Iran Strikes Israel 200 Times on Day 1 of War

Israeli emergancy services stated, Saturday night, 89 people were injured as a result of the Iranian attacks while the Hebrew media (Channel 13) reported that Tehran launched more than 200 strikes on the different parts of the Jewish entity on the first day of the US-Israeli war launched on Iran. The Israeli media (Channel 12) reported that central Israel suffered much material damage from the Israeli missiles that launched on Israel despite the fact tenss of these were deflected by Israeli batteries. Yedioth Ahronoth reported injuries in the city of Bnei Brak, near Tel Aviv though it didn’t say how critical these were. The Hebrew Channel 12 reported the number of fires were caused in northern Israel. Air raid sirens were reported in many parts of the country as ringing all day because of the incoming missiles with millions of Israelis taking to underground shelters.

Continue reading
UN Condemns US/Israel Attacks on Iran

UN Secretary-General António Guterres and the heads of UN agencies have condemned Saturday’s joint Israeli and US attacks on Iran and the Iranian retaliatory strikes on Israel and the Gulf Regions.

The attack on Iran reportedly targeted military sites as well as the leadership of the Iranian regime. Explosions were heard in Israel and Gulf countries after Iran launched a wave of drones and missiles.

Mr. Guterres declared that the military escalation in the region undermines international peace and security, and recalled that all Member States must “respect their obligations under international law, including the Charter of the United Nations,” which prohibits “the threat of the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

 The UN Chief called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and de-escalation and warned that a failure to do so risks a wider regional conflict with grave consequences for civilians and regional stability. 

Risk of ‘destruction on an unimaginable scale’

Senior officials added their own responses on Saturday morning: Volker Türk, the High Commissioner for Human Rights said that bombs and missiles are not the way to resolve differences but “only result in death, destruction and human misery.” Civilians, he noted, “end up paying the ultimate price.”

Mr. Türk called for all parties to return to negotiations in order to avoid a wider conflict that would mean further civilian deaths and “destruction on a potentially unimaginable scale, not just in Iran but across the Middle East region.”

World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a statement that he was deeply troubled by the situation and urged leaders to “choose the challenging path of dialogue over the senseless route of destruction.” 

Emergency Security Council meeting scheduled

Security Council meeting to discuss the attacks has been called by French President Emmanuel Macron. The meeting is scheduled for 4PM Eastern Time on Saturday.

Follow the meeting live on UN News and on UN WebTV

Reactions from across the UN system

  • António Guterres, UN Secretary-General“I condemn today’s military escalation in the Middle East. The use of force by the United States & Israel against Iran, and the subsequent retaliation by Iran across the region, undermine international peace & security.”
  • Tedros Ghebreyesus, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO)“I am deeply concerned about the current situation in the Middle East. My heart is with the civilians caught in the crossfire.”
  • Volker Türk, High Commissioner of Human Rights“As always, in any armed conflict, it is civilians who end up paying the ultimate price.”
  • Annalena Baerbock, President of the General Assembly“The UN Charter is clear: all Member States must settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”
  • International Atomic Energy Agency“The IAEA is closely monitoring developments in the Middle East, and urges restraint to avoid any nuclear safety risks to people in the region.” – UN News

Continue reading
Hammering The UN?

By Dr Khairi Janbek

Even from the moment of its inception, the UN was subjected to constant criticism and derision. Though it started as a coalition of the willing in order to deal with differences and sources of conflict in a peaceable and/or diplomatic manner, the term willing remained nebulous.

The strong and mighty wanted to bend this will to suit their interests, and the weak and the needy wanted to bend this will for their own protection. Still in this dialectical formula the need for the UN remains as the only viable formula which offers the possibility of negotiations in the Churchillian wisdom of jaw jaw, better than war war, and it remains in this sense, the standard which provides the vaneer for international legality and the semblance of consensus.

Then suddenly and apparently, the concept of the Donald Trump Board of Peace emerged on the scene, thought of, initially, as an effort to deal with the mayhem of Gaza, and to which one may add ironically and cynically, that the most two concerned parties – Palestinians and Israelis – are out of its functioning. On top of this, the notion was propelled in the media that this Board is really an attempt to replace the UN.

So in this context we can assume what is meant is that if the UN started, all these years ago, as a coalition of the willing, today’s Board of Peace is a coalition of the frightened, of states who want to stay on the good side of Trump. This is aside from the reluctant opportunists whom seek some benefits out of becoming a member of this entity.

On the face of it, one can say that the real purpose of its establishment is not to replace the United Nations per se, but a serious attempt to bypass the UN and redefine international relations in accordance with the Trump notion of who is the enemy of peace and who is its friends, with the essential outlook of not needing the international organization at all. Under the new legality, it is Trump who lays down the law, and the one whom distributes the spoils. As for the UN it remains in his eyes as a gathering for losers.

But if we go back to the beginning, in fact the Board of Peace, not only got the blessing of the UN for its creation, but also the support of the Security Council with resolution 2038, but then again, it was linked to the reconstruction and ‘stabilization’ of Gaza, while the current format of the Board emerged on the sidelines of the recent World Economic Forum meetings.

Now irrespective of some in the international community wanting to spite Trump or of waning his influence, there is a serious and big concern that President Trump and the fact that he is presiding over this Board, will mean that the talked about peace will be the peace of the strong imposed by the strong. In itself this rings many alarm bells on the strategic level for many regions in the world about the kind of peace Trump is talking about.

Among the myriad of world conflicts, currently the Palestinian problem, Ukraine war, and Iran, stand out as the most deadly and critical. So in what shape the proposed peace will come?

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris.

Continue reading
Trump’s War Through Politics

By Dr Amani Al-Qarm

About 2,500 years ago, there was a Chinese general named Sun Tzu, renowned for his military genius and unique philosophy on achieving decisive victory. He compiled his vision in a famous book called “The Art of War.” Sun Tzu states in his book that subduing the enemy without fighting is better than winning a hundred battles, and that a skilled commander feeds on his enemies.

This means exploiting the enemy’s resources, weaknesses, and even strengths, striking at their strategy and alliances, and besieging them to achieve victory, rather than relying solely on one’s own resources. In other words, achieving victory at the lowest cost is preferable to destroying a country, and capturing the head of state is better than killing him.

The Trump administration’s slogan, “Peace Through Strength,” is not new to American administrations, but it was perhaps more blatant and explicit during Trump’s presidency, as was the case with everything else under his rule: no embellishment, no lofty phrases, no justifications to appease hypocritical Western arrogance, such as democracy and human rights. There are only declared and clear objectives: oil, minerals, money, and control without cost.

The entire world is watching the current unique American approach to dealing with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Just when the world expected an American strike on Iran, the door was opened for negotiations under the auspices of the massive aircraft carrier USS Lincoln and its destroyers and missiles stationed in the Arabian Sea.

This leaves allies and adversaries alike bewildered and unable to predict the outcome, while Trump maintains the element of surprise and the timing of the strike. It seems that Trump is not content with the slogan “Peace Through Strength” alone, but has added to it some of the principles of General Sun Tzu’s doctrine. Trump Feeds on His Enemies:

Iran is in a state of weakness unprecedented in decades. Internally, the country is seething with poverty and oppression, and the recent protests are unlike any before. Internal affairs are no longer purely domestic; they now carry external costs, given the threats the US president has made against the Iranian regime throughout the past month.

Furthermore, the country is strategically exposed. Its alliances have been shattered, and it and those who deal with it economically and militarily are besieged. The time is ripe to pounce on the prey. And because, as Tzu said, subduing the enemy without cost is better than winning a hundred battles, Trump has opened the door to negotiations to achieve his objectives.

What does Trump want from Iran? Is he negotiating to restore relations between the two countries? Or to liberate the Iranian people? Of course not. He seeks victory without a fight. The collapse of the country as a result of war would transform it into scattered chaos throughout the region, as has already been witnessed in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Syria.

Therefore, containing it to the greatest extent possible and completely changing its hostile behavior since 1979 is preferable to destroying it. And to strip it of everything it considers its sources of power: eradicating any nuclear ambitions, eliminating its missile program, and reducing its regional role to the bare minimum, while also constantly reminding it that America is serious and ready to confront it. From America’s perspective, qualitative and nuclear superiority should belong only to Israel in the region.

What happens next depends on Iranian behavior. Will it submit and be pragmatic, as it has been in the crises that have characterized its relationship with the United States since 1979, or will the Iranian regime feel that this crisis is existential, thus raising the voice of ideology where there is no turning back?

This article is republished from the Arabic Al Rai Al Youm website.

Continue reading