博客

  • Did US ‘precisely’ bomb water facilities serving 20,000 Iranians?

    Did US ‘precisely’ bomb water facilities serving 20,000 Iranians?

    Amid a sweltering heatwave that pushed temperatures above 100°F in Bemani, an Iranian village located just kilometers from the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz, two critical civilian water storage facilities were destroyed in a bombing this week, cutting off safe drinking water access to 20,000 local residents. Multiple independent open-source analyses and Iranian official reports now point to the attack being an intentional precision strike carried out by U.S. military forces, raising grave legal and ethical questions over whether the Trump administration deliberately targeted non-combatant infrastructure — a violation that would qualify as a war crime under binding international humanitarian law.

    The incident unfolded in the early hours of Wednesday, when Hormozgan Province’s water authority confirmed two large water storage tanks with a combined capacity of 2,500 cubic meters had been completely destroyed in the strike. In a public statement posted to social media shortly after the attack, U.S. Central Command acknowledged that U.S. Air Force and Navy units had launched a series of strikes near the Strait of Hormuz, using precision-guided munitions to target what it described as Iranian air defense positions, ground control stations, and surveillance radar sites. The command made no mention of any damage to nearby water infrastructure in its initial announcement.

    Esmaeil Baqaei, spokesperson for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, swiftly condemned the attack, releasing public video footage of the destruction that clearly shows light blue pipes and structural components consistent with civilian water infrastructure. “As part of its ongoing aggression against Iran, the U.S. military has deliberately targeted vital civilian water infrastructure in Sirik, Hormozgan,” Baqaei stated in his address. “These facilities supplied drinking water to more than 20,000 residents across 10 local villages. This is not collateral damage — it is a calculated war crime, a flagrant violation of human rights and international humanitarian law. The United States must be held fully accountable for this systematic brutal attack on infrastructure that sustains civilian life.”

    An in-depth analysis published by *The New York Times* late Wednesday corroborated many of Iran’s claims. The outlet confirmed that commercial satellite imagery matches the location and description of the two damaged facilities provided by Abdolhamid Hamzehpour, chief executive of Hormozgan Province’s water authority, who first reported the missile strike on Wednesday. Local media footage from the site shows one facility’s roof fully collapsed, while a second has a clear, concentrated impact point at the center of its roof, consistent with a precision-guided strike.

    Crucially, the *Times* analysis notes that both water facilities are located in a remote area with no military infrastructure within their immediate vicinity, further supporting the conclusion that the strike was deliberate. Open-source weapons researchers from the Open Source Munitions Portal later examined photos of bomb fragments recovered from the site and published by Iran’s semi-official Tasnim News Agency, confirming the fragments are components of a GBU-39 precision-guided bomb, a weapon exclusively used by the U.S. Air Force. The *Times* adds that the damage pattern observed at the site — a clean, concentrated punch through the facility roof with limited surrounding blast damage — aligns perfectly with the effects of a GBU-39 strike.

    The strike comes at a period of extreme volatility in U.S.-Iran relations, just months after an April ceasefire agreement reached following former President Donald Trump’s public threats to “wipe out Iran’s civilization.” Trump has publicly complained in recent days that Tehran is moving too slowly to finalize a new negotiated deal, and the U.S. military expanded its offensive operations with additional strikes targeting an oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman and additional Iranian radar and air defense positions between Wednesday night and early Thursday.

    Regional officials and independent security experts have condemned the strike in sharp terms. Phillips P. O’Brien, a professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews, argues that the attack is a deliberate act of intimidation targeting civilian populations rather than military objectives. “Trump is so angry that Iran will not give him the deal he wants that he is telling the U.S. military to commit war crimes,” O’Brien explained. “Destroying a drinking water facility in the middle of a heatwave is not an attack on a legitimate military target. It is a mafia-style operation designed to inflict suffering on the Iranian people to force political concessions.”

    Local officials have confirmed that temperatures in the region remain “unbearably high” for residents now cut off from their main drinking water supply, though emergency response teams have deployed mobile water tanks to the 10 affected villages to mitigate the immediate public health risk.

  • The World Cup is coming to Central America’s doorstep. The billions won’t

    The World Cup is coming to Central America’s doorstep. The billions won’t

    As the 2026 FIFA World Cup, the largest men’s edition in the tournament’s 92-year history, prepares to kick off its tournament cycle with co-hosts Mexico, the United States, and Canada, a stark geographic irony plays out just to the south. Central America, a region where football is not just a pastime but a cultural thread woven into every corner of daily life – where children chase worn balls across dust-strewn neighborhood pitches and a single national team victory can freeze entire cities in celebration – will once again be relegated to the sidelines. Only one nation from the region, Panama, has qualified for the 2026 tournament, and more significantly, not a single match will be played on Central American soil. Economists and sports policy analysts agree this exclusion is unlikely to change any time soon, and the barrier has nothing to do with the quality of the region’s football and everything to do with FIFA’s costly hosting model.

    The economics of modern World Cup hosting have priced out most small, developing nations, and Central America is no exception. As FIFA’s flagship event has grown into a multibillion-dollar commercial enterprise, the upfront costs of staging the tournament have surged far beyond the fiscal capacity of countries in the region, where poverty rates reach as high as 50% in some nations. Central America not only lacks the extensive network of modern stadiums, intercity transport links, and hospitality infrastructure FIFA mandates, but it also cannot cover the billions in upfront investment the governing body requires of all host nations.

    Sports economists point to FIFA’s hosting structure as the core barrier. Unlike major event organizers that contribute to host infrastructure, FIFA covers none of the construction or upgrade costs required to meet its strict standards, even as it pulls in billions in revenue from broadcasting rights, corporate sponsorships, and commercial partnerships. FIFA’s binding Host City Agreements place 100% of the financial risk on local hosts, requiring cities to cover all expenses related to hosting and waive all rights to liability claims against the governing body. In return, FIFA only provides minimal compensation: nominal stadium rental fees and prize money distributed to participating national teams, which does nothing to offset the cost of building new roads, expanding airports, or upgrading broader public infrastructure. Per city, infrastructure, security, and logistical costs alone range from $100 million to $200 million.

    FIFA’s strict venue requirements only compound the challenge. The governing body mandates a minimum of 14 stadiums with seating capacities of at least 40,000, paired with thousands of quality hotel rooms, dedicated training facilities, and logistics networks capable of handling hundreds of thousands of international visitors. In all of Central America, just one venue – Costa Rica’s national stadium – comes close to meeting these standards, and it alone cannot support the scale of the modern World Cup. Beyond infrastructure, regional political and economic fragmentation adds another layer of difficulty: while Costa Rica and Panama have higher average incomes than their neighbors, coordinated cross-national hosting bids face significant political and financial coordination hurdles. For any individual nation, the price tag is also politically unpalatable: as democratic states, large-scale infrastructure spending for a World Cup requires broad public support, which is hard to secure when social spending on healthcare, education, and poverty reduction is already stretched thin.

    Even if Central American nations could scrape together the required funding, economists widely warn that hosting a World Cup makes little financial sense for developing countries, pointing to a long track record of poor returns on investment. The 2022 Qatar World Cup, the most expensive in history, cost an estimated $220 billion in infrastructure spending, while the International Monetary Fund calculated total economic returns from tourism and related revenue at just $2.3 billion to $4.1 billion – a fraction of the upfront cost. Brazil’s 2014 World Cup offers another cautionary tale: the tournament cost $15 billion, including $3.6 billion for 12 new or renovated stadiums. Tourist revenue from 4 million visitors covered only a tiny share of the total cost, and Moody’s projected the total economic stimulus over a full decade would amount to just $11.1 billion, equal to a 0.4% increase in national GDP. Many of Brazil’s large new stadiums became white elephants after the tournament, with 50,000-seat venues handed to low-tier fourth-division clubs that draw an average of just 1,500 fans per match, leaving local governments stuck with ongoing maintenance costs.

    While some analysts argue large global tournaments deliver intangible benefits – such as increased social cohesion, new trade connections, and global visibility for host nations – those gains are rarely enough to offset the massive financial burden. “There is at least some evidence, although I think it’s pretty weak, that big events like the World Cup bring people together in a way that later causes business leaders to come together, allowing for future trade negotiations and other things,” explained Victor Matheson, a renowned sports economist at Massachusetts’s College of the Holy Cross, in an interview with Middle East Eye. “If you have a South African World Cup and Costa Rica is in it, you see at least some increase in bilateral trade between South Africa and Costa Rica that you don’t see with otherwise similar countries like Honduras or Nicaragua. But that doesn’t make it right.”

    The 2026 tournament’s expansion to 48 teams, up from 32 in previous editions, has only raised the stakes and raised questions about whether the World Cup can still claim to be a truly global event. The expanded format requires more stadiums, more training facilities, and more logistical capacity than any prior tournament, locking in access to hosting for only the world’s largest and wealthiest nations. While the 2010 World Cup in South Africa was widely celebrated as a milestone for bringing the tournament to Africa for the first time, it also left a relatively poor nation carrying massive debt while FIFA collected billions in revenue. Even in Brazil, one of the world’s most football-mad countries, widespread public protests erupted against the tournament, as public funds were diverted from healthcare and public transit to build luxury stadiums, pushing up transit fares for working-class residents.

    This gap between FIFA’s public rhetoric and its commercial business model has drawn widespread criticism from analysts. FIFA’s official motto is “Football Unites the World”, and its slogan “For the Game. For the World” positions the organization as a force for global development, aligned with United Nations Sustainable Development Goals focused on reducing inequality and driving inclusive growth. But under its current hosting rules, the costs of even hosting a handful of matches are out of reach for most of the world’s developing nations.

    “Fifa will do what is best for Fifa, and that is unlikely to involve giving hosting duties to small, developing countries,” said Dennis Coates, a sports economist at the University of Maryland. “Fifa probably does not put much weight on greater international visibility, national pride, optimism, etc, for potential host countries, nor do I think they should since those are all impossible to measure.”

    FIFA is projected to generate $11 billion in total revenue from the 2026 World Cup across its current four-year cycle. In comparison, each national member federation receives just $5 million over the same period, while FIFA’s financial reserves have surged from $1.5 billion in 2014 to nearly $4 billion in 2022.

    “Fifa positions football as a global public good, but its business practices are not in line with that sentiment,” said Nikolas R Webster, clinical assistant professor of sport management at University of Michigan.

    Critics argue that FIFA’s structure extracts billions from the global popularity of football while investing almost nothing to help lower-income nations build the infrastructure required to host the sport’s biggest event. Andrew Zimbalist, an economist at Smith College and one of the world’s leading experts on the economics of mega sporting events, went even further in his assessment. “Hosting the World Cup is not a development opportunity, it is a development retardant, especially in countries that don’t have stadiums and infrastructure that meet Fifa’s requirements,” Zimbalist said. “The US, Mexico and Canadian hosts will all be hurt from hosting.”

    For Central American football fans, who live and breathe the sport just meters from the 2026’s host borders, that means decades more of watching the world’s biggest tournament from the outside looking in.

  • World Cup 2026: Somali referee denied entry by US will officiate Uefa Super Cup final

    World Cup 2026: Somali referee denied entry by US will officiate Uefa Super Cup final

    A high-profile international football development has broken this week, as European football’s governing body UEFA has announced that Somali referee Omar Artan — who was barred from entering the United States ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, costing him a spot in the tournament’s officiating pool — will helm one of the sport’s biggest continental fixtures later this summer.

    Artan, who was named the Confederation of African Football’s Men’s Referee of the Year for 2025, was denied entry by U.S. authorities at Miami International Airport earlier this month. FIFA, global football’s governing body, subsequently removed him from the roster of 52 officials selected to work the 2026 World Cup, which will be co-hosted by the U.S., Canada and Mexico from June 11 to July 19. The move ended Artan’s historic bid to become the first Somali match official ever to officiate at a men’s World Cup finals.

    The Trump administration announced Tuesday that the entry denial was rooted in unsubstantiated claims that Artan holds links to “suspected members of terror organisations”, offering no additional evidence to back up the assertion. Andrew Giuliani, who leads the White House Task Force on the World Cup, told BBC World Service that while he could not share sensitive derogatory information related to the case, he viewed U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s decision as correct and fully supported it. This stance aligns with comments Giuliani made in December, when he stated the Trump administration could not guarantee non-U.S. citizens would be safe from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids at World Cup venues.

    Per BBC reporting, a senior advisor to Somalia’s Ministry of Youth and Sports confirmed the entry denial, noting that Artan was traveling with all required valid documentation. A Somali embassy official based in Nairobi added that Artan had even been issued a diplomatic passport to ease travel after previous visa-related difficulties, a step that ultimately failed to prevent the rejection. The Somali Football Federation has since contacted FIFA to request urgent clarification on the outcome of the incident.

    After being turned away, Artan returned to Somalia Wednesday, where he received a hero’s welcome from supporters and officials. In public remarks following his arrival, the referee acknowledged the disappointment of the outcome while expressing gratitude for the backing he received from FIFA. “What happened has happened and it was unfortunate. I am grateful for the support Fifa gave me,” he said. Addressing young Somalis, he encouraged them to hold onto ambition, adding “I want to tell our youth not to lose hope in our country. I am now in my country, and there is no other place I want to be.” Artan also affirmed his intention to qualify for the next men’s World Cup, saying “I promise you, God willing, that I will attend the next one [World Cup]… I want the Somali public to take comfort in this and remain confident.”

    In its official statement following the entry denial, FIFA noted that after consultations with U.S. authorities, it confirmed Artan could not participate in the 2026 tournament. The governing body clarified that it does not have any involvement in host country immigration processes, including visa adjudication decisions. A FIFA-listed referee since 2018, Artan has previously officiated at top-tier competitions including the Africa Cup of Nations, as well as domestic league matches in Somalia. Somalia is one of several countries impacted by broad travel restrictions implemented by the Trump administration.

    Just days after Artan’s return to Somalia, UEFA stepped in to offer the respected referee a new high-profile assignment. The continental governing body announced Thursday that Artan will take charge of the 2026 UEFA Super Cup, scheduled for August 12 in Salzburg, Austria. The match pits Champions League winner Aston Villa against Europa League champion Paris Saint-Germain in the annual showpiece that opens the European club football season.

  • US attack kills three Indian sailors in Gulf of Oman

    US attack kills three Indian sailors in Gulf of Oman

    In a sharp escalation of tensions between the United States and Iran that has sent ripples across global maritime security, three Indian crew members have been confirmed dead following a U.S. military strike on a Palau-flagged oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman, India’s federal shipping minister announced Thursday.

    The attack on the MT Settebello unfolded late Tuesday, after U.S. Central Command (Centcom) accused the vessel of repeatedly ignoring instructions from American forces while violating Washington’s ongoing blockade on Iranian ports by carrying Iranian crude oil. Of the 24 Indian nationals on board the tanker, 21 crew members have been pulled to safety, but three initially reported missing were confirmed dead after search teams recovered and identified their remains, said Union Minister Sarbananda Sonowal.

    Calling the deaths a devastating loss for India’s broader maritime community, Sonowal confirmed that the Modi administration is extending full support to the bereaved families of the deceased. “I have directed officials to prioritize immediate repatriation of the rescued crew and the swift return of the mortal remains of the deceased so their final rites can be carried out,” the minister added. In direct response to the fatal strike, New Delhi summoned the deputy chief of the U.S. mission in India to register its objection.

    This attack marks the third U.S. strike on commercial vessels off the Omani coast in less than a week, as Washington ramps up enforcement of its blockade of Iranian maritime trade. Just one day before the strike on the MT Settebello, U.S. forces targeted another Palau-flagged tanker with an Indian crew, the Marivex, in the same region, also citing non-compliance with U.S. instructions. All 24 crew members of that vessel were rescued by Omani military forces, and all Indian personnel were confirmed unharmed. On Thursday, India confirmed a third suspected U.S. strike hit the asphalt tanker Jalveer off Oman’s coast; the Royal Navy of Oman is coordinating the evacuation of all crew to the port of Shinas, with no reports of Indian casualties as of Thursday evening.

    The surge in U.S. maritime operations comes against a backdrop of rapidly escalating cross-border hostilities between Washington and Tehran, which reignited earlier this week following the downing of a U.S. military helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz—a critical global chokepoint through which 20 percent of the world’s crude oil and 20 percent of its liquefied natural gas transit daily. Since the outbreak of the latest conflict in late February, Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, prompting the U.S. to impose a full naval blockade on Iranian ports that launched on April 13. Centcom reported Wednesday that since the blockade began, U.S. forces have disabled eight non-compliant vessels, redirected 134 compliant ships, and allowed 42 vessels carrying humanitarian aid to pass through the restricted area.

    In the wake of the helicopter downing, U.S. President Donald Trump launched new strikes on Iranian military infrastructure across the country overnight Wednesday into Thursday, with Iranian media reporting explosions in key areas including Bandar Abbas, Qeshm, and Minab near the Strait of Hormuz, as well as multiple locations near Tehran. Iranian media reported at least three people were wounded in Tehran province. Trump defended the strikes Wednesday, accusing Tehran of dragging out ceasefire negotiations and claiming Iran had “played us for suckers,” saying the country “will have to pay the price.”

    Iran’s foreign ministry issued a sharp condemnation of the U.S. strikes Thursday, saying the attacks had rendered the nearly two-month-old ceasefire “practically meaningless” and holding Washington fully responsible for any “extremely serious consequences” of the escalation. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) retaliated within hours, launching strikes on U.S.-linked military targets in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Jordan, extending the cycle of violence across the Middle East.

  • She survived an Israeli raid that left babies decomposing. Now she awaits treatment

    She survived an Israeli raid that left babies decomposing. Now she awaits treatment

    On the eve of the October 2023 outbreak of war in Gaza, Palestinian mother Samar Hammad welcomed her youngest daughter into the world. She named the baby Nour – Arabic for “light” – a name filled with quiet hope for a new life. What Hammad could never have foreseen in that moment was that just hours after her daughter’s birth, this tiny child would be thrown into a fight for survival, caught in the collapse of Gaza’s healthcare system under Israeli military advance.

    Nour was born perfectly healthy, Hammad recalled in an interview with Middle East Eye from her displacement tent in central Gaza City. Barely hours after the new mother and baby returned home, Israeli bombardment hit near their neighborhood, damaging a nearby building. Within a day, Nour began slipping into unconsciousness. With her condition worsening by the minute, Hammad rushed the newborn to al-Nasr Children’s Hospital in Gaza City. Doctors quickly delivered a grim diagnosis: Nour was suffering life-threatening complications from inhaling toxic gases released by the nearby bombing, and she was dying.

    As Israeli forces pushed deeper into Gaza, intense fighting closed in around al-Nasr, one of the first medical facilities targeted by the Israeli military. For more than a month, Nour lay in a hospital incubator, repeatedly losing oxygen as constant shelling cut off power and supplies to the facility. “The shelling was relentless,” Hammad said. “Nour was in an incubator with several other newborns. She repeatedly lost oxygen and had to be resuscitated.” At one point, doctors told Hammad there was nothing more they could do – the life support machines keeping Nour alive were only postponing the unavoidable.

    In her desperation, Hammad begged staff to let her hold and breastfeed her dying daughter. After repeated requests, the medical team relented. Within minutes of being held in her mother’s arms, Nour’s vital signs began to improve. “The machines started showing a response,” Hammad said. “The doctors were shocked. They told me it was like a miracle.”

    As Israeli forces surrounded the hospital, staff ordered all parents of incubator newborns to evacuate, assuring them their infants would remain protected. Every other mother fled south, leaving their babies behind. But Hammad refused. “I told the doctors I couldn’t leave my daughter behind,” she said. After more urgent pleas, doctors agreed to release Nour into Hammad’s care, warning that Israeli troops were advancing rapidly and the choice put both their lives at risk. “They gave her to me at my own responsibility,” Hammad recalled. “I carried her and walked out.” She fled al-Nasr on 9 November 2023.

    Later that same day, Israeli forces struck the hospital and cut off oxygen to the neonatal intensive care unit. The following day, all staff were ordered to evacuate, forcing them to abandon non-transferable infants who relied on incubators and life support to survive. Israeli troops occupied the hospital for roughly three weeks. When medical workers returned during a temporary ceasefire on 28 November, they found four incubator babies dead. Nour was the only known survivor from the neonatal ward – saved by her mother’s refusal to leave her behind.

    But survival only marked the start of a new, endless ordeal for Hammad and Nour. After escaping al-Nasr, Hammad carried her limp newborn from one damaged medical facility to the next seeking care, before becoming trapped in a school-turned-shelter for displaced people amid intensifying fighting. “She cried constantly,” Hammad said. “People would tell me to make her stop because the tanks were surrounding us, and they were afraid soldiers would hear her.”

    Eventually, the pair reached al-Ahli Arab Hospital (commonly called Baptist Hospital), where a CT scan revealed Nour had developed brain calcification. Doctors told Hammad the condition was most likely caused by inhalation of phosphorus gas from the bombardment, and that Nour would require ongoing, intensive physiotherapy to recover. For six months, Hammad brought Nour for daily treatment at Gaza City’s al-Wafa Hospital, clinging to the hope that therapy would reverse the damage.

    Securing medical care was only one layer of the daily struggle. Like tens of thousands of Gaza families trapped under siege, Hammad faced the constant threat of hunger and thirst. After the 7 October 2023 attacks, then-Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant announced a “complete siege” of Gaza, promising “no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel” would enter the enclave. While Gaza had been under an Israeli blockade since 2007, this total restriction cut off all essential supplies, triggering catastrophic shortages that pushed the region’s already crumbling healthcare system to total collapse and worsened an already catastrophic humanitarian crisis. Multiple human rights organizations have concluded that Israel has used mass starvation as a weapon of war and a tool of forced displacement, designed to push civilians out of northern Gaza. By late 2025, the Palestinian Ministry of Health recorded at least 453 Palestinian deaths from severe malnutrition in Gaza – 150 of them children.

    “I would walk for hours, sometimes up to seven hours every day, searching for water,” Hammad said. On one of these treks, carrying an empty bottle across bombed-out streets, an elderly displaced man saw her desperation. Three hours later, he found her again and secretly filled her bottle from his own family’s limited reserve. “Water was extremely scarce and almost unavailable; the man had to hide the water bottle in his clothes to secretly fill it,” Hammad said. “As soon as I got the water, I prepared her milk. She drank it and finally fell asleep after hours of crying and inability to sleep.”

    Despite the constant danger and deprivation, Hammad refused to flee south. Reports of systematic abuse against displaced Palestinians at Israeli military checkpoints left her too terrified to attempt the journey, and she feared Nour’s fragile health would not survive the trip. Slowly, as Nour began to move her limbs and grasp small objects, Hammad allowed herself a sliver of hope. “She was improving, but the doctors told me she needed to be urgently evacuated for treatment abroad, which was nearly impossible at the time,” she said.

    In December 2024, Hammad heard that a respected paediatrician at northern Gaza’s Kamal Adwan Hospital might be able to help Nour. She risked her life to travel to the facility, only to find the doctor was overwhelmed by a flood of injured patients. Staff told her to return two days later for an appointment – but when she came back, Israeli forces had stormed the hospital and detained the doctor, Dr Hussam Abu Safiya. According to his legal team, Abu Safiya has been subjected to repeated torture in detention, lost 40 kilograms, suffered severe health decline, and has recently been moved to solitary confinement.

    Hammad has continued to fight to secure Nour a spot for evacuation for specialist treatment abroad, but Israel’s strict blockade keeps almost all Palestinians trapped in Gaza. Nour was officially approved for medical transfer to Italy, but like tens of thousands of other critically ill Gaza patients, she has spent months stuck on a waiting list. The Palestinian Ministry of Health reports that at least 17,757 people requiring urgent life-saving care abroad have received official medical referrals, including roughly 4,000 children. Severe Israeli restrictions mean the vast majority will never leave.

    Though Israel agreed to a limited reopening of the Rafah crossing with Egypt in February 2026, allowing up to 50 patients per day to exit Gaza, only 1,204 patients had been evacuated through Rafah and the Kerem Shalom crossing by 20 May. After more than two and a half years of fighting for Nour’s life, Hammad says her daughter’s future now hinges on a decision she can never control.

    “I have managed to rescue Nour from imminent death in the incubator, found water and milk for her during the harshest times, and took her to hospitals for physiotherapy throughout two years of genocide,” Hammad said. “Now her health is hanging on an Israeli permit that would determine whether she can improve or remain disabled for the rest of her life.”

  • Israeli MP Ariel Kellner declares Turkey an ‘enemy state’

    Israeli MP Ariel Kellner declares Turkey an ‘enemy state’

    A sharp war of words between senior Israeli and Turkish leaders has pushed already strained bilateral relations to a new boiling point, with top Israeli officials openly labeling Turkey an enemy state amid a growing geopolitical split over the ongoing Gaza conflict and competing influence across the Middle East.

    The latest escalation began when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan delivered a forceful address this week, arguing that Israel’s ongoing military operations in Syria and Lebanon had grown so aggressive that they now pose a direct security threat to Turkey. Erdogan went further, framing Israeli actions as a risk to global stability, and declared that halting Israeli military expansion was a universal moral duty for the international community.

    That speech drew immediate and harsh pushback from Israeli leaders aligned with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling right-wing Likud party. First, Knesset member Ariel Kellner openly branded Turkey an enemy state “for all intents and purposes” during an interview with Israeli outlet Galei Israel radio. Kellner doubled down on his criticism, describing Erdogan as a dictator with expansionist ambitions to rebuild an Islamic caliphate, saying “He is a very dangerous person who hates Israel to the core.” He called on both Israel and Western governments to formally recognize Erdogan as a global security threat.

    Netanyahu himself followed up Kellner’s remarks with an equally scathing rebuke, labeling Erdogan an antisemitic dictator. This verbal escalation is not an isolated incident: just weeks before Kellner’s comments, Israeli Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar became the first senior cabinet member to publicly call for treating Turkey as an official enemy, warning that Ankara could emerge as Israel’s next major military adversary. “If Turkey chooses the path of war with us, it will undoubtedly pay a very heavy price. Israel knows how to defend itself and how to harm those who harm it,” Zohar stated.

    The sharp exchange of accusations comes against a years-long backdrop of deteriorating bilateral ties. Turkey has positioned itself as one of the most vocal international critics of Israel’s military campaigns in Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon. Relations hit a new low in May 2024, when Ankara formally cut official trade ties with Israel and joined South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

    Despite the formal embargo, limited trade has continued through indirect third-party channels, with total bilateral trade volume reaching $924 million in 2025 according to trade data. Energy cooperation also remains intact, with Azerbaijani crude oil transported via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline continuing to flow to Israeli markets through Turkish ports.

    International reaction to the rising tensions has been mixed. When asked to comment on Erdogan’s recent statements, former U.S. President Donald Trump pushed back against criticism, telling reporters “He’s a very good friend of mine, and we’ve worked very well together. I like him a lot.”

    Analysts note that the current rhetorical escalation reflects a deeper structural rift between the two nations, rooted in competing regional ambitions, disagreements over the future of Syria, and clashing positions on the Israel-Palestinian conflict that have only widened as the Gaza war drags on into its second year.

  • US and Iran are unlikely to bomb their way to peace

    US and Iran are unlikely to bomb their way to peace

    This week, the United States has launched a new wave of airstrikes targeting Iranian assets, a sharp escalation of military pressure that comes as former President Donald Trump has lost patience with months of stalled negotiations to end the broader Middle East conflict. The move marks a stark shift from the fragile ceasefire that had held between Washington and Tehran since early April, a truce both sides had initially signaled they wanted to preserve even as talks dragged on.

    US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth left little room for ambiguity following the strikes, warning that additional military action would continue if peace negotiations remain deadlocked. “If we need to negotiate with bombs, we’ll negotiate with bombs,” he stated. The airstrikes were launched in retaliation for the downing of a US helicopter by Iranian forces, an incident that followed days of cross-border missile exchanges between Iran and Israel that had already tested the truce.

    Even as military tensions spike, Trump continues to publicly insist that a comprehensive peace deal is imminent. To understand the sudden breakdown of the calm that held for months, analysts have put forward several overlapping explanations for the current escalation.

    The most widely cited framework is the strategic doctrine of “escalate to deescalate”, a common tactic in interstate conflict where a power ramps up military force to intimidate the opposing side into making concessions. Both Washington and Tehran have leaned into this approach, seeking to demonstrate their willingness to use force to push the other side to accept an agreement aligned with their core non-negotiable interests.

    To date, however, the two sides remain fundamentally at odds on the issues that matter most. The United States is demanding that Iran fully capitulate on its nuclear program, agreeing to dismantle all nuclear infrastructure and end all uranium enrichment activities, and reopen the Strait of Hormuz – a critical global chokepoint for energy trade – to unconstrained commercial shipping. For its part, Iran is demanding the immediate release of billions of dollars in frozen sovereign assets and a permanent ceasefire between Israel and the Iran-aligned militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon.

    With talks stuck in this stalemate, both sides see limited downside in demonstrating their willingness to escalate, even as neither seeks to collapse the ceasefire entirely and trigger a return to full-scale war. Yet this mutual pressure tactic carries major risks: when both sides pursue the same strategy simultaneously, it can easily lead to an uncontrollable “escalation trap”, where each side is forced to ramp up attacks to avoid appearing weak, leaving no path to de-escalation.

    A second, alternate explanation frames the current escalation as an unintended consequence of the tense, militarized status quo that has prevailed under the ceasefire, particularly the ongoing live military blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. It remains unclear to this day whether the Iranian drone that downed the US helicopter – the incident that directly triggered the US airstrikes – was a deliberate act of aggression or an accidental mistake amid heightened military alertness.

    Compounding these dynamics is the deeper regional complexity that the Trump administration has largely failed to account for: this is not merely a bilateral conflict between the US and Iran. Israel is currently conducting a large-scale military offensive against Hezbollah, Iran’s key regional ally, in southern Lebanon, an operation that has already upended the existing geopolitical order and put enormous strain on the US-Iran truce.

    For both Israel and Iran, the conflict is not a temporary dispute over terms of a peace deal – it is an existential struggle that predates the current war by decades. Iran’s Islamic regime has long rejected Israel’s legitimacy and place in the Middle East, while successive Israeli governments have repeatedly identified a nuclear-armed Iran as the single greatest threat to Israeli national survival. Against this backdrop, Iran cannot be expected to respect a ceasefire with the US while Israel wages war on its closest ally; Tehran views itself and Hezbollah as part of a single unified front in this regional struggle.

    On the Israeli side, the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israeli territory triggered a fundamental shift in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s regional strategy. Netanyahu’s far-right government has since adopted an aggressive expansionist military doctrine, seeking to seize territory in neighboring Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza to establish permanent security buffer zones, and has vowed to eliminate all threats posed by Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

    This approach faces a fundamental structural flaw: non-state militant groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Yemeni Houthis cannot be eliminated through conventional military force. These organizations are deeply embedded within civilian populations, able to disperse, regroup, and reemerge months or even years after major military offensives. As a result, even with massive military firepower that has left wide swathes of Gaza and southern Lebanon in ruins, Israel has not come close to eliminating Hamas or Hezbollah, and the fighting will continue.

    Trump’s approach to Middle East diplomacy has centered heavily on bilateral, personal diplomacy between leaders, and has consistently shown little patience for unpacking the deeply rooted ideological and political drivers that motivate the multiple actors involved in this layered conflict. This oversimplification has left the administration unprepared for the spillover from Israel’s campaign in Lebanon that is now unraveling the ceasefire.

    Looking ahead, the future of the truce depends heavily on how Trump defines a ceasefire itself. During a press conference this week, Trump offered a revealing framing, noting that in the Middle East context, a ceasefire often means “shooting in a more moderate manner.” It is clear he has no interest in returning to full-scale open war, which is why he publicly called for an immediate halt to exchanges between Iran and Israel earlier this week.

    The most likely outcome in the coming weeks is that limited strikes will continue across all three fronts even as formal negotiations proceed. While a preliminary memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran could be reached in the near term, it would almost certainly do no more than commit both sides to keep talking, rather than resolving the core sticking points that have deadlocked talks for months. Israel, meanwhile, is highly unlikely to withdraw its troops from southern Lebanon or end its asymmetric campaign against Hezbollah.

    As analyst Jessica Genauer, academic director at the Public Policy Institute of UNSW Sydney, argues, the current dynamics are already laying the groundwork for a long-term “frozen conflict”: an unresolved, low-intensity war that remains below the threshold of full-scale open combat but continues indefinitely. Unless the deeper structural and ideological roots of the conflict are addressed, any ceasefire between the US, Israel, and Iran can only ever be a temporary pause, not a lasting resolution.

  • US and Iran trade strikes as ceasefire comes under renewed strain

    US and Iran trade strikes as ceasefire comes under renewed strain

    A rapid cycle of reciprocal strikes between the United States and Iran this week has pushed a months-long fragile ceasefire to its most severe test in the two-month truce, drawing multiple Gulf nations directly into the spiraling escalation and stoking global fears of a wider regional conflict.

    The outbreak of renewed hostilities traces back to the downing of a U.S. military helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz earlier this week. In response, Washington launched targeted strikes against Iranian military installations, with U.S. officials confirming the operations were designed to knock out Iranian surveillance networks, communications infrastructure and air defense systems that the U.S. says pose an ongoing threat to American troops and commercial shipping transiting key regional waterways.

    U.S. Central Command announced the first wave of coordinated strikes wrapped up after launching at 5:15 p.m. Washington time on Wednesday, which fell in the early hours of Thursday local time in Iran. The operation drew on joint assets from the U.S. Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy, which deployed precision-guided munitions against targets spanning multiple Iranian locations. Iranian state media reported loud explosions across multiple provinces, including coastal areas near the Strait of Hormuz — Bandar Abbas, Qeshm Island and Minab — as well as sites in Karaj, Nazarabad and Pishva close to the Iranian capital of Tehran. Local reports confirmed at least three people suffered injuries in Tehran province.

    The strikes came after U.S. President Donald Trump publicly accused Iran of deliberately dragging out ceasefire negotiations to end the three-month conflict. Speaking Wednesday, Trump claimed Tehran had been “playing us for suckers” and warned the Islamic Republic would “have to pay the price” for the delay. U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth further signaled that military pressure would remain on the table, noting that if directed by the president, Washington would continue to “negotiate with bombs.”

    On Thursday, Iran’s foreign ministry issued a formal condemnation of the U.S. attacks, stating the strikes had rendered the nearly two-month-old ceasefire “practically meaningless” and held Washington fully accountable for any “extremely serious consequences” that stem from the escalation.

    In line with its promise of retaliation, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s elite military force, announced it had launched counterstrikes against U.S.-affiliated military targets in three regional states: Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan. Iranian state media reported the retaliatory operation used both drones and ballistic missiles, striking facilities including the headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain, air bases in Kuwait, and the al-Azraq airbase in northern Jordan.

    Bahrain triggered an air raid alert Wednesday after Iranian reports confirmed the U.S. base in the country had been targeted, with the interior ministry urging residents to stay calm and move to designated safe shelters. In Kuwait, authorities ordered a temporary closure of the country’s airspace early Thursday and diverted all incoming commercial flights over risks to civil aviation posed by the Iranian strikes. Kuwaiti military confirmed its air defense systems were actively engaging “hostile aerial targets,” before later announcing commercial air traffic had resumed normal operations. Jordan’s military confirmed Thursday that its integrated air defense systems and combat aircraft intercepted 20 missiles launched from Iran that were headed toward the Azraq area in Zarqa governorate, roughly 80 kilometers east of the capital Amman. The military added that falling missile debris caused no casualties or material damage, despite the large-scale attack. The IRGC has claimed its 12 ballistic missiles scored direct hits on al-Azraq airbase and its command center, destroying key facilities and aircraft on the tarmac. The IRGC’s claims have not yet been independently verified by third-party observers.

    The escalating confrontation has also spread to the Sea of Oman, one of the world’s most critical chokepoints for global energy trade. According to Iran’s Mehr News Agency, the Iranian governor of Sirik county confirmed a U.S. projectile struck an Iranian cargo barge in the Gulf of Oman early Thursday. This attack marks one of multiple strikes on vessels with Indian crew members carried out by U.S. forces this week. The 150-tonne barge, owned by local Sirik residents and carrying essential consumer goods from the Omani port of Khasab, was hit roughly five nautical miles off the Khasab coast. All five crew members were rescued by passing commercial vessels and brought to Omani shores for care, the official added.

    This week alone, U.S. forces have disabled three commercial tankers transiting the vital waterway as part of enforcement of a blockade on Iranian ports, a campaign that has left three seafarers dead. Indian national newspaper The Hindu confirmed Tuesday that two Indian crew members were killed and a third remains missing after a U.S. attack on the Palau-flagged oil tanker Settebello off the Omani coast.

    Iranian media reported Thursday that the Iranian navy had also struck two vessels attempting to transit the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. Central Command has rejected claims that commercial shipping through the strait has been halted, confirming that commercial vessels continue to move in and out of the waterway without widespread disruption.

    Global energy markets reacted immediately to the escalation, with oil prices climbing higher Thursday as traders priced in the risk of prolonged disruption to energy shipments. Major Gulf stock markets also pulled back, reflecting broad investor concern that the confrontation could expand far beyond direct U.S.-Iran exchanges.

    Speaking to Fox News, Trump claimed U.S. forces launched 49 Tomahawk cruise missiles in the latest strikes, and added that Iranian leadership reached out to him directly mid-bombing to request an end to the operations. The IRGC has flatly denied the claim, dismissing it as a propaganda effort to cover up Washington’s failing position in the three-month conflict.

    Despite the sharp military escalation, diplomatic channels have remained active to de-escalate the crisis. Qatari negotiators traveled to Tehran Wednesday after holding consultations with U.S. officials in Washington, in a last-ditch effort to bridge the remaining policy gaps between the two sides. The Qatari delegation departed Tehran Thursday after concluding their talks.

    United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres has issued an urgent warning against a return to full-scale open war between the two countries. Iran’s UN ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani emphasized that no sustainable long-term agreement can be reached through threats or the use of military force.

    The latest exchange of strikes comes after weeks of stalled negotiations over a permanent deal to end the conflict, which first erupted in February when the U.S. and Israel launched joint strikes against Iranian targets. Tehran has repeatedly insisted that any final peace settlement must include a binding ceasefire in Lebanon, where Israeli forces have continued to bombard civilian areas. The ongoing Lebanese campaign has killed 3,696 people since March, while Hezbollah has continued its cross-border strikes targeting Israeli military positions.

  • US administration investigating Iran war critic Trita Parsi, says report

    US administration investigating Iran war critic Trita Parsi, says report

    A growing political controversy has emerged following a new report from the Free Press revealing that the second Trump administration has opened an official investigation into Trita Parsi, one of the most vocal and high-profile critics of Washington’s aggressive military policy toward Iran, with deportation explicitly listed as a potential outcome of the probe.

    Parsi, who holds dual Iranian and Swedish citizenship, occupies key leadership roles in two major U.S. foreign policy organizations: he is co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and also co-founded the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC). For years, he has been an outspoken opponent of ongoing U.S. military strikes and aggressive posture against Iran, and has recently amplified criticism of U.S. backing for Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and attacks on Lebanon.

    Notably, Parsi is himself a public critic of Iran’s Islamic Republic; his family fled the country decades ago to escape political persecution by the ruling government, and he has faced repeated attacks from both Iranian monarchist factions and pro-Trump conservatives over his anti-war stance.

    A senior Trump administration official speaking to the pro-Trump outlet confirmed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has explicitly framed the administration’s push to target individuals accused of advancing the interests of U.S. adversaries at the expense of American security. “Anyone who seeks to undermine the US, we’re taking a hard look at,” the official stated.

    The investigation into Parsi is part of a wider, escalating crackdown on people of Iranian descent based in the United States that launched shortly after the U.S.-Israeli joint offensive against Iran began in February. In April, Hamideh Soleimani Afshar and her daughter Sarina were taken into federal custody and had their U.S. residency permits revoked, after far-right political influencer Laura Loomer incorrectly identified the pair as relatives of the late former Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani. Despite the pair’s repeated, unrefuted denials of any connection to Soleimani, they remain detained in a Texas facility as of the latest reporting. That same month, U.S. authorities also detained multiple relatives of former Iranian minister Masoumeh Ebtekar and revoked their green cards.

    In comments given to Middle East Eye (MEE) in May, Parsi warned that any potential diplomatic deal between Washington and Tehran would depend entirely on the U.S. willingness to rein in unprovoked Israeli military aggression across the Middle East. “If Trump either cannot or will not do so, then the value of any agreement with Washington comes sharply into question,” Parsi said. He added that a fragile ceasefire that leaves Israel free to restart hostilities on its own terms – while the U.S. remains unable to avoid being pulled back into open conflict – cannot deliver long-term regional stability, drastically reducing any benefit of a diplomatic agreement with the United States.

    MEE reached out to both the U.S. State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to request comment on the investigation into Parsi and the broader crackdown, but neither agency had issued a response by the time of this report’s publication.

  • Belfast ‘hit list’ of migrants’ homes circulated ahead of second night of riots

    Belfast ‘hit list’ of migrants’ homes circulated ahead of second night of riots

    Belfast, the capital of Northern Ireland, has been rocked by a second consecutive night of violent anti-migrant rioting, after a circulated \”hit list\” targeting homes of foreign-born residents led masked, balaclava-clad rioters to launch coordinated attacks on ethnic minority communities across the city.\n\nThe unrest traces its origin to a knife attack carried out Monday by Hadi Alodid, a 30-year-old Sudanese asylum seeker who had previously been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Alodid is currently facing charges of attempted murder, with many public commentators characterizing the assault on 38-year-old Stephen Ogilvie as an attempted beheading. Ogilvie, the attack victim, suffered catastrophic injuries including the loss of his left eye and severe lacerations across his face. In a remarkable display of empathy released Wednesday, Ogilvie’s family pushed back against attempts to exploit the attack for division, stating: \”We have many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our country. We do not want this terrible tragedy to divide people and fuel hostility.\”\n\nViolence first erupted across Belfast on Tuesday night, when hundreds of masked rioters set fire to residential properties and vehicles overwhelmingly owned by ethnic minority residents. Targeting homes listed as belonging to migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, rioters were recorded kicking in doors, smashing windows, and shouting threats to force all foreigners out of the area. A local Middle Eastern-owned supermarket was completely destroyed by arson, and video footage showed children being evacuated from adjacent homes as nearby structures burned. Local pastor Jack McGee confirmed to the BBC that residents were driven from their properties solely \”because they’re black.\”\n\nBy Wednesday evening, the unrest continued as rioters clashed with officers from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) near a Belfast hotel that houses migrant arrivals. The PSNI confirmed it had received urgent reports from multiple \”extremely distressed\” families who found their addresses included on the circulated hit list, and issued a formal warning that sharing the document could constitute a criminal offense. \n\nFootage from the scene shows police deploying water cannons and firing plastic bullets to disperse crowds, while rioters ripped bricks from local buildings to hurl at officers and infrastructure. Rioters set fire to abandoned structures and wheelie bins, blocked major thoroughfares with makeshift roadblocks assembled from street furniture, and operated overt checkpoints to stop passing vehicles and screen for non-white drivers. \n\nThe unrest was not confined to Northern Ireland: parallel anti-migrant demonstrations broke out across the UK on Tuesday night, including in Glasgow, Scotland, where 300 masked men marched through city streets and assaulted random passersby. Police locked Muslim worshippers inside Glasgow Central Mosque for their own protection after crowds surrounded the religious building.\n\nPolitical leaders across the UK have uniformly condemned the violence, though sharp divisions have emerged over its root causes. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer described the disorder as \”shocking and completely unacceptable\” during a Wednesday statement. Scottish First Minister John Swinney directly blamed anti-immigration figures like Nigel Farage for stoking the racial tensions that led to violence. Northern Ireland First Minister Michelle O’Neill echoed the condemnation, saying: \”Groups of masked men burning families out of their homes is nothing less than disgusting cowardice. This has nothing to do with community. This is outright thuggery.\” Green Party leader Zack Polanski framed the unrest as part of a broader coordinated movement, warning: \”What we are witnessing in Belfast is not an isolated incident – it is part of a coordinated far-right pattern playing out across these islands… We will not allow racism and fascism to be normalised on any of our streets.\”\n\nNigel Farage, leader of the right-wing Reform UK, pushed back against these claims, arguing that the violence stemmed from legitimate public fear unaddressed by mainstream politicians. \”Things kicked off in Belfast last night in a very big way, and things will continue to kick off,\” he said Wednesday. \”I’m very open about the fact that some very bad actors get involved in this stuff, but not the vast majority. The vast majority are fearful. The vast majority want action. They actually want something done to make their streets safer and nothing is being proposed.\”\n\nHigh-profile public figures with large platforms had already encouraged protests before the rioting began on Tuesday. Controversial far-right activist Tommy Robinson, born Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, joined billionaire X (formerly Twitter) owner Elon Musk in urging followers to demonstrate over the Monday knife attack. Hours before the first riot, Musk posted on his platform: \”Only by protesting REPEATEDLY and LOUDLY will there be any change!!\” On Wednesday, he doubled down on his stance, writing: \”Murderous migrants beheading innocent people in their home town is what’s making people angry, not “social media”!\