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

Pakistan assumes UN Security Council presidency

As the world grapples with escalating conflicts, deepening geopolitical rifts, and growing doubts over the efficacy of multilateral institutions, Pakistan assumes the presidency of the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday, taking on a symbolic but strategic role at a particularly fraught moment.

This marks Pakistan’s eighth term on the 15-member body and its first presidency since 2013. Islamabad began its current two-year term as a non-permanent member in January 2025 and will serve through the end of 2026.

Talking to Dawn, Pakistan’s Permanent Rep­resentative to the UN, Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, noted the challenges that define the current international landscape.

“Pakistan is going to assume the presidency of the United Nations Security Council at a time of global tumult marked by growing instability, escalating conflicts, complex geopolitical and geostrategic landscape, and serious threats to international peace and security,” he said.

While the presidency rotates monthly and does not carry executive authority, it allows the presiding country to influence the Council’s agenda and tone — a platform that matters at a time when the UNSC is increasingly seen as deadlocked, especially on issues like Gaza and Ukra­i­­ne. With global trust in multilateral mechanisms under strain, Pakistan’s leadership — even if brief — will be closely watched.

The ambassador underscored Pakis­tan’s commitment to its long-held positions on peaceful conflict resolution. “Pakistan has been a staunch and consistent advocate of dialogue and diplomacy… We will bring a principled and balanced perspective to the work of the Security Council,” he said, pledging to strengthen multilateralism and deepen cooperation with other UNSC members.

“We seek to promote transparency, incl­u­sivity and responsiveness during Pakis­tan’s presidency,” said Ambassador Ahmad. “We will closely work with other Cou­ncil members in a spirit of cooperation for collective and timely action… in line with the UN Charter and corresponding to the exp­ectations of the international community.”

 

 

Retaliatory operations against US in Arab world and beyond

West Asia, specifically Lebanon, is in a highly sensitive situation due to the escalating military situation in the region. Many are behaving as if a major war has become a fait accompli, with no end in sight.

The US attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities on Sunday has weighed heavily on Lebanon’s domestic political landscape, with concerns about the repercussions of this adventurous aggression, especially as the US surveillance den (embassy) in Beirut announced that the State Department had ordered the departure of family members and non-essential government employees from Lebanon.

 “The US Department of State has ordered the departure of family members and non-essential US government employees from Lebanon due to the volatile and unpredictable security situation in the region,” the embassy said in its announcement.

With this dubious announcement, the surveillance den (or the US offensive base in Awkar, as the Lebanese like to call it) has clearly raised American concerns about legitimate reactions against its presence, whether in Lebanon or at its bases spread along the Persian Gulf coast, the United States in particular, and the West in general.

The embassy’s equivocal statement appeared to be part of precautionary measures, especially since similar measures has also been taken at its embassies in Qatar and the UAE.

It is worth noting that even before the September 2024 aggression against Lebanon (which is still continuing sporadically), Western embassies allied with the United States have kept only essential staff at their headquarters.

Besides, they have restricted diplomats from bringing their families, and warned them against visiting certain Lebanese regions (especially pro–Resistance strongholds). These embassies are continuously monitoring developments and acting accordingly.

Diplomatic sources have confirmed that the situation in Lebanon—so far—is not a source of concern, as coordination between Lebanese parties and the international community is “reassuring” following a confirmation that Lebanon is “not interested in escalation.” 

Amidst anticipation of the potential repercussions of the US aggression against Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities, President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam are in continuous consultations to “spare” Lebanon from the repercussions of the Iranian-American escalation.

In a statement, President Aoun said, “The recent escalation of Israeli-Iranian confrontations and the rapid developments accompanying them, particularly the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, are likely to raise fears of an escalation of tensions that could threaten security and stability in more than one region and country.”

He noted that this “calls for restraint and the launch of constructive and serious negotiations to restore stability to the countries of the region and avoid further killing and destruction.”

In the midst of this escalation, which could last for a long time, Aoun claimed that “Lebanon—its leadership, parties, and people—realizes today, more than ever, that it has paid a heavy price for the wars that erupted on its soil and in the region.”

Aoun alleged, “Lebanon is unwilling to pay more, and there is no national interest in doing so, especially since the cost of these wars was and will be greater than its ability to afford.” 

Prime Minister Salam announced that he and Aoun agreed “to work together to spare Lebanon from the repercussions of these conditions, prioritize the supreme national interests, and preserve unity and national solidarity.”

For its part, Hezbollah condemned “The barbaric, treacherous American aggression against the peaceful nuclear facilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which reveals the true face of the United States of America as the greatest threat to regional and international security and stability.”

Hezbollah affirmed, “The American administration sought, through this criminal aggression, to achieve what the Zionist entity failed to accomplish.”

Despite the President and Prime Minister’s condemnation of the aggression and their expression of Lebanon’s full solidarity with Iran, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants (Lebanese Forces party minister) Youssef Rajai once again violated his diplomatic duties!

Rajai not only did not condemn the aggression, but also did not even attend the emergency meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) held Friday in Istanbul, Turkey, to discuss the aggression against Iran.

Lebanon was represented by its ambassador to Ankara, Ghassan al-Moallem.

Ironically, the foreign minister of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham regime, Asaad al-Sheibani, participated, despite his government’s hostility toward Iran.

The OIC issued a statement describing the Israeli attacks as “a clear violation of international law and a threat to the security of the region.”

 

 

Persian Gulf Arabs oppose US attack on Iran

In a commentary on March 31, the British newspaper the Guardian wrote an article saying that the Persian Gulf Arab states are opposed to a possible US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, believing it will make the Middle East region more insecure.

“Widespread rejection in the Persian Gulf of a US-inspired attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is a relatively new factor in the equation, and Trump’s plan to reportedly visit Saudi Arabia on his first overseas trip means he may personally hear strong opposition to an attack on Iran from the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman,” the Guardian wrote.

The following is the text of the article titled “Trump’s bombing threat over Iran nuclear program prompts backlash”:

Iran has reacted with outrage after Donald Trump said the country will be bombed if it does not accept US demands to constrain its nuclear program.

The US president said on Sunday that if Iran “Doesn’t make a deal, there will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.”

Trump’s latest threat – more explicit and violent than any made before – came after he sent a letter to Iran, as yet undisclosed, offering to hold talks on its nuclear program. Iran had sent a reply to the US stating it was willing to hold indirect talks, officials confirmed.

Esmail Baghaei, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson, said of Trump’s threat, “The explicit threat of bombing Iran by the head of a country is clear contradiction to the essence of international peace and security.

“Such a threat is a gross violation of the United Nations charter and a violation of the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards regime. Violence brings violence and peace creates peace, America can choose.”

The Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a sceptic about talks with the US, said Iran was not overly concerned by Trump’s words. “We consider it unlikely that such harm would come from outside. However, if any malicious act does occur, it will certainly be met with a firm
and decisive response,” he said.

Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Revolutionary Guard’s aerospace force, said, “Someone in glass houses does not throw stones at anyone,” adding: “The Americans have at least 10 bases with 50,000 troops in the region, meaning they are sitting in a glass house.”

But the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, clearly had authority to keep the prospect of talks alive, saying Iran had already replied to the Trump letter through intermediaries in Oman and adding he knew the Iranian letter had now reached the US. Araghchi said direct talks were not possible while the US continued to threaten and bully Iran.

Trump sent his original letter proposing talks through the United Arab Emirates’ senior diplomatic envoy, Anwar Gargash.

Trump has set a deadline of mid-May for progress to be made, but a longer deadline also exists of mid-August, by which time the original 2015 nuclear agreement will largely expire and a European response will be required. Trump took the US out of that agreement in 2018, a move widely seen as a mistake since it led Iran to speed up its uranium enrichment program.

That Iran sent its reply through Oman, its traditional chosen mediator, rather than the UAE may suggest Iran does not want the UAE – which has normalized relations with Israel – to act as intermediaries. The US and Iran had held indirect talks on reviving the nuclear agreement under the Biden administration in Vienna from 2021, but they fizzled out, and all sides agreed the indirect nature of the talks ate up time, something Trump is reluctant to offer Iran.

Some of the ground will have been covered in four rounds of parallel talks held between Iranian and European negotiators in Geneva.

Tehran has not commented on how broadly the Trump letter went in demanding concessions from Iran. But the Iranian ambassador to Iraq, Mohammad Kazem al-Sadegh, indicated the US was seeking talks that went wider than the nuclear program, saying the letter called for the disbandment of the Iranian-backed Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces militia.

The US administration has been divided over whether to simply demand Iran expose its civil nuclear program to fuller international inspection, or make a wider set of demands including a complete end to its nuclear program and an Iranian commitment to stop backing resistance groups in the Middle East such as Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen.

The US national security adviser, Mike Waltz, has called for the “full dismantlement” of the Iranian nuclear program, something Tehran rejects. By contrast, Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, spoke only of restricting Iran’s nuclear program, something Iran has been willing to accept since 2015 so long as it leads to a lifting of sanctions on the Iranian economy.

Kamal Kharazi, the head of Iran’s Strategic Council on Foreign Relations and sometimes touted as a chief negotiator, has accused the US of operating a psychological war by adopting a policy of “either war or negotiation”.

Widespread rejection in the Persian Gulf of a US-inspired attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is a relatively new factor in the equation, and Trump’s plan to reportedly visit Saudi Arabia on his first overseas trip means he may personally hear strong opposition to an attack on Iran from the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.

The Persian Gulf’s opposition to an attack on Iran is based not on close ideological affinity with Iran, but on a sense the region must avoid further political instability.