Peace takes time and trust. US strikes on Iran deal a blow to both
America's overnight strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities have not only raised the stakes in this crisis to another level – they have injected yet more uncertainty into international efforts to find a way out of this escalating conflict.
On Friday, US President Donald Trump said Tehran had a maximum of two weeks to "see whether or not people come to their senses". The same day, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met European counterparts in Geneva for talks. Many in this region and further afield hoped that direct US involvement would be stopped, or at least deferred, allowing time to find a diplomatic off-ramp. As it turned out, 'two weeks' meant two days.
The highest priority now, particularly for countries in the Middle East, is finding a way to halt a growing war that has no clearly defined goals and threatens to lead to years of further instability. This paper has consistently called for de-escalation and talks. However, these are processes that require time and trust. The US strikes have delivered a blow to both, while the Iranian government failed to act seriously towards a long-lasting solution.
Tehran's decades-long meddling in the Arab world has been a persistent threat to regional peace. Given the leadership's 'death to America, death to Israel' rhetoric, Iran's nuclear programme was always going to be viewed with suspicion, especially as its enrichment went beyond what is required for a civilian programme. But what effect will America's strikes have and what cost will the region pay?
The answers to those questions are not known, but certainly de-escalation is the best move forward. There is reason to believe that Mr Trump's decision to hit Iranian targets has been informed by his previous experience with unilateral strikes. In April 2017, the US dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb in its arsenal on an underground ISIS base in Afghanistan. The same month, the US Navy launched almost 60 Tomahawk missiles at an air base controlled by the Syrian government, following a chemical weapons attack on a town in Idlib province. Almost three years later the US struck again, this time in Baghdad, assassinating Iranian commander Qassem Suleimani in a targeted drone strike. In the cases of Afghanistan and Syria, war continued in spite of these displays of American force. The killing of Suleimani was a significant loss for Tehran, but it was still able to make its presence felt across the Middle East.
Direct strikes on Iranian territory are quantifiably different. Although there are few initial reports about the extent of the damage to Tehran's nuclear capabilities, some form of retaliation is to be expected and this morning there have been more missile strikes on Israeli targets. Even if the Iranian government's instinct for self-preservation precludes strikes on US assets in the region, the threat of terrorism, cyberwarfare or violence from Tehran's remaining regional proxies has significantly increased.
There has to be a redoubling of efforts to convince American, Iranian and Israeli leaderships to find a way towards peace
So-called pre-emptive strikes make meaningful diplomacy difficult. The uncertainty they introduce into international engagement risks fuelling the very conflict that Mr Trump and Israel claim they are heading off by striking first.
Despite the bleak picture emerging this morning, a way must be found. There has to be a redoubling of efforts to convince American, Iranian and Israeli leaderships to find a way towards peace. Although wars are easy to start, they are more difficult to end. This is not the time for lip-service or talks for the sake of talks. To avert regional disaster, cooler heads must prevail and diplomatic efforts must be sincere.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Trump the ‘peacemaker' becomes wartime president
Pakistan has announced it will formally recommend US President Donald Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize for his 'pivotal leadership' and role as 'peacemaker' during the recent Kashmir crisis. Setting aside India's denial that Mr Trump facilitated an end to the hostilities in the region, Islamabad's timing could hardly have been more awkward. It could not have known, of course, but by the time Pakistan had issued its Nobel recommendation, US B-2 stealth bombers were already en route from an airbase in Missouri to Iran. Mr Trump had ordered the Pentagon to attack three Iranian nuclear sites, taking a strategic gamble that four presidents (and he himself, during his first term) had shied away from. Mr Trump and his administration had repeatedly warned that Iran could never obtain a nuclear weapon, and he stressed that the strikes were calibrated to avoid a broader conflict with Iran. He said 'now is the time for peace', while his Vice President JD Vance said the US was 'not at war with Iran, we're at war with Iran's nuclear programme". But it could well be a distinction without a difference for Tehran, where supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will feel enormous pressure to retaliate, at least to some degree, after the US joined Israel's air campaign that had already blunted much of Iran's military capabilities. If Tehran were to try to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, or if one of its proxies were to attack any of the 40,000 US military personnel stationed across the region, a conflagration could easily be sparked that would make Mr Trump a wartime president whose military is dragged into another massively destructive regional quagmire. It was not supposed to be this way. The Republican bucked his party's hawkish tendencies during the election campaign, furiously denouncing America's 'stupid endless wars' and promising his legacy would be that of ' peacemaker and unifier". And just last month in Saudi Arabia, he attacked America's foreign policy record in the Middle East, saying the neocons who tried to 'nation build' had wrecked far more countries than they had constructed. Mr Trump, predictably, has come under criticism from Democrats, mainly because the US Congress was largely kept in the dark about the precise nature and timing of the strikes against Iran. Influential Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Mr Trump's 'disastrous decision' to bomb Iran without authorisation was a grave breach of the Constitution and Congress's war powers. 'He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations,' she said as she called for his impeachment. Republicans say the secrecy was necessary to avoid telegraphing an coming attack. There is another faction Mr Trump needs to pay attention to – his most loyal followers in the isolationist Make America Great Again, or Maga, movement. 'Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war,' Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a passionate Trump supporter and prominent member of the Maga movement, wrote on X. But Marc Thiessen, a conservative author, wrote in The Washington Post on Sunday that too much has been made of any schism in the Maga movement, pointing to recent polling. He said large majorities of regular and Maga Republicans say they do not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and that they regard Israel's security as important to the US. A look on Mr Trump's Truth Social feed is instructive, too. When he demanded Iran's ' unconditional surrender ' last week, many of his followers expressed dismay that the US appeared set to get involved in a conflict in the Middle East again. But in posts since the American strikes, his Maga base now appears, for the most part, to be rallying around the flag and unifying in support of the decision to attack Iranian nuclear sites. Still, here we are. For all his talk of diplomacy and deal making, Mr Trump has become entangled in another Middle East conflict with consequences that are impossible to predict. "I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do," Mr Trump said in a Truth Social post last week. "Including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that's all that matters to me."
Zawya
an hour ago
- Zawya
UAE President holds phone calls with leaders of Qatar, Kuwait, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to discuss regional developments
ABU DHABI: UAE President His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan today held telephone calls with His Highness Sheikh Mishal Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, Emir of the State of Kuwait; His Highness Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Emir of the State of Qatar; and His Royal Highness Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Crown Prince and Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The calls focused on the latest developments in the Middle East and the serious implications of recent attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran for regional peace and security. The discussions form part of ongoing consultations led by His Highness aimed at de-escalation and restoring stability and security across the region. During the calls, all sides emphasised that the current tensions could have grave repercussions both regionally and globally. They called on all parties to apply wisdom, prioritise dialogue and peaceful solutions, exercise maximum restraint, and avoid further escalation. They also reaffirmed their countries' support for all efforts aimed at de-escalation through diplomatic means.
Zawya
an hour ago
- Zawya
Oil to open higher as US strikes on Iran boost supply risk premium
LONDON: Oil is likely to rise by $3-5 per barrel when trading resumes on Sunday evening after the U.S. attacked Iran at the weekend, market analysts said, with gains expected to accelerate only if Iran retaliates hard and causes a major oil supply disruption. U.S. President Donald Trump said he had "obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites in strikes overnight, joining an Israeli assault in an escalation of conflict in the Middle East as Tehran vowed to defend itself. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. "An oil price jump is expected," said Jorge Leon, head of geopolitical analysis at Rystad and a former OPEC official. "Even in the absence of immediate retaliation, markets are likely to price in a higher geopolitical risk premium." Global oil benchmark Brent crude could gain $3 to $5 per barrel when markets open, SEB analyst Ole Hvalbye said in a note. Brent settled at $77.01 a barrel on Friday and U.S. West Texas Intermediate at $73.84. Ole Hansen, analyst at Saxo Bank, said crude could open $4 to $5 dollars higher, with potential for some long positioning being unwound. Crude had settled down on Friday after the U.S. imposed fresh Iran-related sanctions, including on two entities based in Hong Kong, and counter-terrorism-related sanctions, according to a notice on the U.S. Treasury Department website. Brent has risen 11% while WTI has gained around 10% since the conflict began on June 13 with Israel targeting Iran's nuclear sites and Iranian missiles hitting buildings in Tel Aviv. Currently stable supply conditions and the availability of spare production capacity among other OPEC members have limited oil's gains. Risk premiums have typically faded when no supply disruptions occurred, said Giovanni Staunovo, analyst at UBS. "The direction of oil prices from here will depend on whether there are supply disruptions - which would likely result in higher prices - or if there is a de-escalation in the conflict, resulting in a fading risk premium," he said. A senior Iranian lawmaker said on June 19 that the country could shut the Strait of Hormuz as a way of hitting back against its enemies, though a second member of parliament said this would only happen if Tehran's vital interests were endangered. About a fifth of the world's total oil consumption passes through the strait. SEB said any closure of the strait or spillover into other regional producers would "significantly lift" oil prices, but they saw this scenario as a tail risk rather than a base case given China's reliance on Gulf crude. Ajay Parmar, oil and energy transition analytics director at consultancy ICIS, said it was unlikely Iran would be able to enforce a blockage of the strait for too long. "Most of Iran's oil exports to China pass through this strait and Trump is unlikely to tolerate the inevitable subsequent oil price spike for too long - the diplomatic pressure from the world's two largest economies would also be significant," he said. (Reporting by Anna Hirtenstein, Ahmad Ghaddar, Robert Harvey and Seher Dareen in London, Arunima Kumar in Bengaluru, editing by Alex Lawler, Clelia Oziel and Giles Elgood)
