Latest news with #Soleimani
Middle East Eye
6 days ago
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Why Muslim charities face disproportionate scrutiny in the UK
Two UK-based charities, the Kasner Charitable Trust and UK Toremet, collectively donated around £5.7 million ($7.7m) between 2017 and 2021 to a religious school in Susya, an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank, the Guardian recently revealed. The settlement is considered illegal under international law and the UK's own foreign policy stance. The funding significantly contributed to the expansion of the Bnei Akiva yeshiva high school, increasing student enrolment and establishing it as a core institution in the Susya settlement. This case has drawn considerable criticism from political figures and human rights campaigners, who argue that charitable status should not extend to organisations funnelling money into settlements that might undermine international law. Even more shocking is that this entire controversial process was overseen by the UK charity regulator. The Charity Commission authorised these donations on the grounds that a donation to a school located in the occupied territories would, in principle, qualify as a grant for the advancement of education and therefore be considered a 'legitimate' charitable activity. The regulator clarified that a charity operating within the occupied Palestinian territories does not, in itself, constitute a criminal offence or a breach of charity law. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters These settlements are illegal under international law, and the UK government officially recognises them as such. Yet the charity regulator approved the donations, justifying them on educational grounds - something a legal review could appropriately address. In the meantime, this episode reifies concerns and accusations frequently levelled at the regulator's impartiality, particularly in relation to Muslim charities. Stricter oversight The charity regulator's treatment of the two aforementioned charities stands in stark contrast to its handling of the Islamic Centre of England (Icel), a Shia Muslim centre in West London. The centre is religiously and culturally aligned with the Iranian diaspora living in the Maida Vale district, and attended by Shia from various national backgrounds. The Charity Commission issued a warning to Icel in 2020, after a group of protesters held a vigil for Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, who had been killed in a US drone strike. Soleimani was on the UK's designated sanctions list. In November 2022, the charity regulator launched a formal statutory inquiry into the centre, citing major governance concerns over issues such as the vigil, the charity's online content and trustees' alleged conflicts of interest. The inquiry was formally concluded in May 2025, with the regulator requiring Icel trustees to implement stricter oversight of speakers, religious services, events and online content. There is a general impression among those who followed Icel's activities that it was targeted because of its critical stance on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. While the charity regulator did not explicitly acknowledge this, the right-wing media frequently portrays Icel as the Iranian government's 'nerve centre', largely due to its connection with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This disparity reveals a deeper issue: the Charity Commission's apparent double standards, particularly in its treatment of Muslim organisations A forthcoming academic report titled 'The Islamic Centre of England: Understanding its Role within Muslim Communities across Britain' finds that Icel is financially independent, with no ties to Iranian funding, and plays a positive role in supporting local Muslim communities. The report acknowledges the connection between the resident imam of Icel and Khamenei, but not as a political agent - instead, as a spiritual guide for local Shia communities. The report, by professors Oliver Scharbrodt (Lund University) and Alison Scott-Baumann (Soas), highlights how strict restrictions from the UK charity regulator 'may inadvertently limit the rights of Muslims to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly'. Even if one accepts the Charity Commission's rationale for warning Icel over its commemoration of Soleimani, a key question remains: why is it deemed legitimate to fund projects in illegal settlements - condemned by both the UN and the UK - that ultimately expand and entrench those settlements, an act which the UK government itself opposes and condemns? This disparity reveals a deeper issue: the Charity Commission's apparent double standards, particularly in its treatment of Muslim organisations. Muslim organisations have long alleged that the charity regulator holds a structural bias against them. While pro-Israel charities' funding activities in illegal settlements are approved, Muslim charities are routinely subjected to exceptional levels of scrutiny, often based on vague or politicised concerns. Silencing solidarity Human Aid UK, a British Muslim charity, was the subject of a two-year investigation by the Charity Commission after police detained its staff in 2019 and seized funds. Although the funds were returned months later and no wrongdoing was found, the regulator continued its inquiry, prompting Human Aid UK to accuse it of bias against Muslim charities and of acting as an 'extension of police and security services' harassment policy'. Between April 2012 and November 2014, more than a quarter of the Charity Commission's statutory inquiries - 20 out of 76 - focused on Muslim charities, according to the Guardian, whose analysis included all investigations that remained open at the end of the given timeframe. Many of these probes involved organisations operating mosques, providing humanitarian aid, or working in Syria. A 2017 academic article in the ReOrient journal asserted that the Charity Commission's evolving structure and practices disproportionately affect Muslim charities. The article noted that while Muslim organisations make up only 1.21 percent of the sector, they accounted for 38 percent of all disclosed statutory investigations between January 2013 and April 2014, raising serious concerns about institutionalised bias. Amid pressure from the Charity Commission, Icel administrators often asked organisers to avoid discussing Israel's war on Gaza or openly showing solidarity with Palestinians, fearing that such acts could jeopardise the charity's legal status. The normalising of Islamophobia in UK public life is fuelling hate and violence Read More » Similar concerns have been raised by the Muslim Council of Britain, the country's largest Muslim umbrella body, which alleges that the charity regulator takes a harsh line on Muslim charities that support Palestine. This has fuelled accusations that the Charity Commission is increasingly becoming a tool to silence Muslim charities and prevent them from expressing solidarity with the victims of Israel's war crimes. The charity regulator is meant to be independent and 'free from the influence of others'. But its actions, based on the aforementioned examples, appear to be influenced by government foreign policy. The differential treatment of charities linked to Iran or other Muslim countries, and those connected to Israel, reflects the UK government's geopolitical stance - hostile to one, favourable to the other. This apparent political influence undermines public trust and risks complicity. The Charity Commission cannot claim to uphold charitable integrity while selectively applying its principles, particularly where Muslim charities are involved. In response to questions from Middle East Eye, the Charity Commission stated: 'The Commission rejects any allegation of bias. All concerns are assessed fairly and consistently against the legal framework,' and reiterated that 'we are independent of Government'. The Charity Commission did not address why Muslim charities were disproportionately subjected to its statutory investigations, as highlighted in the ReOrient study. The commission added that it does not 'fetter the freedom of may express views publicly about matters of conscience or religion, including in relation to the conflict in the Middle East, so long as these views advance the charity's purposes and are demonstrably in the charity's best interests.' It noted that speeches, sermons or other communications should not be inflammatory or divisive. With regards to the two charities linked to Israeli settlements, the commission said: 'There is a possibility that, in remitting funds to such organisations, UK Toremet is at risk of committing a criminal offence in England and Wales by breaching the Geneva Convention Act 1957. We issued the charity's trustees with statutory guidance and an action plan, which included specific reference to the importance of compliance with the Geneva Conventions Act 1957.' But if the Charity Commission is to rebuild trust with British Muslim communities and demonstrate that it upholds fairness for all, it must urgently commission an independent review of its practices to ensure genuine equality and impartiality across all faith-based charities. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Hindustan Times
08-08-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Trump mocks slain General Soleimani, reveals what B-2 Bomber pilot told him after Iran strikes
Trump mocks slain General Soleimani, reveals what B-2 Bomber pilot told him after Iran strikes
Economic Times
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Economic Times
West Asia imbroglio: Lessons on geo political stratagems for India
Synopsis In 2025, a regional conflict erupted in West Asia between Iran and Israel, drawing in the USA. The conflict stemmed from Iran's 'deterrence' strategy against Israel and Israel's efforts to dismantle Iran's 'axis of resistance'. Israel strategically marginalized Iranian proxies, leading to direct confrontation and strikes on Iranian nuclear assets, highlighting key lessons for India's security challenges. TIL Creatives Representative Image West Asia was at the verge of a regional conflict, with USA entering the 12 day standoff kinetic confrontation, between Iran and Israel on 22 June 2025. The animosity considered existential threat by both, has two main facets that is of interest for the strategic community. These are the 'game plan' of 'deterrence', instituted by Iran, in the changing geo strategic construct of the Middle East, to checkmate Israeli threat and Israel's systematic neutralisation of Iran's 'axis of resistance', resulting in the current offensive and decapacitation of Iran's nuclear assets. Both issues have key pointers for India's asymmetric security policy of 'Forward Defence' or 'Forward Deterrence' is a strategic initiative, that commenced in the mid 1970s, to stop external support to Iran's internal dissidents. This led to Iran reaching out to Iraqi Shiite groups, Al Sadr family in Lebanon and the Assad regime in Syria. Gen Soleimani of IRGC, under the patronage of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, created the 'axis of resistance' of 'proxies', in target countries. Iran concurrently built up stand-off strike capability through ballistic missiles, UAVs and offensive cyber. The 'Quds' Force of IRGC, raised in 1988, controlled these regional proxies. It led to Iran's support to the Palestine cause, initially to 'Al Fatah' and later the Hamas. The Hezbollah was established in the early 1980s, in network, got a major boost post 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' in 2003, when in Iraq, the US gave power to Iran backed political parties and militias. Iran also exploited the power vacuum created in countries, during the 2011 Arab Spring, to prop up proxy regimes. The rise of Houthis, to power in Yemen, is a prime example. And its domination of Babel-Mandeb strait, gave it the capability to interdict key global SLOCs. As relations with Israel got further strained, Iran deepened support to Hamas and the Hezbollah, to empower them to open a second front in case of a conflict with Israel. There are also instances of Iran supporting non state actors, terrorists and rebel groups, to target adversarial marginalisation of these proxies by Israel, is a lesson on strategic foresight and machinations. The Israeli Prime Minister at the nadir of his political career, exploited the opportunity that arose from the heinous attack on bordering Israeli kibbutz's by Hamas, on 07 Oct 2023. Israel adopted the 'scorched earth' policy in Gaza, using disproportionate force. Iran, in support of the Hamas, activated the Hezbollah in Lebanon, Yemen's Houthis and pro-Iranian militias in Iraq, to launch their own attacks, on Israel. The Israeli offensive within weeks, militarily degraded the Hamas and in the two years totally marginalised thereafter focused on neutralising the Hezbollah, Iran's most powerful, reliable and effective proxy. Mid-September 2024, Israel stunned the world by executing a coordinated attack, on the pagers and walkie talkies used by Hezbollah and its cadres. It remotely activated the concealed explosives planted inside the batteries of pagers, in a covert operation exploiting technology, decapacitating over 1500 of its cadres. Also, precision aerial strikes destroyed their large inventory of rockets and missiles, while targeted killing eliminated Hezbollah's senior leadership, including its Secretary General Hassan Nasrullah and his successor. The October 2024 ground offensive against Hezbollah, was the proverbial last nail in the impact was visible, as in December 2024 , Hezbollah was unable to support the President Assad and his Government, during the rebel offensive in Syria. It led to the fall of the Assad and ended decades old Iran – Syria relationship. Thus, Houthis in Yemen were the only remaining proxy for Iran's future geo political last and most critical step for Israel was to get Iran in a direct engagement. It achieved that by bombing of the Iranian embassy complex in Syria, in April 2024. It was escalatory and the war that for long had been fought through proxies and targeted killings had now come into the crumbling of the proxies in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, now gave Israel the opportunity to conduct aerial strikes on Iran, with impunity. And the rest is history. In which the 12 day missile exchanges, culminated with US attack on nuclear facilities. And Mr Netanyahu, managed to secure freedom from Iran's nuclear 'Sword of Damocles'.India strategic mandarins can take pointers from this protracted engagement. Firstly, for instituting an effective 'deterrence' strategy for India, with 'out of box' options, of exploiting societal fissures, use of cyber, social networking platforms and emerging technologies for effective perception management in adversarial countries and pro-active diplomacy for global support. A shortcoming noticeable post 'Op Sindoor'. Secondly, unanimous political consensus, across party lines, on issues of national security. Thirdly, essentiality for continuity of policy, that is not hostage to changing political dispensations in need an organisation that provides continuity and maintains non-attributability of actions from the Government in power. Fifthly, availability of reliable and timely intelligence, which has been the cornerstone of Israel's meticulous plans and in stitching together multiple options, that could be unfolded with precision, at an opportune the capabilities and capacities, was built up systematically, to a planned doctrinal philosophy. India therefore needs to ensure that the 'Make in India- Defence' follows a similar trajectory, with suitable inputs and timely modulations. The author is a former Army Commander Indian Army. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of
Time of India
18-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
West Asia imbroglio: Lessons on geo political stratagems for India
West Asia was at the verge of a regional conflict, with USA entering the 12 day standoff kinetic confrontation, between Iran and Israel on 22 June 2025. The animosity considered existential threat by both, has two main facets that is of interest for the strategic community. These are the 'game plan' of 'deterrence', instituted by Iran, in the changing geo strategic construct of the Middle East, to checkmate Israeli threat and Israel's systematic neutralisation of Iran's 'axis of resistance', resulting in the current offensive and decapacitation of Iran's nuclear assets. Both issues have key pointers for India's asymmetric security challenges. Iran's policy of 'Forward Defence' or 'Forward Deterrence' is a strategic initiative, that commenced in the mid 1970s, to stop external support to Iran's internal dissidents. This led to Iran reaching out to Iraqi Shiite groups, Al Sadr family in Lebanon and the Assad regime in Syria. Gen Soleimani of IRGC, under the patronage of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, created the 'axis of resistance' of 'proxies', in target countries. Iran concurrently built up stand-off strike capability through ballistic missiles, UAVs and offensive cyber. The 'Quds' Force of IRGC, raised in 1988, controlled these regional proxies. It led to Iran's support to the Palestine cause, initially to 'Al Fatah' and later the Hamas. The Hezbollah was established in the early 1980s, in Lebanon. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Select a Course Category Finance Operations Management MBA MCA Technology Digital Marketing Product Management Healthcare others Degree Project Management healthcare Data Science Management Artificial Intelligence Leadership Cybersecurity CXO Public Policy PGDM Others Data Science Data Analytics Design Thinking Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Fintech & Blockchain India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 9 Months IIM Calcutta SEPO - IIMC CFO India Starts on undefined Get Details The network, got a major boost post 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' in 2003, when in Iraq, the US gave power to Iran backed political parties and militias. Iran also exploited the power vacuum created in countries, during the 2011 Arab Spring, to prop up proxy regimes. The rise of Houthis, to power in Yemen, is a prime example. And its domination of Babel-Mandeb strait, gave it the capability to interdict key global SLOCs. As relations with Israel got further strained, Iran deepened support to Hamas and the Hezbollah, to empower them to open a second front in case of a conflict with Israel. There are also instances of Iran supporting non state actors, terrorists and rebel groups, to target adversarial countries. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas Prices In Dubai Might Be More Affordable Than You Think Villas In Dubai | Search Ads Get Quote The marginalisation of these proxies by Israel, is a lesson on strategic foresight and machinations. The Israeli Prime Minister at the nadir of his political career, exploited the opportunity that arose from the heinous attack on bordering Israeli kibbutz's by Hamas, on 07 Oct 2023. Israel adopted the 'scorched earth' policy in Gaza, using disproportionate force. Iran, in support of the Hamas, activated the Hezbollah in Lebanon, Yemen's Houthis and pro-Iranian militias in Iraq, to launch their own attacks, on Israel. The Israeli offensive within weeks, militarily degraded the Hamas and in the two years totally marginalised it. Israel thereafter focused on neutralising the Hezbollah, Iran's most powerful, reliable and effective proxy. Live Events Mid-September 2024, Israel stunned the world by executing a coordinated attack, on the pagers and walkie talkies used by Hezbollah and its cadres. It remotely activated the concealed explosives planted inside the batteries of pagers, in a covert operation exploiting technology, decapacitating over 1500 of its cadres. Also, precision aerial strikes destroyed their large inventory of rockets and missiles, while targeted killing eliminated Hezbollah's senior leadership, including its Secretary General Hassan Nasrullah and his successor. The October 2024 ground offensive against Hezbollah, was the proverbial last nail in the coffin. This impact was visible, as in December 2024 , Hezbollah was unable to support the President Assad and his Government, during the rebel offensive in Syria. It led to the fall of the Assad and ended decades old Iran – Syria relationship. Thus, Houthis in Yemen were the only remaining proxy for Iran's future geo political plans. The last and most critical step for Israel was to get Iran in a direct engagement. It achieved that by bombing of the Iranian embassy complex in Syria, in April 2024. It was escalatory and the war that for long had been fought through proxies and targeted killings had now come into the open. The crumbling of the proxies in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, now gave Israel the opportunity to conduct aerial strikes on Iran, with impunity. And the rest is history. In which the 12 day missile exchanges, culminated with US attack on nuclear facilities. And Mr Netanyahu, managed to secure freedom from Iran's nuclear 'Sword of Damocles'. India strategic mandarins can take pointers from this protracted engagement. Firstly, for instituting an effective 'deterrence' strategy for India, with 'out of box' options, of exploiting societal fissures, use of cyber, social networking platforms and emerging technologies for effective perception management in adversarial countries and pro-active diplomacy for global support. A shortcoming noticeable post 'Op Sindoor'. Secondly, unanimous political consensus, across party lines, on issues of national security. Thirdly, essentiality for continuity of policy, that is not hostage to changing political dispensations in elections. Fourthly, need an organisation that provides continuity and maintains non-attributability of actions from the Government in power. Fifthly, availability of reliable and timely intelligence, which has been the cornerstone of Israel's meticulous plans and in stitching together multiple options, that could be unfolded with precision, at an opportune time. Lastly, the capabilities and capacities, was built up systematically, to a planned doctrinal philosophy. India therefore needs to ensure that the 'Make in India- Defence' follows a similar trajectory, with suitable inputs and timely modulations. The author is a former Army Commander Indian Army.
Business Times
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Times
This isn't the Iranian regime change you're looking for
Back when I used to be able to visit Iran, I remember always being surprised by the popularity of Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) elite Al-Quds force, who was assassinated on US President Donald Trump's orders in 2020. This was true even of Westward-looking Teheranis who loathed the regime and held parties where the alcohol flowed and the skirts were short. Asked why, the answer was always the same. Soleimani kept the foreign threats destabilising other countries of the Middle East at bay; he fought them abroad so they would not have to be fought at home. Islamic State, a Sunni-Islamist terrorist organisation, could terrorise Shiites in Iraq and their Alawite cousins in Syria – but the streets of Teheran were safe. Soleimani played on this. He would be photographed wearing fatigues out with pro-Iranian militias in Iraq, carefully curating a near mythological image of daring and skill. This resonated, even though he stood at the core of a hated regime, because he seemed to hold the ring for what most Iranians craved: normal lives, safety and a chance at prosperity. They wanted a nuclear reconciliation with the US and Europe, allowing for sanctions to lift and investment to return, for precisely the same reasons. But that was then. A 2015 nuclear deal was agreed but quickly eviscerated by Trump. The IRGC profited from the 'maximum pressure' sanctions that followed, taking over much of the domestic economy and trade (which became primarily smuggling). Inflation soared. Private business withered. Living standards plummeted. And the worse things got, the more the IRGC cracked down domestically. There is no new Soleimani. The very source of his popularity – that he kept the dogs of war from Iranian doors – has become cause to despise his successors. Al-Quds increasingly was in the business of using the proxy network he built to poke the US and Israeli bears. That obsession backfired spectacularly this month, with Israeli jets bombing Teheran and US B-2s dropping bunker busters on Iranian nuclear facilities. Soleimani would be hated, too, were he alive today, because he was a leading architect of all this hubris. Indeed, attitudes were changing even before he died. But I think his passage from hero to villain is the context in which to see Iran's next move, now that the US and Israel have called off their jets. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Change will come in some form, though likely not one we would all prefer. Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is 86 years old. He rules a youthful nation in which some 70 per cent of the population were not even born when the revolution that drives him took place. Having led the country into so desolate a cul-de-sac, his regime will pay a price. The question is how and at whose expense. Change – but with limits Change can form around Khamenei or by the IRGC replacing or marginalising him. But there are clear limits; the regime cannot afford to acknowledge that the billions upon billions of dollars it has spent on a nuclear programme, and the hundreds of billions more lost due to the sanctions, were all for nothing. It cannot be seen to surrender to 'The Great Satan'. Nor can it realistically afford to just carry on as before, pursuing reckless aggression abroad, while ruling by fear alone at home. A successful popular uprising is unlikely. Khamenei and the IRGC have faced major protests before, and repeatedly crushed them. They have about one million men under arms, many of them heavily indoctrinated. Urban Iranians are also by now cautious, not just because of that experience, but also because they know theirs is an ethnically fractured country. They have no interest in becoming the next Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan. This leaves the best plausible outcome as a return to the popular age of Soleimani, so an internal regime recalibration rather than regime change. Flexibility in survival As Cameran Ashraf, an Iranian human rights activist and assistant professor of public policy at the Central European University in Vienna, puts it, we may all be surprised by how things unfold. 'The regime has had very strong emphasis on survival from day one,' he said. 'So, I think there is a type of flexibility there.' We saw some of that already in the carefully choreographed response Iran gave to the US bombing of Fordow. In such a scenario, negotiators would return to talks this week in search of ways to relieve pressure on the regime and Iran's economy, making limited concessions on the nuclear programme in exchange. The IRGC would take a more defensive posture abroad. At home, authorities would relent in some areas of needlessly provocative domestic repression – like enforcement of headscarf laws – as they have done at times in the past. Any such course correction would be tactical. The Islamic Republic will not change its spots, until it is no more. But as I argued before, there is no one-and-done when it comes to Iran's nuclear programme, neither by diplomacy nor by force. Both sides would be trying to buy time. The alternative is that Khamenei simply doubles down, concluding that no diplomatic settlement is possible because the US is bent on Iran's destruction and cannot be trusted. The focus would be on regime consolidation, rebuilding defences and acquiring a nuclear deterrent as soon as possible. So far, most signs point to this uglier outcome. Driven to paranoia by the level of Israeli intelligence penetration that led to the killing of dozens of top military commanders and nuclear scientists, a brutal domestic crackdown is underway. As at Sunday (Jun 29), there was little sign the nuclear negotiations Trump has trailed for this week will in fact take place. The US and the West as a whole need to play a more subtle game. In the wake of the bombings, keeping Iran from pulling out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and from expelling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors is vital. This should not be sacrificed to the pursuit of an unachievable certainty. Failure to reach a political settlement would all but guarantee further airstrikes and leave the region more unstable and prone to a nuclear arms race than before Trump's military intervention. BLOOMBERG
