Pre-emptive attacks in international law are rarely justified. The threat must evince itself through an obvious intent to inflict injury, evidence preparations that show the threat to be what Michael Walzer calls a “supreme emergency”, and arise in a situation where risk of defeat would be dramatically increased if force is not used.
Reaching an assessment on that matter is almost impossible. Evidence of such a threat by the aggressor state is bound to be speculative, concealing other strategic objectives that make that action amount to illegal, preventive war. Israel’s ongoing attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure are taking place in the absence of nuclear weapons, motivated by the hypothetical scenario that such weapons would be irretrievably developed and used against the Jewish state. Iran, in other words, was being punished for a thought crime.
The Israeli Defense Forces released a statement expressing the rationale: “Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the Iranian regime are a threat to the State of Israel and a significant threat to the entire world. The State of Israel will not allow a regime whose goal is the destruction of the State of Israel to possess weapons of mass destruction.”
There is even a concession on the part of IDF officials that triumphant success in the operation is not assured; Israelis needed to brace themselves before the inevitable reaction. “I can’t promise absolute success,” declared Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir. Tehran “will attempt to attack us in response, the expected toll will be different to what we are used to.”
The Defence Minister Israel Katz offers some wishful thinking in justifying the attack. “We are now at a critical juncture. If we miss it, we will have no way to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons that will endanger our very own existence.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu preferred lashings of hyperbole. “If we don’t attack, then it’s 100% that we will die,” he declared in a video statement to the nation.
This is the language of self-denial, both on the issue of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear option indefinitely – an unsustainable policy in the absence of peaceful dissuasion – and the belief that such operations will result in some form of contained, well-behaved retaliation. With typical perversity, these attacks are taking place in step with demands by US President Donald Trump that Tehran resort to meek diplomacy, an effort that is bound to have been extinguished by these attacks.
And what of the threat posed by Iran? In March this year, the US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the assessment was “that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” But Netanyahu had already given a directive in November 2024 to thwart alleged efforts by Tehran to build a nuclear device. “The directive,” he confirms, “came shortly after the assassination of [Hezbollah leader Hassan] Nasrallah”.
The broader Israeli logic here is less the coherence of the nuclear threat than one of settling scores and crippling a rival it has long accused of directing operations against its interests, if not directly than through its proxy militias.
As for the logic of non-acquisition, not much can be made of it. The advent of the Colt 45 revolver in the late 1800s arguably calmed the American West by granting those with less power and influence a means of asserting their will against the powerful and landed. It became “the Peacemaker”, sometimes described as “the Great Equalizer.” As part of that same logic, the late international relations theorist Kenneth N. Waltz proposed that nuclear weapons made war less likely, believing that “the gradual spread of nuclear weapons is to be more welcomed than feared.” He even went so far as to argue in 2012 that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would “most likely […] restore stability to the Middle East.” It was Israel’s durable nuclear monopoly in the Middle East that “long fueled instability” in the region.
The invention of nuclear weaponry was a statement of intent that possessing such a weapon would be akin to acquiring the shielding protection of a patron deity. This is a lesson the Israelis should know better than most, having themselves stealthily acquired an undeclared nuclear inventory. To not have it would weaken you, diminish international standing, making the non-possessor vulnerable to attack.
North Korea learned this salutary lesson, motivated by two supreme examples: the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the US-led “Coalition of the Willing”, and the collective attack on Libya in 2011, ostensibly under the doctrine of responsibility to protect. The disarmament efforts made by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya rendered them vulnerable to attack. Lacking a terrifying deterrent, they were contemptuously rolled.
Attempts to control proliferation have been imperfect, largely because the nuclear option has never been entirely demystified. Despite the admirable strides made in international law to stigmatise nuclear weapons, best reflected in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, not to mention the tireless labours of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the nuclear weapons club remains a permanent provocation and incitement to non-nuclear weapons states. It is the red rag to the bull.
These attacks will do little to weaken the resolve of the mullahs in Tehran. They are roguish undertakings, murderous in their scope (the killing of scientists and their families stands out), and sneering of international law. Netanyahu’s absurd lecturing to the Iranian populace – we are bombing you to free you – will fall flat. Most consequential will be confirmation on the part of the Islamic State that acquiring a nuclear weapon is more imperative than ever.
Labour MP for Te Atatu Phil Twyford criticsed the New Zealand government today for failing to take stronger action against Israel over its genocide and starvation strategy in Gaza, saying that at the very least the ambassador should be expelled.
Speaking at a rally in Henderson organised by the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa in West Auckland suburbs for the first time in the 88th week of protest, Twyford said: “The Israeli government is operating in an apartheid state.
“They subject the Palestinian people under their military.
“People who are under international law they are obliged to protect,” he told about 500 protesters.
“They are subjecting them to the most ruthless, most brutal system of apartheid.”
It was a story of “ethnic cleansing, dispossesion, terror routinely visited upon Palestinian people on a daily basis in their land”, said Twyford, who is Labour Party spokesperson on immigration, disarmament and foreign affairs.
“And it is being done, not only by the forces of Zionism, but by the Western world complicit, knowing, understanding and actively conniving in that dispossession and repression.”
Widely condemned move
Twyford referred to the government’s move this week alongside four other countries to impose sanctions on two far-right ministers in the the Israeli cabinet, illegal settlers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, which has been widely condemned as too little and too late.
Labour MP Phil Twyford speaking at the Henderson pro-Palestinian humanitarian rally today . . . Palestinians are subjected by Israel to “the most ruthless, most brutal, system of apartheid.” Image: Asia Pacific Report
Leading British journalist Jonathan Cook this week criticised Britain, Australia, Canada and Norway along with New Zealand, saying they may have been “seeking strength in numbers” to withstand retaliation from Israel and the United States.
“But in truth, they have selected the most limited and symbolic of all the possible sanctions they could have imposed on the Israeli government.”
Israel was also condemned by speakers at the rally for its “unprovoked attack” on Iran and its strategy of forced starvation on the Palestinian people in Gaza and the repression in occupied West Bank.
The death toll in Gaza was almost 62,000 Palestinians — more than 17,000 of them children — and Israel had also killed at least 78 people in the first waves of attacks on Iran.
Meanwhile, in a statement today, the PSNA said it was appalled at the deportation of a Palestinian New Zealander from Egypt.
PSNA said it had conveyed to the Egyptian government its “shock and anger” at the deportation of Rana Hamida who had travelled to Egypt to take part in the Global March to Gaza.
“This Jew stands for Palestine” and “Sanction Israel now” placards at today’s Henderson rally. Image: APR
Egyptian deportations over ‘global march’
Egyptian authorities have deported dozens of people, including Spanish, Swedish, Finnish, Moroccan, Greek and US citizens.
The Global March to Gaza is due to start this weekend in Egypt with thousands of people from throughout the world taking part.
PSNA co-chair John Minto said the march was to “express humanity’s outrage” at the ongoing Gaza-wide bombing and starving of the Palestinian population by Israel.
“Egypt’s action in deporting activists can only be seen as assisting Israel’s attacks against the Palestinian population,” he said.
“Unfortunately, Egypt has a long history of collaboration with the US and Israel to stifle the Palestine liberation struggle. This is in sharp contrast to the Egyptian people who are as appalled and angry as the rest of humanity at Israel’s horrendous war crimes.”
Minto said the following message from Rana as she returned to New Zealand — she was due at Auckland International Airport this afternoon:
‘The more we will roar’
“The Egyptian authorities, along with other governments, think that blocking humanity from this act of solidarity will stop because of them blocking people from being there and doing the job that they continue failing to do.
“They are so mistaken — the more complicit and enabling they get in their inaction and in this case their active participation, the more we will rise, and roar.
“We are escalating as you awaken the dragons within us.
“We will sing louder and we will walk longer — with our hiking shoes in the Sinai desert, or barefoot towards your embassies.
“We will disrupt your meetings, we will crowd your phone with calls and emails, and we will be the light that blinds your robotic heart and melts it alongside the lies you stand for.
“This is not about us, it is about HUMANITY within us that is dying and being oppressed in various forms, it is about the humans enduring hell in Gaza, West Bank and Falastine as a whole.
“Muslims, Jews and Christians together.
“It is about NEVER AGAIN.
“Boycott, divest — we will not stop we will not rest.”
Pro-Palestinian and anti-genocide protesters at the Henderson rally today with Te Atatu MP Phil Twyford speaking. Image: APR
Expel Israeli ambassador call
In an earlier statement in the wake of Israel’s attack on Iran, PSNA called on the government to immediately expel the Israeli ambassador from New Zealand.
Minto said Israel’s strikes on Iran were “unprovoked, unilateral and a massive threat to humanity everywhere”.
“This is such a dangerous action, that diplomatic weasel words about Israel are not acceptable. Israel is an out-of-control rogue state playing with the future of humanity. We must send it the strongest possible message.”
“Israel’s using its often repeated lies and misinformation to attempt to justify it’s unconscionable violence and aggression.”
Minto pointed to Iran’s right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes.
“Even US intelligence officials have made is clear very recently that Iran is NOT on the way to produce a nuclear weapon.”
“And neither is Iran committed to the ‘annihilation’ of Israel.
‘Liberation for Palestine’
“Iran does not support Israel as a racist, apartheid state and wants to see liberation for Palestine.
“In this, Iran has, along with the overwhelming majority of countries in the world, called for an end to Israel’s military occupation of Palestine, the end of its apartheid policies directed against Palestinians and the return of Palestinian refugees.”
New Zealand had the same policies, Minto said.
However, he condemned NZ’s “appeasement of this apartheid state, as our government and other Western countries have done over 20 months”.
A “Save the world from evil Zionism” placard at the Henderson rally today. Image: APR
Senior Iranian political figures have pledged a decisive response following the Israeli aggression on Iranian territory. Officials also directly blamed the United States for enabling the aggression, warning that accountability will extend beyond the battlefield. On his part, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf issued a stark warning, declaring that the Islamic Republic will respond forcefully to the Israeli aggression.
“The time has come for decisive retaliation, through any means and by every available tool,” Ghalibaf declared in a televised address. “The Zionist regime will not escape the consequences. What they have begun, we will bring to an end.”
New Israeli airstrikes hit the Iranian cities of Tabriz and Shiraz on the afternoon of 13 June, several hours after the start of Tel Aviv’s large-scale campaign against the country.
Circulating footage showed massive plumes of black smoke rising over the two cities. According to Iranian media reports, the new strikes on Tabriz targeted the city’s international airport.
Israel’s Channel 12 reported that warplanes bombed a missile production plant in Shiraz.
Earlier, Iran appointed replacements for the top military and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officials that were assassinated during the largescale Israeli bombing campaign against the country.
Fiji’s Embassy in Abu Dhabi says it is closely monitoring the situation in Iran and Israel as tensions remain high.
Israel carried out a dozen strikes against Iranian military and nuclear sites on Friday, claiming it acted out of “self-defence”, saying Iran is close to building a nuclear weapon.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned Israel that “severe punishment” would follow and two waves of missiles were fired at Israel.
Fiji’s Embassy in Abu Dhabi is urging the Fijian community there to remain calm, stay informed, and reach out to the Embassy should they have any concerns or require assistance during this period of heightened regional tensions.
A Fiji national in Abu Dhabi said he had yet to hear how other Pacific communities in the Middle East were coping amid the Israel-Iran conflict.
Speaking to RNZ Pacific Waves from Abu Dhabi, Fiji media specialist Kelepi Abariga said the situation was “freaky and risky”.
Abariga has lived in Abu Dhabi for more than a decade and while he was far from the danger zones, he was concerned for his “fellow Pacific people”.
‘I hope they are safe’
“I just hope they are safe as of now, this is probably the first time Israel has attacked Iran directly,” he said.
“Everybody thinks that Iran has a huge nuclear deposit with them, that they could use it against any country in the world.
“But you know, that is yet to be seen.
“So right now, you know we from the Pacific, we’re right in the middle of everything and I think you know, our safety is paramount.”
Abariga was not aware of any Pacific people in Tehran but said if they were, they were most likely to be working for an NGO or the United Nations.
However, Abariga said there were Fiji nationals working at the International Christian embassy in Jerusalem and Solomon Island students in the south of Israel.
He also said that Fijian troops were stationed at Golan Heights occupied by Israel.
While Abariga described Abu Dhabi as the safest country in the Middle East, he said the politics in the region were volatile.
“It’s been intense like that for all this time, and I think when you mention Iran in this country [UAE], they have all the differences so it’s probably something that has started a long way before.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) is warning President Donald Trump that acting on his threats to take up arms with Israel in its war with Iran would be an unconstitutional circumventing of Congress to start a war that the American public overwhelmingly doesn’t want. Shortly after Israel launched unprompted strikes on numerous sites in Tehran on Friday, President Donald Trump said in an…
United States lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have lauded Israel’s strikes on Iran and are stoking more violence, even as a UN expert has warned that the attack was likely a war crime in which U.S. politicians may be complicit. Numerous members of Congress took to social media to condemn Iran after Israel’s strikes on residential buildings and nuclear sites on Friday…
This story originally appeared in Mondoweiss on June 13, 2025. It is shared here with permission.
After days of mutual threats, Israel launched an unprecedented series of strikes on Iranian soil early on Friday, targeting Iranian nuclear sites, airports, top military leaders, and nuclear scientists in several locations, including the Iranian capital, Tehran.
At around 3:00 a.m. local time, Iranian news agencies reported several explosions in Tehran, while the Israeli Defense Minister, Israel Katz, declared that Israel had “conducted a preemptive strike against Iran.” Later, Iranian news agency Irna reported that the Israeli strikes had targeted and killed the commander-in-chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Hussein Salami, as well as the chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, the head of the revolutionary guard’s Khatem al-Anbiya military complex, and six Iranian nuclear scientists.
The attack also targeted the Iranian Natanz nuclear facility in the center of the country, as well as other nuclear and military facilities in the west. Later in the morning, new Israeli strikes targeted the Tibriz Airport in the north.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, stated on Friday, following the Israeli attack, that Israel will receive a “hard punishment.” Khamenei also announced the appointment of replacements for the slain military leaders.
Meanwhile, the Jamqaran mosque in the Islamic holy city of Qom raised the red flag, a Shiite tradition symbolizing coming vengeance. The red flag has been previously raised at Jamqaran before the Iranian response to the assassinations of Quds force general Qasem Suleimani in 2020 and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in 2024.
Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi urged the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to condemn the Israeli attack.
Israeli military sources later reported that Iran had launched around 100 attack drones toward Israel and that its air defense systems intercepted them above neighboring countries. However, the spokesperson of the Israeli army said in a press statement that Israel was expecting a larger Iranian retaliation, and that the escalation would last for several days, urging Israelis to remain indoors pending further instructions.
The lead-up: U.S.-Iran nuclear talks
The Israeli attack came after five rounds of Iranian negotiations with the U.S. over Iran’s nuclear program in Oman, and two days away from a sixth round scheduled for Sunday. In recent days, the rhetoric between Iran, the U.S., and Israel has escalated as U.S. President Trump repeated that his confidence in reaching a deal with Iran was diminishing.
The crucial point of difference in the nuclear talks has been U.S. insistence that Iran should not enrich uranium on its soil for its civil nuclear purposes, which Iran considers a non-starter, insisting on maintaining its enrichment capacity.
Earlier in May, CNN announced that the U.S. had gathered intelligence about Israeli preparations for a strike against Iran, while nuclear talks between Iran and the U.S. were ongoing. This came several days after Trump’s envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, announced that the U.S. “will not allow Iran to enrich uranium.”
Last Monday, Iran announced that its intelligence services had obtained thousands of secret Israeli nuclear documents and threatened to reveal their contents.
The lead-up to the attack also saw the repatriation of several U.S. diplomats from the Middle East last Wednesday, including the U.S. embassy in Iraq. The following day, the IAEA announced that Iran was in breach of its nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
Internally, Israel’s decision to attack Iran came in a delicate political moment, following the voting by the Israeli Knesset on a bill to dissolve itself, supported by the Israeli opposition and Orthodox Haredi parties. The motion passed in its first reading and had two more readings to go before taking effect. Had it been passed, the adopted bill would have forced early elections and put an end to the current government coalition led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Although internal pressure on Netanyahu is unprecedented, it comes at a time when the Knesset is due to go into summer recess in the coming weeks, and will be back in session only in autumn. The state of emergency created by attacking Iran will therefore delay the legal process to dissolve the Knesset, possibly saving Netanyahu’s coalition.
Already on Friday, several Knesset members who voted in favor of the motion to dissolve the Knesset voiced their support for Netanyahu’s decision to attack Iran.
The Knesset vote came after voices have multiplied in calling for the cessation of Israel’s offensive in Gaza, with some ministers within Netanyahu’s government joining the calls.
Internationally, pressure also continues to mount on Israel to end its onslaught on Gaza, especially after its interception of the Madleen aid boat in international waters last week and its ongoing detainment of several of its passengers, including French European parliament member Rima Hassan.
Pressure also mounted last week after five European countries, including the UK, imposed sanctions on Israeli far-right ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir.
What the attack on Iran means for Palestinians
In Gaza, the humanitarian situation in Gaza has deteriorated even further after two weeks of food rations being distributed through the Israeli-backed and U.S.-controlled Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), the controversial organization tasked with distributing aid to Palestinians instead of the UN. Israeli forces have committed several aid massacres against starving Gazans at the GHF’s distribution points in southern and central Gaza. The massacres have seen the killing of dozens of civilians at GHF sites on a near-daily basis, often after the Israeli army has opened fire on desperate crowds of civilians.
The international sense of alarm created by the Israeli-made humanitarian crisis in Gaza could only be topped by the new alarming situation created by the Israeli attack on Iran. The expectations of an Iranian response and the risk of an all-out regional war in the Middle East have raised global alarm among world leaders, including British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, who called for “de-escalation” on Friday.
Meanwhile, Israel’s ongoing offensive on Palestinians in the West Bank, which has already been shaded by regional developments, continues to move further away from the spotlight. Immediately following its attack on Iran, Israel imposed a total closure on the West Bank, closing a number of checkpoints and restricting the circulation of Palestinians. Israel also closed the Allenby Bridge crossing to Jordan, the only way out of the country for West Bank Palestinians.
In recent weeks, Israel ramped up its offensive on the West Bank, adopting new decisions that allowed it to confiscate more Palestinian land and announcing the building of 22 new settlements. This has come amid a widening military crackdown on West Bank towns and cities, most recently when Israeli forces killed two Palestinian brothers and wounded thirty Palestinians in Nablus during a 28-hour raid last Tuesday. Meanwhile, its forces continue to occupy the Jenin and Tulkarem refugee camps, demolishing more homes in the camps and preventing the return of its over 40,000 expelled residents.
Britain’s spineless political leaders have miserably failed to condemn Israel’s dangerous and unprovoked attacks on Iran. That’s because they’re powerless to do so, as lapdogs of US imperialism and active participants in the ongoing US-Israeli genocide. And that should worry us, because it couldspark a world war.
Israel has killed around one child per hour in Gaza since October 2023, trying to terrorise Palestinians into leaving their homeland. Iran has not. Yet British prime minister Keir Starmer and foreign secretary David Lammy are trying to ‘both sides’ Israel’s latest act of aggression, continuing a clear tradition of shamelessly supporting Israeli war criminals (who havenuclearweapons) while making absurd exaggerations about an essentially non-existent threat from Iran (which doesn’t have nuclear weapons). As a junior partner to the US empire, though, you wouldn’t really expect anythingelse from the British establishment.
Starmer and Lammy prioritise US & Israeli interests over human life and international law
If Starmer and Lammy actually cared about peace, human life, or international law, they would stop participating in and covering for the US-Israeli genocide in Gaza. But in reality, they are self-interested tools of a British establishment that cares primarily about its ongoing gig as the US empire’s faithful sidekick. Real power lies with the US, and its Israeli outpost, so Britain’s spineless leaders are (once again) faithfully trying to shift the blame away from Israel and onto Iran. (The mainstream media, of course, does exactly the same.)
Starmer couldn’t even say it was Israel that attacked Iran while urging “all parties to step back” and calling for “restraint, calm and a return to diplomacy”.
The reports of these strikes are concerning and we urge all parties to step back and reduce tensions urgently. Escalation serves no one in the region.
Stability in the Middle East must be the priority and we are engaging partners to de-escalate. Now is the time for restraint,…
Previously, both Starmer and Lammy have had no problems naming and condemningIran when it has responded to Israeli aggression, or insisting that Israel has rights that it doesn’t. (For the record, Israel doesn’t have a legal right to self-defence in territory it illegally occupies. Iran does have the legal right to respond to Israeli aggression.)
The British establishment is an escalator – not a de-escalator with Israel
In these ways, Gaza is Britain’s genocide too. And the money-hungry, misanthropic cowards that wealthy interests helped to install in government aren’t about to risk their journey on the gravy train by standing up for international law.
UK foreign policy is not about to change. Because it’s no accident. It is, by design, a tool of genocidal imperialism.
‘The Nazis and the Allies should both show restraint’
The ‘two sides’ bullshit has to stop. Because this is not about two sides. In a World War Two comparison, it’s like someone asking the Nazis and Allies to ‘both show restraint and de-escalate tensions’ – which would be patently absurd. No good-faith actor would suggest that as Nazis exterminated millions of Jewish and other civilians in the Holocaust.
The US-Israeli genocide is the Nazi Holocaust of our day. And the only restraint we really need is for that genocide to stop and the forces committing it to face justice. Anything else is just a cynicaldistraction.
The simple fact is that Israel has engaged in wanton brutality in Palestine. Iran, on the other hand, has faced down Israel’s aggression with massive restraint. While Iran is not perfect, there is absolutely no moral equivalence. Israel has spent decades as a settler-colonial aggressor (includingagainst Iran), but Iran has suffered decades of imperialist interference. Suggesting they’re somehow on the same footing is both obscene and dangerous, further empowering and shielding genocidal war criminals in Israel.
A massmovementiscurrentlyrising in Britain to counter the gold-digging lapdogs of the political establishment. And for it to have any meaningful impact, it must stand firmly against US imperialism and the ongoing stranglehold it has over our lives. It must also be a mass grassroots movement. Because while money can corrupt a handful of leaders, it’s near-impossible to corrupt thousands and millions of people desperate for peace.
This operation will take as long as is needed to complete the task of fending off the threat of annihilation against us.
Over the past week, Israel have bombed Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and now Iran. The Israeli army said that they had used 200 fighter jets to strike 100 locations. As is commonplace with Israel, there are several reports coming in of children and other civilians being killed. Amongst the dead civilians are a number of high level Iranian officials and scientists. Al Jazeerareported:
Iranian state media has reported several casualties, with civilians and senior Iranian officials among the dead. Confirmed killed are Hossein Salami, commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Mohammad Bagheri, the chief of staff of Iran’s Armed Forces, and nuclear scientists Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi and Fereydoun Abbasi. It also said six scientists were killed in the overnight attack.
Israel have targeted several nuclear facilities in Iran. Whilst no spikes in radiation levels have been reported yet, the situation remains dangerous. As Al-Jazeeraexplained:
Attacking nuclear facilities can cause several consequences of unpredictable scope, including radioactive leaks, explosions and long-term contamination
In response, Iran has launched around 100 drones towards Israel, and promised further retaliation.
Israel kills kids – not just in Gaza
Many of the targeted officials were struck in their homes. That means residential areas were bombed, and children and other civilians have been killed. Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni said:
I express my condolences to the Iranian people over the martyrdom of several military commanders and nuclear scientists, as well as civilians, including children. We strongly condemn this cowardly and inhumane crime. There is no doubt that the guilty will be severely punished.
Middle East Eye also verified that they have seen footage of destroyed residential buildings.
However, inevitably, the killing of civilians has not made headlines in mainstream Western media. Journalist Assal Rad shared horrific footage of a dead child ignored by corporate media:
In the quoted tweet from Rad, The New York Times headline presents Israel’s attack as a surgical one targeting nuclear capabilities. Imagine the uproar the same paper would have were there civilians killed in a Western country by an Arab state. All of a sudden, there would be lovingly assembled profiles on the dead, along with analysis pieces decrying the viciousness of such brutal killings. But, because it’s Israel killing Arab Muslim children, mainstream media isn’t even bothering to mention the deaths.
Israel often brags about how precise its strikes are. After all, they’ve killed enough Palestinian women and children to prove it. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) clarified:
The footage posted by Rad clearly shows a residential area devastated by the “precise” strikes. Despite decades of Israeli lies and prevarication, the fact that the Associated Press still saw fit to parrot the IDF version of events in their headline demonstrates their craven allegiance to genocidaires.
Propaganda over Israel and Iran
Nevertheless, other corporate outlets did the same thing. One commenter called out CBS for their despicable parroting of Israeli propaganda:
They're not "launching an operation", it's not fucking knee surgery, they're going to wage in illegal war of aggression. Stop using passive language to appease Israel. https://t.co/VNeb5roCmu
— Secular Talk (KyleKulinskiShow@bsky.social) (@KyleKulinski) June 12, 2025
CNN also appeared to be pretending that Iran deployed 100 drones out of nowhere:
Any chance you want to mention it’s a RETALIATION for Israel’s unprovoked attack? https://t.co/qZSYC7Ir9v
The growing use of ‘pre-emptive strikes’ is similar to the use of ‘pre-crime’ when it comes to crimes Muslims might commit. Israel’s attack was out of the blue, carried out while people slept in their beds, and evidently had a civilian impact. Had Iran attacked Israel first, there’s no doubt that these same media outlets would suddenly have found themselves capable of writing in the active voice.
Writer Ayesha Siddiqi decried the subtle, but impactful, attempts to make violence acceptable when carried out against certain people:
“preemptive” strike just like “rubber” bullets, propaganda designed to curb your rational reaction to brutal escalating violence
Lawyer Noura Erakat shared a screenshot of headlines from several legacy media outlets:
US & UK media coddles a rogue state. The headlines normalize Israel’s egregious strike, not even mention of their lack of legal justification or strikes in residential areas, media frames development as if it were “normal.” This is not just trash, its crimunal.#Israel#Iranpic.twitter.com/V22AsfsdRR
Had Iran been the first to attack, we’d be seeing an entirely different set of headlines from the corporate media. All of a sudden, they’d be able to find compassion and sympathy for the terror wrought when civilians are attacked while in their beds. For Israel, they’d employ the active voice that didn’t downplay one iota of the brutality and violence unleashed on unsuspecting residents. But, instead they have a different gift for Israel: the gift of manufacturing consent for the ZIonist state’s barbarism.
Zionism is no more than a death cult constantly jostling for war and death.
whoever refers to them as preemptive strikes is manufacturing consent
I have visited Iran twice. Once in June 1980 to witness an unprecedented event: the world’s first Islamic Revolution. It was the very start of my writing career.
The second time was in 2018 and part of my interest was to get a sense of how disenchanted the population was — or was not — with life under the Ayatollahs decades after the creation of the Islamic Republic.
I loved my time in Iran and found ordinary Iranians to be such wonderful, cultured and kind people.
When I heard the news today of Israel’s attack on Iran I had the kind of emotional response that should never be seen in public. I was apoplectic with rage and disgust, I vented bitterly and emotively.
Then I calmed down. And here is what I would like to say:
Just last week former CIA officer Ray McGovern, who wrote daily intelligence briefings for the US President during his 27-year career, reminded me when I interviewed him that the assessment of the US intelligence community has been for years that Iran ceased its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 and had not recommenced since.
The departing CIA director William Burns confirmed this assessment recently. Propaganda aside, there is nothing new other than a US-Israeli campaign that has shredded any concept of international laws or norms.
I won’t mince words: what we are witnessing is the racist, genocidal Israeli regime, armed and encouraged by the US, Germany, UK and other Western regimes, launching a war that has no justification other than the expansion of Israeli power and the advancement of its Greater Israel project.
This year, using American, German and British armaments, supported by underlings like Australia and New Zealand, the Israelis have pursued their genocide against the Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza, and attacked various neighbours, including Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Iran.
They represent a clear and present danger to peace and stability in the region.
Iran has operated with considerable restraint but has also shown its willingness to use its military to keep the US-Israeli menace at bay. What most people forget is that the project to secure Iran’s borders and keep the likes of the British, Israelis and Americans out is a multi-generational project that long predates the Islamic Revolution.
I would recommend Iran: A modern history by the US-based scholar Abbas Amanat that provides a long-view of the evolution of the Iranian state and how it has survived centuries of pressure and multiple occupations from imperial powers, including Russia, Britain, the US and others.
Hard-fought independence
The country was raped by the Brits and the Americans and has won a hard-fought independence that is being seriously challenged, not from within, but by the Israelis and the Western warlords who have wrecked so many countries and killed millions of men, women and children in the region over recent decades.
I spoke and messaged with Iranian friends today both in Iran and in New Zealand and the response was consistent. They felt, one of them said, 10 times more hurt and emotional than I did.
Understandable.
A New Zealand-based Iranian friend had to leave work as soon as he heard the news. He scanned Iranian social media and found people were upset, angry and overwhelmingly supportive of the government.
“They destroyed entire apartment buildings! Why?”, “People will be very supportive of the regime now because they have attacked civilians.”
“My parents are in the capital. I was so scared for them.”
Just a couple of years ago scholars like Professor Amanat estimated that core support for the regime was probably only around 20 percent. That was my impression too when I visited in 2018.
Nationalism, existential menace
Israel and the US have changed that. Nationalism and an existential menace will see Iranians rally around the flag.
Something I learnt in Iran, in between visiting the magnificent ruins of the capital of the Achaemenid Empire at Persepolis, exploring a Zoroastrian Tower of Silence, chowing down on insanely good food in Yazd, talking with a scholar and then a dissident in Isfahan, and exploring an ancient Sassanian fort and a caravanserai in the eastern desert, was that the Iranians are the most politically astute people in the region.
Many I spoke to were quite open about their disdain for the regime but none of them sought a counter-revolution.
They knew what that would bring: the wolves (the Americans, the Israelis, the Saudis, and other bad actors) would slip in and tear the country apart. Slow change is the smarter option when you live in this neighbourhood.
Iranians are overwhelmingly well-educated, profoundly courteous and kind, and have a deep sense of history. They know more than enough about what happened to them and to so many other countries once a great power sees an opening.
War is a truly horrific thing that always brings terrible suffering to ordinary people. It is very rarely justified.
Iran was actively negotiating with the Americans who, we now know, were briefed on the attack in advance and will possibly join the attack in the near future.
US senators are baying for Judeo-Christian jihad. Democrat Senator John Fetterman was typical: “Keep wiping out Iranian leadership and the nuclear personnel. We must provide whatever is necessary — military, intelligence, weaponry — to fully back Israel in striking Iran.”
We should have the moral and intellectual honesty to see the truth: Our team, Team Genocide, are the enemies of peace and justice. I wish the Iranian people peace and prosperity.
Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific, and hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz.
NZ must immediately expel the Israeli Ambassador for this unprovoked attack on Iran.
As moral and ethical people, we must turn away from Israel’s new war crime, they have started a war, we must as righteous people condemn Israel and their enabler America.
This is the beginning of madness.
We cannot be party to it.
Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh, reporting from Amman, Jordan, said the Israeli army radio was reporting that in addition to the air strikes, Israel’s external intelligence service Mossad had carried out some sabotage activities and attacks inside Iran.
“There are also several reports and leaks in the Israeli media talking not only about the assassination of the top chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard but rather a very large number of senior military commanders in addition to prominent academics and nuclear scientists,” she said.
“This is a very large-scale attack, not just on military installations, but also on the people who could potentially be making decisions about what Iran can do next, how Iran can respond to this attack that continues as we speak.”
The US is on high alert in the Middle East and is anticipating a potential Israeli attack on Iran, The Washington Post has reported. Amid the anticipation, the US is reducing the presence of non-essential personnel in the region.
The report said that “in recent months, US intelligence officials have grown increasingly concerned that Israel may choose to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities without the consent of the United States.”
US officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the military has authorized the “voluntary departure” of the dependents of US troops from locations across the Middle East.
Amidst an escalation of threatening rhetoric between Tehran and Tel Aviv, Iran has revealed an intelligence operation of historic proportions. The Iranians not only claim to have retrieved thousands of classified Israeli documents, but now warn Israel that it can hit its secret nuclear weapons sites in the event its own are targeted.
On June 7, Al Mayadeen News and Iranian state broadcasters began releasing exclusive stories about a massive intelligence operation carried out by Tehran’s intelligence services “inside the Zionist Entity”.
According to Al Mayadeen’s original scoop, “thousands of documents related to the Israeli occupation’s projects and its nuclear facilities” were seized, and the operation had taken place some time ago and could only be revealed now due to security concerns.
This blog is part of a five-part series looking at interfaith and intercultural relationships and the factors behind their success and longevity (or lack of). The series is based on my personal experience as a Muslim woman in her 20s and 30s.
In part 1, I look at marriage and love across cultures and borders, examining the role of shared values and knowing oneself.
In this blog, I share my experience of faith and religious divides in an intercultural/interfaith relationship.
In part 3, I share the impact of trauma on stereotyping others in the context of mixed relationships.
In part 4, I look at emotional factors (in particular attachment styles) and their relation to culture, as opposed to cultural or religious difference as a standalone.
In part 5, I conclude by sharing insight into the factors and dynamics involved in mixed relationships in maintaining a healthy long-lasting interfaith/intercultural relationship.
Love should celebrate, not tolerate: managing cultural-religious diversity
“Real diversity and inclusion doesn’t mean that we will always agree. It means that even when we disagree, we can still respect each other.”
(Justin Jones-Fosu)
I met “Farhad” on my first in-person date following my divorce. Looking back, we were a bit like young love-stuck teenagers.
We fell in love quickly and intensely. We pretty much clicked on our first date and things sped along from there.
Farhad was significant at this stage of my life as he understood my background more than the average non-Muslim man living in Britain. Being an “outsider”, he also posed less “risk” (according to my trauma-based reality at the time).
How? Who was he? And what was his background?
Well, Farhad was Persian and Baháʼí(his family had converted previously from Shia Islam). He’d grown up in Iran and sought asylum in the UK in his early 20s.
Growing up in Iran (and a very conservative area of the country too), he was obviously familiar with Islam to a certain extent as a whole (my choice of wording will become clear later in terms of religious diversity within the Muslim world).
In Farhad’s case, he’d grown up in an Islamist theocracy (a particularly famously brutal one) as a persecuted religious minority.
There was clearly trauma and frustration there. He was happily Persian but didn’t associate much with other Persians. He did however attend services with other members of his community, who were a mix of Persians, English converts and other nationalities.
His faith was one I was slightly familiar with but more as a religion belonging to a minority group both in Iran and the UK.
Prior to meeting Farhad, I knew about his faith to some extent. But this was more based on Baháʼí as a community through my activism on human rights in Iran, rather than any great theological insight.
As a religion, the Baháʼí faith originated in Iran. The founder Baháʼu’lláhwas born in Iran and exiled to Iraq.As a religious leader, he preached religious unity, with the faith today standing for unity of faith and amongst people worldwide.
I liked it – and still do! And the more I learnt, I personally came to see the Bahai faith as an historical extension of Islam, having been originally been forcibly separated as the Muslim world rejected and persecuted the now separate Baháʼí community .
Today, the Baháʼí are generally a religious community that is not well known. Exceptions include amongst religious/interfaith enthusiasts and practitioners alike and within the Jewish world – with the Baháʼí World Centrebased in Haifa, Israel.
It was only my interfaith and Jewish friends that didn’t ask what Baháʼí was when enthusiastically asking for details of the new love in my life!
As a community, the majority of Bahai are Persians from Iran – but not all by any means.
There are communities all over the world with the faith now the second largest religion in Panama, Belize, Bolivia, Zambia, Papa New Guinea, Chad and Kenya. Most converts however reside in India and the Western world.
In Iran however, the community remain persecuted and severely restricted. I knew this quite well.
Out in London protesting for women’s rights in Iran (2019).
The Baháʼí community are banned from attending public university and pretty much have to rely on themselves to survive. The more I got to know Farhad, the more I learnt about this.
More broadly, add to this the wider ramifications of living in modern Iran – a country with such beautiful rich culture yet an oppressive regime – Farhad likely had a very difficult upbringing.
War, religious persecution, Islamism: they’re not easy at all to say the least (especially when I now see and understand the emotional impact of such trauma and how trauma-responses/lived experiences can develop into socio-cultural norms and/or practices).
On my side, I at the time of meeting, I was not in the place where I felt I could date a man who was Muslim, Arab or Amazigh.
I’d come out of a conservative marriage, had emotional trauma to deal with, and I hadn’t been on a date for many, many years (minus the recent post-divorce video call e-meet).
Prior to being married, I was a serial monogamist. Now I was a millennial in my 30s and the dating scene had changed – a lot!
In terms of intercultural dating, I loved Persian culture and knew a lot about Iran.
I loved the warmth, the family values, the food, the music, the language, the architecture and much more.
I’d engaged in a lot of human rights activism and had a deep respect and fondness for the people and their nation – but not the regime.
I understood Farhad’s struggles. I loved his culture. And I didn’t whitewash over anything – I knew and felt the pain of Iranians across the board and the Baháʼí community as an example.
So, in short, when Farhad and I met, we seemed to match. I think we both learnt at lot from each other on our first date. And, we also learnt that the spark was there.
We understood each other and this grew over time. Obviously, Farhad had to learn over time who I was (I’m a bit of a mixed bag to say the least!), but he approached me in a way that was sensitive to my faith.
He knew and appeared to respect the fact that I was a Muslim woman. And so, he pursued me accordingly, learning who I was as a British-Italian woman embracing progressivism in faith – and in the early stages of such journey.
At the start, this mutual understanding and shared trauma translated to providing a safe space for me. He understood me. He “got it”.
I wasn’t the average “British woman” (whatever that is!).
I had a more conservative approach to dating on the one hand and baggage from the past, but on the other hand, I was also an open-minded Muslim and a European (British-Italian) woman who’d grown up in the “West” (and had dated before converting to Islam).
Embracing my post-hijab days (left: as an Orthodox Muslim, 2012; after removing hijab, c. 2019)
It was timely. Farhad gave me that space to be me. He understood my struggles. And we were on the same team – or so I thought.
We fell in love. We committed to each other. We pushed through the Covid-19 pandemic together and the challenges involved. And we prayed together.
It was beautiful. We opened his prayer book. It looked rather like a Muslim prayer book – with Farsi and Arabic combined.
The letters, the words, the monotheism were familiar, warm and beautiful.
Together we prayed and we shared our mutual spirituality as two people of different faiths, one love and belief in One God. It was a moment I shall never ever forget.
That moment truly pictured who and where I was at the time – as a Muslim, a woman and a human. And Farhad seemingly understood that. He didn’t just “tolerate” my faith, he always encouraged me. At least outrightly at the start.
He never professed to love Islam, but he didn’t need to. And I didn’t want or need him to either.
I respected and loved his faith for his sake (even without considering how similar both our spiritualities were in outlook). And I simply needed the same.
As the months passed, we discussed how I’d approach Ramadan. We talked (quite easily and unitedly) about what raising children would look like – sharing and teaching a belief in a One God. Simple.
And we both talked about how we were less conservative than the conservative communities we knew and belonged to.
Yes, the Baháʼí faith is incredibly open and tolerant. But I also found it had its conservatisms too (this is only my singular experience however). It was so alike yet far from the “Islam” I’d met as taught in the conservative diaspora (UK) and wider Muslim world to some extend at least.
For one, there was no gender segregation in his faith. There were no dress codes. There was no hijab.
Post-hijab me loved it. I felt a commonality theologically, culturally, socially.
Next: Farhad grew up being taught that sex outside of marriage was a sin and that drinking alcohol was a no-no. Again: something I’d shared in the Muslim world.
We were both so similar. But in retrospect, similar in trauma, similar in pushing boundaries and similar in rejecting conservative norms.
The difference is that I didn’t hide who I was. I believe in something, or I don’t. I think, I rationalise, and I come to my own moral conclusions. And I have no pressure from my non-Muslim family.
Farhad on the other hand had a community to think about.
His parents had certain expectations. And whilst he was very open with my friends and family (even meeting mine after around a year), I wasn’t blessed with the same openness – or even frankness about this.
I cannot speak for him about the reasons why he made the choices he did, but I can share the impact it had on.
For example, I felt shut out. And given my past, I didn’t want to feel shut out by any community, people or practice. I always aimed to be true to myself and respectful to others as a person – including friends, families and communities.
It suddenly unfolded quite immensely during one argument.
Farhad explained how the relationship was a private affair regarding his religious community (not just personal safety in terms of political asylum).
It turned out that he’d expected me to “trust the process”. Well, no.
I expected to be part of an open communicative process about said “process” from the start and to decide if that was something I wanted to engage with (I did later meet and spend quite a bit of time with his mother who was visiting from overseas and became rather fond of her – sharing food and gifts).
This became a critical point of contention. I didn’t hide. He did. And he wasn’t open about it to me either. That was the real issue.
I understood community and family dynamics – but I expected to be in on the process from the start and to decide what role I wanted to play (if any) in that.
What’s more, other things also began to increasingly unravel – and felt quite bitter on the receiving end.
Farhad’s softness towards me in my spiritual journey came to a halt. A massive halt.
It started with the blanket statement: “Dogs are haram in Islam”.
Muslims do like and own dogs!
Farhad declared this openly and firmly when discussing how the Iranian government let dogs in for rescue efforts (eventually) because the faith declared that owning dogs was forbidden (a common belief).
Of course, in my mind, dogs were and have never been “haram” (forbidden). They’re a beautiful creature, and a blessing from God that offer companionship, love and care.
Any hadith (apparent saying of the Prophet Muhammed – recorded 500 years after his death and with varying stated degrees of “authenticity”) that referred to this was clearly either: contextual (dogs at the time had rabies) or unreliable (possibly both).
None the less, as a Muslim woman, I shared my stance.
There are varying beliefs amongst Muslims and an increasing number of Muslims are keeping dogs are pets (rather than outside guard dogs). Dogs are not inherently unclean, and dogs can and do live in Muslim homes.
But, he insisted no. Islam is X. Islam says this. And he’d lived in a Muslim country.
He spoke and acted as thought he knew Islam better than me.
I stood my ground – of course. I’m not naïve. I knew what Islamism is.
I know the traditional belief he’d have lived. I knew what “Islam” in Iran looked like.
And I knew my faith – the good, the bad and the ugly (I’d literally experienced it!).
The Islam he knew was likely often seemingly one of a brutal intolerant theocracy or at least a very, very conservative faith (I can’t speak for him outrightly).
Either way, that wasn’t my faith. And no, I wasn’t making my faith up. I’d learnt, I’d rationalised, and I’d lived. No one owned God.
It had been a darn hard but important struggle. No one was taking that away from me. I was a Muslim. He wasn’t.
Of course, as a non-Muslim was free to discuss, to criticise and to share his views and lived experience whatever his background (and this is important) – as was I.
This was the safe space I found at the start – a space where I could be honest about my religious trauma, where I could be a free-thinking progressive, where I could be spiritual and not have to listen to the conservative dogma where there was “one Islam” and I was apparently going against it and was therefore a “murtad” (apostate), “munafiqa” (hypocrite) or “kafirah” (non-believer/concealer of the truth) as the trolling antisemitic, misogynistic, homophobic Islamists would declare, spitting out from their hate-fuelled mouths.
Yet my pain, my trauma and my faith were not up for debate. Intentional or not, it felt patronising, dismissive and frustrating.
Post-hijab but still a happy Muslim woman (Eid at Birmingham Central Mosque, 2022).
He didn’t have the right to dictate my faith to me, declaring what it is or isn’t.
Farhad wasn’t a scholar of religion, he wasn’t an interfaith practitioner, and he wasn’t Muslim. He didn’t appear to know about the diversity of Islam. But that wasn’t the point.
More than that: he wasn’t appearing to listen, share and fully care for his partner.
He didn’t need to be Muslim to share in the discussion by any means, but he needed to be open-minded. His lived experience of Islam was not the faith I had chosen.
I’d never believed in the Islam of Khomeini. Ever. And was never going to.
Whether it was “Islam” de facto, “Islamism” or just another form of a diverse faith (and potentially more diverse religious/cultural community than as currently socially, culturally and theologically lived/expressed) – is besides the point.
It’s about the conversation – how it started and how it was navigated.
Without a doubt, there was overlapping trauma between Farhad’s country of origin and himself, and likewise my faith and my religious trauma. But the conservatism I’d left behind was not the faith I still clung onto. And this clinging on to was empowering but also very difficult.
I needed support, compassion and kindness, not what appeared to be in time criticism, unkindness and self-blame. For sadly, it got worse from there.
I was processing my trauma – only just beginning to become aware of the full pernicious extend it had on myself as a woman. And he appeared to want to shut it down.
It all came to a crux: he pointed out the harm. I knew a lot of it.
But I was – slowly but increasingly – becoming more aware of it. I was starting to become more self-aware, and I needed to process it all.
Of course, I wanted to leave the trauma behind and remain Muslim. But that was a process.
As a young woman, I was walking on a journey of emancipation, self-realisation and healing – whatever the end result. This journey couldn’t happen in a day.
I was Muslim and was going to remain one I told myself.
Yet Farhad’s response appeared more-or-less to be: it caused you so much harm. Why are you holding on to it?
Only he knows what lies in Farhad’s heart, mind and soul.
Perhaps all of this triggered him. Perhaps it was frustrating for himself, and that he felt angry on my behalf.
Or perhaps it a deep dislike, disdain or rejection of my faith as a whole?
Who knows. Farhad is the only person featured in this blog to not have been consulted on this blog. So, I can’t answer that.
But what I will say is that unlike at the start of the relationship, things had changed.
He may have been well intentioned (or stemming from frustration). But, nonetheless, it came across as cold, angry unempathetic and blaming.
Whether he thought Islam was the problem – one that I was hanging on to – or whether he was merely pointing out the harm I’d been taught, lived and was processing as a Muslim (which with care and trust is open, honest and beautiful), only he knows.
When reflecting on this more recently, it appeared to me as a hatred/intolerance for my faith/spiritual experience.
And so, it seemed that my progressive criticism were at odds with each other.
At the end of the day, Muslims are a group of people who interpret and live a faith known as Islam.
Without a direct line to God, Muslims are free to interpret and (with free will) to life their faith as they like (of course there are fundamentals to the Islamic faith/Muslim community as it stands that unite Muslims as a group of people).
As his partner, I had all the time and love in the world for his emotional needs, but not for my needs to be either (intentionally) used or unintentionally pushed against me.
I didn’t need my partner, the man who supposedly loved me to appear to blame me for me pain.
Love is about patience, kindness compassion, empathy and understanding.
And reflecting back, what I’d say to Farhad now is this: we know that no one owns God and so as a Muslim woman, yes; there was much pain and trauma (both cultural and religious) in my past. But, there was also still so much beauty.
And that beauty was part and will always be a part of me. Without regret.
Almost a year into our relationship, I felt he used my own religious trauma against me.
I felt that he vented his frustrations at me when I needed care. And I felt that he blamed me when a partner should instead love, listen and care – with honesty of course, yet also compassion and empathy.
I don’t believe it was simply about him wanting me to move on from trauma. He met me as a Muslim and shared 11 months with me as a Muslim.
My faith was non-negotiable. I think he couldn’t see any beauty in the faith I held. He didn’t and couldn’t respect it. And through his behaviour, he didn’t respect me.
I was in a tricky stage of my life, but I was open about this (as much as I was learning at the time).
He wasn’t as open about his emotions and his trauma – whatever and wherever the source (including family dynamics).
I needed to process and claim my own identity for myself – whatever that looked like. It wasn’t his to pick apart.
He may well have been frustrated. To me, he just came across as not a very nice person (to put it mildly!).
And that theme continued up to meeting my family and afterwards his increasing coldness, accusations, unwillingness to communication and lack of empathy.
Towards the end, I told him he was a narcissist as he lacked much needed empathy (I believe my trauma has made me a more empathetic person – for others, I have since learnt trauma can manifest in narcissism, but that’s a much bigger topic).
Farhad’s response? He agreed he might be.
His tolerance mask (inner patience) had seemingly slipped – for my faith, for my emotional needs and for my friendship with my ex-husband.
Things were getting tiring, painful and emotional. I’d had enough. And he shut down.
Farhad didn’t share his feelings for discussion, dialogue and growth.
He grew angry. He grew cold and he grew increasingly accusative.
He questioned my own very real truths and in the end he outrightly twisted them against me, including towards my mental health and my reactions regarding his behaviour towards me.
Was this out of ignorance or very real intentional gaslighting? It felt at the time like the latter.
Looking back, who knows. Either way, it was out of order, incredibly hurtful and toxic.
Farhad had become a different person. I wanted the old Farhad back – the loving, patient, understanding one – or to move on.
In the end, I ended it calmly and peacefully. I felt free. Then, I went back. It was painful. Very, very lonely and painful.
My emotions ran deep. He ran cold. He then declared he wanted to “go on a break”. I didn’t believe in breaks – you work it out or you end it.
We went on said break and before it ended, we met and he ended our relationship.
He told me that he “couldn’t meet both mine and his emotional needs” and that he’d apparently been told by his therapist back in Iran on day one (and later his mother) that we weren’t compatible.
He broke my heart into a million tiny pieces. No Farhad, we weren’t compatible. I deserved better.
I returned home crushed. I wanted answers – to at least have a discussion to see if anything we’d shared has been real. And later, we did. I cried and he cried.
Farhad shared that he wanted to remain friends – to travel, to spend time together (to essentially act like but not be a couple). I refused. I had to cut him off.
And so, our story closed. And once again the healing had to continue – this time with an extra added load.
Looking back: what I learnt
You cannot live in peace without respect for one another
Respect should be about love and freedom – but not censorship. The criticism or critique of one’s own belief system or culture by a partner, most not be used, exploited or manipulated by the other.
Intolerance is not the same as critical thinking or examining lived experience.
Intolerance (as opposed to sympathy to difficult lived experiences) should not be used to blame the individual, feed disrespect regarding disagreement and/or dislike of practices, values and beliefs.
Tolerance isn’t enough to sustain a healthy relationship: if you love another person, you should love their being for their sake – not as a form of religious conversion, proselytising or blasphemy-esque censorship, but in recognition, appreciation, respect and care for their feelings, the things they cherish (their value system) and their lived experience.
You can of course agree to disagree. This is in fact very important, and each person should feel and must be free to express themselves. But respect, care and inclusivity are non-negotiable.
There are also many different ways to live a faith
There is no one way of being any adherent to a faith or expressing one’s spirituality. We really need to respect that choice, regardless of whether we share that faith or not.
It is not acceptable for one person (or both) to gatekeep the other – whether they share that faith, have lived experience (of course real) in one or more contexts or are an external observer (with no real insight, experience or knowledge).
Stereotyping and judging – as an internal gatekeeper (e.g. co religionist), stereotyping “outsider” or by any other way this may present, are not healthy, open, caring and do not nurture a loving safe space for a relationship
Spiritual compatibility can occur across faith traditions
Spiritual sharing is real and beautiful. This is a very real reality and can include rituals such as praying together or in non-ritual terms based on value-based practices (e.g. charity and social action) through shared values and beliefs.
By understanding and embracing the varied nature of faith traditions and additionally recognising the varied personal practice and interpretation of each person (rather than stereotypes), couples can develop their own shared beliefs, practices and experiences.
This is a powerful bonding experience – but should be mutually desired and by no means derive from any form of criticism, coercion, disrespect or force (it goes without saying).
Coming up:
Keep an eye out for part 3 of this series, where I share the impact of trauma on stereotyping others in the context of mixed relationships.
This blog is part of a five-part series looking at interfaith and intercultural relationships and the factors behind their success and longevity (or lack of). The series is based on my personal experience as a Muslim woman in her 20s and 30s.
In part 1, I look at marriage and love across cultures and borders, examining the role of shared values and knowing oneself.
In this blog, I share my experience of faith and religious divides in an intercultural/interfaith relationship.
In part 3, I share the impact of trauma on stereotyping others in the context of mixed relationships.
In part 4, I look at emotional factors (in particular attachment styles) and their relation to culture, as opposed to cultural or religious difference as a standalone.
In part 5, I conclude by sharing insight into the factors and dynamics involved in mixed relationships in maintaining a healthy long-lasting interfaith/intercultural relationship.
Love should celebrate, not tolerate: managing cultural-religious diversity
“Real diversity and inclusion doesn’t mean that we will always agree. It means that even when we disagree, we can still respect each other.”
(Justin Jones-Fosu)
I met “Farhad” on my first in-person date following my divorce. Looking back, we were a bit like young love-stuck teenagers.
We fell in love quickly and intensely. We pretty much clicked on our first date and things sped along from there.
Farhad was significant at this stage of my life as he understood my background more than the average non-Muslim man living in Britain. Being an “outsider”, he also posed less “risk” (according to my trauma-based reality at the time).
How? Who was he? And what was his background?
Well, Farhad was Persian and Baháʼí(his family had converted previously from Shia Islam). He’d grown up in Iran and sought asylum in the UK in his early 20s.
Growing up in Iran (and a very conservative area of the country too), he was obviously familiar with Islam to a certain extent as a whole (my choice of wording will become clear later in terms of religious diversity within the Muslim world).
In Farhad’s case, he’d grown up in an Islamist theocracy (a particularly famously brutal one) as a persecuted religious minority.
There was clearly trauma and frustration there. He was happily Persian but didn’t associate much with other Persians. He did however attend services with other members of his community, who were a mix of Persians, English converts and other nationalities.
His faith was one I was slightly familiar with but more as a religion belonging to a minority group both in Iran and the UK.
Prior to meeting Farhad, I knew about his faith to some extent. But this was more based on Baháʼí as a community through my activism on human rights in Iran, rather than any great theological insight.
As a religion, the Baháʼí faith originated in Iran. The founder Baháʼu’lláhwas born in Iran and exiled to Iraq.As a religious leader, he preached religious unity, with the faith today standing for unity of faith and amongst people worldwide.
I liked it – and still do! And the more I learnt, I personally came to see the Bahai faith as an historical extension of Islam, having been originally been forcibly separated as the Muslim world rejected and persecuted the now separate Baháʼí community .
Today, the Baháʼí are generally a religious community that is not well known. Exceptions include amongst religious/interfaith enthusiasts and practitioners alike and within the Jewish world – with the Baháʼí World Centrebased in Haifa, Israel.
It was only my interfaith and Jewish friends that didn’t ask what Baháʼí was when enthusiastically asking for details of the new love in my life!
As a community, the majority of Bahai are Persians from Iran – but not all by any means.
There are communities all over the world with the faith now the second largest religion in Panama, Belize, Bolivia, Zambia, Papa New Guinea, Chad and Kenya. Most converts however reside in India and the Western world.
In Iran however, the community remain persecuted and severely restricted. I knew this quite well.
Out in London protesting for women’s rights in Iran (2019).
The Baháʼí community are banned from attending public university and pretty much have to rely on themselves to survive. The more I got to know Farhad, the more I learnt about this.
More broadly, add to this the wider ramifications of living in modern Iran – a country with such beautiful rich culture yet an oppressive regime – Farhad likely had a very difficult upbringing.
War, religious persecution, Islamism: they’re not easy at all to say the least (especially when I now see and understand the emotional impact of such trauma and how trauma-responses/lived experiences can develop into socio-cultural norms and/or practices).
On my side, I at the time of meeting, I was not in the place where I felt I could date a man who was Muslim, Arab or Amazigh.
I’d come out of a conservative marriage, had emotional trauma to deal with, and I hadn’t been on a date for many, many years (minus the recent post-divorce video call e-meet).
Prior to being married, I was a serial monogamist. Now I was a millennial in my 30s and the dating scene had changed – a lot!
In terms of intercultural dating, I loved Persian culture and knew a lot about Iran.
I loved the warmth, the family values, the food, the music, the language, the architecture and much more.
I’d engaged in a lot of human rights activism and had a deep respect and fondness for the people and their nation – but not the regime.
I understood Farhad’s struggles. I loved his culture. And I didn’t whitewash over anything – I knew and felt the pain of Iranians across the board and the Baháʼí community as an example.
So, in short, when Farhad and I met, we seemed to match. I think we both learnt at lot from each other on our first date. And, we also learnt that the spark was there.
We understood each other and this grew over time. Obviously, Farhad had to learn over time who I was (I’m a bit of a mixed bag to say the least!), but he approached me in a way that was sensitive to my faith.
He knew and appeared to respect the fact that I was a Muslim woman. And so, he pursued me accordingly, learning who I was as a British-Italian woman embracing progressivism in faith – and in the early stages of such journey.
At the start, this mutual understanding and shared trauma translated to providing a safe space for me. He understood me. He “got it”.
I wasn’t the average “British woman” (whatever that is!).
I had a more conservative approach to dating on the one hand and baggage from the past, but on the other hand, I was also an open-minded Muslim and a European (British-Italian) woman who’d grown up in the “West” (and had dated before converting to Islam).
Embracing my post-hijab days (left: as an Orthodox Muslim, 2012; after removing hijab, c. 2019)
It was timely. Farhad gave me that space to be me. He understood my struggles. And we were on the same team – or so I thought.
We fell in love. We committed to each other. We pushed through the Covid-19 pandemic together and the challenges involved. And we prayed together.
It was beautiful. We opened his prayer book. It looked rather like a Muslim prayer book – with Farsi and Arabic combined.
The letters, the words, the monotheism were familiar, warm and beautiful.
Together we prayed and we shared our mutual spirituality as two people of different faiths, one love and belief in One God. It was a moment I shall never ever forget.
That moment truly pictured who and where I was at the time – as a Muslim, a woman and a human. And Farhad seemingly understood that. He didn’t just “tolerate” my faith, he always encouraged me. At least outrightly at the start.
He never professed to love Islam, but he didn’t need to. And I didn’t want or need him to either.
I respected and loved his faith for his sake (even without considering how similar both our spiritualities were in outlook). And I simply needed the same.
As the months passed, we discussed how I’d approach Ramadan. We talked (quite easily and unitedly) about what raising children would look like – sharing and teaching a belief in a One God. Simple.
And we both talked about how we were less conservative than the conservative communities we knew and belonged to.
Yes, the Baháʼí faith is incredibly open and tolerant. But I also found it had its conservatisms too (this is only my singular experience however). It was so alike yet far from the “Islam” I’d met as taught in the conservative diaspora (UK) and wider Muslim world to some extend at least.
For one, there was no gender segregation in his faith. There were no dress codes. There was no hijab.
Post-hijab me loved it. I felt a commonality theologically, culturally, socially.
Next: Farhad grew up being taught that sex outside of marriage was a sin and that drinking alcohol was a no-no. Again: something I’d shared in the Muslim world.
We were both so similar. But in retrospect, similar in trauma, similar in pushing boundaries and similar in rejecting conservative norms.
The difference is that I didn’t hide who I was. I believe in something, or I don’t. I think, I rationalise, and I come to my own moral conclusions. And I have no pressure from my non-Muslim family.
Farhad on the other hand had a community to think about.
His parents had certain expectations. And whilst he was very open with my friends and family (even meeting mine after around a year), I wasn’t blessed with the same openness – or even frankness about this.
I cannot speak for him about the reasons why he made the choices he did, but I can share the impact it had on.
For example, I felt shut out. And given my past, I didn’t want to feel shut out by any community, people or practice. I always aimed to be true to myself and respectful to others as a person – including friends, families and communities.
It suddenly unfolded quite immensely during one argument.
Farhad explained how the relationship was a private affair regarding his religious community (not just personal safety in terms of political asylum).
It turned out that he’d expected me to “trust the process”. Well, no.
I expected to be part of an open communicative process about said “process” from the start and to decide if that was something I wanted to engage with (I did later meet and spend quite a bit of time with his mother who was visiting from overseas and became rather fond of her – sharing food and gifts).
This became a critical point of contention. I didn’t hide. He did. And he wasn’t open about it to me either. That was the real issue.
I understood community and family dynamics – but I expected to be in on the process from the start and to decide what role I wanted to play (if any) in that.
What’s more, other things also began to increasingly unravel – and felt quite bitter on the receiving end.
Farhad’s softness towards me in my spiritual journey came to a halt. A massive halt.
It started with the blanket statement: “Dogs are haram in Islam”.
Muslims do like and own dogs!
Farhad declared this openly and firmly when discussing how the Iranian government let dogs in for rescue efforts (eventually) because the faith declared that owning dogs was forbidden (a common belief).
Of course, in my mind, dogs were and have never been “haram” (forbidden). They’re a beautiful creature, and a blessing from God that offer companionship, love and care.
Any hadith (apparent saying of the Prophet Muhammed – recorded 500 years after his death and with varying stated degrees of “authenticity”) that referred to this was clearly either: contextual (dogs at the time had rabies) or unreliable (possibly both).
None the less, as a Muslim woman, I shared my stance.
There are varying beliefs amongst Muslims and an increasing number of Muslims are keeping dogs are pets (rather than outside guard dogs). Dogs are not inherently unclean, and dogs can and do live in Muslim homes.
But, he insisted no. Islam is X. Islam says this. And he’d lived in a Muslim country.
He spoke and acted as thought he knew Islam better than me.
I stood my ground – of course. I’m not naïve. I knew what Islamism is.
I know the traditional belief he’d have lived. I knew what “Islam” in Iran looked like.
And I knew my faith – the good, the bad and the ugly (I’d literally experienced it!).
The Islam he knew was likely often seemingly one of a brutal intolerant theocracy or at least a very, very conservative faith (I can’t speak for him outrightly).
Either way, that wasn’t my faith. And no, I wasn’t making my faith up. I’d learnt, I’d rationalised, and I’d lived. No one owned God.
It had been a darn hard but important struggle. No one was taking that away from me. I was a Muslim. He wasn’t.
Of course, as a non-Muslim was free to discuss, to criticise and to share his views and lived experience whatever his background (and this is important) – as was I.
This was the safe space I found at the start – a space where I could be honest about my religious trauma, where I could be a free-thinking progressive, where I could be spiritual and not have to listen to the conservative dogma where there was “one Islam” and I was apparently going against it and was therefore a “murtad” (apostate), “munafiqa” (hypocrite) or “kafirah” (non-believer/concealer of the truth) as the trolling antisemitic, misogynistic, homophobic Islamists would declare, spitting out from their hate-fuelled mouths.
Yet my pain, my trauma and my faith were not up for debate. Intentional or not, it felt patronising, dismissive and frustrating.
Post-hijab but still a happy Muslim woman (Eid at Birmingham Central Mosque, 2022).
He didn’t have the right to dictate my faith to me, declaring what it is or isn’t.
Farhad wasn’t a scholar of religion, he wasn’t an interfaith practitioner, and he wasn’t Muslim. He didn’t appear to know about the diversity of Islam. But that wasn’t the point.
More than that: he wasn’t appearing to listen, share and fully care for his partner.
He didn’t need to be Muslim to share in the discussion by any means, but he needed to be open-minded. His lived experience of Islam was not the faith I had chosen.
I’d never believed in the Islam of Khomeini. Ever. And was never going to.
Whether it was “Islam” de facto, “Islamism” or just another form of a diverse faith (and potentially more diverse religious/cultural community than as currently socially, culturally and theologically lived/expressed) – is besides the point.
It’s about the conversation – how it started and how it was navigated.
Without a doubt, there was overlapping trauma between Farhad’s country of origin and himself, and likewise my faith and my religious trauma. But the conservatism I’d left behind was not the faith I still clung onto. And this clinging on to was empowering but also very difficult.
I needed support, compassion and kindness, not what appeared to be in time criticism, unkindness and self-blame. For sadly, it got worse from there.
I was processing my trauma – only just beginning to become aware of the full pernicious extend it had on myself as a woman. And he appeared to want to shut it down.
It all came to a crux: he pointed out the harm. I knew a lot of it.
But I was – slowly but increasingly – becoming more aware of it. I was starting to become more self-aware, and I needed to process it all.
Of course, I wanted to leave the trauma behind and remain Muslim. But that was a process.
As a young woman, I was walking on a journey of emancipation, self-realisation and healing – whatever the end result. This journey couldn’t happen in a day.
I was Muslim and was going to remain one I told myself.
Yet Farhad’s response appeared more-or-less to be: it caused you so much harm. Why are you holding on to it?
Only he knows what lies in Farhad’s heart, mind and soul.
Perhaps all of this triggered him. Perhaps it was frustrating for himself, and that he felt angry on my behalf.
Or perhaps it a deep dislike, disdain or rejection of my faith as a whole?
Who knows. Farhad is the only person featured in this blog to not have been consulted on this blog. So, I can’t answer that.
But what I will say is that unlike at the start of the relationship, things had changed.
He may have been well intentioned (or stemming from frustration). But, nonetheless, it came across as cold, angry unempathetic and blaming.
Whether he thought Islam was the problem – one that I was hanging on to – or whether he was merely pointing out the harm I’d been taught, lived and was processing as a Muslim (which with care and trust is open, honest and beautiful), only he knows.
When reflecting on this more recently, it appeared to me as a hatred/intolerance for my faith/spiritual experience.
And so, it seemed that my progressive criticism were at odds with each other.
At the end of the day, Muslims are a group of people who interpret and live a faith known as Islam.
Without a direct line to God, Muslims are free to interpret and (with free will) to life their faith as they like (of course there are fundamentals to the Islamic faith/Muslim community as it stands that unite Muslims as a group of people).
As his partner, I had all the time and love in the world for his emotional needs, but not for my needs to be either (intentionally) used or unintentionally pushed against me.
I didn’t need my partner, the man who supposedly loved me to appear to blame me for me pain.
Love is about patience, kindness compassion, empathy and understanding.
And reflecting back, what I’d say to Farhad now is this: we know that no one owns God and so as a Muslim woman, yes; there was much pain and trauma (both cultural and religious) in my past. But, there was also still so much beauty.
And that beauty was part and will always be a part of me. Without regret.
Almost a year into our relationship, I felt he used my own religious trauma against me.
I felt that he vented his frustrations at me when I needed care. And I felt that he blamed me when a partner should instead love, listen and care – with honesty of course, yet also compassion and empathy.
I don’t believe it was simply about him wanting me to move on from trauma. He met me as a Muslim and shared 11 months with me as a Muslim.
My faith was non-negotiable. I think he couldn’t see any beauty in the faith I held. He didn’t and couldn’t respect it. And through his behaviour, he didn’t respect me.
I was in a tricky stage of my life, but I was open about this (as much as I was learning at the time).
He wasn’t as open about his emotions and his trauma – whatever and wherever the source (including family dynamics).
I needed to process and claim my own identity for myself – whatever that looked like. It wasn’t his to pick apart.
He may well have been frustrated. To me, he just came across as not a very nice person (to put it mildly!).
And that theme continued up to meeting my family and afterwards his increasing coldness, accusations, unwillingness to communication and lack of empathy.
Towards the end, I told him he was a narcissist as he lacked much needed empathy (I believe my trauma has made me a more empathetic person – for others, I have since learnt trauma can manifest in narcissism, but that’s a much bigger topic).
Farhad’s response? He agreed he might be.
His tolerance mask (inner patience) had seemingly slipped – for my faith, for my emotional needs and for my friendship with my ex-husband.
Things were getting tiring, painful and emotional. I’d had enough. And he shut down.
Farhad didn’t share his feelings for discussion, dialogue and growth.
He grew angry. He grew cold and he grew increasingly accusative.
He questioned my own very real truths and in the end he outrightly twisted them against me, including towards my mental health and my reactions regarding his behaviour towards me.
Was this out of ignorance or very real intentional gaslighting? It felt at the time like the latter.
Looking back, who knows. Either way, it was out of order, incredibly hurtful and toxic.
Farhad had become a different person. I wanted the old Farhad back – the loving, patient, understanding one – or to move on.
In the end, I ended it calmly and peacefully. I felt free. Then, I went back. It was painful. Very, very lonely and painful.
My emotions ran deep. He ran cold. He then declared he wanted to “go on a break”. I didn’t believe in breaks – you work it out or you end it.
We went on said break and before it ended, we met and he ended our relationship.
He told me that he “couldn’t meet both mine and his emotional needs” and that he’d apparently been told by his therapist back in Iran on day one (and later his mother) that we weren’t compatible.
He broke my heart into a million tiny pieces. No Farhad, we weren’t compatible. I deserved better.
I returned home crushed. I wanted answers – to at least have a discussion to see if anything we’d shared has been real. And later, we did. I cried and he cried.
Farhad shared that he wanted to remain friends – to travel, to spend time together (to essentially act like but not be a couple). I refused. I had to cut him off.
And so, our story closed. And once again the healing had to continue – this time with an extra added load.
Looking back: what I learnt
You cannot live in peace without respect for one another
Respect should be about love and freedom – but not censorship. The criticism or critique of one’s own belief system or culture by a partner, most not be used, exploited or manipulated by the other.
Intolerance is not the same as critical thinking or examining lived experience.
Intolerance (as opposed to sympathy to difficult lived experiences) should not be used to blame the individual, feed disrespect regarding disagreement and/or dislike of practices, values and beliefs.
Tolerance isn’t enough to sustain a healthy relationship: if you love another person, you should love their being for their sake – not as a form of religious conversion, proselytising or blasphemy-esque censorship, but in recognition, appreciation, respect and care for their feelings, the things they cherish (their value system) and their lived experience.
You can of course agree to disagree. This is in fact very important, and each person should feel and must be free to express themselves. But respect, care and inclusivity are non-negotiable.
There are also many different ways to live a faith
There is no one way of being any adherent to a faith or expressing one’s spirituality. We really need to respect that choice, regardless of whether we share that faith or not.
It is not acceptable for one person (or both) to gatekeep the other – whether they share that faith, have lived experience (of course real) in one or more contexts or are an external observer (with no real insight, experience or knowledge).
Stereotyping and judging – as an internal gatekeeper (e.g. co religionist), stereotyping “outsider” or by any other way this may present, are not healthy, open, caring and do not nurture a loving safe space for a relationship
Spiritual compatibility can occur across faith traditions
Spiritual sharing is real and beautiful. This is a very real reality and can include rituals such as praying together or in non-ritual terms based on value-based practices (e.g. charity and social action) through shared values and beliefs.
By understanding and embracing the varied nature of faith traditions and additionally recognising the varied personal practice and interpretation of each person (rather than stereotypes), couples can develop their own shared beliefs, practices and experiences.
This is a powerful bonding experience – but should be mutually desired and by no means derive from any form of criticism, coercion, disrespect or force (it goes without saying).
Coming up:
Keep an eye out for part 3 of this series, where I share the impact of trauma on stereotyping others in the context of mixed relationships.
President Donald Trump argued that any revived nuclear accord with Iran should permit the United States to destroy the country’s nuclear infrastructure and send inspectors to Iranian facilities at any time.
The president outlined his vision for a new agreement during a White House presser on Wednesday, calling for a “very strong document” that would effectively give Washington carte blanche over Tehran’s nuclear energy program.
“I want it very strong – where we can go in with inspectors, we can take whatever we want, we can blow up whatever we want, but [with] nobody getting killed,” he told reporters.
The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is threatening to upend negotiations between the US and Iran by potentially attacking Iranian nuclear facilities.
The report said that the threat from Israel led to a recent tense phone call between Netanyahu and President Trump and a series of meetings between senior US and Israeli officials in recent days.
Trump was asked by reporters on Wednesday if he warned Netanyahu against attacking Iran during a phone call last week, and said, “Well, I’d like to be honest. Yes, I did.”
“It’s not a warning. I said I don’t think it’s appropriate.
Flying under the media radar, the Heritage Foundation—a think tank widely viewed as the intellectual engine behind the Trump administration’s foreign policy agenda—has published a brief that appears to map out the president’s prospective approach to Iran.
The six-page document advocates ending nuclear negotiations and pursuing joint U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Though thinly veiled as a policy analysis, the brief reads more like a soft launch for a war strategy.
Heritage has long played a predictive role in Trump-era foreign policy. Its reports and recommendations often find their way into official doctrine, especially on issues involving Israel and Iran.
With nuclear negotiations between the Trump administration and Iran’s Reformist government at a standstill, I held two separate, lengthy background conversations in Tehran this past week with a pair of seasoned Iranian diplomats with detailed knowledge of the talks in Muscat, Oman.
Like most Iranians, the diplomats were eager for a durable deal that would provide sanctions relief. But they said their side could not seem to break through to a Trump team they described as dithering, divided, distracted by other conflicts, and incapable of holding to a consistent position. Worse, as the negotiations drag on, the Trump administration is defaulting toward the hardline Israeli position which rejects all uranium enrichment, even for civilian purposes, violating a right Tehran considers sacrosanct.
As threats of an Israeli strike on Iran grow louder, the United States is making quiet but unmistakable moves of its own. Over the past month, Washington has quietly repositioned strategic bombers and fighter squadrons to Diego Garcia, a remote U.S. military outpost in the Indian Ocean, squarely within striking distance of Tehran.
The official rationale is force protection. But the scale and nature of the deployments have sparked speculation that Washington is laying the groundwork for potential military involvement in an Israeli-led operation, or, at the very least, sending a message to Tehran that it won’t stand in the way.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said on 20 May that Tehran is “not waiting for anyone’s permission” to enrich uranium, stressing that he does not expect a positive outcome from ongoing nuclear talks with the US and blasting Washington’s “absurd” statements.
His comments came during a speech for the one-year anniversary of the death of Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian in a helicopter crash.
“We do not think that negotiations with the US will bear fruit now,” Khamenei said, adding, “We do not know what will happen.”
“The assertion by US representatives that they will not allow Iran to enrich uranium is a significant mistake.
The arrest of a group reportedly consisting of Iranian nationals, accused of planning an attack on the Israeli embassy in London, has coincided with an aggressive lobbying campaign to classify Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization in the UK. While details of the case remain sparse, previous such allegations suggest that linking this plot to Tehran without substantiated evidence is politically motivated.
On 7 May, The Telegraph claimed that five individuals were detained in what the UK Home Secretary described as one of the “biggest counter-terrorism operations in recent years.”
The Trump administration, which unilaterally withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Agreement during Donald Trump’s first term, claims to be negotiating a new nuclear agreement with Iran. However, ‘negotiations’ are taking place under an escalation of economic coercive measures, a.k.a. sanctions, and military threats. Bahman Azad, president of the US Peace Council, delves into the hidden intentions of the Trump administration and the changes to Iran’s foreign policy under its new president. Azad also explains what is happening in the context of the rise of the multipolar world and the decline of US hegemony, and what we can do in the United States to promote security and peace, as Israel and the US prepare for war.
Seven European nations have called on Israel to “immediately reverse” its military operations against Gaza and lift the food and water blockade on the besieged enclave.
They have also called on all parties to immediately engage with “renewed urgency and good faith” for a ceasefire and release of all hostages.
The seven countries are Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Slovenia, and Spain.
They declared that they would be silent in the face of the man-made humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza that has so far killed more than 50,000 men, women and children.
Israeli forces continue bombarding Gaza yesterday, killing at least 125 Palestinians, including 36 in the so-called “safe zone” of al-Mawasi.
The intensified Israeli attacks have rendered all the public hospitals in northern Gaza out of service, said the Health Ministry.
The joint statement
The joint statement signed by the leaders of all seven countries said:
“We will not be silent in front of the man-made humanitarian catastrophe that is taking place before our eyes in Gaza. More than 50.000 men, women, and children have lost their lives. Many more could starve to death in the coming days and weeks unless immediate action is taken.
“We call upon the government of Israel to immediately reverse its current policy, refrain from further military operations and fully lift the blockade, ensuring safe, rapid and unimpeded humanitarian aid to be distributed throughout the Gaza strip by international humanitarian actors and according to humanitarian principles. United Nations and humanitarian organisations, including UNRWA, must be supported and granted safe and unimpeded access.
“We call upon all parties to immediately engage with renewed urgency and good faith in negotiations on a ceasefire and the release of all hostages, and acknowledge the important role played by the United States, Egypt and Qatar in this regard.
“This is the basis upon which we can build a sustainable, just and comprehensive peace, based on the implementation of the two-State solution. We will continue to support the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, and work in the framework of the United Nations and with other actors, like the Arab League and Arab and Islamic States, to move forward to achieve a peaceful and sustainable solution. Only peace can bring security for Palestinians, Israelis and the region, and only respect for international law can secure lasting peace.
“We also condemn the further escalation in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, with increased settler violence, the expansion of illegal settlements and intensified Israel military operations. Forced displacement or the expulsion of the Palestinian people, by any means, is unacceptable and would constitute a breach of international law. We reject any such plans or attempts at demographic change.
“We must assume the responsibility to stop this devastation.”
The letter was signed by Kristrún Frostadóttir, Prime Minister of Iceland; Micheál Martin, Taoiseach of Ireland; Luc Frieden, Prime Minister of Luxembourg; Robert Abela, Prime Minister of Malta; Jonas Gahr Støre, Prime Minister of Norway; Robert Golob, Prime Minister of Slovenia; and Pedro Sánchez, President of Spain.
Gaza proves global system ‘incapable of solving issues’
Meanwhile, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, says the crisis in Gaza has once again demonstrated that “the pillars of the international system are incapable of resolving such issues”, reports Al Jazeera.
It also showed “that the fate of the [Middle East] region cannot and should not remain at the mercy of extra-regional powers”, he said during a speech at the Tehran Dialogue Forum.
“What is currently presented by these powers as the ‘regional reality’ is, in fact, a reflection of deeply constructed narratives and interpretations, shaped solely based on their own interests,” Iran’s top diplomat said.
He said these narratives must be redefined and corrected from within the region itself.
“West Asia is in dire need of a fundamental reassessment of how it views itself,” Araghchi said.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
Amid President Donald Trump’s visit to the Middle East, we continue our interview with DAWN’s Sarah Leah Whitson and HuffPost’s Akbar Shahid Ahmed about Trump’s acceptance of a luxury plane gifted to him by the Qatari government, nuclear negotiations with Iran and Saudi Arabia, a less cooperative relationship with Israel and more. This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final…
Israel is in a weak position and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremism knows no bounds. The only other way around an eventual regional war is the ousting of the Israeli prime minister.
US President Donald Trump has closed his line of communication with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to various reports citing officials.
This comes amid alleged growing pressure on Israel regarding Gaza and the abrupt halt to American operations against Ansarallah in Yemen. So, is this all an act or is the US finally pressuring Israel?
On May 1, news broke that President Donald Trump had suddenly ousted his national security advisor Mike Waltz. According to a Washington Post article on the issue, the ouster was in part a response to Waltz’s undermining of the President, for having engaged in intense coordination with Israeli PM Netanyahu regarding the issue of attacking Iran prior to the Israeli Premier’s visit to the Oval Office.
Some analysts, considering that Waltz has been pushing for a war on Iran, argued that his ouster was a signal that the Trump administration’s pro-diplomacy voices were pushing back against the hawks.
This shift also came at a time when Iran-US talks had stalled, largely thanks to a pressure campaign from the Israel Lobby, leading US think tanks and Israeli officials like Ron Dermer.
Then, seemingly out of nowhere, Trump publicly announced the end to a campaign designed to destroy/degrade Yemen’s Ansarallah-led government in Sana’a on May 6.
Israeli leadership shocked
According to Israeli media, citing government sources, the leadership in Tel Aviv was shocked by the move to end operations against Yemen, essentially leaving the Israelis to deal with Ansarallah alone.
After this, more information began to leak, originating from the Israeli Hebrew-language media, claiming that the Trump administration was demanding Israel reach an agreement for aid to be delivered to Gaza, in addition to signing a ceasefire agreement.
The other major claim is that President Trump has grown so frustrated with Netanyahu that he has cut communication with him directly.
Although neither side has officially clarified details on the reported rift between the two sides, a few days ago the Israeli prime minister released a social media video claiming that he would act alone to defend Israel.
On Friday morning, another update came in that American Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth would be cancelling his planned visit to Tel Aviv.
Can Trump and Netanyahu remake the Middle East? Video: Palestine Chronicle
Is the US finally standing up to Israel? In order to assess this issue correctly, we have to place all of the above-mentioned developments into their proper context.
The issue must also be prefaced on the fact that every member of the Trump government is pro-Israeli to the hilt and has received significant backing from the Israel Lobby.
Mike Waltz was indeed fired and according to leaked AIPAC audio revealed by The Grayzone, he was somewhat groomed for a role in government by the pro-Israel Lobby for a long time.
Another revelation regarding Waltz, aside from him allegedly coordinating with Netanyahu behind Trump’s back and adding journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to a private Signal group chat, was that he was storing his chats on an Israeli-owned app.
Yet, Waltz was not booted out of the government like John Bolton was during Trump’s first term in office, he has instead been designated as UN ambassador to the United Nations.
The UN ambassador position was supposed to be handed to Elise Stefanik, a radically vocal supporter of Israel who helped lead the charge in cracking down on pro-Palestine free speech on university campuses. Stefanik’s nomination was withdrawn in order to maintain the Republican majority in the Congress.
If Trump was truly seeking to push back against the Israel Lobby’s push to collapse negotiations with Iran, then why did Trump signal around a week ago that new sanctions packages were on the way?
He announced on Friday that a third independent Chinese refiner would be hit with secondary sanctions for receiving Iranian oil.
Israeli demands in Trump’s rhetoric
The sanctions, on top of the fact that his negotiating team have continuously attempted to add conditions the the talks, viewed in Tehran as non-starters, indicates that precisely what pro-Israel think tanks like WINEP and FDD have been demanding is working its way into not only the negotiating team, but coming out in Trump’s own rhetoric.
There is certainly an argument to make here, that there is a significant split within the pro-Israel Lobby in the US, which is now working its way into the Trump administration, yet it is important to note that the Trump campaign itself was bankrolled by Zionist billionaires and tech moguls.
Miriam Adelson, Israel’s richest billionaire, was his largest donor. Adelson also happens to own Israel Hayom, the most widely distributed newspaper in Israel that has historically been pro-Netanyahu, it is now also reporting on the Trump-Netanyahu split and feeding into the speculations.
As for the US operations against Yemen, the US has used the attack on Ansarallah as the perfect excuse to move a large number of military assets to the region.
This has included air defence systems to the Gulf States and most importantly to Israel.
After claiming back in March to have already “decimated” Ansarallah, the Trump administration spent way in excess of US$1 billion dollars (more accurately over US$2 billion) and understood that the only way forward was a ground operation.
Meanwhile, the US has also moved military assets to the Mediterranean and is directly involved in intensive reconnaissance over Lebanese airspace, attempting to collect information on Hezbollah.
An Iran attack imminent? While it is almost impossible to know whether the media theatrics regarding the reported Trump-Netanyahu split are entirely true, or if it is simply a good-cop bad-cop strategy, it appears that some kind of assault on Iran could be imminent.
Whether Benjamin Netanyahu is going to order an attack on Iran out of desperation or as part of a carefully choreographed plan, the US will certainly involve itself in any such assault on one level or another.
The Israeli prime minister has painted himself into a corner. In order to save his political coalition, he collapsed the Gaza ceasefire during March and managed to bring back his Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir to his coalition.
This enabled him to successfully take on his own Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, in an ongoing purge of his opposition.
However, due to a lack of manpower and inability to launch any major ground operation against Gaza, without severely undermining Israeli security on other fronts, Netanyahu decided to adopt a strategy of starving the people of Gaza instead.
He now threatens a major ground offensive, yet it is hard to see what impact it would have beyond an accelerated mass murder of civilians.
The Israeli prime minister’s mistake was choosing the blocking of all aid into Gaza as the rightwing hill to die on, which has been deeply internalised by his extreme Religious Zionism coalition partners, who now threaten his government’s stability if any aid enters the besieged territory.
Netanyahu in a difficult position
This has put Netanyahu in a very difficult position, as the European Union, UK and US are all fearing the backlash that mass famine will bring and are now pushing Tel Aviv to allow in some aid.
Amidst this, Netanyahu made another commitment to the Druze community that he would intervene on their behalf in Syria.
While Syria’s leadership are signaling their intent to normalise ties and according to a recent report by Yedioth Ahronoth, participated in “direct” negotiations with Israel regarding “security issues”, there is no current threat from Damascus.
However, if tensions escalate in Syria with the Druze minority in the south, failure to fulfill pledges could cause major issues with Israeli Druze, who perform crucial roles in the Israeli military.
Internally, Israel is deeply divided, economically under great pressure and the overall instability could quickly translate to a larger range of issues.
Then we have the Lebanon front, where Hezbollah sits poised to pounce on an opportunity to land a blow in order to expel Israel from their country and avenge the killing of its Secretary General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah.
Trigger a ‘doomsday option’?
Meanwhile in Gaza, if Israel is going to try and starve everyone to death, this could easily trigger what can only be called the “doomsday option” from Hamas and other groups there. Nobody is about to sit around and watch their people starve to death.
As for Yemen’s Ansarallah, it is clear that there was no way without a massive ground offensive that the movement was going to stop firing missiles and drones at Israel.
What we have here is a situation in which Israel finds itself incapable of defeating any of its enemies, as all of them have now been radicalised due to the mass murder inflicted upon their populations.
In other words, Israel is not capable of victory on any front and needs a way out.
The leader of the opposition to Israel in the region is perceived to be Iran, as it is the most powerful, which is why a conflict with it is so desired. Yet, Tehran is incredibly powerful and the US is incapable of defeating it with conventional weapons, therefore, a full-scale war is the equivalent to committing regional suicide.
Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specialising in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle and it is republished with permission.
