Middle East
How the global media reacted to the U.S.–Israel strike on Iran
The attacks carried out by Israel and the United States against Iran, and Tehran’s response, are today’s main agenda item. While Iranian and Israeli media speak of the successes achieved, the U.S. press has reacted critically to Trump, and Iran’s neighbors are trying to understand the reasons behind what has happened.
The top leadership in Tehran was targeted: Israel and the U.S. struck the residences of Khamenei and Pezeshkian; Ali Shamkhani is assessed to have been neutralized.
Operation “Lion’s Roar” began with a dramatic series of pinpoint strikes aimed at paralyzing the command-and-control chain of the Revolutionary Guards and the Ayatollah regime. According to information obtained by our television channel, Israel assesses with high probability that its air force neutralized figures at the top of the security and state leadership in Tehran, including key individuals in the nuclear program and intelligence.
Following the terrorist attacks carried out by the U.S. and Israel against Iran on Saturday morning, General Abolfazl Shirkati announced that the Iranian armed forces responded immediately and launched missile strikes against all facilities held by the U.S. and Israeli militaries: “With God’s permission, we will give the U.S. and Israel a lesson they have never received in their history.” The General stated that Israeli bases have already been damaged and that Iran will deliver a much harsher blow later. He called on the Iranian public to remain calm, not to heed rumors, and to follow official news through national media.
Gulf News (United Arab Emirates)
Tensions between Washington and Tehran had been escalating for years, but the current escalation is linked to the collapse of the nuclear agreement. Subsequent attempts to revive the deal failed due to disagreements over uranium enrichment levels, sanctions relief, and regional security issues. Re-elected president in 2025, Trump reinstated the “maximum pressure” policy against Iran. Trump cited Iran’s suppression of anti-government protests as justification for potential actions. The protests that erupted at the end of December were harshly suppressed by security forces. What happens next? Iran had previously signaled that it was prepared for retaliatory measures. Analysts say Tehran has several options, including missile strikes on U.S. bases in the region, attacks on Israeli facilities, or moves against American warships. Whether the conflict remains limited or expands regionally will largely depend on Iran’s response in the coming days.
The New York Times (United States)
Why did you start this war, Mr. President?
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised voters that he would not start wars but would instead end them. However, over the past year he ordered military strikes on seven countries. His appetite for military operations appears to grow as they are carried out… Trump’s approach to Iran is reckless. His objectives are unclear. He has failed to secure the international and domestic support necessary to maximize the chances of achieving the desired outcome. He has disregarded both international and domestic laws of war.
Iran is not defenseless in the face of a U.S. attack. According to experts, the Tehran regime has the capacity to resist the U.S. Armed Forces, at least temporarily. Farzan Sabet, an analyst of Middle Eastern politics at the Geneva Graduate Institute, states that the Iranian military “could inflict significant damage on U.S. bases in the region and cause high casualties among American soldiers.”
At this stage, Iran primarily relies on its missile inventory. In a statement in 2022, former U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander General Kenneth McKenzie said that Iran possesses more than 3,000 ballistic missiles of various types. According to McKenzie, these weapons have “much more advanced precision accuracy” compared to previous models.
It is difficult to estimate the current state of Iran’s inventory. Tehran used hundreds of ballistic missiles during the 12-day war with Israel last year. According to Sabet, since then Iran has focused on replenishing its stock of missiles with ranges between 1,000 and 3,000 kilometers. However, the extent to which Iran has been able to increase the number of its launchers remains unclear. Israel claims that this number was reduced by half during the clashes.
Iran has repeatedly stated that it will never produce nuclear weapons and that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. Neither U.S. intelligence nor the IAEA has found evidence that Iran is seeking to build an atomic bomb, although Israel and some representatives of the Trump administration have claimed otherwise.
Sources speaking to Al Jazeera’s Washington correspondent Alan Fisher said that U.S. participation in the attack aimed to “collapse the regime leadership.” According to the sources, the strikes could target areas where Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei might be hiding. One source stated, “The goal was to eliminate the regime leader and then observe what would happen afterward.” According to the Associated Press, one of the locations struck in the capital was an area near the offices of Iran’s Supreme Leader.
Correspondent Fisher said, “There are countries warning the U.S. against this attack and asking what the plan is for ‘the day after,’ because you cannot say that removing the Supreme Leader guarantees the establishment of a pro-American government.”
A senior Iranian official emphasized that there would be “no red lines” in the response to Israel and U.S. attacks, adding, “All U.S. and Israeli assets and interests in the Middle East are now legitimate targets.”
The United Kingdom must resist attempts to be drawn into the conflict in the Middle East. Emily Thornberry, Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and a Labour MP, stated that the U.S. and Israeli attacks had no legal basis.
Thornberry said: “According to the information I have received, we are not involved. The UK did not approve this participation, and I believe that is correct. I do not think there is a legal basis for these actions. They [the U.S. and Israel] were not under direct threat, so it is difficult to understand what the legal justification is.”
Asked whether the UK should oppose becoming involved in the conflict, Thornberry responded, “Absolutely. Unless we ourselves are attacked. As I said before, unfortunately as of this morning we do not know whether that might happen, because there is a possibility that the Iranians could attack Western bases in the Gulf, and in that case the picture could change.”
In the months leading up to the attack, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the U.S. Armed Forces conducted joint planning and carried out a comprehensive strike in full coordination and synchronization. Military officials confirmed that the IDF, with all its units, had made “long-term and extensive preparations for this operation within the framework of defense systems and various offensive plans.”
In a statement from the military, it was noted that Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir and other commanders conducted a situation assessment, and that the Israeli Air Force continues to strike military targets in Iran. The Air Force is particularly targeting multiple military facilities in western Iran.
Middle East
US waives human rights terms on $320m military aid to Egypt
The US State Department stated that it has waived human rights conditions on more than $300 million in military aid to Egypt.
The statement emphasised that this decision was taken in consideration of Cairo’s “helpful role” since the outbreak of the war against Iran.
Egypt began receiving substantial support from the US after signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.
Since the late 1980s, the country has received approximately $1.3 billion annually in US military assistance.
A portion of this aid is subject to conditions related to human rights and democracy, which can be waived on national security grounds.
Withholding funds, including during the administration of former US President Joe Biden, has caused tension between Cairo and Washington in the past.
A letter dated 21 September and addressed to various congressional committees, obtained by Reuters, stated that Secretary of State Marco Rubio “decided to waive the certification requirement under the fiscal year 2025 Foreign Military Financing programme for Egypt of $320 million.”
This waiver was subsequently confirmed by the State Department.
An accompanying memorandum justifying the decision stated that this portion of military aid was “essential for counterterrorism, border security, or non-proliferation programmes, or otherwise important to the national security interests of the United States.”
The memorandum, dated 4 September and bearing Rubio’s signature, stated: “Exercising this waiver authority is critical to the US-Egypt relationship and to US national security priorities, particularly given the helpful role Egypt has played in the aftermath of Operation Epic Fury.”
“Operation Epic Fury” is the designation used by the US military for the campaign launched jointly with Israel against Iran in late February.
The State Department memorandum, whose authenticity was confirmed by two sources in Washington familiar with the letter, did not provide detailed information regarding what was termed Egypt’s “helpful role”.
The State Department’s annual decision on military aid to Egypt typically covers funds allocated for the preceding fiscal year, which ends on 30 September.
A State Department spokesperson stated that Rubio waived the certification in the interest of US national security and that the US continues to cooperate with the Egyptian government across a range of issues.
In an emailed statement, the spokesperson said: “This waiver recognizes the importance of maintaining security cooperation with Egypt at a time of significant security challenges in the region.”
The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not immediately comment on the matter.
The spillover effects of the Iran war have imposed a heavy toll on US security partners, including Egypt.
Owing to rising fuel prices and other disruptions, the Egyptian economy is passing through a difficult period.
Under the Biden administration, the US withheld portions of the annual military allocation on multiple occasions over Egypt’s human rights record.
In 2024, following the Hamas-led 7 October attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza, the Biden administration set aside human rights conditions, disbursing the entire $1.3 billion allocation to Egypt for the first time in its tenure.
Human rights organisations have long accused Egypt, under the administration of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, of widespread human rights abuses, including torture and enforced disappearances.
This week, Egyptian police detained six journalists from a fact-checking and investigative media outlet, accusing them of spreading false information on behalf of the banned Muslim Brotherhood.
Egyptian authorities state that they have taken steps to address human rights issues. Sisi said stability is paramount and that the government supports human rights by working to provide for basic needs.
Middle East
Britain expands curbs on arms exports to Israel over Gaza risks
Britain has significantly broadened its military export restrictions targeting Israel, suspending or rejecting more than 80 licences for items the IDF could use in Gaza.
This figure is nearly triple the number affected when the policy was first introduced in September 2024.
United Kingdom Minister of State for the Middle East Stephen Doughty said that as part of what he described as a “tighter system” for assessing exports to Israel, more than 50 further export applications have been refused since approximately 30 licences were initially suspended.
Under the initial decision taken in September 2024, 30 of roughly 350 licences were suspended after the British government concluded there was a “clear risk” that certain military exports could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.
The affected equipment included components for military aircraft, drones, naval systems, and targeting gear.
Doughty said additional measures adopted this month established what he termed a “double safeguard” mechanism within the approvals process.
Export applications must now be assessed both against existing international humanitarian law criteria and in light of Britain’s position on the legality of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories.
“We have so far suspended or refused more than 80 licences,” Doughty said, adding that he had personally examined each licence.
Despite the wider restrictions, British-origin parts entering the international F-35 fighter jet supply chain continue to be largely exempt.
The UK government argues that preventing British-made components from entering the global F-35 pool could undermine the programme as a whole and have serious consequences for the security of the UK and its allies.
Direct exports of F-35 parts intended specifically for Israel remain suspended.
Doughty defended maintaining the supply of components via the international programme, arguing that halting it could have severe ramifications for the broader European and allied security architecture.
Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Emily Thornberry challenged this position, arguing that the issue was political rather than purely legal.
Thornberry suggested adopting an approach similar to the Dutch model, under which components entering the international supply chain could be flagged as “not intended for aircraft bound for Israel”.
The initial suspension was implemented in September 2024 by then Foreign Secretary David Lammy.
Lammy stressed at the time that the measure did not constitute an arms embargo and applied solely to items assessed as usable in military operations in Gaza.
Since then, the policy has been tightened further under Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
The expanded export restrictions follow the Burnham government’s adoption of a more confrontational policy toward the Israeli government.
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband drew sustained applause at the Labour Party’s annual conference in Liverpool after delivering a sharp critique of the Netanyahu government’s policies and defending the decision to ban trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Accusing Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza, Miliband stated that the British government heard public outrage over the conflict, telling delegates: “We hear you. You were right.”
Middle East
Netanyahu holds secret UAE talks with Saudi Arabia and Arab officials
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with representatives of Gulf and Arab nations that lack diplomatic ties with Israel, including Saudi Arabia, during his weekend visit to the United Arab Emirates.
Sources close to the gathering told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on Monday that representatives from Morocco, Libya, Jordan, and Qatar also took part in the meeting.
Netanyahu made a unannounced visit to Abu Dhabi on Sunday, where he met with the country’s leader, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
According to Israeli media, this marked the first time the United Arab Emirates officially confirmed a visit by Netanyahu.
The meeting was arranged by Mossad Director Roman Goffman “at the request of Saudi Arabia, which asked for Israel’s assistance against Houthi attacks in the Red Sea region,” according to Yedioth Ahronoth.
The discussions addressed Iran and the Houthi militia. The newspaper added that the Arab states heard from Israel that “Israel is prepared to assist countries in the region with air defence systems, just as it aided the UAE during the conflict with Iran.”
Conflict in Yemen intensified in September when Ansarullah militiamen launched a rapid offensive that seized Yemen’s entire Red Sea coastline, including the vital maritime corridor of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
The Yemeni resistance also imposed a blockade on Saudi Arabia’s energy exports and staged multiple attacks against the kingdom.
Saudi Arabia reportedly sought military assistance from the US to counter Ansarullah.
Washington declined to attack the Houthis directly, but announced that it would provide intelligence and targeting support.
Reporting on the same visit, The Jerusalem Post said Netanyahu spent six hours in the UAE and that the principal subject of his discussions with MBZ was Iran.
Citing sources familiar with the matter, the newspaper added that the trip came “after Netanyahu exerted heavy pressure on the United Arab Emirates to arrange a meeting ahead of the Israeli elections on 27 October.”
Separately, the Associated Press, citing a person with direct knowledge of the meeting, reported that Netanyahu’s visit to the UAE was arranged in part to ask MBZ to deny reports that he had warned the Israeli prime minister of an impending Hamas threat prior to 7 October 2023.
According to Israeli media, Netanyahu’s office denied the AP report, issuing the following statement:
“Fake news. The visit focused solely on strengthening ties between the two countries and on regional issues.”
-
Europe5 days agoEuropean unions urge governments to scrap all Palantir deals
-
Diplomacy5 days agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul highlights irreversible shift to multipolarity
-
Europe1 week agoEmmanuel Todd says West faces collapse amid Ukraine and Iran crises
-
Europe1 week agoEuropean intelligence chiefs divide over risk of Russian attack
-
Diplomacy1 week agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul to debate multipolarity and global order
-
Middle East1 week agoSharaa says 7 October must not shape Israel policy on Syria
-
America1 week agoRepublican support for Trump’s war with Iran drops sharply in polls
-
Middle East1 week agoPalestinian factions confront legitimacy crisis at Istanbul talks
