The Middle East cannot afford more 'close calls'
Israel's extensive strikes on nuclear and military sites across Iran early this morning – the largest such attack since the 1980s – are an unnerving escalation in a region already living at the edge of widespread conflict.
The Israeli military described the strikes as 'pre-emptive', but they are more likely to ignite a dangerous chain of events than they are to prevent one. The high-profile Iranian victims are thought to include two nuclear scientists and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander-in-Chief Maj Gen Hossein Salami, as well as chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces Maj Gen Mohammad Bagheri. Initial Iranian retaliation was already in play within hours of attacks and where this cycle of violence and destruction will end is increasingly unclear.
A combination of several factors has marched the Middle East to this point. Tehran's reckless nuclear programme, which the UN nuclear watchdog yesterday said was in breach of its non-proliferation obligations, has been a cause of global concern. However, an Israel military attack leads to further instability, though in past weeks this appeared increasingly inevitable, especially given the country has been on a near-permanent war footing since the start of its invasion of Gaza. Add to this combustible mix Washington's inability – or unwillingness – to restrain its Israeli allies, and the stage is set for the kind of conflagration seen earlier today.
De-escalation is needed, and it is needed right now because further direct conflict between Israel and Iran could spiral into something more than another close call to all-out war. Already, we have seen Israeli drones and warplanes hit targets in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and now Iran. Tehran has suggested that it could widen the scale of this confrontation, with Iranian Defence Minister Gen Aziz Nasirzadeh saying that 'if a conflict is imposed on [Iran] … all US bases are within reach and we will boldly target them in host countries'.
Bombing runs and sabre rattling do nothing to guarantee any country's security. On the contrary, they undermine civilian efforts to defuse regional tensions. Israel's dangerous power play against Iran casts a shadow over Oman-mediated talks between the US and Iran that are still – for now – scheduled to continue on Sunday. Although both sides have traded barbs about the talks' progress, questions about both parties' seriousness now appear more pointed, not only in light of Israel's operation and Iran's admonishment by the IAEA but in the fact that the US has been preparing to evacuate non-essential staff from Middle East.
This is the moment for de-escalation and to let regionally-supported mediation do its work
If there is a lack of seriousness about diplomatic engagement, then it is the people of the Middle East who will suffer most. In Iran, many residential areas were struck in Israel's operation, damaging people's homes and livelihoods, and leaving civilians to pick up the pieces. In Israel, the civilian population will be bracing for Iranian retaliation.
The people of the Middle East have had enough of war and destruction - something that that both sides have contributed to. Relying on the Iranian government's instinct for self-preservation is not a strategy for regional peace and security, nor is allowing unilateral action from a bellicose Israel, whose embattled coalition government is grappling with internal political divisions.
This is the moment for de-escalation and to let regionally-supported mediation do its work. The alternative is further escalation that leads to the possibility of a conflict that no-one can control.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Farsi-speaking VOA journalists return to work after lengthy administrative leave amid Iran-Israel escalation
Farsi-speaking journalists with Voice of America were called back to work on Friday amid the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel. The US Agency for Global Media in March terminated grants for Voice of America and several other broadcasters as President Donald Trump's administration moved to make major cuts to government spending and the federal workforce. "VOA's role in providing independent, factual and authoritative news has been proven throughout countless times of crisis. But after months off the air, we've lost a lot of audience and credibility," White House bureau chief Patsy Widakuswara said. "They should bring us all back so we can respond to breaking news in all parts of the world." The move comes after Israel launched what it called a "pre-emptive" strike on Iran's nuclear and military sites that killed at least 78 people, among them civilians as well as top brass. Iran carried out a retaliatory strike on Israel that injured dozens and killed at least one person. The two countries afterwards began tit-for-tat strikes over the course of Friday night and early Saturday morning. Voice of America is one of the largest and oldest US international broadcasters, producing digital, TV and radio content in 48 languages. Its primary audience is non-Americans in countries without press freedoms or independent journalism, such as Iran. But the Trump administration has charged that Voice of America and other networks have a liberal bias in addition to bloated budgets. "The US Agency for Global media will continue to deliver on all statutory programmes that fall under the agency's purview and shed everything that is not statutorily required," USAGM adviser Kari Lake said in a statement in March. "Waste, fraud and abuse run rampant in this agency and American taxpayers shouldn't have to fund it."
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Iran says Israel's actions a 'declaration of war' and accuses US of supporting strikes
Iran 's envoy to the UN accused the US on Friday of providing full political and intelligence support to Israeli strikes on Iranian territory, calling the attacks a 'declaration of war' that killed dozens, including civilians. Iranian ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani told the UN Security Council that 78 people had been killed in the strikes, with more than 320 others injured. 'The majority of them are civilians, including women and children,' he said. 'We will not forget that our people lost their lives as a result of the Israeli attacks with American weapons. These actions amount to a declaration of war.' He accused Israel of seeking to derail nuclear deal negotiations with the US and escalate tension in the region. 'This aggression was intentional, co-ordinated and fully backed by a permanent member of this council,' he said. 'The United States' complicity in this terrorist attack is beyond doubt." Israel's ambassador to the UN Danny Danon echoed this, saying the strikes on Iran are an act of "national preservation' which it undertook alone. 'Imagine when the head of the snake would do with a nuclear warhead?' he said. 'We acted because history has taught us that silence is complicity and hesitation is fatal.' He told the council that Israeli intelligence had confirmed that Iran could have produced enough fissile material for several nuclear bombs within days. 'We struck the core of the nuclear programme, the underground enrichment facilities at Natanz. This facility was operating at a military grade capacity. Intelligence confirmed that within days, Iran could have produced enough material for multiple bombs,' he said. On Thursday, Iran was censured by the UN's nuclear watchdog for not complying with obligations meant to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon. US senior State Department official McCoy Pitt told the council that Washington was informed in advance of Israel's strikes on Iranian targets but was not militarily involved. Mr Pitt said Israel had advised the US that 'this action' was necessary for its self-defence. 'Every sovereign nation has the right to defend itself, and Israel is no exception,' he said. 'President [Donald] Trump has repeatedly said, this dangerous regime cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.' He added that Washington continues to pursue a diplomatic solution aimed at preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons or 'threatening' regional stability. 'Iran's leadership would be wise to negotiate at this time,' he asserted. The head of the UN nuclear watchdog told the Security Council that the aboveground section of Iran's pilot fuel enrichment plant at Natanz where uranium was being enriched up to 60 per cent has been destroyed in recent Israeli strikes. 'This facility houses both the main fuel enrichment plant and the pilot enrichment plant,' said International Atomic Energy Agency director general Rafael Grossi. Mr Grossi said radiation levels at the Natanz site remained unchanged, with no external radiological impact on the population or the environment. However, he warned of contamination risks within the facility. 'There is radiological and chemical contamination inside the Natanz facilities due to the impacts,' he said. Mr Grossi also said that Iranian authorities informed them of attacks on two other nuclear facilities, Fordow and Isfahan, 'where a fuel plate fabrication plant, a fuel manufacturing plant, a uranium conversion facility … are located'. Russia strongly condemned Israel's attacks on Iran, with its ambassador saying the "military adventure pushes the region to the brink of a large-scale war, and the responsibility for all of the consequences of these actions lies fully with the Israeli leadership and those who encourage them". 'One is left with the impression that the leadership of Israel is convinced that they have a completely free hand in the region, and they probably think that Israel can flout any legal norms and replace all international bodies, including the Security Council and IAEA,' Vasily Nebenzya said. China's ambassador Fu Cong urged Israel to immediately cease all military 'adventurism' and called on countries with 'significant' influence over Israel to play a 'constructive' role.
Middle East Eye
5 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
These questions are often ignored in the Israel-Iran story. We asked a panel of experts
Israel's attacks on Iran on Friday and the killing of several high-level figures in its military and science sectors have roiled the region. Tensions between the two nations are well-documented and longstanding, and both the US and Israel have carried out attacks like this, albeit on a smaller scale, on other prominent Iranian figures in the past. But why does this keep happening, and how is the US trying to distance itself from it? Can Israel go this far without expecting its own officials to be targeted? And exactly how dangerous is it to strike nuclear facilities on either side? Middle East Eye put the lesser-asked questions to five experts on international relations, conflict, nuclear proliferation, and the region at large. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Here is what they said, edited for length and clarity. If the US was informed ahead of time and also supplied weapons to Israel, how can Secretary of State Marco Rubio say the US was not involved? Jamal Abdi, President, National Iranian American Council: "This is about creating a narrative of plausible deniability to potentially give Iran a face-saving way to continue talking to the United States [towards a new nuclear deal]. I don't think it's going to work, and I think Trump has already stepped all over that by now, basically taking credit, after seeming to distance the US." Anthony Wanis-St John, conflict resolution specialist, American University: "It's a verbal obfuscation. It means that operationally, we didn't support it." Miles Pomper, Senior Fellow, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation: "Because the Russians and the Chinese are affiliated with the Iranians, [the US will] try not to elevate the level to something beyond a regional conflict, to some global conflict." What is the difference between a 'preemptive strike' and a 'preventive strike'. Are they not both acts of war? Wanis-St. John: "These are certainly acts of war. There's no question about it, the Israelis like to call attention and use "preemptive" and "preventive" doctrines in their military strikes, since every country under international laws and norms is allowed to defend itself against aggression, but no country is supposed to lawfully commit aggressions against another country." Sam Ratner, policy director, Win Without War: "'Preemptive strike' does seem to be, from a definitional standpoint, a misnomer from Israel... this is a war of choice from [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu." Pomper: "It's not a preemptive strike, because that would be [like] the Six Day War, where the planes are on the tarmac and about to attack you, and then you hit them. 'Preventive' is a stop to a long-term threat to Israel. And you know the Iranians aren't shy about threatening." Negar Mortazavi, host of the Iran Podcast: "If it's not [couched as] preemptive, then it will be seen differently both from the public opinion and the global opinion... and we know that Israel cares a lot about its image, about its standing in the international community, and that has deteriorated very fast [since its war on Gaza]." The international community has long tolerated, and sometimes cheered on, Israel's string of extra-judicial assassinations. Why? Abdi: "Israel has a lot of political power and very important friends, most importantly, the United States." Mortazavi: "Powerful western countries have provided not just financial and armed support, but also diplomatic support and cover to Israel in the UN Security Council... the contradiction - or in a way, that oxymoron - that Israel is dealing with, is that they're a country that came out of the United Nations [in 1948]." Ratner: "In the post-9/11 era in particular, we've seen not just from the Israeli government, but from Iranian governments, including our own, in fact, and in particular our own, a real sort of generational change of attitude toward the use of assassination. We see it in our drone programme. The erosion of the norm against assassination is bad for diplomacy, bad for international relations, and bad for peace." Looking at the nature of Israel's attacks, can Iran retaliate in the same way? Wanis-St John: "I'm not sure that they can, operationally. I've never seen Iran do that against Israel.... you really need a lot of information about where [targets] are and where they're moving and how they're protected at night. That requires a lot of infrastructure. I'm not sure that the Iranians have that." Abdi: "If we're saying there are no laws, there is no accountability, you can conduct extra-judicial killings with impunity, then it would seem that would no longer restrain any actor from engaging in the same types of activities. But we know that that's not how the world works, and that certain countries have been given a carte blanche to do whatever they want." Mortazavi: "The condemnation would be so different... imagine if the same was done by Iran. Israeli officials also have homes and families." Why can't Iran have a nuclear bomb if Israel does? Mortazavi: "Iran is a signatory to the NPT, the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They have committed to not building nuclear weapons [and] they have a civilian programme. According to US intelligence, they don't have a weapons programme. At the same time, Israel has an undeclared weapons programme [and] many nuclear warheads. They're not a signatory to any international monitoring and safeguards." Ratner: "Our position on this is that we are opposed to nuclear proliferation and [in favour of] nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons are unimaginably destructive forces, and the more hands those weapons are in, the more likely that nuclear warfare becomes. If we add another country to the nuclear club, how many more countries will join?" Abdi: "Iran has threatened before that if something like [Friday's attacks] happened, they would abandon the NPT, and then there would be no international law saying they're not allowed to build nuclear weapons. They could do what Israel did, and develop a clandestine programme, and not be held accountable to any treaties or agreements or anything, and it's just the law of the jungle, and everybody gets a nuke." Israel has always said it wants to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Isn't that dangerous? Pomper: "I think, as opposed to attacking a nuclear power plant that's got actual radioactive material, like Zaporizhzhia in Ukraine, it's different... You don't have that kind of concentration. And so you may have environmental and other damages, but you're not likely to get a widespread radiation danger from it." Wanis-St John: "They shouldn't really be targeted if they're not military programmes. No one has said that the Iranians are building a nuclear weapon at this time. They don't claim to be making one, and nobody on the outside claims that they are making one... The Israeli attack is really meant to send them a signal that any progress towards weapons-grade enrichment is not going to be tolerated by Israel." Ratner: "The bigger concern... is that Iran has made clear statements and threats that if the Israeli government strikes its nuclear facilities, that it will respond by striking US targets in the region. And what we see from Benjamin Netanyahu is a desire for exactly that to happen. His interest is in starting a chain of events that drags the US into war on his side, because the Israeli military would have a very difficult time pursuing regime change in Iran on its own."
