Nuclear weapons

Subterms

    More stories

    • 225 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Israel’s shock attack on Iran: confusing US signals add to the peril | Editorial

      by

      US presidents who thought they could easily restrain Benjamin Netanyahu have quickly learned their lesson. “Who’s the fucking superpower?” Bill Clinton reportedly exploded after his first meeting with the Israeli prime minister.Did Donald Trump make the same mistake? The state department quickly declared that the devastating overnight Israeli attack on Iran – which killed key military commanders and nuclear scientists as well as striking its missile capacity and a nuclear enrichment site – was unilateral. Mr Trump had reportedly urged Mr Netanyahu to hold off in a call on Monday, pending US talks with Iran over its nuclear programme due this weekend. The suspicion is that Israel feared that a deal might be reached and wanted to strike first. But Israeli officials have briefed that they had a secret green light from the US, with Mr Trump only claiming to oppose it.Iran, reeling from the attack but afraid of looking too weak to retaliate, is unlikely to believe that the US did not acquiesce to the offensive, if unenthusiastically. It might suit it better to pretend otherwise – in the short term, it is not clear what ability it has to hit back at Israel, never mind taking on the US. But Mr Trump has made that hard by threatening “even more brutal attacks” ahead, urging Iran to “make a deal, before there’s nothing left” and claiming that “we knew everything”. Whether Israel really convinced Mr Trump that this was the way to cut a deal, or he is offering a post-hoc justification after being outflanked by Mr Netanyahu, may no longer matter.Israel has become increasingly and dangerously confident of its ability to reshape the Middle East without pushing it over the brink. It believes that its previous pummellings of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran’s air defences have created a brief opportunity to destroy the existential threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme before it is too late. Russia is not about to ride to Tehran’s rescue, and while Gulf states don’t want instability, they are not distraught to see an old rival weakened.But not least in the reckoning is surely that Mr Netanyahu, who survives politically through military action, only narrowly survived a Knesset vote this week. The government also faces mounting international condemnation over its war crimes in Gaza – though the US and others allow those crimes to continue. It is destroying the nation’s international reputation, yet may bolster domestic support through this campaign.The obvious question is the future of a key Iranian enrichment site deep underground at Fordo, which many believe Israel could not destroy without US “bunker busters”. If Israel believes that taking out personnel and some infrastructure is sufficient to preclude Iran’s nuclear threat, that is a huge and perilous gamble. This attack may well trigger a rush to full nuclear-armed status by Tehran – and ultimately others – and risks spurring more desperate measures in the meantime. Surely more likely is that Israel hopes to draw in Washington, by persuading it that Iran is a paper tiger or baiting Tehran into attacking US targets.“My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier,” Mr Trump claimed in his inaugural speech. Yet on Friday he said was not concerned about a regional war breaking out due to Israel’s strikes. Few will feel so sanguine. The current incoherence and incomprehensibility of US foreign policy fuels instability and risks drawing adversaries towards fateful miscalculations.

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Mideast Tense as Long Anticipated Israel-Iran Conflict Sinks Hopes for Détente

      by

      Israel’s attacks on Iran renewed fears of war between the countries and immediately threatened the region’s economy.In September 2019, a barrage of drones and cruise missiles slammed into two Saudi oil facilities near the Persian Gulf, including one of the largest in the world, igniting small fires that briefly interrupted production.The projectiles were later traced to Iran, and despite its stringent denials, the desire to avoid a repeat of the incident prompted a new and sustained effort by Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Gulf States to use détente and diplomacy toward the Islamic Republic to de-escalate regional tensions.That effort is being put to the test as never before on Friday amid waves of Israeli attacks on Iran aimed at destroying key facilities and decapitating the military and civilian leadership running its nuclear programs.“I think the tension is palpable and everybody is concerned about possible blowback,” said Firas Maksad, the managing director for the Middle East and North Africa at the Eurasia Group, a New York-based risk analysis organization. “This is a moment of great uncertainty throughout the region. It is the big war the region has been both fearing and anticipating for years.”The Gulf Arab states, and indeed much of the Arab world, were quick to issue robust condemnations of the Israeli attacks like this one from Riyadh: “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia expresses its strong condemnation and denunciation of the blatant Israeli aggression against the brotherly Islamic Republic of Iran, which undermine its sovereignty and security and constitute a clear violation of international laws and norms.”The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Faisal bin Farhan, and several others from the region called their Iranian counterpart to repeat the condemnation.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

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Israeli Strikes Kill IRGC Leader and Major Nuclear Scientists

      by

      Israel has long targeted Iranian officials for assassination. But these attacks marked a significant shift in tactics, targeting multiple officials at once inside Iran.Israel’s wave of attacks in Iran overnight on Friday targeted top Iranian officials and appeared to successfully kill the leader of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, in a shocking series of strikes that aimed to deal significant blows to Iran’s security leadership.Hossein Salami, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, was killed in an Israeli strike within the Iranian capital of Tehran, according to Tasnim, a semiofficial news site affiliated with the government. As leader of the force, Mr. Salami had helped oversee the relationship with Iranian proxies like Hezbollah, the Lebanese armed group, which had long menaced Israel.Tasnim also reported that at least three other senior Iranian leaders were thought to have been killed. They were Gholamali Rashid, the deputy commander of the Iranian armed forces; Mohammad Mehdi Tehranji, an Iranian physicist; and Fereydoun Abbasi, an Iranian nuclear scientist.Israel has long sought to assassinate Iranian security chiefs and nuclear scientists. But it has generally picked them off one by one, often while they were outside Iranian territory in Lebanon or Syria.The attacks early on Friday appeared to be a significant shift in tactics. Not only did they target Iran’s nuclear program and air defenses, the Israeli attacks also sought to eliminate many senior members of the Iranian security establishment at once.Israel also targeted Mohammad Bagheri, the chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, as well as other senior commanders in the Guards Corps and leading scientists in the country’s nuclear program, according to two Israeli defense officials familiar with the matter. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.There was no immediate comment from Iranian officials on Mr. Bagheri’s condition. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Was Not Involved in Israeli Strikes on Iran, Rubio Says

      by

      President Trump has said he would like to negotiate a deal with Tehran over its nuclear program but had also acknowledged that Israel might attack Iran first.Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Thursday that the United States had no involvement in Israel’s unilateral strikes on Iran but had been told that Israel considered the attack necessary for its self-defense.President Trump, who has been pushing for a deal with Iran on its nuclear program, was hosting the annual White House picnic on Thursday evening when reports of the strikes emerged from Tehran.Despite his expressed hopes for a diplomatic breakthrough, Mr. Trump had also acknowledged on Thursday that Israel might attack first.In a statement, Mr. Rubio said: “We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense.” It was not immediately clear how much detail about the strike Israel had provided the United States, its main ally, and how far in advance.Despite the Trump administration distancing itself from the attacks, its statements and precautionary measures this week have indicated the concern that Iran’s retaliation, which is expected to be swift, could also include American targets in the Middle East.“Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel,” Mr Rubio said.On Wednesday, the United States withdrew diplomats from Iraq, Iran’s neighbor to the west, and authorized the voluntary departure of the family members of U.S. military personnel from the Middle East. The U.S. military has a large fleet of warplanes, naval vessels and thousands of troops stationed at its bases in the region, including in Qatar and Bahrain, just around 150 miles across the gulf from Iran.Iran’s defense minister said this week that if nuclear talks failed and a conflict arose with the United States, his country’s military would target all American bases in the region.It was unclear what impact Israel’s strikes would have on the ongoing negotiations between the Trump administration and Iran, or on Mr. Trump’s relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. The president had spoken with the Israeli leader on Monday but did not give any details about the conversation.In recent weeks, Mr. Trump has said he has urged Israel to hold off on military strikes while the negotiations were taking place. Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, was expected to meet Iran’s foreign minister in Oman on Sunday for the next round of talks.Around the time Israel began to strike Iran, Mr. Trump said he remained committed to a diplomatic resolution.“My entire Administration has been directed to negotiate with Iran,” he posted on social media around 5 p.m. Eastern time. “They could be a Great Country, but they first must completely give up hopes of obtaining a Nuclear Weapon.” More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Why Israel May Be Considering an Attack on Iran

      by

      Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to prevent Tehran, “one way or the other,” from building a nuclear bomb.Israel has long envisioned a military attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites in an attempt to halt what it considers an existential threat. But any such military strike would risk igniting a major conflict that could draw in the United States.Many in the Middle East are now wondering whether that moment has arrived. But it is unclear whether the heightened tensions are the result of saber-rattling in an attempt to influence negotiations between the United States and Iran over a nuclear deal, or a genuine Israeli attempt to carry out a planned attack. On Wednesday, The New York Times reported that officials in the United States and Europe believed that Israel seemed to be gearing up for a potential strike, even as Trump administration is seeking a deal with Tehran to curb its nuclear program. The following day, the International Atomic Energy Agency declared that Iran was not complying with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations — the first such censure in two decades.It is unclear how extensive an attack Israel is considering. But the United States has withdrawn diplomats from the region over concerns about the attack and any Iranian retaliation.Here’s what we know.Why might Israel attack now?Iran’s nuclear program has advanced considerably over the past decade, analysts say. Iran is on the brink of being able to manufacture enough nuclear material to fuel 10 nuclear weapons, although producing a usable bomb would likely take many more months.But Iran has been weakened since Hamas launched the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel that ignited the war in Gaza. Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are backed by Iran, have been decimated in the war with Israel.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

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Politics and Perils of Pornography

      by

      More from our inbox:Investing in War K YoungTo the Editor:Re “The Delusion of Porn’s Harmlessness,” by Christine Emba (Opinion guest essay, May 25):Thanks to Ms. Emba for writing about pornography and its negative effect on society.I try to teach my daughter and 8-year-old granddaughter that they bring more to the table than their looks, that they are more than the sum total of their body parts. I’m breathing a slight sigh of relief that maybe this next generation will realize that.Jenny MottierCincinnatiTo the Editor:In her essay, Christine Emba writes: “As a society, we are allowing our desires to continue to be molded in experimental ways, for profit, by an industry that does not have our best interests at heart.” But I’m left wondering, what industry does?The food industry floods us with ultraprocessed products that are literally killing us. The fossil fuel industry drives us toward climate catastrophe. The health care industry leaves thousands uninsured and allows people to die if they can’t pay.Surely, Ms. Emba must see that the real problem is the current state of capitalism, where profit is the only true priority. The porn industry is just one more expression of that system.Karaca MestciLondonTo the Editor:As long as we, as a society, continue to withhold age-appropriate sex education from our young people, they will continue to seek out answers to their questions and context for their feelings anywhere they can find them. The internet has, unfortunately, become the primary source of this for many children and young adults.Withholding reliable and useful information about sex does not make the normal and appropriate curiosity that young people have about bodies, behavior and sex go away. It just encourages the naturally curious to seek out answers in other places.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

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Reluctant at First, Trump Officials Intervened in South Asia as Nuclear Fears Grew

      by

      After Vice President JD Vance suggested that the conflict between India and Pakistan was not America’s problem, the Trump administration grew concerned that it could spiral out of control.As a conflict between India and Pakistan escalated, Vice President JD Vance told Fox News on Thursday that it was “fundamentally none of our business.” The United States could counsel both sides to back away, he suggested, but this was not America’s fight.Yet within 24 hours, Mr. Vance and Marco Rubio, in his first week in the dual role of national security adviser and secretary of state, found themselves plunged into the details. The reason was the same one that prompted Bill Clinton in 1999 to deal with another major conflict between the two longtime enemies: fear that it might quickly go nuclear.What drove Mr. Vance and Mr. Rubio into action was evidence that the Pakistani and Indian Air Forces had begun to engage in serious dogfights, and that Pakistan had sent 300 to 400 drones into Indian territory to probe its air defenses. But the most significant causes for concern came late Friday, when explosions hit the Nur Khan air base in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, the garrison city adjacent to Islamabad.The base is a key installation, one of the central transport hubs for Pakistan’s military and the home to the air refueling capability that would keep Pakistani fighters aloft. But it is also just a short distance from the headquarters of Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division, which oversees and protects the country’s nuclear arsenal, now believed to include about 170 or more warheads. The warheads themselves are presumed to be spread around the country.The intense fighting broke out between India and Pakistan after 26 people, mostly Hindu tourists, were killed in a terrorist attack on April 22 in Kashmir, a border region claimed by both nations. On Saturday morning, President Trump announced that the two countries had agreed to a cease-fire.One former American official long familiar with Pakistan’s nuclear program noted on Saturday that Pakistan’s deepest fear is of its nuclear command authority being decapitated. The missile strike on Nur Khan could have been interpreted, the former official said, as a warning that India could do just that.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

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Nuclear-Armed India and Pakistan Have No Bridges Left to Burn

      by

      When India and Pakistan clash, the world too often dismisses it wearily as just another flare-up of age-old animosities over religion and Kashmir punctuated by inconclusive cross-border skirmishes. As President Trump recently put it — inaccurately — “They’ve had that fight for a thousand years in Kashmir,” and “probably longer than that.”This is somewhat understandable. Despite a few wars and many more scuffles between Muslim-majority Pakistan and predominantly Hindu India, confrontations have always been followed by negotiation and diplomacy, often facilitated by the United States. Even when serious fighting did erupt, established guardrails kept the two sides from coming too close to the unthinkable: using their nuclear weapons.That predictable cycle is a thing of the past. The immediate trigger for the military conflict now underway between the countries was a terrorist attack on Hindu tourists in Kashmir last month that killed 26 people. The incident’s rapid escalation into armed hostilities spotlights a profound and dangerous shift in the India-Pakistan rivalry in recent years that has eliminated the diplomatic space that had allowed the neighbors to avoid a devastating conflict.That shift can be traced to the two countries’ vastly different trajectories.India has emerged as a geopolitical and economic powerhouse and its Hindu nationalist prime minister, Narendra Modi, has cast it as not only a great nation, but an ascendant great civilization whose moment on the global stage has arrived. This has crystallized an uncompromising mind-set in which New Delhi increasingly views Pakistan not as a disruptive nuisance but an acute threat to India’s rightful rise. India has lost patience with Pakistan’s claim on the Indian-held half of Kashmir, the Muslim-majority region that each side calls its own, and its support of anti-India terrorism.Pakistan, on the other hand, has been mired for two decades in economic, political and security crises. One institution there reigns supreme: a powerful army that dominates decision-making and has very significant conventional and nuclear military capability. Although beleaguered, Pakistan, with its own ambitions to remain a regional power, is unwilling to back down against India and on issues such as Kashmir that are central to its national identity.In decades past, it was usually Indian restraint in the face of Pakistani actions that maintained an uneasy equilibrium. Even after deadly incidents such as the 2008 attack in Mumbai by Pakistan-based terrorists, which killed 166 people, India typically responded with moderation and periodic peace overtures.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