Opinion: Islamist Ideology, Proxy Wars Stigmatised Iran's Nuclear Programme
Last Updated:
Iran has refused to settle down as a normal country more than four decades since the Islamic Revolution
While opinions might differ on whether Iran's nuclear programme has a hostile purpose, which necessitated punitive air strikes by Israel upon the former's nuclear reactor sites (by itself a potential hazardous act), the Islamic Republic is ultimately paying for its refusal to settle down as a normal country in the comity of nations since the Islamic Revolution of 1979.
Its founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1902-1989) made no secret of his antagonism towards the USA and Israel. He made no secret either of his designs on the entire world through Jihad— as evident in his collection of fatwas titled The Little Green Book (1985)— but then it is a matter of priority and feasibility. His aging successor Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (86) sees no reason either to depart from that policy.
Iran made no efforts to resume diplomatic ties with the United States since they broke after the excruciating 444-day hostage crisis (1979-1981) at the US embassy in Tehran. Contrast this Mao Zedong's pragmatic approach in establishing People's Republic of China's diplomatic relations with the United States (1972) though the political philosophy of Peking (now Beijing) and Washington DC were antipodal. Mao chose the USA after his relations soured with his former ally viz. USSR.
In the very first month of the American Embassy hostage crisis in Tehran in November 1979, there was a similar attack on the American Embassy in Islamabad wherein the diplomatic mission was set ablaze by protesters based on a canard that the USA had attacked the Grand Mosque in Mecca. While the attack, praised by Ayatollah Khomeini, was disapproved by General Zia-ul-Haq. Zia, conscious that the attack might turn Pakistan into an international pariah, played his cards well with Washington DC. When in the ensuing month the USSR invaded Afghanistan, Zia emerged as the leader of a pro-US frontline state fighting against Communism. This act turned Pakistan into a 'stalwart ally" of the USA. The question is not an ethical one, whether Pakistan did the right or wrong thing. The question is how smartly Zia played his hand, though he was no friend of the Western value system. Zia created the Afghan Mujahideen, which had a major blowback effect on Pakistan, besides Islamizing the jurisprudence in the country.
The US State Department reports, and the US Congressional research briefs, contain extensive data on how Pakistan is home to several internationally designated terror groups, many of which are anti-US and they are anti-India. Yet, whether we like it or not, Pakistan remains in the good books of the US even under the watch of President Donald Trump, who made boisterous claims about eliminating Islamic terrorism in the world. Pakistan has smartly manipulated the USA, to the extent that despite the return of Taliban in Afghanistan, which has diminished the role of Islamabad in the region, Trump praises Pakistan's leadership. Thus Pakistan, despite being as much a sponsor of terror as Iran, and actually possessing nukes, which Iran is only suspected of developing, has smartly managed Washington DC.
The Islamic republic, on the other hand, in pursuit of its ideology, has put itself on the wrong side of the global order. Khomeini's Islamist rhetoric was aimed at capturing the centre-stage in the Islamic world. This could not happen because Shias constituted less than 15 per cent of the global Muslim population. Moreover, the belief that Muslim governments would be swayed by Islamic sentiments alone in diplomatic matters is patently erroneous. No Arab country, whether republic or monarchy, would officially go against Israel, or come to the aid of their Arab brethren in Gaza, despite the fact that more than 50,000 of Arab Palestinian civilians have perished as a result of Israel's campaign against Hamas. Thus Iran could never become the leader of the Islamic world. Its following is limited to the Shia population of West Asia, which makes it a suspect in the eyes of the Sunni Arabs. It built up Hezbollah in Lebanon, a militant group promising Islamic government, and supported the secular regime of Hafez al-Assad (later his son Bashar al-Assad) as both are Shia. In Iraq it supported the Arab Shias, who despite constituting the majority, had been dominated by the Sunni Arabs from General Abdul Karim Qasim to Saddam Hussein.
That Iran's expectation was naive, was recently proven when Pakistan on predictable lines contradicted Iranian top general Mohsen Rezaei's claim that Pakistan would nuke Israel if Israel used a nuclear bomb on Iran. Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir obviously does not want to meet the same fate as Iran's Chief of Army Staff Mohammed Bagheri and IRGC Commander Hossein Salami!
II
Israel and Iran, at their closest points, are around 2,000 km apart. Not sharing boundaries, and belonging to different economic zones, they were not destined to be rivals. While it is true that Islamic Revolution, 1979 terminated the warm ties between the two countries during the reign of Shah of Iran viz. Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, both countries actually but covertly cooperated during Iran-Iraq War (1980-88). 'In early 1980"— says a RAND Corporation report (2011)—'Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin approved the shipment of tires for Phantom fighter planes, as well as weapons for the Iranian Army" (Israel and Iran: A Dangerous Rivalry, p. 14). Israel's action to oblige Iran was in violation of the US policy that no weapons be sent to the Islamic republic until the safe release of US hostages. Iran, in return for Israel's assistance, allowed a large number of Iranian Jews to migrate to Israel or the United States. Israel later acted as conduit for secretive sale of American weapons to Iran, which desperately needed those in the war against Iraq.
Though this covert cooperation diminished by the 1990s, after the Iran-Iraq war came to an end, Israel and Iran did not yet view themselves overtly as rivals. While it is true Iran's nuclear and missile development programmes made Israel's security establishment somewhat jittery, the threat from Iran was not yet a matter of public discourse. The civil war in Lebanon had also come to an end, as a result of the Taif Agreement (1989), and though Israel had discovered Iranian support behind Hezbollah (Mossad even tried to assassinate Iranian cleric, who was the architect of Hezbollah, in 1984 at Damascus through a parcel bomb) it was believed that things in Levant would settle down. With Iran's detractor Saddam Hussein still in the saddle, and an unfriendly Taliban establishing itself in Afghanistan, Iran's preoccupations were still limited to its neighbourhood. However, with the collapse of Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, followed by fall of Saddam Hussein from power in 2003, Iran's influence was in the ascendant.
Hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected as the President of Iran in 2005. On December 14, 2005 he made a statement at a public rally in Zahedan, a city in south-eastern Iran, that Holocaust of Jews in Third Reich was a myth; and even if it was not a myth land should have been given to the persecuted Jews in Europe, United States, Canada or Alaska rather than in Palestine at the cost of the Arabs. It was a completely unnecessary statement. His public statement caused a furor not only in Israel, but also Europe and the USA. Throughout his tenure (2005-13) Ahmadinejad never recanted his statement, but rather repeated it with gusto.
Historically, whereas Holocaust was a reality, Israel did not owe its existence to it. It was rather the pogroms in the Russian Empire in the late 19th century that triggered settlement of the eastern Jews in Palestine then under the Ottoman Empire. There was also a movement called Hovevei Tzion (The Lovers of the Zion) in Eastern Europe from 1860 to settle in the Holy Land. The two leading Jewish institutions of higher education in Palestine viz. Technion and Hebrew University of Jerusalem had been inaugurated in 1925 in pre-Holocaust era. Most political leaders of Israel like Chaim Weizmann, David Ben Gurion, Golda Meir and Yitzhak Shamir came from the Czarist Empire. The questioning of the Holocaust, a highly sensitive matter, was meant only to humiliate Israel. It was, however, a marker of Islamic Republic antipathy towards Israel.
III
The American view of a country's nuclear programme is governed by the quality of the regime's relationship with Washington DC and its record of threatening American interests. As T.V. Paul (a US-based Indian scholar) explains in The Warrior State: Pakistan in the Contemporary World (2014), the Bush administration treated Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, lightly despite the CIA uncovering the successful nuclear proliferation ring that Khan ran, by seizing the centrifuges to enrich uranium destined for Libya in October 2003.
Letting Pakistan scot-free despite being the biggest source of nuclear proliferation in the contemporary era, contrasts sharply with the US invasion of Iraq (2003) over alleged weapons of mass destruction, locking horns with Iran and North Korea, and forcing the Gaddafi regime to abandon its nuclear programme in 2003. What explains this contrasting attitude of the USA for different countries during the same period? 'The answer lies"—says Paul— 'in Pakistan's geostrategic salience and its elite's willingness and ability to carry out or thwart US policy objectives in the region" (The Warrior State, P.18).
Iran's nuclear programme was stigmatized by its outlook on the West and Israel. The rest is only a matter of details. Whereas Iran holds that it had complied with its international obligation, like the Non-Proliferation Treaty, IAEA Protocols and Additional Protocols, and Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that Tehran concluded with China, France, Germany, Russia, Britain and the United States certain loose ends repeatedly crop up. This casts a doubt on the motive of the Iranian nuclear programme.
Jared Mokowitz, the Democratic member representing Florida, in the US House of Representatives moved a resolution (H.Res. 105) on February 4, 2025, on affirming the threats to world stability from a nuclear weapons-capable Islamic Republic of Iran. Several points from there would be worth quoting.
On May 20, 2022, the IAEA reported that the Islamic Republic of Iran had achieved a stockpile of 43.3 kilograms (95.5 pounds) of 60 percent highly enriched uranium, roughly enough material for a nuclear weapon.
In February 2023, the IAEA reported that Islamic Republic of Iran had enriched uranium to 83.7 percent, which is just short of the 90-percent threshold for weapons-grade fissile material.
On September 4, 2023, an IAEA report estimated the total uranium stockpile of the Islamic Republic of Iran to be 3795.5 kilograms (8367.65 pounds) and that Islamic Republic of Iran has enough fissile material that, if further enriched, would be sufficient to produce nuclear weapons.
Whereas on October 18, 2023, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2213 (2015) lapsed, and many proliferation-related penalties and restrictions were lifted, allowing the Islamic Republic of Iran to test or transfer ballistic missiles, which may contribute to the further development of a nuclear weapon delivery system.
The resolution further states that on November 24, 2024, the Islamic Republic of Iran informed the IAEA that it planned to start enriching uranium with thousands of advanced centrifuges at its Fordow and Nantz plants, while also installing more uranium-enrichment centrifuges at those locations. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence published an assessment on December 5, 2024, which stated that Iran's 20-percent and 60-percent enriched uranium stockpiles were far greater than needed for what it claims it would use the uranium for, and Iran could produce more than a dozen nuclear weapons if its total uranium stockpile were further enriched.
This might explain why Israel went in for air strikes on nuclear and military facilities in Iran. Israel, a small country, could not leave its security to chance and good intentions of opponents. Its surprise air strike on Iraq's nuclear reactor viz. Osirak near Baghdad on June 7, 1981 became the stuff of legend. It crippled the Iraqi nuclear programme. Similarly, its air strike on September 6, 2007 at a suspected nuclear reactor at Deir ez-Zor region in Syria also sent a strong message. The strikes on Iran nuclear plants were expected many times over the last 20 years. However, Meir Dagan, the then Director of Mossad, went in for a low-cost strategy of assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists. His strategy lent its rather provocative title to Ronen Bergman's comprehensive but controversial book Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations (2018).
'The goal is to liberate Palestine"—declared Ayatollah Khamenei on December 4, 1990 at the First Islamic Conference on Palestine— 'and wipe out the Israeli government. There is no difference between the territories occupied before and after the year 1967. Every inch of Palestinian lands is Muslims' homeland. Any non-Muslim and non-Palestinian rule over Palestine is illegitimate rule. As our magnanimous Imam Khomeini said, 'Israel must disappear.' If Palestinian Jews accept Islamic rule, they may live in Palestine. It is not a matter of anti-Semitism. The problem is that a Muslim homeland has been occupied" (The Most Important Problem of the Islamic World: Selected Statements by Ayatollah Khamenei About Palestine, P.11-12).
top videos
View all
Naturally, Israel could not wait to see the enrichment of this hostile ideology with fissile material. Hence, it went for air strikes.
The writer is the author of 'The Microphone Men: How Orators Created a Modern India' (2019) and an independent researcher based in New Delhi. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
June 22, 2025, 18:22 IST
News opinion Opinion: Islamist Ideology, Proxy Wars Stigmatised Iran's Nuclear Programme
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
12 minutes ago
- Hans India
MyVoice: Views of our readers 23rd June 2025
A point of no return in West Asia The Iran and Israel war has taken a dangerous turn with the US entering the war and straightaway destroying three nuclear facilities in Iran. This has pushed the war to a point of no return, especially for Tehran. In its desperation, Iran may contemplate blocking the strait of Hormuz as an effective measure to strangle vital fuel transports, apart from being engaged in a direct fight with Israel. The worsening situation in West Asia would cost the global economy dearly. Seemingly, India urging Iran for de-escalation may fall on deaf ears, given that America and Israel are responsible for the escalation. Dr DVG Sankara Rao,Former MP, Vizianagaram Trump has cheated his own people Hours after Pakistan decided to nominate US President Donald Trump for the 2026 Nobel Prize for Peace, the White House dropped a 'full payload of bombs' on three key nuclear sites in Iran. The irony could not have been starker. US involvement in the war is noticeably evident. By 'substituting' Israel with the US in the war against Iran, Trump has dishonoured his election pledge of staying away from unending overseas wars and thereby betrayed the American voters. As POTUS, Trump has the 'luxury' of being able to launch bomb attacks on a sovereign nation and then triumphantly describe them as a 'spectacular success' and get away with the naked aggression. The blitzkrieg with state-of-the-art bombs targeting the nuclear facilities was an act of 'deception' in that it was carried out within two days of Trump's announcement of a two-week window to try diplomacy. Trump's claim that Iran's nuclear sites were 'completely and totally obliterated' by the bombs needs to be corroborated by an on-the-ground assessment of the extent of the damage. It is some consolation that there were no signs of radioactive contamination. Meanwhile, Tehran's determination to develop its nuclear programme does not seem to have been dented by the US strikes. Its resoluteness to defend itself remains unshaken as evidenced by the retaliatory missile attacks - despite Trump's warning of 'use of far greater force' and 'far worse tragedy'. How safe the world is during Trump's presidency remains a worrisome question. G David Milton,Maruthancode (TN) Flashpoint in West Asia Although America has devastated Iran's nuclear installations, and thereby posing grave risk to Israel, Tehran apparently has not learnt any lessons as it belligerently continues to launch counter missile attacks. It is blocking Hormuz straits, which is the world's largest place for transporting crude oil. This step will result in a major shock to the global economy, vis-à-vis oil supply. The repercussions would be felt everywhere. B. Veerakumaran Act of bravery or cowardness? The USA has ultimately done what it has been saying, all along. Despite being the most powerful nation, both militarily and economically, Washington seems to be afraid of Iran. In fact, the US has failed to pressurise Israel. Today the fear of World War III haunts everyone, particularly after America's latest show of aggression. Will India react in a proper way and protest the onslaughts by Israel and the US, remains to be seen. Kant S Deodhar,Hyderabad On the brink of World War III The world is on the edge of World War III if one goes by the US strikes against three nuclear enrichment sites in Iran—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. In effect, Washington entered Israel's war with Iran in the early hours of Sunday. US President Donald Trump has termed it a 'historic moment' for the US, Israel and the world, even as he blabbers about it being the 'time for peace'. All US planes outside of Iran air space have returned. A full payload of bombs was dropped on the primary site. A top official has asserted that several 30,000-pound bunker bombs were dropped on the underground nuclear facility in Fordow and that initial damage assessments indicated that the facility had been 'taken off the table'. The three attacks come a few days after Israel launched its operation in Iran, carrying out a series of strikes on nuclear facilities, key military personnel and nuclear scientists. With Iran talking of 'death to Israel' and 'death to the US', World War III appears imminent. The entire world, including India, must be prepared for such a catastrophic eventuality. Bhagwan Thadani,Mumbai
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Went in and out without anyone knowing': How US' B-2 jets flew undetected into Iranian skies and rained hellfire; explained
B-2 spirit bombers Under a cloak of secrecy and tonnes of planning, American stealth bombers launched a surprise attack with surgical precision, unleashing a powerful blow on Iran's underground nuclear sites. Operation Midnight Hammer saw seven B-2 Spirit bombers fly nearly 37 hours round-trip from Missouri to Iran, dropping 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs on three key underground nuclear sites last week. The attack was designed to deal a critical blow to Iran's uranium enrichment programme, in line with US President Donald Trump 's stance that Iran cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. The bombers were supported by dozens of fighter jets, aerial tankers and a submarine, and struck targets at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan with 75 precision-guided weapons. 'We devastated the Iranian nuclear program," said US secretary of defence Pete Hegseth , calling it an "incredible and overwhelming success." Flying in silence: How the B-2s reached Iran unnoticed The mission was made possible by a complex deception plan. While seven B-2 bombers flew east from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to strike Iran, another set of bombers was sent west as decoys, drawing attention from media, government officials and military spotters. Backed by stealth fighters and support aircraft, the real bombers flew across the Atlantic and Mediterranean in near radio silence, refuelling multiple times in mid-air before reaching their targets. US Air Force General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained that the operation was so secretive that 'only an extremely small number of planners and key leaders' knew about it in advance. "Our B-2s went in and out and back without the world knowing at all," said Hegseth. As the bombers approached Iran, a US submarine launched more than two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles toward the Isfahan site, an hour ahead of the B-2s. Fighter jets checked for any threats along the route, but according to Caine, "Iran's fighters did not fly, and it appears that Iran's surface-to-air missile systems did not see us." Massive bunker busters and a submarine barrage At 6:40 pm ET on Saturday (2:10 am in Iran), the lead B-2 bomber dropped two GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs) on the Fordow site. The rest followed over a 25-minute window, releasing 14 bunker busters on Fordow and Natanz, while Tomahawk missiles targeted Isfahan. All three sites are central to Iran's nuclear fuel processing. Trump said the Fordow facility, Iran's most heavily protected nuclear site, is now 'gone'. In his address from the White House, Trump called the strike 'a spectacular military success.' He added, 'If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill." Inside the B-2: Stealth, speed and power Each B-2 bomber costs about $2.1 billion and has a wingspan of 172 feet. It was designed in the late 1980s, and only 21 were built. The B-2 is one of the world's most advanced military aircraft, capable of flying over 6,000 nautical miles without refuelling. It can carry over 40,000 pounds of bombs inside its stealth-coated body, including MOPs and other precision-guided weapons. Its two-man crew benefits from high levels of automation and even a few in-flight comforts such as a toilet, refrigerator, microwave and space for one pilot to lie down while the other flies. The 30,000-pound MOPs dropped on Fordow are the largest conventional bombs in the US arsenal, able to penetrate over 200 feet of reinforced concrete. This was their first-ever use in combat. Numbers behind the mission According to Pentagon figures, more than 125 aircraft participated in the mission, including stealth bombers, support planes, fighters and surveillance craft. A total of 75 precision weapons were used, including 14 bunker busters and over two dozen cruise missiles. Initial assessments suggest that the damage to Iran's nuclear programme is severe. "Initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," said Caine. Iran denied the extent of the damage and vowed to retaliate. Operation Midnight Hammer has gone down as the largest B-2 operational strike in US history and the longest such mission since 2001.
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
US-Iran tensions: Tehran vows 'proportionate response'; key ways it can retaliate
Iran has promised a 'proportionate response' to what it calls the United States' 'criminal aggression' after President Donald Trump confirmed that American forces had 'obliterated' three of Iran's nuclear facilities. While Trump hailed the strike as a military success, warning there were 'many targets left,' Iran has vowed that its response will come; the only question is when and how. Iran's foreign ministry said the country would 'defend its territory, sovereignty, security and people by all force and means.' The Iranian military is now reportedly in charge of planning a retaliatory strike, according to Iran's UN envoy Amir Saeid Iravani, who told the Security Council that Washington had 'decided to destroy diplomacy.' 'We will take all measures necessary,' Iravani said, adding that Iran's response would be shaped by 'timing, nature and scale' determined solely by its military. Limited strikes or wider confrontation? Iran's dilemma lies in balancing a credible retaliation without triggering a full-scale regional war. It has experience with calibrated responses: following the 2020 US killing of General Qassem Soleimani, Tehran launched missiles at US bases in Iraq after warning them in advance. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo No lives were lost, but the message was clear. This time, however, experts suggest Iran may avoid advance notice. According to the BBC, Tehran retains roughly half of its original 3,000 missiles and has already drawn up a list of some 20 US bases in the region, including key sites like At-Tanf, Ain al-Asad, and Erbil in Iraq and Syria. Proxies could also be activated to carry out these attacks, mirroring past strategies. Sanam Vakil of Chatham House told The New York Times that Iran could strike 'largely evacuated' US bases or re-activate regional partners like the Houthis in Yemen. Such a cautious, asymmetric campaign would allow Iran to maintain its image without escalating into direct confrontation. The Strait of Hormuz and cyber warfare Another option is economic warfare. Tehran could attempt to choke the Strait of Hormuz — the strategic waterway through which nearly a third of global oil flows. The BBC reported that Iran might deploy sea mines or fast-attack boats to block shipping lanes, potentially causing a spike in global oil prices. Cyberattacks also remain a key tool in Iran's arsenal. Alongside China, Russia and North Korea, Iran has cultivated advanced cyber capabilities. Attacks on US infrastructure or commercial entities could inflict damage without triggering immediate military retaliation. 'Iran knew this was coming and will have prepared a chain of responses,' said Ellie Geranmayeh of the European Council on Foreign Relations, warning that attacks 'will be swift and multilayered.' Retaliation could be delayed — or abandoned There are voices within Iran's leadership arguing for restraint. A delayed response striking back when US forces are no longer on high alert could allow Tehran to save face without risking immediate retribution. Symbolic attacks on diplomatic missions or targeted assassinations of US-linked figures abroad are also being considered. However, such a strategy carries its own risks. Doing nothing may spare Iran further losses but risks weakening its domestic credibility. As conservative Tehran analyst Reza Salehi noted: 'If we do not react, the US will not leave us alone.' Some experts argue that the regime may ultimately choose to recalibrate rather than retaliate. This includes restarting diplomacy, potentially via neutral mediators in Muscat or Rome. Yet such a path would demand significant concessions, especially around its nuclear enrichment programme something the regime has historically resisted. The nuclear question looms large According to NYT reporting, Iran's long-term takeaway from the strikes may be the need for a nuclear deterrent. Vali Nasr, an Iran scholar at Johns Hopkins University, said the strikes may push Iran to abandon cooperation with the IAEA and move towards nuclear armament. 'This is the great irony,' Geranmayeh told NYT. 'Although Trump has sought to eliminate the nuclear threat from Iran, he has now made it far more likely that Iran becomes a nuclear state.' Ayatollah Khamenei could authorise withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and expel international inspectors, effectively ending global oversight of Iran's programme. While the International Atomic Energy Agency reported no radiation leakage after the US strikes — implying enriched uranium was likely moved, concerns remain that Iran's stockpile is now hidden and unmonitored. 'Hardliners in the Iranian regime may ultimately win the day' Experts believe Iran now faces two critical choices. Jonathan Panikoff of the Atlantic Council explained: 'Iran can choose to strike US bases in a limited fashion… or it could go all in and trigger a regional war.' Refraining from retaliation may limit further military damage but risks weakening the regime's image. 'If we do not react, the US will not leave us alone,' said conservative Tehran analyst Reza Salehi. A calculated response—such as targeting symbolic US sites—could appease hardliners without escalating to full-scale war. However, given Trump's threats and the severity of the strikes, restraint seems unlikely. 'Hardliners in the Iranian regime may ultimately win the day,' Panikoff noted, adding that asymmetric attacks or overseas terror operations remain a possibility. Iran's past actions, like the Khobar Towers bombing and rocket attacks on US forces in Iraq, show both its capability and intent to retaliate. Its allies, including Yemen's Houthis, have already threatened US naval forces. Regional fallout and US response With over 40,000 American troops stationed across the region, in Bahrain, Qatar, Iraq and elsewhere, Washington is reinforcing its positions. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has confirmed the deployment of additional assets, and non-essential diplomatic staff have been evacuated. Trump, while portraying the US operation as restrained, has made it clear that more force will follow if Iran escalates. 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,' he warned. Still, many in Tehran believe the real tragedy is already unfolding. Iran's UN envoy accused Israel of manipulating US policy, saying Netanyahu had succeeded in dragging the United States into 'yet another costly and baseless war.'
