Latest news with #IranianRevolutionaryGuardsCorps
Time of India
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Why blocking Hormuz is a losing strategy for Iran
In the early hours of June 13, Israel unleashed a series of pre-emptive strikes on Iran's nuclear development, its missile production sites and attacks on strategic personalities, including nuclear scientists and Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commanders. The attacks on Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow inflicted severe structural damage and claimed the lives of at least fourteen nuclear scientists in coordinated assassinations. Tel Aviv justified these raids by pointing to Iran's uranium enrichment levels, which had already reached 60 per cent purity – alarming close to the 90 per cent threshold for weapons-grade material. Iran responded with a wave of missile and drone barrages against Israeli cities – Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Bnei Brak, Petah Tikva, and Rehovot – prompting air-raid sirens and Iron Dome interceptions. Yet Tehran's retaliation extended beyond Israel's borders, striking the US military installations in the region and daring to challenge America's naval supremacy in the Gulf. As tensions soared, three commercial vessels in the Gulf of Oman caught fire in incidents widely attributed to Iranian sabotage. Additionally, Tehran publicly threatened to seal off the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow maritime chokepoint through which nearly one-fifth of the world's oil supply flows. The spectre of a Hormuz blockade is not new in Tehran's strategic lexicon. The first recorded Iranian threat to close the strait dates back to 1951, when the then Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh hinted that nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian oil company could lead to Western embargoes and blockade of the waterway. During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, particularly between 1987 and 1988 in the so-called Tanker War, Iran deployed fast attack boats and mines, warning that any assault on its oil exports would close Hormuz to all shipping. In 2008, after British forces seized Iranian naval vessels in the Gulf, Tehran again menaced the strait. More recently, it has issued similar warnings in 2011-12 when it threatened to block the strait in retaliation for US and European sanctions and after the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, as well as following the 2020 assassinations of General Qassem Soleimani and nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. Yet a full closure of the strait would do far greater harm to Iran than to its adversaries. A SWOT analysis makes this clear, particularly in the realm of diplomatic isolation. Strengths of a coalition condemning Iran would include unified political will among the United States, European Union, Japan, and other major consumers, backed by legal frameworks for sanctions and vast diplomatic networks. Weaknesses in their stance lie in competing energy needs. While Europe seeks to diversify away from Russian gas, Asian giants like China and India depend heavily on Gulf oil, which could complicate unanimous action. Opportunities for these countries include reinforcing international norms of freedom of navigation and deterring future coercive measures. Yet threats remain. If the coalition applies too harsh a diplomatic squeeze, it risks driving Iran closer to alternative partners like Russia and China, and could trigger regional destabilisation that boomerangs in higher energy prices and security costs. Within this context, India faces a delicate strategic dilemma. Historically, New Delhi has maintained cordial ties with Tehran, importing nearly 600,000 barrels per day from Iran before 2019. However, after Washington's 'maximum pressure' campaign, India reduced these imports, pivoting toward the United States and Gulf producers. If Iran moves to choke Hormuz, India would find itself confronted with converging imperatives: supporting broader international action to keep maritime lanes open, while safeguarding its own energy security and investments in Iranian infrastructure such as the Chabahar Port. New Delhi's likelihood of diplomatically isolating Iran hinges on balancing these interests. It could, for instance, vote in favour of UN resolutions condemning the blockade, while quietly affirming its need to maintain minimal oil flows. Ultimately, India's principle of strategic autonomy suggests it would join consensus measures that protect global commerce without entirely severing ties with Tehran. Roughly one-fifth of global oil consumption, around 20 million barrels per day, passes through the Strait of Hormuz, making it the most crucial chokepoint in global energy logistics. The strait, barely 21 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point, is the gateway through which the oil-rich Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, and Iran itself send crude oil to global markets. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, about 76 per cent of the oil that transits Hormuz heads to Asia, powering the economies of China, India, Japan, and South Korea. In addition, liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments from Qatar, which alone accounts for 20 percent of global LNG exports, also pass through this strategic corridor. Even a temporary closure or disruption in the Strait could send oil prices soaring above US$150 per barrel, aggravating global inflation, destabilising developing economies, and threatening already fragile post-pandemic economic recoveries. The Brent crude benchmark has already crossed US$102 per barrel in the aftermath of the Israeli strikes. Any military move to seal off Hormuz would send shockwaves through every major energy-importing economy. Notably, blocking Hormuz will prove to be a losing strategy for Iran itself. First, Iran's economic fragility would be laid bare. Under the US sanctions, oil exports have plummeted from over 2.5 million barrels per day in 2017 to roughly 1.2 million barrels per day today, cutting national revenues by two-thirds. With oil accounting for nearly 80 per cent of Iran's foreign exchange receipts, a blockade that chokes off exports could erase upwards of US$40 billion in annual income, triggering a double-digit GDP contraction and reversing a decade of modest growth. Skyrocketing inflation already exceeding 45 per cent and youth unemployment above 27 per cent would turn economic hardship into social unrest, jeopardising the regime's domestic stability. Second, global military escalation would become almost inevitable. The US Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, maintains a constant presence precisely to guarantee freedom of navigation. Any attempt to blockade Hormuz would invite direct naval confrontation, potentially involving mine-clearing vessels, destroyers, and airstrikes on Iranian naval assets. Such clashes risk expanding the conflict well beyond Iranian proxies and could draw in allied forces from Europe, Australia, and even China, whose energy supply lines would be under threat. Third, diplomatic isolation would deepen. Major consumers such as China, India, Japan, and European states would expedite the diversification of their energy imports, renegotiate existing contracts, and support secondary sanctions. Even long-standing partners like Russia would hesitate to side with Iran at the expense of their own oil revenues. Unlike the targeted suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, which impacted only Pakistan and maintained dispute-resolution channels, a Hormuz blockade would unite a broad coalition against Iran's action. Fourth, there is a significant risk of financial contagion and insurance upheaval. Closing Hormuz would send tanker insurance premiums to unprecedented levels, potentially tripling current rates and causing shipping firms to reroute through longer, costlier passages around the Cape of Good Hope. This would not only cripple Iran's capacity to export oil but also undermine its plans for alternative overland pipelines through Oman and Iraq by making them economically unviable. Fifth, the environmental and strategic fallout could be disastrous. Mine warfare or missile strikes on civilian shipping lanes would risk oil spills in the ecologically fragile Gulf, devastating fisheries and coastal economies in Iran and neighbouring states alike. Furthermore, Iran's own critical infrastructure, such as ports, pipelines, and refinerie,s would become legitimate military targets, compounding the costs of reconstruction already estimated to exceed US$10 billion. In essence, a Hormuz blockade would play into Iran's perceived strength, its geostrategic leverage over an essential trade artery, but would magnify its vulnerabilities. Economic self-harm, military escalation, diplomatic isolation, financial chaos, and environmental destruction combine to make such a move profoundly counterproductive. Instead, Iran's optimal course lies in diplomacy and economic diversification. A ceasefire agreement paired with renewed nuclear negotiations – whether under a revamped JCPOA or a fresh multilateral framework – could secure limited sanctions relief. Mediators like Switzerland, Oman, and Qatar have the credibility to facilitate backchannel talks and rebuild trust. Tehran's strategic calculus at this critical juncture will not be assessed by the potency of its rhetoric, but by the prudence of its actions. A closure of the Strait of Hormuz may offer short-term leverage, but it neither redresses the damage inflicted by Israel's pre-emptive strikes nor constrains the formidable maritime presence of the United States and its allies. On the contrary, such a move would deepen Iran's diplomatic isolation, exacerbate its economic vulnerabilities, and risk transforming a regional crisis into a multi-actor conflagration with global repercussions. In an interconnected world order, where geoeconomic stability often supersedes geopolitical defiance, the imperative for dialogue and calibrated diplomacy has never been more urgent. The pathway to regional security and global credibility lies not in coercive disruptions but in constructive engagement, de-escalation, and a forward-looking economic vision grounded in resilience and cooperation. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
The Independent
17-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Jack Straw: The world hasn't felt this dangerous since the Cuban missile crisis
I have been frequently asked in the last few days whether I could recall a time as dangerous as this feels today. Yes, the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. That was terrifying for the whole world, as the two major superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union, faced off. I was scared stiff. After 13 days, when the world really did appear to hold its breath, the crisis was resolved by diplomatic means. And so to the question today and the threat of this sparking a nuclear armageddon we live in fear of – existential or otherwise. Violence is literally chaos. Wars rarely go according to plan. History shows us that a relatively prosaic error by one commander on the ground can sometimes spark a conflagration. Thus, nothing is certain about the Iran - Israel conflict right now. Could Pakistan – and other countries in the region – come out actively to support Iran in its struggle with Israel, as was reported yesterday? Frankly, I see little prospect of Pakistan, or other key Muslim countries, or Russia or China, getting involved militarily in this conflict. Suggestions on Monday that Pakistan could use its nuclear arsenal against Israel if the latter uses nuclear weapons against Iran came not from any official Pakistani spokesperson, but from a General Mohsen Rezaee of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps in a TV interview in Tehran. These suggestions have not been confirmed by any official Pakistani source. The odds of Israel using nuclear weapons against Iran are long, to non-existent. It is almost certain that Donald Trump would veto such a move, and the Israelis have such an upper hand in the conflict that they would not need to contemplate this. Iran itself is close to being able to produce a nuclear weapon, but it has not yet done so. On Sunday, Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian was reported as telling his cabinet, 'We expect Muslim and [Middle East] regional countries to adopt a clear, firm, and effective position against the aggression of the Zionists and their supporters'. But even if there were such a crazy attack by Israel, would Pakistan join in? Almost certainly not. Pakistan is Iran's neighbour, but relations between the two countries have in recent times been far from easy, and Pakistan's military leaders would be taking leave of their senses to use nuclear weapons in support of Iran. The US, a major financial backer, would be strongly opposed, and so would China, Pakistan's most important and long-standing ally. Sadly, however, for the beleaguered Iranian president, all that Iran's erstwhile allies, like Russia and China, have done so far is to issue formulaic statements condemning Israel's aggression. Yes, countries in the region have expressed mounting concern and have called for restraint, but no more. In Lebanon, the secretary general of Hezbollah, Naim Qassem, has declared his 'support [for] the Islamic Republic of Iran in its rights and position, and in all the steps and measures it takes to defend itself and its choices'. To my mind's eye, what is striking is that no action in support of Iran has followed. Hezbollah plainly do not wish to get involved. Before he was ousted last December, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad could have proved a formidable ally of Iran, but his regime is no more. Hamas is but a shadow of what it was. Indeed, only the Houthis in Yemen appear so far to be willing to take concrete military action in support of Iran, though the damage they could do, not least to impede shipping in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, could be serious with a spike in oil prices. Where else could we feel the sharp end of an attack? Britain does have two important military bases in its 'sovereign areas' in Cyprus; there's also a UK Naval Support Facility in Bahrain. The UK also has a military presence in other Middle East nations like Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the UAE. These could be attacked by Iran or its proxies with the idea of dragging the UK directly into the war. I am sure adequate steps are being taken to increase security at each base, and it's also hard to see what advantage Iran would gain from any attack. One of the many fascinations about Iran (and I confess, I am addicted, for which there is no known cure) is that although those who speak out too far can easily end up in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison, there are still quite a variety of views being reported in the Iranian press, or being published by courageous bloggers. While Iranian papers carried entirely predictable denunciations of the 'Zionist entity' – hardliners cannot bring themselves to use the word 'Israel' – and of its allies, including the US, France, Germany, and the UK, there is something more curious happening that is worth noting. There is a really very surprising public debate that is being had alongside this rhetoric, discussing whether Iran should continue negotiations with the United States on a new nuclear deal. To the moderate newspaper, Arman-e Melli, talks with the US would be 'a sign of strength'; even the conservative paper, Jomhouri-e Eslami, has urged that talks with the US should be maintained. However, whether any proposed talks or deals by the Trump administration would play out is still debatable. What's different – and more concerning – about the current conflict from the one back in 1962 is that neither the US nor the Soviet Union were committed to eliminating the other nation. Since the early 1990s, Iran's religious and military leaders have fomented a visceral, irrational hatred even for the idea of Israel. Israel's foundation in 1948 was controversial – but so have plenty of other nations too. Israel is recognised by the UN in just the same way as Iran. It's a tragedy for the Iranian people that they are now paying a high price for this mad conceit of their supreme leader that denies the right of a fellow member of the UN to exist. Israel will be able to delay Iran's nuclear weapons programme, but military action alone will not wipe out the accumulated knowledge and skills of Iran's nuclear scientists. The only way to achieve that would be by a new nuclear deal, with intrusive inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The great irony is that it was what the previous nuclear deal – the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – achieved. It was Benjamin Netanyahu who reportedly persuaded Donald Trump in 2018 to pull out of the agreement, and the Iranian hardliners (always opposed to a deal) got to work on enriching uranium to levels needed for a nuclear bomb.
Scoop
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Self-Defence And Acceptable Murder: Netanyahu Dreams Of Regime Change
These are the sorts of things that tend to be discussed in bunkered facilities and grimy locker rooms. Now, very much in the open and before the presses, the head of state of one country is openly advocating murdering another head of state before news outlets with little reaction. Lawbreaking has become chic, and Israel has taken the lead. The pre-emptive, illegal strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure by Israel was not merely an attempt to arrest an alleged existential threat from yielding fruit (that weapons of mass destruction canard again); it was also a murderous exercise of institutional decapitation. Instead of receiving widespread condemnation in the halls of Washington, Brussels and other European capitals, there was cool nonchalance: Israel was within its right to limitlessly expand its idea of self-defence, a concept now so broad it has become a crime against peace. We have seen how that self-defence so far operates. In Gaza, it functions on the level of starvation, the levelling of critical infrastructure, the killing of scores of civilians in each strike, the displacement of populations by the hundreds of thousands, the murdering of aid workers, and shooting those desperately in need of humanitarian aid as it is rationed by private security companies. Regarding Iran, the flexible scope of Israeli self-defence includes the killing of a thick layer of military leaders, preferably while sleeping in the bosom of their families. Such figures include Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces; Hossein Salami, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC); Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the air force wing of the IRGC; Esmail Qaani, commander of the IRGC's Quds Force; and Ali Shamkhani, an aide to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Of the scientists associated with Iran's nuclear program, some 25 are on the assassination list, what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu libellously designated 'Hitler's nuclear team'. Thus far, the murders of 14 have been confirmed by sources cited in the Times of Israel. The Israeli Defense Forces have published some of their names, including nuclear engineering specialist Fereydoon Abbasi; physics expert Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi; chemical engineer Akbar Motalebi Zadeh; and nuclear physicist Ahmadreza Zolfaghari Daryani. Many of the figures are said by Israel to have been the intellectual progeny of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the touted father of the Iranian nuclear project. Having killed the father in 2020, Israel has, with biblical brutality, sought to exterminate the brood and rob the cradle. With a mechanical formality bordering on the glacial, an IDF statement declared that, 'The elimination of the scientists was made possible following in-depth intelligence research that intensified over the past year, as part of a classified and compartmentalized IDF plan.' The attacks have broadened, suggesting a nationwide program of destabilisation. Oil and gas facilities have been struck, including the world's biggest gas field, the South Pars. Not satisfied, Defence Minister Israel Katz promised to attack Iran's media outlets, having an eye on Iranian state broadcaster IRIB: 'The Iranian propaganda and incitement mouthpiece is on its way to disappear.' True to his word, the outlet was attacked even as TV anchor Sahar Emami was broadcasting, a crime captured in real time. In doing so, Israel replicates its own efforts in Gaza, which have seen the killing of 178 journalists since October 2023, the most lethal conflict ever recorded for media workers. Netanyahu will not stop there. He smells the vapours of regime change and societal chaos, and, as his American counterparts did on eve of their illegally led invasion of Iraq in 2003, merrily feeds the notion that foreign interference can masquerade as liberation. 'I believe the day of your liberation is near,' he haughtily proclaimed to Iran's downtrodden subjects. His most wishful target yet remains the religious leaders of the country. In an interview with ABC news, the Israeli PM was frank that killing Khamenei would not escalate the conflict so much as end it. He had been reluctantly dissuaded from doing so by US President Donald Trump, according to Reuters, Associated Press, Axios and Israel's Channel 13. To Axios, a US official said that the administration had 'communicated to the Israelis that President Trump is opposed to that. The Iranians haven't killed an American, and discussion of killing political leaders should not be on the table.' Given Israel's elastic stretching of self-defence, such restraint is likely to change. Not wishing to be too modest, Netanyahu would have you think that he has done the world a moral service. 'I'll tell you what would have come if we hadn't acted,' he boasted in a video message. 'We had information that this unscrupulous regime was planning to give the nuclear weapons that they would develop to their terrorist proxies. That's nuclear terrorism on steroids. That would threaten the entire world.' These words are a chilling echo of the rationale used by the George W. Bush administration in attacking Saddam Hussein's Iraq, ostensibly to disarm him of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that had already been eliminated. (The US had, as cheer leaders and supporters, those other fine students of international law: the United Kingdom and Australia.) As part of Washington's 'Global War on Terror', President Bush explained in his 2002 State of the Union address that North Korea, Iran and Iraq constituted an 'axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.' By seeking WMDs, such states 'could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred.' Many justifications for using force in international relations, especially regarding the language of illegal war, are reruns of plagiarism. For Netanyahu, killing Iranian leaders and the scientific intelligentsia was a salvaging antidote, a point he was trying to impress upon his US allies. 'Our enemy is your enemy… We're dealing with something that will threaten all of us sooner or later. Our victory will be your victory.' Forget international law and its contrivances, its disciplining protocols and hindering conventions. In its place, an unvarnished rogue state which, by any other name, would be as criminally dangerous.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
13-06-2025
- Politics
- First Post
‘Be vigilant, avoid unnecessary movements': India advises citizens in Iran after Israel attacks Tehran
The Indian Embassy in Iran shared an advisory for Indian nationals in Tehran urging them to remain 'vigilant' and avoid 'unnecessary movement,' amid ongoing tensions between Iran and Israel read more As the , the Indian embassy in Iran issued a travel advisory for all Indian nationals and persons of Indian origin living in Iran. In the statement published on Friday morning, the Indian consulate in Tehran urged Indians to remain vigilant and avoid unnecessary movements. 'In view of the current situation in Iran, all Indian nationals & persons of Indian origin in Iran are requested to remain vigilant, avoid all unnecessary movements, follow the Embassy's Social Media accounts & observe safety protocols as advised by local authorities,' the Indian embassy said in a post on X. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In the early hours of Friday, Israel conducted pre-emptive strikes against nuclear and military facilities in Iran. The strikes led to the death of the Chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. (IRGC) and the Israeli Army Chief of Staff, Mohammad Bagheri. The Israeli Defence Force later claimed that Iran had launched over 100 drones into its territory, which were intercepted by the Israeli fighter jets. However, the world is still looking closely at how Iran will react to the strikes and whether it will further escalate to a wider conflict in West Asia. Indian Embassy in Iran shares an advisory for nationals MEA reacts to Iran-Israel tensions In a separate statement on the matter, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs said that it is 'deeply concerned' about the ongoing tussle between Iran and Israel. 'We are deeply concerned about the recent developments between Iran and Israel. We are closely monitoring the evolving situation, including reports related to attacks on nuclear sites,' the ministry said in a statement. 'India urges both sides to avoid any escalatory steps. Existing channels of dialogue and diplomacy should be utilised to work towards a de-escalation of the situation and resolving underlying issues. India enjoys close and friendly relations with both countries and stands ready to extend all possible support.' 'Our Missions in both countries are in contact with the Indian community. All Indian nationals in the region are advised to exercise caution, stay safe and follow local security advisories,' the statement further reads.
Arab News
15-04-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Negotiations in Muscat, calculations in Tel Aviv
It is an absurdity of Middle Eastern politics that many politicians and analysts are still betting on the complete elimination of Iran's role in the region. Even more absurd is the expectation that Israel will drag Washington into this 'war of elimination.' True, this is the most right-wing US administration since the end of the Second World War, and no American administration has ever been as closely aligned with Israel as President Donald Trump. It is also true that, since its founding in 1948, Israel has never been governed by a more fanatical, racist, and fascist government than that of Benjamin Netanyahu and his two 'transferist' partners, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. It is just as true that the Iranian leadership never showed the kind of hostility to Arab 'neighbors' that we are now seeing from the regime of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, which boasted about their control over four Arab capitals until very recently. Nevertheless, we Arabs remain reluctant to wrap our heads around the realities underpinning Washington, Tel Aviv, and Tehran's approach to the region's existential political issues, including the question of whether Arabs will retain any presence or say in it in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, those of us with strong memories still clearly recall the first 'secret' rounds of negotiations between the US and Iran under Democratic President Barack Obama — which culminated in the famous 2015 nuclear deal. The region's violated, fragmented, and broken polities have been shaken Eyad Abu Shakra At the time, the talks were held behind closed doors in the Omani capital, Muscat, hidden from the eyes of the Arabs and the world. As for the new round of negotiations that began on Saturday, also in Muscat, these have been public and are being led by the Republican Trump, the same man who suspended the deal in 2018 during his first term. And while the American negotiating team may have changed, the same figures remain in power in Tehran and its negotiating team has not been altered. Indeed, one of the most prominent negotiators, Abbas Araghchi, is now foreign minister. The fact is that in the 10 years between 'yesterday's agreement' and the current attempt to broker a new one, things have changed considerably on the ground. Things have changed in the region's 'theater of operations.' The region's violated, fragmented, and broken polities have been shaken, paving the way for new facts on the ground that facilitate Israel's 'transfer' plan. This plan is sponsored, promoted, and supported by Washington, which has sought to remove the obstacles that stood, or once stood, in the way of achieving it. To begin with, the Palestinian cause has been pushed to the top of the 'taboo' list, as the world waits for investments to begin along the now depopulated shores of the Gaza Strip. The 'transfer' plan is gaining regional momentum. To the north, in Lebanon, the Israeli war machine has clipped the wings of Iran's leverage. In Syria, the Assad regime collapsed after 54 years of double-dealing and double-speak, once it outlived its utility to most of its patrons and handlers. To the east, in Jordan, the leadership has long been pressured to accept the 'alternative homeland' project, and the Trump administration chose not to empathize with Jordan's chronic economic hardship, imposing some of the highest tariffs on the country of any in the Middle East as the US leader announced his broader tariff wars against both adversaries and allies. And to the west, we find the most-populous Arab state, Egypt. It was targeted by Netanyahu's government early on, with pressure and blackmail to facilitate the displacement from Gaza. A peace treaty with Israel, full normalization, and the years Cairo has spent mediating between the parties to the conflict — despite criticism from both domestic and international opponents — did not spare it from such coercion. Trump's threats leave the Iranian leadership in an awkward position Eyad Abu Shakra Even in the Gulf region, where some countries have adapted to normalization, Netanyahu's government has shown no good faith, refusing to engage with any genuine regional peace deal founded on respect for UN resolutions and the proposals of Arab summits. What we are now seeing, as Washington and Tehran hold negotiations over the heads of the region's concerned and suffering nations, is the Israeli right's forward escape, its expansion of targets and mobilization. With its military machine and security apparatus, this right-wing bloc continues to occupy positions in Lebanon and tamper with Syria's fragile domestic stability. It is now escalating its threats against Turkiye. Meanwhile, in Washington, the master of the White House is threatening to destroy and ruin Iran if it insists on moving ahead with the development of nuclear military capabilities. Trump's threats undoubtedly amount to pressure that leaves the Iranian leadership in an awkward position both domestically and vis-a-vis the regional forces and non-state actors that are continuing to bet on it, in Iraq, Yemen, and even Lebanon. Moreover, the US envoys currently managing this pressure campaign against Iran, such as Steve Witkoff and Morgan Ortagus, are considered part of the 'Israeli lobby' in the US. They understand that Washington's objective with Iran, which essentially does not change, is to curb its ambitions, excesses, and blackmail, without necessarily leading to a decisive confrontation. Accordingly, one could say that, thanks to Washington's unconditional support, Netanyahu has, for the time being, achieved his aim. But the lingering question remains: Will the Israeli leader be content with the outcomes of this new round of negotiations with Tehran, or — as is his habit — will he choose to push his politics of blackmail and entrapment further?
