military assistance for Kyiv as well as impose new financial sanctions. Carney said when G7 leaders met for dinner in the Rocky Mountain resort area of Kananaskis on Monday before Trump left, they stressed the importance of using "maximum pressure against Russia" to force it to start serious peace talks. "Even if the American President is not putting enough pressure on Russia right now, the truth is that America still has the broadest global interests and the largest number of allies. All of them will need strong protection," he said in a post on his Telegram account. Although Canada is one of Ukraine's most vocal defenders, its ability to help Kyiv is far outweighed by the US, the largest arms supplier. Zelenskiy had said he hoped to talk to Trump about acquiring more weapons. When the summit ends, Carney plans to issue a chair statement calling for more pressure on Russia through sanctions and saying the G7 backs US-led peace efforts, two G7 sources said. Canada holds the rotating G7 presidency this year. Other leaders do not need to sign off on G7 chair statements. A European official said leaders had stressed to Trump their plans to be hard on Russia and Trump seemed impressed, though he does not like sanctions in principle. Three European diplomats said they had heard signals from Trump that he wanted to raise pressure on Putin and consider a US Senate bill drafted by Senator Lindsey Graham, but that he had not committed to anything. "I am returning to Germany with cautious optimism that decisions will also be made in America in the coming days to impose further sanctions against Russia," German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said. G7 leaders agreed on six statements, about migrant smuggling, artificial intelligence, critical minerals, wildfires, transnational repression and quantum computing. Trump said on Monday he needed to be back in Washington as soon as possible due to the situation in the Middle East, where escalating attacks between Iran and Israel have raised risks of a broader regional conflict. He later said his early departure from the summit had "nothing to do with" working on a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, however, denying comments by French President Emmanuel Macron, who had said the US president leaving could be a sign of a potential deal. A White House official on Tuesday said Trump explained that he returned to the US because it is better to hold high-level National Security Council meetings in person, rather than over the phone. Trump did agree to a group statement published on Monday calling for a resolution of the Israel-Iran conflict. The statement said Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror and that Israel has the right to defend itself.
