Palestinians seeking aid hit by Israeli 'warning shots' – DW – 06/04/2025
06/04/2025
June 4, 2025
For a third consecutive day, Palestinians walking towards a new food distribution site set up by Israel in southern Gaza, have come under fire. The Israeli military said its soldiers opened fire "near suspects" who left a designated route.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
30 minutes ago
- DW
Iran: What are the chances for regime change? – DW – 06/23/2025
The longer Israel's attack on Iran goes on, the greater the speculation about the possibility of overthrowing the government in Tehran. But regime change has historically had disastrous consequences in the region. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly told the US broadcaster Fox News on Sunday that regime change in Iran "could certainly be the result" of Israel's operation there, because, he said, the Iranian government was "very weak." US President Donald Trump has meanwhile sent out contradictory signals. "We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding," he wrote on his personal social network, Truth Social on June 17, singling out Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now." In the night between Saturday and Sunday, the US flew strikes against Iran's three main nuclear sites, and Trump has threatened more attacks should Tehran not return to the negotiation table. "There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran," the US president said Saturday, adding that the US "will go for other targets" should that not be the case. On Sunday, Trump again posted on Truth Social, saying: "It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change?? MIGA!!!" The longer the conflict with Iran goes on, the more tempting it might appear to Israel and the United States to get rid not just of the Iranian nuclear program, but of the Islamic Republic as well. "It's extremely doubtful that it would be possible to bring about a regime change like that from the outside, with the push of a button," said Eckart Woertz, the head of the German Institute of Global and Area Studies in Hamburg. "If it did come to that, whether things would then go in the right direction is a whole other question." Foreign-imposed "regime change" is a highly controversial concept. Under international law, it is a clear violation of the sovereignty of the affected state. Often, the move is not democratically legitimized, and it frequently leads to a power vacuum or violence and instability. Newly installed governments often find themselves unable to cope with the challenge of resolving the country's problems, and this results in further crises and conflicts. That's what happened in Afghanistan. After the terrorist attacks on New York on September 11, 2001, NATO invoked the mutual defense guarantee contained in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty for the first and (so far) only time. A Western military alliance led by the United States resolved to topple Afghanistan's Islamist Taliban regime, and fight the terrorist organization al-Qaeda. Initially, the operation was quite successful, and by the end of 2001 the Taliban had been driven out of Kabul. But various parties to the alliance disagreed on a number of things, including how military, political and development aid should cooperate. And so, for 20 years, the security situation remained extremely precarious. The country was devastated by attacks as the Taliban launched repeated counteroffensives. Between 2001 and 2021, around 3,600 Western soldiers and almost 50,000 Afghan civilians were killed. The Afghanistan mission cost a total of almost $1 billion (€868 million). After the chaotic withdrawal of the US and its allies in the summer of 2021, the Taliban returned to power. Since then, they have rolled back almost all the progress made over the past 20 years. Afghanistan is isolated and desperately poor, with 23 million people dependent on humanitarian aid. The US once supplies weapons to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who was in power for more than two decades. In 2003, however, it decided to overthrow Hussein with help of a "coalition of the willing," but without a mandate from the UN Security Council. Washington justified the decision with the assertion that Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda and was in possession of weapons of mass destruction — claims later proven to be false. "Saddam Hussein was overthrown not because he possessed weapons of mass destruction, but because he did not possess them," said Woertz. And, at the time, Iran took note. Once Hussein had been toppled, the Americans installed a transitional government, which was later heavily criticized for mismanagement and lack of knowledge of the country. Existing enmities between Iraq's different religious groups deteriorated into a situation akin to civil war between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Deadly attacks were an almost daily occurrence. Soldiers discharged from the Iraqi army started fighting the US troops who had previously toppled Hussein. Twenty years after the American invasion and the attempted regime change in Iraq, the situation has improved. Violence has died down, and the next round of parliamentary elections is due to take place in November. Nonetheless, Iraq remains a country in the process of change. Libya is also still suffering the consequences of an attempted regime change, which came from within and was flanked from abroad. In the wake of the Arab Spring, a civil war began in 2011 with protests against the rule of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi. When Gadhafi attempted to put down the uprisings with bloodshed, NATO intervened militarily in the form of a no-fly zone to protect the civilian population. The regime held on for a few months. Then on October 20, 2011, Gadhafi was killed. But a government acceptable to the entire country was never established. Instead, there have been years of further conflict between rival militias. The state has virtually disintegrated, with two different governments fighting for control since March 2022. The human rights situation remains extremely precarious. Aside from these cautionary examples from recent history, Woertz sees another problem: Ultimately, ground force would be required to force a change of government in Iran. "I don't see a massively strong rebel movement within Iran that could topple the current regime," he said. "While there was a successful regime change in Germany once, at the end of World War II, that required a ground invasion," said Woertz. "And then you need a transition backed by local people. It helps if there is a common external enemy — like the Soviet bloc after 1945 — which glosses over the differences. But regime change has never happened with aerial bombardment alone, and I don't think Iran will be an exception now."
Int'l Business Times
an hour ago
- Int'l Business Times
Iran Vows Retaliation For US Strikes As Israel Keeps Up Attacks
Tehran threatened on Monday to inflict "serious" damage in retaliation for US strikes on the Islamic republic's nuclear facilities, as the Iran-Israel war entered its 11th day despite calls for de-escalation. Aerial assaults meanwhile raged on, with air raid sirens sounding across Israel and AFP journalists reporting several blasts were heard over Jerusalem. The Israeli military said it had struck missile sites in western Iran as well as "six Iranian regime airports" across the country, destroying fighter jets and helicopters. President Donald Trump said US warplanes used "bunker buster" bombs to target sites in Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz, boasting the strikes had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear capabilities. Other officials said it was too soon to assess the true impact on Iran's nuclear programme, which Israel and some Western states consider an existential threat. Iranian armed forces spokesman Ebrahim Zolfaghari said on state television that the US "hostile act", following more than a week of Israeli bombardments, would "pave the way for the extension of war in the region". "The fighters of Islam will inflict serious, unpredictable consequences on you with powerful and targeted (military) operations," he warned. Global markets reacted nervously, with oil prices jumping more than four percent early Monday. China urged both Iran and Israel to prevent the conflict from spilling over, warning of potential economic fallout. Oman, a key mediator in the stalled Iran-US nuclear talks, condemned the US strikes and called for calm. "Future generations will not forget that the Iranians were in the middle of a diplomatic process with a country that is now at war with us," said ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei. Britain, France and Germany called on Iran "not to take any further action that could destabilise the region". As the world awaited Iran's response, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called the bombing campaign Israel launched on June 13 "a big mistake". US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called on China to help deter Iran from closing the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for one-fifth of the world's oil supply. With Iran threatening US bases in the region, the State Department issued a worldwide alert cautioning Americans abroad. In central Tehran on Sunday, protesters waved flags and chanted slogans against US and Israeli attacks. In the province of Semnan east of the capital, 46-year-old housewife Samireh said she was "truly shocked" by the strikes. "Semnan province is very far from the nuclear facilities targeted, but I'm very concerned for the people who live near," she told AFP. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said the US strikes revealed Washington was "behind" Israel's campaign against the Islamic republic and vowed a response. After the Pentagon stressed the goal of American intervention was not to topple the Iranian government, Trump openly toyed with the idea. "It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' Trump posted on his Truth Social platform. "But if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???" Hours later he doubled down on emphasising the success of his strikes. "Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!" Trump wrote, without sharing the images he was referencing. At a Pentagon press briefing earlier in the day, top US general Dan Caine said "initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, said his country's bombardments would "finish" once the stated objectives of destroying Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities have been achieved. "We are very, very close to completing them," he said. Israeli strikes on Iran have killed more than 400 people, Iran's health ministry said. Iran's attacks on Israel have killed 24 people, according to official figures. "Armed attacks on nuclear facilities should never take place," he added. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who was due to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday, had accused the United States of deciding to "blow up" nuclear diplomacy with its intervention in the war. While Russia condemned the Israeli and US strikes, it has not offered military help and has downplayed its obligations under a sweeping strategic partnership agreement signed with Tehran just months ago. On Sunday, Russia, China and Pakistan circulated a draft resolution with other Security Council members that calls for an "immediate ceasefire" in Iran. Commuters drive past an anti-Israel billboard in Tehran AFP After the Pentagon stressed that the goal of American intervention was not to topple the Iranian government, Trump openly toyed with the idea AFP Protesters march in New York city against the US strikes against Iran as fears grow of a wider Middle East conflict AFP
Int'l Business Times
13 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Democrat 'Briefed on Intelligence' Says 'Iran Posed No Imminent Threat,' Was Not on Verge of Nuclear Weapon as Claimed by Netanyahu and Trump
Connecticut Rep. Chris Murphy denounced Trump's attack on Iran on Sunday. Fallout continues from the Trump administration's surprise bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites early Sunday, as a Democratic lawmaker refutes claims that Iran was close to developing a "deliverable nuclear weapon." Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy is the latest lawmaker to condemn President Trump's unilateral decision to strike Iran early Sunday. He also challenged claims by the Trump administration and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has made similar assertions for decades, that Iran was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. "I was briefed on the intelligence last week," Murphy wrote in an X post shared late Saturday evening. "Iran posed no imminent threat of attack to the United States. Iran was not close to building a deliverable nuclear weapon." "The negotiations Israel scuttled with their strikes held the potential for success," he added, referring to the sixth round of talks between Iran and the U.S., which was scheduled for June 15, just two days before Israel launched its unprovoked attack on Iran. I was briefed on the intelligence last week. Iran posed no imminent threat of attack to the United States. Iran was not close to building a deliverable nuclear weapon. The negotiations Israel scuttled with their strikes held the potential for success. — Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 22, 2025 In a follow-up X post, Murphy reiterated that Iran was at the negotiating table, "which makes this attack—with all its enormous risks—so reckless." "The context matter. We know—for certain—there is a diplomatic path to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. The Obama agreement was working. And as late as a week ago, Iran was back at the table again," Murphy wrote. The context matters. We know - for certain - there is a diplomatic path to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. The Obama agreement was working. And as late as a week ago, Iran was back at the table again. Which makes this attack - with all its enormous risks - so reckless. — Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 22, 2025 In addition to U.S. lawmakers, including Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Ortiz, speaking out against Trump's attack on Iran, leaders from around the world denounced the escalation in the Israel-Iran war, Al Jazeera reported. "I am gravely alarmed by the use of force by the United States against Iran today," United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said. "This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security." Russia's foreign ministry strongly condemned the attack. In a statement released Sunday, the ministry stated the attack was an "irresponsible decision to subject the territory of a sovereign state to missile and bomb attacks, whatever the arguments it may be presented with, flagrantly violates international law, the Charter of the United Nations and the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council." UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer showed his support for Trumps' attack, writing in a statement that "Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security." "Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat," Starmer said in a statement, echoing Trump and Netanyahu's unverified claim. Originally published on Latin Times Nuclear weapons Donald trump © Latin Times. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
