Latest news with #Iraqis
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
News Analysis: Arab and Gulf nations fear U.S. attack on Iran will destabilize the region
BEIRUT — Last month, President Trump stood in the palatial ballroom of the Ritz Carlton in Riyadh, and rebuked America's misadventures in the Middle East. As Saudi officials and U.S. business leaders looked on, Trump said that too many of his predecessors were 'afflicted with the notion that it's our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use U.S. policy to dispense justice for their sins.' 'In the end, the so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built,' he added. 'And the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand.' A mere five weeks later, Trump appears to be on the cusp of his own Middle Eastern adventure, one with uncomfortable parallels to America's invasion of Iraq in 2003. That conflict — which killed at least 100,000 Iraqis and some 4,400 Americans, lasted almost nine years and destabilized the region for half a generation after. It became the prime example of the 'forever wars' Trump railed against during his election campaign, and a lesson in the folly of intervening with no clear endgame. For Trump's Persian Gulf and Arab allies, the prospect of a repeat performance has left them scrabbling for a diplomatic off-ramp. 'There are no nations on the face of the Earth working harder than the Gulf countries today to calm the situation and stop this crazy war. They are absolutely against any military confrontation,' said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, an Emirati political scientist and commentator, adding that leaders of the United Arab Emirates have been 'burning the phones' round the clock. 'I've never seen their diplomacy more active and more engaged than it is today to bring an end to this.' Most Arab governments have little love lost on Iran, which they view as an unruly neighbor fomenting unrest in their own backyards. Its nuclear program has long been a concern, but the bigger fear has often been Iran's allies in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, and their loyalties with a Shiite-majority Iran in a Sunni-dominated Arab world. During the Biden administration, U.S. officials hoped to use that antipathy to forge an anti-Iran coalition that would see friendly nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the UAE cooperating with Israel to isolate Tehran. Instead, rapprochement with Iran has been the modus operandi in recent years, with Gulf countries normalizing and easing tensions with the Islamic Republic under the calculation that regional stability would bring regional prosperity. All were quick to condemn Israel's attacks last week. Saudi Arabia, which for years engaged in proxy matches with Iran and was often seen as its main competitor for regional influence, denounced what it called 'blatant Israeli aggressions against the brotherly Islamic Republic of Iran.' The UAE said much the same. Despite being an enthusiastic member of the Abraham Accords, the Trump-brokered treaty that established relations between Israel and a raft of Arab nations, the UAE excoriated Israel for attacking Iran. On Tuesday, the Emirati ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, called Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to express his solidarity; the same day, Emirati Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed emphasized a diplomatic approach was needed to 'prevent the situation from spiraling into grave and far-reaching consequences.' That focus on diplomacy, observers say, reflects pragmatism: If the U.S. were to enter the conflict, it's likely Iran — or one of its allied militias — would lash out at American personnel, bases and other interests in the region, including in the UAE. There are more than 40,000 U.S. soldiers and civilian contractors stationed in the Middle East, according to statements by Pentagon officials (though that number has fluctuated since Hamas' attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023). The Council on Foreign Relations says the U.S. operates military facilities in 19 locations in countries such as Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria and the UAE. Eight of the facilities are considered permanent. Pro-Iranian groups in Iraq and Syria have in the past regularly attacked U.S. bases. Last year, a drone launched by an Iranian-backed militia on a U.S. base in Jordan near the Syrian border killed three U.S. soldiers and injured 47 others. Also, there is precedent for Iran's allies attacking economic concerns, such as when the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen sent drones striking oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia in 2019 and the UAE in 2022. Iran may also decide to close the Strait of Hormuz, a vital passageway that handles a fifth of the world's energy flows. Meanwhile, Qatar shares ownership of the South Pars/North Dome field in Iran, the largest natural gas field in the world, which was hit last week in Israel's strikes. The UAE and other Gulf countries 'absolutely do not want to be caught in the middle of a broader conflict nor do they want to be targeted by any party, as they have been in the past,' said Elham Fakhro, a Gulf researcher at Harvard's Belfer Center. She added governments also fear fallout from a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities could contaminate natural resources they share with Iran. Others, unsure how far the U.S. and Israel will go — whether they still stop at crippling Iran's nuclear and missile programs or push for regime change — fear the impacts of the Iranian state disintegrating. Foremost in their minds are the aftereffects of America's toppling of Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein, which unleashed sectarian rage, saw Iraq engulfed in blood-drenched bedlam and empowered terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. 'It's not in the interest of the Gulf states to see their large neighbor Iran collapse,' wrote former Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim Jaber Al Thani in a post on X, adding that the region saw the consequences of what happened in Iraq. He urged Gulf decision-makers to 'immediately halt this madness initiated by Israel.' 'This war will also have profound repercussions for our region and perhaps the world,' he wrote. 'Ultimately, the victor will not always be victorious and the vanquished will never be defeated.' Behind that rhetoric is a growing conviction that Israel, rather than Iran, is the biggest threat to instability in the region, said Abdulla, the Emirati political scientist. Iran, after all, is diminished. In the past, it could rely on the so-called 'Axis of Resistance' — a constellation of pro-Tehran militias and governments in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan — to frustrate adversaries' plans. But the last 20 months of fighting have seen Israel cripple militant groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah while the U.S. has subdued Iraqi militias. Israel, on the other hand, he said, continues to wreak havoc in Gaza and is planning to annex the West Bank. It has also occupied areas in Syria. 'Imperial Iran is probably no longer. OK, that's an opportunity. But imperial Israel is not necessarily good for the stability of the region either,' Abdulla said. U.S. intelligence officials say Iran is not pursuing a nuclear bomb — contradicting Trump, who has said the opposite — and intelligence assessment experts quoted by CNN this week said Tehran was at least three years away from building a bomb and delivering it in a strike. (For all his complaints about American interventions in the Middle East — and claims that he had opposed the Iraq war two decades ago — when Trump was asked by radio personality Howard Stern in 2002 if he supported invading Iraq, he replied, 'Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly.') If the U.S. were to attack Iran now, it would likely supercharge efforts to bulk up the militaries not just in Iran but elsewhere in the region. This week, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said regional threats necessitated a ramping up of his nation's medium- and long-range missiles, saying they were needed for deterrence. 'Soon, we'll reach a defense capacity that no one will dare challenge. … If you're not strong politically, socially, economically and militarily, you lack deterrence, and you're vulnerable,' Erdogan said. 'We will elevate our level of deterrence so high that not only will they not attack us — they won't even dare to think about it.'
Miami Herald
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Iran Issues New Warning to US-'All Necessary Options on the Table'
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi warned Thursday that "all necessary options are on the table" to respond to a potential strike by the United States. President Donald Trump has been considering strikes against Iran aimed at diminishing the country's nuclear capabilities amid concerns that it may be developing nuclear weapons, which the president has stated it cannot have, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. The conflict escalated last week after Israel launched strikes at Iran targeting nuclear capabilities. The two countries have since fired strikes back-and-forth in recent days, fueling concerns about the possibility of a wider war involving the United States. The conflict could reshape affairs in the region and across the globe for years to come. The warning came as Trump has reportedly been warming up to the idea of striking Iran directly, while the U.S. already has been providing military support to Israel amid the heightened conflict with Tehran. "If the U.S. wants to actively intervene in support of Israel, Iran will have no other option but to use its tools to teach aggressors a lesson and defend itself," Gharibabadi said, Russia's Tass news agency reported, citing Iranian media. "Our military decision-makers have all necessary options on the table," he said. "Our recommendation to the US is to at least stand by if they do not wish to stop Israel's aggression," the Iranian diplomat said. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at a briefing that Trump will "make a decision within the next two weeks" about whether to join the war. Iran's Supreme National Security Council on Thursday threatened an "immediate" response to any third party that intervenes in its ongoing conflict with Israel, though it did not specifically mention the U.S. by name. The U.S. has many bases in the region that some fear could become Iranian targets. Trump has not confirmed what he plans to do about the conflict. He has reportedly reviewed strike options but is waiting to see whether Iran de-escalates its nuclear activities. He is aware of the diplomatic effort being undertaken, with EU officials meeting with the Iranian foreign minister in Switzerland on Friday. Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, in a statement emailed to Newsweek: "In 2002, in testimony to Congress urging the United States to go to war in Iraq, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stated: 'There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking... nuclear you take out Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations.' "Netanyahu was wrong. Very wrong. The war in Iraq resulted in 4,492 U.S. military deaths, over 32,000 wounded, and a cost of roughly three trillion dollars. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also died as a result of that tragic war. Netanyahu was wrong regarding the war in Iraq. He is wrong now. We must not get involved in Netanyahu's war against Iran." Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, in a post to X (formerly Twitter): "Over the weekend, I directed the deployment of additional capabilities to the United States Central Command Area of Responsibility. Protecting U.S. forces is our top priority and these deployments are intended to enhance our defensive posture in the region." President Donald Trump told reporters on Wednesday: "I don't want to fight either. I'm not looking to fight. But if it's a choice between fighting and them having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do, and maybe we won't have to fight." Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, in a public address: "The Americans should know that any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage. The U.S. entering in this matter is 100 percent to its own detriment. The damage it will suffer will be far greater than any harm that Iran may encounter." Debate continues about whether the U.S. should join the conflict. While some have argued it is strategic to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, others have said the U.S. should not get involved in a war on Israel's behalf. Members of Congress are pushing to limit Trump's ability to join the conflict without their authorization. Update 6/19/25, 2:01 p.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information. Related Articles US Support For Donald Trump Attacking Iran Revealed in PollsIranian Jewish Leader Denounces Israel's 'Savage' Attacks on IranFormer Spy Chief: 'Good Case' for US To Strike Iranian Nuclear SiteWhy Iran War Hurts China More Than America 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
The Hill
18 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Carville backs ‘friend' Tucker Carlson amid Trump feud
Democratic strategist and commentator James Carville voiced support for pundit Tucker Carlson after the former Fox News host took heat from President Trump for questioning his approach to Iran and a potential war in the Middle East. 'I knew Tucker Carlson very well at a time in my life. He was a very good friend of mine. I still consider Tucker to be a friend,' Carville said this week while appearing on Chris Cuomo's NewsNation program. 'What he was saying to Ted Cruz is consistent with what he was saying in the Green Room in 2002. He's always been pretty isolationist.' Carville was referencing a nearly two-hour interview Carlson conducted with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) during which the two sparred over whether and to what extent the U.S. should get involved in Israel's ongoing war with Iran. 'He's barely much of a pacifist when it comes to this, I'll let Tucker defend his position,' Carville continued. 'I'm not here to defend Tucker, but I am here to say that that is consistent with him.' The pundit's comments were first highlighted by Mediaite. Carlson called Trump 'complicit' in the ongoing violence in the Middle East, earning him a sharp rebuke from the president, who called him 'kooky' in a Truth Social post. Trump has kept the world guessing on whether the U.S. will join Israel's campaign to destroy Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity. The issue has sharply divided Trump's supporters, with Iran hawks like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) pushing for U.S. strikes, and 'America First' champions like Carlson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) arguing attacks on Iran risk embroiling the U.S. in another 'forever war' in the Middle East. Trump on Wednesday told reporters at the White House he spoke with Carlson this week, and suggested the two were on good terms, calling the pundit 'a good guy.' Carville, a longtime Democratic strategist, suggested he agrees with Carlson's anti-war position, comparing it to the decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003, starting a decade-long conflict that took the lives of about 4,500 U.S. troops and many more Iraqis. 'And a lot of people beat the war drums to death in the war with Iraq, which turned out to be honestly one of the great disasters in American foreign policy history,' Carville said.
Shafaq News
19 hours ago
- Business
- Shafaq News
Iraqis rank 5th in Turkish property purchases in May
Shafaq News/ Iraqis ranked fifth among the top foreign buyers of Turkish real estate in May 2025, the Turkish Statistical Institute (TURKSTAT) announced on Thursday. According to a report by TURKSTAT, home sales in Turkiye rose by 17.6% in May compared to the same month in 2024, reaching 130,025 units. However, sales to foreign buyers declined by 14.2% year-on-year in May, totaling 1,771 homes. The institute reported that Russian nationals led foreign purchases with 274 homes, followed by Iranians with 133 homes. Germany ranked third, purchasing 127 homes, while Ukraine came in fourth with 113 units. Iraq followed in fifth place with 104 homes, Azerbaijan ranked sixth with 75, Kazakhstan seventh with 66, Saudi Arabia eighth with 62, China ninth with 59, and the UK tenth with 49 homes. Iraqis have consistently topped the list of foreign property buyers in Turkiye since 2015. However, they fell to second place behind the Iranians in early 2021 before dropping to third place in April 2022, following Russia's dominance in the Turkish real estate market.
Time Magazine
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Time Magazine
The Issues With Calling for a Regime Change in Iran
Some have called for a regime change in Iran. Though a change is unlikely to happen by itself, should President Donald Trump push for one, he would be making a grave mistake. It is not the first time that foreign powers have imagined Iran as a crumbling house—one that only needs a gentle push, or a series of airstrikes, before it falls into new hands. This was the fantasy in 1953, when the CIA and the British intelligence overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh, Iran's prime minister who had nationalized the country's oil, and delivered Iran to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's autocratic rule. And this was also the fantasy in the 1980s, when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran with military and economic support from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Israel, who believed the newly revolutionary Iran would collapse in months. It was the fallacy in 2003, when the George W. Bush Administration imagined the ' axis of evil ' could be undone through further isolation of Iran. Now, the myth of a seamless regime change in Iran has been resurrected. 'As we achieve our objective we are also clearing the path for you to achieve your freedom,' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a video address to the Iranian people. The shape of Israel's effort is clear: sabotage operations, assassinations, and strikes. President Trump's response has varied widely. First, he sought out a renewed nuclear deal with Iran. Later, he demanded its ' unconditional surrender,' posting about the possibility of killing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran. He moved American refueling jets closer to Europe and maintained a degree of ambiguity about the U.S. military's commitment to Israel. Since, he has come to support Israel's attacks on Iran. But Iran is not Syria, Libya, or Iraq. If President Trump joins the war on Iran and commits the United States to removing the Iranian regime, the results will likely be more catastrophic than the 2003 war on Iraq, which killed more than 1.2 million people, displaced more than nine million Iraqis, contributed to the emergence of the Islamic State, and cost the United States about $3 trillion. America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also contributed significantly to the squandering of its unipolar moment and setting off the decline of the American century. American analysts often underestimate the strength of the Iranian state, which is structured for survival. The Iranian military has a dual architecture designed to resist coups and invasions: Artesh, the regular armed forces of around 420,000 men across ground, naval, air, and air-defense forces, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), an elite, ideologically driven military with roughly 190,000 personnel across ground, naval, and air branches. Beyond them is the Basij, a vast paramilitary network with hundreds of thousands of members embedded in every corner of Iranian society—in the streets, in neighborhoods, in schools, and mosques. They aren't just loyalists of Ayatollah but woven into a deeper idea of the state and committed to the independence of Iran. Despite Israel's extensive and quite successful campaign of assassinations targeting senior IRGC commanders, the core of this group has not been hollowed out but hardened. A younger generation of more ideologically rigid commanders has emerged. They came of age in a regional military power, see themselves as the stewards of an embattled regional order, and push for more aggressive postures toward the United States and Israel—stances their more pragmatic predecessors, shaped by the war with Iraq, often resisted. This new generation of Iranian military commanders has also been battle-hardened in close-quarter conflict in Syria and understand how wars of state collapse can unfold. If this war morphs into a war of state collapse—and it very well might—then what comes next will likely not be surrender. The Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, which helped organize a patchwork of militias that bled American forces in Iraq for years, is well-positioned to do the same again. These networks—Lebanese, Iraqi, Syrian, Afghan—were built precisely to extend deterrence and sow instability in the event of direct conflict. Israel has deeply weakened Iran's axis of non-state actors in the region, but Tehran retains the ability to foment militias to fight against American and Israeli troops and interests. Bombing campaigns could significantly destroy military and civilian infrastructure in Iran but to replace the Iranian regime, President Trump has to be prepared to fight not just a standing army but a system with decades of experience in asymmetric warfare. Yesterday, Trump posted on social media that the U.S. will not kill Iran's Supreme Leader 'at least not for now.' But Iran is not governed by a single man or clique that can be decapitated. The Iranian state is a competitive authoritarian system with institutions that have evolved over a century. Even amid crises, the system generates new leaders, factions, and power centers. Even the deaths of some influential figures would not bring the system down—it would renew it. And Iran remembers: the invasions, the coups, the chemical attacks, and the long war of attrition it fought in the 1980s when the West bet on Saddam Hussain. At that time, the Islamic Republic was relatively young, with comparatively miniscule military resources, almost no idea of governance, and no battlefield experience. Saddam owned the skies. He wielded nerve gas. He had Western and Soviet support. Still, Iran did not fall. The war with Iraq scarred Iran, however it taught the country that survival does not require parity but endurance. In the decades since, the Iranian state has reorganized itself not for peace, but for siege. Its military doctrine is not built for conquest but for resistance. Iran won't simply absorb aerial bombardment or shrug off sabotage. Moreover, Iran is a civilizational state. The identity binding many Iranians is not limited to a flag or a government but rooted in a deeper historical memory stretching back through empire, invasion, forced partitions, foreign coups, and colonial interludes. To be sure, the Islamic Republic has inflicted great suffering upon the Iranian people and enraged many Iranian protestors, but to mistake that rage for a longing to be 'liberated' by foreign forces is to repeat the catastrophic delusions that defined the Iraq war in 2003. Iran's geography and demography will also affect the course of this conflict. Iran is four and a half times the size of Germany, with 92 million people. There are millions of Iranians who want an end to the Islamic Republic, but there are also millions who would fight any foreign attempt to decide what replaces it. The talk of regime change was no doubt intensified by the success of Israel's extensive intelligence campaign against Iran, leading to assassinations of Iran's military leaders and nuclear scientists, sabotage of defense facilities, and aerial dominance. But these operations, while exposing Iran's weakness and reducing its deterrence, also eviscerated the space for diplomacy and increased the possibility of violence and paranoia within the Iranian state. Some argue that Iran, under pressure and humiliated by foreign penetration, may be more willing to strike a deal and abandon its nuclear ambitions. But many in Iran's security establishment are likely to believe that only nuclear deterrence can ensure regime survival. The lesson they are likely to draw from the past two decades is that surrender does not lead to safety. Saddam gave up his weapons. He was invaded. Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program. He was overthrown. In this view, the path to survival for Iran is not disarmament—it is deterrence. Iran may not yet be racing to build a nuclear bomb, but if the regime comes to believe that collapse is inevitable without it, it may sprint to make sure no one else dares to come for them again. The irony is that the most ardent proponents of regime change in Iran may be accelerating the very nuclear program they claim to fear.
