How Israel-Iran war could explode ‘into World War 3'
The air war between Israel and Iran has continued overnight after President Trump issued more warnings to Iran – saying Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was an 'easy target'.
So will he actually follow through with this threat? Will America join the fight? And what is Israel's plan if they don't? To discuss all this and more on the latest episode of The Fourcast Matt Frei is joined in Tel Aviv by Israeli journalist Gideon Levy who is a controversial and divisive critic of Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
14 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Scotland's future is uncertain. But then so is the here and now
At the same time, many in the mischievous media exaggerate the transient. Who is up, who is down? What is new, what is demanding attention? Always eager to hasten to the next caravanserai. This week, by contrast, there was a glance towards the longer term. Where are we going with our NHS, our services, our fiscal structure? What, an Edinburgh conference asked, will Scotland look like in 2050? Now, even adopting such a perspective may be viewed as courageous, given the perils currently confronting our planet. As Israel and Iran trade missiles, as President Trump ponders, it may seem rash to contemplate anything other than our collective survival. However, we cannot live that way. We cannot flee for the sanctuary of a dark corner whenever Donald J. Trump turns into King Lear: confused and uncertain yet insisting that he is the terror of the earth. And so it is entirely right to cast an eye ahead. However it may appear at first glance that there is a faintly futile tinge to the entire endeavour. Consider. In 1920, did the ravaged continent of Europe discern that, by 1945, they would have endured a second, bloody conflict? They did not. More prosaically, in 1980, did we know that the passing of a further quarter century would lead to a transformation in Information Technology and the creation of a Scottish Parliament? We did not. Yet contemplate a little more deeply. Were not the roots of the Second World War seeded in the aftermath of the First World War? The constraints and financial reparations understandably imposed upon Germany – but resented by their emerging, deadly leader? Read more Brian Taylor Do the Scottish Conservatives have any reason to exist? This is a set-back and an opportunity for the SNP - which one will they embrace? Brian Taylor: The fundamental battle which unites Donald Trump and Nigel Farage And the more modern period? Were there not early prequels for the 21st century information revolution? Further, here in Scotland, was not the cause of Scottish self-government measurably advanced in the wake of the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979? In short, when we purport to look into the future, we are in reality studying present-day conditions. We are examining how reform might generate a steady transformation which would emerge over that longer period. It is a way of urging impatient voters and the mischievous media to cut a little slack for our elected tribunes. It is about the future, yes, but viewed through the prism of the present. In the context of reform, there was much talk this week about reviving thoughts advanced by the commission on public services, ably chaired by the late and decidedly great Campbell Christie. I recall Campbell for his intellect, his humour, his baffling devotion to Falkirk FC, his fierce competitiveness at golf – and his determination to work with all and sundry to make Scotland a better place. In 2011, his commission urged Scotland to embrace 'empowerment, integration, efficiency and prevention' in transforming the public sector. This week, Ivan McKee, Scotland's Public Finance Minister, set out a programme of reforms and savings – with an explicit nod to those earlier endeavours by the Christie team. Mr McKee is a key figure in the Scottish Government, returning to office alongside his close ally, Kate Forbes. Both advocate a focus upon efficiency – and, perhaps above all, economic growth. In doing so, they are most certainly aligned with the instincts and aims of the First Minister. Now John Swinney displayed another intuitive tendency in his forward-looking remarks this week. His solution to the entrenched problems confronting Scotland? It lay, you will be astonished to learn, with independence. So shifting attention back to independence, rather than the day-to-day concerns of the voters? Was this a U-turn? Not really, no. Indeed, I suspect too much can be made of this apparent change. Firstly, Mr Swinney is a believer, a fervent Nationalist. He yearns for independence. Secondly, he leads a party which contains many whose fervour is undimmed by minor matters such as convincing others. Thirdly, there is an SNP National Council this weekend. Enough, Brian. Away with cynicism. I believe John Swinney is simply sustaining his dual strategy. He feels a little more liberated to advance the option of independence – while simultaneously concentrating for the most part on the anxieties of the people, such as the cost of living and the health service. John Swinney (Image: PA) In short, his attention is drawn by the here and now, even as he offers a potential vision of the future. His opponents are similarly grounded. Labour's Anas Sarwar, for example, glanced forward and concluded that the SNP were only offering 'managed decline.' Still, futurology can be a source of innocent merriment. What might we favour? Ivan McKee is surely right to suggest public services which prioritise customers rather than producers, which share information and thus resources. But how about the health service? The current system is simply unsustainable, unaffordable. Do you see that nurse gesturing to you? That health worker is not waving but drowning. We have to cut waste – but also overall demand. Perhaps, as the Health Secretary Neil Gray suggested, that can be done in part by an emphasis on prevention. However, that will undoubtedly take time – which ministers facing elections do not have. Politically, Mr Swinney's focus will be upon ensuring that the stats are going in the right direction. Education? Our economy, our society, both need the acquisition of useful skills. I recall my school textbook entitled 'Physics is Fun!' This proved to be a brazen lie. However, physics is vital, along with tricky stuff like maths, literature and French irregular verbs. Our universities are struggling financially. But, as they reform, they must maintain the objective of excellence. If they are truly to be world-class, as Scotland advertises, then they must aspire to the very highest standards. And the economy itself? We need growth and prosperity. We need an environmental drive, including renewables, which does not shut down our industry and agriculture. The future? Simple really. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre – and Dundee United FC
Spectator
25 minutes ago
- Spectator
Spain's Pedro Sanchez won't limp on for long
Ahead of next week's Nato summit in The Hague, Spain's socialist prime minister has refused to increase his country's defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. Pedro Sánchez says that the increase, championed by President Trump and backed by Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte, is 'unreasonable'. His refusal has disrupted preparations for the summit at which all the allies were to be asked to commit to the 5 per cent target. Spain, currently the lowest spender on defence in Nato, recently pledged to increase from 1.3 to 2 per cent of GDP. To increase to 5 per cent would cost a further €80 billion (£68 billion) a year, Sánchez said in a forthright letter sent to Rutte on Thursday. That would require tax increases and cuts to healthcare, education, pensions, green investment and the much-needed housing budget. Instead Sánchez proposed that Spain be exempted from any spending target agreed next week or at least be allowed to adopt a flexible, voluntary approach. The events of recent days have left Sanchez's credibility in shreds Sánchez's anti-Trump stance will be well-received by the radical left-wing and separatist parliamentary allies that prop up his fragile minority coalition government. Engulfed in corruption scandals, Sánchez desperately needs their continued support to remain in office. Allegations of kickbacks on public sector contracts and sleaze in his left-wing party emerge almost daily. Even El País, Spain's centre-left newspaper of record whose support Sánchez can usually count on, has suggested that he should resign. The most damaging allegations centre on long-standing, systemic corruption in Sánchez's inner circle. Sánchez has tried, so far unsuccessfully, to distance himself from what he calls the 'toxic triangle' of two former right-hand men and a close adviser. This week audio recordings in which the men, who all deny wrongdoing, discuss how to divide the kickbacks as well as the different merits and attributes of various prostitutes whose company they are preparing to enjoy have surfaced. Those recordings have caused revulsion across Spain and the damage has been compounded by a series of unforced errors by Sánchez. In a parliamentary debate on Wednesday he provoked outrage by describing the corruption allegations as merely 'an anecdote'. Previously he attempted to dismiss the importance of another recording which appears to show evidence of vote-rigging by two of the toxic trio during his election as party leader in 2014. Unimpressive too are Sánchez's suggestions that others have done worse things and that his main problem is that he is such a trusting person that it never occurs to him that such things might be going on under his nose. It is not only Sánchez, though, who is showing signs of strain. Three of his ministers recently claimed that a member of the Guardia Civil police force was plotting to assassinate the prime minister. Even when the accusation, based on fake news, was shown to be false, the ministers refused to withdraw the accusation. A few weeks previously, one of the three, the Deputy Prime Minister, alarmed the public by declaring that the principle of presumption of innocence is a disgrace. When reminded that it's actually a cornerstone of democratic freedom, she tried to pretend that she'd never suggested otherwise. Meanwhile, Trump's press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, has confirmed that the President wants to see all Nato countries pay their fair share towards defence by meeting the 5 per cent target. She said that she had not yet seen 'Spain's comments' but 'would make sure the President sees them'. But Sánchez's resistance to the increase in defence spending may not pose a long-term obstacle for Trump. Sánchez came to power promising 'democratic regeneration', so the events of recent days have left his credibility in shreds. With revulsion growing and further revelations expected, it seems increasingly unlikely that his government will survive until August 2027 when the next general election is due. Whenever that election is held, it's likely to usher in a right-wing coalition government of the Partido Popular and Vox. Vox in particular is strongly supportive of Trump. So, despite Spain's pacifist tradition – a 2024 Gallup survey showed that only 29 per cent of citizens were willing to take up arms in case of war, compared to a global average of 52 per cent – Spain's next government may well be more willing to align with Trump's defence priorities.
New Statesman
27 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Where have all the anti-war Democrats gone?
To bomb or not to bomb? President Trump treats waging war with the same gravity he might deploy when deciding whether to play golf. He said this week that 'I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do'. Call it strategic ambiguity, or flagrant honesty. You get the sense that the president doesn't know himself whether he will give the order. The White House line right now is that the president will decide over the next two weeks. Cue chatter that this is a ruse to discombobulate the Iranians before an imminent American strike. Whatever he decides, Trump's attempt to save face after Netanyahu ignored his plea to leave the negotiations with Iran alone has exposed fissures between the neo-cons in his administration and the Maga isolationists. The Maga activist Laura Loomer has started a list of those who criticised the president, presumably for a future purge. What, then, are the Democrats doing to exploit this chink in the normally preternaturally cultish Maga movement which rarely turns on itself? Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, issued an milquetoast statement when Israel first struck Iran. Hakeem Jeffries, his counterpart in the House of Representatives, issued a similar statement but called for American troops not to be put 'in harm's way'. As Peter Beinart wrote in the New York Times, neither Democratic leader instructed the President that the authority to go to war resides with Congress. (Schumer later did, but took no action to that effect.) There is a tendency within the party to treat war as a non-partisan issue, as if bombing another country in the name of national security is a foregone conclusion. A rally-around-our-troops effect takes hold. This might be a missed opportunity for the Democrats to become the anti-war party, a position Trump has dominated since he won in 2016. A YouGov/Economist poll found that 60 per cent of Americans don't think Trump should get involved in the war, including over half of Republican voters, with only 16 per cent supporting action. Yet, the anti-war Democrats are confined to the party's populist left, or what you could more generously call the left who wants to be popular. Bernie Sanders has introduced a No War Against Iran bill in the Senate. Ro Khanna, the progressive Democratic representative, has emerged as the party's leading anti-war figure. Khanna opposed the Iraq war in 2003 and sees interventionism in the Middle East as yet another example – alongside globalisation and a pro-rich tax policy – of how communities in states such as Pennsylvania were shunted to the bottom of Washington's priorities. It's a message Trump has put to good use for over a decade. Democrats' pitch to voters could now include both opposition to Trump's militarism at home and abroad. Challenging Trump's potential strikes could become a chance for the Democrats to tap into that populist anger which Trump has so deftly mined for so long. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See also: Is Trump the last neoconservative?] Related
