分类： politics

Seven weeks into the joint US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, US President Donald Trump has issued a stark ultimatum to Tehran: meet Washington’s preconditions for a negotiated settlement by 8 p.m. Washington local time Tuesday, or face the full obliteration of Iran’s core national infrastructure, including its energy grids, communications networks, and civilian water systems. The escalated rhetoric comes as Iranian officials have repeatedly rejected US overtures, insisting Tehran retains meaningful battlefield leverage and that Washington cannot be trusted to honor any diplomatic agreement.

Trump first laid out the aggressive threat during remarks to reporters at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll on Monday. “We are obliterating that country, and I hate to do it, but we’re obliterating [them] and they just don’t want to say ‘uncle’. They don’t want to cry, as the expression goes, ‘uncle’, but they will. And if they don’t, they’ll have no bridges, they’ll have no power plants, they’ll have no anything,” the president told assembled media.

When a reporter pressed Trump on whether such a deliberate attack on civilian infrastructure would qualify as a war crime under international law, Trump justified the threat by claiming the Iranian government had killed 45,000 people in recent weeks. No independent verification of this claim has been possible; Iranian authorities have reported just under 4,000 total deaths linked to mass anti-government protests that began in January, a figure that includes both civilian protesters and slain police officers. Undeterred by the lack of corroboration, Trump doubled down on his denunciation, calling Iranians “animals” that must be stopped, and falsely claimed that Iranian civilians “want to hear bombs because they want to be free.”

The 1949 Geneva Conventions explicitly ban deliberate attacks on infrastructure that cuts off civilian access to basic survival needs, a provision that would cover the targets Trump threatened to destroy.

Speaking on a virtual panel hosted by the Executive Intelligence Review earlier Monday, Iran’s ambassador to Armenia Khalil Shirgolami pushed back against Washington’s maximalist demands, arguing that Trump’s aggressive approach is fundamentally nonviable. “President Trump had, several times, the chance to find a real solution and political settlement for the nuclear issue of Iran, and at least two times he betrayed diplomacy and he betrayed the negotiating table, and he bombed the negotiation table, actually,” Shirgolami said. “The United States is not in a position in terms of the battlefield operation to be putting all those preconditions.”

Shirgolami’s remarks referenced Washington’s previously proposed 15-point peace framework, which was transmitted to Tehran via Pakistani intermediaries last month. The US proposal is reported to require Iran to completely end all uranium enrichment activities and fully dismantle its domestic missile program, demands Iran has repeatedly rejected.

Pakistan, which has mediated quiet backchannel talks between the two sides, presented a new tentative peace framework dubbed the “Islamabad Accords” to both Washington and Tehran on Monday. The new proposal outlines a two-stage process: it calls for an immediate ceasefire first, followed by negotiations to finalize a full comprehensive agreement within a 15 to 20-day window. Shirgolami confirmed that Iran rejects a standalone temporary ceasefire, instead demanding a permanent end to all US and Israeli aggression, the establishment of a joint international mechanism to secure unimpeded trade passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and full compensation for all damage and losses caused by the ongoing conflict.

Prior to Trump’s press conference at the Easter Egg Roll, Shirgolami noted that Iran’s strategic approach to negotiations is rooted in the proverb “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” explaining that Washington has repeatedly broken past commitments, so it cannot be trusted without ironclad guarantees. “We need to go for a new equation, in which I mean, in that equation, there will be real guarantees for non-aggression against Iran, for preserving Iran’s rights, for the nuclear, peaceful energy and enrichment,” he added.

During Monday’s Easter event, Trump also told reporters that if his policy decisions were not constrained by the will of the American public, he would simply seize Iran’s oil reserves for US profit. “It’s there for the taking. There’s not a thing they can do about it. Unfortunately, the American people would like to see us come home. If it were up to me, I’d take the oil. I’d keep the oil and would make plenty of money,” he said. When pressed on the comment later in the White House briefing room, Trump defended the framing by noting “I’m a businessman first.”

Expanding on his vision for a post-deal settlement, Trump also floated the idea of the US seizing full control of the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant share of global oil trade passes. When a reporter asked if Trump would accept ending the conflict in exchange for the right to charge tolls for vessels passing through the Strait, Trump responded: “What about us charging? I’d rather do that than let them [or] have them run it. Why shouldn’t we? We’re the winner. We won. Okay? They are militarily defeated.”

Currently, the Strait of Hormuz remains operational under Iranian control, which operates a three-tiered access system: vessels from countries friendly to Iran are granted free routine passage, vessels from neutral countries that pay a fee denominated in Chinese yuan are also allowed through, but all ships linked to the US and Israel are barred from transiting. Trump reiterated Monday that any final deal must guarantee unimpeded, free passage for all global oil and commercial traffic through the waterway.

When asked about the newly proposed Islamabad Accords ceasefire framework, Trump told reporters he “can’t talk about the ceasefire” but claimed “we have a willing participant on the other side” referring to Iran. That claim directly contradicts Shirgolami’s confirmation that Iran rejects any temporary ceasefire proposal that does not include pre-agreed commitments to end aggression permanently and provide security guarantees.

A fresh global survey conducted by leading U.S. analytics and advisory firm Gallup has revealed a striking shift in global perceptions of international leadership: for the third time in modern history, China holds a higher global approval rating for its leadership than the United States, with the 5-point gap marking the widest advantage for China recorded in nearly two decades.

The end-of-2025 survey gathered responses from over 130 countries and regions worldwide, calculating median approval rates across all participating areas. It found that 36% of respondents approved of China’s global leadership, compared to just 31% who approved of U.S. leadership. This result marks a sharp reversal from 2024, when U.S. leadership held a 7-point advantage: U.S. approval plummeted 8 percentage points from 39% in 2024 to 31% in 2025, while China’s approval rose 4 points over the same period, climbing from 32% to 36%.

The only previous occasions Gallup recorded China leading the U.S. in global leadership approval were during the George W. Bush administration (2001–2009) and Donald Trump’s first presidential term (2017–2021). To capture a more nuanced view of global sentiment, Gallup calculated results using “net approval”—the share of approving respondents minus the share of disapproving respondents. For 2025, the U.S. posted a median net approval score of negative 15, the lowest figure the firm has ever recorded for the country.

Most notably, the drop in U.S. approval was most severe among America’s closest traditional allies. Across 31 NATO member states, median approval of U.S. leadership fell 14 percentage points to just 21%. Germany saw the sharpest single-country decline globally, with approval dropping 39 points, followed closely by Portugal with a 38-point drop.

Gallup emphasizes that the 2025 survey was completed before two major 2026 geopolitical developments: the U.S. withdrawal from 66 international organizations in January, and the outbreak of armed conflict between the U.S. and Iran in late February. Experts warn that if the poll were conducted today, U.S. approval would likely fall even further.

“If the survey was conducted now, after the U.S. attacks on Iran and Venezuela, it is likely that the global U.S. approval ratings would be even lower, given that most people around the world would agree that the U.S. actions are illegitimate and violate international law,” explained Zhu Zhiqun, professor of political science and international relations and director of Bucknell University’s China Institute.

The Iran conflict has already exposed deep rifts within the U.S.-led alliance system. U.S. European allies have publicly criticized Washington for launching military action without prior consultation, while Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states face direct economic risk from Iranian retaliatory measures. Abram Paley, nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, noted in a late March analysis that the conflict could reshape long-term security partnerships in the region.

“Depending on the outcome of this conflict, some Gulf countries may develop concerns about U.S. reliability as an economic and security partner,” Paley wrote. “If this happens, some GCC countries might then choose to reinforce their partnership options beyond the United States by strengthening ties with Russia and China — perhaps economically at first, but potentially also strategically.”

Gallup’s long-term data shows that U.S. leadership approval has fluctuated dramatically across different presidential administrations. The highest U.S. global approval rating on record, 49%, was recorded in 2009 during Barack Obama’s presidency, while the previous low of 30% was registered during the first and final years of Trump’s first term.

The survey’s research team framed the 2025 results as a reflection of a fundamental, long-term restructuring of the global order. “The shifting perceptions of U.S. leadership over the past two decades reflect a world that has moved toward a more multipolar order,” the report concluded.

Zhu echoed that conclusion, noting that the latest poll provides clear empirical evidence of a permanent shift away from unipolar global governance. “The latest Gallup poll is further evidence that the world has become multipolar now, and the era of the U.S. dominance in global affairs is over,” he said.

In a landmark ruling that has sent shockwaves across India, nine sitting police officers have received death sentences for the brutal 2020 custodial killing of a father and son in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, a case that reignited national debate over endemic police brutality in the country.

The two victims, 58-year-old P Jeyaraj and his 38-year-old son Benicks, were taken into custody in June 2020 for the alleged offense of violating national Covid-19 lockdown rules by keeping their small mobile phone retail shop open past the mandated curfew. Within days of their detention, both men were dead while still in police custody.

During Monday’s sentencing hearing, the presiding judge laid bare the horrific details of the abuse the pair suffered. The judge confirmed that Jeyaraj and Benicks were stripped naked and systematically tortured in front of each other by the accused officers, in a clear violation of every principle of lawful detention. In scathing remarks directed at the convicted officers, the judge stated that the assault was carried out with explicit intent to kill, calling the incident a blatant abuse of the state authority entrusted to the men.

The judge rejected any calls for leniency, noting that all nine officers are formally educated, and that their age or personal family circumstances could not justify a reduced sentence. “They attacked unarmed civilians who posed no threat to them. They do not deserve forgiveness,” the judge added.

Last month, all nine officers were formally found guilty of murder by the court. Under Indian legal procedure, the convicted personnel retain the right to file an appeal against both the conviction and their death sentences with a higher judicial bench.

In total, 10 police officers were arrested immediately following the deaths in 2020. One of the accused died from complications related to Covid-19 later that same year, leaving nine to stand trial.

When news of the custodial deaths first emerged four years ago, the incident sparked widespread public protests across Tamil Nadu. State opposition legislators were among the first crowds to take to the streets to demand accountability for the deaths. High-profile public figures, including Congress party opposition leader Rahul Gandhi and star Indian cricketer Shikhar Dhawan, added their voices to the calls for justice via social media platforms, amplifying the national outcry.

Beyond the immediate calls for punishment, the 2020 killings pushed the long-simmering issue of custodial abuse and police brutality in India back to the center of national public discourse. Human rights organizations have documented that hundreds of people die in police or judicial custody across India every year, with many of these deaths linked to systematic torture. Rights advocates note that the use of abuse to force confessions from suspects has become a normalized, entrenched part of policing culture in many parts of the country.

Earlier in 2024, a group of independent United Nations human rights experts issued a public call for India to implement sweeping, comprehensive reforms to bring its national policing practices in line with binding international human rights standards. Tuesday’s sentencing marks one of the most high-profile convictions of police personnel for custodial killing in recent Indian history, with activists watching closely to see whether the ruling will pave the way for broader systemic changes.

Tensions between the United States and Iran escalated dramatically this week after former and current U.S. President Donald Trump issued explicit threats to carry out large-scale strikes against Iranian civilian infrastructure, drawing sharp condemnation from Iranian officials and even pushback from some members of the U.S. political and policy community.

Trump first made the incendiary remarks during an Easter Sunday interview with Fox News, where he issued an ultimatum to Iranian leadership: unless Tehran reached a new deal with Washington on his timeline and fully reopened the Strait of Hormuz by 8 p.m. ET that same day, he would order widespread bombings across the country. “You’re going to see bridges and power plants dropping all over their country,” Trump stated, adding that he was also “considering blowing everything up and taking the oil.” The threat followed an aggressive, profanity-laced post on his Truth Social platform, where he demanded Iran “open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.”

In response to the threats, top Iranian diplomatic officials have labeled Trump’s statements as open incitement to war crimes and potential genocide, citing international law to back their claims. Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, outlined the legal case against the threatened strikes in a social media post Monday, noting that deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure such as power plants and bridges are explicitly classified as war crimes under Article 8(2)(b) of the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute, as well as Article 52 of Protocol I to the 1977 Geneva Conventions.

Gharibabadi emphasized that as the highest-ranking U.S. official, Trump bears individual criminal responsibility for his open threat to violate international humanitarian law, a liability that holds before both the ICC and any competent national court. He also warned that if Trump follows through on the attack, his name will be “etched in history as a supreme war criminal,” and confirmed that Iran would deliver a “decisive, immediate, and regret-inducing response” to any aggression.

Esmail Baghaei, spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, echoed that condemnation, calling Trump’s threats evidence of “a criminal mindset.” Speaking to reporters Sunday, Baghaei called the comments “an express public incitement for war crimes and crimes against humanity—and, I would say, for genocide.” He added that threatening attacks on a nation’s critical energy infrastructure amounts to putting the entire civilian population at deliberate risk of harm.

The threats come amid an ongoing U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran that began on February 28, which has already caused extensive damage to Iranian civilian and public service facilities. Iran’s deputy health minister confirmed Monday that more than 360 healthcare, education, and research centers have been damaged or destroyed in strikes to date, with dozens of medical personnel killed in the attacks.

Critics within the United States have also joined Iranian officials in decrying Trump’s threatened strikes as unlawful war crimes. U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, criticized the administration’s underlying strategy, which reportedly calls for striking civilian sites to spark public unrest and force regime change. “But just think about the insanity of this plan: kill tens of thousands of civilians in order to cause a national panic,” Murphy wrote on social media. “Bombing to induce political panic IS A WAR CRIME.”

Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, went further, arguing that any congressional lawmaker who supports additional war funding for the conflict or opposes efforts to reassert congressional war powers limits on the administration would be complicit in the threatened and already committed war crimes. He called Trump an “unhinged and unfit Commander in Chief.”

The sharp escalation of rhetoric comes as quiet diplomatic efforts, partially mediated by Pakistan, are underway to negotiate a 45-day ceasefire that would create space for longer-term talks to end the ongoing conflict. Axios has reported that the ongoing diplomatic push is viewed by mediators as “the only chance to prevent a dramatic escalation in the war that will include massive strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure and a retaliation against energy and water facilities in the Gulf states.”

On a Sunday in eastern England, law enforcement officers took seven people into custody during a demonstration held just outside RAF Lakenheath, a British base long leased to the United States military that military analysts now connect to a US fighter jet downed over Iran just two days prior. The arrests mark a sharp flashpoint in a growing controversy over the UK government’s role in supporting the US-led war on Iran, unfolding against a tangled legal backdrop over the status of the activist group the arrestees are accused of supporting.

Military observers have confirmed that the F-15E strike fighter shot down by Iranian forces on Friday matches the profile of aircraft permanently stationed at RAF Lakenheath, the largest US fighter operations hub in Europe, which is home to the 48th Fighter Wing. Both UK Ministry of Defence and US Central Command officials have declined to comment on Iranian claims that the aircraft originated from this Suffolk base. Independent verification from The New York Times, citing senior Royal United Services Institute air power analyst Justin Bronk, adds weight to these claims: Bronk found that wreckage markings published by Iranian state-linked news agency Tasnim align directly with the markings of the 494th Fighter Squadron, a unit permanently based at Lakenheath.

Local anti-war activists have monitored air traffic at the base closely since the outbreak of the war, and have documented sustained sortie activity linked to strikes on Iran. In the week leading up to the jet’s downing, activists recorded unusual movements: five F-35C stealth fighters landed at Lakenheath on March 24, and more than 20 aircraft departed the base on the morning of April 2, according to local anti-war group claims. Peter Lux, organizer of the Lakenheath Alliance for Peace, told reporters on Sunday that his group has tracked between 116 and 118 US bombers departing the base for combat missions since the war began. Lux argued that as a British military facility on UK sovereign territory, the UK government holds full legal responsibility for all operations launched from its grounds. “We need the accountability of those bases, particularly with what’s going on in Iran, which the British government have said they’re not happy about because of international law,” Lux said. The six-day 24-hour vigil organized by his group outside the base concluded on the same day as the arrests.

The seven detainees – five men and two women – were arrested on suspicion of acting in support of Palestine Action, a direct-action group that organizes demonstrations against Israeli war crimes. The legal status of the organization remains contested: Keir Starmer’s Labour government opted to ban Palestine Action as a terrorist organization in July 2025, but the UK High Court ruled earlier this year that this proscription was unlawful. The government has since appealed the ruling, creating an unusual legal limbo that law enforcement has had to navigate.

In a statement following the arrests, a Suffolk Police spokesperson clarified that the force is required to enforce existing law as it stands currently, rather than pending the outcome of the government’s appeal. “Although the High Court found the proscription of Palestine Action to be unlawful, it also confirmed that the impact of that judgement will not take effect until the government’s appeal has been considered,” the spokesperson explained, adding that the force “has a duty to enforce the law without fear or favour” and will take appropriate action when offences are suspected.

The controversy over activity at RAF Lakenheath is part of a wider breakdown of British policy on the war in Iran, marked by repeated U-turns from Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government. When the US-Israeli invasion of Iran first began, Starmer initially banned the US from launching combat strikes from the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. That position flipped within just 48 hours, when Starmer approved US use of the base for strikes targeting Iranian missile sites, framing the move as a purely defensive measure. Two weeks later, Starmer announced a second reversal, approving US use of all British bases for strikes targeting Iranian sites in operations meant to protect commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

Despite Starmer’s repeated concessions that have allowed expanded US war operations from UK territory, former US President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked Starmer’s leadership, even going so far as to suggest that the decades-long “special relationship” between the US and UK is in jeopardy.

RAF Lakenheath is not the only British base being used to support US strikes on Iran. US combat aircraft have also launched missions from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, southwest England, while nearby RAF Mildenhall – another Suffolk-based facility that supports US Air Force operations – has seen a surge in activity over the past week. On March 31, two US EA-37B Compass Call electronic warfare aircraft were photographed landing at Mildenhall.

The growing involvement of British bases in the war has sparked serious retaliatory threats from Tehran. Speaking to Times Radio the previous Wednesday, Iranian ambassador to the UK Seyed Ali Mousavi confirmed that the Iranian government is “considering” targeted strikes on British military bases in retaliation for the UK’s support for US operations.