|
中東風雲錄--開欄文：埃及的加薩重建方案 -- Al Jazeera
|
瀏覽2,824 ｜回應30｜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 3 次
|
|
美、伊戰爭：美國又做冤大頭 - Will Neal
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
Iran’s ferocious retaliation for US-Israeli strikes has rattled its neighbors
或許，(川痞 + 川瘋)或他的姑爺跟以色列(或沙烏地阿拉伯)有暗盤交易？
Terrifying Conclusion of Secret Senate War Briefing Revealed
Will Neal, 03/03/26
Lawmakers at a secret Senate briefing have revealed what appears to be Donald Trump’s new foreign policy priority in the Middle East, potentially laying the ground for endless U.S. military engagements across the region.
Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat who serves as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, attended the classified briefing Monday night—held by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe—on the president’s decision to launch an all-out war with Iran over the weekend.
Warner told reporters those officials had explained how, prior to those strikes, Israel had warned it was facing an imminent threat from Tehran. Israel’s plans to attack first, the officials apparently went on, had effectively forced the U.S. into a pre-emptive assault on Iranian targets, on the basis of protecting American military assets across the region from prospective retaliatory strikes by the Islamic regime.
“This is still a war of choice that has been acknowledged by others, that was dictated by Israel’s goals and timeline,” the senator said. “There was no imminent threat to the United States by the Iranians. There was a threat to Israel. If we equate a threat to Israel as the equivalent of an imminent threat to the U.S., then we are in uncharted territory.”
Throughout its history, Israel has frequently engaged in direct or indirect conflict with actors across the Middle East—including wars with neighboring states like Egypt and Lebanon, repeated confrontations with terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and strikes aimed at curbing Iran’s regional influence.
Warner’s comments about the White House treating threats to Israel as de facto threats against the U.S. raise the spectre of a future in which Washington could very well be drawn more quickly and more often into recurring conflicts across the Middle East, potentially committing U.S. forces whenever Israel’s security situation escalates.
The senator underscored the Trump administration’s unprecedented rationale for its strikes on Iran by stressing that his own support for Israel remains steadfast, but not unconditional. “I stand firmly with Israel,” he said. “But I believe at the end of the day, when we are talking about putting American soldiers in harm’s way and we have American casualties and expectations of more, there needs to be the proof of an imminent threat to American interests.”
“I still don’t think that standard has been met,” he added.
Trump himself has repeatedly struggled to stick to any given justification for launching the attacks against Iran, which have prompted retaliatory strikes from Iran and sent shockwaves through the global economy. At least six U.S. servicemembers have already been killed.
The president offered four different explanations for the conflict in just the two days after he started it. He said that “all I want is freedom for the people” of Iran, then that the campaign was designed to put an end to the regime’s nuclear program, then that its goals are a change of leadership, and then that it came in response to an imminent threat of attacks on U.S. bases.
A somewhat circular variation of that last justification now appears to have stuck among top administration officials. “The president made [a] very wise decision,” Rubio told reporters Monday. “We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”
Johnson struck a similar tone after the Senate briefing. “Because Israel was determined to act with or without the U.S., our commander in chief and the administration and the officials had a very difficult decision to make,” he said. “If we had waited to respond before acting first, [our] losses would have been far greater than if we had done what we did.”
Speaking with Fox News later that night, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to pour cold water on any suggestion he had forced Trump’s hand. Prefacing his comments with a chuckle, he said: “That’s ridiculous. Donald Trump is the strongest leader in the world. He does what he thinks is right for America.”
Trump’s war with Iran comes after he repeatedly promised voters on the 2024 campaign trail that if elected, he would dramatically reduce U.S. military engagements abroad. In his election night victory speech, he told supporters, “I’m not going to start a war; I’m going to end a war.” And since assuming office last January he has modelled himself as the “Peace President” in a bid to secure himself the Nobel Peace Prize.
After the Norwegian Nobel Committee scorned those efforts in November, the president has now said he no longer feels “obligated to think purely of peace.” He has since bombed Nigeria, invaded Venezuela, launched a rapidly escalating conflict in the Middle East, and threatened military action against allies like Mexico, Colombia, Panama, and Greenland, an autonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark.
Trump’s growing appetite for foreign intervention has severely tested more isolationist positions held by top members of his Cabinet. Vice President JD Vance, a steadfast critic of U.S. involvement in Ukraine, repeatedly assured voters in 2024 that Trump was the anti-war candidate, while Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard sold T-shirts with “NO WAR WITH IRAN” on them as part of her bid for the 2020 Republican presidential nomination.
The president’s actions in the Middle East have set off conflict along the same lines among the GOP and the wider MAGA orbit. Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson immediately slammed the weekend’s attacks as “absolutely disgusting and evil,” while rogue Republican congressman Thomas Massie was quick to blast the White House’s latest defense of the conflict.
“The administration admits [Israel] dragged us into the [Iran] war that’s already cost too many American lives and billions of dollars,” the Kentucky congressman posted on X. “Before it’s over, the price of gas, groceries, and virtually everything else is going to go up. The only winners in [the U.S.] are defense company shareholders.”
The Daily Beast has contacted the White House for comment on this story.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
五角大廈擔憂防空武備用罄 -- Martha McHardy
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考此欄2026/03/02貼文。
‘Paranoid’ Pentagon Officials Are Secretly Panicking
Martha McHardy, 03/02/26
Pentagon officials are worried about Donald Trump’s Iran strikes spiraling out of control if they stick to his timeline.
While the president boasts that the strikes could continue for several more weeks, military leaders are sounding the alarm behind the scenes about U.S. air defense stockpiles running out if the fighting goes on that long.
“The mood here is intense and paranoid,” one insider told The Washington Post.
While U.S. Central Command said more than 1,000 targets have already been wiped out and the White House has boasted of destroying most of the country’s top leadership, Iran has still managed to unleash a huge number of retaliatory attacks, reportedly alarming military officials.
Each retaliatory attack by Iran requires U.S. air defense interceptors—which are limited.
“There is concern about this lasting more than a few days,” a source told the Post. “I don’t think people have fully absorbed yet, like, what that has done with stockpiles.”
“At this point, it’s on. It’s not like we can say: ‘Hey, Iran, we’re out of missile defense systems now so we’re going to pause for a moment. Is that okay?’ It will stretch our ability to defend everything that we need to defend,” the House Armed Services Committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith said, characterizing U.S. resources as “stretched thin.”
Meanwhile, according to the Post, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine has already cautioned the White House that weapons shortages and limited allied support would significantly increase the risks to both the mission and U.S. troops.
Trump warned in an eight-minute video announcing the strikes that Americans could be killed, saying, “that often happens in war.”
Since then, three U.S. service members have been killed in the fighting and five more suffered critical injuries. U.S. Central Command said additional troops experienced minor shrapnel wounds and concussions but are expected to return to duty.
And in a video statement released by the White House on Sunday, Trump warned that “sadly, there will likely be more before it ends.”
Amid the casualties, and no end in sight for the fighting, Trump is now under pressure to spell out his vision for Iran.
In remarks to The Daily Mail, he said the military campaign could stretch on for as long as four weeks. He has also vowed that U.S. forces will carry out sustained “heavy and pinpoint bombing” for days without pause, saying the strikes will continue until Washington secures what he described as “our objective of peace” in the Middle East.
But the White House has yet to articulate what success looks like or how the conflict could conclude.
Lawmakers and foreign policy analysts warn that without a clearly defined strategy, the United States risks sliding into the kind of protracted war Trump long promised to steer clear of.
During the 2024 campaign, Trump ran on an “America First” and “no new wars” platform, pledging to avoid foreign entanglements and prioritize U.S. interests — a message that resonated with war-weary MAGA voters.
“Where does this all go?” Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, told NPR. “We can bomb Iran along with the Israelis for, you know, lengthy period of time, but in the service of what?
“Is the intention regime change? Because there aren’t many examples either of regime change affected through bombing, or, quite frankly, of American military forces actually doing regime change in a way that is satisfactory.”
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
美、伊戰爭的後續報導 – Jon Gambrell等
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Iran vows revenge after the killing of its top leader and trades strikes with Israel in widening war
JON GAMBRELL/MELANIE LIDMAN/JOSH BOAK/ERIC TUCKER, 03/02/26
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Iran vowed revenge Sunday after the killing of its supreme leader and traded strikes with Israel as part of a widening war prompted by a surprise U.S. and Israeli bombardment. The U.S. military said three service members have been killed, the first known American casualties from the conflict.
Blasts in Tehran sent a huge plume of smoke into the sky in an area of government buildings. Iranian authorities say more than 200 people have been killed since the start of the U.S. and Israeli strikes that killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior leaders. Iran fired missiles at targets in Israel and Gulf Arab states in retaliation while Israel pledged "non-stop" strikes against Iran's leaders and military.
In Israel, loud explosions caused by missile impacts or interceptions could be heard in Tel Aviv. Israel’s rescue services said nine people were killed and 28 wounded in a strike that hit a synagogue in the central town of Beit Shemesh, bringing the overall death toll in the country to 11. Eleven people were still missing after the strike, police said, as rescue crews combed the rubble.
The strikes and counterattacks underscored how the killing of Khamenei, and U.S. President Donald Trump ’s calls for the overthrow of the decades-old Islamic Republic, carried the potential for a prolonged conflict that could envelop the Middle East. It also represents a startling show of military might for an American president who swept into office on an “America First” platform and vowed to keep out of “forever wars.”
Streets of Tehran are largely deserted
In Tehran, there was little sign that Iranians had heeded Trump's call for an uprising against the government.
The streets were largely deserted as people sheltered during heavy airstrikes, witnesses told The Associated Press, speaking anonymously for fear of retribution. The paramilitary Basij, which has played a central role in crushing protests, has set up checkpoints across the city, they said.
The U.S. military said three service members were killed and five others seriously wounded, without providing further details. It said several others suffered minor injuries and concussions.
In the 12-day war last June, Israeli and American strikes greatly weakened Iran’s air defenses, military leadership and nuclear program. But the killing of Khamenei, who had ruled Iran for more than three decades, creates a leadership vacuum, increasing the risk of regional instability.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said in a prerecorded message that a new leadership council had begun its work. The country's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said a new supreme leader would be chosen in “one or two days.”
Iran vows revenge for Khamenei killing
As word spread of Khamenei’s death, some in Tehran could be seen cheering from rooftops, witnesses said. Others mourned as a black flag was raised over the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad.
“You have crossed our red line and must pay the price,” Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, said in a televised address. “We will deliver such devastating blows that you yourselves will be driven to beg.”
Trump warned against retaliation.
“THEY BETTER NOT DO THAT,” he said in a social media post. “IF THEY DO, WE WILL HIT THEM WITH A FORCE THAT HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE!”
In a sign of how the attack could stoke regional unrest, hundreds of people stormed the U.S. Consulate in Pakistan’s port city of Karachi. Police and paramilitary forces used batons and fired tear gas to disperse the crowd, and at least nine people were killed in the clashes, authorities said.
Iran retaliates with missiles and drone attacks
As U.S. and Israeli strikes have pounded Iran, the Islamic Republic has retaliated with missiles and drone attacks on Israel and nearby Arab Gulf countries hosting U.S. forces.
The air war could rattle global markets, particularly if Iran makes the Strait of Hormuz unsafe for commercial traffic. Around 20% of the world's traded oil passes through the vital waterway.
While Iran struck U.S. bases in Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, the attacks have also hit outside of military installations, including a hotel in the Emirati city of Dubai, and Kuwait’s international airport. At least four people have been killed in strikes on Gulf countries.
Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, blamed such strikes on the U.S. and Israel for starting the war. He said he had spoken to his counterparts in the Gulf countries and urged them to pressure the U.S. and Israel to end it.
Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz said Sunday that Israel will have “a non-stop air train” of strikes against Iranian military and leadership targets. The U.S. military said it had struck an Iranian warship at a port on the Gulf of Oman that was now sinking.
Flights across the Middle East were disrupted, and air defense fire thudded over Dubai. The United Arab Emirates’ commercial capital has long drawn business and expatriates by billing itself as a safe haven in a volatile region.
Iran forms council to govern until a new supreme leader is chosen
As supreme leader, Khamenei had final say on all major policies since 1989. He led Iran’s clerical establishment and the Revolutionary Guard, the two main centers of power in the governing theocracy.
An Iranian medical professional in northern Iran said he and colleagues spent the early hours of Sunday celebrating Khamenei's death indoors because armed security forces are still heavily deployed in his city.
There were forces stopping and interrogating people celebrating in their cars but there was no gunfire, said the doctor, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.
“It was one of the best nights, if not the best night of our lives,” the doctor said in a voice message from the city of Rasht. In fact, “it was actually my first time ever smoking a cigarette. It was a very very nice time. We didn’t sleep at all. And we don’t even feel tired.”
In southern Iran, at least 115 people were reported killed when a girls’ school was struck, and dozens more were wounded, the local governor told Iranian state TV. The Israeli military said it was not aware of strikes in the area. The U.S. military said it was looking into the reports.
Strikes were planned for months and feared for weeks
Tensions have escalated in recent weeks as the Trump administration built up the largest force of American warships and aircraft in the Middle East in decades. The president insisted he wanted a deal to constrain Iran’s nuclear program while the country struggled with growing dissent following nationwide protests.
Democrats decried that Trump had taken action without congressional authorization. The White House said it had briefed several Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress in advance.
Though Trump had pronounced the Iranian nuclear program obliterated in strikes last year, the country was rebuilding infrastructure that it had lost, according to a senior U.S. official who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity to discuss Trump’s decision-making process. The official said intelligence showed that Iran had developed the capability to produce its own high-quality centrifuges, an important step in developing the highly enriched uranium needed for weapons.
Iran has said it has not enriched since June, though it has maintained its right to do so while saying its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. It has also blocked international inspectors from visiting the sites the U.S. bombed. Satellite photos analyzed by AP have shown new activity at two of those sites.
Lidman reported from Tel Aviv, Israel; Boak from West Palm Beach, Florida; and Tucker from Washington. Associated Press writers Joe Federman in Jerusalem, Sarah El Deeb in Beirut, Amir Radjy in Cairo, Aamer Madhani and Konstantin Toropin in Washington, Sam Mednick in Tel Aviv, Israel, Farnoush Amiri in New York, David Rising in Bangkok and AP journalists around the world contributed to this report.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
伊朗最高領袖遭炸死 -- BBC
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei killed in US-Israel strikes as Tehran carries out retaliatory attacks
Summary：
* Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in his office on Saturday morning during a US-Israel attack - here's the latest at a glance
* Israel says it is attacking targets "in the heart of Tehran", as Iran resumes its air strikes on Arab Gulf countries
* Strikes have been reported in Dubai, Doha, Bahrain, and Kuwait - what you need to know on attacks across the Middle East
* US President Trump called Khamenei "one of the most evil people in history" and urged Iranians to "take back their country" - his statement in full
* Iran has vowed "the most devastating offensive operation" against US bases and Israel in retaliation - Trump says he would use "force never seen before" in response
* In Iran, there are celebrations in several cities, while others mourn in the streets - one Tehran resident tells BBC Persian the "world has become a better place" after Khamenei's death
* What now for Iran's leadership? In this moment of turmoil, Iranian authorities will want to project stability and a seamless transition, writes our chief international correspondent
* 0:09Video shows debris across floor of damaged Dubai airport. 00:00:09, play videoVideo shows debris across floor of damaged Dubai airport
* 0:38Tearful Iranian state TV presenter announces Khamenei's death. 00:00:38, play videoTearful Iranian state TV presenter announces Khamenei's death
Edited by Jenna Moon and Matt Spivey, with BBC Persian and correspondents across the Middle East
Plume of smoke rises after explosions in Tehranpublished at 17:15
In these new images, smoke can be seen billowing in Tehran.
This comes after the Israel Defense Forces said it has started a wave of strikes against targets linked to the Iranian regime in the capital.
Smoke was seen from Doha after an Iranian missile attack
Smoke rises from a burning building hit by an Iranian drone strike in Manama, the capital of Bahrain
Black smoke was seen billowing from Jebel Ali port in the United Arab Emirates after an Iranian attack
2. Iranian jets bomb US bases in Middle East - state mediapublished at 16:51
Iran says its air force pilots successfully bombed US bases in the Gulf countries and the Kurdistan region of Iraq, according to the state news agency IRNA.
The Iranian army says pilots successfully struck the bases in several phases, adding that all "enemy military centres" in the region are within reach of the Air Force's fighter jets.
2. Tel Aviv neighbourhood shows reach of Iran's missilespublished at 16:45
Jon Donnison, Reporting from Tel Aviv
In Tel Aviv, Israel, Iranian missiles have left buildings damaged
In a residential neighbourhood in central Tel Aviv you can see the impact of where one Iranian ballistic missile hit.
It left one woman dead, the first reported fatality in Israel of this war.
The apartment block where she was living is blown out. Bulldozers are on the scene to clear up the rubble.
On the drive here, we saw explosions directly overhead as more Israeli interceptors took out Iranian missiles.
Israel’s air defence system has shot down almost all of Iran’s missiles. But some can still get through especially when fired in a concentrated barrage.
3. Israel says it is striking Iranian regime targets in Tehranpublished at 16:39
The Israel Defense Forces says it has started a wave of strikes against targets linked to the Iranian regime in Tehran.
"Over the past day, the Israeli Air Force conducted large-scale strikes in order to establish aerial superiority and to pave the path to Tehran," a statement says. It adds it is striking targets "in the heart of Tehran".
Iranian media reports explosions have been heard in the capital.
4. Explosions in Doha as Iran carries out retaliatory strikes in the Gulfpublished at 16:31
Barbara Plett Usher, Reporting from Doha
Iran has resumed its air strikes on Arab Gulf countries, continuing to target US bases across the region. We heard a heavy round of explosions this morning in Doha and a plume of smoke is visible from the city.
The interior ministry said it was responding to a limited fire in an industrial zone caused by debris from an intercepted missile.
In a press conference around midnight, Qatari officials said Iran had launched 65 missiles and 12 drones yesterday – most of them were intercepted, but there has been some damage and eight people were injured by the fallout.
Explosions have also been heard in Dubai and Manama this morning, and the Oman state news agency is reporting a drone attack on its commercial port. Oman has been a key mediator in the US-Iran talks for years and had so far been spared Iranian attacks.
Qatar and some other Arab governments have strongly condemned the strikes and reserved the right to respond.
The Gulf states had made efforts to ease tensions with Iran in recent years, they worked hard to mediate a diplomatic solution to the crisis and have refused to let the US launch attacks from its bases in their countries.
But that wasn’t enough to prevent direct military strikes on their territory. And now with the violent death of Iran’s supreme leader, the future looks uncertain not only for Iran, but for the region.
5. What to know as Iran retaliates for death of Khameneipublished at 16:23
People gather in Tehran to mourn the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Iran has warned of "devastating" retaliation after strikes by the US and Iran that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Some Iranians have been celebrating the news of Ali Khamenei's death, while others have been seen mourning in the streets.
Saturday saw Tehran retaliate with strikes reported across the Middle East, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) warned that they will attack Israel and US military bases in a "devastating offensive operation".
In response, Trump has warned Tehran not to strike back, saying: "IF THEY DO WE WILL HIT THEM WITH A FORCE THAT HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE".
Elsewhere, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is due to hold a call with G7 leaders on Sunday after UK PM Keir Starmer said that British planes were "in the sky" as part of coordinated defensive efforts.
下略
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
巴基斯坦、阿富汗兩國對幹 -- E. Melimopoulos/S. Shamim
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請至原網頁觀看：巴、阿雙方軍力對比說明圖，以及巴國攻擊阿國據點地圖。
Pakistan bombs Kabul: Why are Afghanistan and Pakistan fighting?
Elizabeth Melimopoulos/Sarah Shamim, 02/27/26
Pakistan has launched air strikes on Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul, and other cities, as clashes escalate along the two countries’ shared border.
On Friday, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said Islamabad’s patience had run out with the Taliban authorities in Afghanistan, declaring that the two countries are now at “open war”.
The declaration came hours after Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid said Afghanistan was carrying out “large-scale offensive operations” against the Pakistani military along the Durand Line, which separates the two countries.
This follows weeks of fighting along the countries’ shared border, with both sides claiming that dozens of people have been killed.
Hostilities are taking place against a backdrop of an escalation in tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan’s Taliban authorities since the latter’s return to power in 2021.
Here is what we know so far:
What has happened?
On Friday, Pakistani officials said Afghan forces had attacked military positions close to the border, prompting Islamabad to launch air strikes on targets inside Afghanistan, including in the capital, Kabul, and in other cities.
The first Pakistani strike occurred at about 1:50am local time on Friday (21:20 GMT on Thursday), Al Jazeera’s correspondent Nasser Shadid reported, with Afghan forces responding with anti-aircraft fire.
“Our cup of patience has overflowed. Now it is open war between us and you,” Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said on X.
Which areas in Afghanistan have been hit by Pakistan?
Pakistan’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar wrote on X that “Afghan Taliban defence targets” had been struck in Kabul, the southeastern Paktia province and southern Kandahar, while Defence Minister Khawaja Asif declared what he described as an “open war” with the Taliban government.
Afghan government spokesperson Mujahid also confirmed in an X post that these three provinces had been hit.
The Associated Press reported that the attacks had destroyed two brigade bases in Afghanistan, citing two senior Pakistani security officials who spoke to the agency on condition of anonymity as they were not authorised to speak to the media.
Pakistani state media outlet Pakistan TV claimed in a report that the country’s forces had “destroyed” a number of Taliban locations in a few hours.
According to the outlet, the locations attacked in Afghanistan included a Taliban brigade headquarters and ammunition depot in Kandahar, as well as Taliban posts in the Wali Khan sector, near the Shawal sector, in the Bajaur sector and in Angoor Adda.
Pakistan’s Ministry of Information said it was also targeting Afghan Taliban forces in several districts of Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province: Chitral, Khyber, Mohmand, Kurram and Bajaur.
Later on Friday, gunfire and shelling were reported near the key Torkham border crossing between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Al Jazeera’s Kamal Hyder, reporting from Islamabad, and the AFP news agency reported that shelling had been heard near the crossing in the morning.
AFP reported Afghan soldiers were heading towards the frontier.
The Torkham crossing has remained open for Afghans returning en masse from Pakistan, despite the land border being largely shut since fighting between the neighbours in October.
What do we know about casualties?
Reports from each side are conflicting.
Mosharraf Zaidi, the spokesperson for Pakistan’s prime minister, wrote on X early on Friday that in the attack on Friday morning, 133 Afghan Taliban forces had been killed and more than 200 were wounded.
He added that 27 Afghan Taliban posts had been destroyed, and nine had been captured. More than 80 “tanks, artillery pieces, and armed personnel carriers have been destroyed”, he wrote.
Pakistani news outlet Dawn reported that two Pakistani military personnel had died in the ongoing clashes.
Al Jazeera could not independently verify the casualty figures released by Pakistan.
The Taliban government, however, said only eight Taliban fighters were killed and 11 were wounded.
Afghanistan said its military had launched its attack on Pakistani military bases and outposts along the border early on Friday in retaliation against Pakistani strikes across the Afghan border on Sunday. It claimed its forces had killed 55 Pakistani soldiers, and captured two military bases and 19 military posts. Pakistan has dismissed this claim.
For its part, Pakistan said its air strikes last Sunday killed at least 70 “militants”, a claim dismissed by Mujahid, according to news outlets. Mujahid, instead, wrote on X that the attacks “killed and wounded dozens, including women and children”.
The provincial director of the Afghan Red Crescent Society in Nangarhar province, Mawlawi Fazl Rahman Fayyaz, said 18 people had been killed and several others were wounded on Sunday.
Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who does not hold an official position but remains an influential political figure, said the country “will defend their beloved homeland with complete unity in all circumstances and will respond to aggression with courage”.
“Pakistan cannot free itself from the violence and bombings – those problems it has created itself – but must change its own policy and choose the path of good neighbourliness, respect, and civilised relations with Afghanistan,” he wrote in an X post on Friday.
Why are Pakistan and Afghanistan fighting?
The current flare-up of violence between the two countries is the culmination of months of tension.
In October 2025, Afghanistan and Pakistan agreed to an immediate ceasefire during talks mediated by Qatar and Turkiye following a week of fierce and deadly clashes along their border.
The border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is called the Durand Line and spans 2,611km (1,622 miles). Afghanistan does not formally recognise this border, which it argues was an imposed colonial demarcation that illegitimately divided ethnic Pashtun areas between the two countries.
The neighbours have been embroiled in frequent clashes since the Taliban took over in 2021. Sami Omari, an expert in South and Central Asian security and strategic affairs, told Al Jazeera there have been 75 clashes between Afghan and Pakistani forces since 2021 – the same year that US and NATO forces withdrew from Afghanistan.
In particular, Pakistan wants the Taliban to rein in armed groups such as the Pakistan Taliban, known by its acronym TTP, which it says Afghanistan is harbouring. The TTP emerged in Pakistan in 2007 and is separate from the Taliban in Afghanistan, but shares deep ideological, social and linguistic ties with the group.
Armed attacks in Pakistan by the TTP and the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), which operates in the resource-rich Balochistan province, have surged in recent years. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, which border Afghanistan, have borne the brunt of the violence.
On Friday, Pakistan’s former Finance Minister Miftah Ismail said the country has “nothing against the proud and poor citizens of Afghanistan”.
“But it is the Taliban (Afghanistan & Pakistan) who have forced Pakistan into this conflict,” he wrote on X.
“For the sake of innocent civilians on both sides of the border, I hope the Taliban stop with incursions into and terrorism in Pakistan.”
Afghanistan is unlikely to take action against armed groups, however, analysts say. “The Afghan Taliban appear unwilling to seriously crack down on the TTP, partly due to prior affinities between the two groups but also out of fear of TTP militants defecting to its main rival, the Islamic State Khorasan Province,” Pearl Pandya, South Asia senior analyst at the US-based Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED), an independent, impartial conflict monitor, told Al Jazeera.
Pandya added that a serious escalation is “inevitable” if the Taliban in Afghanistan do not crack down on the TTP.
Elizabeth Threlkeld, director of the South Asia programme at the Stimson Center think tank in Washington, DC, told Al Jazeera that the latest clashes are not surprising, as they stem from months of “frayed” tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
“It is significant to the extent that it represents perhaps a shift in strategy,” Threlkeld said, noting the “more aggressive, kinetic attacks” from Pakistan.
“But since then, we’ve seen a couple of terrorist attacks within Pakistan that were quite significant. So, no, I’m not surprised that after those cumulative attacks, that tensions have frayed and things have again gone in this direction, unfortunately.”
Armed warfare between the two nations would not favour Afghanistan, which is ill-equipped to meet Pakistan head on.
The Afghan Taliban does not have a military that is comparable to Pakistan’s, which is why it is using unconventional methods of attack, Abdul Basit, a scholar at Singapore’s S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, told Al Jazeera.
“They have suicide bombers and kamikaze drones, which I think they will use those in large numbers,” Basit said.
Furthermore, Al Jazeera’s Kamal Hyder reported, “the Afghans do not have an air force, so the Pakistanis have the upper hand in striking across the border. They’ve attacked Kabul, Kandahar and other places. They say their main targets are ammunition depots and military infrastructure.”
“Does it mean that Pakistani troops are going to cross the border?” he said. “It is very unlikely. However, we cannot rule out continuous exchange of fire across the border, with both sides using heavy artillery.”
How has the world reacted?
“India strongly condemns Pakistan’s air strikes on Afghan territory that have resulted in civilian casualties, including women and children, during the holy month of Ramadan,” India’s Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said.
“It is another attempt by Pakistan to externalise its internal failures,” he said.
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has urged both sides to adhere to international law, according to a statement delivered by his spokesperson, Stephane Dujarric.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has urged Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their differences through dialogue and good neighbourly principles.
“In the blessed month of Ramadan, the month of self-restraint and strengthening solidarity in the world of Islam, it is fitting that Afghanistan and Pakistan manage and resolve their existing differences within the framework of good neighborliness and through the path of dialogue,” Araghchi wrote in an X post.
Russia has urged the warring parties to halt cross-border attacks immediately and resolve their differences through diplomatic means, the RIA news agency reported on Friday, citing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Russia has also offered to mediate.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
美、伊戰爭開打 – A. Smith/F. Clayton
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
U.S. and Israel launch strikes on Iran
Iran’s airspace was closed early on Saturday, Iran’s semi-official news agency Tasnim reported, as smoke was seen rising above buildings in the capital Tehran.
Alexander Smith/Freddie Clayton, 02/28/26
The U.S. and Israel were striking Iran on Saturday morning, with Iranian media reporting explosions across the capital Tehran.
President Donald Trump said U.S. forces have begun “major combat operations in Iran,” in an eight-minute video message shared on Truth Social.
“Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime,” he said.
A spokesperson for Israel’s defense minister had said earlier that Israel had "launched a preemptive strike against Iran to remove threats against the State of Israel.”
Retaliation is expected, the spokesperson said.
“As a result, a missile and UAV attack against the State of Israel and its civilian population is expected in the immediate time frame,” the Israeli spokesperson said.
The strikes in Iran are significant, and are not small strikes, two U.S. officials told NBC News.
Iran’s airspace was closed early on Saturday, Iran’s semi-official news agency Tasnim reported, as smoke was seen rising above buildings in Tehran.
The strikes come after Trump oversaw a massive military build up in the Middle East while holding talks with Tehran aimed at agreeing a new deal to curtail Iran's nuclear program.
“It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular my administration, that this terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. I’ll say it again, they can never have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said in his video Saturday.
Iran vowed before the strikes that it would retaliate against any attack, threatening to target Israel as well as American bases across the region.
Other Middle Eastern nations have warned any attack could spiral into another major conflict for a region still reeling from the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip.
Trump raised the prospect of another attack on Iran after authorities cracked down on huge nationwide demonstrations, which erupted in December and January over the country’s ailing economy but morphed into demands for the overthrow of the clerical regime.
Trump wrote on Truth Social: “KEEP PROTESTING — TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers.” Then he added: “HELP IS ON ITS WAY.”
The regime ended up crushing the protests, killing thousands and arresting tens of thousands more in the weeks afterwards.
Trump then threatened a military attack if a deal could not be reached with Tehran over its nuclear program — which the president had said the U.S. “obliterated” with strikes in June. A later U.S. assessment found these only destroyed one of three sites targeted.
More recently, the administration said Iran was trying to rebuild its nuclear program, and that it could have enough fissile material for an atomic bomb within “a week” and that its ballistic missiles could “soon” be able to strike the U.S.
There is no publicly available evidence that Iran has made major progress in reviving its damaged nuclear program, including whether it has resumed significant uranium enrichment. The Trump administration has not specifically accused Iran of renewing uranium enrichment work.
Iran, which has always insisted that it has not pursued nuclear weapons, resists demands that it halt uranium enrichment or expand talks to include its ballistic missile program and support for proxy forces across the Middle East.
At the same time as holding talks with Iran, the U.S. amassed forces and built up its air defenses at bases across the region.
Trump sent the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, to join another at the head of what he dubbed an “armada.”
Iran has already signed a nuclear deal with the U.S. and other world powers. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, was seen by supporters as a landmark agreement that provided transparency and confidence internationally that Tehran was not building nuclear weapons.
Trump and other critics saw the deal as weak, however, and claimed it would only delay Iran from obtaining a bomb. In 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the agreement.
相關新聞
world Live updates: U.S. military begins 'major combat operations in Iran,' Trump says
Iran Tensions U.S. tells embassy staff in Israel to leave now if they want as Trump threatens to attack Iran
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
川普忙著找伊朗危機的下台階 - Sean James
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：Why Attacking Iran Could Be Riskier Than Capturing Maduro
川瘋總算還有幾分鐘的清醒時刻。肯因將軍就是我在本欄2026/02/18這篇報導「前言」中所說的「大人」。真沒想到凡斯副總統在這次危機中試著扮演「小大人」；好歹還是得給他按個「讚」。
US Mulling an ‘Off Ramp’ On Iran As Top General Advises Trump Iran Attack Would Be ‘Far More Difficult’ Than Venezuela: NYT
Sean James, 02/22/26
President Donald Trump is weighing options to avoid a major military conflict with Iran if the country does not ditch its nuclear program after General Dan “Raizin” Caine told him an attack would be “far more difficult” than the operation that captured Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, The New York Times reported on Sunday evening.
The report said Trump and key members of his administration are heading to Geneva on Thursday to meet with Iranian negotiators; the meeting appears to be a “last-ditch” effort to avoid a military conflict.
“President Trump has told advisers that if diplomacy or any initial targeted U.S. attack does not lead Iran to give in to his demands that it give up its nuclear program, he will consider a much bigger attack in coming months intended to drive that country’s leaders from power,” the report said, based on “people briefed on internal administration deliberations.”
The Times story has four reporters on the byline — Julian E. Barnes, David E. Sanger, Tyler Pager, and Eric Schmitt.
Members of Trump’s team and on the Iranian side are both considering an “off-ramp to military conflict,” which would include a “very limited nuclear enrichment program” that would only be used for medical research, the report said. That is because some members of the administration have expressed “doubts” a full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program occur, if the U.S. only conducts airstrikes.
Here is a key section on Caine warning Trump that attacking Iran could be harder than first expected:
During the discussions of the operation last month to seize President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, General Caine told Mr. Trump there was a high likelihood of success. But General Caine has not been able to deliver the same reassurances to Mr. Trump during the Iran discussions, in large measure because it is a far more difficult target.
[Vice President JD] Vance, who has long called for more restraint in overseas military action, did not oppose a strike, but he intensely questioned General Caine and Mr. Ratcliffe in the meeting. He pressed them to share their opinions of the options and wanted more of a discussion of the risks and complexity of carrying out a strike against Iran.
The report comes a few days after CBS senior White House reporter Jennifer Jacobs reported top military officials told Trump the military is ready for a potential strike as soon as this weekend. And Axios’s Barak Ravid reported on February 18 that “a U.S. military operation in Iran would likely be a massive, weeks-long campaign that would look more like full-fledged war than last month’s pinpoint operation in Venezuela, sources say.”
All of this comes amid months of protests against Iran’s theocratic regime inside the country.
The Times report added Trump is leaving open the possibility for a “military assault later this year intended to help topple Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It appears this could go a number of ways heading into the big summit this Thursday.
The post US Mulling an ‘Off Ramp’ On Iran As Top General Advises Trump Iran Attack Would Be ‘Far More Difficult’ Than Venezuela: NYT first appeared on Mediaite.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
攻擊伊朗將造成美國戰略窘境 - Andrew Latham
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
Britain blocking use of air bases Trump says would be needed for strikes on Iran, UK media reports
多個媒體報導：美軍已經完成02/21大舉攻擊伊朗的準備。下文指出：戰爭結果雖然能夠達到一時或短期的目標，但它將削弱美軍之後在全球地緣戰略的軍力佈署。這顯然跟剛公佈《2026國防戰略白皮書》的宗旨不符(該欄2026/02/20)。至少，中東在該「國防戰略」中屬於第四優先地區。不過，世人本來也不曾寄望川瘋及其團隊拿得出什麼考慮周詳，言行一致的全球策略。
參考本欄2026/02/07和2026/02/19兩篇貼文。
A War Against Iran Could Open Up a Pandora’s Box That Won’t Be Easy To Close
Andrew Latham, 02/17/26
War on Iran Would Solve the Wrong Problem: Summary and Key Points
-A major U.S. strike campaign could severely damage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, missile networks, and IRGC command nodes.
-The deeper issue is what comes after. Physical destruction would likely buy time, not resolution, while strengthening Tehran’s incentive to sprint toward an overt nuclear deterrent.
-Retaliation would surge through Iran’s proxy ecosystem, widening the battlespace and forcing sustained U.S. presence across air defense, maritime security, and regional reassurance.
-Energy shocks from Hormuz risks would ripple globally. The net effect: a militarily feasible operation that drains strategic bandwidth and tightens force-allocation pressure in higher-priority theaters.
A War on Iran Would Solve the Wrong Problem for America
The dispatch of the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group to the Middle East is an unmistakable sign that U.S. carrier-based signalling to Tehran is giving way to real carrier-based strike preparation. Debate over a potential U.S. or Israeli bombing campaign has intensified in parallel as Tehran’s nuclear breakout potential remains acute and regional proxy activity continues to widen.
Much of that debate centers on feasibility — whether American airpower could significantly degrade Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, disrupt missile production and storage networks, and fracture IRGC command coordination long enough to alter regional deterrence dynamics. On those questions, the answer is almost certainly yes. The United States retains the capacity to impose severe physical damage on Iranian military and nuclear assets within a compressed operational window.
But military feasibility and strategic alignment are not the same thing. Even a highly successful bombing campaign, one that addressed the most visible manifestations of the Iran problem, would ultimately deepen the structural pressures already weighing on U.S. grand strategy.
Tactical Success Is Not in Doubt
A large-scale strike campaign would not resemble the episodic shadow-war exchanges that defined much of the U.S.–Iran confrontation over the past decade. Nor would it mirror the scale or duration of the 2025 12-Day War.
It would move immediately toward sustained degradation — nuclear infrastructure, missile forces, regime security networks — executed through repeated strike cycles rather than mere symbolic demonstration attacks.
The operational effects would be significant. Enrichment capacity could be pushed backward on the timeline. Missile regeneration would require time and industrial recovery. Personnel losses inside the IRGC would disrupt planning tempo and weaken coordination across partner organizations. In narrow military terms, the United States could inflict significant setbacks on Iran’s coercive reach.
Those gains, however, would be fleeting. Industrial recovery begins quickly in systems built with redundancy in mind. Nuclear knowledge survives bunker penetration. Facilities can be reconstituted deeper underground, dispersed across new sites, or hardened further. A strike campaign purchases time. It does not resolve the underlying challenge.
The Nuclear Acceleration Risk
The more consequential question is how Tehran would internalize such an attack. Modern regime survival lessons are not lost on Iranian planners. Iraq disarmed and fell. Libya abandoned its nuclear program and collapsed under external intervention.
A bombing campaign might therefore delay Iran’s technical progress while intensifying its political resolve. What had been calibrated nuclear latency could shift toward open weaponization. Survival logic would harden under direct assault. The pursuit of a deliverable deterrent would gain urgency rather than diminish.
In that sense, physical destruction and strategic radicalization could unfold simultaneously. Delay in infrastructure might coexist with acceleration in intent.
Proxy Retaliation and Regional Expansion
Strikes on Iranian territory would not remain geographically bounded. Tehran’s deterrent architecture is deliberately externalized across aligned militias and partner organizations. Retaliatory pressure would emerge quickly through those channels, not sequentially.
U.S. facilities throughout the region would be at risk of renewed attack. Hezbollah would activate whatever assets it had left and escalate along Israel’s northern border. The Houthis might resume their disruptions at sea if the war expands. The battlespace would extend well beyond Iranian territory rather than remain confined to it.
Managing that escalation would require a sustained American presence. Naval patrol zones would expand. Air defense assets would require reinforcement. Intelligence coverage would thicken across multiple theaters. A strike campaign would evolve into an enduring regional security management burden.
Energy Market Shockwaves
Iran’s geography ensures that conflict reverberates beyond military channels. Even limited disruption to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz would likely produce price volatility. More serious interference would transmit economic shock outward at speed.
Energy dislocation does not remain regional. It moves through inflation, allied fiscal strain, and the redistribution of revenue flows. Russia would benefit from sustained price elevation. Other hydrocarbon producers would capture windfall gains.
The economic externalities of war would shift balance sheets in ways misaligned with U.S. competitive positioning.
Military action would carry geoeconomic consequences independent of battlefield outcomes.
Strategic Bandwidth and Force Allocation
The most enduring effects would appear at the level of global posture. A major conflict with Iran would require sustained allocation of high-end U.S. assets. Carrier groups, bombers, ISR platforms, and missile defense architecture would be drawn into the theater over time.
Those deployments are not costless. Assets concentrated in the Gulf are unavailable elsewhere. Indo-Pacific balancing requirements would feel compression. European reassurance rotations could tighten. Readiness cycles would absorb operational strain.
Strategic competition does not pause for regional wars. China’s military trajectory would continue uninterrupted. Russian opportunism would remain opportunistic. A war with Iran would consume bandwidth for force allocation needed in higher-priority theaters.
The Overstretch Mechanism
This is the structural paradox at the heart of the bombing debate. A strike campaign might weaken Iran’s immediate capacity to threaten regional partners. Yet the act of waging that campaign would expand the perimeter that the United States must defend.
Retaliation risks would require a prolonged presence. Maritime security commitments would deepen. Partner reassurance demands would grow heavier. Each layer would add weight to an already extended strategic architecture.
Overstretch emerges when commitments accumulate faster than force structure can absorb. A new major theater of conflict would intensify that imbalance rather than relieve it.
Tactical Victory, Strategic Ambiguity
None of this negates battlefield effectiveness. On operational metrics, the campaign could register as a clear success.
But success measured in terms of physical damage obscures broader strategic effects. Iran would remain adversarial. Nuclear incentives might intensify. Proxy warfare would broaden. U.S. posture requirements would thicken rather than contract.
The United States would exit the conflict not into strategic relief, but into a more combustible regional system layered atop an already demanding global competition environment.
Solving the Immediate, Compounding the Enduring
The central question is not whether the United States can execute an effective bombing campaign. It can. The question is whether doing so resolves the dominant strategic pressures shaping American power in this period.
Here, the alignment frays. A war with Iran would address urgent operational concerns tied to nuclear latency and proxy coercion. At the same time, it would deepen the strain on force allocation, widen the demands on escalation management, and divert attention from pacing threats in other theaters.
In strategic terms, it would solve the most immediate problem while aggravating the most consequential one.
Andrew Latham is a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities and a professor of international relations and political theory at Macalester College in Saint Paul, MN. You can follow him on X: @aakatham.
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
|
美國、伊朗戰爭後的中東政局 - Hamza Farooq
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
下文分析的可信度頗高。在阿拉伯國家沒有能力和以色列正面交鋒時，隨之而來的必然是：「對象」和「手段」兩者都毫無禁忌的攻擊模式；或「西方媒體」所謂的「恐怖攻擊」；也就是下文作者警告的「血腥戰爭」(1)。
附註：
1. 原文的 “bloody war”。
The Iran War Isn’t the Problem. The Real Destruction Will Come Later.
I’m not talking about an Iranian civil war or a massive retaliation.
Hamza Farooq, 01/16//26
Suppose America finally launches a massive attack on Iran and now the Ayatollah regime is a part of history.
Now, there is either a pro-American leader in power in Iran, or the Iranians cannot agree on a government, and all major ethnic groups like the Kurds and Baloch have established their own separate governments.
But regardless of the outcome, America will achieve multiple victories beyond just the Middle Eastern front:
* First, China could no longer purchase Iranian oil. Just a few weeks ago, it lost access to Venezuelan oil as well. All of this will ultimately create long-term challenges for the Chinese economy.
* Second, the calculus of the Strait of Hormuz will entirely change. Under the Ayatollah’s regime, if it were blocked, the West and its allies would bear the loss. But now, if a pro-American regime blocks it, the loss will be borne by China, Russia, and their allies.
* Third, the supply of Iranian drones to Russia will now be cut off. This means that a reduction in Russian aggression in Ukraine could be expected to some extent.
* Fourth, America will now be positioned just seventy kilometers from the Pakistani port of Gwadar. This means the flagship structures of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative will now be easily within its reach.
* Fifth, by gaining control over Iran and Venezuela, America will now become the country with the world’s largest oil reserves. It can now easily lower oil prices. This, in turn, will dismantle the primary source of income for Russia and the Gulf nations at any time.
* Sixth, the Ayatollah’s regional proxy groups, which had been a persistent headache for Israel, will now be permanently gone.
* And seventh, and the most important one, is that if there is to be a hegemon in the region, it will be Israel alone.
And it is precisely from here that the real game will begin.
The fall of the Iranian government will undoubtedly bring an end to this ‘axis of resistance’ that the West feared. But it will ultimately give birth to a new ‘axis of resistance’ that will haunt the East, particularly the Arab nations.
And the most terrifying aspect of this will be that, unlike the previous ‘Axis of Resistance,’ this one will be completely unbridled and several times more powerful.
The reality is that, no matter how rogue Iran under the Ayatollahs may have been, it at least kept another rogue force in check. Because of this, a balance of power was maintained in the Middle East. But now, all power will tilt decisively in Israel’s favor.
In reality, Israel is also a type of Iran. Extremists are in power there as well. They just appear slightly more presentable.
And this new ‘Resistance’, Israel, may or may not carry out occasional small, non-kinetic attacks through proxies, but it will definitely conduct direct military bombings to reduce the region to rubble. There will be no one to stop it, nor will it itself have any regard for international law.
The reason for this is that this new ‘Resistance’ has repeatedly spoken of expanding its territory several times over. In fact, there are clear indications of support for these ambitions from the current American president.
And since new land cannot be created, achieving this goal will demand the sacrifice of at least seven neighboring Arab nations.
Before today, there was the fear of a second power, Iran under the Ayatollahs. That will no longer exist.
Why would the Arab nations, whose majority population considers Israel a colonial project, allow this new ‘Resistance’ to seize their land as well?
It’ll bring a bloody war.
The truth is that Israel’s past reveals many instances where it was simply waiting for an opportunity, and as soon as it arose, it achieved its ambitions. Our ancestors may remember the opportunity it seized in 1967, and our own generation has witnessed such an opportunity live in 2023.
Why would it then be difficult for Israel to find an opportunity to seize Arab land after the Iranian issue is resolved? The truth is, it will indeed find that opportunity. It is only a matter of sooner or later.
It is a geographic vulnerability and misfortune for the Arab nations that they are caught between Iran on one side and Israel on the other. Both are eager to dominate them. Whichever one is ‘subtracted,’ the one that does the subtracting will establish dominance over the Arabs. And now it is certain that the one doing the subtracting will be Israel.
Perhaps the Arab nations had clearly perceived this during the Israel-Iran war in June. That is why they now consider Israel, not Iran, their primary security threat. Saudi Arabia even took steps to acquire Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella in an attempt to deter Israel.
The September Israeli airstrikes in Qatar made it abundantly clear to the Arab nations that a situation akin to Gaza is inevitably around the corner for them as well.
That is why, after Iran’s departure, they now want to restore the balance of power. In this context, according to the latest news, it is entirely possible that after Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Turkey might also throw its weight against Israel.
Take any major war from history. When an entity is left unbridled, destruction becomes inevitable. There is no need here to detail or cite historical events.
And I think that it’s worth mentioning here that, whenever I alluded to Israeli warmongering in my previous articles, I was ridiculed. But everyone has quieted down dramatically since the attacks on Qatar.
Anyways.
Whatever happens, in the coming days, you will surely witness the funeral procession of whatever international laws remain.
Written by Hamza Farooq
I envisage a world governed by rules and moral values. But I analyze everything through a realistic lens. Freelance Work: hamzafcontent@gmail.com
I’m available for freelance work. If you need SEO-optimized, high-ranking content on geopolitics, international affairs, or political analysis, connect with me via email or Upwork.
Email: hamzafcontent@gmail.com
Upwork: View my profile & portfolio
Published in The Geopolitical Economist
In The Global geopolitics, truth is one, but the wise interpret it differently.— Here, we interpret these diversions
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
美國伊朗核武談判審慎樂觀 -- Olivia Le Poidevin
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
美、伊雙方領導人打打最砲，甚或短時間、局部性的舞機弄艦都無傷大雅。希望兩家有大人出來說幾句話，不要假戲真做或擦槍走火搞成全面戰爭；那就不僅僅是區域性的禍害了。請參見本欄2026/02/07貼文。
Iran foreign minister says progress made in nuclear talks with U.S. in Geneva
Olivia Le Poidevin, 02/17/26
GENEVA, Feb 17 (Reuters) - Iran and the United States reached an understanding on the main "guiding principles" in a second round of nuclear talks in Geneva on Tuesday but work still needs to be done, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said.
The progress does not mean an agreement will be reached soon but the path has started, he told Iranian media after the talks concluded.
Iranian state media reported earlier that Iran would temporarily shut part of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global oil supply route, as it held talks over its nuclear programme with the United States, which has sent a battle force to the Gulf region to press Tehran to make concessions.
U.S. President Donald Trump has said "regime change" in Tehran may be the best thing that can happen, while Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Tuesday that any U.S. attempts to depose his government would fail.
Just as the talks got under way in Geneva, Iranian state media reported that parts of the strategic strait would close for a few hours due to "security precautions" while Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards conducted military drills there.
Tehran has in the past threatened to shut down the strait to commercial shipping if it is attacked, a move that would choke off a fifth of global oil flows and drive up crude prices.
Alongside Araqchi, U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner took part in the Geneva talks, which were being mediated by Oman, a source briefed on the matter told Reuters.
Reporting by Olivia Le Poidevin; Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi and Elwely Elwelly in Dubai, Humeyra Pamuk in Budapest, Rishabh Jaiswal in Bengaluru, Steve Holland in Washington, Writing by Michael Georgy; Editing by Kevin Liffey, Lincoln Feast, Sharon Singleton and Gareth Jones
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
