Connect with us

Diplomacy

On the brink of war or a new renaissance? Highlights from the Schiller Institute’s 40th anniversary

Published

on

On December 7-8, 2024, the Schiller Institute, founded by Helga Zepp-LaRouche 40 years ago, convened a two-day international conference titled, “In the Spirit of Schiller and Beethoven: All Men Become Brethren!” The event brought together a remarkable panel of diplomats, former heads of state, prominent scholars, and defense experts to address what they termed the planet’s most urgent crisis since the Cuban Missile standoff: the threat of a new and possibly final world war, versus the possibility of forging a new paradigm of peace and mutual development.

The opening panel, held on Saturday, December 7, focused on the theme: “The Strategic Crisis: New and Final World War, or a New Paradigm of the One Humanity?” It featured prominent figures from across the globe.

The panel was moderated by Dennis Speed of the Schiller Institute, who opened the session by referencing the anniversary of the Institute’s founding and the extraordinary peril the world now faces. Speed reminded the audience of the significance of December 7 for the United States—Pearl Harbor Day—invoking the profound transformations wrought by past conflicts and suggesting a parallel with today’s dangerous global escalation.

Among the key speakers were Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute; Naledi Pandor, former Minister of International Relations of South Africa; Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr., former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense; and Donald Ramotar, former President of Guyana.

Keynote by Helga Zepp-LaRouche: A choice of paradigms

Helga Zepp-LaRouche set the tone: “We are coming together in an extremely dangerous moment,” she said, “one that may be even more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis.” She warned that the global strategic environment, marked by NATO’s expansion and the ongoing war in Ukraine, has created a climate in which nuclear weapons could be used again, possibly ending human civilization.

Zepp-LaRouche challenged the prevalent assumption that financial and geopolitical constructs must be maintained at all costs. She recalled the late economist Lyndon LaRouche’s insistence that “money is not value,” arguing that the physical economy—productivity, technological progress, and infrastructure—must guide policy. She called for a return to the principles of the Peace of Westphalia (1648), urging major powers to cast aside revenge and geopolitics, and instead embrace cooperation for mutual development. “It is urgent,” she said, “that we establish a new security and development architecture, a paradigm that meets the interests of all nations.”

Dmitri Trenin: Rejecting the old Cold War frame

From Moscow, Professor Dmitri Trenin offered a Russian perspective on the evolving crisis. “We are not in Cold War II,” he insisted. “The analogy is wrong.” Trenin stressed that today’s world is far more complex, with multiple power centers and no functioning arms control mechanisms. He warned that the old tools that kept the Cold War ‘cold’—communication channels, treaties, and a shared fear of nuclear weapons—have eroded.

Trenin pointed out that globalization under Western rules is over. The world, he said, is becoming truly multipolar, with regionalism on the rise. He cautioned the United States against attempting to preserve its hegemony at all costs, noting that “attempts to salvage [unipolar dominance] are as dangerous as they are futile.” He urged Washington to learn the lesson the Soviet Union once did: overextension leads to collapse. Now, it is time for nations to realign their priorities, focusing on domestic economic health rather than a vain bid for global supremacy.

Voices from the Global South

Former President Donald Ramotar of Guyana spoke forcefully about the global inequalities driving conflict. He noted that in recent years, the Global South—representing the majority of humanity—has begun to straighten its back and assert its interests. Ramotar criticized policies that keep developing countries locked in poverty and underdevelopment. “The transatlantic powers have made humongous profits from wars,” he said, calling these conflicts “wars for profit” that enrich weapon manufacturers and financiers.

Ramotar praised China’s Belt and Road Initiative and cooperation with the Global South as a model of “win-win” relations that uplift entire regions. He contrasted this with the IMF and World Bank’s conditionalities that perpetuate underdevelopment. “If the West joined in some of these initiatives,” Ramotar concluded, “we might end poverty in our lifetime.”

Ján Čarnogurský: A European perspective

Slovakia’s former Prime Minister Ján Čarnogurský delivered a stark evaluation of European policy. He recalled that in the early 1990s, promises were made not to expand NATO eastward; these were broken. He criticized the West’s reneging on the Minsk Accords, drawing parallels with the deceitful handling of the Yugoslav crisis.

Čarnogurský questioned who truly leads U.S. policy and lamented Europe’s subservience to Washington and London. He noted that European states are suffering under U.S.-imposed policies, losing industries to American soil. Stressing that Russia has no interest in marching west, Čarnogurský argued that the Ukraine war should end in negotiations, not endless escalation. “If the West lost the war in Ukraine,” he said, “it might simplify problems” and pave the way for stable peace negotiations.

Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr.: Diplomacy abandoned

Ambassador Chas Freeman, a seasoned American diplomat, reminded the audience of the dangers of nuclear brinkmanship. “The humane world order after World War II has expired,” Freeman said. Now, egregious violations of international law occur with impunity. He pointed to the absence of meaningful diplomacy, noting that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken had not once visited Moscow, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has not been welcomed in Washington for years. “There are no functioning arms control agreements,” he warned, “and no communication lines.”

Freeman highlighted the urgent need for an Austrian-style solution in Ukraine, referring to the 1955 Austrian State Treaty which established that country’s permanent neutrality. “Such a Ukraine,” he said, “could serve as a buffer and a bridge,” ensuring Russia’s security concerns are met while guaranteeing Ukraine’s sovereignty and prosperity. “Diplomacy must replace demonization,” Freeman concluded, “or we face a nuclear Armageddon.”

Ambassador Hossein Mousavian: Iran and the nuclear dilemma

Ambassador Hossein Mousavian of Iran brought the Middle East dimension into view. The crisis over Iran’s nuclear program, he said, points to the urgent need for a region-wide approach. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), abandoned by the U.S. under President Trump, had established robust verification measures ensuring no Iranian nuclear weapon would emerge. Mousavian argued for expanding these principles regionally, applying similar restrictions and verifications across the Middle East, including Israel, to achieve a region free of weapons of mass destruction.

“There is a solution,” Mousavian maintained. “We can have permanent restrictions if all parties agree to uniform standards.” He suggested that if Iran’s neighbors like Saudi Arabia also accept rigorous inspections, everyone would gain security and stability. This approach, Mousavian said, could become “the best objective guarantee” against nuclear proliferation in the entire region.

Professor Zhang Weiwei: Asia’s peaceful development model

From China, Professor Zhang Weiwei of Fudan University noted that while Europe slides into lose-lose scenarios, the China-ASEAN region has achieved a remarkable “win-win” story. He credited Asia’s success to its focus on development, infrastructure, and respect for civilizational diversity. “China and ASEAN have enjoyed peace and prosperity for nearly five decades,” he said, pointing to the emphasis on building roads, railways, and ports—trademark features of the Belt and Road Initiative.

Zhang contrasted this development-oriented model with the West’s approach, which he described as zero-sum. “China stands for unity and mutual benefit,” he said, “not divide and rule.” He recalled the influence of Chinese strategic culture, including Sun Tzu’s ancient wisdom, which emphasizes achieving goals without resorting to war. “The solution to Europe’s problem is clear—join in the Belt and Road Initiative, invest in infrastructure, and build a community of shared destiny,” he concluded.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson: From the Pentagon’s perspective

Retired U.S. Army Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, spoke bluntly: “The U.S. today is fighting the inevitable shift of global power back to the East,” he said. Wilkerson criticized what he called “the empire’s example”: an American foreign policy trapped in arrogance and ignorance of history.

Wilkerson warned that if a conventional conflict escalated between the U.S. and Russia or China, the United States might quickly find itself losing badly and thus tempted to use nuclear weapons first. “We are so broken conventionally,” Wilkerson said, “we might be the first to use nuclear arms because we’d be taking horrendous casualties.” He stressed that any nuclear exchange would end civilization. The solution? End the empire logic, he urged. Seek balanced and rational diplomacy while we still can.

Scott Ritter: The unthinkable becomes probable

Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, in a pre-recorded statement, underscored the grim reality: “Today’s situation is more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis because there is no communication,” he said. Ritter warned that the U.S. provisioning of advanced missiles to Ukraine and talk of a ‘limited’ nuclear war by some U.S. strategists is gambling with planetary survival.

Ritter pinned hopes on a diplomatic shift with the incoming U.S. administration. “We must help ourselves by helping Russia understand that these reckless policies will not continue,” he said. In other words, a strategic reset is urgently needed. If not, the world might stumble into nuclear war by miscalculation.

Proposed solutions

Throughout the session, panelists offered concrete proposals. Helga Zepp-LaRouche suggested reviving the spirit of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Bretton Woods, focusing on global development and infrastructure rather than financial speculation. She also recalled Lyndon LaRouche’s old proposal of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), not as a weapons scheme, but as a joint effort by major powers to make nuclear weapons technologically obsolete through new physical principles and massive scientific cooperation.

Dmitri Trenin and Chas Freeman both stressed diplomatic channels. Trenin called for a return to stable negotiations on arms control. Freeman recommended a European security architecture that includes Russia and respects its interests. Both noted that genuine dialogue, free from demonization, is the only realistic path.

Donald Ramotar and Professor Zhang Weiwei pointed to economic development as a peace strategy. The Belt and Road Initiative’s “win-win” framework can uplift the Global South and transform war-torn regions into hubs of commerce. Economic corridors might replace battlefields if the West abandoned zero-sum thinking and joined cooperative ventures.

Ján Čarnogurský and Hossein Mousavian highlighted specific frameworks, such as making Ukraine a neutral state and building a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. Čarnogurský’s reference to the 1955 Austrian State Treaty and Mousavian’s concept of region-wide nuclear verification both illustrate how carefully crafted treaties can diffuse tension.

Larry Wilkerson and Scott Ritter underscored the urgency. Without a massive shift in U.S. strategic thinking—from seeking hegemony to embracing multipolarity—the world risks stumbling into global conflict. They urged immediate steps: cease unrealistic objectives like “strategic defeat” of nuclear-armed adversaries, open channels of communication, and reduce the risk of accidental nuclear war.

A call for a cultural shift

A recurring theme was the idea that cultural values must underpin policy shifts. The conference’s motto, “In the Spirit of Schiller and Beethoven: All Men Become Brethren,” evoked the notion that moral uplift and aesthetic education could guide politics. Zepp-LaRouche invoked classical composers and poets to stress that universal human values transcend power politics.

The Schiller Institute’s emphasis on great art, classical music, and poetic drama is not ornamental. As Zepp-LaRouche reminded participants, Schiller believed in improving citizens through culture, enabling them to think of humanity as one family. Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” from the Ninth Symphony embodies the ideal of universal brotherhood—an ethical vision that stands in stark contrast to nuclear brinkmanship.

The panelists agreed: to avoid catastrophe, citizens must pressure their governments to return to reason, respect international law, and prioritize human development. Helga Zepp-LaRouche urged that the ten principles her Institute has advocated—centered on sovereignty, development, and the common aims of humanity—be taken up widely. She called on people worldwide to reject the Carl Schmitt-type friend-enemy distinctions and adopt a principle of the “One Humanity.”

In the words of Naledi Pandor, who was unable to speak fully at this panel but whose excerpted statements were acknowledged, “BRICS and the Global South can forge a more just multipolar order.” As developing nations rise, they demand a seat at the table. This could be the key: integrating new powers into a cooperative framework for security and development.

A last chance for humanity?

The grim warnings of these statesmen, diplomats, and scholars spoke to a moment of profound danger. Nuclear arsenals loom, conflicts rage without dialogue, and powerful states push brinkmanship to extremes. Yet, the panel also projected a sense of hope. A new paradigm—one that rejects zero-sum geopolitics and embraces mutual respect, economic cooperation, and cultural renaissance—was the through line connecting all speakers.

“We have a choice,” Helga Zepp-LaRouche concluded. “Either we continue down the path to a final world war, or we rise to the occasion and build a new paradigm of the One Humanity. Let’s choose life, not death.”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Diplomacy

US formally redesignates Hezbollah as Iranian proxy under sanctions

Published

20 hours ago

on

21/08/2026

By

The US has officially changed its designation of Hezbollah to identify it as a “proxy of Iran”.

Executive Order 13224 now explicitly states that Hezbollah is sanctioned for acting for or on behalf of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force (IRGC-QF).

Speaking to Al Arabiya, a US State Department official argued that this change underscores how Hezbollah operates with almost no regard for Lebanese sovereignty, the Lebanese people, or the Lebanese state.

The official continued:

“This decision formally recognizes that Hezbollah’s military operations, external security apparatus, and major financing networks function as an extension of the IRGC-QF—Iran’s primary instrument for executing terrorist activity beyond its borders. Hezbollah is not a Lebanese resistance movement.”

Pointing to repeated oaths of loyalty and allegiance by Hezbollah officials to Iran’s Supreme Leader, the official maintained that the Quds Force also exerts a decisive influence over the group’s military and strategic decisions.

The official stated that Washington remains committed to “disrupting the networks that allow Iran to use Hezbollah as an instrument to undermine Lebanese sovereignty, threaten regional stability, and advance Tehran’s terrorist agenda.”

The official further accused Hezbollah of dragging Lebanon into destructive wars with Israel twice within the last two years, stating that the group remains an obstacle to Lebanon’s sovereignty, stability, and economic recovery.

“The disarmament and dismantling of Hezbollah is vital for any credible path forward for Lebanon, and we are working with our partners to advance this goal,” the US State Department official said.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Prof. Doster rules out direct Türkiye-Israel war despite Syria tensions

Published

20 hours ago

on

21/08/2026

By

Assessing the escalating friction across the Middle East, Marmara University Faculty Member Prof. Dr. Barış Doster shared comprehensive geopolitical evaluations in an interview conducted by international relations scholar Dr. Elif İlhamoğlu on the Harici digital broadcast programme. The discussion focused on Israel’s recent strikes on the Abu al-Zuhur airbase in northern Syria, proposals for tripartite security mechanisms, regional defence agreements, and the confrontation involving the US, Israel, and Iran.

“Türkiye and Israel will not clash directly”

Opening the broadcast, Dr. Elif İlhamoğlu Akkoç recalled that Israel’s air assault targeting the Abu al-Zuhur military airbase in Idlib, northern Syria, had generated extensive international condemnation. The strikes drew severe reactions across Türkiye and Gulf states, as well as critical statements from US Special Envoy for Syria and Ambassador to Ankara Tom Barrack. The airbase, situated approximately 70 kilometres east of the Turkish border, had reportedly remained out of operational service since 2013. Following the attack, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged responsibility while explicitly citing Türkiye’s military footprint in Syria among the justifications for the operation, bringing Ankara and West Jerusalem into renewed indirect confrontation.

Asked whether this indirect friction could transform into an active military conflict, Prof. Dr. Barış Doster dismissed the prospect of direct hostilities between Ankara and West Jerusalem. Doster stated: “I do not anticipate any physical contact, hot conflict, or direct military confrontation between the two countries. When one evaluates the historical ties, political bonds, diplomatic relations, and commercial links between both states, alongside their separate, overarching strategic engagements with the US, Türkiye and Israel will not clash directly.”

Emphasising the underlying dynamics of this bilateral dynamic, Doster explained that competition would persist through unconventional channels: “This rivalry will continue sharply across various regional theatres through indirect instruments and proxy forces. We are all well aware of the support Israel has extended to the PKK, PYD, and YPG terror groups for years, which it continues to maintain today.”

“Israel wants to see Syria divided into four parts”

Addressing Israel’s broader regional operations, Prof. Dr. Barış Doster noted that West Jerusalem’s aggressive posture is backed by major Western powers. Doster remarked: “Israel, which is committing genocide, ethnic cleansing, and barbaric acts in Gaza while showing absolute disregard for international law, the laws of war, and the legal frameworks governing armed conflict, enjoys the unlimited, unconditional, and frictionless backing of the US and Europe’s leading trio: France, Germany, and the UK. This audacity and aggressiveness are not new. We know what happened in Gaza; we know what happened in Palestine; and we are familiar with the actions taken alongside the US against Iran in the recent past.”

Underlining the limitations of international rhetoric, Doster stated: “We must and do register the strongest possible reaction against these moves. Yet we should not express astonishment. Israeli tanks have previously advanced to within 20 kilometres of Damascus. United Nations resolutions have repeatedly affirmed that the Golan Heights constitute sovereign Syrian territory. Nonetheless, Israel acts as an occupying and annexing force. During his initial presidential term, Donald Trump formally recognised this annexation. Following Israel’s declaration of Jerusalem as its capital, Washington relocated its diplomatic mission there, defying objections from Türkiye and the broader Islamic world. Past American presidents had avoided putting that relocation into practical effect, but Trump brushed those reservations aside. During all these developments, did a single deterrent measure or concrete sanction emerge from the Islamic or Arab worlds beyond verbal condemnation? No. Therefore, while vocal opposition is imperative, we must recognise that verbal condemnations lack deterrence against Israel.”

Doster linked the recent strikes in northern Syria directly to West Jerusalem’s long-term strategic objectives for the Syrian state: “From the beginning, Israel has explicitly sought a Syria partitioned into four distinct entities: Kurds, Arabs, Alawites, and Druze. Israel serves as the primary patron and backer of two of these groups: the Kurds and the Druze. When the PKK, PYD, and YPG terrorist apparatus was heavily battered on the ground by the Damascus administration in recent months, it was rescued directly by the US and Israel. While Washington and West Jerusalem did not grant the group everything it sought, they prevented its complete liquidation. They confined it to a smaller geographic pocket, preserved its political, military, administrative, and resource footprint, and kept it in reserve for future operational needs. Thus, responding to Israeli aggression is necessary, but being surprised by it is entirely unwarranted.”

“How can you establish a red telephone line with Israel?”

Responding to remarks by US envoy Tom Barrack—who argued after the Idlib strikes that a permanent security dialogue and cooperation mechanism should be established among Türkiye, Syria, and Israel—Prof. Dr. Barış Doster characterised such an architecture as entirely unviable under current geopolitical conditions. Doster asserted: “Such a mechanism is unequivocally impossible. First, Israel openly seeks the partition of Syria. Second, the degree of control and long-term durability of the Damascus administration remains uncertain. Although the current Syrian leadership receives support from Arab capitals and Ankara, American officials themselves concede that lasting stability in Damascus is far from guaranteed, even raising the prospect of coup attempts against Ahmed al-Sharaa.”

Evaluating the regional power balance in Damascus, Doster continued: “The influence of the US and Israel over Syria has peaked over the past two years. Ahmed al-Sharaa does not claim rights over the Golan Heights and has offered assurances to Washington that Damascus will not present a security threat to Israel, promising to restrain any attempts by Iran, Hamas, or Lebanese Hezbollah to do so. Concurrently, the historical clout of Iran and Russia in Syria has plummeted toward near-total marginalisation, with Moscow’s functional influence waning even within its military bases. Under circumstances where Israel does not take the Syrian administration seriously and actively seeks its partition, how can you establish a red telephone line or a trilateral security architecture? Furthermore, as long as profound political competition persists and Israeli military violence continues, establishing a functional crisis hotline or security mechanism between Türkiye and Israel is equally unattainable.”

Addressing Tom Barrack’s earlier diplomatic proposals promoting an energy and security corridor connecting the Caspian Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean via Türkiye and Israel, Doster dismissed the initiative as strategically unrealistic: “We will not allow Tom Barrack to insult our intelligence. A corridor of that nature is envisioned primarily between Türkiye, Azerbaijan, and Israel. Ankara and Baku share exceptional historical, cultural, economic, and strategic links under the framework of ‘one nation, two states’. However, having completed my doctoral dissertation on the Caucasus, Eurasia, and the Turkic world, I state emphatically that relations between Israel and Azerbaijan are no less deep, intensive, or comprehensive than relations between Türkiye and Azerbaijan.”

Doster observed that broader systemic opposition would block such an axis: “Regardless of how strong Baku’s ties with Tel Aviv and Ankara are, establishing this line is exceptionally difficult. At the regional level, actors such as Iran will fundamentally object. Globally, because such an axis seeks to sever China’s long-standing, capital-intensive Belt and Road initiative, Beijing will actively oppose it behind the lines. Finally, Moscow will vigorously resist any configuration that expands American strategic hegemony across the Caucasus and the Eastern Mediterranean.”

“When needs change, alliances change”

Evaluating the trilateral Mecca Agreement concluded between Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Pakistan—which contains collective defence clauses compared by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan to NATO’s Article 5—Prof. Dr. Barış Doster analysed the functional foundations of the pact. Doster remarked: “As I frequently observe, when needs change, alliances change, and every alliance inevitably generates an opposing counter-alliance.”

Interrogating the strategic rationale of the pact, Doster asked: “Against whom was this alliance formed? Was it created against the Houthis? Was it directed at India, Pakistan’s primary adversary? Was it designed to counter the US, or perhaps Qatar, given Riyadh’s fluctuating ties with Doha and Abu Dhabi? In reality, this alliance is positioned squarely against Iran. An alliance that implicitly targets Iran raises critical questions regarding its durability and its potential to deepen fragmentation across the Islamic world. The pact brings together Sunni Arab leadership represented by Saudi Arabia alongside two major non-Arab powers, Türkiye and Pakistan. Saudi Arabia possesses vast capital reserves and leads the Arab world alongside Egypt; Türkiye represents the pre-eminent military power in the Turkic sphere; and Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state maintaining operational energy cooperation and historically balanced ties with Tehran despite its existential rivalry with India over Kashmir.”

Doster elaborated on the structural vulnerabilities of the arrangement: “To attain institutional permanence, an alliance must be grounded in shared political values, compatible state regimes, uniform threat perceptions, and unified strategic interests. None of these elements align across these three states. While Riyadh views Tehran as an existential threat, Ankara maintains a historical, calibrated rivalry with Iran and does not define it as a mortal enemy. Similarly, Islamabad does not perceive Tehran as an existential peril. Therefore, whether this pact represents a premature birth or a stillborn initiative remains an open debate, but its anti-Iranian orientation is unmistakable.”

Noting the geopolitical reactions to the pact, Doster observed: “This formation inherently pleases Washington, which has already extended its formal congratulations. Despite Türkiye’s participation, it also serves Israeli strategic interests by containing Iran, even if West Jerusalem approaches Ankara’s inclusion with tactical caution. Despite the media commentary surrounding the Mecca Agreement, history shows that such ad-hoc initiatives rarely achieve enduring operational deterrence. The 57-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the 22-member Arab League—originally founded in response to Israeli expansionism in Palestine—have demonstrated virtually no concrete effectiveness. Without a clearly defined architecture of shared threats and mutual strategic goals, this pact will be perceived across the region exclusively as an anti-Shia, anti-Persian alignment. Even if Iran’s regional resistance axis has experienced severe attrition, Tehran’s demographic and geopolitical weight ensures that a exclusionary pact of this nature cannot achieve long-term viability.”

Commenting on proposals to incorporate Egypt or Iran into the mechanism, Doster described the inclusion of Tehran as strategically impossible: “Inviting Iran into this pact would be equivalent to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation offering membership to the US, or Washington inviting Russia to join NATO. Regarding Egypt, Saudi Arabia’s strategic agenda includes structural competition with Cairo. Despite Egypt’s severe economic vulnerabilities, its historical, political, and cultural gravitas within the Arab world means that Riyadh will not endorse Egyptian entry, as it would dilute Saudi primacy within the bloc regardless of Turkish diplomatic lobbying.”

“The US and Israel will not launch a wide air campaign”

Turning to the confrontation between the US, Israel, and Iran following the expiration of ceasefire understandings, Prof. Dr. Barış Doster assessed the military balance and the leadership posture of Donald Trump. Doster remarked: “By completely discarding classical diplomatic protocols, Trump has proven himself an unpredictable and unreliable political actor. One need only recall the assurances given during the NATO summit regarding CAATSA sanctions, the delivery of F-35 fighter aircraft, and engine procurement for Türkiye’s national combat aircraft KAAN. When dealing with an actor whose positions shift constantly, long-range diplomatic projections become exceedingly difficult.”

Analysing the battlefield dynamic between Washington, West Jerusalem, and Tehran, Doster concluded: “Despite sustaining severe losses across its administrative, military, and command cadres due to American and Israeli strikes, Iran currently maintains psychological ascendancy within its domestic public and broader international opinion. It is evident that the US administration has failed to secure its primary objectives through coercive rhetoric. Moving forward, the US and Israel will not launch a wide air campaign characterised by relentless, high-intensity strategic bombing. A ground offensive remains entirely out of the question, as I have maintained from the outset. While localised, low-intensity air strikes against specific Iranian targets may occur, a protracted, maximum-scale aerial assault conducted jointly by the US and Israel remains improbable.”

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

UK plans targeted sanctions on Israel over West Bank settlement bids

Published

2 days ago

on

20/08/2026

By

British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband has said the government will prepare “new, targeted sanctions” against Israelis involved in “illegal settlement expansion” in Gaza and the West Bank.

In a statement issued on Wednesday night (19 August), Miliband stated that following the Israeli government’s opening of tenders for the construction of 1,200 settlement homes in the strategically vital E1 area of the West Bank, the United Kingdom would not “stand back and accept the destruction of the two-state solution”.

“The E1 area will run straight through the heart of Palestine and risks cutting off the West Bank from East Jerusalem; this would jeopardise the viability of a two-state solution,” Miliband said, describing the Israeli government’s actions as “unacceptable and destructive”.

The British minister called on his Israeli counterpart, Gideon Sa’ar, to “halt the E1 plans immediately” and withdraw the tender.

Miliband also stated that he had summoned Charge d’Affaires Daniela Grudsky Ekstein, the country’s top diplomat in the UK, to the Foreign Office to convey these demands clearly.

Miliband said the UK would announce a “comprehensive range of measures in the coming weeks in response to the policies of the Israeli government”.

These measures underscore a harder line taken by the UK against Benjamin Netanyahu’s government under the new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham.

This shift in stance was evident even before Burnham officially became prime minister. Burnham apologised for the Labour Party’s previous position on Israel’s military campaign in Gaza under his predecessor, Keir Starmer, saying the party “had not got it right”.

Last month, the UK’s new Defence Secretary, Wes Streeting, stated that Israel was not “complying” with international standards in Gaza and the West Bank.

Other European allies have also hardened their stance towards Israel. Earlier on Wednesday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz strongly condemned remarks by National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, who called for nighttime assassinations in Gaza.

Israel, for its part, reacted against the London administration. Foreign Minister Sa’ar said: “The Jewish people have the right to live everywhere in the Land of Israel, just as the British have the right to live in London and throughout the UK.”

Maintaining that the British-issued 1917 Balfour Declaration “officially recognised the historic right of the Jewish people to re-establish their national homeland in the Land of Israel—including the area in question”, the minister pointed out that Britain still controlled colonial territories thousands of kilometres from its own shores.

Arguing that it was absurd for Britain to “lecture the Jewish people on where they can live in their historic and tiny homeland”, Sa’ar said the British Foreign Secretary’s statement condemned Israel while “turning a blind eye to Palestinian terrorism, incitement, and the Palestinian Authority’s ongoing financial support for terror—namely the ‘pay to slay’ policy”.

Sa’ar concluded his statement:

“The UK Government’s systematic policy of blaming only Israel while ignoring Palestinian extremism has already contributed to an enormous wave of antisemitic hatred and attacks against the British Jewish community. Continuing on this path will only make matters worse.

The British Government’s decision to damage relations between our countries is deeply regrettable. But Israel will not be a passive victim of this policy.

Israel will defend its rights, its interests, and its people.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey