Latest news with #Nato-led
New Straits Times
10 hours ago
- Politics
- New Straits Times
Bigger mess awaits if regime change happens in Iran
ISRAEL increasingly appears eager to oust the leadership that has ruled Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution but is taking a gamble given the Iranian opposition is divided and there is no guarantee new rulers would be any less hardline, say analysts. By striking targets other than nuclear or ballistic facilities, such as Iran's IRIB broadcaster, expectations have grown that Israel has goals beyond degrading Iranian atomic and missile capabilities and eyes removing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But while United States President Donald Trump has warned "we know" where Khamenei "is hiding", what would follow his removal after over 3½ decades in power is shrouded in uncertainty and risk. European leaders are haunted by the aftermath of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the Nato-led intervention in Libya in 2011. They resulted in the removal of dictators Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi but also in years of bloody mayhem in both countries. "The biggest mistake today is to seek regime change in Iran through military means because that would lead to chaos," said French President Emmanuel Macron at the end of the G7 summit in Canada. "Does anyone think that what was done in Iraq in 2003... or what was done in Libya the previous decade was a good idea? No!" he said. Analysts say ousting Khamenei and his fellow leaders risks creating a vacuum that could be filled by hardline elements in the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) ideological force or the Iranian military. "Israel's strikes seem more focused on regime change than non-proliferation," said Nicole Grajewski, fellow at the Carnegie Endowment. "Of course, Israel is targeting ballistic missile and military related facilities but they are also targeting leadership and symbols of the regime like the IRIB. "If the regime were to fall, the hope would be for a liberal and democratic government. "However, there is a strong likelihood that other powerful entities like the IRGC could emerge as the replacement," she said. Among the highest-profile opposition figures is the US-based Reza Pahlavi, the son of ousted shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. He has declared that the Islamic republic is "on the verge of collapse", accusing Khamenei of "hiding underground" like a "frightened rat". Pahlavi has long called for the restoration of the warm relationship that existed between his late father and Israel, to reverse the Islamic republic's refusal to recognise the existence of Israel. Monarchists would like such a rapprochement to be termed the "Cyrus Accords" after the ancient Persian king credited with freeing the Jews from Babylon. But Pahlavi is far from enjoying universal support inside Iran or among exiles. The nationalism of supporters and his ties with Israel are divisive, especially after he refused to condemn the Israeli airstrikes on Iran. Another major organised group is the People's Mujahedin (MEK), whose leader Maryam Rajavi told the European Parliament on Wednesday: "The people of Iran want the overthrow of this regime." But the MEK is despised by other opposition factions and regarded with suspicion by some Iranians for its support of Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war. "Part of the challenge in thinking about alternatives to the Islamic Republic in case it collapses is that there is no organised, democratic alternative," said Thomas Juneau, professor at the University of Ottawa. He said while Pahlavi "who has by far the most name recognition both in and out of Iran", his supporters "tend to exaggerate his support inside the country". "The only alternative — and this is among the worrying scenarios — is a coup d'etat by the Revolutionary Guards or changing from a theocracy to a military dictatorship." Analysts also warn that a potential — and often overlooked — factor for future instability could be Iran's complex ethnic make-up. Large Kurdish, Arab, Baluch and Turkic minorities coexist alongside the Persian population. Analysts at the US-based think tank Soufan Centre said with the survival of the Iranian regime now viewed as a "strategic failure", the prospect of an "Iraq 2.0" is looming. "The post-regime-change scenario remains unpredictable and could trigger regional destabilisation on a scale greater than Iraq, with global ramifications," they said.
NZ Herald
16-05-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Ben Roberts-Smith's war crimes appeal dismissed by Australia's Federal Court
Justice Nye Perram withheld the reasons for the decision, saying there were national security implications the Government must consider before they are released. A published summary said there was sufficient evidence to support findings Roberts-Smith had 'murdered four Afghan men'. Roberts-Smith argued in his appeal that the judge 'erred' in the way he assessed some of the evidence. Perth-born Roberts-Smith had been Australia's most famous and distinguished living soldier. He won the Victoria Cross – Australia's highest military honour – for 'conspicuous gallantry' in Afghanistan while on the hunt for a senior Taliban commander. The Age, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Canberra Times shredded this reputation with a series of reports in 2018. The papers reported Roberts-Smith had kicked an unarmed Afghan civilian off a cliff and ordered subordinates to shoot him. He was also said to have taken part in the machine-gunning of a man with a prosthetic leg, which was later brought back to an army bar and used as a drinking vessel. The 2023 court ruling ultimately implicated Roberts-Smith in the murder of four unarmed Afghan prisoners. Civil court matters such as defamation have a lower standard of proof than criminal trials. Roberts-Smith has not faced criminal charges. Australia deployed 39,000 troops to Afghanistan over two decades as part of US and Nato-led operations against the Taliban and other militant groups. A 2020 military investigation found special forces personnel 'unlawfully killed' 39 Afghan civilians and prisoners, revealing allegations of summary executions, body count competitions and torture by Australian forces.
Time of India
16-05-2025
- Time of India
Decorated Australian soldier loses war crimes defamation appeal
Former SAS commando Ben Roberts-Smith is allegations he took part in the murder of unarmed Afghan prisoners (Representative Image: AI-generated) One of Australia 's most decorated soldiers on Friday lost a legal bid to overturn bombshell court findings that implicated him in war crimes while serving in Afghanistan. Former SAS commando Ben Roberts-Smith has been fighting to repair his tattered reputation since 2018, when newspapers unearthed allegations he took part in the murder of unarmed Afghan prisoners. Ben Roberts-Smith loses appeal to overturn defamation decision | ABC NEWS His multi-million dollar bid to sue three Australian newspapers for defamation failed in 2023, with a judge ruling the bulk of the journalists' claims were "substantially true". The 46-year-old suffered another setback on Friday, when Australia's federal court dismissed his appeal. Justice Nye Perram withheld the reasons for the decision, saying there were national security implications the government must consider before they are released. A published summary said there was sufficient evidence to support findings that Roberts-Smith had "murdered four Afghan men". Roberts-Smith argued in his appeal that the judge "erred" in the way he assessed some of the evidence. Perth-born Roberts-Smith had been Australia's most famous and distinguished living soldier. He won the Victoria Cross -- Australia's highest military honour -- for "conspicuous gallantry" in Afghanistan while on the hunt for a senior Taliban commander. The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times shredded this reputation with a series of reports in 2018. The papers reported Roberts-Smith had kicked an unarmed Afghan civilian off a cliff and ordered subordinates to shoot him. He was also said to have taken part in the machine-gunning of a man with a prosthetic leg, which was later brought back to an army bar and used as a drinking vessel. The 2023 court ruling ultimately implicated Roberts-Smith in the murder of four unarmed Afghan prisoners. Civil court matters such as defamation have a lower standard of proof than criminal trials. Roberts-Smith has not faced criminal charges. Australia deployed 39,000 troops to Afghanistan over two decades as part of US and Nato-led operations against the Taliban and other militant groups. A 2020 military investigation found special forces personnel "unlawfully killed" 39 Afghan civilians and prisoners, revealing allegations of summary executions, body count competitions and torture by Australian forces.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
An EU army offers no lasting salvation for Ukraine
If the recent history of European military cooperation is anything to go by, Moscow has little to fear from the proposed deployment of a motley collection of European troops to safeguard Ukraine's security. In their desperate efforts to curry favour with US president Donald Trump, various European leaders have mooted the idea of sending some, as yet undefined, military contingent to keep the peace in the event of a lasting ceasefire being implemented between Kyiv and Moscow. Sir Keir Starmer's attempts to apply a sticking plaster to the edifice of Britain's crumbling Armed Forces on the eve of his visit to Washington, by diverting funds from the foreign aid budget, was clearly designed to give him a veneer of credibility before his meeting with Trump. Having pledged UK support for any future military operation to guarantee Ukraine's security, he needs to reassure the sceptical Trump administration that our Armed Forces still retain the ability to conduct such a role. French president Emmanuel Macron is similarly keen on the idea of dispatching a European force to Ukraine, telling Trump this week that he was working with Starmer to send troops to the region. 'Not to go to the front line, not to go in confrontation, but to be in some locations, being defined by the treaty, as a presence to maintain this peace and our collective credibility,' the French leader told Fox News. Several European countries have expressed reservations about the Starmer/Macron peace initiative, not least their vagueness about the role such a force would fulfil. Of equal concern should be the dismal record of Europe's military powers of working effectively together on major security challenges – as was evident the last time the European powers contributed to a major overseas military operation, in Afghanistan. At its height, the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan, set up in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks to bring some semblance of stability to the war-torn nation, comprised significant contributions from all the main European powers. The total number of British forces eventually reached around 10,000, in support of the US-led operation. Germany sent 5,000 troops, Italy nearly 4,000 while the 4,000-strong French contingent included large numbers of special forces. The total Nato forces operating in Afghanistan – which is roughly the same size as Ukraine – reached a peak number of around 130,000. But the ability of the different forces – especially the Europeans – to work together to achieve the same policy objectives was virtually non-existent. From the outset, the Italians were hampered by constraints imposed by the their country's government, which prevented them from participating in the battle against the Taliban-led insurgency, while the German group was so risk averse it rarely ventured out of its heavily defended base in the northern district around Mazar-i-Sharif. The French, meanwhile, fulfilled a peripheral role until their then president Nicolas Sarkozy unilaterally ended their involvement, thereby precipitating the collapse of the entire mission. Is there any evidence that the Europeans are better equipped now for a Ukraine mission? With no guarantees that the Trump administration will authorise US involvement in such an operation, the onus would be on the Europeans to provide their own command and logistics infrastructure, something that is badly lacking given their pre-Trump disinclination to take their defence responsibilities seriously. While Nato has made significant efforts in recent years to improve operational inter-operability between the armies, navies and air forces of the alliance's European members, it remains questionable whether they could function without the support of the American military. Concerns about Trump's long-term commitment to Nato, though, have prompted some to argue in favour of the European Union resurrecting its plans to establish its own defence and security operation to rival the Transatlantic alliance. If we can no longer rely on Washington to protect our interests, then the EU should take on the role – or so the argument goes. This is short-sighted. Trump is a challenging ally but that does not mean the EU should turn its back on Nato and establish its own military force. Trump's criticism of Europe is based on its failure to take seriously its defence obligations, both in terms of financial contributions and military effectiveness. A sounder way to make Europe's military forces better equipped to counter the generational threat posed by hostile regimes like Russia would be for European leaders to undertake a widespread rationalisation of their existing forces within existing Nato structures. If the various armies, navies and air forces of Nato's European member states could operate as a unified unit under a combined command structure, then they would be less likely to pursue their own individual national agendas, as was the case in Afghanistan. It would mean that, when Starmer and Macron talk about sending a European military force to Ukraine, people would take them seriously. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
An EU army offers no lasting salvation for Ukraine
If the recent history of European military cooperation is anything to go by, Moscow has little to fear from the proposed deployment of a motley collection of European troops to safeguard Ukraine's security. In their desperate efforts to curry favour with US president Donald Trump, various European leaders have mooted the idea of sending some, as yet undefined, military contingent to keep the peace in the event of a lasting ceasefire being implemented between Kyiv and Moscow. Sir Keir Starmer's attempts to apply a sticking plaster to the edifice of Britain's crumbling Armed Forces on the eve of his visit to Washington, by diverting funds from the foreign aid budget, was clearly designed to give him a veneer of credibility before his meeting with Trump. Having pledged UK support for any future military operation to guarantee Ukraine's security, he needs to reassure the sceptical Trump administration that our Armed Forces still retain the ability to conduct such a role. French president Emmanuel Macron is similarly keen on the idea of dispatching a European force to Ukraine, telling Trump this week that he was working with Starmer to send troops to the region. 'Not to go to the front line, not to go in confrontation, but to be in some locations, being defined by the treaty, as a presence to maintain this peace and our collective credibility,' the French leader told Fox News. Several European countries have expressed reservations about the Starmer/Macron peace initiative, not least their vagueness about the role such a force would fulfil. Of equal concern should be the dismal record of Europe's military powers of working effectively together on major security challenges – as was evident the last time the European powers contributed to a major overseas military operation, in Afghanistan. At its height, the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan, set up in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks to bring some semblance of stability to the war-torn nation, comprised significant contributions from all the main European powers. The total number of British forces eventually reached around 10,000, in support of the US-led operation. Germany sent 5,000 troops, Italy nearly 4,000 while the 4,000-strong French contingent included large numbers of special forces. The total Nato forces operating in Afghanistan – which is roughly the same size as Ukraine – reached a peak number of around 130,000. But the ability of the different forces – especially the Europeans – to work together to achieve the same policy objectives was virtually non-existent. From the outset, the Italians were hampered by constraints imposed by the their country's government, which prevented them from participating in the battle against the Taliban-led insurgency, while the German group was so risk averse it rarely ventured out of its heavily defended base in the northern district around Mazar-i-Sharif. The French, meanwhile, fulfilled a peripheral role until their then president Nicolas Sarkozy unilaterally ended their involvement, thereby precipitating the collapse of the entire mission. Is there any evidence that the Europeans are better equipped now for a Ukraine mission? With no guarantees that the Trump administration will authorise US involvement in such an operation, the onus would be on the Europeans to provide their own command and logistics infrastructure, something that is badly lacking given their pre-Trump disinclination to take their defence responsibilities seriously. While Nato has made significant efforts in recent years to improve operational inter-operability between the armies, navies and air forces of the alliance's European members, it remains questionable whether they could function without the support of the American military. Concerns about Trump's long-term commitment to Nato, though, have prompted some to argue in favour of the European Union resurrecting its plans to establish its own defence and security operation to rival the Transatlantic alliance. If we can no longer rely on Washington to protect our interests, then the EU should take on the role – or so the argument goes. This is short-sighted. Trump is a challenging ally but that does not mean the EU should turn its back on Nato and establish its own military force. Trump's criticism of Europe is based on its failure to take seriously its defence obligations, both in terms of financial contributions and military effectiveness.
