Pakistan condemns Trump's bombing of Iran - a day after nominating him for Peace Prize
In Pakistan's biggest city, Karachi, thousands marched in protest against the US and Israeli strikes on Iran.
A large American flag with a picture of Trump on it was placed on the road for demonstrators to walk over. The protesters shouted out chants against America, Israel and Pakistan's regional enemy India.
Pakistan on Saturday said it was nominating Trump as "a genuine peacemaker" for his role in bringing a four-day conflict with India to an end last month. It said he had 'demonstrated great strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
31 minutes ago
- CNA
Commentary: Iran has no good choices to respond to US strikes – only the best of bad options
SINGAPORE: In the end, it was the American president who appeared to be the most dead set against 'stupid, endless wars' in the Middle East that sent the nation's military back into the region in a purely offensive manner. Although expectations were raised that the United States could act against Iran, the attacks early on Sunday (Jun 22) were a surprise – at least in terms of timing. Donald Trump gave Iran two weeks to come to a decision on whether it wanted to return to the negotiating table. Instead, he took all of two days to strike. Whether the two-week window was a ruse, or whether the US leader had gained new intelligence about Iran's unwillingness to negotiate – or even whether Mr Trump had already decided to attack when he set the deadline – will likely be unknown for some time, if ever. Another big unknown is how successful the American attacks were in setting back Iran's nuclear programme. Mr Trump claimed that Iran's nuclear facilities had been 'completely and totally obliterated'. But the press conference on Sunday night by the Pentagon provided neither detailed battle damage assessments nor satellite imagery that could shed light on the success of Operation Midnight Hammer beyond the superlatives employed by Mr Trump. Details will surely be clearer to the White House, but whether the message has been received by Tehran remains an open question. IRAN HAS NO GOOD CHOICES Perhaps what was most significant about the president's remarks was what was not explicitly stated: The US action was intended as a one-time effort, and whether it stays that way is up to the leadership of the Islamic Republic. That, of course, hinges on two things: Whether the bomb and missile strikes were as effective as claimed, and how Iran will respond to them. On the former, a successful mission is a preferable outcome: It increases the chances that calm will return sooner, rather than later – because Iran has no good choices. If, as threatened, it decides that the only way forward for it is to exit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and take its programme underground, this will likely invite more American, and Israeli, action as they seek to exploit a moment of extraordinary Iranian weakness and vulnerability. This is a trail that has been blazed by North Korea, which is now estimated to have about 60 nuclear weapons. Washington will have no doubt learned lessons from its failure to keep Pyongyang from breaking out. Then again, the kinetic options that were available to the US in Iran were never really on the table in the case of North Korea, despite threats from a succession of US presidents – Mr Trump himself warned of 'fire and fury like the world has never seen'. The risks of a dramatic escalation, geopolitical uncertainty and lack of solid intelligence were among the reasons the US did not draw a firm line in the sand, and allowed North Korea to call its bluff. When it comes to Iran, the line has been drawn, and the consequences for crossing it have been clearly spelled out. DOING NOTHING WOULD BE CAPITULATION As Mr Trump put it, there will either be peace or tragedy for Iran, and the choice is theirs. Beyond the missile salvo it launched on Israel hours after the US strikes, Iran could hit American bases and the 40,000 troops in the Middle East as retaliation. It could also lash out by attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz, crippling oil supplies and attack Gulf Arab states, as it has done in the past. It could also resort to cyberattacks, or terrorist actions against US and Israeli interests around the world. But that is inviting further trouble on itself. The US attacks on Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, Mr Trump claimed, were the 'most difficult' for the military to carry out, and that future ones would be 'a lot easier'. For good measure, he added a footnote: 'Remember, there are many targets left.' In its current weakened and exposed state, any action Iran takes to widen the conflict will make its position even more precarious. That said, Iran cannot be expected to do nothing. Standing idly by would be tantamount to announcing its humiliating capitulation to the world. For the regime, much worse could follow: Doing nothing would validate an idea that many Iranians themselves believe – that their leaders have led them down a reckless path that has brought them economic misery, international opprobrium and isolation from the world. Iranians are a proud people and will rally around the flag in the face of severe attacks, setting aside political and ideological differences despite all their misgivings. An unconditional surrender, however, will force them to look inward at the choices that brought them here, and begin a reckoning against the clerical regime. WHAT'S THE BEST OF BAD OPTIONS? That leaves Iran the best of bad options – one it has taken before. In 2020, during Mr Trump's first term, it took five days after the US assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leader Qassem Soleimani before Iran retaliated. It fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at US bases in Iraq. Before it pressed the trigger, however, Tehran telegraphed the attacks, allowing Americans to seek safety. This prevented US fatalities, although more than 100 troops suffered traumatic brain injuries. This would appear to be the best course forward. Iran can claim retaliation in force, both sides can then put a lid on this episode and then sit down to work out a lasting solution. An agreement on the terms of Iran's surrendering of its nuclear ambitions – without ever using that word – may then be worked out, allowing all sides to claim some wins, and climb down from the escalatory ladder. Then again, in the Middle East, there are exceedingly few who have been accused of being rational actors.
CNA
an hour ago
- CNA
CNA938 Rewind - Rain, risk, resilience for Singapore's climate
Latest Episodes CNA938 Rewind - Rain, risk, resilience for Singapore's climate In line with Singapore International Water Week, Andrea Heng and Susan Ng take a look at Singapore's flood prevention measures and find out what more can be done in this ever-changing climate. For that, they speak with Professor Vladan Babovic, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, National University of Singapore. 15 mins CNA938 Rewind - US enters the Israel-Iran war Iran has struck Israel in retaliation for the US bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites in what's seen as America's biggest foreign policy gamble. President Donald Trump says Tehran must now end its fight with Israel or face a force far greater than what was witnessed. Andrea Heng and Susan Ng assess the latest developments with Alex Vatanka, Senior Fellow, Middle East Institute. 16 mins CNA938 Rewind - Stock take today: US strikes on Iran, crude oil forecast On the daily markets analysis on Open For Business, Andrea Heng and Susan Ng speak with Heng Koon How, Head of Markets Strategy, Global Economics and Markets Research, UOB. 12 mins
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Iran's short-range weapons pose a threat to US Bases
A number of US bases are within range of Iran's short-range weapons. PHOTO: REUTERS Follow our live coverage here. WASHINGTON – Iran vowed to retaliate against American bases in the region even before the United States attacked its nuclear sites on June 21 , and US intelligence agencies have long warned that the military should prepare for such a response. While Iran will likely attempt a fierce barrage, US and Israeli officials said before the attacks on June 21 that Israel's strikes in recent days had severely damaged Iran's ability to mount attacks, wiping out launchers and damaging military bases. In more than a week of fighting before the US attacks, the Israeli air force struck Iranian missile launchers and launch teams, and Iran depleted its stockpile of medium-range missiles, according to US and Israeli officials. In an address from the White House on June 21 , President Donald Trump warned Iran against further actions, and demanded that Tehran 'make peace.' 'There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,' Mr Trump said. 'But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill.' Iran could ignore Mr Trump's comments and deploy its remaining medium-range missiles, or its short-range weapons and cruise missiles, which could be used to threaten US bases in the Middle East, according to experts. Mr Nicholas Carl, who studies Iran for the American Enterprise Institute's Critical Threats Project, said those weapons have too short a range to be directly fired against Israel. But a number of US bases are within range. In addition to cruise missiles and rockets, Iran also has an ample supply of attack drones, which could be particularly effective if they are smuggled to Shiite militias in Iraq and fired at US bases there, US officials said. And the Iran-backed Houthi militia in Yemen, which reached a ceasefire agreement with the United States in May , could resume its attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. 'Iran has many ways of imposing pressure on the West and the international community writ large,' Mr Carl said in an interview before the strike on the three nuclear sites. US officials said Iran would probably use its bases in the southern part of the country to launch missile attacks on US bases in the Persian Gulf. The fighting has strained Israel's supply of missile interceptors and Iran's capacity to attack. When the war began, Iran had some 2,000 long and midrange weapons, one of the largest collections in the region, according to Israeli officials. US officials have generally accepted that estimate. It is not clear how much of Iran's arsenal remains. The country has fired off hundreds of missiles, and Israel has damaged sites where they are stored. Israel's strikes on missile launchers have been even more significant, limiting Iran's ability to fire missiles and large-scale barrages, US officials and outside experts said. Israel's campaign has also hurt Iran's ability to coordinate attacks, according to experts and Israeli officials. US bases in the Middle East are protected by missile defences , and Iran would likely have to fire a large coordinated barrage of missiles to penetrate them. Mr Carl said Iran's capacity to fire large numbers of missiles is increasingly limited. At least half of Iran's launchers have been destroyed. 'As you begin to whittle away at the launchers, the Iranian ability to summon these large volumes of missile fire is diminished,' Mr Carl said. 'And that is a huge problem for Iran.' The Israeli attacks have forced Iran to change its tactics and operations. Mr Carl said that in response to Israel's strikes on missile crews preparing to launch weapons, Iran appeared to be trying to launch missiles more quickly. 'The Iranians appear to be accelerating their launch timeline,' Mr Carl said. 'That means it is harder to coordinate large-scale attacks across the country.' Key weaknesses in Iran's arsenal were revealed in attacks on Israel in 2024 . Israeli and US air defence proved adept at intercepting missiles. Iranian targeting is imperfect, and many missiles miss their targets. Quality control problems have led to significant numbers of malfunctions. To overcome those problems, Iran needs to be able to fire large numbers of missiles simultaneously. But as long as Israeli pressure on launch sites continues, experts say, Iran will struggle to fire large barrages, which could limit its ability to retaliate against US bases. US missile defences – ranging from Patriot batteries to Aegis destroyers – have the capacity to defend military bases in the region. Those defences will be more effective against small barrages of weapons. Iranian officials have said that US bases in Iraq would probably be their first targets, either with a direct missile strike or by rockets or drones fired by pro-Iran militias. Iran may not want to strike US bases in Arab countries, but that calculation would probably change after the US attacks on Iran's underground Fordo nuclear site, and other sites in Natanz and Isfahan, US officials said. NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
