Connect with us

Diplomacy

A brief history of US grievances against NATO

Published

on

US President Donald Trump’s outbursts against NATO allies, claiming “we spend all the money,” left a defining mark, particularly during his second presidential term.

At the 2025 summit in The Hague, member states pledged to allocate 5% of their annual GDP to defense by 2035. This marked a monumental leap from the 2% commitment made at the 2014 Wales summit.

This 5% commitment encompasses two primary categories of defense investment. The first is “core defense requirements”: allies agreed to dedicate at least 3.5% of their GDP to meeting baseline defense needs and fulfilling NATO Capability Targets, based on the agreed definition of NATO defense expenditure.

The second is “defense and security-related expenditure”: under this heading, member states will allocate up to 1.5% of their GDP to broader defense and security-related investments, such as protecting critical infrastructure, defending networks, ensuring civil preparedness and resilience, and strengthening innovation and the defense industrial base.

According to NATO’s own figures, European allies and Canada increased their defense spending by over $90 billion in 2025, representing an approximate 20% increase compared to 2024.

Official NATO reporting also indicates that European nations and Canada have steadily increased their collective defense investments over the past decade: rising from 1.4% of their total GDP in 2014 to 2.3% in 2025, culminating in a total investment of over $571 billion in defense spending this year.

According to NATO statistics, the United States consistently spends upwards of 3.5% to 4% of its GDP on defense. In absolute terms, of course, no single NATO power can match the expenditure of the American military.

Yet the issue of “burden-sharing,” which became highly visible during the Trump era, is not new. Setting aside the debates during the detente periods of the Cold War, American defense spending and public debt began to swell significantly in the late 1990s, spinning out of control in the wake of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Coupled with the rise of China and the US declaration of a military pivot to Asia, this ignited an open debate on how the “security architecture” of the Euro-Atlantic axis would transform.

Bush’s call

Attending the 2008 NATO summit in Romania, then-US President George W. Bush laid out a lengthy list of threats, primarily featuring Iraq and Afghanistan but also spanning Iran and Northeast Asia, before outlining the measures required to shield Europe from “missile threats.”

Bush stated:

“To build a strong NATO Alliance, a strong European defense capability is also essential. Therefore, at this summit, I will encourage our European partners to increase their defense investments to support both NATO and EU operations. America believes that if Europeans invest in their own defense, we will be stronger and more capable when we act together.”

Recently, an article written on behalf of the George W. Bush Presidential Center for the Ankara summit revisited the issue of “burden-sharing.” Authored by Elizabeth Kennedy Trudeau, a former State Department official, the piece references past debates, noting: “Today, it is abundantly clear that the endless debate over burden-sharing is no longer a theoretical issue, and that is also how the public perceives it.”

According to Trudeau, “Russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine,” “instability in the Middle East,” “China’s growing ambitions,” and emerging threat domains such as cyber threats, disinformation, and vulnerable supply chains have radically altered the geopolitical landscape. Consequently, NATO must adapt to this new reality.

Pointing out that European allies have increased their defense spending, the author welcomes the Continent’s steps toward assuming greater responsibility for “collective defense,” asserting: “This is not because the United States is pulling away from NATO; rather, a stronger Europe makes this powerful alliance even stronger.”

A sharp rebuke from Obama’s Defense Secretary Gates

However, the most scathing critique directed at the Old Continent from the US came during the presidency of Barack Obama.

In a university address, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates argued that Europeans’ reluctance to employ military force was “limiting NATO’s ability to conduct effective military operations.”

At the time, redrafting the NATO alliance’s core strategic concept was on the agenda. In his speech, Gates called for sweeping reforms within the organization. He remarked that NATO’s success in preventing conflicts from erupting in post-WWII Europe had inadvertently fostered a new set of concerns:

“The demilitarization of Europe—where large swaths of the public and political class are opposed to military force and the risks that go with it—has gone from being a blessing in the 20th century to an obstacle to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st.”

Gates warned that unless NATO members maintained robust militaries and made the necessary budgetary commitments to modernize their forces, Europe would remain vulnerable to threats.

The Secretary stated, “Real or perceived weakness does not merely invite miscalculation and aggression; on a more fundamental level, the resulting funding and capability shortfalls make it difficult to act and fight together to confront common threats.”

Defining NATO as “a military alliance with real-world, life-and-death obligations,” Gates noted that the ongoing effort to “rethink and reshape” the alliance’s strategic mission came at a critical juncture.

“Currently, the alliance faces very serious, long-term, systemic problems. NATO’s budget crisis is but one example, and it is a symptom of deeper issues within NATO regarding how threat perception, requirement determination, prioritization, and resource allocation are handled.”

In a speech in Brussels the following year, Gates also criticized Germany for not participating in the NATO airstrikes aimed at toppling Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. He warned that patience was wearing thin in the US Congress toward Europeans who were reluctant to stand “on their own feet”:

“The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the broader American body politic—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.”

It is worth recalling that an NBC report at the time remarked, “This assessment could prompt Europeans to question the future of their defense relationship with the US, upon which they have relied for much of their security over the past six decades.”

Moreover, the controversy erupted immediately after the withdrawal of an American combat brigade from Europe as part of a significant reduction in US troop levels on the continent.

During the Q&A session following his address, Gates also remarked that his generation’s “emotional and historical attachment” to NATO was “fading over time.”

Without naming them, Gates delivered a sharp critique of “countries apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to shoulder the growing security burden left by cuts in European defense budgets.”

Warnings from Hillary Clinton

A similar theme was voiced by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton observed, “NATO is turning into a two-tiered alliance, where the proportion of member states willing and able to pay for and bear the burden of collective defense is steadily shrinking.”

Intriguingly, this assessment closely mirrored remarks by former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at an annual national conference in Norway, where he noted that “the United States accounts for two-thirds of NATO’s defense spending.”

In her 2010 “Future of NATO” speech, Clinton stated:

“You will also hear this from Secretary Gates: despite historical and entirely understandable reasons why European countries have not yet committed to a level of per capita defense spending—not to the level we would like to see you reach, which is our level, but higher than where most of you are now—we believe this is a subject that must be discussed honestly. Because many of the infrastructure challenges we will face in the confrontation of these new threats—such as energy security or cybersecurity—will require member states to invest more so that we can network through NATO. It will be less about NATO doing the job than about member states coordinating and collaborating with their investments.”

Divergence in Europe

The impact of the 5% spending floor set at the Hague summit varies significantly across European states.

Reuters points out that two distinct groups have emerged since the decision: the first comprises Germany and mostly Nordic and Eastern European countries, which possess the fiscal flexibility to scale up spending; the second consists of several major actors struggling to achieve the same.

Guntram Wolff, a researcher at the economic think tank Bruegel, notes of Europe’s three largest economies after Germany: “The UK, for instance, cannot manage this. Neither can France, nor Italy.”

According to a draft budget obtained by Reuters ahead of Monday’s cabinet meeting, Germany will leverage a rule change exempting defense items from strict borrowing limits, doubling its spending to over 200 billion euros ($228.38 billion) between now and 2030.

Poland, Lithuania, and Estonia—countries where the perception of the Russian threat is most acute—have already made significant strides toward meeting the new targets. Warsaw, in particular, allocated 4.3% of its GDP to defense last year.

On the other hand, this initiative faces steep political and financial hurdles. Last week, Britain announced a plan for £15 billion in additional defense spending, to be partially funded by cuts in other areas.

However, it has emerged that a third of this sum remains unfunded, presenting an early budgetary headache for the presumptive new prime minister, Andy Burnham.

Meanwhile, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is expected to announce at the summit that Rome will increase its core and non-core defense spending to 2.8% of GDP in 2026, despite carrying one of Europe’s heaviest debt burdens.

However, because rising military expenditures are unpopular with many voters ahead of next year’s general election, most of the increase will be covered by domestic security spending, such as policing duties.

France, through detailed plans unveiled in April, aims to increase its defense spending from the current level of around 2% to 2.5% of GDP by the end of the decade, all while trying to bring its overall budget deficit into alignment with Eurozone rules. With presidential elections on the horizon, how the Macron administration will generate this surplus remains a matter of curiosity.

The Spanish government, meanwhile, is not expected to waver in its commitment to cap defense spending at no more than 2.1% of GDP. Its plan is to redirect new resources largely toward technologies with civilian applications.

Furthermore, some countries appear to inspire little confidence at NATO headquarters: NATO officials have questioned claims by the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Albania that they have met the old alliance target of 2% of GDP, requesting that these nations revise and resubmit their spending figures.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Diplomacy

EU explores cooperation with Trump-backed Peace Board for Gaza aid

Published

1 day ago

on

25/09/2026

By

EU countries that shunned the “Peace Board” when its formation was announced a year ago are beginning to cooperate with the organization on humanitarian aid projects in the Gaza Strip.

According to a report in Politico, although the European Commission is cautiously embarking on projects with the group established by President Donald Trump, the Peace Board’s ambitious vision to disarm and rebuild Gaza remains largely on paper.

Even so, the Board remains a political force to be reckoned with, tied to Trump’s closest allies and too significant to ignore.

Europe is therefore seeking avenues to cooperate with the organization without fully endorsing it.

“All traditional donors are ready to work in parallel, but they are reluctant to channel money into the Peace Board,” said Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs Espen Barth Eide.

Although Norway is not an EU member, it coordinates with the bloc regarding donations to the Palestinians.

Eide explained that Norway would prefer to work with “established institutions” such as the World Bank.

The Peace Board does not publish its budget or organizational chart. Furthermore, despite holding an account at the World Bank, it also maintains separate accounts at JPMorgan.

“The Peace Board’s mechanisms will not be compatible with our reporting arrangements,” Eide said.

This hesitation was clearly evident on Wednesday during a briefing with Peace Board officials on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

At the event, Dubravka Šuica, the European Commissioner for the Mediterranean, announced that she would sign on to two European-funded projects in partnership with UN agencies and “aligned with the priorities of the Peace Board”.

Yet her characterization of the cooperation with the Board was hardly glowing. “The important thing is to remain pragmatic,” Šuica said.

In a statement, the European Commission noted: “Given the immense early recovery needs in Gaza, coordination and alignment at all levels are of course necessary to achieve concrete results on the ground.”

The EU and most of its member states refused to join the Peace Board, partly over concerns that it could supplant the UN.

Since then, European countries have invited Peace Council representatives to their meetings and attended Security Council briefings alongside Council President Nikolay Mladenov.

The joint projects mark the first concrete step toward cooperation.

This acceptance, however reluctant, extends even to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which handles Palestinian refugees in Gaza and which Israel and the US want sidelined.

Christian Saunders, the acting head of UNRWA, said the Peace Board was “the only game in town” and added: “Everyone needs to get behind this initiative.”

Romanian Foreign Minister Oana-Silvia Țoiu struck a diplomatic tone regarding the Board’s role during an interview.

Noting that her country works in cooperation with the UN and the EU, the minister said: “Yes, where we see complementary elements, we certainly support the work being carried out at the Peace Board level.”

The minister added that she attended a meeting with Mladenov at the UN on Thursday.

This approach, however, does not enjoy unanimous support. Speaking on condition of anonymity, a French official stressed that “the UN must remain the primary platform for facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza, resolving disputes, and advancing the political process.”

In November of last year, the Peace Board sought and received the UN’s backing as “a transitional administration to set the framework and coordinate financing for the reconstruction of Gaza”.

Yet the Board operates independently, and critics contend this constitutes a capitulation to Trump and Israel.

“This is a doorway to Washington at the top, and to Palestinian technocrats at the bottom,” said Amjad Iraqi of the International Crisis Group, who maintains close contact with European, Arab, and Palestinian officials, though he asked “who makes the decisions” and added that “Israel is making the calls.”

Iraqi highlighted ongoing restrictions on the entry of heavy machinery and reconstruction equipment, which Israel has stated it will not permit until Hamas is disarmed.

Meanwhile, the Peace Board’s plan to disarm Hamas has fallen through. Furthermore, Israel has continued its deadly strikes against what it identifies as Hamas targets in Gaza, albeit on a smaller scale compared to last year.

An Arab diplomat from a Peace Council member state noted that the council addresses Israel on civilian casualties in a “private capacity”, adding: “Whether that is sufficient is open to debate.”

Țoiu stated that for a problem on the scale of Gaza, “major players must be involved in the process”, noting that this includes “the US as a key facilitator of developments that could emerge as pressure toward the disarmament of Hamas”.

Ali Shaath, head of the Peace Board’s Palestinian technocratic committee planned to govern Gaza, argued at Wednesday’s event that the Peace Board is needed to bring order to a “fragmented” situation.

Tens of thousands of personnel from the Palestinian Authority, municipalities, the Gaza Strip’s de facto government, and numerous UN agencies and international NGOs operate across the territory, and he stated that his committee would unite them under a single roof.

“We are committed to one principle: one authority, one law, and one gun,” Shaath said.

Mladenov also acknowledged the tensions of operating amid hostilities. At this week’s event, he stated that the Board is working on an “advanced deconfliction mechanism” to resolve security issues before they reach a “kinetic phase”.

On Wednesday, the Peace Board released a list of 66 projects with a total value of $2.45 billion that are expected to begin soon, ranging from the provision of insulated trailers to public transit support and the repair of hospitals.

The plan is to complete these projects within six months of their start date.

Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and a member of the Peace Board’s governing board, said at the same event: “What you are seeing looks very much like the establishment of a very, very large startup.”

Tom Warrick, who led post-invasion Iraq planning for the US Department of State and remains in contact with European officials, said the lack of detail is precisely what makes Europe and other potential partners nervous about the Board’s plans.

“This plan looks good on paper, but the missing piece is how we get from here to the actual starting point of most of the projects in this plan,” Warrick said.

At the Peace Board event, Mladenov hinted that little progress could be made before the Israeli elections on 27 October, stating: “The discussions we are currently holding with Israel are not easy because of the elections there.”

Mladenov emphasized that his goal remains an enduring peace that includes the disarmament of Hamas:

“We are not bound by a timeline or by dates. We are bound by verification. We want to ensure that this works.”

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

East-West Forum in Istanbul to debate multipolarity and global order

Published

3 days ago

on

24/09/2026

By

The end of the post-Cold War unipolar world order and the need to redesign the global system are bringing international thinkers and strategists together in Istanbul.

Organised in partnership between Harici Media and the Berlin-based think tank European Transcontinental Initiative (ETI), the East-West Forum (EWF) will convene on 26 September 2026 at the Akatlar Cultural Centre.

Pursuing an independent and non-partisan course, ETI will focus on Europe’s role in a multipolar world in the light of the principles of equality before the law, social responsibility, subsidiarity, federalism, freedom, and social justice.

The forum will focus on simultaneous paradigm shifts such as resource scarcity, climate stress, overpopulation, trade wars, global rearmament races, the artificial intelligence revolution, regional conflicts, and the dysfunction of the United Nations system.

Against the conventional approaches of the G7 and G20 frameworks – which reduce progress solely to technology, recognise power only in states, and do not question capitalism – the EWF will seek heterodox answers, develop alternative social and political concepts, and aim to “debate the impossible”.

Advocating an economic model that serves human beings and respects nature, the organisation will aim to construct a realistic utopia for the 21st century.

Seeking to offer an alternative to traditional security conferences held in Western capitals that interpret the world entirely through a Western-centric lens, the initiative draws its inspiration from the earliest map of Europe, dated 1534.

Aiming to revive this historical perspective – facing East yet standing firmly on Eurasian ground – the forum will open discussions on building a constructive bridge of dialogue between Western countries, BRICS, and the Global South, and, in the long term, on a mediating European identity possessing strategic autonomy beyond the borders of the European Union.

Opening panel to debate the end of the liberal order

Following the official opening at 10:00, the conference will begin with the first plenary session moderated by Prof. Ulrike Guérot.

The opening panel, titled “The World in Transition: Multipolarity and the End of the Liberal Order”, will feature Prof. Zhang Weiwei, Prof. Glenn Diesen, Anatol Lieven, and Prof. Jagannath Panda as speakers, with the initial assessment delivered by an official from the Papal Representation.

The panel will examine the consequences of liberal exceptionalism and its capacity to penetrate other cultures, imposed globally by the US since 1989.

The loss of memory and cultural depth experienced by deep-rooted civilisations during colonial and neo-colonial processes, the concept of the “civilisation-state”, and the possibility of carrying pre-modern traditions into the 21st century will be addressed.

Participants will discuss the extent to which the EU reflects European philosophical roots such as Christianity, the Enlightenment, modernity, and peace; the effects of the US on EU architecture; and the role of a neutral Europe as a global mediator.

Assessments will also consider whether rising actors such as China, Russia, India, Iran, and Brazil can rebuild the state as a protector of the public good; how China’s concept of order, prioritising harmony over hegemony and equality over coercion, can be institutionalised with the UN Charter; and the possibilities for transitioning to an equitable partnership.

Experts to discuss escalating war risks and Eurasian security

Beginning at 11:55 under the moderation of Prof. Hasan Ünal, the second plenary session will carry the theme “Escalating Tensions: Preventing a Devastating World War – Co-constructing and Peacefully Institutionalising a New Order”.

The panel will feature Prof. Zhou Bo, Daniel L. Davis, Michael von der Schulenburg, Alexander Shenderyuk-Zhidkov, and Ali Asghar Soltanieh as speakers, while Roger Köppel will deliver the session’s opening evaluation.

The session will focus on the risk of tensions between the West and BRICS or Global South nations escalating into a global war due to blocked diplomatic channels, the absence of arms control mechanisms, and AI-enabled warfare methods.

The possibilities of a balanced Eurasian security architecture covering both Ukraine and the Middle East (Palestine, Israel, Iran, Lebanon, Syria) will be addressed.

Panellists will examine whether Russia can serve as an East-West bridge while preserving its European identity, the EU’s militarist escalation spiral and potential disintegration, the future of the UN Charter, and the threats posed by unmanned aerial vehicles and robotic warfare.

The discussion will also analyse the protection of the civilian sphere against neurological and information warfare, the role of middle powers such as Türkiye in an era shaped by the decline of 500 years of Western hegemony, the necessity for the US to transition from a military empire to a nation-state, Iran’s regional position, concrete regional stability projects of the Gulf Cooperation Council such as water desalination, and the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement.

Discussions to focus on the quest for European autonomy

Following the lunch break, the third plenary session will commence at 14:20 under the direction of Isabelle Casel.

In the panel titled “Europe Beyond the EU and Its Philosophical Foundations: Atlanticism, Eurasia, and Strategic Autonomy”, presentations will be delivered by Hauke Ritz, Thomas Fazi, Prof. Dragana Mitrović, and Georges Renard-Kuzmanovic, with Walter Komarek speaking as the first commentator.

The session will focus on the strategic future of Europe, which currently lacks the character of an independent actor in the global balance of power yet remains vital to establishing a multipolar world.

Discussions will address how Europe can break free from the transatlantic framework, regain its digital sovereignty against US-centred digital platforms, and build long-neglected deep ties with Eurasia, Asia, BRICS, and the Global South.

While trade and energy flows across the Eurasian continent are examined, questions will be raised over the locking down of European state institutions, media, universities, and churches in ways that impede alternative debate.

Panellists will examine proposals to generate an alternative to the American conception of progress based purely on technological advancement by reviving humanism, Enlightenment philosophy, labour movements, and the mixed economy tradition, as well as constraining uncontrolled AI and genetic engineering through balances established with the East.

Panellists to examine regional proxy wars and the Gaza crisis

The fourth and final plenary session of the day will convene at 16:00, moderated by Pascal Lottaz, under the title “Examining the Details: From the Big Picture to the Realities and Prospects of Regional Proxy Wars”.

With Muhammad Shehada, Prof. Richard Sakwa, Andrew Day, and Prof. Abdullah Baabood serving as speakers, the initial evaluation will be presented by Ahmed Moustafa.

The panel will focus on the intersections between regional crises and the transformation of the international system, as well as the risk of global war.

The session will examine how 50 years of US hegemony and prior British influence in the Middle East transformed Arab-Islamic culture, how the genocide in Gaza shook Western legitimacy in the region, and the potential role of BRICS regarding the Palestinian question.

Avenues to halt the expansionist “Greater Israel” visions of the far-right Israeli government and the future of the Hague Group will be scrutinised.

Participants will evaluate the conflict lines in Ukraine and Iran, the military-industrial complex’s relationship with intelligence, media, and academia, and the posture Europe would adopt in the scenario of a collapse of NATO and EU security structures.

The conference will conclude at 17:25 with a closing session featuring general evaluations from a line-up of speakers that includes Serdar Yurtçiçek.

Organisation aims for permanent think tank network and annual books

The East-West Forum will continue on the morning of Sunday, 27 September 2026, between 09:30 and 13:00, with an evaluation meeting and working breakfast.

Five core objectives will be implemented at this stage: turning EWF meetings into a permanent and annual global platform shaping multiple paradigm shifts; publishing conference outputs internationally as an annual book series in partnership with the Germany-based publisher Westend Verlag; establishing three-month EWF expert groups operating year-round; launching the EWF Network representing critical global intellect; and founding the EWF Business Council to ensure coordination with the corporate sector.

Conference to be held at Besiktas Akatlar Cultural Centre

The conference will take place at the Akatlar Cultural Centre in the Besiktas district. The facility, located at Akat Mahallesi Zeytinoglu Caddesi No: 16, is accessible by public transport and private vehicles.

Participants choosing the Yenikapi-Haciosman M2 metro line can transfer at Levent station to the M6 Bogazici Universitesi/Hisarustu line and alight at Nispetiye station, reaching the centre via a short bus or taxi ride.

Passengers using Marmaray can follow the same route via the Yenikapi transfer. Those arriving from Istanbul Airport can access the M2 and M6 connections from the M11 Gayrettepe line.

Bus number 58A departing from the Zincirlikuyu metrobus hub drops passengers at the Zeytinoglu stop, while route 58N stops at Sari Konaklar, immediately adjacent to the cultural centre.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Trump meets regional leaders as tensions over Iran and Gaza mount

Published

3 days ago

on

23/09/2026

By

US President Donald Trump met leaders from Egypt, the Gulf, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Türkiye on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

Trump described the countries represented as “friends, allies, and partners of the United States.” Speaking about peace and prosperity in the Middle East, Trump said:

“It is an honour for me to be here with some of America’s greatest and closest friends, allies, and partners, to continue our efforts towards a safer and more prosperous Middle East. This is a special place, and it has become even more special in the time since I entered politics… I have many great friends sitting at this table. They are all magnificent people, and we are ensuring that their lives go well.”

Adding that every country around the table was “extraordinary”, Trump thanked them for US investments originating from these nations totalling approximately $21 trillion since he took office in January 2025.

In particular, he spoke of his close relationship with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, with whom he has forged a close friendship since his first term in office. Thanking Erdoğan, he described him as a “great man” and a “tough cookie”.

The US president also noted that a recent meeting held between US and Iranian representatives had been productive.

Trump observed humorously that the region was filled with high energy, though he noted this sometimes meant “too high energy.”

Trump said there was “great momentum” towards reaching an agreement with Iran. A few hours before this statement, speaking from the rostrum of the UN General Assembly, he had asserted that the US could either make a deal with Tehran or “destroy” it.

In his address of approximately 35 minutes to world leaders earlier on Tuesday, Trump said: “I have a big decision to make. Will a deal be made with Iran that will allow them to rebuild the country and make it much greater than before, perhaps one of the greatest countries in the Middle East or even the world? Or will I destroy the Islamic Republic, and do it quickly, without ever giving them the chance to kill and destroy people and countries again?”

Stating that the US aims “to completely isolate Iran financially”, Trump added: “I hope they do the right thing quickly before it is too late; you know that one day it will be too late, and we will have no chance left to allow their survival as a nation.”

Trump also addressed Iran’s nuclear programme, stating that preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon remains one of the primary objectives of the US campaign.

Trump continued:

“A large part of what we did, perhaps 99%, was to ensure Iran did not obtain a nuclear weapon; those facilities were blown up. We might have to blow up one more, Mount Kazma. We do not see much activity there, but if we do, we will blow it up immediately.”

Asked by Al-Monitor whether there was a consensus on a roadmap forward, the US Ambassador to Türkiye and Special Envoy for Syria and Iraq, Tom Barrack, said: “There is a consensus that we need a roadmap forward; that is the only consensus.”

In a separate development, King Abdullah of Jordan told Al-Monitor that the meeting went “very well”.

Asked by a reporter about the meeting with Iran, Witkoff replied: “I feel very good right now.”

Gulf states are attempting to keep diplomatic channels with Iran open while the conflict continues. On Sunday, UAE presidential adviser Anwar Gargash told Al-Monitor that talks between Washington and Tehran must be accompanied by a parallel regional dialogue.

Gargash said: “We need a new mindset that these kinds of discussions about what kind of region we all want, what kind of stability we pray for, and what core elements of development we need: which are very closely linked to stability: can take place at an Iran-US level, but must also take place at an Iran-Arab level.”

At the UN General Assembly, regional leaders took a sharp line against Israel. King Abdullah II of Jordan highlighted the Palestinian issue during his address at the 81st UN General Assembly in New York, stating that Israel was a “regional threat” acting with “frightening impunity”.

On the opening day of the event, he delivered a passionate speech referencing a “unique moment in history” where “the scale of information and the speed of change are unprecedented.”

The King added: “Every day, a new crisis, a new tragedy, a new emergency arises demanding our attention. Every generation believes that the challenges it faces are unique; perhaps for us, this is true.”

Hussein continued:

“If anyone has any doubt that a crisis in this part of our world will remain confined solely to this region, let them look at the energy and grocery bills of ordinary families from Mumbai to Madrid and Minnesota. The Iran war has demonstrated how quickly instability can disrupt trade, investment, and the lives of people outside the region.”

Recalling that he has warned at the UN for years about the dangers of leaving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict unresolved, the King argued that the international community has chosen to “manage” the conflict rather than confront and resolve it, questioning the value and legitimacy of international law in light of “one of the longest-running occupations in the world.”

The King of Jordan continued:

“If international law can be ignored for decades, then what exactly is the value of this law? And how can we enforce it if we do not even name its violations? In Gaza, the evidence is stark: at least 300 Palestinian children were killed in the first 300 days of the so-called ceasefire.”

The King condemned the Israeli government for “changing the rules”, continuing attacks and the destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza, and refusing to withdraw from the war-torn Palestinian territory.

Stating that Israeli actions in the West Bank must be regarded as a policy of forced displacement, Hussein called on the international community to treat Gaza and the West Bank as integral parts of a single whole belonging to the Palestinian people.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey