Latest news with #JohnsHopkinsSchoolofAdvancedInternationalStudies
Hindustan Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Why India Can't Afford to Jettison Its Relationship With Russia
President Trump is using the threat of stiff tariffs to try to peel India away from Russia, as he attempts to boost pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine. President Trump has been trying to persuade Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to help the U.S. isolate Russia. But decades of close economic, political and military relations between New Delhi and Moscow mean Trump faces a challenge in persuading Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to drop a partnership that has survived great geopolitical turmoil. In recent days, Trump has blasted India for its heavy reliance on Russian oil imports, as well as its longstanding purchases of Russian military equipment. On Wednesday, the president slapped India with an additional tariff of 25% on its exports to the U.S.—doubling the existing 25% duty that went into effect earlier this month—as punishment for its continued purchasing of Russian oil. Despite tariffs that could inflict real damage on the Indian economy, Modi has stood firm in the face of rising American pressure—a sign of how important relations with Russia are for the South Asian giant. India's foreign ministry called the penalty 'unfair, unjustified and unreasonable' and promised that India will 'take all actions necessary to protect its national interest.' Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said earlier in the week that 'sovereign countries should have and do have the right to choose their own trading partners.' On Friday, Modi wrote on X that he had a 'good and detailed conversation with my friend President Putin.' 'I thanked him for sharing the latest developments on Ukraine,' the prime minister wrote, adding that the leaders had 'reaffirmed our commitment to further deepen the India-Russia Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership.' He said he expected Putin to visit India later this year. Since the Cold War, Russia has been one of India's most constant partners in a relationship anchored by arms deals, economic cooperation and diplomatic support for New Delhi as it faces off with regional rivals China and Pakistan. For its part, Moscow drew close to India after tensions grew in the 1960s between the Soviet Union and Beijing. In the decades that followed, Russia extended more than a billion dollars' worth of loans for the purchase of Russian military and nonmilitary goods. The charm offensive was further sweetened by Russian crude, which Moscow sold to New Delhi in the 1960s at a 10% to 20% discount to prevailing world prices. India's oil refiners have made significant savings by buying discounted Russian crude in recent years. 'This was all part of the Soviet 'oil offensive,'' said historian Sergey Radchenko, Cold War expert and professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Moscow even sent geologists to India to search for oil and, when little was found, the Soviet Union allowed India to purchase Siberian crude with shipments of tea so that New Delhi could conserve its cash reserves, he said. The bonds grew closer after the U.S. backed Pakistan—a bitter rival of India—and imposed a slew of sanctions on New Delhi in 1974 after its first nuclear test and in 1998 when India again tested its nuclear weapons. 'Many Indians still find Russia today, because of the history, a reliable partner,' said Harsh V. Pant, head of strategic studies at the Observer Research Foundation, a think tank in New Delhi. 'Many in India believe that America has always been more favorably disposed towards Pakistan.' Even Russia's invasion of Ukraine hasn't pushed Modi to repudiate Moscow. India—which has long pursued a strategy of avoiding alignments with other major powers—has stayed neutral on the Ukraine war, abstaining from United Nations votes to condemn the invasion and declining to join successive waves of Western sanctions. Meanwhile, India—a net energy importer with a voracious and growing appetite for energy—benefited from a shift by Western countries away from Russian oil, as well as a price cap that the U.S. and its allies have imposed on the country's crude. Sanctions targeting Russia's oil industry have increased Moscow's reliance on friendly nations such as India. Over the past several years, India has begun buying massive amounts of Russian oil. Last year, India accounted for more than one-third of Russia's oil exports, second only to China at nearly 50%, according to the Observer Research Foundation. Steep discounts have saved Indian refineries $17 billion over the past three years, according to credit-rating firm ICRA. Indeed, India isn't the only Asian country to benefit from Russia's increasing economic isolation. Rival China has likewise bought crude and scooped up assets inside Russia. But a creeping wariness in Moscow of overdependence on Beijing makes Russia's relationship with India all the more important. The cheap oil is critical for a country of 1.4 billion that is growing rapidly. The South Asian nation is the world's fastest-growing consumer of oil, behind only the U.S. and China in total consumption, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Its vast energy needs are met by importing 90% of its crude oil from overseas. Over the past three years, trade between the two countries skyrocketed to $69 billion, a record figure pushed higher by India's purchases of Russian crude. Those imports have allowed New Delhi to sell gasoline at a cheaper rate domestically and resell its oil products abroad at a fatter margin. 'It's not going to be shutting off the Russian tap in the immediate future,' said Syed Akbaruddin, former Indian permanent representative to the U.N. and dean of the Kautilya School of Public Policy in Hyderabad. 'There is no way, given the cost differential and the impact on the budget.' To be sure, Indian refineries have already started hedging their bets by curbing their purchases in recent weeks, according to data and analytics firm Kpler. Imports of Russian crude oil fell about 500,000 barrels a day in July to a five-month low of 1.6 million. According to the company's analysis, India's private refiners, which process over 50% of imported Russian crude, are expected to boost their imports from other sources including the Middle East and West Africa—but can't cut off Russian oil completely. 'Replacing Russian barrels is no easy feat—logistically daunting, economically painful and geopolitically fraught,' Sumit Ritolia, Kpler's lead research analyst in refining and modeling, wrote in a research note. Meanwhile, Trump has also taken aim at India's historic reliance on Russia for military equipment. The S-400 air-defense system, seen at a Moscow parade in May, has been a key part of Russia's arms sales to India. Although New Delhi has been trying to diversify its suppliers in recent decades, Russian and Soviet-made equipment still makes up over 50% of India's arsenal. New Delhi continues to be a loyal customer of Russian arms. Part of the appeal is Moscow's willingness to share technology and help India manufacture arms domestically. In contrast, under former President Joe Biden, the U.S. signaled its openness to technology transfers, but Washington has dragged its feet on some projects. Last month, the Indian navy commissioned a new stealth frigate purchased from Russia. Two more frigates are being built in India with technical assistance from Russia's Yantar shipyards. In 2018, during Trump's first term, India bucked threats of sanctions from the U.S. to agree to buy five squadrons of Russia's top shelf S-400 air-defense system. Three of those squadrons so far have been delivered—and stationed along India's borders with China and Pakistan. 'It will be many decades before India can actually replace the Russian kit in their inventory, if they can replace it at all,' said Ashley J. Tellis, an expert on geopolitics at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Write to Shan Li at and Thomas Grove at Why India Can't Afford to Jettison Its Relationship With Russia Why India Can't Afford to Jettison Its Relationship With Russia
Mint
10-08-2025
- Business
- Mint
Why India can't afford to jettison its relationship with Russia
US President Donald Trump is using the threat of stiff tariffs to try to peel India away from Russia, as he attempts to boost pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine. But decades of close economic, political and military relations between New Delhi and Moscow mean Trump faces a challenge in persuading Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to drop a partnership that has survived great geopolitical turmoil. In recent days, Trump has blasted India for its heavy reliance on Russian oil imports, as well as its longstanding purchases of Russian military equipment. On Wednesday, the president slapped India with an additional tariff of 25% on its exports to the U.S.—doubling the existing 25% duty that went into effect earlier this month—as punishment for its continued purchasing of Russian oil. Despite tariffs that could inflict real damage on the Indian economy, Modi has stood firm in the face of rising American pressure—a sign of how important relations with Russia are for the South Asian giant. India's foreign ministry called the penalty 'unfair, unjustified and unreasonable" and promised that India will 'take all actions necessary to protect its national interest." Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said earlier in the week that 'sovereign countries should have and do have the right to choose their own trading partners." On Friday, Modi wrote on X that he had a 'good and detailed conversation with my friend President Putin." 'I thanked him for sharing the latest developments on Ukraine," the prime minister wrote, adding that the leaders had 'reaffirmed our commitment to further deepen the India-Russia Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership." He said he expected Putin to visit India later this year. Since the Cold War, Russia has been one of India's most constant partners in a relationship anchored by arms deals, economic cooperation and diplomatic support for New Delhi as it faces off with regional rivals China and Pakistan. For its part, Moscow drew close to India after tensions grew in the 1960s between the Soviet Union and Beijing. In the decades that followed, Russia extended more than a billion dollars' worth of loans for the purchase of Russian military and nonmilitary goods. The charm offensive was further sweetened by Russian crude, which Moscow sold to New Delhi in the 1960s at a 10% to 20% discount to prevailing world prices. 'This was all part of the Soviet 'oil offensive,'" said historian Sergey Radchenko, Cold War expert and professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Moscow even sent geologists to India to search for oil and, when little was found, the Soviet Union allowed India to purchase Siberian crude with shipments of tea so that New Delhi could conserve its cash reserves, he said. The bonds grew closer after the U.S. backed Pakistan—a bitter rival of India—and imposed a slew of sanctions on New Delhi in 1974 after its first nuclear test and in 1998 when India again tested its nuclear weapons. 'Many Indians still find Russia today, because of the history, a reliable partner," said Harsh V. Pant, head of strategic studies at the Observer Research Foundation, a think tank in New Delhi. 'Many in India believe that America has always been more favorably disposed towards Pakistan." Even Russia's invasion of Ukraine hasn't pushed Modi to repudiate Moscow. India—which has long pursued a strategy of avoiding alignments with other major powers—has stayed neutral on the Ukraine war, abstaining from United Nations votes to condemn the invasion and declining to join successive waves of Western sanctions. Meanwhile, India—a net energy importer with a voracious and growing appetite for energy—benefited from a shift by Western countries away from Russian oil, as well as a price cap that the U.S. and its allies have imposed on the country's crude. Sanctions targeting Russia's oil industry have increased Moscow's reliance on friendly nations such as India. Over the past several years, India has begun buying massive amounts of Russian oil. Last year, India accounted for more than one-third of Russia's oil exports, second only to China at nearly 50%, according to the Observer Research Foundation. Steep discounts have saved Indian refineries $17 billion over the past three years, according to credit-rating firm ICRA. Indeed, India isn't the only Asian country to benefit from Russia's increasing economic isolation. Rival China has likewise bought crude and scooped up assets inside Russia. But a creeping wariness in Moscow of overdependence on Beijing makes Russia's relationship with India all the more important. The cheap oil is critical for a country of 1.4 billion that is growing rapidly. The South Asian nation is the world's fastest-growing consumer of oil, behind only the U.S. and China in total consumption, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Its vast energy needs are met by importing 90% of its crude oil from overseas. Over the past three years, trade between the two countries skyrocketed to $69 billion, a record figure pushed higher by India's purchases of Russian crude. Those imports have allowed New Delhi to sell gasoline at a cheaper rate domestically and resell its oil products abroad at a fatter margin. 'It's not going to be shutting off the Russian tap in the immediate future," said Syed Akbaruddin, former Indian permanent representative to the U.N. and dean of the Kautilya School of Public Policy in Hyderabad. 'There is no way, given the cost differential and the impact on the budget." To be sure, Indian refineries have already started hedging their bets by curbing their purchases in recent weeks, according to data and analytics firm Kpler. Imports of Russian crude oil fell about 500,000 barrels a day in July to a five-month low of 1.6 million. According to the company's analysis, India's private refiners, which process over 50% of imported Russian crude, are expected to boost their imports from other sources including the Middle East and West Africa—but can't cut off Russian oil completely. 'Replacing Russian barrels is no easy feat—logistically daunting, economically painful and geopolitically fraught," Sumit Ritolia, Kpler's lead research analyst in refining and modeling, wrote in a research note. Meanwhile, Trump has also taken aim at India's historic reliance on Russia for military equipment. Although New Delhi has been trying to diversify its suppliers in recent decades, Russian and Soviet-made equipment still makes up over 50% of India's arsenal. New Delhi continues to be a loyal customer of Russian arms. Part of the appeal is Moscow's willingness to share technology and help India manufacture arms domestically. In contrast, under former President Joe Biden, the U.S. signaled its openness to technology transfers, but Washington has dragged its feet on some projects. Last month, the Indian navy commissioned a new stealth frigate purchased from Russia. Two more frigates are being built in India with technical assistance from Russia's Yantar shipyards. In 2018, during Trump's first term, India bucked threats of sanctions from the U.S. to agree to buy five squadrons of Russia's top shelf S-400 air-defense system. Three of those squadrons so far have been delivered—and stationed along India's borders with China and Pakistan. 'It will be many decades before India can actually replace the Russian kit in their inventory, if they can replace it at all," said Ashley J. Tellis, an expert on geopolitics at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
New York Post
26-07-2025
- Automotive
- New York Post
Trump has momentum heading into Aug. 1 ‘reciprocal tariff' deadline after Asian trade deals, experts say
WASHINGTON — President Trump has 'leveraged American bargaining power' with three Asian nations this week — and given himself momentum ahead of the looming Aug. 1 deadline for most 'reciprocal tariffs,' experts predict. Trump secured Japan's agreement to pay a 15% tariff on exports to the US while making $550 billion in new investments in America in what he called a 'signing bonus' — while Indonesia and the Philippines said they would accept 19% tariffs on their goods while applying 0% tariffs on US products. 'I was a little bit surprised by the extent to which the US, at least at this stage of the game, has succeeded in striking what seems to me to be quite a hard bargain,' said Pravin Krishna, an economist at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. 3 Experts say President Trump has 'leveraged American bargaining power' with Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines this week — and given himself momentum ahead of the looming Aug. 1 deadline for most 'reciprocal tariffs.' AFP via Getty Images Robert Lawrence, an international trade professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, agreed, saying he was also left stunned that Trump roped in a large Japanese investment in addition to the tariff terms — likening it to his successful demand for a 'golden' US stake in this year's Nippon-US Steel merger deal. 'He's a wheeler-dealer, our president, needless to say, and he's kind of cutting these deals — but he has scared these people, and he's leveraged American bargaining power,' Lawrence said. 'The next one on the block is [South] Korea… for the Koreans, the auto issue is just about as important as for the Japanese.' Wilbur Ross, who served as Trump's commerce secretary during his first term and at one point expressed concern about administration emissaries potentially over-playing their hand, hailed Trump's trio of Asian deals. 'It's very important that people realize why he yoked the three together and announced them at the same time, and I think that's largely to send a message to China that their hope that his tough trade policy would somehow drive the Asian countries to China is simply incorrect,' Ross explained. 'I think the second importance of it is it puts tremendous pressure on the EU to make a deal because they have a great danger of being relatively isolated and relatively stuck with a worse deal.' Trump traveled to Scotland Friday and will meet with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen over the weekend to discuss averting a threatened 50% tariff. 3 President Trump secured a trade agreement with Japan to pay a 15% tariff on exports, while Indonesia and the Philippines will pay 19% tariffs on their goods, with US products not being tariffed. The president previously announced deals with Vietnam, which agreed to a 20% tariff — or 40% on items sourced in China — while breaking down barriers to US imports, as well as a UK deal that features a 10% tariffs — with British steel and car exports also paying 10% rather than Trump's much higher sectoral tariffs, in exchange for promises to open UK markets to American ethanol, beef and chicken. China, meanwhile, brokered a cease-fire with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — with the US applying a 30% rate on Chinese goods and China applying a 10% rate on American imports. Meanwhile, the impact of Trump's tariffs — which also include 50% on foreign steel and aluminum and 25% on foreign cars — have been slighter than anticipated thus far on inflation, with the annual increase in consumer prices 2.7% in June. 'The same 'experts' that were loudly spewing doomsday predictions are now quietly looking at their portfolios and planning their early retirement or vacation home purchases,' said Arthur Schwartz, a Republican operative with close ties to the administration. Major challenges remain on the horizon for Trump, however, and academics remain divided on the merits of higher tariffs now padding federal coffers. Krishna, the Hopkins economist, said questions remain about whether the Asian nations that just agreed to steep terms are able to ratify them politically due to the fact that Trump seems to have secured such lopsided terms. He also said that India — initially expected to be one of the first nations to ink a trade deal — faces notable trade-talk road bumps due to the potentially devastating effects on poor farmers who comprise about 45% of the labor force. 'It's a very sensitive sector for India. The Modi government itself, a few years ago, tried some reasonably market-oriented reforms in the agricultural sector.. and they were unable to push that through,' he said. 'That is an extremely challenging thing for the Indian government to manage politically,' Krishna said. 'You're talking about survival-level incomes for a large number of farmers. And to mess with that would be, again, politically challenging and even morally questionable from an Indian standpoint. 3 The US is currently charging China a 30% tariff rate on Chinese goods, while they are charging a 10% rate on American imports. AP Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters 'It really is a question of how much of a change the US wants in terms of reduction of protectionism and so on, and how much India's willing to give up,' he added. It's also unclear how talks with China will end — with the temporary deal set to expire in mid-August, though it may be extended. 'There's a real question whether we will make a deal with [China],' Ross said. 'It's hard for me to imagine that they're going to make very big concessions, and meanwhile, we're collecting very high tariffs. So it's not so clear to me that there's a big, compelling motive for President Trump to make a deal.' China also may be politically constrained by an upcoming Communist Party congress next month and a housing crash that has sapped the nation economically, Ross noted. Lawrence, of Harvard, said that the disruption of Trump's trade wars remains worrying for certain US industries — with carmakers General Motors and Stellantis reporting quarterly income slumps this week — and that he's skeptical of an ensuing boom in US manufacturing employment. 'I personally think it's damaging our economy … We have to be competitive to make sales abroad, not to bludgeon people through threats of tariffs. That's not the way you win friends, and it's also not the way you retain customers,' he said. But Lawrence noted that Trump's delays in implementing 'reciprocal' tariffs initially announced on April 2 likely make them more palatable for the American public and less stinging on their budgets. 'By dragging out the process, it's kind of like the famous boiling of the frog who doesn't quite notice it. [If the] net effect of these tariffs would be to raise the consumer price index by one percentage point or even two, that would be a huge increase, right? But if I told you it was take place over a couple of years, it is going to work out to half a point, or less a fraction each month. Are you going to notice it itself?' he said. 'From the standpoint of, 'How do you want to distribute the shocks?' I think… whether it's negotiating strategy or it's dithering or it's intuition, it actually serves to cushion the blow.'
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
20-06-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
What Happens if Trump Decides to Strike Iran or Assassinate Its Leader?
If President Trump decides to send American bombers to help Israel destroy an underground uranium enrichment facility in Iran, it will likely kick off a more dangerous phase in the war. And if the United States assassinates Iran's supreme leader, as Trump hinted was possible, there are no guarantees he will be replaced by a friendlier leader. Iran's autocratic clerical leadership, which has ruled for nearly half a century since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, has proved its staying power, even in the face of multiple domestic uprisings. Demolishing Fordo, the enrichment site buried deep in a mountain, may not obliterate Iran's nuclear program and could lead the country to broaden the war or accelerate that program. Here are some ways it could play out if the United States enters the war. Iran could negotiate Before Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran's nuclear program and other targets last week, Iran and the United States were discussing limits on Iran's uranium enrichment program. It was rapidly producing fuel close to the levels needed for nuclear weapons, and in exchange for new limits on the program, Iran would win relief from economic sanctions. The two sides were nowhere near a final agreement, but signs of a possible compromise had emerged by early June. When Israel attacked Iran, the negotiations collapsed. Yet Iran has signaled that it remains willing to talk, and even a strike on Fordo would not necessarily wipe out prospects of a return to the negotiating table. If the Trump administration follows an attack on Iran with an enticing offer, such as large-scale sanctions relief or peace guarantees, there is still a chance that Iran would consider making concessions, said Vali Nasr, an Iran expert and a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. 'Is there an offer on the table that the Iranian people in this moment can actually rally around?' he said. 'If it's only a stick, then they're going to fight.' So far, Trump has not extended many carrots. He called in a social media post on Tuesday for Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.' Iran may lean into nuclear activity All eyes are on Fordo. But it is possible that Iran has secret nuclear sites aimed at producing weapons that the United States and Israel do not know about, though no public evidence has emerged of such places. If they do exist, Iran could use whatever it has left to try to accelerate its nuclear program in the wake an American attack. With the damage Israeli airstrikes have done to nuclear facilities and the killings of top nuclear scientists, Iran probably lacks the capacity to build a nuclear weapon quickly, analysts said. Still, it could move in that direction and would have fresh incentive to do so. 'You would begin to see that broader escalation that they've held back on,' said Sanam Vakil, the director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at Chatham House. After all, Iran would have few other options left for deterring future attacks, she added. Iran's Parliament has publicly discussed a withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The treaty, of which Israel is not a signatory, currently requires Iran to submit to oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency and other transparency obligations and to commit to not building a nuclear bomb. So far, the government has reiterated its longstanding insistence that Iran's nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes. But Iran has firmly refused to capitulate to a central American demand that it give up uranium enrichment, saying it has the right to a civilian nuclear program. The war could get bigger and messier Over the past week, Iran has avoided striking American troops or other targets that could pull the United States into the war. Its leaders may still be hoping to make a deal with the Trump administration to end the conflict and wary of taking on the US military on top of Israel's. Though Iran has responded to Israeli attacks with missiles and threats of its own, it has refrained from hitting American troops or bases in the Middle East. It has also not struck Arab countries allied with the United States, such as Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. Nor has it sent global oil prices soaring by sealing off or harassing traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil shipping channel to Iran's south. But at least one Iranian official has warned that Iran could do so if the United States enters the war. And Iran's allied militias in the region, including the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and armed groups in Iraq, have not joined the fight. Many of them have been seriously weakened over the past two years. But those Iranian allies could still join the fray if the Trump administration decides to strike. If the United States tries to force Iran to capitulate, 'Iran will keep hitting until the end of the missile capabilities,' said Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Talk of regime change Trump said on social media this week that the United States is weighing whether to kill Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but had decided 'not for now.' Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said in a Fox News interview this week that changing Iran's regime 'could certainly be the result' of this war. Even if the United States assassinates Khamenei, however, the religious-military establishment that has tightly held power in Iran for nearly five decades may not fall. With a war raging, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the most powerful branch of Iran's military, could seize control of the country, said Nasr, the professor. They might put in place a more Western-friendly government, or, more likely, replace Khamenei with a more extreme figure who would dig in for a long fight, Nasr added. If the military does not assert itself quickly, some analysts fear that Iran could plunge into chaos or civil war as different factions struggle for control. But they see little chance for Iran's liberal opposition, which has been weakened and brutally repressed by the regime, to prevail. Iran's people could rise up again Netanyahu encouraged the Iranian people last week to capitalize on Israel's attacks on their government and 'rise up' against their 'evil and oppressive regime.' Iranians have staged mass protests against clerical rule several times in recent history, most recently with the 'Women, Life, Freedom' demonstrations of late 2022. Each time, the opposition has faced a harsh crackdown by government security forces. Some Iranians so despise the clerical leaders that they have at times looked to Israel as an ally and openly hoped for the United States to install new leadership. Some Iranian opponents of the regime cheered Israel's initial attacks on Iran, which they saw as more evidence of their government's incompetence and mismanagement. But the growing death toll, the attacks on civilian infrastructure and the panic gripping Iranian cities are hardening many in the country against Israel. Iranian social media platforms have been full of patriotic posts in recent days, expressing unity against foreign intervention, if not exactly support for the regime.
Boston Globe
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
‘Regime change'? Questions about Israel's Iran goal pressure Trump.
Advertisement That could leave Trump trying to avoid entanglement in the sort of conflict he has spent years portraying as the definition of insanity. Israeli officials say their attacks are an urgent response to Iran's advances in its nuclear program. But there are growing signs that their aims are expanding. During an interview on Fox News on Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel was asked whether regime change was an explicit goal. 'It could certainly be the result, because Iran is very weak,' he said. He added that 'the decision to act, to rise up, at this time, is the decision of the Iranian people.' But Netanyahu has also appealed to Iran's population — which has risen in protest many times in recent years, only to be brutally repressed — to do just that. 'The time has come for you to unite around your flag and your historic legacy by standing up for your freedom from an evil and oppressive regime,' he said last week. Advertisement In a Monday interview with ABC News, Netanyahu also said that Israel might choose to 'end the conflict' by killing Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 'This is the name of the game,' said Vali Nasr, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. 'It's not how successful Israel is in taking out Fordo,' the Iranian nuclear facility buried deep in a mountain. 'It is now measured by how successful they can be in taking out the Iranian state.' Nasr noted that Israel has been striking targets with no direct connection to Iran's nuclear program, including a Monday attack on the headquarters of Iran's state broadcasting network. 'They are trying to take away the coherence of the state — not only to conduct the war, but to function,' he said. Trump has so far limited America's known role to the defense of Israel. But in a post on Truth Social on Tuesday, he suggested a willingness to eliminate Khamenei, saying 'we know exactly where' he is hiding. 'We are not going to take him out,' he wrote, adding: 'At least not for now.' And the president associated himself with Israel's war effort, writing in a separate post: 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,' with the support of US military hardware. (Despite Trump's use of 'we,' the United States is not flying missions over Iran, US officials say.) Advertisement A full collapse of the Iranian state, meanwhile, would create new risks — including the need to secure Iran's nuclear material — that would greatly increase the prospects of US involvement in the conflict. Israel's primary goal may be the destruction of Iran's nuclear program, said Michael Makovsky, president and chief executive of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, which has backed military action against Iran. Makovsky added, however, based on his conversations with senior political and military officials there, that Israel has always known that such a campaign could also have broader political consequences. 'They've hoped that, because the regime was so weak, military action could lead to the people bringing down the regime,' he said. Iran's leadership may share that assessment. In April, The New York Times reported that Khamenei agreed to nuclear talks with Trump this year only after top Iranian officials warned him that failure to negotiate could lead to attacks by Israel or the United States. That, they said, could threaten the survival of their government. Even some supporters of using force to seek a change in Iran's government are careful to avoid the catchphrase that was used often during the Iraq War and subsequent Western interventions in the Middle East. They include the 2011 NATO air campaign in Libya that overthrew dictator Moammar Gadhafi but triggered years of chaos and civil war. Trump himself has tried to engineer the fall of at least one foreign government, the leftist dictatorship of Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro, which he choked with economic sanctions in his first term. But he never described his policy as regime change. 'I use the term 'regime collapse,' versus 'change,'' Makovsky said, 'because the term 'regime change' is toxic in Washington. Everyone thinks about 2003.' Advertisement In March of that year, President George W. Bush invaded Iraq and deposed its strongman, Saddam Hussein. The ensuing effort to install a friendly democratic government in Baghdad cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, and to many, discredited US interventionism. The key distinction, Makovsky said, is that a regime collapse strategy does not presume to remake Iran's government. 'My view is that we shouldn't do that. But our objective should be to pressure the regime every way possible so that the Iranian people bring it down.' For now, Trump has kept some distance from Israel's war. But his supporters are divided on his approach, with some accusing Trump of betraying his principles. On Monday, two of Trump's most prominent supporters, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and former Trump White House aide Steve Bannon vented their frustration on a radio show hosted by Bannon. 'The point of this is regime change,' Carlson insisted, arguing that Trump was being led by Israel into what could become a 'world war.' 'I don't want the United States involved in another Middle East war,' he added. Bannon agreed, citing Netanyahu's comments on Fox and saying, 'This is a total regime change.' 'This thing has not been thought through,' he added. 'It does not have the support of the American people.'
