More stories

  • in

    Israeli Strikes Kill IRGC Leader and Major Nuclear Scientists

    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

  • in

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

    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

  • in

    Why Israel May Be Considering an Attack on Iran

    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

  • in

    The Politics and Perils of Pornography

    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

  • in

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

    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

  • in

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

    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

  • in

    Ukraine, Gaza and Iran: can Witkoff secure any wins for Trump?

    Donald Trump’s version of Pax Americana, the idea that the US can through coercion impose order on the world, is facing its moment of truth in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran.In the words of the former CIA director William Burns, it is in “one of those plastic moments” in international relations that come along maybe twice a century where the future could take many possible forms.The US’s aim has been to keep the three era-defining simultaneous sets of negotiations entirely separate, and to – as much as possible – shape their outcome alone. The approach is similar to the trade talks, where the intention is for supplicant countries to come to Washington individually bearing gifts in return for access to US markets.The administration may have felt it had little choice given the urgency, but whether it was wise to launch three such ambitious peace missions, and a global trade war, at the same time is debatable.It is true each of the three conflicts are discrete in that they have distinctive causes, contexts and dynamics, but they are becoming more intertwined than seemed apparent at the outset, in part because there is so much resistance building in Europe and elsewhere about the world order Donald Trump envisages, and his chosen methods.In diplomacy nothing is hermetically sealed – everything is inter-connected, especially since there is a common thread between the three talks in the personality of the property developer Steven Witkoff, Trump’s great friend who is leading the US talks in each case, flitting from Moscow to Muscat.View image in fullscreenTo solve these three conflicts simultaneously would be a daunting task for anyone, but it is especially for a man entirely new to diplomacy and, judging by some of his remarks, also equally new to history.Witkoff has strengths, not least that he is trusted by Trump. He also knows the president’s mind – and what should be taken at face value. He is loyal, so much so that he admits he worshipped Trump in New York so profoundly that he wanted to become him. He will not be pursuing any other agenda but the president’s.But he is also stretched, and there are basic issues of competence. Diplomats are reeling from big cuts to the state department budget and there is still an absence of experienced staffers. Witkoff simply does not have the institutional memory available to his opposite numbers in Iran, Israel and Russia. For instance, most of the Iranian negotiating team, led by the foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, are veterans of the 2013-15 talks that led to the original Iran nuclear deal.Yuri Ushakov, Vladimir Putin’s chief foreign policy adviser, who attended the first Russian-US talks this year in Saudi Arabia, spent 10 years in the US as Russian ambassador. He was accompanied by Kirill Dmitriev, the head of the Russian sovereign wealth fund who then visited the US on 2 April.In the follow-up talks in Istanbul on 10 April, Aleksandr Darchiev, who has spent 33 years in the Russian foreign ministry and is Russian ambassador to the US, was pitted against a team led by Sonata Coulter, the new deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, who does not share Trump’s benign view of Russia.View image in fullscreenAs to the Gaza issue, Benjamin Netanyahu has lived the Palestinian conflict since he became Israel’s ambassador to the UN in 1984.Richard Nephew, a former US Iran negotiator, says the cuts to state department means the US “is at risk of losing a generation of expertise … It’s beyond tragedy. It’s an absolutely devastating national security blow with the evisceration of these folks. The damage could be permanent, we have to acknowledge this.”One withering European diplomat says: “It is as if Witkoff is trying to play three dimensional chess with chess grandmasters on three chessboards simultaneously, not having played the game before.”Bluntly, Witkoff knows he needs to secure a diplomatic win for his impatient boss. But the longer the three conflicts continue, the more entangled they become with one another, the more Trump’s credibility is questioned. Already, according to a Reuters Ipsos poll published this month, 59% of Americans think Trump is costing their country its credibility on the global stage.The risk for Trump is that the decision to address so much so quickly ends up not being a show of American strength but the opposite – the public erosion of a super power.In the hurry to seal a deal with Iran inside two months, Trump, unlike in all previous nuclear talks with Tehran, has barred complicating European interests from the negotiation room.To Iran’s relief, Witkoff has not tabled an agenda that strays beyond stopping Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb. He has not raised Iran’s supply of drones to Russia for use in Ukraine. Nor has he tabled demands that Iran end arms supplies to its proxies fighting Israel.That has alarmed Israel, and to a lesser extent Europe, which sees Iran’s desire to have sanctions lifted as a rare opportunity to extract concessions from Tehran. Israel’s strategic affairs minister, Ron Dermer, and Mossad’s head, David Barnea, met Witkoff last Friday in Paris to try to persuade him that when he met the Iran negotiating team the next day in Rome, he had to demand the dismantling of Tehran’s civil nuclear programme.Witkoff refused, and amid many contradictory statements the administration has reverted to insisting that Iran import the necessary enriched uranium for its civil nuclear programme, rather than enrich it domestically.Russia, in a sign of Trump’s trust, might again become the repository of Iran’s stocks of highly enriched uranium, as it was after the 2015 deal.Israel is also wary of Trump’s aggrandisement of Russia. The Israeli thinktank INSS published a report this week detailing how Russia, in search of anti-western allies in the global south for its Ukraine war, has shown opportunistic political support not just to Iran but to Hamas. Israel will also be uneasy if Russia maintains its role in Syria.But if Trump has upset Netanyahu over Iran, he is keeping him sweet by giving him all he asks on Gaza.Initially, Witkoff received glowing accolades about how tough he had been with Netanyahu in his initial meeting in January. It was claimed that Witkoff ordered the Israeli president to meet him on a Saturday breaking the Sabbath and directed him to agree a ceasefire that he had refused to give to Joe Biden’s team for months.As a result, as Trump entered the White House on 19 January, he hailed the “EPIC ceasefire agreement could have only happened as a result of our Historic Victory in November, as it signalled to the entire World that my Administration would seek Peace and negotiate deals to ensure the safety of all Americans, and our Allies”.But Netanyahu, as was widely predicted in the region, found a reason not to open talks on the second phase of the ceasefire deal – the release of the remaining hostages held in Gaza in exchange for a permanent end to the fighting.Witkoff came up with compromises to extend the ceasefire but Netanyahu rejected them, resuming the assault on Hamas on 19 March. The US envoy merely described Israel’s decision as “unfortunate, in some respects, but also falls into the had-to-be bucket”.View image in fullscreenNow Trump’s refusal to put any pressure on Israel to lift its six-week-old ban on aid entering Gaza is informing Europe’s rift with Trump. Marking 50 days of the ban this week, France, Germany and the UK issued a strongly worded statement describing the denial of aid as intolerable.The French president, Emmanuel Macron, is calling for a coordinated European recognition of the state of Palestine, and Saudi Arabia is insisting the US does not attack Iran’s nuclear sites.Witkoff, by contrast, has been silent about Gaza’s fate and the collapse of the “EPIC ceasefire”.But if European diplomats think Witkoff was naive in dealing with Netanyahu, it is nothing to the scorn they hold for his handling of Putin.The anger is partly because Europeans had thought that, after the Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s public row with Trump in the Oval Office, they had restored Ukraine’s standing in Washington by persuading Kyiv to back the full ceasefire that the US first proposed on 11 March.View image in fullscreenThe talks in Paris last week between Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, and European leaders also gave Europe a chance to point out it was Putin that was stalling over a ceasefire.But instead of putting any countervailing pressure on Russia to accept a ceasefire, Witkoff switched strategy. In the words of Bruno Tertrais, a non-resident fellow at the Institut of Montaigne, Witkoff is “is now presenting a final peace plan, very favourable to the aggressor, even before the start of the negotiations, which had been due to take place after a ceasefire”.No European government has yet criticised Trump’s lopsided plan in public since, with few cards to play, the immediate necessity is to try to prevent Trump acting on his threat to walk away. At the very least, Europe will argue that if Trump wants Ukraine’s resources, he has to back up a European force patrolling a ceasefire, an issue that receives only sketchy reference in the US peace plan.The Polish foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, addressing the country’s parliament on Wednesday, pointed to the necessity of these security guarantees. “Any arrangement with the Kremlin will only last so long as the Russian elite dreads the consequences of its breach,” he said.View image in fullscreenBut in a sense, Trump and Putin, according to Fiona Hill at the Brookings Institution, a Russia specialist in Trump’s first administration, may already have moved beyond the details of their Ukrainian settlement as they focus on their wider plan to restore the Russian-US relationship.It would be an era of great power collusion, not great power competition in which Gaza, Iran and Ukraine would be sites from which the US and Russia could profit.Writing on Truth Social about a phone call with Putin in February, Trump reported” “We both reflected on the Great History of our Nations, and the fact that we fought so successfully together in World War II … We each talked about the strengths of our respective Nations, and the great benefit that we will someday have in working together.”Witkoff has also mused about what form this cooperation might take. “Shared sea lanes, maybe send [liquefied natural] gas into Europe together, maybe collaborate on AI together,” he said, adding: “Who doesn’t want to see a world like that?” More

  • in

    Why Saudi Arabia Supports Trump’s Nuclear Talks With Its Rival, Iran

    The agreements are shaping up to be very similar. But Gulf support for a nuclear deal shows how much the region has changed.Ten years ago, when former President Barack Obama and other leaders reached a deal with Iran to limit its nuclear program, Saudi Arabia was dismayed.Saudi officials called it a “weak deal” that had only emboldened the kingdom’s regional rival, Iran. They cheered when President Trump withdrew from the agreement a few years later.Now, as a second Trump administration negotiates with Iran on a deal that might have very similar contours to the previous one, the view from Saudi Arabia looks quite different.The kingdom’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement recently saying that it hoped the talks, mediated by neighboring Oman, would enhance “peace in the region and the world.”Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman even dispatched his brother, the defense minister Prince Khalid bin Salman, to Tehran, where he was received warmly by Iranian officials dressed in military regalia. He then hand-delivered a letter to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a man whom Prince Mohammed once derided as making “Hitler look good.”What changed? Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran have warmed over the past decade. As important, Saudi Arabia is in the middle of an economic diversification program intended to transform the kingdom from being overly dependent on oil into a business, technology and tourism hub. The prospect of Iranian drones and missiles flying over Saudi Arabia because of regional tensions poses a serious threat to that plan.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