Latest news with #Iranian-aligned
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Three Dramatic Consequences of Israel's Attack on Iran
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. 'Battles are the principal milestones in secular history,' Winston Churchill observed in his magisterial biography of the Duke of Marlborough in 1936. 'Modern opinion resents this uninspiring truth … But great battles, won or lost, change the entire course of events, create new standards of values, new moods, new atmospheres, in armies and in nations, to which all must conform.' So it was then, and so it is today. Iran's war with Israel is rooted in the Islamic Republic's inveterate hostility to the Jewish state. It has consisted of multiple campaigns, including terror attacks against Jewish communities abroad (Argentina in 1994, for example) and missile salvos aimed at Israel (including from Lebanon and Iran itself last year). But three great events—the smashing of Hezbollah, the Syrian revolution that overthrew the Iranian-aligned regime, and now a climactic battle waged by long-range strikes and Mossad hit teams in Tehran—are changing the Middle East. We are living through the kind of moment that Churchill described. Israel's current campaign is built around two realities often missed by so-called realists: first, that the Iranian government is determined to acquire nuclear weapons and cannot be deterred, bought off, or persuaded to do otherwise, and second, that Israel reasonably believes itself to be facing an existential threat. When I served as counselor of the State Department during the second Bush administration, I had, among other keepsakes on my desk, an Iranian banknote picked up in Dubai. When I held it up to the light, I could see the sign of an atom superimposed over a map of Iran, with its nucleus roughly over Natanz, site of the major Iranian centrifuge hall. The banknote was a symbol of the determination that successive American governments chose to ignore, preferring to negotiate with a regime whose bad faith and malevolence were plain for those willing to see. The Iranian regime was happy to delay and temporize, but its destination was clearly visible in the expanding overt and covert programs to enrich uranium, design warheads, and develop delivery systems. Equally visible was Tehran's desire to destroy Israel. It takes a particular kind of idiocy or bad faith to disregard the speeches, propaganda, and shouts of 'death to Israel.' The Israeli lesson learned from the previous century—and, indeed, the Jewish one learned over a much longer span of time—is that if someone says they want to exterminate you, they mean it. And so Israel has acted in ways that have had three dramatic consequences. The first is the emergence of a distinct mode of warfare, already apparent in some of Ukraine's operations in Russia, that combines special operations with precision long-range strikes. Special operations are nothing new—the British secret services of the time played a role in a nearly successful bomb plot against Napoleon. But the innovation is combining large-scale and systematic use of assassinations and sabotage with nearly simultaneously precision strikes. Similar techniques helped decapitate Hezbollah's leadership and devastate its middle ranks while smashing its arsenals, but Israel's campaign against Iran is on an altogether different scale. This mode of warfare will not work everywhere, but in this case Israeli special operations helped neuter Iran's defenses and kill many of its senior leaders and nuclear scientists. The sobering lesson for the United States is that others can, at some point, do this to us more easily than we might be able to use these methods against a country like China. It is, in any event, part of the new face of war. The second is the way that the wars that began with Hamas's attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, have reshaped the Middle East. Iran's position had been drastically weakened through the loss of its proxy forces in Lebanon and Syria, and now this current round of attacks has the potential to jeopardize the Iranian regime itself. The Iranian regime has delivered only misery and repression to its people. In return it was once offered religious and revolutionary zeal, which has been largely replaced by cynicism and hatred of the leadership. It had, and has now lost, imperial reach throughout the Middle East and beyond. The very last thing it offered was the prestige of its pursuit of nuclear weapons—weapons that Westerners may view with horror, but that others in the world (think India and Pakistan, for example) value quite differently. After losing all of these achievements to its own brutality and incompetence, as well as Israeli hit squads and fighter-bombers, all that the regime has left are its mechanisms of repression. Ultimately, those will not suffice to sustain it. Israel (and for that matter the United States) does not overtly aim at overthrowing the regime; neither has the intention of invading the country in the manner of Iraq in 2003. But a form of regime change may come—possibly through public upheaval, or just as likely through the rise of some strongman, probably from the military or security services, who will take Iran in a different direction. Perhaps such a strongman will lead Iran to some dark new place. But he could also proceed along the lines of Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince, denouncing and disposing of some of the current elite on charges of treachery, incompetence, and corruption to consolidate his power, and then acting as a dictatorial modernizer. That would be the first step on a much better path for Iran and the rest of the world. The Western world has reason, as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently said, to be grateful to Israel for doing the 'dirty work' of smashing Iran's nuclear program, because a nuclear-armed Iran would be a menace not just to Israel but to the wider Middle East and to the West. Which brings us to the third great shift in moods and atmospheres, the characteristically over-the-top, bellicose rhetoric of Donald Trump. At first the American government hastened to distance itself from the Israeli attacks, in a swift and now rather embarrassing statement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. But over time the president, communicating through explosive statements on Truth Social, began using the first-person plural in talking about the Israeli attacks, celebrating the American military hardware used in the attack, threatening worse to come, musing about killing the supreme leader of Iran, and clearly contemplating finishing the job of destroying the Iranian nuclear complex by sending B-2 bombers to deliver 15-ton GBU-57 penetrating bombs on the deeply subterranean Fordow facility. This has aroused consternation among some of his core supporters, such as Tucker Carlson (dismissed by the president as 'kooky') and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, and required the dispatch of Vice President J. D. Vance to quiet the protests of the isolationist, and in some cases borderline anti-Semitic, wing of the MAGA movement. Trump's turnaround is less surprising when one considers his political gifts, among them a feral instinct for weakness. He is a politician who is willing to kick opponents when they are down, and enjoys doing just that. He senses, far better than most of his advisers and experts, just how weak Iran is. No doubt as well, he delights in the opportunity to punish the regime that plotted to assassinate him in 2024. And he has aspirations to be not a warlord, much though he delights in military bluster and show, but a kind of peacemaker. He understands that a different kind of Iran—if not a democratic one, then a tamed dictatorship—would be open for deals, and he would gladly make them. He has engaged more with the Persian Gulf in recent years than with any other part of the world, and sees opportunities there. He believes that the price would be low, and although the Israelis have done the heavy lifting, he will get the credit from them and others for the finishing touches. Trump has undoubtedly already authorized various forms of support to Israel's campaign. He may or may not order the dropping of GBU-57s on Fordow. But he has, in any case, supported actions that are doing far more than those of any of his predecessors to eliminate a threat that has already killed American soldiers and civilians as well as many others, and that would be infinitely worse if left unchecked. Much as it may pain his critics to admit it, in this matter he is acting, if not conventionally, then like a statesman of a distinctively Trumpian stamp. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Atlantic
2 days ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
The Three Dramatic Consequences of Israel's Attack on Iran
'Battles are the principal milestones in secular history,' Winston Churchill observed in his magisterial biography of the Duke of Marlborough in 1936. 'Modern opinion resents this uninspiring truth … But great battles, won or lost, change the entire course of events, create new standards of values, new moods, new atmospheres, in armies and in nations, to which all must conform.' So it was then, and so it is today. Iran's war with Israel is rooted in the Islamic Republic's inveterate hostility to the Jewish state. It has consisted of multiple campaigns, including terror attacks against Jewish communities abroad (Argentina in 1994, for example) and missile salvos aimed at Israel (including from Lebanon and Iran itself last year). But three great events—the smashing of Hezbollah, the Syrian revolution that overthrew the Iranian-aligned regime, and now a climactic battle waged by long-range strikes and Mossad hit teams in Tehran—are changing the Middle East. We are living through the kind of moment that Churchill described. Israel's current campaign is built around two realities often missed by so-called realists: first, that the Iranian government is determined to acquire nuclear weapons and cannot be deterred, bought off, or persuaded to do otherwise, and second, that Israel reasonably believes itself to be facing an existential threat. When I served as counselor of the State Department during the second Bush administration, I had, among other keepsakes on my desk, an Iranian banknote picked up in Dubai. When I held it up to the light, I could see the sign of an atom superimposed over a map of Iran, with its nucleus roughly over Natanz, site of the major Iranian centrifuge hall. The banknote was a symbol of the determination that successive American governments chose to ignore, preferring to negotiate with a regime whose bad faith and malevolence were plain for those willing to see. The Iranian regime was happy to delay and temporize, but its destination was clearly visible in the expanding overt and covert programs to enrich uranium, design warheads, and develop delivery systems. Equally visible was Tehran's desire to destroy Israel. It takes a particular kind of idiocy or bad faith to disregard the speeches, propaganda, and shouts of 'death to Israel.' The Israeli lesson learned from the previous century—and, indeed, the Jewish one learned over a much longer span of time—is that if someone says they want to exterminate you, they mean it. And so Israel has acted in ways that have had three dramatic consequences. The first is the emergence of a distinct mode of warfare, already apparent in some of Ukraine's operations in Russia, that combines special operations with precision long-range strikes. Special operations are nothing new—the British secret services of the time played a role in a nearly successful bomb plot against Napoleon. But the innovation is combining large-scale and systematic use of assassinations and sabotage with nearly simultaneously precision strikes. Similar techniques helped decapitate Hezbollah's leadership and devastate its middle ranks while smashing its arsenals, but Israel's campaign against Iran is on an altogether different scale. This mode of warfare will not work everywhere, but in this case Israeli special operations helped neuter Iran's defenses and kill many of its senior leaders and nuclear scientists. The sobering lesson for the United States is that others can, at some point, do this to us more easily than we might be able to use these methods against a country like China. It is, in any event, part of the new face of war. The second is the way that the wars that began with Hamas's attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, have reshaped the Middle East. Iran's position had been drastically weakened through the loss of its proxy forces in Lebanon and Syria, and now this current round of attacks has the potential to jeopardize the Iranian regime itself. The Iranian regime has delivered only misery and repression to its people. In return it was once offered religious and revolutionary zeal, which has been largely replaced by cynicism and hatred of the leadership. It had, and has now lost, imperial reach throughout the Middle East and beyond. The very last thing it offered was the prestige of its pursuit of nuclear weapons—weapons that Westerners may view with horror, but that others in the world (think India and Pakistan, for example) value quite differently. After losing all of these achievements to its own brutality and incompetence, as well as Israeli hit squads and fighter-bombers, all that the regime has left are its mechanisms of repression. Ultimately, those will not suffice to sustain it. Israel (and for that matter the United States) does not overtly aim at overthrowing the regime; neither has the intention of invading the country in the manner of Iraq in 2003. But a form of regime change may come—possibly through public upheaval, or just as likely through the rise of some strongman, probably from the military or security services, who will take Iran in a different direction. Perhaps such a strongman will lead Iran to some dark new place. But he could also proceed along the lines of Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince, denouncing and disposing of some of the current elite on charges of treachery, incompetence, and corruption to consolidate his power, and then acting as a dictatorial modernizer. That would be the first step on a much better path for Iran and the rest of the world. The Western world has reason, as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently said, to be grateful to Israel for doing the 'dirty work' of smashing Iran's nuclear program, because a nuclear-armed Iran would be a menace not just to Israel but to the wider Middle East and to the West. Which brings us to the third great shift in moods and atmospheres, the characteristically over-the-top, bellicose rhetoric of Donald Trump. At first the American government hastened to distance itself from the Israeli attacks, in a swift and now rather embarrassing statement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. But over time the president, communicating through explosive statements on Truth Social, began using the first-person plural in talking about the Israeli attacks, celebrating the American military hardware used in the attack, threatening worse to come, musing about killing the supreme leader of Iran, and clearly contemplating finishing the job of destroying the Iranian nuclear complex by sending B-2 bombers to deliver 15-ton GBU-57 penetrating bombs on the deeply subterranean Fordow facility. This has aroused consternation among some of his core supporters, such as Tucker Carlson (dismissed by the president as 'kooky') and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, and required the dispatch of Vice President J. D. Vance to quiet the protests of the isolationist, and in some cases borderline anti-Semitic, wing of the MAGA movement. Trump's turnaround is less surprising when one considers his political gifts, among them a feral instinct for weakness. He is a politician who is willing to kick opponents when they are down, and enjoys doing just that. He senses, far better than most of his advisers and experts, just how weak Iran is. No doubt as well, he delights in the opportunity to punish the regime that plotted to assassinate him in 2024. And he has aspirations to be not a warlord, much though he delights in military bluster and show, but a kind of peacemaker. He understands that a different kind of Iran—if not a democratic one, then a tamed dictatorship—would be open for deals, and he would gladly make them. He has engaged more with the Persian Gulf in recent years than with any other part of the world, and sees opportunities there. He believes that the price would be low, and although the Israelis have done the heavy lifting, he will get the credit from them and others for the finishing touches. Trump has undoubtedly already authorized various forms of support to Israel's campaign. He may or may not order the dropping of GBU-57s on Fordow. But he has, in any case, supported actions that are doing far more than those of any of his predecessors to eliminate a threat that has already killed American soldiers and civilians as well as many others, and that would be infinitely worse if left unchecked. Much as it may pain his critics to admit it, in this matter he is acting, if not conventionally, then like a statesman of a distinctively Trumpian stamp.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US evacuates personnel from Middle East in sign of growing regional tension
The United States is preparing a partial evacuation of its embassy in Iraq and has authorised 'the voluntary departure' of dependants of US personnel from locations across the Middle East, including Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, as regional security concerns rise. US Central Command (CENTCOM) said in a statement on Wednesday that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had authorised the departure of military dependants in the region and that CENTCOM was 'monitoring the developing tension'. Orders for all nonessential personnel to depart the US Embassy in Baghdad – which was already on limited staffing – was based on a commitment 'to keeping Americans safe, both at home and abroad', the Department of State said. Speaking on Wednesday evening, US President Donald Trump said the order to move staff out had been given because the region 'could be a dangerous place'. 'We'll see what happens. We've given notice to move out, and we'll see what happens,' Trump said. Trump then added in reference to Iran: 'They can't have a nuclear weapon, very simple. We're not going to allow that.' Uncertainty has been growing in recent days as talks between the US and Iran over its nuclear programme appear to have hit an impasse. US news broadcaster CBS reported late on Wednesday that US officials have been informed that Israel is 'fully ready' to launch an attack on Iran and that Washington 'anticipates' that Tehran could retaliate by targeting 'certain American sites in neighbouring Iraq'.Al Jazeera's Alan Fisher, reporting from Washington, DC, said there have been clear signs in recent days of high-level discussions between senior military officials and the Trump administration amid concern around the ongoing talks with Iran over its nuclear programme. 'Donald Trump has in the last couple of days … expressed his concern that a deal might not be able to be done,' Fisher said. 'Therefore, we are seeing, effectively, the partial evacuation of the embassy in Baghdad with non-military personnel and non-essential staff being moved out. And the voluntary evacuation of other embassies in the region,' he said. 'They've done this sort of thing before,' Fisher said, noting the Baghdad embassy was partially evacuated previously over 'concerns that the embassy could become a target for Iranian-aligned militias in Iraq'. 'Clearly, there is some concern that the discussions with the Iranians aren't going well. Or, it could be that this is all designed to put pressure on Iranians. Because, you will remember, that Donald Trump said that if they couldn't get some sort of deal, then … there could be some sort of military action against the Iranians.' As reports of US embassy staff and dependants departing the Middle East region emerged, Iran's mission to the United Nations posted on social media that 'Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon, and US militarism only fuels instability'. 'Threats of 'overwhelming force' won't change the facts,' the Iranian mission said. 'Diplomacy – not militarism – is the only path forward,' it added. Separately, Iranian Defence Minister General Aziz Nasirzadeh told reporters earlier that he hoped talks with the US would be successful, though Tehran stood ready to respond to any aggression. 'If conflict is imposed on us, the opponent's casualties will certainly be more than ours, and in that case, America must leave the region, because all its bases are within our reach,' he said. 'We have access to them, and we will target all of them in the host countries without hesitation.' The next round of talks – the sixth – between the US and Iran on limits to Tehran's nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions on the country have been tentatively scheduled for this weekend in Oman, according to reports, and Trump's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, is still scheduled to attend.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
CIA analyst who leaked Israel strike plan sentenced to three years
A former CIA analyst who leaked classified documents about Israel's plans to strike Iran has been sentenced to 37 months in prison. Asif William Rahman, 34, pleaded guilty in January to two counts of willful retention and transmission of national defence information under the Espionage Act. Authorities say that, using his high-level security clearance, Rahman printed, photographed and sent out top secret documents. They later ended up being circulated on social media. Israel carried out air strikes on Iran last October, targeting military sites in several regions, in response to the barrage of missiles launched by Tehran weeks earlier. "For months, this defendant betrayed the American people and the oaths he took upon entering his office by leaking some of our Nation's most closely held secrets," John Eisenberg, assistant attorney general for national security, said in a press release. In October 2024, documents appearing to be from a Department of Defense agency were published on an Iranian-aligned Telegram account. The documents, bearing a top-secret mark, were viewable between the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, made up of the US, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. The leaked documents are also said to have contained the US' assessment of Israeli plans ahead of the strike on Iran and the movements of military assets in preparation. One referred to Israel's nuclear capabilities, which have never been officially acknowledged. When asked about the leak, former President Joe Biden said he was "deeply concerned". Israel ended up carrying out those air strikes later in the month, targeting military sites in several regions in response to missiles fired by Tehran weeks prior. Rahman, who worked abroad, was arrested by the FBI in Cambodia and brought to the US territory of Guam to face charges.
Newsweek
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Five Signs Israel and Iran Could Be Headed Toward Open War
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Threats from both Iran and Israel are intensifying, pushing them closer to direct military conflict in an already volatile and war-torn region. Alongside Israeli military drills, stalled diplomatic talks, and proxy skirmishes, these hostile warnings signal a dangerous escalation. Why It Matters A potential full-scale war between Iran and Israel would further destabilize an already volatile Middle East, with serious implications for global security. Iran's missile advancements and unwavering position on nuclear enrichment, combined with the firm red lines set by the U.S. and ongoing, yet slow moving, attempts at diplomacy between Washington and Tehran, have intensified tensions. Such a conflict could disrupt global oil supplies, involve international powers, and deepen regional instability. These five critical indicators highlight just how fragile the situation has become: 1. Iran's Missile Fuel Shipments Iran has reportedly ordered thousands of tons of ammonium perchlorate from China, a key ingredient for producing solid-fueled ballistic missiles, aiming to reinforce its military capabilities. According to The Wall Street Journal, the materials, which could be used to manufacture up to 800 missiles, are expected to be delivered in the coming months, and some may be distributed to Iranian-aligned militias, including the Houthis in Yemen. The procurement appears to be part of Iran's strategy to strengthen its regional alliances and missile arsenal as it resists limiting its missile development in nuclear talks. Iranian missiles exhibited in a park on January 20, 2024 in Tehran, Iran. Iran has been a key player in several overlapping regional conflicts, with its recent airstrikes in Iraq, Syria and Pakistan, and its... Iranian missiles exhibited in a park on January 20, 2024 in Tehran, Iran. Iran has been a key player in several overlapping regional conflicts, with its recent airstrikes in Iraq, Syria and Pakistan, and its support of Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthi movement in Yemen. More Majid Saeedi/AP Photo 2. Israel Ready to Strike Israel is actively preparing for a possible strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, contingent on the outcome of ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have conducted extensive military drills simulating a multi-day offensive against Iranian targets, underscoring the seriousness of these preparations. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has emphasized Israel's right to defend itself and declared that any agreement must block Iran from enriching uranium. While Trump recently cautioned Netanyahu that a strike would be "inappropriate" while diplomacy continues—saying the sides are "very close to a solution"—he has also left open the possibility of supporting action if talks collapse. 3. Iran-Linked Militias Tensions between Israel and Iran are rising through proxy forces in the region. On Wednesday, Israel launched rare airstrikes in Syria—its first in nearly a month—after two projectiles were fired from Syrian territory. Israel blamed Syria's interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, while Damascus denied aggression and reported heavy losses. According to a report by Reuters, a Syrian official suggested Iran-backed militias in the country's Quneitra region may be provoking retaliation to destabilize the area. Around the same time, Yemen's Houthis launched a ballistic missile at Jaffa in support of Palestinians. This growing coordination among Iranian-linked militias signals a dangerous expansion of the conflict beyond the core Iran-Israel axis. An Israel Defense Forces (IDF) artillery unit, using a self-propelled artillery howitzer, fires towards Gaza near the border on December 11, 2023 in Southern Israel. An Israel Defense Forces (IDF) artillery unit, using a self-propelled artillery howitzer, fires towards Gaza near the border on December 11, 2023 in Southern Israel. Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images 4. Netanyahu's Political Struggles With Netanyahu facing political challenges at home, Iran could be a rallying point to strengthen his political standing. Netanyahu has framed the threat from Iran as an existential challenge that demands strong leadership. This emphasis on national security helps him unify supporters amid deep domestic divisions. Moreover, Netanyahu declared that Iran is currently "many, many steps back" and at its weakest, making now the best time for Israel to strike before Tehran recovers. 5. Israel's Isolation The war in Gaza has left Israel increasingly isolated on the world stage, weakening its regional standing and emboldening Iran. Arab nations that previously engaged with Israel have pulled back—Jordan recalled its ambassador, Turkey cut diplomatic ties, and Saudi normalization talks have collapsed. At the same time, Iran has strengthened strategic ties with Russia and China and positioned itself as a regional counterweight to Israel. As global sympathy for Israel wanes and Western allies express frustration, Iran senses greater freedom to assert its influence and resist pressure over its nuclear program. A protester wears a mask of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a demonstration against controversial legislation that will increase political control over judicial appointments on March 26, 2025 in Jerusalem. A protester wears a mask of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a demonstration against controversial legislation that will increase political control over judicial appointments on March 26, 2025 in Happens Next The coming weeks are likely to see rising volatility as Israel weighs its next move amid growing friction with Iran. With military preparations already underway and public statements signaling readiness, Israeli leaders appear increasingly willing to act unilaterally if they judge Iran's nuclear progress to have crossed a red line. Iranian officials, for their part, continue to assert their right to enrich uranium while warning of retaliation if attacked.
