|
中東風雲錄 -- 開欄文：埃及的加薩重建方案 -- Al Jazeera
|
瀏覽58,994 ｜回應102｜推薦1 |
|
|
|
下文為本欄開欄文。
埃及的加薩重建方案 -- Al Jazeera
What is Egypt’s plan for the reconstruction of Gaza?
Arab League endorses Egyptian proposal that provides alternative to US President Trump’s plan to take over Gaza.
Al Jazeera Staff, 03/04/25
Arab states have adopted Egypt’s Gaza reconstruction plan, providing a potential path forward after Israel’s devastating war on the Palestinian enclave.
Egypt unveiled its plan on Tuesday while hosting an Arab League Summit in its capital Cairo.
The plan offers an alternative to United States President Donald Trump’s suggestion that the Gaza Strip be depopulated to “develop” the enclave, under US control, in what critics have called ethnic cleansing. Under the Egyptian plan, Gaza’s Palestinian population would not be forced to leave the territory.
Trump had insisted that Egypt and Jordan take Palestinians forced out of Gaza by his plan, but that was quickly rejected, and the US has signalled that it is open to hearing what an Arab plan for Gaza’s post-war reconstruction would be.
Speaking at the start of the summit, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi said that Trump would be able to achieve peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Here’s everything you need to know about the plan, based on Al Jazeera’s own reporting, as well as drafts of the plan reported on by the Reuters news agency and the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram.
Play Video 請至原網頁觀看視頻
What does the Egyptian plan call for?
The plan consists of three major stages: Interim measures, reconstruction and governance.
The first stage would last about six months, while the next two phases would take place over a combined four to five years.
The aim is to reconstruct Gaza – which Israel has almost completely destroyed – maintain peace and security and reassert the governance of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the territory, 17 years after it was kicked out following fighting between Fatah, which dominates the PA, and Hamas.
How does the plan aim to rebuild Gaza?
A six-month interim period would require a committee of Palestinian technocrats – operating under the management of the PA – to clear the rubble from Salah al-Din Street, which is the main north-south highway in the Gaza Strip.
Once the roads are clear, 200,000 temporary housing units would be built to accommodate 1.2 million people and about 60,000 damaged buildings restored.
According to the blueprint, longer-term reconstruction requires an additional four to five years after the interim measures are completed. Over that span, the plan aims to build at least 400,000 permanent homes, as well as rebuilding Gaza’s seaport and international airport.
Gradually, basic provisions such as water, a waste system, telecommunication services and electricity would also be restored.
The plan further calls for the establishment of a Steering and Management Council, which would be a financial fund supporting the interim governing body in Gaza.
In addition, conferences will be held for international donors to provide the necessary funding for reconstruction and long-term development in the Strip.
Who would be in charge of Gaza?
The plan calls for a group of “independent Palestinian technocrats” to manage affairs in Gaza, in effect replacing Hamas.
The technocratic government would be responsible for overseeing humanitarian aid and would pave the way for the PA to administer Gaza, according to el-Sisi.
Speaking at Tuesday’s summit, PA President Mahmoud Abbas said that an election could take place next year if circumstances allowed.
On the security front, Egypt and Jordan have both pledged to train Palestinian police officers and deploy them to Gaza. The two countries have also called on the United Nations Security Council to consider authorising a peacekeeping mission to oversee governance in Gaza until reconstruction is complete.
How much is this going to cost?
Egypt is calling for $53 bn to fund the reconstruction of Gaza, with the money distributed over three phases.
In the first six-month phase it would cost $3bn to clear rubble from Salah al-Din Street, construct temporary housing and restore partially damaged homes.
The second phase would take two years and cost $20bn. The work of rubble removal would continue in this phase, as well as the establishment of utility networks and the building of more housing units.
Phase three would cost $30bn and take two and a half years. It would include completing housing for Gaza’s whole population, establishing the first phase of an industrial zone, building fishing and commercial ports, and building an airport, among other services.
According to the plan, the money will be sourced from a variety of international sources including the UN and international financial organisations as well as foreign and private sector investments.
Is the plan going to work?
There are still a number of variables that could complicate the plan. Perhaps most importantly, it is unclear whether Hamas, Israel or the US will agree to it.
Hamas welcomed the reconstruction plan, and has previously agreed to a technocratic government. But it is less clear if it will accept the return of the PA, which itself would face the perception from its critics that it has returned to Gaza on the back of Israel’s tanks.
Hamas may be willing to discuss its removal from governance, but is adamantly against its disarmament – something the Egyptian plan adopted by the Arab League did not discuss.
Israel has made it clear that this is a red line, and that Hamas will not be allowed to keep its weapons. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also said that he will not allow the PA to return to Gaza.
There is also the question of whether Trump will abandon his idea of a US-controlled “Middle East Riviera” for the Egyptian plan. It is difficult to predict what Trump’s position will be, particularly if Israel signals its opposition to the Egyptian plan.
What has the response been so far?
In response to Egypt’s plan, Israel said that Arab states needed to “break free from past constraints and collaborate to create a future of stability and security in the region”.
Instead, Israel continues to back Trump’s Gaza displacement plan – which echoes a longstanding call from the Israeli far-right to depopulate Gaza.
Egypt called Israel’s response “unacceptable”, with Minister of Foreign Affairs Badr Abdelatty describing the Netanyahu government’s position as “stubborn and extremist”.
Abdelatty said it would be impossible to see peace in the region without an independent Palestinian state. “No single state should be allowed to impose its will on the international community,” he added.
The White House continues to stand by Trump’s plan for Gaza, but said it would welcome collaboration with regional partners – except Hamas.
“While the President stands by his bold vision for a post-war Gaza, he welcomes input from our Arab partners in the region. It’s clear his proposals have driven the region to come to the table rather than allow this issue to devolve into further crisis,” White House National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes said.
“President Trump has been clear that Hamas cannot continue to govern Gaza,” he added.
相關閱讀：
Arab leaders endorse Egypt’s Gaza reconstruction plan
European leaders back 'realistic' Arab plan for Gaza
For Israel, ceasefire is a continuation of war by other means
The Egyptian Gaza plan: A deadly trap for Israel and the US
The Egyptian plan for postwar Gaza is a good starting point—but it needs changes
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
|
伊朗人民飽受經濟制裁折磨 – Mehdi Fattahi/David Rising
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* Trump warns of ‘economic D-Day’ against Iran, but Tehran is well acquainted with sanctions
Iranian families struggle to afford the basics as US ratchets up economic warfare
Mehdi Fattahi/David Rising, 08/21/26
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Tehran's grocery stores are well-stocked, but many families can barely afford the basics. Unemployment is soaring and those with jobs are working more hours for money worth half as much as a year ago, putting food, medicine and everything else — except for heavily subsidized gasoline — further out of reach.
"We have virtually given up on many things," said Ahmad Karimi, 52, a taxi driver and father of two who has been working 15-hour days to make ends meet. "We're cutting out fruit, we're cutting out protein, we've given up leisure, we even work on weekends."
Nearly six months into the war with the United States and Israel, the Iranian economy is taking a beating under the force of sanctions and a naval blockade that is making it extremely difficult for the country to export oil, its most valuable product.
Whether this intensifying economic pressure will translate anytime soon into military or political concessions from Iran remains to be seen — but some experts are skeptical. Since the war began, Iran has been attacking oil-rich neighbors and U.S. bases in the region, and disrupting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, its biggest strategic advantage.
Iran is trying to use this retaliatory pressure — which is driving up energy prices globally — to bring the war to an end on the best terms possible. It is pressing for sanctions relief, and seeking enough control over the strait to demand payment from ships passing through to deliver energy and other goods.
The Trump administration — which is stuck fighting over a waterway in a war that was launched to curb Iran's nuclear program — is now promising to deliver even tougher sanctions to try to squeeze the Islamic Republic into submission. But experts say U.S. President Donald Trump may be underestimating how long Iran can hold out.
Iran has been subject to Western sanctions for years and has become deft at partially circumventing them. It has expanded domestic production, used informal cross-border trade networks, bought restricted goods through third countries, and used a shadow fleet to transport its oil.
"Iran's resistance capacity not only avoids collapse, it also prevents the economic pain from translating into the political pressure and changes that the U.S. expects," said Hadi Kahalzadeh, an expert on Iran's economy at Brandeis University.
Iran's economic strains carry an 'emotional toll'
Tehran's sprawling Grand Bazaar is regularly packed with shoppers hoping to find more affordable staples than at the country's grocery stores, where rice is 60% more expensive and beef is 150% more expensive than before the war.
A mother of two from northern Iran posted a photo on X this week after purchasing milk, eggs, toilet paper and a few other items, but no meat. She complained that it cost 89 million rials (about $65).
"Buying basic necessities has become our main priority, and our shopping basket has gotten smaller and more limited," the 41-year-old told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.
"The emotional toll and the pressure we're under are another story," she said. "Every time we have to say no to our children, every time we have to go back and forth over a decision, whether it's a class you'd love your children to take or something they really want you to buy for them, it's genuinely exhausting."
By the end of the year, inflation in Iran is expected to rise nearly 70%, according to the International Monetary Fund, and the country's economy — devastated by a decade of sanctions before the war — is forecast to shrink by more than 5%.
While gasoline has remained cheap thanks to government subsidies, even that might not last forever as supplies get tighter. A presidential aide told Iranian state television last week that the country is now using more gasoline each day than it produces and may need to raise prices — something that in the past has led to widespread protests.
Iranians turn some anger toward countries behind sanctions
Iran's theocratic leaders were already facing economic discontent before the U.S. and Israel started the war on Feb. 28. Protests had spread across the country at the beginning of the year before they were violently put down, with thousands killed and tens of thousands believed to have been arrested.
Many Iranians have now turned at least some of their economic frustrations toward the countries behind the sanctions and the attacks that have destroyed factories and critical infrastructure and killed scores of civilians, said Hassan Golmoradi, a Tehran-based economist.
"Despite the hardships and difficulties, they have shown considerable patience in putting up with the resulting economic pressures," Golmoradi said.
Iran's leaders have said it is a treasonous offense — punishable by death — to take part in anti-government protests.
"They do suffer, but they do not think that by joining violent protests they can achieve something for themselves and their families," said Mohammad Farzanegan, a professor of Middle Eastern economics at the University of Marburg in Germany.
Trump is threatening tougher sanctions
On Wednesday, Trump vowed on social media to unleash against Iran the "most crushing economic operation ever taken against any country." He also threatened secondary sanctions on nations and companies that continue to do business with Iran.
The United Arab Emirates, which for years had enabled Iran to circumvent sanctions and receive goods from other countries, announced this week it was suspending all trade with Tehran. Trump had called the leader of the UAE, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the day before the announcement.
With the economic struggles, the elected government of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has said it favors a negotiated end to the war. "What concerns us is people's livelihoods and their economic situation, and we are doing everything we can to deal with it," he told reporters last week.
But the most powerful force in Iran remains the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, which has only become stronger after withstanding U.S. and Israeli airstrikes that killed Iran's top leaders during the war's opening salvos. The Guard is pressing for greater concessions from the U.S., including Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz and financial compensation for the war.
With negotiations to end the war stalled, Iran's hard-liners believe their country can endure the conflict's economic pressures longer than their adversaries.
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, this month appointed a former Revolutionary Guard commander to head Iran's powerful Supreme National Security Council, a sign that he favors the hard-line approach.
A taxi driver says something has to give
Official government statistics put Iran's unemployment rate at 9.1%, though state-affiliated media outlets have said the real figure is most likely many times higher. A Labor Ministry official said last week that by late May, just three months into the war, more than 1 million jobs had been lost.
In a sign that Iran's leaders are at least somewhat concerned about public opinion, the government has refrained from enforcing mandatory hijab regulations as harshly as it had been — a social freedom that has long been sought by many.
But these days many Iranians are focused on how their lifestyles are restricted economically.
Karimi, the taxi driver, said Iran's leaders will need to do something soon to alleviate the financial pressures he and others are feeling.
"The people won't be able to continue living like this," he said. "We're simply breathing, surviving, and trying to make it from one day to the next."
Rising reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
「和議草案」破局的分析 ---- Sarah Shamim
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* More than 750 US service members wounded since start of Iran War (08/20)
* Iran signals readiness for ‘US ground operations’ as strategy shifts gear
* Battered by war, Iran’s rulers wary of more economic pain and unrest if US tightens pressure
請參見本欄2026/08/17、06/24、06/22、06/20、和06/18等五篇貼文。
下文第2節的分析完全沒有抓到「和議草案」何以窒礙難行的關鍵：
雙方領導人都沒有停戰的意願，但又打不下去；只能借「和議」之名，把正面衝突轉化為小打小鬧；其意圖在於：寄望對方先被「戰爭」拖垮。
如果「和議草案」不寫得「雙方都有面子回去交差」，沒有人敢在這張半毛錢不值的草紙上簽名。因此，那位受訪專家很可能是「故意」說得冠冕堂皇，以免成為戳破「皇帝其實一絲不掛」鬧劇的帶頭者。
容我稍後再說明以上判斷基礎。此外，補增各節序號和第0節子標題；以便指涉。
US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding expires: How and why it fell apart
Trump deemed the MoU ‘over’ within a month of it being signed, as the two sides traded attacks despite a ‘ceasefire’.
Sarah Shamim, 08/17/26
0. 前言
The June 17 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the United States and Iran expired on Monday amid faltering talks between the two sides. While full-scale fighting has been paused for the time being, the war on Iran, which began on February 28, is far from resolved.
The Islamabad-brokered MoU was supposed to kick-start a 60-day period for peace talks between the two sides and included provisions for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which has become a major flashpoint in the war.
However, the vague wording of many of the clauses caused major disagreements – in particular over who had ultimate control over shipping through the strait, with Iran launching strikes on several ships which had failed to follow its approved route.
As a result, the US re-launched strikes on Iran, triggering more attacks by Iran on US military assets in Gulf countries and Jordan as well as on energy and other infrastructure.
Furthermore, while the MoU provided for a ceasefire on all fronts, including in Lebanon and Gaza, Israel has continued strikes on both territories and still occupies around one-fifth of Lebanon, where it says it is targeting strongholds of the Iran-backed Hezbollah.
We look at key moments of the MoU and why it broke down.
1. What was the MoU between Iran and the US?
The 14-point MoU was signed on June 17 between Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and US President Donald Trump. It was a ceasefire agreed after high-level talks hosted and mediated by Pakistan and triggered a 60-day period for negotiations aimed at reaching a wider peace deal.
In the MoU, both sides agreed on the “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon”.
Under it, the US agreed to end its naval blockade within 30 days, remove its forces from near Iran after a “final deal” was reached and begin work on a reconstruction and development package for Iran of at least $300bn.
The US also agreed to lift sanctions on Iran, issue waivers for Iranian oil exports and allow Tehran to access frozen funds overseas.
For its part, Iran pledged to clear mines from the Strait of Hormuz and allow ships to pass “with no charge” for 60 days.
Tehran also reaffirmed it would not seek to build nuclear weapons and would negotiate over issues such as the enrichment of uranium. Further details of how this would work would come in a “final deal” to be backed by the United Nations.
2. What were the key sticking points that crippled the MoU from the start?
Ultimately, the woolly wording of the MoU was to blame for it breaking down.
Joey Hood, the former acting director of the Office of Iranian Affairs at the US State Department, said the MoU “was doomed to fail” because “it was very poorly written and it gave Iran the chance to interpret the MoU as giving it sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and the future of Lebanon”.
Hood said that “if there were professional diplomats involved from the US side, it never would have been written the way that it was. It never would have allowed Iran that wiggle room”.
Three clauses in particular caused disagreements:
Article 5 of the MoU promised “safe passage of commercial vessels” through the Hormuz strait.
It stated: “Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services and the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.”
However, there was immediately a major disagreement about what routes ships should take through the strait. Oman, through whose territorial waters the strait flows besides Iran, issued a US-backed route allowing vessels to pass close to its coast. However, Iran had previously issued a map requiring ships to pass closer to its own coast, and deeming the Oman side of the strait “restricted”.
Several ships which followed the Oman route were targeted as a result at the end of June as the two sides disagreed over who had the power to authorise routes. Then, the US relaunched strikes on Iran which lasted for nearly two weeks.
Article 1 of the MoU also presented difficulties.
It states: “The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing the MOU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.”
One of the main issues with this passage is that it made no mention of Israel, which currently occupies Lebanon and has subjected the south of the country to near-daily strikes since early March, killing at least 3,000 people and displacing more than one million from their homes.
While Iran argued that Israeli aggression towards Lebanon must cease under the MoU, Israel disagreed.
Article 6 of the MoU made a vague reference to meeting the cost of rebuilding Iran after the war, but critically gave no details.
It stated: “The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers, and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America.”
There was no indication of who would pay the $300bn or if there would be any restrictions on how it could be spent.
Separately, the MoU, which mentioned the lifting of sanctions on Iran, failed to specify whether these were US sanctions only, or also UN-mandated sanctions.
3. How did the MoU break down?
The MoU collapsed within a month of being signed, with the US and Iran blaming each other for violating its terms and with renewed hostilities.
On June 25, the Ever Lovely, a Singapore‑flagged commercial vessel, was struck by a projectile while transiting a route close to the coast of Oman. While Iran did not claim this attack, it did not deny it either.
Washington blamed Iran for the attack, with Trump deeming it “a foolish violation” of the ceasefire agreement.
Then, on June 27, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said its aircraft had struck missile and drone storage locations and radar sites along Iran’s southern coastline “as a powerful response to yesterday’s attack on a commercial ship that was transiting the Strait of Hormuz”.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry condemned that US attack, saying the targeting of “coastal surveillance facilities violates Article 1 of the Memorandum of Understanding”, under which both sides had pledged to end hostilities on all fronts.
Mohsen Rezaei, the adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, additionally accused the US of violating Article 5 of the MoU, which called for the restoration of a safe passage for commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran retaliated against this attack, saying it hit US military installations in the region on the same day. “In the event of repeated aggression, our response will be more extensive than this,” the IRGC said in a statement at the time.
So, just 10 days after signing, the US and Iran began trading strikes again.
On July 7, Trump declared that the agreement was “over”, as the US continued to attack Iran.
Several days later, Tehran claimed the US had targeted civilian infrastructure in the south of the country, and that at least 50 people had been killed since the renewed attacks began.
Iranian officials said the US had “violated and suspended” all its commitments under the MoU and Tehran had “likewise suspended all our own commitments”.
This month, Iran has stated several times that it is not speaking directly to the US due to its violations of the MoU. Instead, it has held talks with Oman about the future management of the Strait of Hormuz, while Pakistan has been attempting to rekindle direct talks between the US and Iran.
4. What does the end of the MoU mean for the war?
Ultimately, negotiations have reached a deadlock.
On one hand, the MoU had broken down with hostilities resuming shortly after it was signed. On the other hand, it did form a basis for future negotiations, experts say.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, has stated that there is no longer any relevance to the 60-day deadline following the MoU, saying the US violated the agreement weeks after it was signed.
“Due to the gross and widespread violation of the memorandum by the United States just a few weeks after it was signed, no talks were initiated,” he said.
“As a result, the issue of a 60-day deadline became entirely moot,” Baghaei added.
Hood told Al Jazeera that there is therefore “no sign” of reviving the MoU or reaching a new agreement as “both sides have locked horns”.
He characterised Iran “insisting on having sovereignty over” the Strait of Hormuz as a major obstacle, and predicted that “if Iran were to allow ships to go through again freely”, then Trump would reciprocate “by dropping the naval blockade and the oil sanctions”.
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
|
伊戰「和議草案」期限已過 --- Joseph Krauss
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
The 60-day deadline for an Iran peace deal is expiring. Here's where things stand
JOSEPH KRAUSS, 08/17/26
The deal that U.S. President Donald Trump signed at Versailles in June set an ambitious 60-day deadline for ending the war with Iran and reaching an accord on its nuclear program.
The deadline was Monday, and the two sides are further apart than they were then.
Talks, such as they are, have focused on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and lifting a U.S. blockade on Iran, both of which were supposed to have happened under the interim deal. There has been no sign of any compromise on the strait, or that detailed nuclear talks have even begun.
The U.S., meanwhile, has no good options for getting out of the war it started alongside Israel.
Acceding to Iran's latest demands would mean giving it control over a critical international waterway that carried a fifth of the world's traded oil and gas before the war — and would be tantamount to admitting defeat. Escalating the deeply unpopular war would further draw down U.S. supplies of advanced missile interceptors, jolt the world economy, and drive up gas prices ahead of U.S. congressional elections.
So both sides have dug in, hoping the other will blink first. So far, neither has.
The interim deal collapsed weeks later
The June deal, known as the Memorandum of Understanding, called for a halt to all military operations and set a 60-day deadline for an agreement to permanently end the war and resolve the longstanding dispute over Iran's nuclear activities.
It called for the Strait of Hormuz to be reopened but gave Iran a vaguely defined role in facilitating traffic, leaving open the possibility it could charge fees after the 60-day deadline. Iran has seized on that clause to claim control over the waterway.
A week after the deal was signed, Iran began firing on vessels using a route along the coast of Oman, on the other side of the strait, that is overseen by the U.S. military and intended to bypass Tehran's control.
The U.S. responded by striking Iran, which retaliated by attacking Arab countries hosting American forces, like Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain. The U.S. canceled waivers issued as part of the deal that had allowed Iran to sell its oil internationally and Trump restored a blockade of Iran's ports.
Each side accused the other of violating the June agreement, of which almost nothing remains.
The fighting eventually died down. A related truce in Lebanon between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah has mostly held, even as Israeli troops occupy large areas in the country's south. Lebanon's "territorial integrity and sovereignty" were to have been ensured under the June deal.
Iranian officials say they stopped negotiating with the U.S. in June, while acknowledging that messages have been relayed by intermediaries. Trump says the talks have continued, occasionally claiming progress after pulling back from threatening major strikes.
Pakistan, which played a key role in brokering the June agreement, noted last week that the deadline was Monday while expressing hope it would be extended.
"We are not closing the chapter," Foreign Ministry spokesman Tahir Andrabi said. "Pakistan is making all-out efforts to bring the two parties to the negotiating table."
Iran's leaders think they can force Trump to give up the strait
Earlier this month, Iran issued a list of demands for reopening the strait, including the lifting of the American blockade, the withdrawal of U.S. forces from around Iran and the payment of reparations for damage inflicted in the war started by the U.S. and Israel on Feb. 28.
Even then, Iran has said it would control the strait — and potentially charge fees — through an agreement it is negotiating with Oman, and that the strait will not go back to being an open, toll-free waterway as it was before the war.
Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen have meanwhile begun attacking Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea, threatening another crucial trade route that had been used to relieve some of the pressure from the strait being closed.
Trump has rejected Iran's demands — saying it's Tehran that should pay war reparations and claiming the U.S. controls the strait. He appears to be banking on economic pressure — in the form of the blockade and longstanding sanctions — to bring Iran's rulers to their knees.
Iran's economy has been battered by the war and isolation, and inflation has soared. The crisis could stoke renewed anti-government protests, like those that were brutally crushed in January.
Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which rose immediately after the interim deal, is back to a small fraction of what it was before the war. Rising prices of fuel and other goods are expected to climb further the longer this continues with effects far beyond the Middle East.
The clock is still ticking for both sides.
Associated Press writer Munir Ahmed in Islamabad contributed.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
霍爾姆茲海峽開放遙遙無期 --Steve Holland/Jacob Bogage
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* Iran Issues List of Demands, Complicating Efforts to Reopen Strait
Hopes for Hormuz deal fade as Trump demands Iranian reparations
Steve Holland/Jacob Bogage, 08/10/26
Summary
* New demand in response to Iran call for compensation
* Trump says Iran must pay for people killed in attacks, protests
* Iran had said Oman deal on strait was near
WASHINGTON, Aug 10 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday responded to Iran's conditions for a peace deal with his own demands that Iran pay compensation for people killed in wars, attacks and protests, in a rhetorical escalation likely to complicate efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump's proposal, which had not been raised before, was a response to Tehran's demands for compensation and an end to sanctions. The Iranian demands were largely in line with the terms of a preliminary peace deal signed in June, which has since broken down.
Since the war began in February, Trump has repeatedly oscillated between threats of escalation and claims that a peace deal is imminent.
"We're going to ask for money for the damage they've done over a 50-year period," Trump said at the White House, saying payments would cover deaths among both civilian demonstrators and U.S. forces in the region.
"So if there's damages to be paid, I think Iran should pay those damages," Trump said.
Oil prices settled 5% higher on Monday after the demands dimmed prospects for a deal to reopen the strait.
TRUMP CITES ATTACK BLAMED ON AL QAEDA, NOT IRAN
Referring to Tehran's crackdown on demonstrations in late 2025 and 2026, Trump said Iran had killed some 52,000 protesters as of six weeks ago. While some Iranian opposition and exile groups have claimed tens of thousands killed, the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) in February reported around 7,000 deaths including 6,500 protesters.
Trump encouraged protesters to overthrow the Iranian government when the war began with U.S. and Israeli airstrikes in February. Rights groups say the Iranian government has continued to crack down on opponents since then.
Trump also said Iran should compensate families of the 17 U.S. sailors killed in an October 2000 attack in Yemen on the naval vessel USS Cole, which has been blamed on al Qaeda, not Iran.
"Also, with respect to the Iran negotiations, Iran should be responsible for the damages and death caused to the people of Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Gaza!" Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.
Iran earlier said it was nearing a final pact with Oman defining new shipping lanes between them through the Strait of Hormuz but repeated that the U.S. must meet conditions, including compensation and an end to sanctions and military threats before the key waterway is reopened.
The strait, through which about a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas flowed prior to the conflict, has been effectively blocked since the war began, pushing up oil prices and inflation.
TRUMP UNDER PRESSURE
Ironically, the agreement with Oman would give Tehran more leverage over the key waterway than it had before the war began.
Trump is under pressure to end a war that is deeply unpopular at home ahead of midterm elections in November, and high fuel prices are a top issue in rural areas that have backed him in the past.
"What you're seeing here is the beginning of a capitulation," Democratic U.S. Representative Bill Keating said on CNN. "This is reality. It's sinking in."
Earlier on Monday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said talks with Oman were "progressing smoothly and constructively", with an agreement reached on a shipping route map, while some technical issues remained unresolved.
Baghaei said the discussions also covered services which would normally involve payment, such as safe navigation, environmental protection, maritime services and combating crime.
U.S. officials have repeatedly ruled out any deal that would allow Tehran to charge fees for access to the strait.
But months of U.S. military efforts, including a two-week campaign of strikes in July, have not broken Iran's grip on the strait, despite Trump's misleading claim, repeated on Monday, that the strait was open and, "The only one that has control of the Strait of Hormuz right now is the United States Navy."
Washington and Tehran agreed to a ceasefire in June, but the U.S. reimposed a blockade on Iranian shipping in July, a move that Tehran said violated the truce.
Iran has been striking back with missiles and drones against Washington's allies in the region, while also targeting commercial ships transiting the strait without its permission.
Reporting by Steve Holland and Jacob Bogage in Washington, Nayera Abdallah in Dubai, Enas Alashray in Cairo and Stephanie Kelly in London; Writing by Daniel Trotta, Idrees Ali, Sharon Singleton and Andrew Heavens; Editing by Andy Sullivan, Nick Zieminski, Alison Williams, Mark Potter and Cynthia Osterman.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
美國聯參會主席尋求停戰方案 - William Vaillancourt
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
我在這篇拙作中說：
「從而，在雙方都面對『高度不確定』風險的情況下，或許能迫使美國政府中的『大人們』採取理性方式來尋求解決方案。」(本欄2026/08/01貼文第1節)
聯參會主席凱恩將軍可以視為我這段話所指的「大人」。不得不說：比起美國政客，美國軍人的骨氣和責任感高出很多。其他例子如：t川普1.0的第1任國防部長馬提斯和前任聯參會主席米利。
Top General Holds Secret Talks About Ending Iran War Behind Trump’s Back
William Vaillancourt, 08/08/26
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine is reportedly quietly working toward an exit from Donald Trump's Iran war, even as the president appears to believe more air strikes could force a deal.
As the war enters its sixth month, CNN reported Friday that Caine has privately discussed the limits of further military action with other top Trump advisers, warning that continued bombing may not be enough to secure a ceasefire.
"Caine is looking for an off-ramp," one source familiar with the matter told the outlet.
The 57-year-old general has discussed the matter with CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Vice President JD Vance—all before meeting with Trump to coordinate their message and to emphasize the limitations of certain military options.
The news comes as Trump, who has long criticized articles he doesn't like, has lashed out at reports about weapons shortages as a result of his war, which he had said would only last a few weeks.
The Washington Post reported that during a Cabinet meeting last Friday, Trump, 80, accosted Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth for being ill-informed about the shortages, which Trump thought "had been fixed."
The shortages were primarily of long-distance guided missiles and interceptors, according to the Post. This was reportedly one reason there were fewer missile strikes over the past week.
Hegseth, 46, denied the story.
Caine's discussions with other top officials about war prospects, one source told CNN, "is just his way of protecting the military."
Caine's spokesperson, Joseph Holstead, told CNN: "We do not discuss the Chairman's confidential conversations with the President, the Secretary, or other senior leaders, nor do we comment on anonymous, agenda-driven characterizations of those conversations by sources who were not privy to them."
A White House official told the network: "General Caine is an incredible asset to President Trump's national security team, and the overwhelming success of Operations Epic Fury, Midnight Hammer, and Absolute Resolve speaks for itself."
They added: "The general always provides accurate, unbiased information and a host of options to the commander-in-chief, who ultimately makes decisions based on what he feels is best for U.S. national security."
The State Department and CIA declined to comment to CNN.
The Pentagon referred an inquiry to Caine's office, which did not immediately respond. The Daily Beast has also contacted the White House for comment.
A U.S. official told the Daily Beast that there are no issues between Caine and the White House and "senior leaders are on the same page."
Hegseth last month revealed to Congress that the war has cost approximately $37.5 billion. He then asked for $67 billion more for Middle East operations.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
美、伊戰爭目前的贏家：伊朗 -- Roland Oliphant
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考
* Trump’s top general is ‘looking for an off-ramp’ from Iran war as US military options remain limited, sources say (08/07)
This is proof Iran won the war
Roland Oliphant, 08/06/26
Just as unhatched eggs do not imply an equal number of chickens, diplomatic deals should never be counted before they are signed. But recent leaks out of Muscat, Tehran and Washington all point in one direction: an agreement between Iran and Oman to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is all but sealed.
Iran effectively closed the narrow waterway through which a fifth of the world's oil and gas passes after the United States and Israel attacked it in February. The US retaliated with its own naval blockade of Iranian ports. For months, they have been locked in a kind of maritime Mexican stand-off over who should act first to restore freedom of navigation.
So for many people, the reported deal is good news. The seafarers held hostage on their ships in the Persian Gulf for the past five months may soon be able to go home. Consumers around the world will dodge another energy and inflation crisis. Above all, it raises the chances of lasting peace.
The fate of the Strait is (or was) the key point of contention between Tehran and Washington over how to implement their June memorandum of understanding (MOU) on ending the war. Resolving that quarrel (America is not technically a party to the deal, but is expected to acquiesce to make it work), may unlock a path to agreement on other points in that document.
Fingers crossed the war could be over – mostly, at least – well before US midterm elections in November. Such a peace is not, however, the one the US had in mind.
It means that Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu's war to topple or defang the Islamic Republic is ending in a demonstrable expansion of Iranian regional influence. They lost. Iran won.
The Hormuz deal tells us why. Leaked reports suggest the agreement grants Iran control of marine traffic entering the Persian Gulf, and also gives it some oversight of the outbound route which will be under the purview of Oman. The two countries will also charge a fee (yet to be set) to cover environmental, security and staffing costs.
As Kazem Gharibabadi, Iranian deputy foreign minister, told state media, it cements Iran's "effective sovereignty" over the Strait. This was always a possible outcome of the June MOU, which was left deliberately vague on several points.
Point Five, for example, simply called for Iran and Oman to "conduct dialogue… to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz". Iran interpreted that to mean it had the right to control the Strait and charge fees. The United States insisted that it meant a return to the pre-war status quo of free navigation.
Everyone knew that the contradiction would have to be resolved, and that there was a danger that Iran's interpretation would win out. But there's no point in blaming the diplomats who drafted the MOU for this. Peace agreements, after all, only reflect the verdict of the battlefield.
The return to all-out fighting about three weeks ago, with the US bombing targets specifically related to Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps control of the Strait and Gulf Coast, can be seen as an attempt to revise that verdict. It failed.
Trump's threat last weekend to launch a fortnight-long Second World War-scale destructive blitz was his last throw of the dice. He dropped that plan, we now know, because of an intervention by America's Gulf allies, including Saudi Arabia. It has now been reported that came after Iran warned its neighbours that they would be targeted in the event of a US attack.
So Iran not only has control of the Strait in a way it did not before the war; its military leverage – the ability to use the threat of force to influence the behaviour of its neighbours – is stronger than before.
Much is still uncertain. The US and Oman have not yet publicly commented on the deal, which is of course contingent on American acquiescence. Meanwhile, Iran says it will only actually put the deal into effect if America lifts its blockade of Iranian ports. It is possible that Trump could decide to try another round of strikes to deliver a different outcome.
On Tuesday, the president warned that Iran would be "hit very hard" if the strait did not open "very soon". His remarks came after senior officials in Washington suggested that talks had progressed to allow passage through the waterway to resume later this week, though Iran has repeatedly restated that it is not negotiating with the White House and has no plans to do so.
And there are many other bones of contention in the MOU – among them the fate of Iran's nuclear programme, lifting of American sanctions and the unfreezing of Iranian assets – that could yet scupper the nascent peace process. Yet the first test has gone Iran's way, and there is every reason to believe the other points will too.
So much for the verdict of the battlefield. What about the verdict of history? There's a possible universe where this conflict could prove a turning point in the decline of US global power. One of those blunders, like Britain's misadventure at Suez, that come to mark the end of an empire.
Just imagine, for example, if America finds itself unable to fight a war of necessity because of the missile stocks it used in this failed war of choice.
On the other hand, America remains the world's dominant superpower. It has suffered no defeat in battle, and very few casualties. Great powers can often take such setbacks in their stride.
The Islamic Republic, on the other hand, has suffered losses in the thousands, and economic and military destruction that could take decades to repair. Iran's victory may yet prove Pyrrhic.
It is, however, a victory. There is no getting around the fact Iran won this war. America lost.
Try full access to The Telegraph free today. Unlock their award-winning website and essential news app, plus useful tools and expert guides for your money, health and holidays.
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
川普叫停伊朗攻擊背景分析 -- Al Jazeera
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* Trump’s top general is ‘looking for an off-ramp’ from Iran war as US military options remain limited, sources say (08/07)
* This is proof Iran won the war (08/06)
* How Iran is widening its pressure campaign to force US concessions
* Iran denies Trump's claim that new talks will begin on Monday
Why has Trump halted Iran attacks, and what is the deal he is hinting at?
Al Jazeera Staff, 08/02/26
Key takeawaysPowered by Yahoo Scout. Yahoo is using AI to generate key points from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
* President Trump announces a halt to new attacks on Iran pending a rapid deal, despite Iran denying requesting the pause.
United States President Donald Trump says the US and Israel have agreed to halt new attacks on Iran, provided a deal to end the months-long conflict is reached "rapidly".
The region has been on edge, fearing that the fighting could escalate once again after Washington and Tehran traded threats of renewed heavy attacks, including against energy infrastructure.
Trump said on his Truth Social platform early on Sunday in Iran and late on Saturday in the US that Iran and other Middle Eastern countries asked him to hold off on the attacks because "the perimeters of a deal has been agreed to".
Iran denied Trump's claim that Tehran asked the US to refrain from conducting new strikes. Citing military officials, the agency said the allegation "was nothing but a new lie" and that the Iranian armed forces were "on high alert and ready for any eventuality".
Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway critical to global energy supplies, remains shut, and shipping is disrupted as well in the Red Sea by the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen.
Here is all you need to know about where the war stands on its 156th day:
Why has Trump halted attacks?
Trump earlier said in his post that the US was "locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran" but Tehran and other Middle Eastern countries asked him to hold off on new attacks.
"Based on this request, I have agreed, for the future benefit of the WORLD and, likewise, the survival of a successful and prosperous Iran, to cancel the attack, subject to being able to rapidly make a DEAL," Trump posted on his Truth Social platform.
He said the deal "would include the Immediate, Complete, and Total OPENING OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT, and an end to Iran's nuclear threat".
"The Country of Israel joins me in this commitment. Get to work, everybody, and get it DONE," he wrote in the post.
Trump and the White House did not offer any further details on what the deal would entail and who is mediating it.
Meanwhile, the US news website Axios reported that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) spoke with Trump on Saturday and expressed concern over his plans for large new attacks against Iran.
MBS reportedly urged Trump to de-escalate and refrain from launching the attacks.
Another issue plaguing Washington is the depleting stocks of munitions, and more importantly, the Patriot anti-missile interceptors.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates that US Patriot interceptor inventories have fallen from about 2,300 before the war with Iran to fewer than 827.
"We have depleted our interceptors… which are, obviously, necessary to protect American troops," Democratic US Senator Chris Van Hollen told the US-based ABC network. "We are depleting these every day, despite the fact that we could face other potential conflicts around the world."
US media outlets have reported that General Dan Caine, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has raised concerns about falling US interceptor supplies. Trump has dismissed these concerns.
What is the Iranian position?
Tehran has not officially responded to Trump saying he had suspended the planned attacks or on the discussions to reach a deal.
Iran's acting defence minister, Majid Ibn al-Reza, on Sunday said Tehran sees every threat from its adversaries as "real and credible", even if it is made as part of psychological warfare, state media reported.
"We will neither be caught off-guard nor remain passive," he said, adding that Iran would use threats as a basis to increase its military readiness, strengthen deterrence and enhance its military capabilities.
Last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi spoke with Pakistan's military chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir; Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan; and Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud in separate phone calls to discuss the risks of further US escalation.
Speaking to Munir and Fidan, Araghchi said Iran would respond decisively to any "aggression" and discussed the consequences of "destabilising actions" by the US and how they could affect the Gulf, according to Araghchi's Telegram account.
Iran also warned Washington against any "adventurous action" and said it would retaliate decisively if US forces followed through on Trump's threats of new attacks on Iranian targets.
Araghchi also told Saudi Prince Faisal that any attacks by the US and Israel or participation by regional countries in such actions would be met with a "proportionate response".
Nournews, a media outlet affiliated with Iran's top security body, reported on Saturday that US attacks on Iranian energy infrastructure would prompt Iranian strikes on oilfields in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as well as the gasfields of Qatar and Israel, saying, "All will be burned to ashes."
What's the deal Trump is talking about?
There has been no clarity on this from either side or any regional mediating country.
Regional powers – including Qatar, the UAE, Turkiye and Pakistan – have been pressing the US and Iran to de-escalate and return to diplomacy to find an end to the war.
Pakistani and Qatari mediators have "cautious optimism" about the resumption of the stalled US-Iran talks, Pakistani government sources told Turkiye's Anadolu news agency on Sunday.
According to the sources, mediators were expecting "positive developments" on the resumption of talks by the end of this week.
"Pakistani and Qatari mediators together with regional partners are in touch with Washington and Tehran for the resumption of talks after convincing Trump to hold off on fresh attacks on Iran," a source familiar with the ongoing diplomatic efforts told Anadolu.
The last ceasefire, brokered by Islamabad and Doha in June, unravelled quickly, triggered by a dispute over control of the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20 percent of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies flow. In his latest statement, Trump said the so-called deal would immediately reopen the strait.
But there has been no indication from Tehran of a change of position over the waterway, which it has said would never return to the pre-war status quo. Tehran has been open to managing marine traffic in the strait with Oman.
Trump and US allies in the Gulf have firmly rejected such a set-up to manage the Strait of Hormuz.
Adding to the energy industry's concerns, Iran's Houthi allies in Yemen recently began threatening the Bab al-Mandeb, the strait at the other end of the Red Sea from the Suez Canal, another export route for Saudi crude oil.
中東地區三大交通樞紐占全球海運貿易比例圖 (蘇伊士運河、霍爾姆茲海峽、曼德海峽)
Is a breakthrough close?
Five months into the war, there appears to be no end in sight to the hostilities.
Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera's Mahmoud Abdelwahed said Iran's attempts at diplomacy "come alongside a strongly worded statement" from Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs accusing the US of violating their ceasefire by ignoring the rules governing navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
Abdelwahed added that the US has been pushing vessels to use a southern route near the Omani coast, which Tehran calls an unauthorised route.
Tehran also accused Washington of undermining the ceasefire by using commercial vessels to conceal military movements and imposing new sanctions and a naval blockade.
Ross Harrison, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told Al Jazeera that it remains difficult to identify a clear US strategy in the war on Iran because Trump has repeatedly signalled imminent escalation before pulling back.
"From the Iranian perspective, they probably will believe that Donald Trump blinked because of the potential risk of escalation," he said, adding that the latest announcement would not reflect a genuine de-escalation unless the US and Iran reached a clear agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Renewed fighting between the US and Iran took place "because of ambiguity in a memorandum of understanding signed back in June" on the mechanism of reopening the strait.
"Unless there's some kind of clear agreement on opening the strait and removing the blockade, this isn't going to hold. The announcement we saw is only going to be another pause," he added.
Harrison cautioned that decision-makers in Tehran and Washington could lose control of the conflict if it continues to drag on. "We have other files that are now conflated with the Iran file – the Lebanon file, the Israel-Palestine file, the Saudi-Houthi file, the Iraq file," he told Al Jazeera.
"At some point in time, the decision-makers lose control of the dynamic [because] even if they want to de-escalate, other actors may escalate, and it may make it very, very difficult for the United States and Iran to extricate themselves," he said.
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
|
「伊朗再啟戰端」之我見
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
伊朗再啟戰端分析 – Abbas Al Lawati
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* Trump’s top general is ‘looking for an off-ramp’ from Iran war as US military options remain limited, sources say (08/07)
* This is proof Iran won the war (08/06)
* US and Iran trade missile barrages as hopes dim for a quick resolution to the five-month conflict
Why Iran chose to restart the fight after the US stopped firing
Analysis by Abbas Al Lawati, 07/30/26
Iran has brought days of relative calm in the Middle East to an end after launching what the US called a “surprise” attack in a striking change to the pattern of fighting.
Rather than responding to a fresh American strike, Tehran chose to restart the fight itself, showing a growing willingness to use military force to shape the course of the war on its own terms.
This in turn sets the stage for fresh escalation. “We are going to beat the f**king sh*t out of them,” US President Donald Trump told Fox News Wednesday morning. “We’ll be hitting them hard. They’re going to get a beating.”
That threat could hardly have surprised Tehran, which launched its missiles knowing they might bring US bombers back. Overnight, the US military said it conducted a “heavy wave of strikes” against Iran in response to Tehran’s attempted attack on US forces, hitting “dozens” of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) targets.
Trump had attributed last week’s pause to a request from Iran because “they asked us very nicely” and wanted talks. Tehran never publicly committed to the recent pause, although a senior Iranian official said “our armed forces also decided not to take military action.”
That makes Iran’s decision to resume fire all the more significant.
Hours after publicly signaling that it would match the US restraint, Tehran targeted American forces – apparently deciding that raising the pressure was worth the risk of restarting the nightly bombardment.
“Something appears to have changed fundamentally in Iran’s approach, particularly regarding its willingness to initiate a strike if it considers that to be the only viable option,” Hamid Reza Azizi, a researcher at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, wrote on X.
Iran’s strike came soon after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting with Trump in Washington, DC, which the Israeli leader described as “one of the best conversations” the two have had following growing friction between the pair. Hours before the meeting, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said Israel had wanted to strike Iranian energy infrastructure but had been held back by the Trump administration.
“The attack appears to have been a signal related to Netanyahu’s visit to the White House earlier in the day,” wrote Azizi. “It suggests that Iran’s military strategy may have changed and that Tehran is now prepared to launch a preemptive strike if it detects signs of an imminent threat.”
Shortly after the attack in Jordan, the US and Saudi militaries jointly struck Iran-backed militias in Iraq. US Central Command framed the Iraq operation not as retaliation for the Jordan attack, but as a response to more than 30 drone attacks against US forces and Saudi energy infrastructure over the previous 72 hours.
The overnight escalation showed how the war is widening. Saudi Arabia, long wary of being pulled directly into the conflict, is becoming more deeply involved as it faces threats on three fronts: the Houthis in Yemen, Iran-backed militias in Iraq, and Iran itself.
“The central challenge facing Washington and its Gulf partners is that neither Iran nor its regional allies appear willing to retreat from what they now define as core strategic objectives,” Danny Citrinowicz, a senior researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies and a former head of the Iran branch in Israeli military intelligence, wrote on X.
“Tehran continues to insist on maintaining its leverage over the Strait of Hormuz, while the Houthis have made clear that they will not end their campaign unless the Saudi-led (blockade) imposed on them (is) lifted.”
‘Nothing more than a fantasy’
In an interview with Iranian state television published just hours before the attack in Jordan, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi offered perhaps one of the clearest articulations of Tehran’s position yet. Iran had stopped firing, he suggested, but would not hesitate to resume hostilities if its claim of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz was challenged.
Tehran could not consider itself victorious if the strait returned to its prewar status, the deputy foreign minister said. The waterway had become central to the country’s national security and a “defensive tool.”
When the interviewer asked why Tehran had risked restarting the war by attacking commercial ships despite a functioning ceasefire, Gharibabadi said Iran regarded efforts by Oman and the US to establish a rival shipping route through the strait as a red line. Allowing that route to operate, he argued, would have reduced Iran’s claim to the “effective exercise of sovereignty” over the waterway to “nothing more than a fantasy.”
“One might look at it simply and ask why Iran would hit three commercial ships with missiles just because they turned off their GPS, potentially restarting a war,” he said. “But if you look behind the scenes, you see that the arrangements applied to the Strait of Hormuz will have a long-term impact on the security of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
From Tehran’s perspective, Washington’s pause in attacks on Iran reflects “strategic weakness rather than restraint,” Citrinowicz wrote. That perception risks fueling a cycle in which Iran escalates to impose greater costs, while neither side backs down for fear of losing credibility.
The US and its partners therefore face a choice, he argued: accommodate some Iranian demands, or accept the prospect of a prolonged conflict marked by mounting attacks on shipping, energy infrastructure and trade routes.
Aida Karimi, Eyad Kourdi, Dana Karni, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Tal Shalev contributed to this report.
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
|
中東戰火沒完沒了和逐漸擴散 - Al Jazeera
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* US launches 'heavy' strikes on Iran after attempted attack on American troops
* Trump Blindsided as Crisis Blows Up in His Face
Trump promises to hit Iran hard following missile attacks on US forces
Iran attacks three ships in the Strait of Hormuz and rejects Oman’s proposal on managing the waterway.
Al Jazeera Staff, 07/29/26
United States President Donald Trump has promised to hit Iran “hard” after Tehran launched a wave of missiles at US forces in Jordan and at ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
The threat on Wednesday came days after Trump abruptly suspended a 13-day bombing campaign to give talks with Iran “some space”, according to a US official.
“We’ll be hitting them hard,” Trump told Fox News in an interview.
He made the comments after the US military said it intercepted multiple ballistic missiles in an “attempted surprise attack on US forces based in the Middle East”.
Five missile interceptions were reported over Jordan, according to the Jordan News Agency.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said its air force targeted a US airbase and Central Command centre in Jordan “with several ballistic missiles”.
“As long as threats against the Islamic Republic of Iran continue and illegal and vicious actions by American forces against our interests continue, the resistance will continue,” the IRGC said in a statement carried by Iran’s IRIB broadcaster.
Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar said the latest escalation seemed like a “pre-emptive attack, not a reactionary measure” from the Iranians.
Meanwhile, joint US-Saudi strikes in Iraq on Wednesday killed at least 20 members of Iraq’s Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) and wounded 32 of its members, according to the umbrella group of Iran-supported Shia paramilitary groups.
The strikes marked the first major US military action in the Middle East since Friday when the US stopped striking Iran and Trump claimed “good talks” were under way with Tehran.
Saudi Arabia and the US military’s Central Command (CENTCOM) said their joint air strikes in Iraq targeted Iran-backed militias responsible for attacks on US soldiers and Saudi energy infrastructure.
Al Jazeera’s Jack Hewson, reporting from Baghdad, said the attacks are “obviously a major incident for the PMF”, which is “legally part of Iraq’s state forces”.
The Iraqi presidency condemned the “unacceptable attack” on PMF facilities, rejecting any attack on Iraqi territory. But it also opposed “the use of Iraqi land as a launching pad or arena for attacks against neighbouring countries”.
Serdar said the latest attacks have put the region “on edge again after days of relative calm”.
Oil markets fluctuated after the US military confirmed Iran’s attacks on Wednesday. US oil futures, which had been dropping during Washington’s suspension of strikes, jumped more than 4 percent to more than $82 a barrel. Brent crude futures rose to more than $88 a barrel.
‘Sending a message’
The Iranian attacks targeting US forces came afters Trump met at the White House on Tuesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has pushed for war on Iran.
“This is Iran sending a message to Trump that they need to be involved in all discussions,” Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher said from Washington, DC.
“It was reported in Israel that Netanyahu was very keen to raise the question of Pickaxe Mountain,” he said, referring to the secretive underground complex in central Iran located near the Natanz nuclear site. “The Israelis said there has been building work going ahead there. They believe the Iranians are putting together another nuclear facility.”
Jason Campbell, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told Al Jazeera that Tehran is “trying to retake the initiative and the momentum with these latest attacks”.
“Iran has expressed scepticism that the US engages in these pauses between attacks to prepare for another phase of violence, so Tehran likely thinks the US is doing just that with this latest pause,” he said.
On Wednesday, the Reuters news agency quoted three informed sources as saying Iran was expected to receive an initial shipment of up to 400 Chinese-made, shoulder-fired air defence missile launchers within weeks in one of its largest-known efforts to boost its short-range air defences since the outbreak of the US-Israeli war against it on February 28.
The US Department of the Treasury, meanwhile, announced on Wednesday that it had issued another round of sanctions on eight tankers and 10 entities, including six based in China.
Hormuz tensions
The Strait of Hormuz and its shipping traffic have been major talking points for Trump, who has decried Iran’s blocking of some vessels.
Iran asserts it is within its rights to control shipping through the strait along its southern coast.
On Wednesday, the IRGC said it “struck and stopped” three oil tankers in the strait, according to Iran’s Tasnim News Agency.
It said the tankers “continued to move along an unsafe and illegal route, ignoring our warnings”,
Oman has presented Iran with a proposal to jointly manage traffic in the strait, but Iran has rejected it.
Deputy Iranian Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi told state television that Tehran rejected splitting transit routes equally.
Instead, he said, Tehran proposed managing shipping on its side of the strait while Muscat would manage part but not all of the opposite lane.
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
