Israel

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Strike on Iran Cements Netanyahu’s Political Comeback

      by

      The United States’ overnight attack could cause further escalation. To Israelis, it is already seen as a victory for Israel, and for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.Twenty months ago, in the aftermath of Hamas’s attack on Israel in October 2023, Benjamin Netanyahu’s political career teetered on a precipice. As Israel’s prime minister, he had overseen the deadliest military lapse in the country’s history, wrecking his security credentials and collapsing support for his government.The United States’ overnight attack on Iran on Sunday, coupled with Israel’s own recent strikes, has taken Mr. Netanyahu to the brink of political redemption. For decades, he dreamed of thwarting Iran’s nuclear program, defining it as the greatest threat to Israel’s future, and its destruction as his highest military priority.Now, he is as close to reaching that goal as he may ever get. To many Israelis, it is a success that helps to revive his reputation as a guardian of their security, raises his chances of re-election and, depending on how the next weeks develop, could cement his historical legacy.“This night marks Netanyahu’s greatest achievement since he first came to power in 1996,” said Mazal Mualem, a biographer of Mr. Netanyahu. “From the perspective of the public, he has achieved a victory against what is considered the greatest threat to Israel since its founding.”In Iran, the short-term consequences of the U.S. strikes have yet to play out. It is not yet clear if they completely destroyed their targets. Even if they did, Israel could continue to attack Iran, seeking to further destabilize the Iranian government.Iran fired another barrage of missiles at Israel on Sunday, and many fear it will retaliate against U.S. military bases, embassies and interests. That could prompt more American and Israeli strikes on Iran, lengthening the war.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Will Iran Decide to Retaliate Against the U.S.?

      by

      The Supreme Leader may choose to back down after a first round of retaliation, or prefer martyrdom and building a nuclear weapon.In July 1988, faced with bleak prospects in its war with an American-backed Iraq, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, decided reluctantly to accept a cease-fire and end the conflict.“It’s like drinking from a chalice of poison,” he told Iranians. But the survival of the young Islamic Republic depended on swallowing.His successor as supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, now faces a similar decision. But having led the country since 1989 and rebuilt it as a regional and nuclear power, it is by no means clear that he will make the same choice.At 86, with much of his life’s work in ruins around him, he may prefer martyrdom to the surrender that President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel are demanding of him.Iran’s first response was defiant. “The Islamic Republic of Iran is resolved to defend Iran’s territory, sovereignty, security and people by all force and means against the United States’ criminal aggression,” the foreign ministry said in a statement.Iran has already launched a serious barrage of missiles on Israel. It may, as it has warned, attack some of the 40,000 American soldiers in the region.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 288 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      No matter what Trump says, the US has gone to war – and there will be profound and lasting consequences | Simon Tisdall

      by

      Bombing will not make Iran go away. US bombs will not destroy the knowhow needed to build a nuclear weapon or the will do so, if that is what Tehran wants. The huge attack ordered by Donald Trump will not halt ongoing open warfare between Israel and Iran. It will not bring lasting peace to the Middle East, end the slaughter in Gaza, deliver justice to the Palestinians, or end more than half a century of bitter enmity between Tehran and Washington.More likely, Trump’s rash, reckless gamble will inflame and exacerbate all these problems. Depending on how Iran and its allies and supporters react, the region could plunge into an uncontrolled conflagration. US bases in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere in the region, home to about 40,000 American troops, must now be considered potential targets for retaliation – and possibly British and allied forces, too.Trump says he has not declared war on Iran. He claims the attack is not an opening salvo in a campaign aimed at triggering regime change in Tehran. But that’s not how Iran’s politicians and people will see it. Trump’s premature bragging about “spectacular” success, and threats of more and bigger bombs, sound like the words of a ruthless conqueror intent on total, crushing victory.Trump, the isolationist president who vowed to avoid foreign wars, has walked slap bang into a trap prepared by Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu – a trap his smarter predecessors avoided. Netanyahu has constantly exaggerated the immediacy of the Iranian nuclear threat. His alarmist speeches on this subject go back 30 years. Always, he claimed to know what UN nuclear inspectors, US and European intelligence agencies and even some of his own spy chiefs did not – namely, that Iran was on the verge of deploying a ready-to-use nuclear weapon aimed at Israel’s heart.This contention has never been proven. Iran has always denied seeking a nuclear bomb. Its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa banning any such programme. Netanyahu’s most recent claim that Iran was weaponising, made as he tried to justify last week’s unilateral, illegal Israeli attacks, was not supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or US intelligence experts. But weak-minded Trump chose to believe it. Reading from Netanyahu’s script, he said on Saturday night that eliminating this incontrovertible nuclear threat was vital – and the sole aim of the US air assault.So, once again, the US has gone to war in the Middle East on the back of a lie, on disputed, probably faulty intelligence purposefully distorted for political reasons. Once again, as in Iraq in 2003, the overall objectives of the war are unclear, uncertain and open to interpretation by friend and foe alike. Once again, there appears to be no “exit strategy”, no guardrails against escalation and no plan for what happens next. Demanding that Iran capitulate or face “national tragedy” is not a policy. It’s a deadly dead-end.Iran will not go away, whatever Trump and Netanyahu may imagine in their fevered dreams. It will remain a force in the region. It will remain a country to be reckoned with, a country of 90 million people, and one with powerful allies in China, Russia and the global south. It is already insisting it will continue with its civil nuclear programme.These events are a reminder of how profound is official US ignorance of Iran. Unlike the UK, Washington has had no diplomatic presence there since the revolution. It has had few direct political contacts, and its swingeing economic sanctions have created even greater distance, further diminishing mutual understanding. Trump’s decision to renege on the 2015 nuclear accord (negotiated by Barack Obama, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the EU) was a product of this ignorance. Ten years later, he is trying to do with bombs what was largely, peacefully achieved through diplomacy by his wiser, less impulsive, less easily led predecessors.View image in fullscreenPeace seems more elusive than ever – and Netanyahu is celebrating. The US cannot walk away now. It’s committed. And, as Netanyahu sees it, he and Israel cannot lose. Except, except … Iran cannot somehow be imagined away. It still has to be dealt with. And the reckoning that now looms, short- and long-term, may be more terrible than any of Netanyahu’s scare stories.Iran previously warned that if the US attacked, it would hit back at US bases. There are many to choose from, in Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan and elsewhere. The Houthis in Yemen say they will resume attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. The strait of Hormuz, so important a transit point for global energy supplies, may be mined, as happened in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war. The result could be a global oil shock and markets meltdown. And Iran is still reportedly firing missiles into Israel, despite claims in Jerusalem that most of its ballistic missiles bases have been destroyed.Reacting to Trump’s attack, Iranian officials say no options are off the table in terms of retaliation. And they say they will not negotiate under fire, despite a call to do so from the British prime minister, Keir Starmer. Rejecting Trump’s unverified claims about the total destruction of all nuclear facilities, they also insist Iran will reconstitute and continue its nuclear programme. The big question now is whether that programme really will be weaponised.Two radical longer-term consequences may flow from this watershed moment. One is that Khamenei’s unpopular regime, notorious for corruption, military incompetence and economic mismanagement, and deprived of support from Lebanese Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza, may crack under the strain of this disaster. So far there has been little sign of an uprising or a change in government. That’s not surprising, given that Tehran and other cities are under bombardment. But regime collapse cannot be ruled out.The other is that, rather than surrender the cherished right to uranium enrichment and submit to the Trump-Netanyahu ultimatum, Iran’s rulers, whoever they are, will decide to follow North Korea and try to acquire a bomb as quickly as possible, to fend off future humiliations. That could entail withdrawal from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and rejection of the UN inspections regime. After years of trying to play by western rules, Iran could really finally go rogue.The supposed need to acquire nukes for self-defence is a grim lesson other countries around the world may draw from these events. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is the biggest immediate danger to the future of the planet. What Trump just did in recklessly and violently trying to eliminate an unproven threat may ensure the proven danger of a nuclear-armed world grows ever-more real.

      Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Israel is playing an outsized role in New York City’s mayoral race. Will it matter?

      by

      Speaking from a Jerusalem bomb shelter last week as Iran and Israel exchanged fire, a New York state senator posted a video message to New York City voters: “There is a mayoral primary coming up this week where one of the candidates does not believe the Jewish state has a right to exist,” said Sam Sutton, the senator from Brooklyn. “We don’t want to be in a situation like this in America.”Sutton called on New Yorkers to elect a “great friend of the Jewish people”: Andrew Cuomo, New York’s former governor.The appeal was a stark illustration of the outsized role a foreign country and its conflicts have come to play in local elections. While Tuesday’s vote is just the primary, the winner of the Democratic contest historically has gone on to win the mayoral contest in November – though this year could be different.“This election has turned into a two-person contest between Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mandani, two candidates with very stark views on this matter,” said Jacob Kornbluh, a senior politics reporter with the Forward Jewish newspaper.With New York City’s nearly one million Jews making up the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, mayors of the past have always claimed support for the country with little pushback. But the war in Gaza has fundamentally changed the dynamic. Mamdani’s outspoken support for Palestinians might have previously tanked his candidacy, but his insurgent campaign has galvanised voters. Cuomo has responded by portraying Mamdani as “dangerous” and himself as uniquely positioned to fight antisemitism, a growing source of anxiety among Jewish voters.Cuomo’s campaign – flush with millions from pro-Israel billionaires like Bill Ackman – has ramped up attacks against Mamdani as he surged in the polls, including by distributing mailers condemned as racist. The former governor has stated unequivocally that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism”.It’s not just Cuomo appealing to the fears of Jewish voters. Eric Adams – the current mayor, who is running as an independent given his plummeting popularity – recently adopted a contentious definition of antisemitism and floated running on an “EndAntisemitism” party line.Mamdani grew emotional last week while discussing the personal toll of the attacks, including multiple death threats, and has invoked his experience as a Muslim New Yorker to say he understands the pain of the Jewish communities that he pledges to protect.“The attacks on Zohran are textbook post 9/11 Islamophobia,” said Sumaya Awad, a Palestinian New Yorker and member of the Democratic Socialists of America, one of the first groups to back his candidacy. She praised Mamdani for not “backing down”.Mamdani co-founded his college’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter, and as a state assembly member, introduced legislation to stop the funding of illegal Israeli settlements. He has built an enthusiastic coalition of young, progressive, and unabashedly pro-Palestinain New Yorkers, as well as immigrants and many of the city’s roughly 800,000 Muslims.View image in fullscreenCity comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander, who is Jewish and has cross-endorsed Mamdani, has sought to find a middle ground and accused Cuomo and Adams of “using Jews as pawns”, he told the Guardian in an interview – “not with the intention of making Jews any safer, but with the intention of gaining political advantage for themselves”.“Thankfully it’s not the job of the mayor to find mutual recognition and peace and safety for Israelis and Palestinians,” he said. “It is incumbent on the next mayor, whatever their position is, to find ways to reach across the divide.”As some candidates stoke fears, anxiety around the election is palpable among many Jewish voters.Alex Kaufman, a leader of LGBTQ Zionists of NYC, which endorsed Cuomo, said he had always prioritized issues like housing affordability, sustainability, and racial inclusion. “But this year, my number one issue is antisemitism,” he said. “I’ve never felt this unsafe.”With election day around the corner, the race has turned into an Israel-Palestine proxy war of sorts, even as voters on both sides wish the focus remained on local issues. Candidates have been asked in mayoral debates about their support for Israel and whether they would visit – with Mamdani’s answers that he supports Israel’s right to exist as a state “with equal rights” and that as mayor he would stay in the city rather than travel to a foreign country drawing both praise and condemnation (including some from the left, who criticised him for recognising Israel at all). In recent days, Cuomo has seized on Mamdani’s position on the words “globalize the intifada”, saying they fuel “hate” and “murder”.Beth Miller, the political director of Jewish Voice for Peace’s advocacy arm, which has been canvassing for Mamdani, said that his success challenges the long-held wisdom that a New York mayor must support the Israeli government. “If you believe in safety, freedom, dignity, and justice for people here at home, you can’t have a Palestine exception to that,” she said.‘The status quo is being bent’New York’s Jews are a diverse constituency – ranging from some anti-Zionists and others variously critical of Israel to orthodox communities traditionally voting as a unified bloc for more conservative candidates. A recent poll of the city’s Jewish Democrats showed 31% supporting Cuomo, 20% backing Mamdani, and 18% behind Lander.In the middle are New York Jews who consistently vote Democratic and espouse a host of liberal and even progressive causes. Many are still reeling from the 7 October 2023 attacks in Israel, are uneasy about the tone of US protests against the war in Gaza, and are increasingly worried about Jewish safety, pointing to recent violent attacks in Washington DC, and Colorado, and defacing of Jewish businesses and synagogues in the city.View image in fullscreen
      Kaufman, of LGBTQ Zionists, said he wished there were “better options” but that many of his acquaintances were coalescing around Cuomo even as they have reservations about his past conduct, including the sexual assault allegations that ended his governorship. Others gravitated toward Lander, but were troubled by his endorsement of Mamdani. Some said they were “terrified” of the latter, pointing to his refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and his presence at protests where Houthi flags were on display.Cuomo has promised to run as an independent if Mamdani wins on Tuesday. Because Adams is running as an independent, and Mamdani is also expected to remain on the ballot as the Working Families Party candidate, the contest is far from over.But to some, the fact that an openly pro-Palestinian candidate has made it this far is a sign of a profound shift in the city’s politics.“The status quo is being bent,” said Awad. She said she cried when filling in her ballot early. “Hope is such a rare thing to feel these days.” More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      What a difference a week makes: Trump falls into the Netanyahu trap

      by

      When he was elected, Donald Trump suggested he could hammer out a new relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister who was used to getting his way with the White House. But after just over 150 days in office, it appears Trump has fallen into the same trap as his predecessors – and launched the most consequential strike on Iran in generations.From early suggestions that the Trump administration would rein in Netanyahu’s military ambitions, it now appears that the Israeli PM has manoeuvred the US into striking Iranian uranium enrichment sites directly after a series of military attacks that Washington was unable to deter the Israeli PM from. And the US is now bracing for a retaliation that could easily bring it into a full-scale war.Days before Trump’s inauguration, his envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, barrelled into Israel with a demand to meet Netanyahu on Shabbat in order to strongarm him into negotiating a ceasefire deal with Hamas in Gaza.Senior officials at the time chalked that up to the “Trump factor” – a reference to the unpredictability and dealmaking prowess of the US president – which could provide a decisive edge in dealing with the forceful Israeli PM.While Netanyahu had been able to manoeuvre previous administrations into supporting his military adventures in the region, some critics of Israel began to laud Trump for his ability to resist Netanyahu’s pull.But after the events of Saturday – when US B-2 bombers pounded targets in Iran for the first time since Israel began to launch strikes last week – it was clear that Trump’s intuition had changed. Members of his inner entourage also shifted from a Maga isolationist approach to foreign policy to a more hawkish stance.Trump’s public aversion to war and his promises as a candidate not to embroil the US in further conflicts abroad was evaporating less than 200 days after he re-entered office.When he appeared in public, Trump sought to put rumours of a troubled relationship with Netanyahu to rest. And he tried to show that US policy was in lockstep with Israel, rejecting suggestions that Israel had blindsided the US by pursuing an aggressive bombing campaign against Iran.“I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu,” Trump said. “We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel.”It was a far cry from the initial US reaction to Israeli bombing raids on targets in Iran, when the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, called the strikes “unilateral” and said the US was “not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region”.What a difference a week makes. The US now appears to have fully endorsed the Israeli strikes and joined the attack, potentially setting the stage for a series of escalations that could lead to a new war in the Middle East.What does this mean for the future? Trump has claimed in public and private that the US strikes on the Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan enrichment sites were one-off missions and could be contained. US forces in the Middle East have been warned of the potential for Iranian retaliation attacks, and Trump has told Tehran that the US is ready to carry out further strikes if it is targeted directly.Yet Trump’s own administration officials, including the vice-president, JD Vance, have warned of the potential for a limited strike to creep into a longer-term mission in Iran if Tehran retaliates.For now, Trump continues to try to tread a middle ground, launching strikes but suggesting that he can prevent an escalation leading to a protracted war.Yet the key US ally in the Middle East appears only emboldened by Trump’s raid.“Congratulations, President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history,” Netanyahu said in a video statement. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s inner circle shifted view to support limited, one-off strike on Iran nuclear sites

      by

      Donald Trump’s move to bomb three nuclear sites in Iran came as those inside his orbit who were opposed to US intervention in the conflict shifted their views in favor of a limited and one-off strike.The US president had been under immense pressure from Republican anti-interventionists not to engage in any action against Iran out of concern that the US might be dragged into a protracted engagement to topple Iran’s leadership, or that strikes on facilities might have limited success.Some advisers both inside and outside the White House tried to dissuade him from becoming entangled in what they characterized as a conflict started by Israel. They initially suggested the US could continue to help Israel with support from the intelligence community.But in recent days, as Trump increasingly considered the prospect of strikes and told advisers he had no interest in a prolonged war to bring about regime change, some advisers shifted their public arguments to suggesting the US could do a quick bombing run if Israel could do nothing further.The evolving views gave Trump some cover to order a bombing run that targeted the three nuclear facilities in Iran. A US official said on Saturday that the strikes were complete, the B-2 bombers used in the raid were out of Iranian airspace and no further follow-up attacks were planned.However, the strikes will inevitably be seen by some as a victory for hardliners in the US who have pushed for a tough stance on Iran, a firm backing of Israel’s attack on the country and direct US military involvement in that effort.The US strikes in the end were limited to Iran’s nuclear uranium-enrichment sites at Natanz and Fordow, the facility buried deep underground that is seen as the most difficult to take offline, and a third site at Isfahan, where Iran was believed to have stored its near-weapons-grade uranium.It was unclear whether the bombing run did enough damage to set back Iran’s ability to acquire a nuclear weapon, and whether Iran had already moved the weapons-grade uranium out of the Isfahan laboratory as some officials suggested.Trump appeared to view the bombing run as comparable to his drone strike to assassinate Gen Qassem Suleimani of Iran, one of his proudest accomplishments from his first term and one he mentioned repeatedly at campaign rallies, despite his denouncements of US military action in the Middle East.Like he did after the Suleimani operation, Trump posted a giant graphic of the American flag on his Truth Social account shortly after he described the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities as “very successful” in a post announcing details of the operation.The comparison appeared to be an additional effort to underscore his intentions that he does not want a wider war with Iran and was only focused on the necessary steps to ensure Iran could not develop a nuclear weapon.Whether that hope plays out could depend on large part on how Iran interprets the strikes and its ability to retaliate. If Iranian leaders perceived them to be limited, it could lead to a more measured response. But if seen as too disproportionate, and with little to lose, Iran could open frontal attacks on numerous US bases in the region. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Military Is Pulled Back Into Middle East Wars

      by

      The strikes on Iran ushered in a period of high alert as the Pentagon braced for almost-certain retaliation against American forces in the region.The U.S. strikes on nuclear sites in Iran are an extraordinary turn for a military that was supposed to be moving on from two decades of forever wars in the Middle East, and they put the United States back on war footing.Across the region, where more than 40,000 American troops are on bases and warships, the strikes ushered in a period of high alert as the Pentagon braced for almost-certain retaliation from Iran.President Trump announced on social media that three Iranian sites were hit, including the mountain facility at Fordo. The bombs used in the strikes are believed to include “bunker busters,” which are designed to destroy deep underground bunkers or well-buried weapons in highly protected facilities.A U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss confidential intelligence said that multiple 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs were dropped on Fordo, and that initial damage assessments indicated that the facility had been “taken off the table.”The strikes, whether successful or not, are likely to trigger a fierce response. Tehran has vowed to strike at American bases in the Middle East, and American intelligence agencies confirmed before the strikes took place that Iran would take steps to widen the war and hit U.S. forces in the region. U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence, said the strikes against the three nuclear sites were complete. The official said no follow-up attacks were expected, although commanders were ready to respond to any Iranian retaliation.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      With Decision to Bomb Iran, Trump Injects U.S. Into Middle East Conflict

      by

      By bombing three nuclear sites in Iran, the United States has joined Israel’s war against the country. Now it is bracing for Iranian retaliation.President Trump announced on Saturday that the U.S. military had bombed three of Iran’s nuclear sites, including its uranium-enrichment facility deep underground at Fordo, injecting the United States directly into a war in the Middle East.The president made the announcement on his social media website, Truth Social, shortly before 8 p.m. in Washington.“We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space,” the president wrote. “A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!”The bombing came two days after the White House said Mr. Trump would make a decision “within two weeks” about whether to move ahead with such an attack. Israeli officials were told about the bombing beforehand, and Mr. Trump spoke with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel afterward, according to a person with knowledge of the conversations who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.Mr. Trump said he would address the nation on Saturday night from the White House at 10 p.m.It was not immediately clear how many bombs were dropped, or how much damage was caused to Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium and potentially pursue a nuclear weapon. And Mr. Trump, who had been debating whether to join Israel’s war against Iran, immediately suggested that a diplomatic resolution was still possible. But it was far from clear that Iran would be interested in that.Since making clear that he was considering striking Iran, Mr. Trump has faced pressure from Republican critics and supporters of such of a move, highlighting a split within his own party.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More