As Iran and Israel battle, the rest of the Mideast fears what's next

On June 21, President Donald Trump granted Israel's request that the United States intervene by having US forces attack three nuclear sites in Iran. PHOTO: AFP
As Iran and Israel battle, the rest of the Mideast fears what's next
Follow our live coverage here.
ISTANBUL – Across a swath of the Middle East, fighter jets and missiles regularly streak across the sky.
The newest war in the region, this time between Israel and Iran, has once again put millions of people in the crossfire of a conflict that they want nothing to do with.
The war has embroiled two well-armed, long-time enemies who are ethnic and political outliers in the region but whose fight, many of their neighbors worry, could swiftly spill beyond their borders.
'We are constantly afraid, and the psychological toll has been heavy,' said Ms Rawan Muhaidat, 28, a mother of two in the town of Kafr Asad in northern Jordan.
The sight of Iranian missiles overhead, and the booms of air defences shooting them down before they reach Israel, have terrified her children, who cower between her and her husband as they worry that their home could be struck.
'Every time a rocket passes and explodes, we think, 'This is the one,'' Ms Muhaidat said.
On June 21 , President Donald Trump granted Israel's request that the United States intervene by having US forces attack three nuclear sites in Iran, he said, including a nuclear enrichment facility buried deep underground.
Such a move, experts say, could push Iran to retaliate against US military bases or allies across the Middle East, or to activate proxy forces, like the Houthis in Yemen, to snarl trade routes or damage oil infrastructure, harming the global economy.
'We're opening a Pandora's box,' Dr Narges Bajoghli, an associate professor of Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University, said before Mr Trump's announcement.
'Iran is not going to raise the white flag of surrender.'
The war highlights how significantly the power structure across the Middle East has shifted in recent years.
Just over a half-decade ago, Israel largely focused on its conflict with the Palestinians while waging a shadow war with Iran through occasional assassinations and other covert attacks.
But it avoided direct confrontation, partly for fear of retaliation from the network of militias that Iran supported in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
At that time, most Arab countries shunned Israel, a Jewish-majority democracy, for its treatment of the Palestinians, and many resented the predominantly Persian Iran for what they considered its destructive meddling in the Arab world.
But a few Arab states began to see Israel as a potential partner in dealing with their own concerns about Iran and established formal diplomatic relations.
That picture has now changed.
The deadly surprise attack by the Palestinian militant group Hamas in October 2023 heightened Israel's sense of vulnerability, and the country has become increasingly aggressive in striking out against perceived threats far beyond its borders.
For Iran, the wars in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, and the ouster last year of President Bashar Assad of Syria, decimated its regional proxy network and left it even more isolated.
Powerful Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, pursued their own diplomatic tracks with Tehran to decrease tensions.
Now they also hope to avoid a war in their neighbourhood that could put them in the crosshairs because of their partnerships with the United States.
The current conflict began June 13, at a bad time for the international institutions that were established to try to contain such hostilities.
Israel's war in Gaza, which began after Hamas' Oct 7, 2023, attack, has killed more than 50,000 people and caused widespread destruction and hunger in Gaza.
Few seem to expect that the warring parties in the new conflict will be held accountable for killing civilians or striking hospitals, as Israel has done repeatedly in Gaza – sometimes because Hamas has built tunnels beneath them – and as Iran did in Israel on June 19 .
Expectations are low that action by the UN Security Council will stop the war, not least because the United States would almost certainly veto any measure that called for its end.
And Iran's foreign minister, Mr Abbas Araghchi, told senior European officials during talks in Geneva on June 20 that Iran would not negotiate under fire.
Mr Trump dismissed the European efforts anyway, saying, 'Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us.'
The lack of international action to stop the war has left Mr Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel free to proceed as they choose, Dr Bajoghli said.
'We're entering a new international era, a new world order, and it seems to in some ways be an old world order of force and the law of the jungle, but with 21st-century technology and weaponry,' she said.
Israel initiated the war with a multi-pronged surprise attack that damaged Iranian military and nuclear sites, largely destroyed air defences and killed top nuclear scientists and military officials in their homes, as well as a number of civilians.
Iran has responded by firing barrages of ballistic missiles at Israel, some of which have struck civilian apartment towers. At least 224 people have been killed in Iran and 24 in Israel.
Mr Netanyahu has said that Israel launched the attack to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, which Israel would consider an existential threat.
He has also suggested the more expansive goals of regional transformation and regime change.
'We are changing the face of the Middle East, and that can lead to radical changes inside Iran itself,' he said on June 16 .
Iran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful, and US intelligence agencies have assessed that Iran has not decided to seek a nuclear weapon, although that could change if the United States bombs Iran's underground enrichment facility in Fordo or if Israel kills Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
For his part, Ayatollah Khamenei has threatened to retaliate if the United States strikes Iran.
'The harm the US will suffer will definitely be irreparable if they enter this conflict militarily,' he said in a televised address on June 18 .
The war is hugely unwelcome in the rest of the Middle East, where other governments would prefer to put the region's conflicts behind them so they can rebuild what has been destroyed and focus on strengthening their economies.
There is little affinity for either of the warring parties. Most Arab states shun Israel, and even governments that have established diplomatic relations with it have condemned how it has fought in Gaza and its attack on Iran.
But that does not mean they support Iran.
In a predominantly Sunni Muslim region, most Arab governments see Iran's revolutionary Shiite theocracy as anathema, and many people in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere resent Iran's interventions in their countries.
Many Middle East leaders have complicated reactions to the war, said Dr Dina Esfandiary, the lead Middle East analyst at Bloomberg Economics, a research group.
'Officials in the region are quietly glad that Iran's top brass is being taken out bit by bit, that Iranian proxies and their leaderships are being taken out bit by bit,' she said.
'That, from their perspective, gets rid of one of the real threats in the region for them.'
But many also fear an expanded role in the Middle East for Israel, she added, given the tremendous military and diplomatic support it receives from the United States.
That leaves other countries wondering, she said, 'Where is Israel going to go next?' NYTIMES
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Straits Times

38 minutes ago

• Straits Times

Strikes on Iran mark Trump's biggest, and riskiest, foreign policy gamble

U.S. President Donald Trump walks after delivering an address to the nation at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025, following U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/Pool WASHINGTON - With his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, directly joining Israel's air attack on its regional arch-foe, U.S. President Donald Trump has done something he had long vowed to avoid - intervene militarily in a major foreign war. The dramatic U.S. strike, including the targeting of Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear installation deep underground, marks the biggest foreign policy gamble of Trump's two presidencies and one fraught with risks and unknowns. Trump, who insisted on Saturday that Iran must now make peace or face further attacks, could provoke Tehran into retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil artery, attacking U.S. military bases and allies in the Middle East, stepping up its missile barrage on Israel and activating proxy groups against American and Israeli interests worldwide, analysts said. Such moves could escalate into a broader, more protracted conflict than Trump had envisioned, evoking echoes of the 'forever wars' that America fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he had derided as 'stupid' and promised never to be dragged into. 'The Iranians are seriously weakened and degraded in their military capabilities,' said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for Democratic and Republican administrations. 'But they have all sorts of asymmetric ways that they can respond... This is not going to end quick.' In the lead-up to the bombing that he announced late on Saturday, Trump had vacillated between threats of military action and appeals for renewed negotiation to persuade Iran to reach a deal to dismantle its nuclear program. A senior White House official said that once Trump was convinced that Tehran had no interest in reaching a nuclear agreement, he decided the strikes were 'the right thing to do.' Trump gave the go-ahead once he was assured of a 'high probability of success,' the official said – a determination reached after more than a week of Israeli air attacks on Iran's nuclear and military facilities paved the way for the U.S. to deliver the potentially crowning blow. NUCLEAR THREAT REMAINS Trump touted the "great success" of the strikes, which he said included the use of massive "bunker-buster bombs" on the main site at Fordow. But some experts suggested that while Iran's nuclear program may have been set back for many years, the threat may be far from over. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying its program is for purely peaceful purposes. 'In the long term, military action is likely to push Iran to determine nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy,' the Arms Control Association, a non-partisan U.S.-based organization that advocates for arms control legislation, said in a statement. 'Military strikes alone cannot destroy Iran's extensive nuclear knowledge. The strikes will set Iran's program back, but at the cost of strengthening Tehran's resolve to reconstitute its sensitive nuclear activities,' the group said. Eric Lob, assistant professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University, said Iran's next move remains an open question and suggested that among its forms of retaliation could be to hit 'soft targets' of the U.S. and Israel inside and outside the region. But he also said there was a possibility that Iran could return to the negotiating table – 'though they would be doing so in an even weaker position' – or seek a diplomatic off-ramp. In the immediate aftermath of the U.S. strikes, however, Iran showed little appetite for concessions. Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said it would not allow development of its 'national industry' to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every U.S. citizen or military member in the region would not be legitimate targets. Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, posted on X: 'Trump indicated this is now the time for peace. It's unclear and unlikely the Iranians will see it the same way. This is more likely to open a new chapter of the 46-year-old US-Iran war than conclude it.' 'REGIME CHANGE' Some analysts suggested that Trump, whose administration has previously disavowed any aim of dislodging the Iranian leadership, could be drawn into seeking 'regime change' if Tehran carries out major reprisals or moves to build a nuclear weapon. That, in turn, would bring additional risks. 'Beware mission creep, aiming for regime change and democratization campaigns,' said Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington. 'You'll find the bones of many failed U.S. moral missions buried in Middle East sands.' Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, said Iran's leadership would quickly engage in 'disproportionate attacks' if it felt its survival was imperiled. But Tehran will also have to be mindful of the consequences, he said. While actions such as closing the Strait of Hormuz would pose problems for Trump with the resulting higher oil prices and potential U.S. inflationary impact, it would also hurt China, one of Iran's few powerful allies. At the same time, Trump is already facing strong push-back from congressional Democrats against the Iran attack and will also have to contend with opposition from the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican MAGA base. Trump, who faced no major international crisis in his first term, is now embroiled in one just six months into his second. Even if he hopes U.S. military involvement can be limited in time and scope, the history of such conflicts often carries unintended consequences for American presidents. Trump's slogan of 'peace through strength' will certainly be tested as never before, especially with his opening of a new military front after failing to meet his campaign promises to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza. 'Trump is back in the war business,' said Richard Gowan, U.N. director at the International Crisis Group. 'I am not sure anyone in Moscow, Tehran or Beijing ever believed his spiel that he is a peacemaker. It always looked more like a campaign phrase than a strategy." REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Business Times

an hour ago

• Business Times

Trump makes dramatic about-face with plunge into Middle East war

US President Donald Trump has long advocated for keeping the US out of Middle Eastern wars. By joining Israel's offensive against Iran, he is making a dramatic geopolitical u-turn. After days of deliberation and mixed messages, Trump launched a strike against three Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday (Jun 21), bolstering Israel's efforts to destroy Iran's nuclear programme and drawing the US into a heated regional conflict. The bombings, which struck sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, came just days after he suggested he would wait for as much as two weeks to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran. Speaking from the White House late on Saturday, Trump argued that Iran must be prevented from having an atomic bomb and said the US fulfilled its objective of destroying their nuclear sites. Trump also pressured Iran to return to the negotiating table, threatening more attacks if they don't work toward an agreement – or retaliate against the US. 'This cannot continue. There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,' the president said in an address to the nation. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Consequential choice While Trump has approved military action in the past, this moment marks a consequential choice for a leader who rose to power with an anti-war stance and was welcomed by voters weary of US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. He hardened that posture in his 2024 campaign with attacks on then-President Joe Biden's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. He also has eschewed military action at times – calling off a strike on Iran in 2019 that was designed as retaliation for shooting down a US drone, saying he did not see it as proportionate. In his second inaugural address in January, Trump pledged to measure success 'not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end – and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.' And since taking office five months ago, Trump's focus on the Middle East has largely been on deals that bring US investment rather than military expansion. During a glitzy trip through the region in May, he proclaimed he wants its future to be 'defined by commerce, not chaos'. The strikes injected further anxiety into the global economy following the scattershot rollout of Trump's global tariffs. Around a fifth of the world's daily oil supply goes through the Strait of Hormuz, which lies between Iran and its Gulf Arab neighbours. Global crude oil traders have been on edge. In an extreme scenario in which the Strait of Hormuz were shut, oil could surge beyond US$130 a barrel, weighing on global growth and driving consumer prices higher, according to a Bloomberg Economics analysis. In the days leading up to the strike, Trump and his advisers had suggested that any action would be limited. Republicans emphasised that idea on Saturday – before the president threatened further attacks. 'This is not the start of a forever war,' Senator Jim Risch, the Idaho Republican and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a post on X. 'There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran. This was a precise, limited strike, which was necessary and by all accounts was very successful.' For Trump and many of his supporters, the hope is that this military action will echo the assassination of a top Iranian general in 2020. After the US strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, Trump stressed that he did not want a wider war. An Iranian response resulted in no casualties, and the situation did not escalate. Signs that Trump was becoming more open to the possibility of military action emerged last week when he abruptly departed the Group of Seven leaders summit in Canada to deal with the Middle East conflict. After months of trying to talk Tehran into making a nuclear deal, negotiations with special envoy Steve Witkoff had made little progress and Israel launched its initial attack. Trump held open the possibility of reopening discussions with his two-week ultimatum. But by Friday, Trump dismissed talks between three European nations and Iran that failed to deliver a breakthrough. And he said his patience with Tehran had just about run out. The question going forward is what the Iranian response will be and whether the US could be drawn into a longer conflict. Members of Congress have indicated they could challenge Trump's authority to unilaterally wage war on Iran without their approval. Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat who co-sponsored legislation that would force a vote on any US war with Iran, raised that prospect on Saturday, saying lawmakers should vote on the bill 'to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war'. A handful of Republicans also questioned the constitutionality of the move. 'This is not Constitutional,' said Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who co-sponsored the war powers measure. The US Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war but the War Powers Resolution allows the president to insert US forces into a conflict without a vote, as long as lawmakers are notified within 48 hours and the engagement must end within 60 days unless lawmakers allow otherwise. The potential for US engagement opened up a rift recently among Trump's supporters inside and outside the White House. Foreign policy hawks embraced an attack as an opportunity to show strength and deny Iran a nuclear weapon, while isolationists argued US should stay out of the fight and focus on issues like immigration. 'This was the right call. The regime deserves it,' said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and longtime proponent of attacking Iran. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia, has been on the other side, saying in a post on X: 'This is not our fight. Peace is the answer.' Trump was drawn into the fray, clashing with conservative media personality Tucker Carlson, who has called on the US to stay out of the conflict. On Jun 18, he downplayed any issues, saying 'my supporters are for me' and adding that Carlson 'called and apologised the other day because he thought he said things that were a little bit too strong'. Longtime time Trump ally Steve Bannon said on his podcast on Saturday that Trump will need to explain himself, but that he thinks his base will ultimately remain loyal. 'There are a lot of MAGA (Make America Great Again) that's not happy about this,' he said. 'I believe he will get MAGA on board, all of it, but he's got to explain exactly and go through this.' BLOOMBERG

Straits Times

an hour ago

• Straits Times

Iran says US attacks on three nuclear sites were ‘savage'

The agency did not confirm whether the sites of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan had been 'completely and totally obliterated'. PHOTO: AFP Iran says US attacks on three nuclear sites were 'savage' Follow our live coverage here. TEHRAN – Iran's atomic energy agency described US strikes on three key nuclear facilities as a 'savage assault' but pledged not to abandon its nuclear industry after the assault. The 'lawless actions' will not cause 'the development of this national industry to be halted', the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran said in a statement, according to the state-run IRNA news agency. The agency did not confirm whether the sites of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan had been 'completely and totally obliterated', as US President Donald Trump said they were in an address from Washington. Iran's nuclear safety authority said it detected no signs of radioactive contamination at the three nuclear sites following the strikes, IRNA said in a separate report. The authority also assessed that there was no threat to residents living near the facilities. Iranian lawmaker Mannan Raisi, who represents Qom – the closest population centre to Fordow – said the facility did not suffer 'serious damage', with most of the impact limited to above-ground structures, the semi-official Tasnim News Agency reported. He added that any material at Fordow that could pose a potential risk to the public 'had already been removed in advance'. BLOOMBERG Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.