博客

Amidst the ongoing military engagement between the United States, Israel, and Iran, a significant shift in sentiment is emerging among segments of the Iranian populace. Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last monarch, once viewed by many as a potential unifying figure for the fragmented opposition, is now facing growing disillusionment and criticism from his former supporters.

The catalyst for this erosion of trust varies. For some, the turning point occurred prior to the outbreak of open conflict, when Pahlavi persistently called for public uprisings against the Islamic Republic—a move many saw as dangerously irresponsible given the regime’s history of brutal crackdowns. For others, his recent encouragement of public demonstrations during the traditional Persian festival of Chaharshanbe Suri, while major cities are under constant aerial bombardment, has been perceived as profoundly out of touch with the grim realities of daily life.

Interviews conducted with Iranians, who are identified by pseudonyms for their security, reveal a deep sense of betrayal. Dina, a 39-year-old from Tehran, once held hope that Pahlavi could channel the widespread discontent into a coherent movement. Now, she laments his apparent lack of political acumen, stating, ‘I wish he had even a fraction of his father’s political judgment… he would know how to use the enormous energy among people.’ Her sentiment is echoed by Majid, a 21-year-old student who witnessed a friend killed by security forces during earlier protests. He questions the call for celebration while citizens live in fear of airstrikes, asking, ‘Does he even know what life is like here?’

The criticism extends to Pahlavi’s perceived alignment with foreign powers. His communications, particularly on social media platform X, have drawn controversy for offering condolences for fallen American soldiers while remaining conspicuously silent on the deaths of hundreds of Iranian civilians, including children, in coalition strikes. This disparity has led many to question his priorities and his claim to represent the Iranian people.

Furthermore, his political consistency is under scrutiny. Analysts and critics like Amir, 40, from northern Iran, point to Pahlavi’s fluctuating rhetoric—at times pleading for U.S. support and at other times insisting on its irrelevance—as a sign of strategic uncertainty and an attempt to align with the perceived whims of international players like former U.S. President Donald Trump.

The atmosphere within Iran is increasingly tense. Iranian authorities, represented by national police commander Ahmad Reza Radan, have issued explicit threats, warning that security forces are ‘ready to pull the trigger’ on anyone protesting at the ‘enemy’s request.’ This has rendered the prospect of public demonstrations even more perilous.

While Pahlavi retains a base of support among those who still see him as a viable figure for a potential transitional government, the opposition landscape is now markedly divided. The emerging trends indicate a growing cohort of the disillusioned who feel misled by unmet promises of support and a coherent plan, while those who were always skeptical now feel empowered to voice their criticisms openly. The overarching sentiment is one of being trapped—caught between a repressive regime and an opposition leadership that many believe has failed its people.

European powers have delivered a firm rebuke to the United States’ appeal for military assistance in reopening the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, with Germany leading the opposition by declaring the escalating conflict with Iran falls outside NATO’s defensive mandate. The diplomatic standoff emerged after Iran sealed the critical waterway last week, retaliating against joint Israeli-American offensive operations that targeted Iranian territory. This strategic chokepoint facilitates the transit of over one-fifth of global oil and gas supplies, making its closure a matter of urgent international economic concern.

Despite President Donald Trump’s weekend appeal for allied support, European nations demonstrated remarkable unity in rejecting military involvement. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s administration established the tone by emphasizing through spokesman Stefan Kornelius that “Nato is an alliance for the defence of territory” and that the current crisis lacks the necessary mandate for NATO deployment. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius reinforced Germany’s position by explicitly ruling out military participation while affirming commitment to diplomatic resolution efforts.

The United Kingdom aligned with Germany’s stance, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer categorically dismissing the possibility of a NATO mission while acknowledging collaborative efforts to develop alternative strategies. “We’re working with all of our allies to bring together a viable collective plan that can restore freedom of navigation,” Starmer stated from Downing Street, emphasizing that any solution would not involve NATO deployment. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband revealed potential non-military alternatives, including the deployment of minesweeping drones instead of warships.

France confirmed it would not dispatch naval vessels to the Strait, maintaining its defensive posture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Spain emerged as the most vocal European critic of the military approach, with Defense Minister Margarita Robles declaring Madrid was “absolutely not” considering military contributions. Poland similarly rejected participation in any naval operation to reopen the shipping corridor.

This European consensus extended beyond the continent, with Japan and Australia earlier expressing parallel reservations about military involvement. President Trump issued a stark warning that allied refusal to assist could prove “very bad for the future of Nato,” though he provided no specific details regarding potential consequences.

Some Scandinavian and Baltic nations indicated slightly more flexible positions, with Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen advocating for maintaining “an open mind” regarding potential contributions despite emphasizing Denmark’s preference for de-escalation. Lithuanian and Estonian officials similarly expressed willingness to discuss the situation with American counterparts while stopping short of endorsing military action.

According to Washington-based Turkey expert Asli Aydintasbas, the United States government communicated to Turkey through official channels that military operations against Iran would conclude within a mere four-day timeframe. The Brookings Institution fellow revealed these details during a recent interview with Serbestiyet news outlet, characterizing the subsequently prolonged conflict as a form of betrayal toward NATO allies and regional partners.

The disclosure emerges amidst reports of Turkey’s extensive diplomatic efforts to prevent joint Israeli-American strikes against Iran since January. Turkish officials reportedly presented multiple proposals to both Washington and Tehran, including offers to host mediation talks in Istanbul. However, Iranian leadership reportedly declined these overtures, including a proposed trilateral teleconference involving Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, and US President Donald Trump.

Following several rounds of negotiations in Oman focusing specifically on Iran’s nuclear program, Washington and Israel ultimately launched unprovoked strikes against Iran last month. Aydintasbas highlighted the divergent objectives between the two allies, noting that Israel primarily sought regime change or fragmentation of Iran while the Trump administration pursued a quick victory to leverage nuclear negotiations.

The expert criticized the administration’s approach, noting the conspicuous absence of Iran expertise in planning discussions. Instead, the strategy appeared driven by Israeli encouragement and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s urgings, resulting in what Aydintasbas characterized as a poorly conceived ‘hit-and-run’ operation that has devolved into an open-ended conflict.

Initial White House assumptions suggested that eliminating Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei would precipitate regime collapse. However, the emergence of Mojtaba Khamenei as successor—who lost family members in strikes—created a scenario more reminiscent of North Korea’s leadership than the Venezuela-style cooperation the administration anticipated.

Further complicating matters, reports indicated consideration of employing Iranian and Iraqi Kurdish forces to establish border control—a plan that met with significant backlash from both media outlets and allied nations. Turkey reportedly expressed strong objections through diplomatic channels, joined by concerns from Saudi Arabia regarding the dangers of instigating civil war in Iran.

Despite initial encouragement from President Trump toward Kurdish involvement, the administration subsequently reversed position, with the president publicly stating he did not want Kurdish forces entering Iran amid the already complex conflict.

An independent tribunal co-chaired by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has concluded that Britain served as an active participant in certain Israeli war crimes during the Gaza conflict. The findings, published in a comprehensive report on Monday, emerged from last September’s highly publicized Gaza Tribunal proceedings.

The tribunal was convened following the Labour government’s blockage of Corbyn’s proposed legislation calling for a Chilcot-style public inquiry into UK-Israel military cooperation. The proceedings gathered testimony from a diverse array of sources including eyewitnesses, United Nations rapporteurs, journalists, medical professionals, and academic experts.

The final report presents a damning indictment of British policy, asserting that the nation “failed in its fundamental obligation to prevent genocide, has been complicit in atrocity crimes, and in some instances has even been an active participant in these crimes.” Corbyn characterized the findings as documentation of the government’s “legacy as an active participant in one of the greatest crimes of our time.

Among the specific allegations, the report details that Britain conducted hundreds of surveillance flights over Gaza during the conflict, sharing gathered intelligence with Israeli forces despite government claims that such cooperation was exclusively for “hostage rescue” purposes. The tribunal recommends that the UK immediately provide all collected surveillance footage to both the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The document further criticizes the government’s limited arms embargo as insufficient, advocating instead for a comprehensive prohibition on weapons transfers. It references the ICJ’s January 2024 genocide ruling and subsequent advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation illegal, arguing these decisions created binding legal obligations for states to prevent genocide and cease trade relations concerning occupied territories.

Notably, the report cites Middle East Eye’s previous reporting that David Cameron, during his tenure as foreign secretary, threatened the ICC’s chief prosecutor with Britain’s withdrawal from the court if it pursued arrest warrants against Israeli officials.

The tribunal’s recommendations include imposing economic sanctions on Israel, terminating all military cooperation, investigating British citizens potentially involved in war crimes, and establishing a full independent public inquiry with powers to question ministers and officials about UK-Israel cooperation since October 2023.

Co-chaired by Dr. Shahd Hammouri, an international law lecturer at the University of Kent, and Professor Neve Gordon, a human rights law expert at Queen Mary University of London, the tribunal featured strong condemnations from both legal scholars. Dr. Hammouri accused top UK officials of “lying, manipulating the law, denying reality, and prosecuting truth-tellers,” while Professor Gordon warned that the government’s complicity “has created a very dangerous precedent.”

In response to the allegations, the Foreign Office noted it has implemented three sets of sanctions addressing settler violence in the West Bank and opposes forced displacement. Middle East Minister Hamish Falconer recently stated there “must be accountability and justice for all crimes committed across Palestinian and Israeli territory.”

Israeli authorities have confirmed the extended closure of Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque through the upcoming Eid al-Fitr celebrations and beyond, according to sources familiar with the matter. Middle East Eye has learned that the Islamic Waqf, the Jordanian-appointed body administering the holy site, received official notification of this decision in recent days.

The unprecedented shutdown of one of Islam’s most sacred sites began earlier this month citing security concerns during regional tensions. This marks the first Ramadan since Israel’s 1967 occupation of East Jerusalem that Palestinian worshippers have been completely barred from Friday prayers at the mosque.

The closure has drawn condemnation from eight Muslim-majority nations who declared Israel holds ‘no sovereignty’ over the site and demanded immediate lifting of restrictions. Despite these calls, Israeli forces maintain a heavy presence in the Old City, continuing bans on both Friday and nightly Ramadan prayers while preventing Palestinian access to the compound.

Currently, no more than 25 Waqf staff members are permitted inside the vast complex per shift. Sources reveal Israeli authorities even rejected a request for an additional manuscript department employee, warning that any expansion would trigger permission for Israeli settlers to resume daily incursions.

Waqf officials suspect Israeli forces have installed surveillance cameras inside prayer halls, including within the Dome of the Rock, enabling constant monitoring. The mosque closure coincides with a near-total lockdown of the Old City, where only residents are permitted entry, leaving normally vibrant Palestinian markets deserted.

During Laylat al-Qadr, the holiest night in Islam, hundreds of police blocked access routes, forcing worshippers to pray on streets under threat of violence. Dr. Mustafa Abu Sway of the Islamic Waqf Council noted the stark contrast between the internal lockdown and normal life continuing just meters outside the ancient walls.

International affairs director Aouni Bazbaz expressed concerns that temporary measures could become permanent arrangements, potentially altering decades-long status quo agreements that preserve Al-Aqsa as an exclusively Islamic site under Waqf administration. Palestinians maintain that Israeli occupation has progressively eroded these arrangements while expanding control over the contested territory.