Archives: Articles

By Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor

Palestinian Territory – Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor warns of a sharp increase in Israel’s genocide against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip, particularly through intensified mass killings. This escalation comes amid a near-total absence of international accountability or deterrence, and as global media attention wanes due to developments surrounding the ongoing confrontation between Israel and Iran.

In just the past four days, Euro-Med Monitor has documented the killing of over 350 Palestinians and the injury of hundreds more, in the context of a wide-scale Israeli assault targeting densely populated areas of forcibly displaced civilians, what remains of homes, and the few remaining humanitarian aid distribution points.

Over 70 Palestinians have been killed since early this morning (Friday 20 June), nearly half of them while waiting for or attempting to obtain food aid—a pattern that underscores Israel’s deliberate use of starvation as a weapon of its genocide.

Field documentation confirms continuedsystematic attacks on civilians. Eleven members of the Ayash family were killed today when the Israeli military bombed their home, west of Deir al-Balah, while three other individuals—including a child—were killed in an Israeli strike on a house in Gaza City’s northeast Al-Tuffah neighbourhood, in the north of the Strip. Another Israeli airstrike on a food supply point in central Gaza City killed seven more civilians, including two children.

,” saidLima Bustami, Director of Euro-Med Monitor’s Legal Department.“

Survivors are forcibly displaced to camps lacking even the most basic necessities,” she stated, “and are then deliberately starved—with those approaching aid points gunned down or shelled. This calculated and horrific sequence—combining starvation, systematic denial of survival essentials, and direct targeting—reflects Israel’s intent to destroy the population of Gaza, in whole or in part, fulfilling the elements of genocide.”

Bustami added: “The continuation of this genocidal campaign amid international paralysis seals the circle of injustice for the world, just as the circle of death tightens around Gaza. The world must act now to stop the killing, hold the perpetrators accountable, and restore the credibility of international law.”

Figures from Gaza’s Ministry of Health show a dramatic rise in casualties: 69 deaths and 221 injuries were recorded yesterday, with 144 killed and 560 wounded on Wednesday, and at least 61 killed on Tuesday. This reflects a terrifying acceleration in mass killing operations focused on residential areas and protected civilian infrastructure, in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.

The escalation unfolds alongside Israel’s daily policy of forced displacement, now in its 36th consecutive day. Over 300,000 Palestinian civilians are being pushed westward in the Gaza Strip, under relentless Israeli bombardment. Simultaneously, Israel maintains near-total fire control over the northern part of the besieged enclave, including Beit Hanoun, Beit Lahia, Jabalia, and adjacent areas, further tightening the siege and isolating entire populations.

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), more than 680,000 Palestinians have been displaced since Israel broke the ceasefire agreement and resumed its military assault on 18 March. Less than 18% of the Strip remains outside direct Israeli military control or forced “evacuation” zones. With no safe shelter, civilians are crammed into overcrowded displacement sites, temporary shelters, damaged buildings, or even forced to sleep on the street—a stark reflection of Gaza’s humanitarian collapse.

Israeli attacks have killed over 5,400 Palestinianssince the resumption of hostilities on 18 March,most of them civilians, including large numbers of women and children. Aid distribution points, theoretically meant to be safe zones, have become deadly traps. Israeli forces systematically target crowds of civilians gathered around these points, especially as hunger worsens, and killthose who are simply trying to survive.

Euro-Med Monitor has documented the killing of over 120 Palestinians since Monday alone, all of whom were either approaching or waiting at aid centres when targeted by Israeli forces. About 20 similar incidents have been recorded in the past month, reflecting a clear pattern of the Israelitargeting of hungry civilians.

The Israeli army continues to deny responsibility, resorting to vague claims about “suspects” withoutany evidence. Ground investigations conducted by Euro-Med Monitor confirm that the victims have been unarmed civilians, including many children, women, and elderly individuals.

These mass killings are taking place followingIsrael’s deliberate reduction in aid distribution points from more than 400 UN-supervised stations to just four, now operating under a quasi-military system by the US-Israeli-backed “Gaza Humanitarian Fund” (GHF), and guarded by Israeli forces and private security companies. This has deprived hundreds of thousands of civilians of safe access to food and medicine, turning aid centres into scenes of mass killing, and consequently making it so that many people arenow terrified to approach such sites.

Since Israel began imposing its “aid distribution”mechanism on the Gaza Strip’s population, Euro-Med Monitor has documented the involvement of the Israeli military, local armed gangs cooperating with it, and personnel from the US security firm overseeing the aid centres, in the killings of Palestinian civilians at or near these locations. Notably, the victims have been targeted despitepresenting no actual threat to anyone. Under international law, lethal force is only permissible as a last resort in the face of an imminent threat to life—a condition clearly unmet in these incidents.

Israel has also imposed a near-completeblockade on humanitarian aid since March, allowing only symbolic quantities of select items to enter the enclave via UN agencies. According to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), all of the roughly 2.1 million people in Gaza now face acute food insecurity, while access to clean water has collapsed to catastrophic levels. Since May, cases of malnutrition among children under five have risen by nearly 150%, with severe cases doubling.

All states and institutions must exert maximum pressure on Israel to immediately halt the killing of starving civilians and dismantle its inhumane “aiddistribution” mechanism. The international community must compel Israel to end its illegal blockade and restore full humanitarian access to the Gaza Strip at once; this is the only way to prevent famine and ensure the prompt entry of food, medicine, and fuel. Euro-Med Monitor also calls for the establishment of UN-supervised humanitarian corridors and the deployment of independent international observers.

All countries must fulfill their legal obligations and act urgently to stop the ongoing genocide in the Strip. This includes taking concrete measures to protect Palestinian civilians; ensuring Israel’s compliance with international law and International Court of Justice rulings, and holding it accountable for its crimes; and the swift execution of the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister and former Defence Minister.

In addition, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor callsfor immediate diplomatic, military, and economic sanctions against Israel and its more powerful allies, particularly the United States, for suchgrave and systematic violations of international law. These sanctions should include total arms embargoes; halting all forms of military and security cooperation; freezing the assets of political and military figures involved in the genocide; imposing travel bans; and suspendingthe operations of US and Israeli military-industrial companies in global markets; plus suspending bilateral agreements that grant Israel and the US trade and economic privileges that enable them to continue committing genocide against the Palestinian people.

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor is a Geneva-based independent organization with regional offices across the MENA region and Europe

21 June 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof 

The assertion that Jesus Christ can be understood as a feminist is one that initially seems anachronistic, given that the term “feminism” and its associated theories emerged many centuries after Jesus’ earthly ministry. However, when “feminist” is understood not as adherence to a specific modern political ideology but as a profound commitment to the dignity, empowerment, and equality of women, and a challenge to patriarchal structures that diminish them, an examination of Jesus’ life, teachings, and interactions with women through such a lens becomes remarkably insightful. Christian feminism seeks precisely this: to understand the teachings of Jesus Christ through the lens of feminist theory and praxis. A closer examination reveals that Jesus’ engagement with women and his broader message contain radical elements that align significantly with feminist concerns for justice and the full humanity of women.

Foundations of Christian Feminist Hermeneutics

To approach the figure of Jesus through a feminist lens requires engaging with Christian feminist hermeneutics. This interpretive framework acknowledges that traditional biblical interpretations have often been shaped by patriarchal biases, leading to the marginalization or misrepresentation of women’s experiences and roles in scripture and tradition. Thinkers like Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza advocate for a “hermeneutics of suspicion,” which approaches texts critically, aware of their potential to uphold patriarchal power structures. This is coupled with a “hermeneutics of remembrance” or “retrieval,” aiming to uncover and reconstruct the stories and contributions of women that have been suppressed or overlooked. Phyllis Trible, for example, has worked to “depatriarchalizing” biblical texts, highlighting forgotten narratives of women.

Furthermore, a “hermeneutics of liberation,” as articulated by theologians like Letty M. Russell, insists that scripture must be read in ways that promote justice and flourishing for all, especially the oppressed. Rosemary Radford Ruether’s work critiques how traditional theology has often reinforced sexism and calls for a reconstruction that affirms women’s full personhood. Christian feminist hermeneutics, therefore, seeks to uncover the liberating themes and motifs that run throughout the biblical narrative, offering a fresh perspective on figures like Jesus. It is through such hermeneutical strategies that one can discern the proto-feminist dimensions of Jesus’ ministry.

Jesus’ Ministry to Women: Challenging Patriarchal Norms

In the deeply patriarchal society of first-century Palestine, where women’s roles were heavily restricted and their public presence curtailed, Jesus consistently challenged the status quo by engaging with women in public spaces and affirming their worth. His encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1-42) is a remarkable instance. This interaction not only transcended significant cultural, ethnic, and religious boundaries but, crucially, acknowledged the woman’s spiritual agency and capacity for theological dialogue, leading her to become a witness to her community.

Jesus’ conversation with Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38-42) further illustrates his appreciation for women’s intellectual and spiritual capacities. He validates Mary’s choice to sit at his feet and learn from him, a role typically reserved for male disciples. In doing so, Jesus implicitly affirms a woman’s right to theological education and spiritual pursuit beyond prescribed domestic duties.

His ministry also demonstrated a profound concern for women’s physical and emotional well-being, often by transgressing purity laws and social conventions that isolated and shamed them. The healing of the bleeding woman (Mark 5:21-43) is a powerful example. By allowing her to touch him and by publicly affirming her faith and healing, Jesus not only restored her physical health but also her social and religious standing, effectively touching the “untouchable.” Similarly, his compassionate engagement with the woman accused of adultery (John 8:1-11), where he challenged her accusers and offered her dignity rather than condemnation, showcases his commitment to challenging social and cultural norms that disproportionately marginalized and victimized women.

Feminist Themes in Jesus’ Teachings

Jesus’ teachings often subverted traditional patriarchal structures and emphasized values such as humility, service, and mutual love, which stand in contrast to hierarchical power dynamics. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), Jesus pronounces blessings on the poor, the hungry, and the persecuted. These categories disproportionately affected women in ancient Palestine, making his words particularly resonant with their lived experiences and offering a vision of God’s kingdom that prioritized the marginalized.

His teachings on divorce and remarriage (Mark 10:2-12) also demonstrate a significant concern for women’s welfare. In a context where men could divorce their wives with relative ease, leaving women vulnerable, Jesus’ stricter stance challenged these patriarchal norms and implicitly protected women’s social and economic security.

Furthermore, Jesus’ use of parables and metaphors often featured women as protagonists or key characters, granting them agency and visibility. The parables of the persistent widow (Luke 18:1-8), who boldly demands justice, and the wise and foolish virgins (Matthew 25:1-13), who bear responsibility for their preparedness, highlight women’s capacity for action, persistence, and moral decision-making. These stories suggest that Jesus saw women as capable of embodying the core values and responsibilities of the kingdom of God, directly including them in the imaginative landscape of his teachings.

The Significance of Women’s Leadership in the Early Christian Movement

The impact of Jesus’ inclusive approach is evident in the early Christian movement, which was marked by a surprising number of women in leadership roles, including figures like Mary Magdalene, Junia (referenced by Paul as “outstanding among the apostles” in Romans 16:7), and Phoebe (a deacon and benefactor mentioned in Romans 16:1-2). Jesus’ investment in women as disciples, learners, and dialogue partners laid the groundwork for this development.

The resurrection narrative powerfully underscores Jesus’ trust in women’s capacity for leadership and testimony. Across all four Gospels (Matthew 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-11; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-18), women are depicted as the first witnesses to the risen Christ and the first to be commissioned as messengers of this foundational good news. In a society that largely devalued female testimony, this choice is profoundly significant, elevating women to a central role in the most critical event of Christian faith.

Christian Feminist Hermeneutics and the Figure of Jesus

As established, Christian feminist hermeneutics seeks to interpret Scripture through the lens of women’s experiences and perspectives. This approach recognizes that traditional interpretations have often been shaped by patriarchal biases and actively seeks to uncover the liberating themes and motifs that run throughout the biblical narrative.

In the case of Jesus Christ, a Christian feminist hermeneutic highlights his radical concern for women’s dignity, empowerment, and equality. Jesus’ life and teachings demonstrate a consistent commitment to challenging the social, cultural, and religious norms that marginalized women. His investment in women as disciples, theological discussants, leaders, and primary witnesses underscores the importance he placed on women’s full participation in the divine economy and the life of the faith community.

Implications for Contemporary Christian Communities

The recognition of Jesus Christ’s ministry as embodying feminist principles has significant implications for contemporary Christian communities. It challenges these communities to critically re-examine their attitudes toward women’s leadership, their affirmation of women’s dignity, and their commitment to women’s empowerment in all aspects of church and societal life. It calls for the conscious adoption of inclusive language in worship, liturgy, and theological discourse, and the development of practices that acknowledge and honour the diversity of women’s experiences and contributions.

Moreover, a feminist Christology, which sees Jesus as standing in solidarity with the marginalized, underscores the urgent need for Christian communities to engage in praxis-oriented ministries that address the systemic inequalities and injustices faced by women globally. This includes advocating for policies and practices that promote women’s economic empowerment, actively challenging cultures of violence and abuse against women, and intentionally creating and protecting spaces where women’s voices can be heard, valued, and amplified.

Reclaiming Jesus: Champion of Women’s Dignity and Liberation

While the term “feminist” is a modern construct, the idea of Jesus Christ as a figure whose life and teachings profoundly align with feminist concerns for equality, dignity, and liberation is rooted in a careful examination of the Gospel narratives. A Christian feminist hermeneutic illuminates the liberating themes and motifs that run throughout the biblical witness concerning Jesus, challenging traditional patriarchal interpretations and emphasizing the centrality of women’s dignity, empowerment, and equality to his message and mission. As Christian communities seek to faithfully follow Jesus’ example in the contemporary world, they are called to recognize the full significance of women’s leadership, to actively challenge systemic inequalities that oppress women, and to engage wholeheartedly in praxis-oriented ministries that promote justice, liberation, and empowerment for all people.

Bibliography

Brock, Ann Graham. Mary Magdalene: The First Apostle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Brock, Rita Nakashima. Journeys by Heart: A Christology of Erotic Power. New York: Crossroad, 1988.

Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schussler. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroad, 1983.
Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schussler. Jesus: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet: Critical Issues in Feminist Christology. New York: Continuum, 1994.

Heyward, Carter. The Redemption of God. New York: Crossroad, 1982.

Johnson, Elisabeth A. She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse. New York: Crossroad, 1992.

Kwok, Pui-lan. Introducing Asian Feminist Theology. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

Oduyoye, Mercy Amba. Daughters of Anowa: African Women and Patriarchy. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1995.

Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1983.

Russell, Letty M. Household of Freedom: Authority in Feminist Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1987.
Russell, Letty M. Church in the Round: Feminist Interpretation of the Church. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993.

Tolbert, Mary Ann. Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1989.

Williams, Delores S. Sisters in the Wilderness: The Challenge of Womanist God-Talk. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1993.

V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism.

20 June 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Sally Dugman

Unacceptably horrible is the fact that my government, through our USA bunch of politicians, overall prefer give money, bombs and other goods to be used in slaughter and ruination initiated by foreign lands like Israel and the Ukraine rather than uplift and improve the quality of life at home. In fact, what a pathway forward of war supporting shows exactly the priorities that the brunt of our politicians want … and it’s clearly not helping improve USA communities.

Meanwhile, it’s scandalous that many of the financially poor states in the USA have no extra funds to pay out for Medicaid (healthcare and medicine for needy children and adults), SNAP (food stamps) and other aids for the poorest of the poor. So we desperately need a living wage in this country, as well as more (affordable) housing. So that the very hard working and the disabled individuals can manage to stay alive and healthy with a roof over their heads.

As it is, we already have lots of severe health care problems unaddressed in the USA. So let’s not make the situation any worse than it already is through exacerbating the situation by taking away the few basic benefits that some impoverished people in some U.S. locations have that Trump’s “big beautiful bill,”, if passed in the Senate, would deny supportive help to the worst off of peoples in the U.S.

In fact, you should see, for example, some of the hardship cases — the mentally and physically sick people of all older ages living in a small tent village behind the mini-mall where I grocery shop. Then again, on second thought, no, you shouldn’t. It’s too heart wrenching and sickening a view. Besides, it is dangerously to go up there as there are, supposedly, thieves, rapists and crazed angry people needing mental health support in the group.

Indeed, just about any of these tent communities anywhere can break your heart in compassion and empathy! The reason is, of course, that this is absolutely no way for any persons anywhere to have to live!

Meanwhile, I want to know: Why are we USAers as a country giving war supplies and huge financial donations to other countries (like Israel and the Ukraine) when our infrastructure (U.S. water systems, roads, bridges, public sewerage stations and much more) are falling apart at home? Why do we have deeply impoverished whole communities here unable to take care of minimally basic needs like food and shelter beyond just living in dilapidated tents in woods like my tented bunch with poison ivy present, along with too much heat to endure in the summer and too much bone chilling cold in the winter, too much mud in the spring and unpredictable storms in the fall, in addition to their having no sanitation facilities, nor bathrooms, nor showers, nor anywhere to cook or wash dishes. Why in this wealthy country — the USA — must we have such glaring atrocious paucity spotted all across the whole land?

Obviously that this set of circumstances exists is one of the U.S. major outrageous shames, along with many others like support of foreign wars that are openly aimed at burying children alive in the rubble of collapsed buildings.

It is especially unacceptable since some in the USA Congress; the President, himself; some of the wealthiest people in America and loyal Trump “yes men” (and affirmative women) know that they want even deeper cuts to U.S. health care (i.e., nearly a trillion dollars voided in Medicaid), food assistance — SNAP food stamp benefits planned to be cut by at least $211 billion to give millionaires and billionaires a tax break that would impact at least 2.5 million poor children who are for some of them already malnourished, countless frail and emaciated elders and others like permanently injured veterans due to their harm received in our nation’s war engagements … and all to free up money to give to other lands like Israel for further dangerous war (ad)ventures abroad? 

No, this arrangement is needs to be totally rejected! We can’t keep taking away from impoverished families, Veterans (of which many have unaddressed PTSD issues due to the trauma that they faced), fragile elders and others in need in the USA so as to get billions and trillions more freed up for a combination of tax break for the wealthiest, more money for ICE raids and illegal immigrant deportations without due process of law, and to carry out the deliberate murder of children and other noncombatants abroad, in addition to my country joining covertly into new conflicts like the one started up recently against Iran, which just might wake the Sleeping Bear (Russia) and the usually peaceful Panda (China).

No wonder, then, that between five and eleven million people in the USA protested in the “No Kings” demonstrations on last Saturday since so many of us are close to being totally fed up with our dysfunctional and sociopathic government that won’t support us much on the stateside front and keeps intending to destroy both humans, landscapes and other form of life abroad. Enough! We’ve had enough!

Sally Dugman lives in and writes from MA, USA where our local government here is striving overall to make our state exemplary for other to follow as is usual and much to the chargrin of some rightwingers:  We rank number one in many indices, as well as

20 June 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dan Lieberman

How can it be? How can an obvious genocide, perpetrated by a small country, be allowed to occur?

How can a small and newly developed nation, with a slight population and few resources, artificially stitched together with foreign people from unrelated parts of the world, pulverize a large and millennium developed nation with a huge population, abundant resources, and naturally situated with native people in one unique area?

Candide searched the world and concluded, “This is the best of all possible worlds.”
Thomas More wrote of escape to Utopia, a vision that captivated many who tried to turn the vision into a practicality and always failed.

Literature, theater, and film have explored the savagery that allows violence. 

A simple 1961 Japanese film, When A Woman Ascends The Stairs, attempts to explain it ─ in a cruel world, we are not masters of our fate, nobody will help, and we often must accept it.In this quiet masterpiece, a bar girl in the Tokyo Ginza district, politely serves the customers and politely refuses to compromise her moral standing. She searches for ways to escape from ascending the stairs to the bar each evening and cannot find help from anyone. Battered and bruised by betrayal, even from a mother and brother who take advantage of her, she remains resolute and struggles to find a rewarding life. After succumbing to a married man, whom she loved and who will be leaving Tokyo, and after receiving a false proposal of marriage, she returns to the bar, ascends the stairs with a firm step, and enters the bar with a smile and pronouncement, “I’m here.”

The world begs for a means to counter the oppressors and killers who have no regard for the lives of others, who lie, cheat, gain control, and use that control to elevate themselves and subdue others. A few inhabitants of the seven plus billions of the world community have spoken with their own violence.

Individual attacks on those allied with the Zionists are a clue to the feelings of ordinary people, driven to a paralyzing anguish by the continued murders of innocents from Israeli Jews and their worldwide supporters. People, who have no stairs left to climb and no lives left to live, reach out in punishing manners. There are several million who have been directly affected and been driven to madness, and several hundreds of millions who cannot comprehend the failure to prevent the genocide and have lost faith in the inhuman race. Animosity to Zionist Israel and its supporters has reached an inflection point and grows exponentially each day.

Israel’s genocidal tactics are not the sole feature that has alienated humanity from Israel and its supporting Jewish people, from all those who are identified with the genocide. There is a sense of betrayal, that Israel and the Jewish people are not constant victims who have consistently battled a hostile world composed of anti-Semites and fiendish supremacists.

People have learned that the celluloid shaped Exodus was an old and discarded tub, into which displaced Jews were unknowingly shoved and taken to a Promised Land. Many arrivals could not leave without paying the bill for the voyage and the assistance given to them. The fearless Kibbutz settler, originally a dedicated and hard-working pioneer, kept alive by public relations, became less significant after World War I. In 1920, after the Zionist population had grown to 60,000 in a Palestine composed of 585,000 Arabs, a reporter noted that earlier settlers felt uncomfortable with the later immigrants. From Zionist Aspirations in Palestine, Anstruther Mackay, originally published in The Atlantic Monthly, July 1920.

It may not be generally known, but a goodly number of the Jewish dwellers in the land are not anxious to see a large immigration into the country. This is partly due to the fear that the result of such immigration would be an overcrowding of the industrial and agricultural market; but a number of the more respectable older settlers have been disgusted by the recent arrivals in Palestine of their coreligionists, unhappy individuals from Russia and Romania brought in under the auspices of the Zionist Commission from the cities of Southeastern Europe, and neither able nor willing to work at agriculture or fruit-farming.

The so-called miracle progress of Israel would not have occurred without the financial and military support from Germany and the United States, support programs that used the financial accounts of the German and American peoples. The “progress” is not unique; many nations after World War II, without outside support, have leaped far ahead of Israel. The “blooming of the desert” is nothing more than using known irrigation techniques and wasting precious water to establish settlements and drive Bedouins out of the Negev. Technological advancements are due to Russian and American engineers who brought their knowledge, experience, and resources to a country that needed modernization.

Hidden from public scrutiny is that Israel, together with the United States, has always had close to the highest poverty rate in OECD nations. Only Costa Rica has a higher poverty rate.
Hidden from public scrutiny are the continuous atrocities committed by Israeli soldiers against innocent populations in Israel, West Bank, Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon, which can be found in A history stained with innocent blood at Ahram Online. One function of the Israeli army in the West Bank ─ protect the settlers from retribution as they daily murder Palestinians.

The most disquieting revelation is that anti-Semitism is not a careless invective against Jews but an originated word that serves to turn legitimate arguments against Jewish practices into elements of hate. “Kill the Arabs,” expressed by many Israelis, is perceived as anxious rhetoric. Arguing against genocidal maniacs is termed anti-Semitic. In the Molotov cocktail throwing incident in Boulder, Colorado, Americans, who never highlighted the captivity of Americans in foreign nations, highlighted the captivity of foreign people who betrayed humanity by joining the genocidal nation of Israel. Stefanie Clarke, co‑executive director of Stop Antisemitism Colorado disguised the truth behind the happenings, and used the hostility to Zionist Jews to further Zionist interests. Ms. Clarke said, “The reason things like this are happening is because we have allowed this climate of hate to fester. And today it boiled over and this doesn’t come out of nowhere. This is part of a deeply disturbing trend of hate that has been normalized and allowed to spread. ”

The attack in Boulder, Colorado came from a person driven into mental anguish by observing people lacking sympathy for the desperate Palestinians and registering concern with those who contributed to the genocide. The mental anguish boiled over and arrived from a need to confront the disturbing expressions of hatred exhibited by Israel’s Zionist Jews for others. This hatred has been normalized, and those unnerved by the genocide are striking out at those who contribute to the genocide.

Reconciliation, compromise, and mutual consideration have failed. The deadly is all that is left. And with it, the realization that reconciliation, compromise, and mutual consideration never existed for the Zionists and has been made impossible by them. From the day of its recognition, Israel has been a criminal state. Too little, and maybe too late, the world realizes a misrepresentation of what is called the Middle East conflict. The misrepresentation has led to a fallacious approach for rectification, and an obstacle for obtaining peace with justice. Criminal gangs, once they achieve superiority in firepower, make no compromises. They don’t divide or share their stolen largesse with the original owners.

One word summarizes the taking of another person’s property, livelihood, and dignity – theft! In this case, we have a specific type of theft, Raubwirtschaft, German for “plunder economy.” In Raubwirtschaft, the state economy is partially based on robbery, looting and plundering conquered territories. States that engage in Raubwirtschaft are in continuous warfare with their neighbors and usurp the resources of their conquered subjects, while claiming security objectives and defensive actions against defenseless people.

Israel has gone further than Raubwirtschaft, using it as a springboard for transnational corruption and having its citizens extend the illicit activities to global networks of money laundering, human trafficking, drug smuggling, and general crime.

A Broad Brush of Israeli Involvement in Transnational Corruption in the 21^st Century
Blacklisted 16 years ago, Israel has gained entry to the Financial Action Task Force, yet new immigrants can bring in unreported income for 10 years and vast scams go unprosecuted. Complaints from law enforcement in France and the United States that Israel is not cooperating sufficiently on international financial crimes continue unheeded.

Ariel Marom, a Belorussian-born former banker who lives in Israel and frequently travels throughout Russia and Eastern Europe for work, told The Times of Israel he believes that hundreds of millions of dollars of dirty money from the former Soviet Union is being smuggled into Israel, including by new immigrants. There are certain branches of large Israeli banks, he said, that have developed a reputation among newcomers for looking the other way. “A small percentage of this money is used to corrupt Israeli politicians,” he charged. “Russians – and this is no secret – fund the campaigns of a number of politicians, not just one party.”

Two Israelis shot dead in Mexico City were involved in money laundering and had links to local mafia.

Fourteen Israelis are suspected by Colombian authorities of running a child sex trafficking ring, which marketed tour packages from Israel to the Latin American country aimed at businessmen and recently discharged soldiers.

New report sheds light on disturbing human trafficking phenomenon in Israel.
The Justice Ministry published a report Thursday morning revealing alarming data about human trafficking in Israel over the past five years.

In its annual report for 2012, the International Narcotics Control Board lists Brazil and Israel among the “countries that are major manufacturers, exporters, importers, and users of narcotic drugs.”

Drugs trafficking arrest leads police to Israeli underworld.

Oded Tuito was alleged to be a global pill-pusher, whose Israeli mafia group was the biggest operator in a booming international trade in the lucrative “hug drug.” The profits were ploughed into Israeli real estate, being sent there from the US or Barcelona,” a police spokesman said. Police forces in various parts of the world said Mr. Tuito’s arrest confirmed the alleged growing global influence of Israel’s loose-knit, but expanding, crime organisations.

Israel is at the center of international trade in the drug ecstasy, according to a document published last week by the U.S. State Department. A seriously embarrassing record for a nation that was created to be “a light among all nations,” and claims to represent world Jewry.
The most deceptive propaganda mechanism in history — AIPAC, ADL, CAMERA, and a multitude of acronym named Israel support organizations in western nations — extend Israel’s reach and influence western governments and peoples.

Global influencers perpetuate the myth of Israel as a responsible and peace seeking Jewish state.
In France, Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions (CRIF) gathers an assortment of groups dedicated to Israel. Examples of their thrust and how they operate.

French Jewish group CRIF was fined for defaming pro-Palestinian charity, April 8, 2014.
(JTA) – France’s largest Jewish organization defamed a pro-Palestinian charity by accusing it of financing Hamas, a French court ruled. CRIF staff were ordered to pay the equivalent of $4,140 to the Committee for Charity and Support for the Palestinians, or CBSP – a group that CRIF researcher Marc Knobel in 2010 wrote “collects funds for Hamas.”

Former Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar (why him?) leads The Friends of Israel Initiative (FII), which defines its thrust as “countering the growing efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and its right to live in peace within safe and defensible borders.” A July 2014 working paper, Understanding the Issue of Israeli Settlements and Borders claims that

…settlements have become an exaggerated issue in the diplomatic discourse over Israel. Settlement activity, like the construction of homes and schools, does not constitute a violation of Israel’s signed agreements with the Palestinians. Indeed, as was pointed out, the Oslo Agreements were signed without a settlement freeze. Those agreements allowed Israel to build in the areas under its jurisdiction as these allowed the Palestinians to build in the areas under their jurisdiction. The assertion that settlement activity is a violation of international law is not universally accepted, though it is frequently stated in UN debates and in the declarations of the European Union.

A July 2017 FII event featured this statement:
As goes Israel – so goes the United States of America and so goes Western civilization. And so many of our adversaries and enemies know that. That’s what we’re facing all across the Middle East and, truthfully, all across the world.

United Kingdom has almost as many pro-Israel organizations as there are Israelis. Three of them are:

(1) Labour Friends of Israel (LFI), a parliamentary group affiliated with the Labor Party, which promotes support for a strong bilateral relationship between Britain and Israel. They “run and promote campaigns to help create a lasting peace in the Middle East with Israel safe, secure and recognised within its borders; living alongside a democratic, independent Palestinian state.”

(2) Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), a parliamentary group affiliated with the Conservative Party and dedicated to strengthening business, cultural and political ties between the United Kingdom and Israel. CFI has given £377,994 to the Conservative party since 2004, mostly in the form of fully-funded trips to Israel for MPs, according to the Electoral Commission website. Directors of CFI have also given money directly to the Tory party.

(3) Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM), which “seeks to present Israel’s case to journalists.” Their “Strategic Assessments provide expert analysis of the ever changing challenges to Israeli security. From sub-state actors and foreign states to domestic concerns, the strategic threats to Israel and the Middle East are explored in depth.”

Russia, yes Russia, has formation of a new lobby. From Jerusalem Post, Pro-Israel caucus forming in Russian parliament, By GIL HOFFMAN, 05/25/2013

A select group of Russian parliament members will soon be urging their colleagues to say “da” to Israel after a delegation of Israelis took steps to initiate the formation of a pro-Israel caucus in the Duma in meetings last week in Moscow.

An abundant number of pro-Israel organizationss, too numerous to describe, operate at all levels in the United States — political, social, media, economic, educational, “think tanks,” fund-raising, recruiting, and institutional. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli supporters intrude, infiltrate, and mold the minds of everyday Americans. One description can be found at The Israel Lobbies: A Survey of the Pro-Israel Community in the United States, Dov Waxman, June 2010.

Digest all of this. Why the existence of this plethora of helpful groups for one small country that has a strong military and is economically well-off? Do any equivalent assemblies of forces that promote a specific nation exist in the world?

Overlooking all of this is Mossad.

Mossad, an intelligence gathering and terrorist organization, operates within a multitude of counties, gathers information on military, social, political, and economic activities, assassinates adversaries, terrorizes populations and assures the criminal activities continue unimpeded.

A paralyzed world asks how can it happen. The answers to why a small nation can commit genocide, develop a superior military, and brutally attack a larger and more resourceful nation have been provided.

Israel is a criminal nation and not brought to justice for its criminal actions. Raubwirtschaft, its state economy is partially based on robbery, looting and plundering conquered territories. The U.S. and other nations assist and enable the Raubwirtschaft. Criminal gangs, once they achieve superiority in firepower, make no compromises. Israel would not have achieved superiority in firepower without the financial and military support from Germany and the United States, programs that used the financial accounts of the German and American peoples. Israel has extended illicit activities to global networks of money laundering, human trafficking, drug smuggling, and general crime. Local authorities take action but do not engage the central source in Tel Aviv.

Global influencers perpetuate the myth of Israel as a responsible and peace seeking Jewish state. No attempt is made to register these organizations as lobbies for a foreign government or investigate the legality of their operations. Mossad, an intelligence gathering and terrorist organization, operates within a multitude of countries and assures the criminal activities continue unimpeded. The U.S. refuses to include Mossad in its war on terrorism and permits the intelligence gathering and terrorism on its soil and in other lands.

Is it ignorance, is it bribery, is it graft, is it betrayal, is it lack of concern? It is all of that.

The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind,
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

Dan Lieberman publishes commentaries on foreign policy, economics, and politics at https://dlieb10gmailcom.substack.com/. 

20 June 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Shariq Us Sabah

In the shadow of rising tensions between Iran and Israel, with missile strikes and assassinations threatening to reshape the Middle East, it is easy to paint Iran as a theocratic monolith; a state rigidly defined by religious zeal and revolutionary fervour. But to view the Islamic Republic this way is to misunderstand the architecture of its survival.

As Professor Vali Nasr convincingly outlines in his new book Iran’s Grand Strategy: A Political History, the driving force behind Iran’s foreign policy is not blind ideology — it is a deeply rational, historically rooted pursuit of sovereignty. The Iran we see today is not the product of mystical thinking but of cold, strategic calculus forged in centuries of imperial humiliation, war, and existential vulnerability.

A Nation Alone

Iran’s identity is unique in the region: Persian, not Arab; Shia, not Sunni. This isolation— linguistic, cultural, and sectarian — has bred a persistent strategic loneliness. From the Safavid dynasty’s embrace of Shiism to differentiate from the Sunni Ottomans to the 20th-century losses of territory to Russia and Britain, Iran has internalised a worldview in which survival depends on self-reliance. The Iranian leadership sees the world through a historical prism — a nation repeatedly encircled, betrayed, and intervened upon.

Even Ayatollah Khomeini, often depicted as a dogmatic cleric, saw independence as the revolution’s central achievement. When secular revolutionaries presented him a draft of Iran’s future governance promising both democracy and Islam, he scribbled a third, non-negotiable principle: independence. Later, he would tell a Pakistani journalist, “All decisions will now be made in Tehran.”

Resistance as State Doctrine

This obsession with autonomy birthed a strategy known as moghavemat — resistance. It is not resistance for resistance’s sake, but a means of guarding sovereignty. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, veterans of the devastating 8-year Iran-Iraq war, emerged with a doctrine: no foreign power will protect us — we must defend ourselves.

This explains the rise of Iran’s proxy model: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen. It explains Iran’s investment in ballistic missiles and drones. These are not imperial tools — they are strategic hedges against perceived vulnerability. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, Tehran interpreted it not as liberation, but a prelude to its own invasion. Its response? Bleed the Americans through proxies in Baghdad, ensuring the war would be too costly to extend into Iran.

From Revolution to Realpolitik

The mythology of exporting revolution faded long ago. Iran does not want to recreate the Islamic Republic abroad — it wants influence, security depth, and bargaining chips. Its nuclear program is not just about energy or weaponisation; it is about reclaiming the right to decide its own future, just as Egypt did with the Suez Canal and Iran itself did with oil under Mossadegh.

The nuclear file — often misinterpreted in Western capitals as religiously driven — is rooted in nationalism. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s refusal to abandon uranium enrichment is not about eschatology; it is about pride, sovereignty, and history. “Who the hell are you to tell us what we can or cannot do?” he once remarked, echoing the anti-imperialist ethos of the 1950s more than a clerical ruling.

The Collapse of the Proxy Model

But the ground beneath Iran is shifting. The old deterrence architecture based on the threat of Hezbollah or Hamas is cracking. After October 7th, Israel’s direct strikes into Iranian territory, including its consulate in Damascus, mark a new era. Iran is now retaliating not through proxies, but directly from its soil. This is a tectonic shift.

Internally, debates rage between hardliners and pragmatists. While the Revolutionary Guards advocate doubling down on missiles and militarisation, reformist voices — historically sidelined — argue that true national strength lies in economic development and normalised relations. The people of Iran, weary of isolation and economic decay, are increasingly siding with the latter.

The Road Ahead

Whether Iran shifts course will depend not on American ultimatums or Israeli airstrikes, but on how the regime reads the costs of its current posture. If missiles prove more effective than militias, budgets and strategies will shift. If resistance becomes too costly to bear, even for the guardians of the revolution, a pivot may occur — not unlike Egypt’s from Nasser to Sadat, or China’s from Mao to Deng.

There is no guarantee. Regime collapse remains unlikely, and even in such a case, any successor would emerge from within the same elite ecosystem, even from the Revolutionary Guards themselves.

The West must recalibrate its understanding. Iran is not irrational. It is not suicidal. It is not, despite the slogans, hell-bent on apocalypse. It is strategic. It is scarred. And it is more than anything else, committed to never being dominated again.

To deal with Iran, we must engage not its slogans, but its story.

Shariq Us Sabah is a writer and political observer focused on West Asia and the evolving dynamics of nationalism, strategy, and state power

20 June 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Taj Hashmi

The average scholar or analyst of Middle Eastern and global conflicts often evaluates the Iran-Israel conflict without exploring the brief history of Israel itself, specifically, how it came into existence and, more importantly, why. As a result, these narratives often present fragmented accounts. It is as if the Arab-Israeli conflict, along with the Iran-Israel conflict that emerged after the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, are simply geopolitical disputes with standard solutions like those found elsewhere in the world. Given the recent events in aerial warfare between Iran and Israel since Friday the 13th of June, along with Donald Trump’s concerning statement suggesting that the US might intervene on Israel’s behalf against Iran, it is reasonable to assume that the world may face a significant conflict, potentially even World War III, in the coming years. As a result, it is crucial to recognise the importance of understanding the Iran-Israel conflict.

What many scholars deliberately overlook or consider insignificant is that Israel was a product of Western colonial rule, which was prevalent in many Afro-Asian countries during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Although Israel was established in 1948, when European colonies in Afro-Asia were undergoing decolonisation, its creation served the interests of Western powers during this colonial era and beyond, particularly in the post-colonial period. Israel was designed to further the agendas of former colonial rulers and emerging neo-colonial entities, such as the United States, thereby perpetuating their dominance in the postcolonial Third World. Therefore, Israel has never been a legitimate state, with claims and historical narratives that are often constructed or exaggerated.

Last but not least, what has been going on vis-à-vis the Iran-Israel conflict since the 13th of June has posed a grave threat to world peace, and also an existential threat to both Israel and Iran, and deserves global attention to find a quick solution to resolve the problem. Unfortunately, Donald Trump’s latest and least expected threats to Iran and the Khamenei Regime are that the US under his administration is likely to invade Iran in defence of Israel. The sooner the world restrains Israel from initiating a full-fledged war in the Middle East between Iran on the one hand and the US and Israel on the other, having the potential to trigger World War III, the better.

We know that the Iran-Israel conflict is one of the most complex and enduring geopolitical rivalries in the world. It is characterised not by direct large-scale military confrontation but by a multidimensional proxy conflict involving cyber warfare, assassinations, regional militias, and ideological hostilities. The roots of this conflict stretch back decades, grounded in divergent political ideologies, religious narratives, and strategic ambitions. While Iran champions itself as the vanguard of the Islamic Revolution and resistance against Western and Israeli influence, Israel sees Iran as an existential threat due to its nuclear ambitions and support for anti-Israel groups.

We need to understand the historical roots of the Iran-Israel conflict, its present manifestations, and the possible scenarios for its future. It delves into the conflict’s ideological, political, and military dimensions, analyses regional and international involvement, and assesses prospects for either escalation or détente.

The Historical Roots of the Iran-Israel Conflict

1. Pre-1979: Strategic Allies in the Middle East

Before the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran and Israel shared a covert but strategic alliance. Under the Shah, Iran was a pro-Western monarchy and one of the few Muslim-majority countries to recognise Israel de facto. Both states viewed Arab nationalism, particularly under Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, as a mutual threat and collaborated in intelligence sharing, arms sales, and economic ventures like oil trade. This pragmatic cooperation was primarily driven by shared interests rather than ideological affinity.

2. The 1979 Islamic Revolution: A Paradigm Shift

The 1979 Iranian Revolution marked a turning point. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s rise to power replaced the pro-Western monarchy with an Islamic theocracy rooted in Shia revolutionary ideology. One of the regime’s cornerstones became opposition to Israel, which it labelled the “Zionist regime” and an illegitimate occupier of Muslim lands. Iran severed all ties with Israel, transformed the Israeli embassy in Tehran into a Palestinian mission, and began supporting anti-Israel groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and, later, Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

3) Exporting the Revolution and the Rise of Hezbollah

Iran’s post-revolution foreign policy aimed to export its ideological model across the Middle East, often in opposition to Israel and Western allies. Its most significant proxy became Hezbollah, founded in the early 1980s during the Lebanese civil war. Iran provided Hezbollah with training, funding, and weapons, enabling it to grow into a formidable militia and political actor. The 2006 Lebanon War between Hezbollah and Israel underscored Iran’s indirect military reach and opened a new chapter in Iran-Israel hostilities.

The Present-Day Conflict: Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions and Israeli Security Doctrine

One of the most contentious aspects of the Iran-Israel conflict is Iran’s nuclear program. While Iran insists that its nuclear pursuits are for civilian purposes, Israel and much of the West suspect Iran of seeking nuclear weapons capability. Israel, which maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity, views a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat and has repeatedly stated that it will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

In 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed between Iran and the P5+1 nations (U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China, and Germany), offering Iran sanctions relief in return for nuclear restrictions. Israel opposed the deal, arguing it merely delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions and empowered its regional proxies. The U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 under President Trump, under heavy lobbying from Israel, led to increased tensions and a resumption of Iranian nuclear activity beyond agreed limits.

Covert Warfare: Cyber Attacks, Assassinations, and Sabotage

Unlike traditional wars, much of the Iran-Israel conflict occurs in the shadows. Israel has been linked to a series of cyberattacks, such as the Stuxnet virus that sabotaged Iranian centrifuges in 2010, and targeted killings of Iranian nuclear scientists, including Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in 2020. Iran has retaliated with cyberattacks of its own, targeting Israeli infrastructure and attempting to disrupt national systems.

This covert war escalates tensions without open military engagement, allowing plausible deniability while maintaining a constant state of strategic pressure.

The Syrian Civil War: A Proxy Battlefield

The Syrian civil war added a new dimension to the conflict. Iran has deployed troops and backed militias in Syria to support the Assad regime, establishing a network of bases near Israeli borders. Israel has responded with hundreds of airstrikes on Iranian targets in Syria, aiming to prevent entrenchment and the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah.

This indirect confrontation raises the risk of wider conflict, as any miscalculation or unintended casualty could trigger a broader war involving other regional and global powers.

Regional Realignments and the Abraham Accords

The normalisation of ties between Israel and several Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco, through the Abraham Accords has changed the regional calculus. These new alliances are partly driven by mutual concern over Iran’s regional ambitions. While Iran condemns these agreements as betrayals of the Palestinian cause, Israel sees them as strategic victories that isolate Iran.

Saudi Arabia, while not formally aligned with Israel, shares a common interest in countering Iran, particularly in the context of Iranian involvement in Yemen and the broader Gulf region.

The Future of the Iran-Israel Conflict: Potential for Escalation

The potential for direct military confrontation remains real. Key flashpoints include:

Nuclear Threshold Crossing: If Iran crosses an atomic threshold, Israel may resort to a military strike, either alone or with U.S. support, to destroy or delay the program.

Hezbollah-Israel War: A future conflict with Hezbollah could drag Iran into a wider regional war, mainly if Iranian personnel or interests are targeted directly.

Red Sea and Maritime Routes: Iranian attacks on Israeli-linked ships and vice versa could escalate tensions on a global trade front.

Given the advanced weaponry on both sides, including drones and precision-guided missiles, a future war could be highly destructive, especially for civilian populations.

Diplomatic and Strategic Restraints

As Israel’s principal ally and a signatory to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—an agreement aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief—the United States plays both a deterrent role and a potential mediator. However, President Trump has suggested the possibility of invading Iran on behalf of Israel, sending mixed signals. He understands that a U.S. invasion of Iran could potentially drag China into the conflict, along with other countries such as Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, and North Korea.

Iran is vital to China as its leading energy supplier and a strategic ally, particularly with the development of the Chabahar Port, which aims to establish road and railway connections linking Iran to China through Afghanistan. Nonetheless, internal political instability, economic challenges, and public fatigue in China and the U.S. may reduce the appetite for a full-scale war.

Moreover, while China and Russia have close ties with Israel, which is not viewed as their sworn enemy in the realms of trade or strategic rivalry, they do have significant issues with the US and its allies. Although these geo-strategic problems are not overwhelming enough for China and Russia to actively challenge the US regarding the contentious Iran-Israel conflict, but these countries would go to any extent to defend Iran, economically and strategically so important to them.

Prospects for Diplomacy and De-escalation

While the ideological divide is vast, diplomacy remains possible, particularly if the US and other international actors are involved. A new, more comprehensive agreement that addresses both Iran’s nuclear programme and its regional activities could theoretically reduce tensions. However, this would require significant compromises:

Iran would need to reduce its support for groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Houthis and accept more intrusive inspections. Israel would have to support diplomatic avenues and ease its covert operations, at least temporarily.

Track-two diplomacy, backchannel negotiations, and regional confidence-building measures (CBM) may offer incremental progress without a grand bargain. Good sense seems to prevail even under the unconventional Trump Administration.

Long-Term Strategic Trends

The future of the Iran-Israel conflict will also be shaped by broader geopolitical trends:

a) Changing US Priorities: As the US pivots toward the Indo-Pacific, regional actors may take more initiative in shaping the Middle East’s future.

b) Technological Warfare: Cyber warfare, artificial intelligence, and drone technology will play an increasing role in the conflict’s evolution.

c) Iranian Political Shifts: Leadership changes in Iran, especially after the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, could open the door to new policy directions. However, there is no guarantee that post-Khamenei Iran will be a liberal country, if not a democracy.

Trump’s plans to invade Iran have taken a back seat

After abruptly leaving the G-7 Summit in Alberta, Canada, on June 17, Donald Trump contemplated the possibility of invading Iran to support Israel and punish the Iranian regime for its alleged nuclear proliferation. His statements on this matter have been inconsistent. As of June 19th, he indicated that he would decide on military action after two weeks. His public statement, “We could kill Khamenei, but we are not doing it now,” crosses all limits of diplomatic norms, civility, and international law. He also urges Iranians to evacuate Tehran. He appears to be apprehensive, as public opinion in both the United States and among its allies is essentially against any military intervention in Iran.

He also understands that a US invasion of Iran is unlikely to result in the surrender of the Islamic regime. Furthermore, Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz to disrupt world trade, driving up oil prices globally. Without boots on the ground, mere airstrikes would likely be ineffective against Iran. For instance, using B-2 bombers to destroy Iran’s nuclear facility at Fordow, which is buried deep under mountains, would be nearly impossible. Lastly, Sayyed Abdul Malik Houthi, the leader of Yemen’s Ansarullah Resistance and Chief of the Houthi militia, has issued a warning to Trump regarding potential aggression against Iran, stating that such actions would be “dangerous” for the West. He stated that if the United States were to invade Iran, the Houthis would obstruct shipping lines in the Red Sea, which would have catastrophic consequences for international trade. Meanwhile, as of June 20^th America is withdrawing its military aircraft and naval ships from the Middle East. It signals Washington’s lack of interest in waging another war in the region, at least in near future.

Given the ongoing violence in Gaza, where over 55,000 Palestinians have died since October 2023, it remains uncertain whether Donald Trump will follow through with his ambiguous declaration of war against Iran shortly. Suppose the US and its allies decide to engage in a direct and comprehensive war against Iran. In that case, other regional stakeholders—such as China and, notably, Russia (which is already involved in a proxy war against the US in Ukraine), along with Pakistan and possibly Turkey and North Korea—are unlikely to remain neutral. Both Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin have condemned Trump’s consideration of an American invasion of Iran. China and Russia view Iran as a crucial ally for economic and geopolitical reasons and would not stand by while Iran is weakened. For China, Iran is an essential energy supplier and strategic ally; the Chabahar Port, currently under construction, could provide significant benefits by establishing road and railway connections between Iran and China via Afghanistan. Pakistan is particularly aware that Israel and its Western supporters, especially the US, may attempt to diminish Pakistan’s influence, particularly regarding its nuclear capabilities, following Iran’s possible destruction, similar to the events that unfolded in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria.

It is noteworthy that, with the exceptions of Turkey, Yemen, and Pakistan, no other Muslim-majority country from Morocco to Indonesia has condemned Israel’s actions in Iran and Gaza. The indiscriminate and brutal massacre of Palestinians by Israel since October 2023 has garnered only mild and restrained criticism from across the Muslim world. This Gaza massacre appears to be a test case that has emboldened Israel to consider further military actions against Iran. However, Iran’s retaliation has taken Israel and its Western allies by surprise. The “unstoppable” Iranian missile attacks in the first week of the conflict have made Israel and its allies, particularly the United States, very anxious. It seems that Israel is feeling the pressure and is quickly depleting its anti-missile defences. It is noteworthy that with the exceptions of Turkey, Yemen, and Pakistan, no other Muslim-majority country from Morocco to Indonesia has come forward in condemnation of the Israeli highhandedness in Iran and Gaza. The indiscriminate and brutal Israeli massacre of Palestinians since October 2023 also evoked very tame and restrained criticism of Israel and the West across the Muslim World. Seemingly, the Gaza Massacre has been the test case to further embolden Israel to open another killing field in Iran. However, Iran’s retaliation has taken Israel and its Western allies aback. And the “unstoppable” Iranian missile attacks in the first week of the war have turned Israel and its allies, especially the US, very nervous. Seemingly, Israel is nervous and fast running out of anti-missile weapons.

Conclusion

The Iran-Israel conflict is far more than a bilateral dispute—it is a clash of ideologies, regional ambitions, and global alliances. Its historical roots lie in revolutionary transformation and diverging national interests, while its present is defined by proxy warfare, nuclear brinkmanship, and strategic manoeuvring. The future remains uncertain, oscillating between the danger of open war and the hope for strategic de-escalation. Younger generations in Iran and Israel may demand less ideological confrontation and more economic and diplomatic engagement.

Ultimately, the resolution of this conflict depends not only on the two nations involved but also on the regional and global willingness to support dialogue over confrontation, stability over ideology, and diplomacy over destruction. While the path to peace is fraught with obstacles, the cost of continued hostility—human, economic, and geopolitical—is too high to ignore.

In summary, the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel is primarily driven by Israel’s unprovoked and illegal actions against Iran, rather than by religious or ethnic tensions. Israel was established to serve the colonial interests of Western imperialists, particularly Britain and France, shortly before the end of European colonialism in 1948. Theodore Herzl, one of the founding figures of Zionism, wrote in his 1896 booklet “The Jewish State” to gain Western support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. He argued that this Jewish state would serve as a “Western rampart in the heart of the Arab world.” This statement clearly illustrates that Israel was fundamentally about defending Western imperial interests in the region.

Furthermore, the so-called postcolonial era, which is often said to have begun after World War II in 1945, has effectively served to uphold the neo-colonial interests of former colonial powers and their allies, including Germany and the United States. Understanding this is crucial to grasping the ongoing Iran-Israel war. Not Muslim-Jewish, Christian-Muslim or Shia-Sunni from any stretch of the imagination! The Sunni majority monarchies in the Arab World – who have been ultra-loyal to the West – are apathetic or hostile towards Iran not because of their sectarian differences with Shiite Iran, but also because of the Iranian Shia regime’s insistence on abolishing monarchies and historical problems.

Currently, it appears that a United States invasion of Iran is not anticipated in the immediate future. The United States is acutely aware that both China and Russia are prepared to take extensive measures to defend Iran. This potential response is underscored by a longstanding narrative within the Muslim world, particularly regarding Iran’s position in relation to Israel. In sum, the US understands it quite well that invading Iran now or any time in the future would be a catastrophic miscalculation for it. China and Russia would go to any extent to defend Iran, their economic and strategic interests in Iran are far more important than delegitimising the state of Israel which does not pose any economic or strategic threats to them.

*A historian-cum-cultural anthropologist and security analyst, Taj Hashmi, Ph.D., FRAS, is a former Professor of Security Studies at the APCSS, US.

20 June 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Ashish Singh

The Israel-Palestine conflict is often narrated through the lens of politics, terrorism, and armed aggression. But there are stories that unfold far from the echo chambers of diplomacy and warfare—stories that dwell in quiet homes, stolen orchards, broken trust, and unresolved love. Lemon Tree (2008) and Omar (2013) are two such cinematic journeys that illuminate the deeply human dimensions of occupation and resistance. One film emerges from an Israeli director’s empathetic gaze, the other from a Palestinian filmmaker’s raw truth. Together, they offer an experience far more powerful than political posturing: they force us to feel what it means to live with loss that becomes routine.

Lemon Tree, directed by Israeli filmmaker Eran Riklis, tells the story of Salma Zidane, a Palestinian widow who takes on the Israeli state to protect her ancestral lemon grove. When the Israeli Defense Minister moves into the house across from hers, security services declare her trees a threat. What follows is a symbolic and personal legal battle, where land is no longer mere property—it is memory, identity, and dignity. The film resists noise and sensationalism; instead, it quietly shows how the language of justice falls silent in the face of security paranoia. One of its most powerful threads is the wordless connection between Salma and the Minister’s wife—two women on opposite sides, bound by a shared sense of unease, invisibility, and quiet rebellion.

In contrast, Omar, directed by acclaimed Palestinian filmmaker Hany Abu-Assad, is sharper, more volatile. It tells the story of a young Palestinian man who climbs the separation wall to meet his lover and his comrades in armed resistance. When he is arrested by Israeli forces, a web of betrayal, surveillance, and psychological warfare begins to unravel. Omar is not just a story of imprisonment; it is a harrowing study of how trust erodes under occupation. Here, even love is not free from suspicion, and the finest cracks in loyalty can lead to death or disgrace. The emotional claustrophobia is palpable—this is a film where a glance, a silence, or a moment of hesitation can be fatal.

If Lemon Tree is a slow, mournful poem, Omar is a restless, haunting ballad. Both reveal the inner echoes of conflict—the sound that lingers after the bombs stop, the questions that remain when headlines move on. They don’t offer heroes or solutions. Instead, they center the ordinary people—the ones who lose battles every day without making the news, yet continue to live, resist, and dream.

While the world debates the Israel-Palestine issue through statistics, treaties, and ceasefires, these films remind us where the deepest scars form—not on land, but within human souls. And perhaps, that is where the most permanent walls are built—walls that no military can tear down, and no negotiation can fully dismantle.

Ashish Singh has finished his Ph.D. coursework in political science from the NRU-HSE, Moscow, Russia. 

20 June 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Binu Mathew

I write this in total despair. I don’t generally write articles. I’m an editor. I let others speak through my website, Countercurrents.org. Only when no one else is standing up, I step in. This is such a moment. I can’t help but write. Nobody is bothered about the massacre of the starving people of Gaza. Everyone’s gaze has now turned towards the exchange of fire between Israel and Iran. Nobody is talking about the massacre of the starving people of Gaza. There is not a word in the newspaper I read. 

Israel enforced a complete blockade of Gaza at the lapse of the ceasefire on March 2, 2025. From then on, the food stock in Gaza was depleting. The UN was warning of the deteriorating food stock in Gaza. After global outcry against the starving of the people of Gaza, Israel found a devious device to give aid to Gaza. Enter Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), an agency backed by the Israeli government and the Trump administration.  They began aid distribution May 26, 2025 when almost all of the people of Gaza were starving. 

I edit the website Countercurrents.org. Every day, after I publish all the articles, I send out a Newsletter with all the day’s articles to subscribed readers. I choose the day’s main development as the subject line or headline of the newsletter. The following are the headlines of CC Newsletters after GHF aid distribution began in Gaza. 

28 May- Everything You Need to Know About the Gaza Aid Massacre at a US-Israeli Distribution Point

29 May- Israeli troops massacre 10 aid-seekers in two days

30 May- Israel Blocking UN from Delivering Aid to Starving Gazans, Says Spokesperson

31 May- United Nations warns Gaza is the “hungriest place on earth”

01 June- At least 31 Starving Palestinians killed  

02 June- At Least 52 Starving Aid Seekers Killed in Gaza

03 June- Another Witkoff Massacre, 27 killed today, 102 death so far, UN calls for investigation

 04 June- Israeli forces kill, injure over 600 Palestinians at aid distribution centres in one week

08 June- Dozens of Starved Civilians Killed or Injured in Israeli Attacks Near Gaza Aid Centers

 10 June- 20 Starved Civilians Killed at ‘Aid Point’ as Massacres Continue in Israeli-US GHF Operations

11 June- 31 Starving People Killed in GHF Aid Distribution Point In Gaza

12 June- Only 700 Aid Trucks Entered Gaza in Three Weeks, Equal to One Day of Ceasefire Deliveries

15 June- Gaza: Israeli Forces Kill at Least Eleven Starving Civilians

17 June- 59 Starving Aid Seekers Killed While Waiting for Food in Gaza

18 June- At Least 11 Starving Civilians Killed by Israeli Forces While Waiting for Food near US-Backed Aid Sites

19 June- 22 Aid Seekers Killed by Israeli Forces While Waiting for Food in Gaza

So far, at least 400 people seeking aid have been killed and over 2000 injured. 

Most days, the main article is the killing of starving Gazans by the Israeli military and the American military contractors handling the aid distribution. Almost every day, there is a massacre. So much so that it has not become news for most mainstream media. I wonder how much awareness there is of this daily massacre of desperately starving people of Gaza? It has become so repetitive that it is no news!

Israel’s strategy is intelligent. Like a flame in the darkness that attracts insects to it, burn them to death, they attract the starving Gazans towards them and massacre them daily. GHF operates only four main distribution centres: three in Rafah (in areas under Israeli evacuation orders) and one near Gaza City, close to Deir el-Balah. No distribution points are located north of the Netzarim Corridor, leaving about one million people in northern Gaza without access to GHF aid. The model requires civilians to travel long distances, often tens of kilometres, to reach the sites, which has been especially difficult for vulnerable populations such as the elderly, widows, and children.

The UN aid agencies refused to take part in this genocidal aid distribution. Israel and USA are not allowing UN to distribute aid to the starving population of Gaza. Israel, which was formed by a UN General Assembly vote on 29 November 1947, Resolution 181, by a slim majority by blackmailing and bribing a few nations to vote in their favour, now gives two hoots to the UN. 

Chris Hedges, one of the few journalists who cares about Gaza, writes in his article “The Last Days of Gaza” that Israel’s ploy is to collect all the Gazans into a small parcel of land in Southern Gaza and drive them into Egyptian Sinai. 

I think this may be the ploy. They are not delivering aid in Northern Gaza. The aim is to force about one million people living in Northern Gaza to congregate in the aid distribution centres and then drive them away to Egypt. Another Nakba?

I am not going to predict anything. My only plea to the world is don’t forget the starving people of Gaza, who are being massacred by the Israeli military and American military contractors on a daily basis. Raise your voice in whichever way you can. That is the least thing that we can do.

Binu Mathew is the Editor of Countercurrents.org. He can be reached at editor@countercurrents.org

19 June 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Report from Tehran: Iranians View U.S. Strikes on Key Nuclear Sites as “Act of War”

JUNE 23, 2025

[https://www.democracynow.org/2025/6/23/iran_united_states]

AMY GOODMAN:  Seyed Hossein Mousavian is Visiting Research Collaborator with Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security. From 2003 to ’05, he served as spokesperson for Iran in its nuclear negotiations of the European Union, author of The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: A Memoir, and most recently, _Iran and the United States, An Insider’s View on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace_. His new op-ed for ­_Middle East Eye_ headlined, “After U.S. Attack, Iran Could Reconsider its Nuclear Strategy.” Thanks so much for joining us from Brussels, Ambassador Hossein Mousavian. If you can respond to what the U.S. has done. It’s interesting to have both of you on because Mohammad Marandi was involved with the Iran deal negotiations in 2015, and you, back a decade before.

SEYED HOSSEIN MOUSAVIAN: It is obvious, Amy, that the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran is in a clear violation of international law and regulations. It is a clear violation of United Nations security, United Nations charter. It is in a clear violation of the International Atomic Energy Agency rules and regulations. And many experts now are talking that the current attacks are not only attacks on Iran, they are attacks on non-proliferation treaty. It is – it would have definitely a counterproductive result. The fact is, Amy, that Israel is the only country in the region with 100 to 400 nuclear bombs, and Iran is a member NPT. Israel is not. Iran does not have nuclear bomb. Israel does have nuclear bomb. And Iran has given the highest – the most inspections to the IAEA during the history of IAEA, and Israel has never given such access to IAEA.

And now, Iran is the most-sanctioned country, and the U.S. is supporting Israel with nuclear bombs. And they both are claiming that they are fighting proliferation in the Middle East. Practically, the U.S. is supporting a country with nuclear bomb attacking a country with no nuclear bomb, claiming that the U.S. is fighting for proliferation in the Middle East. Therefore, Iranians are now looking for key as being member of non-proliferation treaty, giving every access to the IAEA, and now they have been attacked. Before, they have been sanctioned. And countries like North Korea, Israel, India, Pakistan, which they have never accepted non-proliferation treaty, they have never been attacked. That’s why they are now thinking perhaps having nuclear bomb is much better deterrent compared to being member of NPT.

AMY GOODMAN: This is an extremely important point you’re making, Ambassador. The issue of whether this would encourage nuclear proliferation, that you have Iran, a non-nuclear nation at this point being attacked by two nuclear nations, the U.S. and Israel. So, the lesson learned is, you need to a nuclear bomb-armed nation not to be attacked. For example, the U.S. isn’t attacking North Korea. So, if you can talk about what this means and the idea that you can come up with a military solution to what’s happening in Iran. It now may be well that the nuclear material has been moved from the place that the U.S. bombed, from Fordow. And so, in the end, it’s going to take diplomacy anyway.

SEYED HOSSEIN MOUSAVIAN: First of all, from the day one, when Israelis, they attacked Iran, I publicly said, “This is not Israeli strike. Israel has coordinated this military invasion of Iran by the NATO countries, by the U.S., and it is fully supported by NATO, and Iran is confronting NATO, not only Israel. And it is now about 12 days passed, everybody understands that the NATO countries, they are fully supporting Israel, and the U.S. also attacked Iran by the demand of Israelis. This is number one.

Number two, if President Trump really wanted a nuclear deal, he could get it easily. Because in his first term, he chaired the JCPOA. You remember. JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal was agreed between Iran, and the U.S. and the world powers, the United Nations Security Council passed the Resolution 2231, the IAEA adopted many resolutions. It was working very well. Iran gave the highest level of access inspection, transparency measures to the IAEA. Every technical issue with the IAEA was resolved. Even IAEA publicly said, “All possible military dimension issues are resolved.” The deal was working very well. Even beyond the nuclear, Iran and the U.S., they agreed that Iran would buy 100 American passenger planes, the Boeing planes. Even when 16 American sailors, they entered Iranian water territory illegally, Iran released them in less than 48 hours. Everything was going in the right direction until President Trump withdrew and imposed the most comprehensive sanctions. This is about the first term of President Trump.

In the second term, when he was elected, he actually put an option on the Iranian table, “Deal under my terms and condition, or you would be attacked.” This was not and is not the language of diplomacy. This is the language of threat and bullying. And then, we have Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi with Steve Witkoff. They had three rounds of talks in Oman and Rome, and they agreed on the principles. They really agreed. Then, they agreed that the technical team would sit, and they would draft it to be signed. Suddenly, Prime Minister Netanyahu called President Trump, and President Trump backed down. And then, Israel attacked Iran. When Israel attacked Iran, then President Trump publicly said to Iranians, “Unconditional surrender.” And then, the U.S. attacked. And now, after the U.S. attacked, now he’s saying “regime change”! Therefore, now, everybody, I think, has a correct understanding, well understanding that unfortunately, President Trump is not really for diplomacy and a solution.

Otherwise, if really, they want a solution on the nuclear, it is easy because we have three major issues. One is about Iran cooperation with the IAEA. We have the model. The model worked for three years very well. All technical issues were resolved. The nuclear deal, they can agree that all transparency measures, verification measures can be revived based on the deal, and all technical issues can be resolved between Iran and the IAEA. The second issue is about whether Iranian enrichment would be military or civilian. If it is below 5%, definitely would be civilian. Iran is ready to go back to – like the JCPOA, to go back to enrichment below 5%, to stop 20%, to stop 60%. And the third issue is about the Iranian stockpile of enriched 400-kilogram of 60% enriched uranium. I think if there is a comprehensive, fair and balanced deal, Iran would be ready either to export or to dilute this stockpile. Therefore, every concern would be removed. It is really within the reach if President Trump is going to have diplomacy succeed.

AMY GOODMAN: We’ve just spoken with Ambassador Mohammad Marandi in Brussels, who helped to negotiate an Iran nuclear deal back in 2005.

Seyed Hossein Mousavian
Visiting Research Collaborator

Program on Science and Global Security.

Princeton University

By Craig Mokhiber

The attack on Iran is just the latest crime in the Israeli regime’s path of destruction across the Middle East. Its Western-backed impunity has become a global threat. 

18 Jun 2025 – The Israeli regime, drunk with western-backed impunity, flush with western-supplied weapons, and driven by a violent, western-born racist ideology, is rampaging across the Middle East, leaving a trail of blood and destruction in its wake.

The Israeli regime’s blatant act of aggression against Iran is just the latest crime perpetrated by the regime in its current twenty-month orgy of violence in the region.

But Israel is not a lone rogue. And it could not get away with its crimes without a powerful backer.

The U.S. provided the Israeli regime with the greenlight for its surprise attack, the distraction of (perhaps disingenuous) diplomatic talks to facilitate the attack, U.S. tax dollars to finance the operation, the intelligence for targeting, the weapons and ammunition for killing, the diplomatic cover to protect it from Security Council action, U.S. forces for the interception of Iran’s defensive response, the promise of direct U.S. military backing if Israel requires it, and the propaganda cover of complicit U.S. media corporations. Now the U.S. appears poised to enter the military assault directly.

Once again, the U.S. is a co-perpetrator in Israel’s crimes.

The resulting Israeli impunity, the principal byproduct of U.S. collaboration with the Israeli regime, not only threatens Palestinian self-determination and the sovereignty of countries across the region, but global peace and security itself.

The global threat of Israeli impunity

In recent months, the Israeli regime has perpetrated genocide and apartheid in Palestine, a transnational terrorism attack with booby trapped pagers in Lebanon, thousands of armed attacks on Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, & Iran, the unlawful occupation of Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian territory, several extrajudicial executions on foreign territory, the assault on and commandeering of the humanitarian flotilla ship the Madleen, countless attacks on United Nations staff and facilities, and the use of its proxies in Western countries to harass human rights defenders and to corrupt governments.

Israel has stockpiles of conventional, hi-tech, nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, allows no international inspections of them, and refuses to ratify the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). And it is governed by a far-right, deeply racist, and fundamentally violent regime that is unconstrained by any norms of international law, international diplomacy, or common morality.

Add the ingredient of impunity, and you have a formula for global disaster. The western-guaranteed impunity that the Israeli regime has enjoyed is what has produced the regime’s serial criminality. And that criminality threatens the entire region and, potentially, the world.

Worse, to further insulate the Israeli regime, the U.S. and its allies have systematically corrupted, captured, or crushed virtually every government in the region, and battered the parts of Lebanon (Hezbollah) and of Yemen (Ansar Allah) still challenging the regime and its violent hegemonic project. Only Iran is left standing. As such, it represents an intolerable element to the Israeli regime and its U.S. sponsor: deterrence.

A war for U.S.-Israel regional hegemony 

Thus, Iran is being targeted because it is the last independent state still standing in the region, following the corruption and capture of most Arab governments by the U.S., and the systematic destruction of those that refused to submit (e.g. Iraq, Libya, Syria).

The essence of this plan was revealed more than two decades ago by U.S. General and former NATO Commander Wesley Clarke, when he described U.S. plans to “attack seven Muslim countries in five years.” On the list were Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and, of course, Iran.

Iran is being targeted because it is the last independent state still standing in the region. Because decades of efforts by the U.S.-Israel axis to strangle and destabilize the country have failed to force Iran to submit, the U.S. and Israel have now moved to large-scale military aggression.

Even after decades of sanctions, sabotage, aggression, destabilization efforts, and the meddling of Western intelligence agencies, Iran has defiantly refused to submit to the U.S.. Despite sustained pressure, it has refused to abandon the Palestinian people, to normalize Israeli settler-colonialism and apartheid, or to look the other way as Israel perpetrates a genocide.

Importantly, it has also refused to surrender control of its natural resources (including significant oil and gas reserves) to the U.S. empire. And, famously, it refuses to give up its right, as a sovereign state, to develop peaceful nuclear energy for the benefit of its developing economy.

Because decades of efforts by the U.S.-Israel axis to strangle and destabilize the country (while causing great civilian suffering in the country) have failed to force Iran to submit, the U.S. and Israel have now moved to large-scale military aggression, dusting off the old, fabricated “WMD” justifications that served them so well in justifying their aggression in neighboring Iraq more than twenty years ago.

But, in this case, they have extended the argument to absurd levels, basing their justification for war not on a claim that Iran has WMDs, but that they might someday acquire them. A charge made all the more ridiculous by the fact that the attackers themselves- both the U.S. and Israel- in fact possess such weapons, and that both are themselves guilty of serial acts of aggression, while Iran is not.

Jus ad bellum: The crime of aggression

The U.S.-backed Israeli regime’s unprovoked attack on Iran was a crime under international law. Indeed, it was a treacherous attack, launched in the middle of ongoing U.S. negotiations, and even targeting the Iranian official in charge of the negotiations. (And, by the way, right after Israel cut off the internet in Gaza, drawing a digital curtain around its accelerating genocide there).

Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes the right of self-defense only in response to an “armed attack,” or when specifically authorized by the Security Council. Any other armed attack constitutes the crime of aggression in international law.

That means that the Israeli regime is using force against Iran unlawfully, in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, prohibiting the threat or use of force, and, as such, is committing the crime of aggression. In this case, as a matter of law, the right to self-defense belongs to Iran, and decidedly not to Israel (or the U.S.).

Furthermore, contrary to the claims of the Israeli regime’s proxies in the West, international law does not allow for so-called “anticipatory self-defense” or so-called “pre-emptive strikes.”

This is quintessential aggression, considered the supreme crime in international law, and perpetrated by the same regime that is currently perpetrating the other crime of crimes, genocide. In this context, any U.S. complicity in these Israeli crimes renders the U.S. equally criminal.

Some, like the Bush administration in the lead up to the Iraq aggression, have tried to argue that anticipatory self-defense is permissible. But that argument was widely rejected, since the intent of the Charter was to prohibit claims of self-defense unless and until an armed attack has occurred, or military force is authorized by the Security Council.

Even the 19th-century customary international law idea of anticipatory self-defense, argued by some before the adoption of the UN Charter, did not go as far as the Bush distortion. Before the Charter was adopted, the Caroline Test allowed for a kind of anticipatory self-defense but only if the threat was “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” clearly not the case in Israel’s attack on Iran.

Others have tried to carve out a middle ground, saying anticipatory action may be permissible whenever an attack is deemed “imminent.” This, too, is a dubious argument since there is not a hint of such an exception in international law. In any event, in the case of Iran, no such attack was imminent—and the Israeli regime did not even claim one to be imminent.

Of course, Israel, the quintessential rogue regime, wrapped in the armor of U.S.-guaranteed impunity, cares little about legality. But its representatives and proxies will often try to adopt a veneer of legality as part of the regime’s propaganda efforts in Western media.

As such, Israel proxies have tried to distort the idea of anticipatory self-defense even further by claiming the right to attack anybody who might someday in the future decide to attack Israel. They seek to claim that Iran may one day develop nuclear weapons, that it may use them on Israel if it develops them, and that therefore Israel has no choice but to attack Iran now.

Clearly, as a matter of international law, that is entirely impermissible. If that were the rule, any state could lawfully attack any other state at any time, just by claiming a potential future threat. And that would effectively annul the UN Charter.

But, for Israel, this makes perfect sense. Israel is, in essence, an annihilatory state. It was created in violence, has expanded through violence, and is sustained by way of constant violence. Its official ideology is premised on a militarized conception of security that essentially says that anyone who does not submit to us must be destroyed, lest they someday try to fight back.

Thus, the entire history of the Israeli regime has been defined by militarization, conquest, colonization, expansion, and aggression. In practical terms, this has meant genocide against the indigenous people of Palestine and constant attacks against the regime’s neighbors.

But even under the broadest possible arguments of anticipatory self-defense (which, again, is rejected by almost the entire discipline of international law), Israel’s use of force against Iran would still be illegal.

This is not a hard case. (1) Iran does not have nuclear weapons, (2) there is no evidence that it is developing nuclear weapons, (3) there is no evidence that it would use those weapons against the Israeli regime even if it obtained them, (4) there was no imminent threat, and (5) the Israeli regime has not exhausted peaceful means, as required by international law.

In sum, this is quintessential aggression, considered the supreme crime in international law, and perpetrated by the same regime that is currently perpetrating the other crime of crimes, genocide. In this context, any U.S. complicity in these Israeli crimes renders the U.S. equally criminal.

Jus in Bello: Attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure

Beyond the crime of aggression, the Israeli regime’s attacks on Iran have included a number of other grave breaches of international humanitarian law. As of the drafting of this article, the Israeli regime has already killed hundreds of Iranians, overwhelmingly civilians. It has targeted apartment buildings, media buildings, and at least one hospital. And it has murdered several Iranian scientists. Needless to say, such acts violate the principle of distinction and the prohibition of targeting protected persons and protected civilian infrastructure.

The killing of scientists is a case in point. Only if a scientist is a member of the military (that is, not a civilian working for the military), then, in some circumstances, s/he may be a legitimate target.  But most scientists, including the Iranian scientists, are civilians, even if they were working on weapons. (And the Iranian scientists are not even working on weapons, just nuclear energy.) As such, targeting them is entirely unlawful. And, needless to say, it is impermissible, as a matter of law, to target people in their homes just because they are scientists who might someday work on weapons. This, in simple terms, is the crime of murder.

To accept the Israeli regime’s outrageous arguments would be tantamount to adopting a rule whereby it would be permissible to shoot all males on sight, simply because they might someday become soldiers.

Similarly, Israel’s targeting of civilian infrastructure (e.g., apartment buildings) to kill a scientist (whether civilian or military) could not pass the international humanitarian law tests of precaution, distinction, or proportionality, and is thus unlawful. Additionally, attacks on scientists because they might someday build a bomb would be unlawful in itself. In the current conflict, these scientists cannot be seen to threaten the Israeli forces in any way and are not legitimate military objectives.

To accept the Israeli regime’s outrageous arguments would be tantamount to adopting a rule whereby it would be permissible to shoot all males on sight, simply because they might someday become soldiers. Needless to say, this is not allowed.

Israel’s attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure are also unlawful. Such installations are generally protected under international humanitarian law, because they are essential to civilian survival. Only in very narrow circumstances can they become military targets, (for example, when soldiers are firing from them, and all humanitarian law principles are respected). Those conditions are clearly not met here. In the current conflict, these facilities have not been used to threaten Israeli forces in any way. Attacking them is impermissible as a matter of law.

Attacks on nuclear facilities

Particularly egregious, as a matter of both law and humanity, is the Israeli regime’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. In international humanitarian law, attacks on dangerous facilities, such as nuclear power plants and other facilities containing what the law calls “dangerous forces”, are generally prohibited. Indeed, the International Atomic Energy Agency has affirmed that such attacks are prohibited in international law and are a violation of the UN Charter.

These facilities are protected under international law due to the potential for severe harm to the civilian population if attacked. While theoretically, there may be circumstances where such attacks are allowed, in practice, it would be almost impossible for a warring party to meet the necessary conditions for lawfully attacking such facilities.

The only circumstances in which it may be permitted are when (1) these facilities are directly used for military purposes (like launching attacks), and (2) there is a legitimate military objective, and (3) the attack is necessary for that objective, and (4) an effective warning is given, and (5) the military action meets the legal tests of precaution, distinction, and proportionality. Such a standard is almost impossible to satisfy with regard to a nuclear facility, because of the risk of radiation leaks and dissemination and the potential for widespread civilian harm.

What is more, international humanitarian law also prohibits any means of warfare that are intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment. The law of neutrality requires that parties to the conflict must not cause transborder damage to a neutral state due to the use of a weapon in a belligerent state, which would be inevitable with the release of nuclear emissions.

As such, the Israeli regime’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities are unlawful.

Reining in the rogues

The open lawlessness of the Israeli regime and its sponsors has wreaked havoc both on the countries and peoples of the Middle East, and on the very legitimacy of international law itself. Calling out the crimes of these states and pursuing accountability for them are essential to the cause of justice.

While the West obsesses about the risks of peaceful nuclear programmes, the true threat to global security at this moment in history rests not in reactors and centrifuges, but rather in aggression, genocide, and impunity. Containing these threats is a global imperative.

Craig Mokhiber is an international human rights lawyer and former senior United Nations Official.

23 June 2025

Source: transcend.org