Showing posts with label US attack on Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US attack on Iran. Show all posts

Wednesday, 25 June 2025

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.”

 

 

Wednesday, 2 April 2025

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.