A VLCC supertanker and a Suezmax tanker collided in the Gulf of Oman early Tuesday morning, resulting in fires aboard both vessels but no reported injuries or pollution, according to...
FOR nearly 30 years, Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has driven the Middle East into war and destruction. The man is a powder keg of violence. Throughout all the wars that he has championed, Netanyahu has always dreamed of the big one: to defeat and overthrow the Iranian Government...
www.newagebd.net
Stop Netanyahu before he gets us all killed
Jeffrey D Sachs and Sybil Fares 18 June, 2025, 00:00
A woman holds a sign that reads ‘Wanted for crimes against humanity, Benjamin Netanyahu’ during a ‘Red Line For Gaza’ demonstration on June 15, 2025 in Brussels, Belgium. | commondreams/Luis Miguel Caceres
FOR nearly 30 years, Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has driven the Middle East into war and destruction. The man is a powder keg of violence. Throughout all the wars that he has championed, Netanyahu has always dreamed of the big one: to defeat and overthrow the Iranian Government. His long-sought war, just launched, might just get us all killed in a nuclear Armageddon, unless Netanyahu is stopped.
Netanyahu’s fixation on war goes back to his extremist mentors, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin. The older generation believed that Zionists should use whatever violence–wars, assassinations, terror–is needed to achieve their aims of eliminating any Palestinian claim to a homeland.
The founders of Netanyahu’s political movement, the Likud, called for exclusive Zionist control over all of what had been British Mandatory Palestine. At the start of the British Mandate in the early 1920s, the Muslim and Christian Arabs constituted roughly 87 per cent of the population and owned ten times more land than the Jewish population. As of 1948, the Arabs still outnumbered the Jews roughly two to one. Nonetheless, the founding charter of Likud (1977) declared that ‘between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.’ The now infamous chant, ‘from the river to the sea,’ which is characterised as anti-Semitic, turns out to be the anti-Palestinian rallying call of the Likud.
The challenge for Likud was how to pursue its maximalist aims despite their blatant illegality under international law and morality, both of which call for a two-state solution.
In 1996, Netanyahu and his American advisors devised a ‘clean break’ strategy. They advocated that Israel would not withdraw from the Palestinian lands captured in the 1967 war in exchange for regional peace. Instead, Israel would reshape the Middle East to its liking. Crucially, the strategy envisioned the US as the main force to achieve these aims — waging wars in the region to dismantle governments opposed to Israel’s dominance over Palestine. The US was called upon to fight wars on Israel’s behalf.
The Clean Break strategy was effectively carried out by the US and Israel after 9/11. As NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark revealed, soon after 9/11, the US planned to ‘attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years — starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.’
The first of the wars, in early 2003, was to topple the Iraqi government. Plans for further wars were delayed as the US became mired in Iraq. Still, the US supported Sudan’s split in 2005, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 2006, and Ethiopia’s incursion into Somalia that same year. In 2011, the Obama administration launched CIA operation Timber Sycamore against Syria and, with the UK and France, overthrew Libya’s government through a 2011 bombing campaign. Today, these countries lie in ruins, and many are now embroiled in civil wars.
Netanyahu was a cheerleader of these wars of choice–either in public or behind the scenes–together with his neocon allies in the US government including Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Victoria Nuland, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams and others.
Testifying in the US Congress in 2002, Netanyahu pitched for the disastrous war in Iraq, declaring ‘If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.’ He continued, ‘and I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone.’ He also falsely told Congress, ‘There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking, is working, is advancing towards to the development of nuclear weapons.’
The slogan to remake a ‘new Middle East’ provides the slogan for these wars. Initially stated in 1996 through ‘clean break,’ it was popularised by secretary Condoleezza Rice in 2006. As Israel was brutally bombarded Lebanon, Rice stated:
‘What we’re seeing here, in a sense, is the growing -- the birth pangs of a new Middle East and whatever we do we have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the new Middle East not going back to the old one.’
In September 2023, Netanyahu presented at UN General Assembly a map of the ‘new Middle East’ completely erasing a Palestinian state. In September 2024, he elaborated on this plan by showing two maps: one part of the Middle East a ‘blessing,’ and the other–including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran–a curse, as he advocated regime change in the latter countries.
Israel’s war on Iran is the final move in a decades-old strategy. We are witnessing the culmination of decades of extremist Zionist manipulation of US foreign policy.
The premise of Israel’s attack on Iran is the claim that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Such a claim is fatuous since Iran has repeatedly called for negotiations precisely to remove the nuclear option in return for an end to the decades of US sanctions.
Since 1992, Netanyahu and his supporters have claimed that Iran will become a nuclear power ‘in a few years.’ In 1995, Israeli officials and their US backers declared a 5-year timeline. In 2003, Israel’s Director of Military Intelligence said that Iran will be a nuclear power ‘by the summer of 2004.’ In 2005, the head of Mossad said that Iran could build the bomb in less than 3 years. In 2012, Netanyahu claimed at the United Nations that ‘it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.’ And on and on.
This 30-year-plus pattern of shifting deadlines has marked a deliberate strategy, not a failure in prophecy. The claims are propaganda; there is always an ‘existential threat.’ More importantly, there is Netanyahu’s phony claim that negotiations with Iran are useless.
Iran has repeatedly said that it does not want a nuclear weapon and that it has long been prepared to negotiate. In October 2003, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production and use of nuclear arms — a ruling later officially cited by Iran at an International Atomic Energy Agency meeting in Vienna in August 2005 and referenced since as a religious and legal barrier to pursuing nuclear weapons.
Even for those skeptical of Iran’s intentions, Iran has consistently advocated for a negotiated agreement supported by independent international verification. In contrast, the Zionist lobby has opposed any such settlements, urging the US to maintain sanctions and reject deals that would allow strict International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring in exchange for lifting sanctions.
In 2016, the Obama Administration, together with the UK, France, Germany, China and Russia, reached the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran — a landmark agreement to strictly monitor Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Yet, under relentless pressure from Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby, President Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018. Predictably, when Iran responded by expanding its uranium enrichment, it was blamed for violating an agreement that the US itself had abandoned. The double-standard and propaganda is hard to miss.
On April 11, 2021, Israel’s Mossad attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities in Natanz. Following the attack, on April 16, Iran announced that it would increase its uranium enrichment further, as bargaining leverage, while repeatedly appealing for renewed negotiations on a deal like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The Biden Administration rejected all such negotiations.
At the start of his second term, Trump agreed to open a new negotiation with Iran. Iran pledged to renounce nuclear arms and to be subject to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections but reserved the right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. The Trump Administration appeared to agree to this point but then reversed itself. Since then, there have been five rounds of negotiations, with both sides reporting progress on each occasion.
The sixth round was ostensibly to take place on Sunday, June 15. Instead, Israel launched a preemptive war on Iran on June 12. Trump confirmed that the US knew of the attack in advance, even as the administration was speaking publicly of the upcoming negotiations.
Israel’s attack was made not only in the midst of negotiations that were making progress, but days before a scheduled UN Conference on Palestine that would have advanced the cause of the two-state solution. That conference has now been postponed.
Israel’s attack on Iran now threatens to escalate to a full-fledged war that draws in the US and Europe on the side of Israel and Russia and perhaps Pakistan on the side of Iran. We could soon see several nuclear powers pitted against each other and dragging the world closer to nuclear annihilation. The Doomsday Clock is at 89 seconds to midnight, the closest to nuclear Armageddon since the clock was launched in 1947.
Over the past 30 years, Netanyahu and his US backers have destroyed or destabilized a 4,000-km swath of countries stretching across North Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean, and Western Asia. Their aim has been to block a Palestinian State by overthrowing governments supporting the Palestinian cause. The world deserves better than this extremism. More than 180 countries in the UN have called for the two-state solution and regional stability. That makes more sense than Israel bringing the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in pursuit of its illegal and extremist aims.
Commondreams.org, June 16. Jeffrey D Sachs is a university professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University. Sybil Fares is a specialist and adviser in Middle East policy and sustainable development at Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Moscow’s moves these days aren’t meant to draw headlines. They’re designed for the long haul
www.thedailystar.net
Iran-Israel conflict: Russia isn’t just watching, it’s playing the long game
The Russia-Iran partnership is likely to deepen. The tools are in place. The incentives align. And the shared sense of being kept at arm’s length by the West remains a binding force. File photo: Reuters
The Middle East has seen its share of flashpoints. But what unfolded on June 13—when Israeli forces carried out sweeping airstrikes against Iranian nuclear sites—marked something else entirely. It was not just an exchange of fire but a shift in the architecture of power in the region. Iran was hit hard.
Israel doubled down. And through the dust, Russia didn't flinch. It didn't intervene either—at least not visibly. But that doesn't mean it was passive, far from it.
Moscow's moves these days aren't meant to draw headlines. They're designed for the long haul. And if there's a central thread running through the Kremlin's posture on the Iran-Israel standoff, it's this: the conflict may be regional, but the stakes aren't.
A treaty that didn't need to shout
Back in January, well before missiles flew, Russia and Iran signed a sweeping 20-year pact. Not just symbolic—not some dusty memorandum left unread in a drawer. This was a clear statement of alignment. Trade. Defense. Energy. Technology. Even cultural exchange. Almost everything was on the table.
Neither side needed to spell it out, but the subtext was loud enough: both countries, boxed in by Western sanctions, were done playing inside a system built without them. Putin called it a "breakthrough," though he kept the delivery calm. Tehran was equally deliberate. This wasn't about noise. It was about building something that could last, not just to weather pressure, but to bypass it altogether.
And it's working, at least economically. It's not headline-grabbing by global standards, but that misses the point. The shift is in the direction, not the scale. Two countries once on the defensive are now crafting their own rules.
Moscow's balancing act
If Russia's relationship with Iran is growing deeper, its approach to Israel remains layered. The Kremlin has worked with Tel Aviv for years—in Syria, in arms coordination, in quiet backchannels. That hasn't changed. What's changed is the tightrope.
After the strikes, Putin made two phone calls. To Iran, he offered condemnation. To Israel, he emphasised restraint. He wasn't exactly splitting the difference; it was more nuanced than that. Russia doesn't want a full-scale blowup between two of its most watched partners. Not now. Not with Ukraine still burning resources at home.
The calculus is pragmatic. Conflict in the Middle East distracts Washington and stretches NATO's bandwidth. But too much instability? That's bad for business—and for Russia's limited reach. So, the game is to keep the pot simmering, not boiling over.
The war tech pipeline
Since 2022, military ties between Russia and Iran have expanded. Missiles, drones, and artillery—the volume and sophistication have increased. Iran's Shahed drones, in particular, have become a staple in Russia's toolbox, enough so that Moscow now manufactures its modified versions.
But it's not just about equipment. The partnership is about shared design, production logistics, even maritime coordination. Joint naval drills are now a regular feature, not a novelty. These aren't exercises in solidarity—they're part of a strategy. One that challenges the traditional US-led security framework without necessarily confronting it head-on.
Side-stepping sanctions
Both countries know sanctions aren't going away. So instead of pleading for relief, they're creating workarounds. Direct bank ties. Local-currency trade deals. Integration into regional blocs. Earlier this year, Iran officially joined a free trade agreement with the Eurasian Economic Union, a move that doesn't just lower tariffs, but also signals which way the winds are blowing.
In this emerging order, the dollar matters less. So does Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT). What matters more are bilateral mechanisms that reduce friction and signal permanence, especially for other states considering similar paths.
It's not flawless. Black markets and barter systems come with risk and inefficiencies. But for countries looking to operate outside Washington's financial shadow, the alternative model—pioneered by Russia and Iran—is starting to take shape.
More than an alliance
This isn't just about two sanctioned states finding comfort in each other's company. It's about the kind of global order they want.
In theory, it's appealing to many, especially those frustrated with what they see as Western double standards. But ideals aside, this strategy is also a hedge. A way to insulate Moscow and Tehran from isolation, while positioning them as leaders of an alternative club.
Reality still bites
None of this means Russia is invincible in the region. The recent strikes showed that, clearly. Moscow couldn't stop them. Couldn't de-escalate them. And couldn't leverage the moment for gains. Its influence, while wide, has ceilings.
The Ukraine war is also draining more than just tanks and ammunition. It's limiting Russia's ability to invest elsewhere and complicating every foreign policy calculation.
What next?
The Russia-Iran partnership is likely to deepen. The tools are in place. The incentives align. And the shared sense of being kept at arm's length by the West remains a binding force.
But staying the course will require more than shared grievances. It will take results—economic, technological, and strategic—that justify the risk. Both countries know this. And both are betting that their alliance, however unconventional, can deliver something the Western order can't: room to manoeuvre on their own terms.
That's the bet. The stakes, though, aren't just theirs.
Md. Ibrahim Khalilullah is vice-president of Bangladesh Law Alliance.
Iranian Defense
gcaptain.com
www.newagebd.net
www.facebook.com
