China and Russia reject European move to restore sanctions on Iran

UN Security Council permanent members China and Russia backed Iran on Monday in rejecting a move by European countries to reimpose UN sanctions on Tehran loosened a decade ago under a nuclear agreement, reports Reuters.

A letter signed by the Chinese, Russian and Iranian foreign ministers said a move by Britain, France and Germany to automatically restore the sanctions under a so-called "snapback mechanism" was "legally and procedurally flawed".

China and Russia were signatories to Iran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, along with the three European countries, known as the E3. President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the agreement in his first term in 2018.

The Europeans launched the "snapback mechanism" last week, accusing Iran of violating the deal, which had provided relief from international financial sanctions in return for curbs to Iran's nuclear program.

The letter published by Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi in a post on X on Monday said that the course taken by Britain, France, and Germany "abuses the authority and functions of the UN Security Council".

Iran has long since broken through the limits on uranium production set under the 2015 deal, arguing that it is justified in doing so as a consequence of Washington having pulled out of the agreement. The deal expires in October this year, and the snapback mechanism would allow sanctions that were lifted under it to take effect again.

Iran and the E3 held talks aimed at a new nuclear agreement after Israel and the US bombed Iran's nuclear installations in mid-June. But the E3 deemed that talks in Geneva last week did not yield sufficient signals of readiness for a new deal from Iran.

"Our joint letter with my colleagues, the foreign ministers of China and Russia, signed in Tianjin, reflects the firm position that the European attempt to invoke snapback is legally baseless and politically destructive", Iran's foreign minister said in his post on X.

 

 

Houthis threat to kill Netanyahu

The Houthis (Ansar Allah) are primarily a Yemeni movement with their base of power in northern part of the country. More recently, its main conflict has been with the United States and its allies, particularly because of Red Sea shipping disruptions.

After the killing of the prime minister of Yemen's Houthi-run government and several other ministers, Houthis have expressed their intentions to kill Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Can this be taken as a real threat to the life of Netanyahu?

In all the probability, the Houthis do not have the capability to directly target Netanyahu inside Israel. Their missile and drone reach has extended toward Israel during the Gaza war (some were intercepted by Israel, US, and allied forces), but striking the Israeli Prime Minister personally is far beyond their operational reach.

However, they can increase pressure on Israel by: 1) targeting Israeli linked ships and shipping lanes in the Red Sea, 2) launching long-range missiles or drones toward Israeli territory, and 3) deepening Israel’s regional isolation by linking the Gaza conflict with Yemen.

In reality, Netanyahu faces greater personal risk from inside Israel (domestic unrest, Palestinian militant groups) or from major regional actors (Hezbollah or Iran) rather than from the Houthis themselves.

While, it may be concluded that the Houthis are not a direct threat to Netanyahu, but they contribute to the overall regional security pressure on Israel that indirectly undermines his political standing and safety.

External threats to Netanyahu

Let us examine the structured hierarchy of external threats to Netanyahu’s life and political survival, ranked from most serious to least:

Hezbollah – Highest Direct Threat

The group has the capability, being the largest, most experienced armed group on Israel’s borders. It has tens of thousands of rockets, advanced drones, precision missiles. Its biggest advantage is proximity, right on Israel’s northern border. It may be said that the threat level to Netanyahu is very high – Hezbollah could, in theory, target Israeli leadership.

Iran – Indirect Threat

Iran enjoys capability, being the regional power with ballistic missiles, drones, cyber operations. While Iran may not directly target Netanyahu, it can facilitate proxies (Hezbollah, militias in Iraq/ Syria, and Houthis).

Palestinian Militants

Hamas, PIJ, and West Bank groups have the capability, having short-to-medium range rockets, cross-border raids, suicide missions. On top of all they enjoy proximity. Most of the resistance group consider Netanyahu directly responsible for Gaza destruction. Analysts believe it is difficult for them to reach him personally due to Israel’s heavy security.

Houthis (Yemen)

Houthis enjoy certain advantages like long-range drones and ballistic missiles, some have reached Israel’s southern airspace, others intercepted. Houthis position themselves as part of “Axis of Resistance” with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Target Israel-linked shipping and occasionally Israel itself. Their threat level is low, as they cannot realistically strike Netanyahu personally, but can harass Israel economically and militarily.

Other Regional Militias

Groups based in Iraq and Syria enjoy certain capabilities, rockets and drones, but usually confined to US or Israeli targets in Syria/ Iraq. Therefore, the real threat level to Netanyahu’s life may be low to moderate, but nuisance attacks are possible, though unlikely to reach Israeli leadership.

Iran arrests suspects having links with Mossad

Iran's Revolutionary Guards said on Saturday they had arrested eight people suspected of trying to transmit the coordinates of sensitive sites and details about senior military figures to Israel's Mossad, reports Iranian state media.

They are accused of having provided the information to the Mossad spy agency during Israel's air war on Iran in June, when it attacked Iranian nuclear facilities and killed top military commanders as well as civilians in the worst blow to the Islamic Republic since the 1980s war with Iraq.

Iran retaliated with barrages of missiles on Israeli military sites, infrastructure and cities. The United States entered the war on June 22 with strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

A Guard’s statement alleged that the suspects had received specialized training from Mossad via online platforms. It said they were apprehended in northeastern Iran before carrying out their plans, and that materials for making launchers, bombs, explosives and booby traps had been seized.

State media reported earlier this month that Iranian police had arrested as many as 21,000 "suspects" during the 12-day war with Israel, though they did not say what these people had been suspected of doing.

Security forces conducted a campaign of widespread arrests and also stepped up their street presence during the brief war that ended in a US-brokered ceasefire.

Iran has executed at least eight people in recent months, including nuclear scientist Rouzbeh Vadi, hanged on August 9 for passing information to Israel about another scientist killed in Israeli airstrikes.

Human rights groups say Iran uses espionage charges and fast tracked executions as tools for broader political repression.

 

Duality of standards for Iran and Israel

Many readers like me are unable to understand why the United States, Britain, France and Germany are adamant at imposing sanction on Iran, but are not asking Israel to stop bombarding Gaza?

The apparent contradiction reflects how strategic interests, alliances, and global optics intersect in United States and Britain, France and Germany foreign policy. Let me break it down:

Iran Nuclear Program

The United States, Britain France and Germany have long opposed Iran’s uranium enrichment, seeing it as a path to nuclear weapons. Sanctions are their primary leverage tool.

Regional Rivalries

Iran’s support for Hezbollah, Houthis, and other groups hostile to Israel and the West makes it a “destabilizer” in their eyes.

Alliance Pressures

Many Gulf Arab states are partners of Israel, US, Britain, France and Germany and they view Iran as a strategic threat, pushing Western powers to maintain maximum pressure.

Domestic Politics

In Washington and Europe, appearing “soft on Iran” is politically costly. Sanctions serve as a signal of toughness.

Israeli attacks on Gaza

Israel’s strikes in Gaza have caused massive civilian deaths. Western governments face pressure from international institutions (UN, ICC), NGOs, and their own publics.

The US, Britain France and Germany consider themselves defenders of international law. Unchecked Israeli bombing undermines their stance on Ukraine, human rights, and global order.

Escalation in Gaza risks dragging in Lebanon, Syria, and potentially Iran—threatening oil supplies and broader Middle East stability, which Europe especially fears.

In the US and Europe, large pro-Palestinian movements, especially among younger voters and immigrant communities are creating political pressure to rein in Israel.

Core Contradiction

On Iran, the West uses sanctions as a pressure tool because Iran is seen as an adversary.

On Israel, despite being an ally, the West uses diplomatic urging rather than sanctions—because Israel is a strategic partner, but its Gaza actions are politically damaging to the West’s global image.

In essence, Iran is a strategic opponent and super powers use sanctions as pressure

They consider Israel a strategic ally and want to save it from any external pressure, the statements are rhetoric only.

This double standard is being viewed in non-Western capitals (Beijing, Moscow, Global and South) as dual standard and Western stance weakens their credibility globally.

The non-Western world views this double standard of sanctions on Iran but “restraint pleas” for Israel.

China points out that the US, Britain, France and Germany are punishing Iran harshly for alleged destabilizing actions, but shield Israel diplomatically despite Gaza bombings.

By calling for ceasefires and humanitarian aid, China portrays itself as a “responsible global mediator,” contrasting with the West’s selective morality.

Iran is a vital energy partner for China under its Belt and Road Initiative. Sanctions make Tehran more dependent on Beijing, strengthening Chinese influence.

Russia

Russia terms the West’s “rules-based order” biased. They argue: “If bombing cities in Ukraine is a war crime, why not Gaza?”

Iran is often accused of supplying drones and partnering with Russia under sanctions, so Moscow benefits from Tehran’s isolation.

Russia frames itself as standing with the oppressed (Palestinians) against Western-backed aggression, resonating in Arab and African states.

Colonial Echoes

Many see the West’s defense of Israel and punishment of Iran as a continuation of imperial “divide and rule.”

Western claims about human rights and international law are viewed as selective—undermining their authority when they criticize others (African leaders, Asian governments).

Countries like Turkey, Brazil, and South Africa amplify calls for accountability against Israel, while trading more with Iran outside the dollar system.

Strategic Impact

The West’s inconsistency weakens its moral standing globally.

Non-Western powers gain diplomatic and economic space by filling the “justice gap.”

Iran, despite sanctions, finds sympathy in many Global South societies as a victim of Western double standards—while Israel risks becoming diplomatically isolated outside the Western bloc.

Moral of the story

The contradictory stances of US, Britain France and Germany may preserve short-term alliances, but they’re eroding their credibility in the long run, especially in the Global South.

 

Geopolitical stunts are created to maneuver oil prices

It may not be wrong to say that geopolitical stunts (or deliberate political maneuvers) are often used to influence oil prices. The time proves that oil is one of the most geopolitically sensitive commodities, and even the perception of instability can trigger price movements. Here are some ways this happens:

Military Conflicts and Threats

Tensions in oil-producing regions (Middle East, Russia, and Ukraine) raise fears of supply disruptions. Even without actual disruption, rhetoric, military drills, or strikes can cause speculative buying, lifting prices.

Sanctions and Embargoes

Sanctions on major producers (Iran, Venezuela, and Russia) reduce their exports, tightening supply. Announcements of new sanctions, even before implementation, often drive markets up.

OPEC Plus Announcements

OPEC and allies strategically announce production cuts or increases to move prices. Sometimes the timing is politically motivated — for example, cuts ahead of US elections or global summits.

Diplomatic Stunts

Leaders may signal alliances, threats, or peace talks to calm or unsettle oil markets. For instance, US–Saudi or US–Iran engagements often coincide with volatility in oil futures.

Domestic Politics

Countries that depend heavily on oil revenues (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela) may trigger or amplify tensions abroad to keep oil prices high. Conversely, big consumers (United States, China, and European Union) may release strategic oil reserves to cool prices.

Media Amplification

Headlines about “possible war,” “pipeline sabotage,” or “shipping lane blockades” often move markets more than the actual underlying event. Traders react to expectations and fear, not just physical supply-demand.

Therefore, it could be concluded that oil markets are not purely economic — they are political battlegrounds, and states often use geopolitical stunts as levers to maneuver prices in their favor.

Here are three recent real world examples (2025) where geopolitical maneuvers clearly influenced oil prices—either via threat driven surges or optimism amid shifting sanctions and diplomacy.

Threat to Close the Strait of Hormuz

In June 2025, escalating attacks between Israel and Iran triggered a spike in oil prices—Brent crude climbed to US$70 per barrel amid concerns over supply disruptions and potential threats to the vital Strait of Hormuz.

On June 14, 2025, Iran explicitly threatened to close the Strait, which handles nearly 20% of global oil traffic. Analysts warned this could push prices even higher—possibly into the US$100 to US$150 per barrel range.

While a full closure didn’t materialize, the mere threat created a sharp short-term price shock, echoing how geopolitical risk can rapidly alter market sentiment.

Russia Ukraine Peace Talks

In August 2025, oil markets closely tracked developments—or lack thereof—in high-profile diplomatic efforts involving Russia, the United States, and Ukraine.

When President Trump proposed a trilateral summit (Putin–Zelenskiy–himself), Brent crude briefly climbed—markets anticipated that a ceasefire could eventually ease sanctions and boost supply.

Conversely, when the Trump–Putin summit yielded no binding oil or policy changes, markets cooled; analysts noted the event lacked the "magic lever" to relieve supply constraints.

Ongoing sanctions and inventory draws in the US—especially amid strong demand—continued to support prices amid supply uncertainty.

OPEC Plus Production Moves

In June 2025, OPEC Plus surprised markets by announcing a modest output increase of around 411,000 barrels per day, despite prevailing worries of oversupply. This unexpected move served as a geopolitical reminder of OPEC Plus ability to tweak supply—and kept oil prices elevated.

This came at a time when global crude production was running high, yet the announcement shaped expectations that geopolitical coordination could still swing the market.

Geopolitical Stunts Still Matter

Perception matters:

Markets often react more sharply to the fear of disruption—like threats to chokepoints—than to actual events.

Short-term risk channel:

As historical analyses show, geopolitical shocks typically drive short-term price spikes via risk premiums, though long-term economic slowdown may offset these gains.

Strategic signaling:

Diplomatic posturing—summits, threats, tariffs—can sway trader sentiment and pricing, even without concrete policy shifts.

Iran-Pakistan set ambitious agri trade target

Iran and Pakistan signed a joint statement pledging to expand cooperation in agriculture, trade, and food security, with a goal to raise bilateral agricultural trade to US$3 billion within two years.

Iran’s Agriculture Minister Gholamreza Nouri Ghezeljeh said current trade is around US$1.4 billion, noting both countries’ complementary strengths.

Iran will expand exports of dairy, nuts, fruits, and vegetables, while Pakistan will supply rice, corn, and 60% of Iran’s meat imports.

Both sides also agreed to collaborate on climate change research, food security, and establish a joint agricultural committee to meet biannually.

Pakistan’s Minister Rana Tanveer Hussain called the Tehran meeting “fruitful,” stressing that regional trade is cheaper than sourcing from distant markets like Brazil.

Both public and private sectors will participate, with barter and tailored facilities under consideration.

The Iran–Pakistan Business Conference opened in Islamabad on August 03, attended by President Masoud Pezeshkian and hosted by Senator Ishaq Dar.

Pakistan’s Commerce Minister Jam Kamal Khan highlighted the draft Free Trade Agreement, tariff issue resolution, and improved border infrastructure, including activation of the Pishin–Mand market and plans for a new Chadgi–Kouhak crossing.

Iran’s Trade Minister Mohammad Atabak emphasized the need to expand land terminals, rail connectivity, and port cooperation.

Dar underlined close ties under the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) and invited Iranian investors to Pakistan, citing reforms and a new investment facilitation council.

Reza Masrour, head of Iran’s Free Trade and Special Economic Zones, proposed joint paddy farming in Pakistan with rice processing in Iran’s Chabahar Free Zone to address water shortages.

He also suggested multi-entry visas, a joint free zone, and linking CPEC to Iran and the North–South Corridor. Pakistan welcomed these ideas.

According to Iran’s Trade Promotion Organization, trade reached US$3.129 billion in 2024–25, with Iran exporting US$2.423 billion (mainly petroleum products, milk powder, and dates) and importing US$706 million (primarily rice, oilseeds, and meat). However, trade in early 2025 dipped due to regional instability.

Officials stressed that better logistics, customs cooperation, and transport infrastructure are vital for sustaining growth and realizing the long-delayed promise of free trade.

Iran 72 years after the 1953 coup

Seventy-two years ago on August 19, 1953, the United States and Britain advanced a coup against the first democratically-elected government of Iran, the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, and reinstalled the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. 

The coup and the subsequent US support for the ruthless military regime under Mohamad Reza Shah, who had escaped the country while the coup was taking place, came with grave implications. The coup played a major role in shaping the Iranian perceptions of the United States, a new imperialist that had entered the course of the competition with the British and Russians to gain control on Iran’s vast resources.

The US intervention in Iran is part of a broader trend in American foreign policy that is aimed at toppling states that refuse to become puppet governments controlled by Washington. According to a dataset published by the Military Intervention Project (MIP), the US has waged nearly 400 military interventions since its founding in 1776.

The coup was primarily motivated by the desire to protect British oil interests in Iran, specifically after Prime Minister Mossadegh had nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. 

The movement to nationalize the oil industry was a reaction by the Iranians to concessions made by both Qajar and Pahlavi Shahs to foreign powers. The movement had originated in the parliament and was led by Mosaddegh when he was a lawmaker.  

After the British and Soviet troops invaded Iran in 1941 and toppled first the Pahlavi king, Reza Shah, they replaced him with his young son Mohammad Reza. In the early years of the second Pahlavi Shah, the anti-colonial oil nationalization movement had become too strong to suppress. The weakness of Mohammad Reza Shah’s regime benefited the movement in the period after World War II. Different political groups emerged and the oil movement gradually got stronger and stronger.

As time passed, the United States joined the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, who were seeking to gain control of the Iranian oil reserves. 

In the meantime, a senior cleric named Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani was leading a powerful popular movement outside the parliament against foreign interference in the country’s affairs, giving a hand to the democratically-elected government of Premier Mossadegh. 

The coup plot lasted for five days from August 15th to 19th. This event involved the CIA and British intelligence (MI6) orchestrating a series of actions, including disinformation and military campaigns, to undermine Mosaddegh's government and install Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the sole ruler. 

In fact, the CIA and British intelligence operations had already been playing out in the previous months to undermine Mosaddegh's popularity and build support for the Shah. This involved propaganda campaigns and organizing protests that eventually led to the army siding with the pro-Shah forces.

The coup plot had been formally approved by President Dwight D. Eisenhower as the CIA played the leading role in a covert operation, called Operation Ajax, whereby CIA-funded agents were used to foment unrest inside the capital, Tehran.

The CIA released dangerous thugs such as Shaban Jafari and his friends from prisons and unleashed them in groups to walk in the city streets while hanging posters of Mossadegh on their chests. The funded gangs attacked public and private properties on their way while ranting and raving in the name of the Mossadegh supporters. 

In the period of five days, fighting between supporters of Mossadegh and the Shah resulted in hundreds of deaths.

Eventually, the coup, which was cod-named Operation Boot in the United Kingdom, brought back the stumbling Pahlavi dynasty to the top of power and ensured brutal Pahlavi suppression of the Iranian people for the next 26 years. 

After the coup succeeded, Shah, who had returned to the country, issued decrees dismissing Mosaddegh and appointing General Fazlollah Zahedi as the prime minister. These decrees, while issued earlier, played a crucial role in legitimizing the coup when they were revealed to the public.  
Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. Other Mosaddegh supporters were imprisoned, and several received the death penalty.

The young Shah, along with Britain and the US, could not stand the nationalization of the oil industry and the democratically-elected Mosaddegh. For that, they overthrew his government.
In the aftermath of the coup, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi could reassert his autocratic rule and negotiated the 1954 Consortium Agreement with the British, which returned the ownership of Iranian oil to a consortium of Western companies until 1979, the year the Islamic Revolution became victorious. 

It is generally agreed today that the 1953 coup sowed the seeds for the Islamic Revolution of 1979, in which the Shah was overthrown. But even after the 1979 Islamic revolution, which eliminated US presence in Iran entirely, Washington continued its efforts to bring down the revolutionary government in Iran.

They dispatched military troops to Iran in Operation Eagle Claw, supported anti-revolutionary coup plotters and the Saddam Hussein regime, and imposed sanctions on Iran, which continue to this day. 

Courtesy: Tehran Times

 

Iran: Maritime based economy

Speaking at a specialized meeting on the IMO's carbon emission reduction requirements, Omid Shakeri, Iranian Deputy Oil Minister for engineering, research, and technology stressed that maritime-based economy is a national mission.

He announced the new requirements set by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to reduce carbon emissions in the shipping sector stating, "The policies for developing a maritime-based economy, which were issued by the Leader in November 2023, have opened new horizons for the oil industry, maritime transportation, and modern technologies."

He noted that these regulations could be both a threat and an opportunity, emphasizing, "If we aim to expand international trade, maritime transportation in compliance with global standards is inevitable. We believe that through timely action and reliance on engineering and research capabilities, we can turn this threat into an opportunity."

Iran’s Ports and Maritime Organization (PMO), in a report, has underlined the importance of the country’s maritime capacities and the role that the sector can play in developing the country’s economy.

According to the report, maritime sector in Iran has very high capacity in various fields including trade, ports and shipping due to the country’s strategic location, long coastal strip in the north and south and access to open waters, and can bring economic prosperity to the country.

“About a third of the country's borders are water borders, so we cannot ignore port and shipping activities because for a country that has long water borders and access to open waters, the prosperity of shipping and maritime trade is essential. Therefore, the government should pay full attention to the strengths and weaknesses of this sector and make the best use of the current capacities with proper planning,” the report read.

Increasing the share of the maritime sector in the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) under the framework of the newly proposed maritime-oriented policy should be one of the most important concerns of the government, which can be achieved with proper planning, the PMO said.

The share of the sea in the gross domestic product in advanced coastal countries such as the European Union is 50 percent, but the figure is not significant in Iran despite having more than 5,800 kilometers of coastal strip, and this is despite the fact that there are huge capacities for the transit of goods from Central Asian countries.

 

Trump paved way for Israeli attacks on Iran

Israel had been planning a full-scale invasion of Iran for many years, but the re-election of Donald Trump coincided with a series of critical events paving the way to the direct attack in June this year, four current and former Israeli intelligence sources told Euronews in separate interviews.

Israeli intelligence sources, speaking on condition of anonymity due to security concerns, told Euronews that Mossad agents had identified key strategic factors and political conditions enabling them to prepare for and initiate the attack on Iran. Among these, they cited the intensification of the proxy war, the election of US President Donald Trump, and the momentum of nuclear negotiations with Western powers.

On June 13, Israel launched multiple land and air strikes on Iran, killing senior Iranian military leaders, nuclear scientists and politicians, and damaging or destroying Iranian air defences and nuclear military facilities.

Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israeli cities and military sites, aided by Houthis in Yemen.

The US defended Israel from these attacks and, on the ninth day, bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. Iran then struck a US base in Qatar. On June 24, under US pressure, Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire.

Both sides claimed victory following the ceasefire. Israel and the US asserted that they significantly degraded Iran’s missile and nuclear programs, while Iranian authorities denied these claims. Independent assessments are currently limited due to the secrecy surrounding Iran’s nuclear program.

Israel and the US said that the attack had been in the planning for many years, in parallel with diplomatic engagement with Iran.

“Israel has never hidden the fact that it wants to destroy the Iranian nuclear program, and it has never hidden the fact it was also willing to allow it to be resolved diplomatically, as long as the diplomatic solution prevents Iran not only from enriching uranium, but from ever getting the capacity to pose an existential threat to the state of Israel,” a first Israeli intelligence source told Euronews.

Diplomatic engagements were not bringing any tangible results, the sources said, while tensions between the US and Iran grew following Donald Trump's first presidency in the US from 2016-2020.

In 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), which had limited Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Following the US re-imposition of sanctions, Iran began ignoring the deal’s nuclear restrictions in 2019.

“I think the pivotal moment was in April 2024, when Iran launched missiles directly from its own territory at Israel. Until then, Iran had primarily relied on proxies to attack Israel, while Israel carried out covert operations inside Iran with plausible deniability, aiming to prevent escalation into full-scale war,” the first intelligence source said.

In April 2024, Iran launched missiles at Israel in retaliation for an Israeli strike on its consulate in Syria that killed Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi. He was the highest-ranking Iranian military official killed since the Iranian General Qassem Suleimani’s assassination in 2020 by the US Trump administration. Suleimani was the ‘architect’ of Iran’s proxy war in the Middle East.

“I think Israel had to wait from April 2024. It needed time to gather all the intelligence and planning it needed in order to feel confident that, already in the first two or three days of the war, we would be in a position where we had complete control over the situation, minimal casualties at home, and complete control of Iranian airspace, with the ability to attack whenever and wherever we want to,” the source added.

Donald Trump's second election as US president was another key pivotal moment and was welcomed by all the four sources.

“The original plan was to attack in October 2024. That was after the second direct missile attack by Iran on Israel following Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon in September,” the first intelligence sources said, but the attack was delayed to wait for the US elections in November.

“I think it was very important for Israel that Trump should win those elections. Once Trump was elected, he put the main emphasis on reaching a hostage deal,” said the second source, referring to the Hamas-Israel conflict.

“Once the hostage deal was signed around March 2025, Israel was again in a position to attack Iran. But the US and Iran entered into negotiations, to try bringing a peaceful solution to the issue of Iran's enrichment and nuclear program,” the first source added.

In March, the US and Iran began indirect negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. The negotiations did not bring an agreement, although counterparts described them as “constructive”.

“Trump gave 60 days to those negotiations. The day after, Israel attacked Iran. I think that obviously was coordinated with the US administration,” all the current and former Israeli intelligence sources told Euronews.

Washington has never publicly stated that Israel’s first attack on Iran was coordinated. However, following the US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a press conference on June 23 that the operation had been planned for many years.

“When we attacked, we were at the end of the 60-day period of negotiations. I think it was very clear to Trump at this stage that the Iranians were not willing to forego enrichment on Iranian soil, even though the negotiations did bring up some interesting solutions to that. For example, some sort of international enrichment agency that would allocate enriched uranium at civilian levels to all countries in the region interested in it,” the first intelligence source said.

“Trump realized Iran was engaging in negotiations merely to buy time, with no real intent to reach a resolution. The talks served as a decoy, giving Iran the impression it wouldn’t be attacked, especially amid widespread press reports that Israel was on the verge of striking,” the first source added.

While Iran claimed victory and celebrated its resilience towards Israel's invasion, Israeli intelligence sources said that Tehran’s regime has been left weakened following the attack.

“Israel has emerged from several conflicts in a stronger strategic position in the region, but in a more difficult political position with its Western partners, except perhaps Washington. We’re at a very delicate moment in which both Israel and Iran have little to gain by pushing further right now,” Ian Lesser, fellow and adviser to the German Marshall Fund’s president, told Euronews.

“Iran has fewer options now. One option is to return to negotiations. Another is to turn to its traditional methods of responding, which rely on proxies and non-traditional actions, including terrorism. There is also the possibility that, if Iran maintains some ability to develop nuclear weapons, it may see this as another path. But I don’t think anyone will let them do that. There may be disagreements about Israeli strategy and policy, but overall, Israel and its Western partners are not willing to tolerate a nuclearized Iran,” the expert added.

If the war had gone further, Israel would have probably attacked gas and oil installations, a fourth former Israeli intelligence source told Euronews. However, after the ceasefire, negotiations have resumed at diplomatic level.

On July 25, diplomats from Iran met counterparts from Germany, the UK, and France in Istanbul for talks, the first since Israel’s mid-June attack on Iran, amid warnings that these European countries might trigger a “snapback” of UN sanctions on Tehran.

The second intelligence source said that following the conflict, Israel would maintain control over Iranian airspace, in order to “destroy anything that even suggests that the Iranians are preparing to rebuild any of the capabilities that we have destroyed”. — Euronews

What is the ultimate objective of Netanyahu?

If we strip away the diplomatic language and look at Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza through the lens of political strategy rather than morality, the objectives many analysts see are not just about “defense” — they align with a set of long-term political, security, and ideological goals.

Here’s how many observers interpret what he seeks to attain:

Erase or cripple Palestinian political sovereignty

By devastating Gaza’s infrastructure, governance, and population capacity, Netanyahu can make any future independent Palestinian state nearly impossible to sustain. This aligns with the position of many in his coalition who reject a two-state solution entirely.

Consolidate his own political survival

Netanyahu has faced massive protests, corruption trials, and political instability. War shifts the national focus to “security,” rallying his right-wing base and delaying domestic accountability.

Cement Israel’s control over territory

By depopulating or making parts of Gaza uninhabitable, Israel could increase its long-term security buffer and limit the demographic growth of Palestinians near its borders.

Appease ultranationalist coalition partners

His government depends on far-right figures who openly call for resettling Gaza with Israelis and removing large numbers of Palestinians. Maintaining their support keeps his fragile coalition in power.

Send a deterrent message regionally

By showing overwhelming force, Netanyahu signals to Hezbollah, Iran, and other adversaries that challenges to Israel will be met with total military dominance.

Align with Zionist ideology

Some in Netanyahu’s camp believe a “Greater Israel” — without a viable Palestinian state — is the only acceptable outcome. The destruction of Gaza is seen as a step toward making that reality irreversible.

Moral of the story

It may be concluded that the genocide accusation isn’t just about punishing Hamas; it’s about shaping a future where Palestinian political and demographic influence is permanently weakened, while Netanyahu secures his political survival and cements an ideological vision.

 

Iran seizes tanker carrying diesel

In a blow to organized fuel smuggling networks, Iranian Border Guard Commander Brigadier General Ahmadali Goudarzi announced the interception of an oil tanker carrying over 2 million liters of illicit diesel in the Persian Gulf’s exclusive economic zone.

The operation, conducted in collaboration with the naval forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army (Artesh), led to the arrest of 17 foreign nationals.

Goudarzi emphasized in a Monday interview that border guards in Hormozgan province leveraged comprehensive intelligence monitoring, electronic surveillance systems, and aerial reconnaissance to identify the vessel Phoenix—flagged under a third country—before it could exit Iranian waters.

"Through coordinated operational planning with the Navy, we immobilized and inspected this tanker," he stated, noting the seizure represents the heaviest financial blow to smuggling syndicates this year.

The detained suspects have been transferred to legal authorities in Jask for prosecution.

Goudarzi credited the success to the enhanced military-defensive synergy among armed forces across Iran’s maritime and land borders, which has systematically dismantled smuggling networks exploiting regional waters.

Iran has consistently demonstrated its role in supporting the security and stability of the Persian Gulf—a vital waterway through which nearly 20% of the world’s oil flows.

Through the use of advanced monitoring technologies such as drones and coastal radar, alongside agile maritime units, Iran aims to contribute to a secure environment that safeguards regional peace, facilitates global trade, and protects its economic interests.

Iran’s commitment to maritime security extends beyond combating smuggling. The Islamic Republic has played a pivotal role in ensuring the safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which a significant portion of the world’s oil passes. Iran’s naval forces have consistently acted to deter piracy and protect international shipping lanes.

 

Iran completes overhaul of South Pars refinery

Overhaul of the fifth refinery of Iran’s South Pars gas field has been successfully completed, said Kambiz Sefati, manager of the refinery. The work was successfully completed without any incidents, thanks to the round the clock efforts of the staff and strict adherence to safety standards.

He added, "This remarkable achievement reflects the deep commitment of the refinery’s personnel to upholding the highest safety and operational standards."

The manager of the fifth refinery at the South Pars Gas Complex stated that "the issuance of over 5,700 work permits during the maintenance period reflects the extensive scope of activities and our strict adherence to safety procedures in authorizing necessary operations." 

He added, "Thanks to the round-the-clock efforts of all colleagues, particularly the HSE (Health, Safety, and Environment) team, we successfully navigated this critical period without a single incident."

Emphasizing the key factors behind this achievement, the manager said, "Conducting high-quality safety training for specialized maintenance personnel, holding briefing sessions to learn from past incidents in the oil industry, enforcing 24/7 monitoring at the site entrance to prevent unauthorized items, and continuous verification of all issued permits—especially hot work permits by the HSE team—were among our key measures."

Safati noted, "This major maintenance overhaul was meticulously planned and executed to ensure the refinery's full readiness for safe and stable production during the winter season." 

He emphasized, "In this regard, we leveraged the expertise of specialized maintenance teams and utilized the products and technical knowledge of Iranian knowledge-based companies."

Expressing gratitude for the relentless efforts of operational and support teams in maintaining maximum safety and efficiency, he described this achievement as "the result of solidarity and synergy among all personnel, reflecting the paramount importance of safety at this refinery."

South Pars gas field, which Iran shares with Qatar in the Persian Gulf water, is divided into 24 standard phases of development in the first stage. Most of the phases are fully operational at the moment.

The huge offshore field covers an area of 9,700 square kilometers, 3,700 square kilometers of which are in Iran’s territorial waters in the Persian Gulf. The remaining 6,000 square kilometers, called North Dome, are situated in Qatar’s territorial waters.

The field is estimated to contain a significant amount of natural gas, accounting for about eight percent of the world’s reserves, and approximately 18 billion barrels of condensate.

 

Significance of Iranian President's visit to Pakistan

The world knows that Iran was the first country to recognize Pakistan’s independence in 1947 and open its embassy in Karachi, which was then the capital of Pakistan. Likewise, Pakistanis were the first to officially recognize the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979.

The people of both countries share cultural, linguistic, historical, and religious ties, and have supported each other in both bitter and sweet moments throughout history. The cultural commonalities between the two nations are such that citizens of either country do not feel estranged or alien when traveling to the neighboring country.

In Tehran, prominent places such as Mohammad Ali Jinnah Highway and Pakistan Street exist. Likewise, in major Pakistani cities, including Karachi, street signs bearing names like Iran Avenue and streets named after Iranian poets like Ferdowsi, Saadi, Hafez, Khayyam, and others can be found.

Islamabad, the capital of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, hosted Dr. Pezeshkian, President of Iran, and his accompanying delegation from August 02 to 03, 2025. This was, in fact, Pezeshkian’s first official visit to Pakistan since winning Iran’s 14th presidential election.

It is worth noting that in April 2024, the martyred Ayatollah Raisi also made a three-day visit to Pakistan, including the cities of Lahore, Karachi, and Islamabad, where he was warmly welcomed by the people and officials of that country. Following the helicopter crash and martyrdom of Ayatollah Raisi and his companions, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Pakistan, along with other officials, traveled to Tehran to pay their respects and attend the memorial ceremony.

In May of this year, Shehbaz Sharif once again visited Tehran to express his gratitude for Iran’s stance regarding the India-Pakistan war. Therefore, Dr. Pezeshkian’s recent visit was in response to Shehbaz Sharif’s invitation and, essentially, a reciprocation of his visit to Tehran.

Dr. Pezeshkian began his official visit in Lahore, the capital of Punjab province, by paying respects at the mausoleum of Allama Iqbal, the Pakistani philosopher and poet. It is said that over 8,000 verses of Iqbal’s poetry comprising 70% of his total works are written in Persian.

During the continuation of the visit in Islamabad, the Iranian delegation met with the Prime Minister, President, Foreign Minister, Army Chief, Speakers of the Senate and National Assembly, and Pakistani business community, seeking to implement the "Neighbor First" policy in practice. 

The current volume of annual trade between the two countries is about US$3 billion, yet many economic and commercial potentials remain untapped. During this recent visit, 12 cooperation agreements were signed in areas such as transportation, science and technology, tourism, and free trade, which, if implemented, could significantly boost bilateral relations.

One indicator of strong political relations is the frequent travel of officials between countries. In less than two years, top officials from Iran and Pakistan have visited each other’s countries four times, not including the meetings held on the sidelines of key regional and international summits. These frequent meetings highlight the close bond and significance of the relationship particularly now, when there is a growing need to expand cooperation.

Over the past few decades, Iran-Pakistan relations have enjoyed relative stability, and mutual visits and exchanges between officials have been a regular occurrence. What gives special importance to the recent presidential visit to Pakistan is the unique political situation and the developments that have taken place in recent months in South and West Asia and even globally.

The four-day war between India and Pakistan in May 2025, as two nuclear powers, created a highly sensitive situation in the region. Although brief, the consequences of this conflict continue to affect both countries and the broader region and world.

Additionally, the ongoing war and genocide in Gaza have significantly influenced global politics. In this context, the stances of Islamic countries such as Iran and Pakistan are of great importance. Tehran and Islamabad have consistently adopted shared, firm positions and have emphasized full support for the Palestinian cause. The 12-day imposed war by Israel on Iran drastically altered the geopolitics of the region and the Islamic world.

Pakistan’s positions as one of the largest and most influential Muslim nations and a nuclear power have been crucial, and the Iranian public and officials have always appreciated Pakistan’s brave and brotherly stance.

Islamabad's officials have expressed their appreciation, in various ways, for Iran’s goodwill and initiative in offering to mediate between the two countries, and for the highly important visit of Iran’s Foreign Minister Dr. Araghchi to Pakistan and India to reduce the tensions.

A key factor linking Iran and Pakistan’s foreign policies is the sensitivity of public opinion in both nations toward the Palestinian issue and their mutual opposition to Zionist occupation and crimes in Gaza. This shared stance is rooted in the principled policies laid down by the founding leaders of both nations, Imam Khomeini and Muhammad Ali Jinnah and continues today. Currently, there is deep concern over the joint illegal actions of the Zionist regime and the United States against Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the potential for similar scenarios to be repeated elsewhere.

The condemnation of the Zionist regime’s aggressive attack on Iran by Pakistan’s permanent representative at the UN Security Council, as a non-permanent member and rotating president, was well-received. Pakistan’s support for dialogue and negotiation and its affirmation of Iran’s right to nuclear knowledge were also reflected in the joint press conference held by Shehbaz Sharif and Dr. Pezeshkian.

Iranian and Pakistani officials have come to a shared understanding that the 900 plus km border between the two nations should transition from being a security border to an economic one. The two sides have created joint mechanisms to improve coordination in the fight against terrorism. There exists an ocean of untapped potential in both countries, which requires serious political will to activate. The travel of hundreds of thousands of Pakistani pilgrims as part of religious tourism is one such opportunity.

Currently, two land borders at Rimdan and Mirjaveh are operational, facilitating travel for tourists and traders. Strengthening infrastructure is essential for increasing travel between the two peoples. People-to-people ties and citizen interactions can play a critical role in raising awareness of each other’s capabilities. 

Meeting mutual needs given that the two economies complement each other should be a top priority for private sectors and businesspeople in both nations. Much of what Iran imports from other countries is easily accessible in Pakistan, and Pakistan exports goods that Iranians also import from various sources.

Pakistan can meet many of its needs through Iranian producers and benefit from the proximity and low logistics costs. There is an urgent need to upgrade the joint Iran-Pakistan Chamber of Commerce to play a more significant role.

An Iranian proverb says, “A good neighbor is better than a distant relative.” Pakistan is both a good neighbor and a good relative and we Iranians are grateful for this valued neighbor.

Courtesy: Tehran Times

 

Pakistan and Iran term terror main hurdle to prosperity

Pakistan and Iran on Sunday agreed that peace and prosperity in their border regions hinged on effectively combating terrorism, as both countries renewed their commitment to increase annual bilateral trade to US$10 billion.

The consensus was rea­ched during a bilateral meeting at the Prime Mini­ster House in Islamabad and later emphasized at a joint press conference by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Iranian Presi­dent Masoud Pezeshkian.

“The development of economic and trade ties will be achieved through peace, stability, and tranquility,” Pezeshkian said, underscoring that terrorism remains a key obstacle to mutual prosperity.

“Given the threats from terrorist groups in border areas, both sides emphasized the need to increase cooperation to ensure border security and safeguard the peace and well-being of citizens in border cities,” the Iranian president added.

The nearly 900-kilometre border between the two countries has long faced security threats from proscribed groups, such as Jaish al-Adl and the Baluchistan Liberation Army. Persistent issues, including terrorism, smuggling, and mutual accusations of harbouring militants, have periodically strained ties.

Shehbaz acknowledged that security was paramount for progress in bilateral relations. “There will be zero tolerance for all forms of terrorism. If anyone falls victim to terrorism in Iran, it is the same as someone being affected by terrorism in Pakistan,” he said.

“For peace and development in our region, and along our hundreds of kilometres-long shared border, we must cooperate against terrorism and take effective steps to eliminate the scourge of terrorism once and for all,” Shehbaz added.

While the two leaders voiced their commitment to deepening cooperation, specific operational details were reportedly discussed in President Pezeshkian’s meeting with Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir.

Later in the evening, Pezeshkian met senior Pakistani military leaders, including Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Sahir Shamshad Mirza, Air Chief Marshal Zaheer Babar Sidhu, and ISI chief Lt Gen Asim Malik at the presidency before the dinner reception hosted by President Asif Ali Zardari. A naval representative was also in attendance.

The two sides reaffirmed their commitment to raising annual bilateral trade to US$10 billion — a target first set during the late Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi’s visit to Pakistan in April 2024.

“We can easily, in a short time, increase the volume of trade from the current US$3 billion to the projected goal of US$10 billion,” Pezeshkian said during the joint media conference.

Shehbaz echoed the sentiment. “We also jointly hope that the US$10 billion trade target is achieved at the earliest,” he said.

Trade has been constrained by a range of factors, including international sanctions on Iran, security concerns along the border, inadequate infrastructure, and limited economic complementarity.

Diplomatic and political fluctuations, often shaped by broader geopolitical tensions, have also affected the implementation of trade agreements.

While neither leader offered a clear roadmap to resolve these issues, both underscored a shared political will to continue engaging on them.

“Our delegations will take these discussions forward very soon,” Shehbaz said.

Earlier, at the bilateral talks, he had emphasized the need to convene the long-delayed 22nd meeting of the Pakistan-Iran Joint Economic Commission at the earliest. The 21st meeting of the Commission was held in 2022.

Proposals discussed during the talks included facilitating barter trade, increasing export quotas for rice, fruits, and meat, operationalizing cross-border markets, and removing trade barriers.

Border market development remains a key focus. Although the two countries agreed several years ago to establish six such markets, only three have become operational so far.

“The development of transit routes – railway routes and sea routes – the expansion and equipping of border markets, the facilitation of trade, and the establishment of joint free economic zones are critical needs in the relationship between the two countries, and we had constructive discussions on these issues,” Pezeshkian said.

Pakistan and Iran signed and exchanged 12 agreements and memorandums of understanding (MoUs) to enhance cooperation across a broad spectrum of areas. The documents covered trade, transit, science and technology, tourism, agriculture, cultural exchange, maritime safety, and judicial cooperation.

The agreements include collaboration on plant quarantine, joint use of the Mirjaveh-Taftan border crossing, ICT, tourism cooperation for 2025-27, and a joint ministerial statement on finalising a Free Trade Agreement.

“We reached agreements in political, economic, commercial, and cultural fields, and signed documents to facilitate and promote cooperation in commerce, culture, tourism, transportation, and scientific and educational exchanges,” Pezeshkian said.

 

Upcoming visit of Iranian President to Pakistan

Iran-Pakistan relationship are unique — one defined not simply by geography, but by centuries of shared civilizational experience, religious affinity, cultural kinship and converging strategic interests. The two sovereign nations can gain from an enduring partnership — and even more to contribute to the future of the region.

The upcoming state visit of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to Pakistan reflects this growing momentum. It builds upon a history of high-level engagement that includes the late President Ebrahim Raisi’s landmark visit to Islamabad and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s reciprocal visit to Tehran.

These exchanges, along with sustained diplomatic consultation between senior officials of both the countries, represent a deepening alignment that extends well beyond ceremonial diplomacy. These reflect a conscious, strategic choice to elevate the bilateral relationship into one of regional consequence.

Iran and Pakistan share a 900-kilometre border that is more than a line dividing two states; it is a bridge that has connected peoples and civilizations for centuries. Through this frontier flowed not only trade, but ideas, languages, poetry and faiths that continue to animate our societies today.

From the celebration of Nowruz to shared Sufi traditions, the depth of cultural and spiritual interconnection has forged an enduring sense of familiarity and trust that forms the bedrock of political cooperation.

As two proud Muslim nations, Iran and Pakistan are anchored in the principles of Islam -- justice, compassion and solidarity. These values are not only sources of internal cohesion; they serve as guiding lights for international engagement. The two countries stand together in support of causes such as the Palestinian struggle, to speak out against injustice and to promote peace through cooperation and mutual respect.

Their economic complementarities offer enormous potential. Pakistan’s agricultural dynamism and Iran’s abundant energy resources, coupled with shared interest in connectivity, provide a natural basis for integration.

In addition to sectoral synergies, both nations share a long-term interest in fostering an open, equitable, and interdependent regional economy. By aligning visions, Iran and Pakistan can build a sustainable economic partnership grounded in mutual resilience, technological progress and inclusive growth. Such cooperation can play a transformative role in lifting communities, creating employment and promoting a model of development that benefits the wider region.

At a time transnational threats continue to endanger their security, Iran and Pakistan remain vigilant against terrorist networks operating in border regions. Coordination in counterterrorism is not an option; it is an imperative.

Beyond local threats, both countries face broader strategic concerns arising from aggressive postures in the region. The Israeli regime’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, its occupation of Syria and Lebanon, and its recent unprovoked attacks on Iranian territory underscore the urgency of a collective response to belligerent forces that thrive on instability and domination. Responsible states cannot afford silence. It is time to strengthen coordination, deepen security cooperation and articulate a clear and united stance in international forums.

Iran deeply appreciates the principled position taken by the Government of Pakistan in unequivocally condemning the June 2025 Israeli and American military aggression against Iranian territory. At a time Western powers chose to stand on the wrong side of history, Pakistan stood firmly for international law, regional stability and solidarity with its neighbour.

Equally moving was the heartfelt support expressed by the people of Pakistan, whose spontaneous outpourings of compassion resonated deeply across Iranian society. The Iranian people watched with gratitude as their Pakistani brothers and sisters raised their voices in their support. This display of empathy and unity will never be forgotten. It reaffirmed the profound depth of our bond and the strength of the values we share.

Iran and Pakistan also enjoy a record of close cooperation across multilateral institutions. At the UN, the two have consistently worked together to defend the rights of the Palestinian people and advance sustainable development goals.

Within the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, we advocate for addressing the pressing challenges of the Muslim Ummah. As active members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Economic Cooperation Organization, and the D-8, pursue shared objectives in connectivity, economic integration, and regional peace.

Coordinated diplomacy amplifies their voice on the global stage and helps steer international discourse towards justice, equity, and multilateralism. This collaboration is not limited to crisis management. It also reflects a broader strategic convergence.

Both Iran and Pakistan uphold principles of sovereignty, non-interference, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. Both are committed to a regional order in which Muslim nations shape their own destinies and cooperate toward collective prosperity.

Their partnership holds promise in trilateral and broader regional settings as well. With Afghanistan as their mutual neighbour, the two share an interest in stabilizing the country and ensuring that peace and development replace conflict and extremism. By integrating their economic strategies and leveraging geostrategic positions, Iran and Pakistan can help transform the region into a hub of cooperation rather than competition.

The creation of functional trade and transit corridors, grounded in mutual benefit, brings tangible dividends to our peoples and reaffirms our leadership in crafting a forward-looking regional architecture.

The path ahead calls for unity, clarity of purpose, and a willingness to transform shared aspirations into lasting institutions and practical achievements. Enhancing diplomatic dialogue, expanding economic ties, fostering educational and cultural exchanges and institutionalizing cooperation on security and development will give real depth and resilience to our relationship.

President Pezeshkian’s visit provides an opportunity not only to reaffirm commitments but to reimagine possibilities. In doing so, the two may draw inspiration from Allama Iqbal — Pakistan’s national poet and a profound admirer of Persian thought — who reminded us that the soul of nations is shaped not in fleeting political cycles, but in enduring moral and spiritual visions. His words resonate still: “Nations are born in the hearts of poets; they prosper and die in the hands of politicians.”

Iran-Pakistan friendship is not merely a relic of the past; it is a strategic investment in the future. In unity, they find strength. In cooperation, they find purpose. And in mutual respect, they find the foundation for lasting peace and shared progress.

 

Iran-Saudi Cordial Ties Upset US and Israel

Growing amicable relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia have played a significant role in promoting peace and security in West Asia over the past years. Such cordial ties have come into even sharper focus following Israel’s aggression against Iran last month.

On June 13, Israel launched unprovoked strikes on Iranian territory, targeting high-ranking military commanders, nuclear scientists, and civilians alike. The United States later joined the Israeli war effort, launching attacks on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities—actions widely viewed as violations of the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In a swift and powerful response, Iranian Armed Forces launched retaliatory strikes on strategic Israeli targets in cities such as Tel Aviv and Haifa, and struck the al-Udeid air base in Qatar—the largest American military installation in West Asia.

By June 24, Iran’s coordinated operations had effectively brought Israeli and American aggression to a halt.

The scale and precision of Iran’s missile power shocked Israel and its Western allies, particularly the United States. 

 “Although Israel has its own sophisticated, multilayered defense, which includes systems like Arrow, David’s Sling and Iron Dome, the country was running low on its own interceptors and was husbanding resources by the time the conflict ended.

Had Iran fired a few more large volleys of missiles, Israel could have exhausted its supply of top-tier Arrow 3 munitions,” The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, citing American officials familiar with the 12-day war. 

The Journal also revealed that despite deploying two advanced THAAD missile-defense systems to Israel in the wake of the conflict, the US efforts proved insufficient to fully stop Iran’s missile barrages. 

“Operating alongside Israeli systems, THAAD operators burned through munitions at a furious clip, firing more than 150 missiles to shoot down the waves of Iranian ballistic missiles,” the paper reported.

The intensity of the Iranian attacks created such a high demand for interceptors that, according to the Journal, the Pentagon considered diverting THAAD interceptors already purchased by Saudi Arabia to Israel. “Saudi Arabia refused US request to send interceptors to Israel”

Meanwhile, according to Middle East Eye, which cited two American officials, the US asked Saudi Arabia to turn over THAAD interceptors to help Israel, but Riyadh rejected the request.  “Saudi Arabia's refusal to help Israel will sting officials in Washington,” MEE added. 

Saudi Arabia’s “no” to the US demand underscores the deepening ties with Iran. 

On July 8, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) held talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Jeddah. In the meeting, the Saudi crown prince condemned any military aggression against Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. He welcomed the improving climate of cooperation between the two Islamic powers.

Araghchi, in turn, “thanked Saudi Arabia for its responsible stance in condemning the Israeli aggression against Iran.”

He put emphasis on Iran’s commitment to building stronger ties with its neighbors, including Saudi Arabia based on principles of good neighborliness and mutual interest.

Araghchi also held talks with Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman and Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan, reaffirming the countries’ commitment to closer strategic cooperation.

China’s mediation drives Iran-Saudi unity for regional stability

The renewed diplomatic warmth is rooted in a 2023 agreement brokered by China, which saw Iran and Saudi Arabia formally restore ties after years of estrangement. Since then, China's constructive mediation has played a key role in bringing Tehran and Riyadh closer together.

As the dust settles on the most intense Israel-Iran war in recent memory, the strengthening bond between Iran and Saudi Arabia emerges as a powerful force for stability in West Asia. Their growing diplomatic, political, and economic cooperation is not only reshaping the region's strategic landscape—but also offering a compelling alternative to the cycles of escalation driven by Israeli aggression.

Once geopolitical rivals, Tehran and Riyadh now appear poised to lead a new era—one rooted in sovereignty, mutual respect, and collective security. Their united front sends a clear message: regional peace is best preserved not through foreign intervention or militarism, but through regional unity and shared interests.

In a time of increasing volatility, Iran and Saudi Arabia are demonstrating that Islamic nations can rise above division and become pillars of stability—capable of defending their people, upholding international law, and resisting those who threaten the peace of the region. The path they have chosen may well define the future of West Asia.

 

 

 

 

Iranian rationale of attacking US base in Qatar

On June 23, 2025, as tensions between Iran and Israel reached their highest point in years, several Iranian ballistic missiles struck the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. This was no ordinary target, it is the main hub for US military operations in West Asia and a key symbol of American power projection in the region. 

Iran informed the US about the attack 12 hours before it was to happen, according to information previously disclosed by the Tehran Times. The official American response was swift and predictable - both Washington and Doha downplayed the incident, claiming there were no casualties or significant damage. However, reality soon overrode the narrative. Satellite images published days later confirmed the destruction of a geodesic dome that housed critical communication systems of the US Central Command.

Far from being anecdotal, this episode marks a strategic turning point. Iran has shown it can strike critical infrastructure under American protection, redrawing the contours of deterrence in the Persian Gulf. The missile ceases to be merely a weapon of war; it becomes a tool of sovereignty and strategic assertion.

Between official denial and satellite evidence

The US version was clear and firm from the outset “No casualties, no damage,” repeated Pentagon spokespeople. But satellite evidence, analyzed by international media and independent agencies, told a different story.

Images taken between June 23 and 25 showed the disappearance of a US$15 million communications dome, debris, and collateral damage to surrounding structures. Although the base remained operational, the loss of a key component for electronic warfare cast doubt on the effectiveness of US missile defenses—and on the credibility of the official account.

Washington’s refusal to acknowledge the strike follows a dual logic - maintaining control over the media narrative and avoiding the perception of vulnerability before an actor—Iran—that, despite sanctions and isolation, has reached a notable level of technological sophistication.

Al Udeid: A symbol of hegemony in question

Located about 30 kilometers from Doha, Al Udeid is more than just a military base. It serves as the forward headquarters of CENTCOM and is the nerve center for coordinating operations in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Its symbolism goes beyond the military - it is the cornerstone of the security architecture the United States has built in the region since the First Persian Gulf War.

The fact that Iran managed to strike such a site—and that US forces reportedly evacuated aircraft and sensitive personnel beforehand—does not diminish the significance of the attack. On the contrary, it indicates that Tehran sent a precise warning and that Washington took it seriously. Deterrence, long monopolized by the US and Israel, is no longer a one-way street.

The missile as national strategy: Evolution and autonomy

The strike on Al Udeid was not an isolated act but the result of a deliberate evolution. For over two decades, Iran has systematically invested in ballistic missile development as an asymmetric response to the air and nuclear superiority of its adversaries. Faced with Western restrictions, Tehran adopted a doctrine of defensive self-sufficiency based on three pillars:

Diversification: Short, medium, and long range missiles like Shahab-3, Ghadr, Qiam, and Sejjil, capable of reaching Israel, US bases, and parts of southern Europe.

Mobility: Mobile launch systems that are hard to detect and neutralize.

Precision: Advanced guidance systems that have reduced the margin of error to levels that even Western analysts now acknowledge.

Unlike other regional missile programs, Iran’s development is overwhelmingly domestic. This technical and logistical autonomy has allowed the country to bypass embargoes and threats, turning the missile into the backbone of its defense doctrine.

Following Israel’s offensive against nuclear, military, and civilian sites inside Iran, Tehran responded with a large-scale launch of over a hundred ballistic missiles and suicide drones targeting Israeli military positions. For the first time, Iran’s ballistic arsenal was used en masse in open conflict.

Despite the Iron Dome and other Israeli defenses, several missiles penetrated and struck Tel Aviv, Haifa, and military bases. The missile attacks not only caused physical damage but also had a strategic impact: saturating defenses, prompting emergency deployments, and creating unprecedented internal pressure on Israeli authorities.

The Al Udeid strike was the culmination of a graduated strategy - to hit Israel, neutralize its offensive capacity, and send a direct message to the United States. The ceasefire that followed days later cannot be understood without factoring in the missile component as a deterrent force.

Sovereignty and independence: The Iranian perspective

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran’s foreign and defense policy has been rooted in the principle of non-negotiable sovereignty. In a hostile environment—surrounded by foreign bases and under sanctions—the development of ballistic missiles has not been framed as a belligerent impulse, but as a survival strategy.

Tehran maintains that its only guarantee in the face of threats like the US “maximum pressure” campaign or Israeli targeted strikes is its ability to respond. Effective deterrence, it argues, is only possible when there is certainty that any aggression will come at a high cost.

The attack on Al Udeid follows this logic - it was calibrated, precise, and deliberately non-lethal. Its aim was not to trigger a regional war but to underscore that Iran has both the capacity—and the resolve—to defend its vital interests. The missile, in this vision, is not a threat; it is a political argument.