Latest news with #IsraeliWar
Al Mayadeen
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Mayadeen
Jebraily: Iran strikes rewrote regional deterrence rules
As the dust settles on the 12-day Israeli war on Iran, few voices within the Islamic Republic offer as sweeping a perspective on its global implications as Dr. Seyyed Yasser Jebraily. A prominent political scientist, Jebraily is one of Iran's foremost intellectuals and analysts. Dr. Jebraily is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. He served for five years as the Head of the Center for Strategic Evaluation and Supervision of the Implementation of Macro-Policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Expediency Council. He is also the founder of the recently established New Islamic Civilization Party. In this exclusive interview with Al Mayadeen English, Dr. Jebraily contends that the Israeli assault on Iran was not merely a failed military operation, but a desperate and doomed bid to reshape the regional order in Tel Aviv's favor. He dissects the broader geopolitical architecture that underpinned the war, exposing what he calls a "strategic miscalculation rooted in despair." According to Jebraily, the war was not just a war between Iran and "Israel", it was a referendum on hegemony in a post-American West Asia. From deterrence theory and the symbolism of Iran's nuclear program, to the failed attempt at regime change and the deeper meanings of True Promise 3, Jebraily takes us through the war's visible and invisible fronts, and where he believes the Islamic Republic is heading next. *********************** Looking into the 12-day war on Iran in retrospect, doubtless, the outlook on things must now be in a much clearer place. With that in mind, how do you see the Israeli war on Iran? Was it a miscalculation by the Israelis or a logical step, considering their advances in the region over the past year? I believe war must be understood not merely as a military confrontation but fundamentally as a strategic phenomenon. To assess the recent 12-day war on Iran, one cannot restrict the analysis to battlefield outcomes or missile exchanges. We need to place it within its broader geopolitical architecture. What were "Israel's" strategic calculations? What regional and global shifts shaped the context in which this war unfolded? Just as the war in Ukraine must be seen as a symptom of a collapsing post-Cold War liberal order, the wars and conflicts in West Asia over the past years must also be interpreted in the context of a transitioning global system. There is a growing consensus among international scholars and analysts that we are entering a post-unipolar, multipolar world order. In such a world, naturally, every regional actor seeks hegemonic status within its respective sphere of influence. My assessment is that the United States, recognizing its declining capacity to maintain direct dominance over West Asia, had initiated a long-term strategy to elevate "Israel" as the regional hegemon in the emerging post-American order. This strategy operated across multiple dimensions. Militarily, Washington ensured that 'Israel' remained the most heavily armed power in the region. Politically, the "Abraham Accords" were launched to normalize relations between 'Israel' and several Arab states, effectively integrating "Israel" into the regional political architecture. Economically, the IMEC (India–Middle East–Europe Corridor) initiative aimed to place "Israel" at the heart of a new transregional trade route. However, the October 7 operation in 2023 by the Palestinian Resistance disrupted this entire design. It exposed the fragility of "Israel's" deterrence and severely undermined its bid for uncontested regional dominance. In response, "Israel" escalated to what it considered a total war, a war of survival, not only against the Palestinian Resistance but against the broader Axis of Resistance, with Iran as its central pillar. Now, to the core of your question: was the Israeli strike on Iran a miscalculation or a logical move? I would say it was a desperate gamble: a calculated step, perhaps, but one taken from a position of strategic despair. "Israel" viewed the elimination of the Resistance front and the toppling of the Islamic Republic as prerequisites for securing its regional hegemony. That was its strategic objective. Did the Resistance suffer? Of course. This was an existential war. And to think any side in such a war emerges unscathed is naive. But did "Israel" achieve its goals? Was the Resistance dismantled? Did the Islamic Republic collapse? The answer is categorically no. The outcome is thus clear: "Israel" lost the bet. Its regional stature is in decline. Public morale within Israeli society is fractured. Emigration from occupied Palestine, which had accelerated since October 7, has intensified further. And one must not overlook the internal socio-economic crisis: years of neoliberal policy have eroded "Israel's" social cohesion and generated staggering inequality. According to several indicators, the occupied territories are now among the most unequal regions in the world. When you combine this economic volatility with a declining sense of security, you get a society on the brink. Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic of Iran, despite being the target of a direct and high-stakes attack, has emerged more resilient. The Iranian people, even those who may have had critical views of their government, largely unified in defense of their sovereignty. In fact, "Israel's" aggression inadvertently reinforced domestic cohesion within Iran and triggered a rare moment of near-unanimous support for the state, especially for the leadership of the Islamic Revolution. How did the Iranian people take the war? There's much talk on social media and Western media of Iranians feeling frustrated with the Islamic Republic and the nuclear program, and that they've "just had enough". How were things like in reality on the ground? What does the nuclear program mean for the Iranian people? One of the great ironies of our time is how far Western media narratives often diverge from realities on the ground, especially in countries like Iran. I must say quite directly: what was witnessed inside Iran during the recent war was not disillusionment or disintegration, but a dramatic surge in national unity and collective defiance. Of course, like in any vibrant society, there are critical voices in Iran. We are not a monolith. Iranians debate, disagree, and protest, and they do so loudly. But when the homeland is attacked, and especially when it is attacked by a regime like 'Israel' that has committed egregious atrocities against civilians and enjoys uncritical Western backing, something profound happens: the differences become secondary, and the defense of sovereignty becomes paramount. This was exactly what happened during the war. The response of the Iranian people was not one of "frustration" with the Islamic Republic, as Western pundits often imagine in their echo chambers. It was one of dignity, clarity, and resolve. Millions across the country mobilized, through official institutions, civil society, and grassroots networks, to support the state in its defense posture. The Iranian flag flew higher, not lower. Let us speak about the nuclear program for a moment. In Western discourse, it is often framed as a source of fear or a burden on the Iranian people. But for many Iranians, the nuclear program is not about weapons. It is a symbol of national independence, technological sovereignty, and refusal to be bullied into scientific apartheid. The same nations that colonized the world, dropped atomic bombs on civilians, and supported brutal wars, now lecture others on "responsible science"? That hypocrisy is not lost on ordinary Iranians. You ask what the nuclear program means to the Iranian people. I can tell you: it means dignity. It means resistance against coercion. It means that Iran will not be treated as a second-class state in the global order. And this is not an elite perspective; it is shared widely across the political and social spectrum, especially when pressure mounts from the outside. So no, the war did not erode Iranian morale, and it did not turn the people against their government. On the contrary, it revealed the depth of national cohesion when sovereignty is threatened. And it reminded many observers around the world that despite all the pressures, sanctions, sabotage, and cyber attacks, Iran remains a state with a remarkably resilient population and a powerful sense of identity. Western media may continue to chase the illusion that "the people have had enough." But those who actually walked the streets of Iran during the war saw a very different picture: a nation that, while complex and plural, stands united in defense of its independence and future. How do you see Iran's True Promise 3? Many people have characterized Iran's response as being long overdue, with people citing delays in True Promise 1 and especially True Promise 2 as examples. So was it delayed or wasn't it? Let me be very clear: True Promise 3 was a strategic earthquake. It shattered not only "Israel's" illusions of invincibility but also the broader perception that Iran would remain in a posture of restraint while facing existential threats. The scale, precision, and audacity of the operation forced even those who had been calling for "unconditional surrender', like US President Donald Trump, to recalibrate their tone. As Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, accurately stated, "Israel was crushed," and even Trump admitted: "Israel got hit hard." Was it late? That depends on your vantage point. From the outside, it's easy to critique timing. But from within the national security framework, decisions on the use of force are never merely reactive or emotional; they are multidimensional, calibrated, and deeply strategic. There are diplomatic, military, intelligence, and political layers involved, many of which the public may never fully see. Would I, if I were president and chair of the Supreme National Security Council, have made different choices about the timing? Perhaps, but that is not a conversation I am willing to have publicly at this point. What I will say is this: when Iran struck, it struck with such force and clarity that it not only restored deterrence but redefined the rules of engagement in the region. From Tel Aviv to Washington, everyone is now recalculating. True Promise 1 and True Promise 2 may have appeared restrained to some observers. But Iran has never been a country that fires impulsively. Each operation is part of a longer strategic chessboard. And as True Promise 3 demonstrated, when Iran does decide to move, it moves decisively. Why was Iran's destructive power showcased in this operation and not in the ones before? Would it not have been a better deterrent if Iran had used some of its more advanced missiles in the earlier operations as a message? That's an excellent question, and one that speaks to the deeper logic of Iran's defense doctrine. Why was this level of destructive capability showcased in True Promise 3 and not earlier? Let me clarify something crucial: what the world witnessed in this operation was not the full extent of Iran's power. It was a calibrated sample. As our late martyred commander General Hajizadeh had said clearly before: "What we have revealed is only a fraction of what we possess." The destructive power of the Islamic Republic is real, layered, and still largely concealed. Now, regarding the notion that earlier demonstrations of this power might have served as a more effective deterrent, I must respectfully disagree. In today's global system, conventional force projection alone is no longer sufficient to deter existential threats. The reality is that the only tool capable of deterring total war, the kind of war that seeks regime change or civilizational erasure, is nuclear capability. For over two decades, Iran has exercised immense strategic restraint. As a signatory to the NPT, Iran has remained committed to non-proliferation. We have opened our facilities to some of the most intrusive inspections in the history of the IAEA. We have declared repeatedly that our nuclear program is peaceful. And we have even codified this commitment through a fatwa by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution forbidding the development of nuclear weapons. But what has been the return on this restraint? Instead of being rewarded with security, Iran has faced constant military pressure, economic siege, cyber sabotage, and assassinations of its scientists. "Israel", armed with undeclared nuclear weapons and enjoying unconditional US support, has carried out repeated acts of aggression without consequence. The message this sends is unmistakable: the world respects power, not principle. In such a world, one where no central authority exists to uphold international law and where rules are selectively enforced, security becomes a self-help enterprise. Classical deterrence theory teaches us that only the credible threat of unacceptable retaliation can prevent war. This logic has protected states like Pakistan and North Korea, both of whom faced severe threats before achieving nuclear capability. This is not about glorifying armament; it is about securing peace through credible deterrence. Iran's experience with restraint has failed to yield stability, and the recent war has demonstrated that when push comes to shove, only power speaks. Thus, a strategic recalibration toward nuclear latency or even full weaponization is not an emotional escalation. It is a rational response to a structurally unjust and dangerous international order. This shift would involve three pillars: 1- Developing robust second-strike capabilities to ensure survivability and deterrence. 2- Establishing a clear declaratory policy that emphasizes the purely defensive posture of any future nuclear force. 3- Embracing controlled opacity, where strategic ambiguity itself becomes a stabilizing force. We understand the concerns about proliferation, but let us be honest: the region is already nuclear, it's just selectively nuclear. "Israel" has had such weapons for decades, yet faces no inspections, no sanctions, no global outrage. Iran's position has always been rooted in Islamic ethics. But Islamic jurisprudence is also realistic; it adapts to necessity. If the absence of a nuclear deterrent leaves tens of millions of Iranians vulnerable to unrestrained aggression, then the suspension of the fatwa becomes not a moral failure, but a moral necessity, a response rooted in the preservation of life, dignity, and national sovereignty. There's been much talk, not very substantiated, yet credible, that in the first hours of their aggression, "Israel" made an attempt at regime change that was thwarted by Iran. Is there any truth to this? Yes, there is certainly truth to that. As I've said earlier, the core objective of the Israeli aggression was not tactical or symbolic; it was strategic and fundamentally existential. This was not just about weakening Iran or 'punishing' the Islamic Republic; it was a direct attempt at regime change. And we have good reason to believe that the operation involved a planned coup scenario. Credible reports, including some from Israeli media itself, indicate that Tel Aviv had pinned its hopes on what can only be described as a delusional plan: the assassination of key political and military leaders in Iran, followed by an internal uprising led by supporters of the exiled Pahlavi monarch. The expectation was that, once the Iranian leadership was decapitated, "millions" would take to the streets to welcome back the Shah's son as a savior and symbol of a new Western-aligned order. What happened instead? Nothing even remotely close. As one Israeli outlet sarcastically admitted, "Not even 50 people showed up for him." Instead, what they witnessed was the opposite: millions poured into the streets not in support of regime change, but in defense of their sovereignty, their country, and yes, their government. Far from destabilizing the system, the war catalyzed unprecedented popular solidarity with the Islamic Republic, especially with the leadership of the Revolution. But even beyond the street response, what truly thwarted this regime change attempt was the overwhelming cooperation between the Iranian people and the country's security apparatus. Citizens helped identify infiltrators, exposed sabotage networks, and enabled swift countermeasures. The internal dimension of the war was met with one of the most powerful mobilizations of civil resistance and counter-intelligence in recent memory. And let's speak candidly: you cannot change a regime with airstrikes. Regime change, if it is to succeed militarily, requires boots on the ground. Neither "Israel" nor the United States is in any position to deploy ground forces in Iran. Their entire hope, therefore, rested on an internal uprising, on the idea that opponents of the Islamic Republic would serve as the domestic "infantry" to complete the job. That assumption was catastrophically wrong. So yes, there was an attempt, poorly planned, grossly miscalculated, and swiftly defeated. It may well be that one of the key factors pushing 'Israel' and the US toward a ceasefire was the realization that this internal gamble had not only failed but spectacularly backfired. The streets did not rise for regime change; they rose for national dignity. And that, more than any missile, was Iran's most powerful weapon.
Al-Ahram Weekly
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Genocide uninterrupted - World - Al-Ahram Weekly
Siham Shamlakh keeps up with the situation in Gaza after the outbreak of war with Iran. Israel has continued its military campaign in Gaza without pause despite its recent conflict with Iran. Analysts viewed its war on Iran as an effort by Tel Aviv to maintain pressure on Hamas and assert its military dominance on multiple fronts. Far from viewing the confrontation with Iran as a reason to scale back operations, Israeli officials have framed the Gaza offensive as part of a wider battle against what they describe as Iran's 'axis of resistance', grouping Hamas alongside Hizbullah and other allied factions. Recent tensions between Israel and Iran have cast a long shadow over already stalled ceasefire efforts in Gaza. With the diplomatic focus shifting to the regional stage, efforts to broker a truce between Israel and Hamas have become even more complicated. Mediators from Egypt, Qatar, and the United States are still working behind the scenes to revive talks. Qatar has reaffirmed its commitment to pushing the negotiations forward, though progress has slowed considerably. On the Israeli side, officials have indicated that a pause in fighting remains possible, but only after Hamas' military infrastructure is fully dismantled and all remaining hostages are released. These demands have been met with caution by Hamas, which continues to insist on firm guarantees including a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and unrestricted humanitarian access before considering any final agreement. Political analyst Reham Owda told Al-Ahram Weekly that after Israel's strikes on Iran had come to an end, talks over a potential prisoner exchange deal in Gaza are expected to resume. Owda suggests that early July could bring signs of progress, including a temporary agreement that may lead to serious Israeli discussions about ending the war and exploring post-war arrangements. However, Owda added that Israel is likely to insist on key conditions, such as refusing a full military withdrawal from Gaza, maintaining buffer zones, and preventing Hamas from regaining political or security control over the territory. Hamas strongly condemned the Israeli escalation against Iran, describing it as a blatant violation of international law and a direct threat to regional and global security and peace. The Israeli War on Gaza is also a strategic political aim for the Israeli government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government remains under intense pressure to deliver a decisive outcome after the shock of the 7 October border attack. For Netanyahu, halting operations now could be interpreted as a sign of weakness, particularly as public opinion continues to demand retribution and security assurances. Moreover, some observers argue that Israel is using the cover of regional instability to push forward its long-term objectives in Gaza. The relentless bombardment, they say, is not only aimed at dismantling Hamas' infrastructure but also reshaping the territory's political and humanitarian landscape. With much of the world's attention diverted to other flashpoints, including the Israeli-Iranian standoff and escalating tensions in Southern Lebanon, Gaza risks slipping further into isolation even as the toll on civilians continues to rise. Over the past week, humanitarian suffering has notably deteriorated, as Israeli bombardment and growing shortages of essential resources continue to strain civilian life. Last week, the Israeli military continued its intensive bombardment of residential areas in the Gaza Strip with airstrikes hitting homes in Jabaliya, Shujaiyah and Khan Younis in the southern Strip. According to local sources, entire families were buried under the rubble as strikes targeted civilian buildings in these densely populated neighborhoods without prior warning. The repeated attacks have left a trail of devastation, exacerbating already dire humanitarian conditions and forcing more families to flee what little shelter they had left. Rescue teams, often working with bare hands and minimal equipment, struggle to recover bodies and reach the wounded amid ongoing shelling. At least 12 people were killed and dozens injured as Israeli warplanes bombed tents sheltering displaced Palestinians in Al-Shati Refugee Camp west of Gaza city on 19 June. In a separate strike on the northern Gaza Strip, eight Palestinians were reported killed and many others wounded after an air raid hit a residential home in Jabaliya while civilians were still inside. Meanwhile, airstrikes and artillery fire targeted areas near US aid distribution points in central Gaza. At least 25 people including women and children were reportedly killed in Khan Younis. Scenes of chaos unfolded as desperate civilians were met with gunfire while chasing food convoys, with some reports pointing to warning shots fired by Israeli troops and incidents of looting. International organisations have sounded the alarm over worsening water scarcity. On 20 June, UNICEF Spokesperson James Elder stated in a press briefing that only about 40 per cent of Gaza's water systems are functioning, and the dire lack of clean water resulting from destroyed infrastructure, fuel shortages and restricted aid access amounts to a 'man-made drought.' On 20 June, Civil Defence Spokesperson Mahmoud Basal reported that at least 76 Palestinians were killed in a series of Israeli attacks across the Gaza Strip. Among the dead, he noted, were 21 individuals shot while waiting for humanitarian aid. The fatalities included civilians in Khan Younis and in central Gaza near the Netzarim Corridor. Basal said the victims had gathered in hope of obtaining food and basic supplies, describing attacking them as part of an ongoing pattern of violence against a displaced and vulnerable population. Ahmed Al-Dremlyr, 40, who was near the site, said, 'unarmed, hungry people were killed in cold blood for no reason. They went to get flour and food for their children.' In a grim reflection of the crisis, local medical teams struggle to operate under the near total collapse of healthcare and supply systems. Calls for an immediate ceasefire have grown louder from aid groups and international observers, warning that Gaza's humanitarian situation is reaching an irreversible breaking point. As Israeli strikes continue to pound Gaza, civilians remain the primary victims of attacks on vital infrastructure. According to the latest figures, four people were killed and more than 20 others injured last week when Israeli forces targeted an internet charging and distribution point near the Interior Ministry headquarters, in Tel Al-Hawa neighbourhood, west of Gaza City. This was not the first time such an incident has occurred; previous strikes on areas providing internet and communication access have further deepened Gaza's isolation amid an unrelenting humanitarian crisis. Haitham Jbreel is a nursing student. It's end of term and exam time in Palestine, so he and everyone like him in Gaza went out to find a spot where they could have internet to take their exams. However the Israeli military bombed them. Haitham is now in intensive care with multiple skull fractures and shrapnel lodged in his stomach and intestines. On that same day, additional casualties were reported following an Israeli airstrike on a house belonging to Al-Zebda family on Al-Mukhabarat Street in the northwest of Gaza City. As the humanitarian and medical crises deepen across Gaza, health officials warn that hospitals are reaching a breaking point. Ahmed Al-Farra, head of the Pediatrics and Obstetrics Department at Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis, said in a press release that the hospital can no longer take in casualties due to overcrowded wards and a severe shortage of medical supplies and equipment. He pointed out that the medical compound has seen a surge in daily injuries, many linked to the so-called 'humanitarian aid centres' which, he explained, are causing chaos and total harm on the ground. Al-Farra added that at least 500 patients and wounded individuals in Gaza have died due to delays in medical referrals and travel restrictions imposed by Israel. For its part, Hamas described the Israeli army's deliberate murder of women, children and innocent civilians in the Gaza Strip as a fixed, daily objective and a defining feature of its criminal war against the people of Gaza. While diplomatic efforts remain alive, the tone of recent statements from all sides suggests that a comprehensive ceasefire is not imminent. As Gaza reels under relentless bombardment and worsening humanitarian conditions, the path to peace appears increasingly tense if not entirely deadlocked. According to the Health Ministry in Gaza, 200 people were killed and more than 1,037 others injured in deliberate attacks by the Israeli Army in the last 48 hours, while 55,908 were martyred and over 131,138 injured since 7 October 2023. * A version of this article appears in print in the 26 June, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
Asharq Al-Awsat
01-06-2025
- General
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Saudi Foreign Minister Arrives in Amman
Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs Prince Faisal bin Farhan bin Abdullah arrived in Amman on Saturday to take part in a key meeting of the ministerial committee formed by the Joint Arab-Islamic Extraordinary Summit. The meeting focuses on developments in the Gaza Strip and ways of supporting efforts to end the Israeli war and lift the blockade on Gaza.
LBCI
20-05-2025
- Politics
- LBCI
Municipal vote in war-torn south Lebanon highlights shifting political dynamics — the details
Report by Bassam Abou Zeid, English adaptation by Karine Keuchkerian Reconstruction has not yet begun in southern Lebanon, which was devastated by the Israeli war. Yet the region is preparing for municipal elections expected to reflect the choices of its people, amid contests unfolding across all districts. Two factors make these elections different from those in other governorates: Many of the destroyed villages have relocated their polling stations to other areas out of fear of Israeli attacks. Additionally, the elections are scheduled for Saturday, May 24, instead of Sunday, May 25—the anniversary of the liberation of the south from Israeli occupation in 2000. This year's anniversary coincides with parts of southern Lebanese territory being re-occupied. In the South Governorate, there are 153 municipalities: 48 in the Sidon District, six of which are uncontested; 40 in the Jezzine District, with nine uncontested; and 65 in the Tyre District, also with nine uncontested. In the Nabatieh Governorate, there are 119 municipalities: 40 in the Nabatieh District, three of which are uncontested; 36 in Bint Jbeil, with two uncontested; 17 in Hasbaya, with two uncontested; and 26 in Marjeyoun, also with two uncontested. In predominantly Shiite cities, towns, and villages, the Hezbollah-Amal Movement political duo is seeking to demonstrate its strong presence and that its popularity has not been shaken by the war or by targeted campaigns, particularly those directed at Hezbollah. The duo has formed "Development and Loyalty" lists, which are being challenged by independent candidates, leftist groups, and change-driven forces, all aiming to contest what they describe as the alliance's dominance. In the Sunni communities of the south, particularly in Sidon and the Arqoub area, the absence of the Future Movement has turned the elections into family-based contests. However, politics still play a central role, with several parties, various figures, and current and former Sunni members of Parliament backing competing electoral lists. In Christian towns, villages, and cities, political competition—shaped by family dynamics—is expected to be intense, particularly between the Lebanese Forces and the Kataeb Party on one side, and the Free Patriotic Movement and figures close to Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri on the other. Rivalry is especially visible in the contest for the presidency of the Union of Jezzine Municipalities. In Druze communities, politics and family ties are also intertwined. The Progressive Socialist Party remains dominant, followed by the Lebanese Democratic Party. Both have leaned toward cooperation in this election cycle, with Berri also exerting some influence, along with change-driven forces and independent figures.
Times of Oman
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Times of Oman
Egypt welcomes Oman's efforts leading to ceasefire agreement in Yemen
Cairo: The Arab Republic of Egypt has welcomed the efforts of the Sultanate of Oman, which resulted in reaching a ceasefire agreement in Yemen with the United States. In a statement issued today by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Egypt expressed hope that this agreement would positively impact freedomn of navigation in the Red Sea. Egypt also voiced its aspiration that the coming period would see full adherence to the agreement, providing a constructive push toward ending the Israeli war on Gaza and advancing efforts to establish security and stability in the region.
