|
中東風雲錄 -- 開欄文：埃及的加薩重建方案 -- Al Jazeera
|
瀏覽52,706 ｜回應94｜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
|
|
伊朗再啟戰端分析 – Abbas Al Lawati
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* 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 1 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
|
|
美、伊戰爭3.0開打 ---- Ben Finley/Farnoush Amiri
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* Trump pulls back after Iran crosses his red line as U.S. military breaks two-week streak of airstrikes amid talks for potential Hormuz deal (07/25)
* Drones target northern Iraqi city where US forces are based as US-Iran fighting escalates (07/24)
* With bombing campaign unlikely to change Iran’s posture according to US intel, Trump faces limited options (07/23)
* Iran strikes on CIA facilities prompt questions about possible Russian role (07/23
* Houthis Now Attacking Saudi Oil Tankers In Red Sea, Major Energy Supply Implications (07/22)
* Iranian missiles show deadly precision amid US-Iran war escalation (07/22)
* Pentagon hiding missile shortage from White House, insiders fear
* Almost 100 US soldiers injured in fresh Iranian strikes
* The Pentagon, sinking billions into Iran war, is quickly running short on cash
* Iran may be stronger than we thought
US and Iran dig in over the Strait of Hormuz, showing the limits of intensifying airstrikes
BEN FINLEY and FARNOUSH AMIRI, 07/21/26
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. and Iran are back to bombing every day in a bid to control the Strait of Hormuz. And neither is backing down, showing the limitations of President Donald Trump's reliance on escalating airstrikes to bend Tehran to his will.
While the Trump administration says it is open to diplomacy, Iran so far has refused to loosen its grip over the crucial oil shipping corridor in the Persian Gulf. It is raising questions about the strategy for the next phase of the conflict as intensifying attacks have collapsed an interim ceasefire deal, left additional American troops dead and sent U.S. gasoline prices back up — posing new problems for Republicans ahead of the midterm elections.
Even with glimmers of hope for talks, the sides could be headed back to all-out war, with Trump warning that "every time Iran kills an American Soldier" going forward, "they will pay for that killing many times over."
The renewed escalations reflect "a fundamental misreading of the Iranian psyche and a lack of learning" from previous fighting, said Mona Yacoubian, director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"I think it's driven by a calculus on either side that they can double down on military escalation as a way of breaking the impasse and getting the other side to relent," Yacoubian said. "The danger, of course, is that the more escalatory it becomes, the harder it will be to seize any potential opening back to diplomacy."
The Trump administration says the door to diplomacy is open
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. is still open to negotiating, telling reporters Sunday night that Iran continues "to send signals that they want to talk, that they want to negotiate, but their behavior is what we're responding to. And their behavior is they're launching missiles and drones at ships" in the Strait of Hormuz, where a fifth of the world's oil normally passes.
"The United States always remains open to a diplomatic solution, and we've tried multiple times with Iran, and we'll continue to try," he said. "If that door opens, we'll be happy to see it open."
Trump is focused on making Iran pay for the recent deaths of U.S. troops, violations of the interim deal reached last month and attacks on ships in the strait, according to a U.S. official, who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
The official said that military strikes on Iran would continue until Trump decides otherwise, but that talks between the countries also would go on.
For some outside observers, the administration appears to be struggling to find an off-ramp, both militarily and diplomatically.
"This administration currently is flustered," said Alan Eyre, a former U.S. diplomat once involved in past nuclear negotiations with Tehran and now a fellow at the Middle East Institute. "It really doesn't have a coherent and consistent strategy as to how to extricate itself from this quagmire."
There are some limitations to Trump's air war
The U.S. military can only accomplish so much as it ramps up attacks on Iran, experts say.
The conflict has demonstrated the limits of relying solely on air power, said Christopher Preble, a scholar at the Stimson Center think tank focused on U.S. foreign policy. But he noted that sending in ground troops would be unpopular with many Americans and members of Congress.
"It seems that President Trump certainly has the capability to continue to bomb, and Iran will have the capability to continue to keep the strait closed — or closed well enough," Preble said.
David Schenker, a former official in the first Trump administration who is now a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the renewed strikes on Iranian infrastructure are a repeat of attacks during the early weeks of the war. And those did not result in Iran's capitulation.
"The U.S. hit 13,000 targets in the first 6 weeks of the war, and this didn't sway Iran to take a knee," he said.
Retired Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, who served under President Joe Biden, said previous wars such as Vietnam showed the limitations of air power alone.
"Generally, you have to couple air power with ground operations, sometimes naval operations as well, and certainly space today," he said.
When launching the war on Feb. 28, the U.S. and Israel struck many fixed targets identified before the conflict began. But Iran had a long time to prepare for the attacks by concealing and dispersing weapons.
"So the easy targets are pretty much gone," Kendall said. "They can hide ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and small air vehicles pretty easily. So it's a very hard job to try to suppress that kind of a threat over a period of time. And that's why they're still able to attack not just ships in the Straits, but also our bases in the region and so on."
Diplomacy has struggled with a lack of trust between the US and Iran
A diplomatic solution also could prove elusive.
Eyre, of the Middle East Institute, said the Trump administration has shown no preference for "actual diplomacy," relying instead on close advisers with little international relations experience while outsourcing some of the work to mediators such as Qatar, Pakistan and Egypt.
"We've got a tough road ahead of us, but it theoretically could be done," Eyre said of potential negotiations to end the conflict. "Unfortunately, there is so little mutual confidence in the other side. There's so little bilateral trust between the U.S. and Iran that it makes everything so much harder."
Both Schenker and Yacoubian said recent comments from Trump, Rubio and their Iranian counterparts reflect some openness to diplomacy.
Yacoubian pointed to the "measured" response from Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the recent killing of U.S. service members in Jordan, indicating a possibility for an off-ramp. Iran's release last week of an Iranian-American woman who had not been allowed to leave the country also showed a sign of goodwill from Tehran, she said.
But these small, positive signals could quickly become moot if the decision by Yemen's Iran-backed Houthi rebels Monday to announce a maritime embargo against Saudi Arabia expands to a complete shutdown of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
That, Yacoubian says, could constitute "a perfect storm of disruption" for the already precarious global economy.
Amiri reported from New York. Associated Press writers Aamer Madhani and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.
本文於 修改第 8 次
|
|
伊朗損壞科威特海水淡化廠房 - Annika Hammerschlag
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* Houthis impose Saudi naval blockade, opening new front in US-Iran war (2026/07/21)
* 'This Must End': Lawmakers Demand Termination of Iran War After Three U.S. Service Members Killed (2026/07/20)
* 本欄2026/02/07貼文。
Iranian strike damages a Kuwait desalination plant, exposing water vulnerability in dry Mideast
ANNIKA HAMMERSCHLAG, 07/17/26
This is a locator map for the Gulf Cooperation Council member states: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates. (AP Photo) 海灣國家標示地圖
Iranian strikes on Friday hit a power and water desalination plant in Kuwait, damaging one of the key sources of drinking water in the small desert nation.
It's the latest attack on essential infrastructure across the Middle East that have exposed extreme vulnerabilities in one of the world's driest regions, which relies almost exclusively on technology to produce freshwater that sustains cities, hotels, industry and some agriculture.
Kuwaiti authorities said the strikes damaged a large number of power generation units and sparked a fire. They added that a fire has been contained, and that they activated emergency contingency plans.
In Kuwait, about 90% of drinking water comes from desalination, along with roughly 86% in Oman and about 70% in Saudi Arabia. The process removes salt from seawater, most commonly by pushing it through ultrafine membranes in a process known as reverse osmosis.
Hundreds of desalination plants sit along the Persian Gulf coast, putting systems that supply water to millions within range of Iranian missile or drone strikes. Without them, major cities could not sustain their current populations.
For people living outside the Middle East, the main concern of the Iran war has been the impact on energy prices. Fighting and attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz have upended world markets and pushed oil prices to record highs.
But the infrastructure that keeps Gulf cities supplied with drinking water are equally vulnerable.
Throughout the past few months, Iran has struck close to several desalination plants in the Gulf. Kuwait previously reported damage at the Doha West desalination plant early in the war, which resulted from debris from intercepted drones or attacks on the nearby port.
Iran accused the U.S. of striking Iranian desalination plants on Qeshm Island on March 8, cutting off water supplies for 30 villages, though Washington did not acknowledged the strike.
Yemen's Houthi rebels have also targeted Saudi desalination facilities amid regional tensions in the past.
Many Gulf desalination plants are physically integrated with power stations as co‑generation facilities, meaning attacks on electrical infrastructure could also hinder water production. Desalination plants have multiple stages — intake systems, treatment facilities, energy supplies — and damage to any part of that chain can interrupt production.
Gulf governments and U.S. officials have long recognized the risks these systems pose for regional stability: if major desalination plants were knocked offline, some cities could lose most of their drinking water within days.
A 2010 CIA analysis warned attacks on desalination facilities could trigger national crises in several Gulf states, and prolonged outages could last months if critical equipment were destroyed.
More than 90% of the Gulf's desalinated water comes from just 56 plants, the report stated, and "each of these critical plants is extremely vulnerable to sabotage or military action."
The desalination plants are also vulnerable to climate change, including storm surges and extreme rainfall that can overwhelm infrastructure, as warming oceans increase the likelihood and intensity of cyclones in the Arabian Sea.
Associated Press writer Melanie Lidman contributed from Tel Aviv, Israel.
相關閱讀
* What contingency plans exist for water supply disruptions?
* How might climate change impact Gulf desalination plants?
本文於 修改第 5 次
|
|
談談打打之中東狗咬狗戲碼 -- Steve Holland等
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* Inside Israel’s Secret Operation to Cultivate Ahmadinejad (07/13)
* Iran escalates attacks across the Gulf after more US strikes
* The US was overconfident before the war. Iran may be overconfident now.
Iran expands attacks on Gulf states after US strikes, says Strait of Hormuz closed
Steve Holland/Parisa Hafezi/Phil Stewart/Yomna Ehab, 07/13/26
WASHINGTON/DUBAI, July 12 (Reuters) - U.S. and Iranian forces have exchanged heavy missile and drone assaults, with Tehran targeting U.S. facilities in states across the Gulf on Sunday and saying it had again closed the vital Strait of Hormuz.
The strikes were the latest in a cycle of attacks and counter-attacks as Iran seeks to assert control over shipping through the strait. However, the barrage marked an escalation in pace and range.
The strikes extended to Qatar, a mediator in ceasefire talks that had not come under attack since April, while the United Arab Emirates, which had not been targeted since early May, said its air defenses had engaged missiles and drones from Iran.
On Sunday afternoon, Iranian media said there had been missile attacks and explosions around the port of Bandar Abbas, home to military facilities on the strait, and nearby Qeshm Island, as the U.S. reportedly launched another round of attacks and Iran targeted Kuwait.
The renewed violence casts further doubt on the future of an interim U.S.-Iranian agreement signed last month that aimed to reopen the strait and end the war after a further 60 days of negotiations.
In the past week, U.S. President Donald Trump has said he considers the ceasefire over, while leaving the door open to more talks.
The war that the U.S. and Israel launched against Iran on February 28 has destabilised the Gulf, where Iran has struck countries hosting U.S. bases. Iran's effective blockade of the strait has driven energy prices higher, fuelling global inflation.
Higher prices, especially for gasoline, are politically sensitive for Trump ahead of November's congressional elections.
FLURRY OF STRIKES
Iran has sought to establish a permanent system for collecting fees in the strait, which carried one-fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas shipments before the war, and has warned vessels not to sail without its authorisation.
It said late on Saturday it had closed the waterway after firing a warning shot that struck a vessel travelling on an unauthorised route. On Sunday, it said it had disabled a second vessel.
India said one of its nationals was missing after an attack on the container ship GFS Galaxy off the coast of Oman. Oman said 23 crew members had been rescued. Qatar advised all vessels, including leisure boats, fishing boats and jet skis, to suspend activities.
Iran's recently created Persian Gulf Strait Authority said on Sunday that passage through the strait was not currently possible due to "recent illegal movements of the United States military forces in the region". Permits would be issued "as soon as stability and calm are restored," it said.
The U.S., which revoked the licence authorising the sale of Iranian crude on Tuesday following earlier attacks on shipping, said its forces were positioned to safeguard freedom of navigation despite what it described as "aggression, harassment, threats, and arbitrary declarations" from Iran.
"Iran does not control the strait. Traffic is flowing," it said.
The U.S. Navy-led Joint Maritime Information Center reiterated guidance that, despite a severe security threat, an "expanded" southern route near Oman was available for two-way traffic.
On Saturday, U.S. Central Command said U.S. forces had hit 140 Iranian military targets, and that more than 300 had been struck over three nights this week "to degrade Iran's ability to attack civilian mariners and commercial vessels freely transiting the strait."
Iranian state media reported explosions in several port cities and said an Iranian army officer had been killed.
In response, Iran's Revolutionary Guards said they had destroyed a command-and-control centre and drone hangars in U.S. ally Jordan, targeted a U.S. radar site and later rocket launcher systems in Kuwait, attacked U.S. aircraft carrier support and refueling platforms in Oman and destroyed a jet maintenance centre and command facility in Qatar.
'KEEP YOUR WORD OR PAY THE PRICE,' IRAN SAYS
Qatar, which has previously said it would not act as a mediator so long as it was under attack, said three people, including a child, had been injured by falling shrapnel. It said Iran was "fully legally responsible" for the attack.
The UAE said it detected missile threats outside its borders, Bahrain said it intercepted several Iranian aerial attacks, Jordan reported missile strikes and Oman reported being targeted with drones. Kuwait's army later reported damage from strikes, and said an attack on an oil drilling platform injured a worker.
Oman said it had summoned Iran's ambassador to protest over drone attacks in two regions and the U.S. embassy in Oman told its nationals in Duqm and Musandam to shelter in place.
The latest round of hostilities came after talks in Oman on Saturday between Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi. Iran said the talks were aimed at coordinating arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz, and were set to continue with a Qatari presence.
Araqchi later discussed regional developments in a phone call with Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, whose country has been a key mediator between the U.S. and Iran, Iran's semi-official Tasnim news agency reported.
Meanwhile, Iran's top negotiator Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf posted on X on Sunday: "The era of one-sided deals is OVER. We told you: keep your word or pay the price. Reality is knocking."
(Additional reporting by Enas Alashray, Ahmed Elimam, Eman Abouhassira and Andrew Mills. Writing by Kim Coghill, Tom Perry, Aidan Lewis. Editing by William Mallard and Mark Potter)
本文於 修改第 5 次
|
|
川瘋又在作妖–Jon Gambrell/Seung Min Kim
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* Crazed Trump Publicly Spirals as He Kills His Own Deal
我早就不看好這紙「和議草案」；我知道川普這位瘋哥安生不了幾天。當然，德黑蘭那群狂熱份子(有些因錢狂熱，有些因教義狂熱)，也都不是個東西。
Iran and US trade fire and Trump calls the ceasefire into question
JON GAMBRELL/SEUNG MIN KIM, 07/08/26
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Iran targeted American military sites in the Gulf on Wednesday after the U.S. launched strikes on several places in Iran and reinstated sanctions on its oil sales. Washington said it was responding to Iranian attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
The crossfire raised fears that the war in Iran could reignite — and U.S. President Donald Trump fueled those concerns by saying that the interim agreement to pause fighting was “over,” although he added that he would allow negotiations to continue.
Attacks have repeatedly threatened the shaky ceasefire, but Trump’s comments add new uncertainty, and oil prices shot up after he spoke. A renewed conflict could engulf the wider Middle East and would likely again halt energy shipments through the strait that are crucial to the global economy.
"For me, I think it's over," Trump responded when asked about the status of ceasefire. He added that U.S. representatives can continue negotiations but he cast doubt on the outcome. "They can talk, but I think they're wasting their time," he said.
The crossfire came during the dayslong funeral for Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed Feb. 28 in the war's first moments. The funeral, which ends Thursday, was supposed to be a period of lower tensions — though mourners have repeatedly called for the killings of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Negotiations to reach a final deal had been due to start after Khamenei's burial and focus on the toughest matters, including fully reopening the strait and rolling back Tehran's disputed nuclear program. But the new attacks throw that into question, though neither country immediately signaled they'd walk away from the negotiating table.
"The era of bullying and extortion is over," Iran's Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf wrote on X. "It leads nowhere. We don't fold."
Overnight US strikes target Iran
The U.S. military's Central Command said American forces launched strikes "to impose heavy costs for targeting and attacking commercial shipping crewed by innocent civilians in an international waterway."
It said it hit Iranian targets including air defense systems, radars and over 60 small boats used by Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard.
Those boats have been key to threatening ships in the strait, through which a fifth of the world's traded oil and natural gas passed before the war. Iran's ability to bring shipping in the waterway to a near halt during the war proved its greatest strategic advantage as rising prices for energy supplies, fertilizer and food put pressure on the U.S. to make a deal. On Wednesday, the price of Brent crude, the international standard, spiked over 5% after Trump's comments.
The U.S. military remains "prepared to hold Iran accountable when the agreement is not adhered to or obeyed," it added, saying this round of attacks had ended.
Iranian state media reported explosions in several locations, including in Bandar Mahshahr, where a Guard member was killed. It also reported attacks on Bushehr, home to Iran's nuclear power plant complex.
On Wednesday morning, both Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, and Kuwait, home to U.S. Army forces, sounded missile alerts. The Guard issued a statement acknowledging targeting U.S. military installations in both countries.
A similar spate of Iranian attacks on shipping and U.S. retaliatory strikes occurred late last month — which similarly drew Iranian attacks on Bahrain and Kuwait. Wednesday's strikes came as Trump was in Turkey for a summit of the NATO military alliance.
Anwar Gargash, a senior diplomat in the United Arab Emirates, called Iran's attacks on Bahrain and Kuwait "a clear indicator that Tehran remains incapable of committing to the requirements of de-escalation and turning the page on war."
US revokes the license for the sale of Iranian oil
Before the strikes, the U.S. revoked a license that authorized the sale of Iranian oil as part of the interim deal. That paused U.S. sanctions and allowed Iran to conduct oil sales openly for U.S. dollars for the first time in years. Iran long had been suspected of selling sanctioned crude at below-market prices to China.
The decision came after the strikes on shipping. One tanker was off the coast of Oman when it was hit and caught fire, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center said. Iranian state television said the tanker came under attack after ignoring warnings but did not directly claim the assault.
Majed al-Ansari, a spokesperson for the Qatari Foreign Ministry, said the tanker was carrying Qatari natural gas and called the strike an "unacceptable attack" on international navigation and global energy security. He said Qatar, which has been a key mediator alongside Pakistan in the talks, holds Iran "fully legally responsible."
The other two ships sustained some damage, but no one was injured, and both continued on their way, the U.K. agency said.
Iran and the United States agreed as part of the interim deal to allow ships to pass through the strait without paying charges for 60 days. But Tehran has insisted it must control the vessels' routes and vowed to later charge fees for passage. That would upend decades of practice in the waterway. The ships attacked Tuesday all appeared to be using a route close to Oman's shore, rather than one ordered by Tehran.
The U.S. and many Gulf Arab states say they will not agree to Iran charging for passage through the strait.
Mourners attend Khamenei's funeral services in Iraq
Funeral ceremonies for Khamenei were held Wednesday in the Iraqi city of Najaf. Attending the services are Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and other Iranian as well as Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister Ali Falah al-Zaidi. There will be funeral prayers later at the Imam Hussein shrine in Karbala as well.
Khamenei's son, Iran's new Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, has yet to make an appearance at the ceremonies, which began Saturday in Tehran. He is believed to be in hiding after reportedly being wounded in the airstrike that killed his father.
Khamenei's body will then be returned to Iran to be buried Thursday at the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad, his birthplace.
Kim reported from Ankara, Turkey. Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran; Qassim Abdul-Zahra in Najaf, Iraq; and Collin Binkley in Washington contributed.
相關報導
* How might these attacks affect global oil prices?
* What role does Pakistan play in the Gulf negotiations?
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
海灣國家自行與伊朗進行協商 - Sophia Yan
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* US launches new strikes on Iran, revokes oil sales permit after 3 ships attacked in Strait of Hormuz (07/08)
Gulf plans to cut the US out of Iran deal
Amid Washington’s declining credibility under Trump, regional players are calibrating new normal with Tehran
Sophia Yan, 06/30/26
The first talks were between Iran and Oman, then between Oman and Qatar, followed by Iran and Saudi Arabia, and finally, Qatar and Saudi Arabia – all aimed at hammering out what regional co-existence would look like once the war dust settled.
Such dizzying diplomatic activity is just getting started, with more meetings expected, as Gulf nations calibrate a new normal with Iran.
Discussions have covered how traffic through the Strait of Hormuz will be managed and what financial incentives the Gulf might provide Iran in exchange for possible security concessions.
It is happening alongside – albeit separately from – ongoing negotiations between the US and Iran to hammer out a longer-term peace deal by a late August deadline.
"US credibility has declined considerably, and that's been going on now for many years," said Gonul Tol, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. The thinking is that "we just have to reach our own understanding with Iran – it wouldn't be surprising if Gulf countries actually cut their own deal".
For now, the public messaging has been consistent with the US. A joint statement following a recent ministerial meeting of a regional alliance – attended by Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state – emphasised the importance of "free, unconditional and unrestricted navigation" and rejected "any tolls, fees, or attempts to assert control over the strait".
"It's going to be a red line from their point of view," said Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi of Chatham House.
But Gulf diplomats and experts have also highlighted that they believed Iran would not simply let go of what it regards as its ultimate trump card, and that they need to be realistic regarding potential outcomes.
The Telegraph understands that there are ongoing ideas floated for a possible scheme in which "service fees" will be collected, ostensibly to cover the costs of demining the strait, mitigate environmental degradation, port charges or for insurance purposes.
It is unclear which organisation would host the mechanism, how funds would be collected, and to whom final disbursement would be received.
Iran has already started moving in this direction, issuing through its newly created Gulf Strait Authority a requirement for vessels to have Iranian insurance. That is meant to take effect after the 60-day window expires, during which Tehran and Washington aim to come to a longer-term agreement.
"Iran has now realised that it has a more effective weapon than a nuclear one – Hormuz – that they can use anytime, so there will be some kind of arrangement where Iran will continue to call the shots," said Ms Tol. "They will do everything to keep that leverage."
No amount of dressing up the fees will appease Donald Trump, the US president, who has repeatedly said no charges would be allowed. Experts also worry that this would set a dangerous precedent, though under an international maritime treaty that bans transit fees, charges may be levied for "specific services rendered to the ship".
But the Gulf states may have little choice. Iran's feared Revolutionary Guards threatened vessels in the strait last week after the UN, Iran and Oman agreed on two routes to allow stranded vessels to evacuate.
Iran insisted that it was the sole authority for designated routes, warning that "vessel traffic outside these routes is prohibited and highly dangerous".
The next day, a Taiwanese shipping operator said its vessel was hit in the strait by what US officials said was an Iranian drone, the first such attack since the US and Iran signed an interim ceasefire deal.
Washington and Tehran then traded retaliatory attacks that spread to the Gulf states. The two sides have since agreed to halt further strikes before talks in Qatar on Tuesday.
These Iranian threats and attacks "likely serve as an implicit warning to Gulf countries – particularly Oman ... that Iran will continue to attack international shipping if they do not co-operate with Iran", according to a report by the Soufan Center, a US-based non-profit research organisation.
Even without these attacks, "Gulf countries were already preparing themselves for a situation where things might not come back as usual", said Yasmine Farouk, who leads research on Arab Gulf countries at the International Crisis Group, a non-profit think tank. "They're going to take matters into their own hands, in the regional tracks of discussion."
Saudi Arabia is expected to lead on broader talks over regional security, with nations arranging direct, individual meetings with Iran regarding the management of Hormuz. Yet another grouping could include Iraq, which is economically dependent on oil exports through the strait.
The main leverage that the Gulf nations have is financial – the ability to invest in Iran, whose economy is in dire straits, both from sanctions and the impact of war.
"They feel this is Iran's Achilles' heel once the war ends," said Ms Farouk.
But they will seek concessions from Iran to reduce the threats they face just across the water. That could mean limiting the number of missiles that Iran is allowed to have, or curbing the regime's efforts to arm its proxy groups, which also launched attacks against Gulf states in this war.
The numerous separate meetings ongoing within the Gulf – and alongside broader Tehran-Washington negotiations – underlines the region's departure from relying primarily on the US.
"America will remain the backbone of their defence structure and of their defence systems," said Ms Farouk. "The US has had, for a long time, a monopoly over defence relations and arms procurement over the Gulf. Whatever America doesn't have or can't be procured fast enough – or if the US doesn't have something to deal with the Iranian threat – they are going to look for it elsewhere."
Diversification is already happening. In May, Kuwait established a defence procurement framework with Turkey to buy drones and air defence systems. Ukraine, too, has recently signed deals to export drones to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
The Gulf states are looking further afield, with Saudi Arabia holding several meetings in a new "quad" with Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey.
Confidence in the US has been waning ever since Mr Trump's first administration, particularly after he pulled out of an Iran nuclear deal in 2018, as a result of which Tehran gradually ceased complying with restrictions on its nuclear programme.
Then, in Mr Trump's current term, his decisions to go to war with Iran twice – and threats to pull out of Nato – have worried many countries that even commitments on paper from Washington may not amount to much of a guarantee.
But they'll probably still push for a way to restore confidence, perhaps along the lines of the 2025 executive order Mr Trump signed "assuring the security of the state of Qatar".
Still, Gulf nations are realising "we have to do things based on the assumption that the US is not going to be there, and even if it is there, it can do things that will undermine us", said Ms Tol.
And despite all the diplomatic overtures made towards Iran over the years – including the UAE turning a blind eye to the regime moving sanctioned funds through Dubai, an international financial hub – they will remain a target.
That is perhaps even more of a concern with a new, more radical Iranian regime. Past regimes, for instance, never shut down Hormuz when they could have weaponised control of the strait.
Given that, the Gulf states are not going to ask the US military to leave the region outright, though they remain disappointed over broken promises.
But they will "supplement their strategies by having plan B and plan C, in case the US does not follow through on its security guarantees and defence promises", said Ms Farouk.
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
|
|
《美、伊「和議草案」分析》讀後
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
臭名昭彰的「和議草案」 ---- To Put It Bluntly
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
下文的標題和意旨都跟拙作相近(本欄2026/06/18)；我不好意思說：「英雄所見略同」，就稱之為：「公道自在人心」吧。
AN MOU THAT WILL LIVE IN INFAMY
TO PUT IT BLUNTLY (A Blog), 06/20/26
Three months ago, in the midst of war, this website posted: “President Trump is not the kind of man given to introspection. He is more interested in winning than in reflection. But he seems to realize that his historical legacy will depend upon the success or failure of the war against Iran.”
We need not wait for history’s verdict on the President’s legacy. The war against Iran – which began promisingly, with a popular uprising, the decapitation of the enemy’s leadership, and the destruction of the most of its military assets — has ended in unmitigated disaster. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the President leaves Iran stronger, richer, and more influential than it has ever been at any time since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. It leaves the United States humiliated, and its allies uncertain and insecure.
In defending the MOU, the President and his Vice President have repeatedly said that any concessions to Iran belong to the future, to be bestowed only as rewards for their good behavior.
This is a lie. The MOU bestows rewards upon Iran immediately.
In fact it is more than a lie. It is an insult to the American people. Trump and Vance appear to believe that we are either incapable of reading, or too busy to be bothered with doing so. For even a cursory review of this short document shows the falsity of these assertions.
Paragraph 4 of the document reads: “Immediately upon the signing of this M.O.U., the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days.” There is no waiting period to see whether Iran behaves correctly. The removal of our blockade begins immediately, and must be completed within a month. That means that the homicidal lunatics who run that country will begin to receive revenue from Iranian exports immediately.
The value of this concession is immense. Before the war, Iran earned between $3.45 to $3.9 billion per month from its oil exports. That comes out to about $115 to $130 million per day. That revenue, restored by the MOU without any requirement of good behavior, will enrich the regime, ensure its survival, and enable it to fund its terrorist proxies.
In defending the MOU, Trump has also said that the United States would never accept Iran placing tolls on commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. That too is a lie. The MOU does precisely that, and it does so, again, without any requirement of good behavior.
Paragraph 5 of the document reads: “Upon the signing of this M.O.U., 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 ….”
So after 60 days, regardless of its good or bad behavior, Iran will be free to charge tolls.
The rest of Paragraph 5 calls upon Iran to “conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in 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.” The only point for this “dialogue” will be to set the amount Iran can charge.
When Iranian sources leaked the existence of reparations in the draft MOU, Trump angrily called the story “fake news,” and he called the leakers “very dishonorable.” The Iranian leakers might be dishonorable but they told the truth.
Paragraph 6 reads: “The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least U.S.D. 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
This is a gigantic amount of money, dwarfing the $50 billion in frozen assets released under President Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Trump insists this money will not come from U.S. taxpayers. But who cares where it comes from? It might come from the Persian Gulf States, eager to curry favor with an Iran that appears to have humbled the world’s sole superpower. It might come from deals worked out by Trump family members. What matters is not the source of the money, but America’s obligation to raise it. And let’s not kid ourselves about how this $300 billion reparations fund will be spent. It will not be spent solely on reconstruction. It will also be spent developing weapons and subsidizing terrorist organizations.
Paragraph 7 calls upon the U.S. to “undertake to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The MOU imposes no conditions on Iran to receive this benefit. Instead, it deems the termination of sanctions a matter of “critical importance” and calls up on both countries “to immediately address these issues in the negotiations.”
Ironically, this provision may actually increase the chance of military action in the future. Sanctions are one of the few non-military levers the U.S. can wield. Without sanctions, the U.S. will have few options other than resuming warfare to keep Iran in check.
Trump has repeatedly said that deal ensures that Iran will never have nuclear weapons. Paragraph 8 seems to do just that. But, to borrow one of Trump’s favorite insults, only a low IQ reader would believe that it accomplishes that purpose.
In Paragraph 8, Iran “reaffirms” that it shall not develop nuclear weapons. Note the word: “reaffirms.” Iran has affirmed again and again that it will not develop nuclear weapons. And it has lied again and again. Iran vowed it would not develop nuclear weapons in 1970 under the Shah, when it ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It repeated this vow in 2015 under the mullahs when it ratified the JCPOA. Every now and then, it repeats it, sometimes adding for good measure that the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei once “issued a fatwa and declared it forbidden to acquire a bomb.” This is also a lie. No such fatwa was ever issued.
We don’t have to speculate about the veracity of these affirmations and reaffirmations. We know Iran lied and continues to lie. In 2018, Israeli agents stole a half ton of documents, some of them handwritten, from a warehouse in Tehran, detailing Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons development program. We also know Iran lied because last June, in Operation Midnight Hammer, we bombed (Trump said “obliterated”) their nuclear weapon development centers. If Iran hadn’t been lying, these facilities would not have existed and there would have been nothing for Operation Midnight Hammer to hammer.
In short, there is nothing in Iran’s “reaffirmation” that assures that the country will not continue its nuclear weapons development program. Thanks to the MOU’s terms allowing tolls and unfreezing assets, Iran will be in a much stronger financial position to invest in that program.
Paragraphs 10 and 11 provide further proof that Trump and Vance lie when they insist that under the MOU Iran receives no up-front benefits. Under Paragraph 10: “The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this M.O.U., and until the termination of sanctions, U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil.” Under Paragraph 11: “The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this M.O.U.” Those “frozen” funds and assets are estimated to be at least $24 billion. That’s $24 billion given away without any preconditions of good behavior.
This humiliating MOU is bad for the United States. But it is even worse for parties who are directly affected by it, but who were deprived of any opportunity to address their concerns.
Under Paragraph 1, the final deal “will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”
There is only one reason that fighting persists in Lebanon. Iran uses Lebanon as a base from which its proxy Hezbollah fires missiles and drones at Israel, and Israel retaliates by attacking Hezbollah sites. Under the MOU, any time Israel retaliates for these attacks on its citizens, Iran will claim that the deal has been violated.
Israel has a sovereign right to defend itself, and will do so regardless of the MOU. But the MOU drives a wedge between Israel and the United States. We have seen a preview of how this wedge works when Vance rebuked Israeli leaders who have criticized the deal, stating: “If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I would not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.” In other words, the Vice President implied, sit still when attacked or lose your only friend.
But the saddest impact of the MOU on non-parties concerns the brave Iranian people, who stood up against their fanatical rulers and died in their tens of thousands. On February 28, as we went to war, Trump told them: “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
With his signature on the MOU, Trump delivered a different message. Paragraph 2 reads: “The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.”
Having begun the war urging the Iranian people to overthrow their despots, we have ended the war agreeing to “respect” those same despots. This betrayal reeks of Munich.
When not lying about the terms of the MOU, Trump has justified our capitulation (投降，屈服) by claiming that it was the only way of avoiding “economic catastrophe” and “having your favorite president be Herbert Hoover.”
Trump may not be remembered as Herbert Hoover. He will certainly be remembered as Neville Chamberlain.
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
美、伊「和議草案」分析-Mike Watson
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* 臭名昭彰的「和議草案」 (作者：To Put It Bluntly，本欄2026/06/22)
Did Iran Just Get the Better of Us?
What to make of the MOU
Mike Watson, 06/17/26
The political drama about the Iran deal is nearing its climax as Vice President J.D. Vance prepares to sign on Friday the memorandum of understanding with Iran that he and Donald Trump electronically signed on Sunday. The administration just read out the official text of this MOU.
Most successful negotiations require some level of secrecy while they are underway, but the extended murkiness about this agreement—which the president has already signed—is unusual. Vance remarked on Monday, "The MOU is about a page and a half, so it is a very general document," and the text indicates the negotiators left most issues of significance unaddressed. The American and Israeli militaries performed splendidly during the six-week war, but the MOU reveals the White House is more eager for a deal than the mullahs are. This stage of the Iran conflict is a defeat, and the next step is to limit the damage to U.S. interests.
The MOU lays out several stages of negotiations, but the first one is the only one that is likely to go into effect and thus deserves the most scrutiny. In essence, the United States will "fully end the naval blockade within 30 days," "immediately" enable Iran to export oil and related products, and "make fully available for use" Iranian funds that the Treasury Department has frozen. Iran says it will "make arrangements using its best efforts" to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and not charge any tolls "for 60 days only."
Once those steps are underway, a final agreement will supposedly be negotiated. In the interim, Iran says it will "maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program" and Trump "will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region." The two parties commit to "the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon."
Much of the language in this document is vague, so it is difficult to pin down what each country has actually agreed to, but the plainest meaning of the text indicates a lopsided deal. The United States has committed to immediately easing its economic pressure on Iran, and Iran has only promised to set in motion a process that should eventually open the Strait. The Islamic Republic—which is still attacking shipping in the Strait—can drag its feet, but the United States must leap to comply. Tehran can continue its campaign of international terrorism, rebuild its war machine, and perhaps even extort protection money from Gulf shipping while Washington stands pat.
The rest of the document is unlikely to come to fruition unless Trump also caves on Iran's enriched uranium. The MOU's "minimum methodology" would permit the mullahs to keep a slightly lower-grade blend, which might actually ease their path to a bomb if it enables them to excavate their material that was buried by American B-2s last summer. Iran would receive over $300 billion if it came to an arrangement about its nuclear program that satisfies Trump, but with the pressure off, there is little reason to believe that it will make any further concessions. And CIA director John Ratcliffe reportedly told Trump that his agency collected intelligence indicating Iran's leaders intend to play a double game with these negotiations.
Some commentators have noted, correctly, that there are few yardsticks by which to measure compliance, to say nothing of mechanisms to enforce deviations from the agreement. That is beside the point. Trump signed this document because he escalated the conflict as far as he was willing to go, did not get the results he wanted, and is now trying to put the conflict in the rearview mirror. There will be little enthusiasm in the White House to hold Iran to its obligations and risk provoking it further.
If Trump does not find a way to recover quickly, this MOU could mark the effective end of his presidency. The air campaign inflicted significant damage on Iran's military capabilities and nuclear program, which will buy some time. But the Gulf Arabs, who have been in the crosshairs for months, are unlikely to wait until Tehran has fully rearmed to cut a deal. And since Trump has agreed to restrain Israel, which reportedly was not even allowed to see the text, he cannot use his most capable ally to curb Iran. The ripple effects could extend far beyond the Middle East. The midterms are looking grim, the Iran campaign has split the president's party, congressional Republicans are openly expressing their impatience, and Trump is now in danger of presiding over a regional collapse.
Second-term presidents often run into similar challenges, and many turn to foreign policy, where they have the fewest domestic constraints on action. Trump has a flair for improvisation and is eager to build a lasting legacy, so he is likely to make the same pivot. But to turn the tide against America's fanatical enemies, he also needs to exhibit steadfastness and resolve.
Update 3:20 p.m.: This piece has been updated since publication.
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
