Latest news with #SaddamHussein
Middle East Eye
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Iran: Time Magazine accused of supporting regime change over Khamanei cover
Time magazine's latest cover featuring Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has sparked criticism online, with users accusing the publication of drumming up support for the idea of regime change in Iran following Israel's surprise attack on the country last week. The cover, published on X on Thursday, features a half-torn poster of Khamenei with the headline: "The New Middle East" featured prominently on the page. "Western press is setting the stage for the aggression against Iran," said one user. "What they call 'The New Middle East' is fragmented, failed states whose resources and people they think they are entitled to exploit." Another user said: "It hasn't even been a week and there's already a new Middle East?! How? Am I missing a ceasefire, a regime collapse, or a revolution?" Many social media users also drew parallels between Time's Khamanei image and the March 2003 issue of the magazine, which was published just weeks before the US invasion of Iraq. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The cover features a man painting over a poster of Saddam Hussein, the country's leader who was later captured by US forces after the invasion which plunged the country into years of chaos and violence. A clear propaganda piece: 1. Tearing out the page as though Iran's time has come (it hasn't) 2. Drumming up 'Iran's threat' (unfounded) 3. Painting Israhell as the hero in 'Israel's Gamble' (LIE) 4. Justifying American intervention so it's justified (it's not) FOR SHAME! — Claudiopoi (@claudiopoy) June 19, 2025 In addition to the title "Life after Saddam Hussein", the March 2003 issue also promoted an article about "[President George W] Bush's high-risk plan to occupy Iraq and remake the Middle East". "We're not exaggerating when we say it's the same playbook," one user wrote on X. TIME's new cover, same as the old cover. — Network Radio (@Anarcho1776) June 19, 2025 Israel launched its attacks last week claiming that Iran was on the verge of building nuclear weapons. But the Islamic Republic has repeatedly denied seeking nuclear weapons, a position supported by the most recent assessments from the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, and the US intelligence community. The attacks have since escalated into an exchange of rockets between Tel Aviv and Tehran. Israel's attacks have killed several top military generals and nuclear scientists and targeted Iranian nuclear facilities, but it has also struck residential buildings, hospitals, civilian infrastructure and the Iranian state television headquarters, killing hundreds of civilians in what is being viewed by many as an operation geared towards regime change. On Thursday, Israel's defence minister said Khamenei "can no longer be allowed to exist". Israel's defence minister - following an Iranian missile that hit the Soroka medical complex - said that Khamenei "can no longer be allowed to exist", while Prime Minister Netanyahu said Iran would "pay the full price" for its attack. In an interview with US broadcaster ABC on Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked about reports that US President Donald Trump vetoed an Israeli plan to assassinate Khamenei. "It's not going to escalate the conflict, it's going to end the conflict," Netanyahu replied, not denying Trump's rejection nor such Israeli plans. Israel, he added, is "doing what we need to do". Trump himself remains elusive about his plans. While he has approved plans to attack Iran, he has reportedly made no final decision. Recent reports suggest that Trump is waiting to see if he can get Iran to renounce its nuclear programme by threatening to join Israel's attacks.
The Guardian
13 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
America made a catastrophic mistake with the Iraq war. Is it about to repeat it in Iran?
Two decades ago, as Americans debated whether their country should invade Iraq, one question loomed the largest: did Saddam Hussein possess weapons of mass destruction? If so, the implication was that the United States should disarm and overthrow his regime by military force. If not, Washington could keep that option in reserve and continue to contain Saddam through economic sanctions and routine bombings. In time, the implications of the Iraq war far exceeded the boundaries of the original debate. Saddam, it turned out, had no weapons of mass destruction. But suppose he had possessed the chemical and biological agents that the war's advocates claimed. Invading his country to destroy his regime would have given him the greatest possible incentive to use the worst weapons at his disposal. The war would have been just as mistaken — more so, in fact. For the same reason, the matter of WMD hardly explains the war's genesis or its ultimate consequences. The advocates of invasion, it is true, didn't want Saddam to build his supposed arsenal and potentially go nuclear. More important, however, they saw an opportunity to assert America's dominance on the global stage after the country was struck on 9/11. They wanted to remake the Middle East and demonstrate American power. That they did, just not as they hoped. Today the United States government, under President Donald Trump, is again weighing whether to use military force against a Middle Eastern country that was not preparing to attack the United States. This time the decisive question is supposed to be whether Iran was building a nuclear weapon and reaching some ill-defined point of no return. If you answer yes, you therefore favor US strikes on Iranian enrichment facilities and possibly much else. After all, the United States has long maintained that Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon, and if that goal cannot be achieved by diplomacy — even if America's ally Israel may have spoiled that diplomacy — it must be attempted by force. The American public should resist such thinking, which does not make sense. Iran, according to US intelligence, was not on the verge of producing a useable nuclear device. It was giving itself that option, producing highly enriched uranium, but had not yet decided to obtain a weapon, much less undertaken the additional steps needed to construct one. For the past two months, Iran had been in diplomatic negotiations with the Trump administration, and both sides appeared to be getting closer to a deal that would drastically curtail Tehran's enrichment of uranium and prevent any path to the bomb. Then Israel attacked. It acted less to preempt an Iranian bomb than to preempt American diplomacy. A new nuclear deal would have lifted sanctions on Iran's battered economy, helping it to recover and grow. A deal would have stabilized Iran's position in the Middle East and potentially strengthened it over time. Precisely by succeeding in preventing Iran from going nuclear, a deal would have advanced Iran's integration into the region, accelerating the wary rapprochement Tehran had achieved with its historic rival, Saudi Arabia, over the past two years. The specific deal under discussion, which envisaged bringing Iran into a regional consortium to enrich uranium, would have kick-started the process. From there, who knows: perhaps the United States might normalize relations with Iran and, having rid itself of its main regional enemy, finally act on the desire of successive bipartisan presidents, Trump included, to pull back from the Middle East. This was the outcome that would have best served the interests of the United States. This was the outcome Israel acted to prevent. To Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a formidable, normalized, and non-nuclear Iran was the threat that mattered most. Attacking Iran, by contrast, presented an opportunity — to cripple and perhaps even overthrow the Islamic Republic, whose best air defenses Israel had disabled the previous year, after Iran's strongest regional allies in Lebanon and Syria crumbled in spectacular fashion. Israel does not know, because no one can, what kind of Iran will emerge from the wreckage: whether it will be more aggrieved or less, nuclear armed or not, a functioning state or a cauldron of chaos. Netanyahu took a gamble nonetheless, figuring the United States would finish his job, clean up his mess, or both. Even if Iran were speeding toward a nuclear weapon, even if diplomacy had been exhausted, the threat of a nuclear Iran should not be inflated. Suppose for a moment that Iran went nuclear, which it may well do now that the absence of such a deterrent left it vulnerable to attack. If Iran got the bomb, the United States, a nuclear-armed country, would remain fundamentally secure. Israel, a nuclear-armed country, would remain fundamentally secure. Iran would go nuclear to ensure the survival of its regime. Firing nuclear weapons at Israel would assure Iran's destruction. Iran is unlikely to do that. Make no mistake: for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is entirely undesirable. It could trigger the further spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and beyond. Iran could resume its destabilizing and destructive activities, targeting US interests and allies, assured that no one would dare to strike at the regime. The United States has rightly invested considerable effort, over decades, to prevent an Iranian bomb. But is that objective worth war? Our war? This war? If the United States joins Israel's fight to try to finish Israel's job, it will enter into a war of unknowable scope against a country of 90 million people in a region of marginal strategic significance. Iran may well retaliate against Americans, triggering a large-scale, open-ended conflict. In the absolute best-case scenario, the war would quickly end in an Iranian capitulation so complete that Israel would be content to stop shooting. What then? Iranians won't forget being attacked. Israelis won't trust the country they attacked but left intact. And Americans will see that no matter whom they elect — even on the slogan of 'America first' — their leaders refuse to take control of events and act on the national imperative to leave Middle East wars behind and focus instead on the great many unsolved and worsening problems that will actually decide America's fate. If, on the other hand, the United States steps back from the brink, it will open up new possibilities. Of valuing the well-being of Americans over the hatred of distant demons. Of no longer living in permanent, insatiable fear. Of getting out of the position from which a rogue ally can obstruct America's efforts, determine its national agenda, and damage its civic life. Those are the possibilities worth fighting for. Stephen Wertheim is a senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
UK tries to ride two boats, its ties with Israel delicate as Trump threatens to bomb Iran
Military moves amid calls for peace Live Events Military bases: The UK's strategic leverage The US-UK alliance: pressure and expectations (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The United Kingdom is sending mixed signals as war between Israel and Iran escalates, with British leaders publicly pushing for deescalation, including a high-profile meeting this Friday in Geneva with the Iranian foreign minister alongside their French and German counterparts, while quietly reinforcing military assets in the region. This dual approach exposes the UK 's complex position: a close ally of the US, a nation with historically strong but now strained relations with Israel, and a country that insists on the need for peace even as it prepares for is not the first time Britain has faced a conflict between public statements and military moves. In 2003, the UK joined the US-led invasion of Iraq under Operation Telic , sending about 45,000 troops alongside aircraft and naval vessels. The government justified the war as necessary to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein's alleged support for terrorism, despite UN inspectors finding no evidence of decision sparked fierce debate in Parliament and widespread protests. While the UK later played a major role in stabilizing Iraq - training local forces and providing aid - public support dropped sharply as the war continued and the original justification fell as tensions between Israel and Iran threaten to ignite a wider conflict, the UK's actions appear to echo its past contradictions. British leaders are speaking publicly about the need for calm and a diplomatic solution, even as they bolster their military posture in the region. This has led critics to question whether the UK is acting hypocritically, preaching restraint while preparing for the crisis deepens, the UK has deployed additional Typhoon FGR4 multirole fighters and Voyager air-to-air refueling aircraft to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. The move is described as 'contingency support,' with Prime Minister Keir Starmer emphasizing that the UK is not seeking to escalate the situation.'Our constant message is to de-escalate, and therefore everything we're doing, all discussions we're having are to do with de-escalation,' Starmer said. 'But I will always make the right decisions for the UK. We are moving assets to the region, including jets, and that is for contingency support.'Yet, the deployment of advanced fighter jets and support aircraft sends a clear signal of readiness and deterrence. RAF Akrotiri, a critical base for British operations in the Middle East, is now at the heart of the UK's efforts to protect its interests and support its allies, even as Iranian state media threatens to target British bases if the UK aids the other hand, The UK, along with its European allies, has advocated for a return to dialogue, recalling its role in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ( JCPOA ), which allowed for UN inspections of Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. However, the UK's diplomatic overtures have been complicated by its recent sanctions on two Israeli cabinet members, which have strained relations with UK's military footprint in the region, particularly its bases in Cyprus, the UAE, Bahrain, and Oman, has become a focal point of international Akrotiri in Cyprus, for example, is a key asset for both British and allied operations, having provided air defence support for Israel during previous Iranian missile and drone attacks. The US has reportedly considered using British-controlled bases—notably Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and Akrotiri—as staging grounds for potential strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, particularly the heavily fortified Fordow enrichment Garcia, jointly operated by the UK and US, is strategically located 2,300 miles from Iran and could host US Air Force B2 Spirit heavy bombers—capable of delivering the massive 'bunker-buster' GBU-57 bomb, the only weapon believed capable of penetrating Fordow's any US use of these bases would require explicit British permission, a decision fraught with political and legal Trump administration has made clear that it expects its allies, particularly the UK, to support any intervention on Israel's side. This expectation is rooted in the long-standing defence and intelligence partnership between the two nations, as well as the US's continued commitment to NATO's collective defence principle (Article 5).However, the UK's Labour government faces a dilemma: should it approve the use of its bases for US strikes, it risks being drawn into a conflict it seeks to avoid; refusal, meanwhile, could strain the transatlantic dual approach reflects both the UK's commitment to its US alliance and its desire to act as a responsible global the UK's legal and political constraints are significant. Attorney General Richard Hermer has advised that any military involvement must remain strictly defensive to comply with international duality reflects the complexities of modern alliance politics and the challenges of navigating a rapidly evolving crisis in the Middle East.
Winnipeg Free Press
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
History in reruns
Opinion I've seen this movie already. I don't want to see it again. 'They lied,' said U.S. President Donald Trump in 2016, when he was running for the Republican presidential nomination against the neocons in his own party who had started the 'forever wars' in Afghanistan and Iraq. 'They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none.' Invading the wrong country is generally a big mistake, and everybody outside the United States knew it (except maybe Britain's Tony Blair). However, then-president George W. Bush had to believe in Saddam Hussein's alleged 'weapons of mass destruction' so that he could invade Iraq and expunge the blame for having let 9/11 happen on his watch. (Yes, I know Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Don't get tangled up in the details. The point is that Bush managed to persuade Americans of a link between Saddam and 9/11.) Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu is in a similar position. He not only failed to prevent Hamas from carrying out the massacre of Oct. 7, 2023; he had previously allowed a flow of cash from Qatar into the Gaza Strip in order to ensure that the Palestinians remained divided between Hamas and Fatah. Bibi must erase his guilt for that failure if he is to have a political future, and even the expulsion of the Palestinian population from Gaza (now being prepared) may not be enough. Whereas the destruction of the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons threat, and perhaps of the entire Iranian regime, could earn him full absolution within Israel. Netanyahu is genuinely obsessed about such weapons, but there is also always a tactical, political element in his warnings. He said Iran was 'three to five years away from a bomb' in 1992. He said it again in 1995. It was allegedly only one year away in 2012, and it has always been 'imminent' since 2019. Which brings us to the congressional testimony of Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's own director of national intelligence, on March 26 of this year. She said that the U.S. intelligence community 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' Finally, an American official who thinks she is working for her country, not for her party — but then she is also a combat veteran (Iraq) and a lieutenant-colonel in the National Guard. She takes her job seriously, and does not fall for all that guff about an Iranian nuclear weapons program. There once was such a program. It began in the mid-1980s, when the fledgling Islamic Republic of Iran was invaded by Iraq (with U.S. encouragement and support). It was cancelled after the U.S. invaded Iraq and found no nuclear weapons there in 2003, and to the best of our knowledge, it has not been restarted since then. All Middle Eastern governments know that they would face a pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike if they ever sought nuclear weapons of their own. (Israel has had nuclear weapons since the late 1960s and now has a hundred or more, deliverable by planes, missiles and submarines.) The idea that Iran is working on such weapons now is frankly ridiculous. The whole show is performative nonsense. Even if Iran had weapons-grade uranium now, fabricating warheads, testing the weapons and devising a reliable means of delivery (it has nothing suitable now) would take years. Whereas if Israel really believed Tehran were close to success now, it would have nuked all of Iran's facilities six months ago. Trump has long known that Bibi was trying to sucker him into a joint war against Iran, and never fell for it before. Why now? Probably because he just can't resist the opportunity to strut around emoting on the stage. Look at his recent tweets. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' And a couple of minutes later: 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' They won't surrender. This will be Trump's own 'forever war.' Gwynne Dyer's new book is Intervention Earth: Life-Saving Ideas from the World's Climate Engineers.
India.com
18 hours ago
- Politics
- India.com
When Mossad's secret 'suicidal mission' to kill Saddam Hussein ended in tragedy, Israeli commandos returned in coffins due to..., truth was...
The tensions between Israel and Iran continue to escalate with every passing day. The conflict escalated dramatically on June 13, with Israel's launch of 'Operation Rising Lion', which involved loose strikes against Iran's nuclear and military facilities. Iran has responded to this attack, and there has been intense and ongoing activity across the region. Amid all of this, the issue is now whether the United States will also join Israel's ongoing war against Iran, with President Donald Trump set to make a decision in the next two weeks. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Thursday (local time), citing a continued possibility of diplomatic engagement with Tehran. Addressing a briefing at the White House, Leavitt read out a statement from President Trump, who acknowledged the potential for diplomatic negotiations despite the escalating conflict in the Middle East. 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' Leavitt quoted the President as saying. Israel has reportedly killed many of Iran's highest-ranking State military leaders and nuclear scientists, raising tensions between the two countries. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Wednesday issued a serious threat to Israel of retaliation.'We must give a strong response to the terrorist Zionist regime. We will show the Zionists no mercy,' Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wrote in English on X. As Israel and the United States ramp up their threats to Iran and its Supreme Leader, an unsettling and chilling memory from the early 1990s arises—a secret, maximally ravenous plot to assassinate former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. So-called Operation Bramble Bush failed, but it is a timely reminder of just how fast international diplomacy can devolve into dangerous, visceral acts of terror shaped by politics and power. According to an NDTV report, after the Gulf War in 1991, Israel viewed Saddam Hussein as an unstable and dangerous threat. While Israel was not a combatant in the Gulf War, it had been subjected to a number of Scud missile attacks from Iraq. Furthermore, various intelligence agencies had reported sights that Saddam was working on weapons of mass destruction. In recognition of the danger this presented, Israeli military and intelligence officials began to develop a plan to assassinate Saddam in a public appearance so that they could eliminate a threat which they considered to be growing and unpredictable. The mission, known only as Operation Bramble Bush, was assigned to Sayeret Matkal, Israel's premier special forces unit. The target was a funeral in Saddam Hussein's birthplace of Tikrit. As per the NDTV report, the plan was for Israeli commandos disguised as Arabs to infiltrate the area undetected and attack Saddam's convoy using shoulder-launched missiles as he left the funeral. The intelligence for the mission was provided by Mossad, and the final order for the op was made by the most senior command of the Israeli military. On November 5, 1992, the Sayeret Matkal team gathered in the Negev Desert to conduct a live-fire rehearsal of their planned action. The exercise was intended to prepare the team as closely as possible to the strike on Saddam Hussein. The team used real, armed missiles and was under the assumption that proper safety precautions were taken, and they could not go wrong. During the simulation, an unfortunate and tragic error occurred when one of the operatives mistakenly launched a live missile at his own unit, killing five soldiers from the elite troops and injuring six others seriously. The mission was terminated as soon as possible, and a rehearsal turned into a national tragedy. This incident subsequently became known as the Tze'elim Bet catastrophe, a tragic chapter in Israel's military history. An internal inquiry revealed monumental breakdowns in planning, communication, and risk management. Two days after the disastrous rehearsal, Operation Bramble Bush had been formally cancelled. The dead elite commandos were kept a secret from the public for years, and the entire mission was classified, hidden in the darkness of military secrecy. Thirty years later, Israel is once again waging war against the top leadership of a rival nation—and this time, it is not Baghdad, it is Tehran. In recent days, Israeli forces executed another series of precision strikes that have successfully targeted and killed several of the most important members of Iran's leadership. These include killing the IRGC chief General Hossein Salami and aerospace commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and several members of Iran's leadership in the Iran nuclear program. The strikes also targeted important nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, and Arak, all of which will delay Iran's nuclear program going forward.
