The dangerous new normal in Middle East
Listen to article
Who won the 12-day war between Iran and Israel? To answer that, one must first examine the objectives of all parties involved in the conflict. Israel publicly stated that its main goal was to degrade or eradicate Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb. Before launching direct attacks, the hardline Israeli government claimed that Tehran was only weeks away from achieving nuclear capability. This, it insisted, justified its preemptive strikes.
The US initially maintained distance. When Israel, on June 13, launched a series of strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and assassinated senior military leaders and top nuclear scientists of Iran, the Trump administration said it was a unilateral Israeli action. Interestingly, just three months earlier, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had assessed there was no indication Iran was close to making a nuclear bomb. Trump, however, publicly dismissed the assessment.
Despite Israel's claims of initial success, it continued to press for the US involvement. It wanted the US to deploy B-2 bombers capable of dropping bunker-busting bombs needed to destroy deeply buried facilities like Fordow, located hundreds of metres beneath the mountains near the historic city of Qom. For over 45 years, no American president took the bait, even while maintaining close ties with Israel.
The reason was simple: any direct attack on Iran's nuclear facilities risked triggering a full-scale regional war. But Trump, who often brands himself a man of peace, broke with the precedent. He ordered direct strikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites including Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz. The US B-2 bombers dropped over a dozen 30,000-pound bombs in an attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
Trump swiftly claimed victory, announcing that Iran's nuclear capability had been "totally obliterated". However, a leaked report by the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) contradicted this, revealing that the strikes caused only limited damage and had set back Iran's programme by just a few months. Trump dismissed the report as a deliberate attempt to undermine his administration's success. Reports later confirmed that there was no radiation leak from any of the bombed sites, indicating that Iran might have moved its enriched uranium and sensitive materials to safe locations before the attacks.
While Iran continued to retaliate against Israel with its limited resources, the direct US involvement escalated the stakes. Until then, Iran had avoided targeting American military bases in the Gulf. But after the strikes, Tehran altered its approach. It had promised retaliation and the obvious targets were the US bases in the neighborhood.
When Iran launched missiles at a major US base in Qatar, fears surged that the world was entering uncharted territory. However, it soon became clear that the strike was a choreographed move and coordinated in advance with both Qatar and the US. It was intended to pave the way for a ceasefire. Tehran needed a symbolic response to show its people it had avenged the strikes. Trump even thanked Iran for the advance notice. All the missiles were intercepted over Doha, resulting in no casualties or damage.
Hours later, Trump announced a ceasefire deal. Although there were initial violations from both sides, the US president publicly rebuked Tel Aviv, ensuring the truce was held. In Trump's own words, Iran had fought "bravely" and Israel was hit "very very hard". This meant Israel needed a breather. Iran too, under immense pressure, could not afford to prolong the conflict.
Israel's ultimate goal of regime change in Tehran did not materialise. Iran, despite heavy losses, survived to fight another day. For decades, Israel and Iran had avoided direct confrontation. That precedent is now broken. The real danger going forward is that such exchanges may become the new normal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
43 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
US must rule out more strikes before talks can resume: Iran
LONDON: Diplomatic talks between Washington and Tehran cannot resume unless the US rules out further strikes on Iran, its deputy foreign minister told the BBC late Sunday. Majid Takht-Ravanchi told the British broadcaster that the US had signalled it wants to return to the negotiating table, a week after it struck three Iranian nuclear facilities. 'We have not agreed to any date, we have not agreed to the modality,' said Takht-Ravanchi. 'Right now we are seeking an answer to this question. Are we going to see a repetition of an act of aggression while we are engaging in dialogue?' The US needed to be 'quite clear on this very important question', he said. The two countries were in talks over Tehran's nuclear programme when Israel hit Iranian nuclear sites and military infrastructure earlier this month, with the US joining by bombing three nuclear sites – Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan – on June 21. The deputy minister revealed to the BBC that the US had signalled it did 'not want to engage in regime change' by targeting Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Takht-Ravanchi also said Iran should still be allowed to enrich uranium. 'The level of that can be discussed, the capacity can be discussed, but to say that you should not have enrichment, you should have zero enrichment, and if you do not agree, we will bomb you, that is the law of the jungle,' he said. Israel claims that Iran's nuclear programme is close to producing a bomb, whereas Tehran says it is for peaceful purposes. It is not clear yet how much damage the strikes inflicted on Iran's nuclear facilities, which US President Donald Trump had said were 'totally obliterated'. UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi said Iran would probably be able to begin to produce enriched uranium 'in a matter of months'. Iran-Israel war opens 'new road' for Mideast: US envoy to Turkiye Takht-Ravanchi said he did not know how long it would take. Under a 2015 deal, Iran was allowed to enrich uranium below 3.67 percent purity for fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. Trump abandoned the agreement in 2018 and Iran responded by producing uranium enriched to 60 percent – above levels for civilian usage but still below weapons grade. That material, if further refined, would theoretically be sufficient to produce more than nine nuclear bombs.
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
A game of power
The world today finds itself at a dangerous crossroads. Regional conflicts once seen as isolated flashpoints Palestine, Iran, Ukraine, South Asia are now connected by a shared pattern of escalating militarism and institutional paralysis. These clashes are not random, they represent deeper power shifts and systemic failures that affect global stability. Gaza has become a global symbol of civilian suffering and collective neglect. Since the latest round of violence began earlier this year, more than 55,000 civilians, many of them women and children have perished under Israeli airstrikes targeting densely populated neighbourhoods. Hospitals, schools, and residential buildings have been reduced to rubble, leaving families homeless and traumatized. Aid convoys were delayed, communications blacked out, and displaced families had little time or space to find shelter. These events bear the marks of a broader strategic purpose yet were met only with official statements urging 'restraint.' This disparity between words and deeds has exposed serious flaws in international governance. The United Nations has repeatedly failed to enforce its own principles. Security Council resolutions condemning the violence were blocked or diluted, and the institution's ability to hold perpetrators accountable has steadily eroded. Meanwhile, some of the world's wealthiest nations traditionally champions of peace have maintained steady military cooperation with Israel, citing 'security partnerships' and shared democratic values. But when these ideals clash with civilian devastation, they echo hollow. These interconnected crises highlight troubling inconsistencies in global response. In Ukraine, Russian aggression sparked worldwide condemnation, sanctions, and aid. In contrast, the immense suffering in Gaza continues under a more muted chorus. Israel's strikes on Iran did not trigger the kind of protests or political backlash that similar actions might have elsewhere. The metric for international outrage appears selective, shaped less by principle than by political convenience. Israel's current leadership has pursued a policy rooted in deterrence and territorial control. Statements by officials emphasized pre-emptive removal of threats. This posture culminated in June when, under intense domestic pressure, Israel launched airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. Though justified as halting nuclear weaponization, these facilities were under international inspection, with no clear evidence of weapons development. The US President Donald Trump, responded with 'Operation Midnight Hammer,' deploying seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers to strike the same Iranian facilities. The use of bunker-busting munitions and Tomahawk missiles represented an escalation beyond deterrence. In response, Iran launched a measured counterstrike, targeting the U.S. base in Al Udeid, Qatar. However, diplomatic warnings were issued in advance to avoid human casualties. Analysts interpreted this as a display of capability rather than a bid for escalation – an assertion of sovereignty without tipping into war. Iran's situation remains complex. Decades of sanctions and embargoes have fostered a national identity of resilience. Whether its measured response will lead to renewed diplomacy or deepen the arms race is uncertain. Still, Iran's recent moves suggest a willingness to assert strength without surrendering to war an approach that may open paths to new negotiations or at least delay further escalation. The India-Pakistan standoff in May 2025 highlighted the dangers and limitations of South Asian power dynamics. Triggered by Indian cross-border aggression near the Line of Control in Kashmir, Pakistan responded with precision airstrikes using JF-17 jets and electronic warfare systems to neutralize Indian defense assets. Within days, Indian forces withdrew, unable to consolidate their advance. Though casualties were limited compared to past conflicts, the episode underscored Pakistan's enhanced military readiness and redefined South Asian strategic equations. Pakistan's global position is increasingly important both strategically and morally. As one of only two Muslim-majority nuclear states, it bears significant responsibility for regional stability. Domestically, it must confront internal paralysis, combating corruption, modernizing infrastructure, and strengthening democratic accountability. Externally, Pakistan has the potential to lead through religious diplomacy and peacekeeping efforts, projecting a vision of stability rooted in shared values and multilateral engagement. Despite its strategic significance, Pakistan often remains outside mainstream international discourse a silence that can no longer be afforded. In Ukraine, now in its fourth year of war, over 12 million people have been displaced and hundreds of thousands killed. Economic fallout has rippled across Europe and the globe destabilizing energy supplies, inflation, and food systems. The West has justified its involvement as defensive solidarity, but broader consequences remain under-addressed. Similarly, the Gulf states Saudi Arabia, the UAE have remained largely passive despite their financial and geopolitical leverage. Their silence on Gaza and Iran reflects missed opportunities to lead. More engaged diplomacy, humanitarian outreach, and conflict mediation could reframe their regional role from bystanders to stabilizers. Trump's latest term has been defined by a transactional, often unpredictable foreign policy. His critique of Israeli aggression while still affirming support was a marked departure. Praising Iran's measured missile response signalled internal rifts in U.S. strategic doctrine. These shifts reflect a broader American reorientation away from global policing toward tactical selectivity. Still, the core issue persists, war has become an industry. Global military spending topped $2.2 trillion in 2024, with the U.S. accounting for nearly 40% of all arms exports. The overlap between commerce and conflict casts doubt on the sincerity of peace pledges. If war sustains economies, can peace truly be achieved? The time for cosmetic reform is over. International institutions must prioritize substance over symbolism. The UN must overhaul veto powers, enforce civilian protection, and ensure real accountability. International law must move beyond rhetoric to penalize violations with real consequences. What's missing today is leadership rooted in human dignity. Sustainable peace comes not through bombs or balance sheets, but through transparent governance, economic inclusion, and shared purpose. Even incremental progress a unified humanitarian framework, regional deterrence dialogues, enforceable rights charters could pivot us away from the brink. The world has a choice. We can let wars define our era or reclaim the moral architecture that once gave diplomacy its weight. Peace must be practical, deliberate, and centered on prevention. Power, after all, should serve people not destroy them. The article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Business Recorder or its owners
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Over 230,000 Afghans left Iran in June ahead of return deadline: IOM
ISLAM QALA: More than 230,000 Afghans left Iran in June, most of them deported, as returns surge ahead of a deadline set by Tehran, the United Nations migration agency said on Monday. The number of returns from Iran rose dramatically in recent weeks. Afghans have reported increased deportations ahead of the July 6 deadline announced by Iran for undocumented Afghans to leave the country. From June 1-28, 233,941 people returned from Iran to Afghanistan, International Organization for Migration spokesman Avand Azeez Agha told AFP, with 131,912 returns recorded in the week of June 21-28 alone. Since January, '691,049 people have returned, 70 percent of whom were forcibly sent back', he added. For several days last week, the number reached 30,000 per day, the IOM said, with numbers expected to increase ahead of the deadline. Afghans spilled into an IOM-run reception centre out of buses arriving back-to-back at the Islam Qala border point in western Afghanistan's Herat province on Saturday. The recent returns have been marked by a sharp increase in the number of families instead of individuals, the UN said, with men, women and children lugging suitcases carrying all their belongings. Many have few assets and few prospects for work, with Afghanistan facing entrenched poverty and steep unemployment. The country is four years into a fragile recovery from decades of war under Taliban authorities, who have called for a 'dignified' return of migrants and refugees from neighbouring countries. Over 200,000 returned to Afghanistan in past nine weeks: interior ministry Kabul's Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi raised the Taliban government's concerns in a meeting with Iran's ambassador, according to a statement, saying: 'A coordinated mechanism should be put in place for the gradual return of migrants.' The cash-strapped government faces challenges in integrating the influx of returnees, which has piled on to hundreds of thousands also forced out in recent years from Pakistan – another traditional host of Afghans fleeing conflict and humanitarian crises. Severe international aid cuts have also hamstrung UN and NGO responses, with the IOM saying it was 'only able to assist a fraction of those in need'. 'On some high-volume days, such as recently at Islam Qala, assistance reached as few as three percent of undocumented returnees,' it said in a recent statement. Returnees AFP spoke to in recent days at the border cited mounting pressure by Iranian authorities and increased deportations, with none pointing to the recent Iran-Israel conflict as a spur to leave the country. However, 'regional instability – particularly the fallout from the Israel-Iran conflict – and shifting host country policies have accelerated returns, overwhelming Afghanistan's already fragile humanitarian and development systems', the UN mission in Afghanistan, UNAMA, said in a statement. Samiullah Ahmadi, 28, was seeing his country of origin for the first time when he crossed the border. Unsure of what he would do once he reached the Afghan capital Kabul with his family, he was defiant in response to the pressures to return. 'I was born there (Iran). But the situation for Afghans is such that no matter how good you are or even if you have valid documents, they still don't treat you with respect.'
