<p><strong>Panetta on Trump Iran strategy: </strong>Leon Panetta, the former CIA director and US defence secretary, has squarely blamed Donald Trump for the escalating Iran crisis, outlining seven key reasons why the current US–Iran conflict has spiralled into a geopolitical and energy emergency. However, Panetta’s own record in prolonging US foreign wars, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, is worth mentioning if one is talking about accountability in American national security. Here is a clear breakdown of Panetta’s claims—followed by an evidence-based look at his past role in US military interventions. Seeing this, one would wonder why Panetta suddenly developed a conscience.</p><h2>7 reasons why Panetta blames Trump for the Iran crisis</h2><p><strong>Underestimating the Strait of Hormuz risk</strong><br>Panetta, in remarks published in The Guardian, argued that Trump failed to anticipate Iran’s most predictable strategic move: disrupting the Strait of Hormuz. This narrow waterway is critical to global energy security, with roughly 20 per cent of the world’s oil supply passing through it. According to Panetta, the risk of its closure has long been central to US national security planning.</p><p><strong>Overreliance on short-war assumptions</strong><br>Panetta claims Trump’s Iran war strategy relied on the assumption of a quick military victory.</p><p>Instead, the conflict is dragging on, exposing the absence of a clear US exit strategy.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/iran-issues-first-respond-to-trump-s-will-obliterate-power-plants-threat-strait-of-hormuz-1774143212657">'Any violation by enemy...': Iran issues first response to Trump's 'will obliterate power plants' threat</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Decapitation strikes backfired</strong><br>The killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the first day of the current war was intended to destabilise Iran’s leadership. However, Panetta argued, it had the opposite effect, leading to the rise of the leader's son Mojtaba Khamenei, who is more hardline and ideologically rigid.</p><p><strong>Iran gained leverage over global oil markets</strong><br>By restricting access to the Strait of Hormuz, Iran effectively weaponised energy supply chains, in Penetta's view. This has triggered volatility in global oil prices, raising concerns about inflation, fuel costs, and the risk of a wider economic slowdown.</p><p><strong>Limited strategic options for the US</strong><br>Panetta describes Trump’s position as between “a rock and a hard place”, with two main options:</p><p>Escalate military operations to reopen the strait, or withdraw and risk strategic failure. Both scenarios carry high geopolitical and economic risks, in his view.</p><p><strong>Strained alliances weakened US leverage</strong><br>Panetta highlighted Trump's tensions with NATO and other allies during the planning phase of the Iran strikes. Now, as the crisis deepens, the US faces reduced international support—underscoring the importance of multilateral cooperation in modern conflict, according to the former CIA chief.</p><p><strong>Trump's inconsistent messaging undermined credibility</strong></p><p>Panetta criticised Trump’s communication strategy, citing mixed signals on war aims and controversial public messaging, which included meme-inspired videos on official handles. He argued that failure to acknowledge civilian casualties and policy missteps weakened US credibility in global diplomacy.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-64-of-us-voters-oppose-war-in-west-asia-wion-1774205103898/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-64-of-us-voters-oppose-war-in-west-asia-wion-1774205103898/embed</a></p><h2>Perspective: Panetta’s own record on foreign wars is nothing to sing home about&nbsp;</h2><p>While Panetta’s analysis of Trump reflected mainstream national security concerns, his own role in shaping US foreign policy during the post-9/11 era, which contributed to extending its ‘endless war’ needs some analyisis.</p><h3>Panetta's leadership during prolonged wars</h3><p>Panetta served as CIA director (2009–2011) and US defence secretary (2011–2013) under president Barack Obama, a period marked by extension of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan that were started by his predecessor George W Bush. These wars evolved into long-term military engagements with significant human and financial costs.</p><h3>Expansion of drone warfare</h3><p>As CIA director, Panetta oversaw a major expansion of drone strikes, particularly in Pakistan, with multiple civilian casualties. At the time, he described drones as one of the “most effective” tools against al-Qaeda terror group, but critics argued that such operations contributed to deaths and antagonism towards the US, and prolonged instability in the region.</p><h3>Support for Libya intervention</h3><p>Panetta backed the disastrous 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya, which led to the fall of the Muammar Gaddafi dictatorship but also led to years of political instability and conflict.</p><h3>Advocacy of interventionist policy</h3><p>Panetta has consistently supported a “forward defence” strategy—arguing for sustained US military presence abroad, contraty to what he is currently saying about Trump and Iran. He has criticised isolationist tendencies in US politics and warned against reducing America’s global military role, calling it ‘Vietnam syndrome’.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/live-blog-us-israel-iran-attack-live-updates-attack-india-russia-china-netanyahu-trump-khamenei-hezbollah-idf-saudi-gulf-qatar-strait-of-hormuz-update-1774240031195">US-Iran-Israel war LIVE: America issues worldwide travel alert; Gulf countries targeted again</a></p><h2>Continuity with current strategies</h2><p>The tatics Panetta previously endorsed—such as drone strikes and special operations—are similar to approaches reportedly under consideration in the current Iran conflict, incuding Trump's reported plans to deploy Marines to secure Strait of Hormuz and/ or Iranian nuclear fuel.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><i><strong>Disclaimer: WION takes utmost care to accurately and responsibly report ongoing conflicts in West Asia involving Israel, Iran, US, Gulf nations and non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, Islamic State, and others. Claims and counterclaims, disinformation and misinformation are being made online and offline. Given this context, WION cannot independently verify the authenticity of all statements, social media posts, photos and videos.</strong></i><br>&nbsp;</p>

Leon Panetta, ex-CIA chief and former US defence secretary under Obama, blamed Donald Trump for the Iran crisis, citing strategic missteps and risks to oil market and global economy. But his own record in US wars raises questions about credibility and accountability. A sudden conscience?

Panetta on Trump Iran strategy: Leon Panetta, the former CIA director and US defence secretary, has squarely blamed Donald Trump for the escalating Iran crisis, outlining seven key reasons why the current US–Iran conflict has spiralled into a geopolitical and energy emergency. However, Panetta’s own record in prolonging US foreign wars, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, is worth mentioning if one is talking about accountability in American national security. Here is a clear breakdown of Panetta’s claims—followed by an evidence-based look at his past role in US military interventions. Seeing this, one would wonder why Panetta suddenly developed a conscience. 7 reasons why Panetta blames Trump for the Iran crisis Underestimating the Strait of Hormuz risk Panetta, in remarks published in The Guardian, argued that Trump failed to anticipate Iran’s most predictable strategic move: disrupting the Strait of Hormuz. This narrow waterway is critical to global energy security, with roughly 20 per cent of the world’s oil supply passing through it. According to Panetta, the risk of its closure has long been central to US national security planning. Overreliance on short-war assumptions Panetta claims Trump’s Iran war strategy relied on the assumption of a quick military victory. Instead, the conflict is dragging on, exposing the absence of a clear US exit strategy. Also read: 'Any violation by enemy...': Iran issues first response to Trump's 'will obliterate power plants' threat Decapitation strikes backfired The killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the first day of the current war was intended to destabilise Iran’s leadership. However, Panetta argued, it had the opposite effect, leading to the rise of the leader's son Mojtaba Khamenei, who is more hardline and ideologically rigid. Iran gained leverage over global oil markets By restricting access to the Strait of Hormuz, Iran effectively weaponised energy supply chains, in Penetta's view. This has triggered volatility in global oil prices, raising concerns about inflation, fuel costs, and the risk of a wider economic slowdown. Limited strategic options for the US Panetta describes Trump’s position as between “a rock and a hard place”, with two main options: Escalate military operations to reopen the strait, or withdraw and risk strategic failure. Both scenarios carry high geopolitical and economic risks, in his view. Strained alliances weakened US leverage Panetta highlighted Trump's tensions with NATO and other allies during the planning phase of the Iran strikes. Now, as the crisis deepens, the US faces reduced international support—underscoring the importance of multilateral cooperation in modern conflict, according to the former CIA chief. Trump's inconsistent messaging undermined credibility Panetta criticised Trump’s communication strategy, citing mixed signals on war aims and controversial public messaging, which included meme-inspired videos on official handles. He argued that failure to acknowledge civilian casualties and policy missteps weakened US credibility in global diplomacy. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-64-of-us-voters-oppose-war-in-west-asia-wion-1774205103898/embed Perspective: Panetta’s own record on foreign wars is nothing to sing home about While Panetta’s analysis of Trump reflected mainstream national security concerns, his own role in shaping US foreign policy during the post-9/11 era, which contributed to extending its ‘endless war’ needs some analyisis. Panetta's leadership during prolonged wars Panetta served as CIA director (2009–2011) and US defence secretary (2011–2013) under president Barack Obama, a period marked by extension of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan that were started by his predecessor George W Bush. These wars evolved into long-term military engagements with significant human and financial costs. Expansion of drone warfare As CIA director, Panetta oversaw a major expansion of drone strikes, particularly in Pakistan, with multiple civilian casualties. At the time, he described drones as one of the “most effective” tools against al-Qaeda terror group, but critics argued that such operations contributed to deaths and antagonism towards the US, and prolonged instability in the region. Support for Libya intervention Panetta backed the disastrous 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya, which led to the fall of the Muammar Gaddafi dictatorship but also led to years of political instability and conflict. Advocacy of interventionist policy Panetta has consistently supported a “forward defence” strategy—arguing for sustained US military presence abroad, contraty to what he is currently saying about Trump and Iran. He has criticised isolationist tendencies in US politics and warned against reducing America’s global military role, calling it ‘Vietnam syndrome’. Also read: US-Iran-Israel war LIVE: America issues worldwide travel alert; Gulf countries targeted again Continuity with current strategies The tatics Panetta previously endorsed—such as drone strikes and special operations—are similar to approaches reportedly under consideration in the current Iran conflict, incuding Trump's reported plans to deploy Marines to secure Strait of Hormuz and/ or Iranian nuclear fuel. Disclaimer: WION takes utmost care to accurately and responsibly report ongoing conflicts in West Asia involving Israel, Iran, US, Gulf nations and non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, Islamic State, and others. Claims and counterclaims, disinformation and misinformation are being made online and offline. Given this context, WION cannot independently verify the authenticity of all statements, social media posts, photos and videos.

<p>Leon Panetta, ex-CIA chief and former US defence secretary under Obama, blamed Donald Trump for the Iran crisis, citing strategic missteps and risks to oil market and global economy. But his own record in US wars raises questions about credibility and accountability. A sudden conscience?</p>

Trump and Iran crisis: Ex-CIA chief Leon Panetta lists 7 reasons why US president is responsible— but what about his own foreign wars record?

<p>The Iran-US-Israel conflict is turning into an economic war as an oil tanker operator reportedly paid Tehran a $2 million fee for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran is now charging “favoured” countries millions of dollars per oil tanker for safe passage, even as gasoline prices have crossed $8 a gallon in some US pumps.&nbsp;</p><h2>The cost of war: Oil companies feel the pinch; Iran mulls Strait of Hormuz transit surcharge</h2><p>According to Lloyd’s List Intelligence, cited by the Financial Times and other media, at least one tanker operator is understood to have paid around $2 million as part of an agreement to transit via Iran’s newly established “safe corridor” along the Strait of Hormuz. This is a route near Iranian territorial waters around Larak Island, where the IRGC Navy and port authorities are reportedly conducting visual vetting and verification of vessels. Based on recent reports, at least nine vessels have used this corridor, mostly from diplomatically cleared nations such as India, Pakistan and China.</p><p>As per reports, India did not pay for passage of its LPG carriers Shivalik and Nanda Devi. A Pakistan-flagged Karachi tanker was also similarly cleared through government-to-government talks.</p><p>While Iran is negotiating such arrangements with operators on a case-by-case basis, its parliament is debating formalised surcharges. Iran, in effect, is creating a “protection” racket in Strait of Hormuz.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-missile-strike-hits-haifa-oil-refinery-israel-reports-no-significant-damage-1773957556388">Iran missile strike hits Haifa oil refinery, Israel reports ‘no significant damage’</a></p><h2>Trump administration moves to allow passage of Iranian oil</h2><p>Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the US will allow 140 million barrels of Iranian oil already at sea to move. This de-sanctioning will free up roughly 10–14 days of global supply and drive prices down in the near term. This Iranian oil was originally headed mostly to China.</p><p>This is the second instance of the US de-sanctioning oil in recent weeks, following the decision to allow Russian oil meant mainly for India to pass through.&nbsp;</p><p>These are short-term releases of existing cargoes to bring down global oil prices, which have crossed $100 per barrel in recent days.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-to-release-140-million-barrels-of-sanctioned-iranian-oil-floating-on-water-says-bessent-1773930578453">US to release 140 million barrels of sanctioned Iranian oil floating on water, says Bessent</a></p><h2>Iran’s twin war strategy: Shut Hormuz, attack Gulf energy installations</h2><p>In the past few days, Iran has intensified attacks on oil and gas installations in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait. Combined with its threats of selective closure of the Strait of Hormuz to enemy vessels, the strategy appears to be working in driving up oil prices. Surcharges and payments to Iran for passage would amount to the country funding the war through its leverage over Hormuz traffic.</p><p>While Bessent framed the freeing up of Iranian oil as using its own barrels “against Tehran”, the real goal appears to be to stabilise oil prices for US consumers and industry: America acts when Americans are pinched.&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-attacks-on-oil-infrastructure-in-west-asia-triggers-price-spike-1773926960482/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-attacks-on-oil-infrastructure-in-west-asia-triggers-price-spike-1773926960482/embed</a></p><p>Brent crude has spiked by up to 60 per cent since the joint US–Israeli strikes on Iran on 28 February started the war, hitting $118 per barrel at one point.&nbsp;</p><p>At the pump, US gas prices are up sharply, with some reports citing increases of up to 90 cents per gallon nationally.</p><p>In reality, overall tanker traffic through Hormuz has collapsed. Only around 15 vessels have transited in recent days, mostly Iran-linked ones.</p>

Iran is leveraging control over the Strait of Hormuz by charging tanker fees, and US is desanctioning Iranian oil stuck at sea. Spike in global crude prices is driving up US petrol costs. All in all, we are witnessing an economic warfare

The Iran-US-Israel conflict is turning into an economic war as an oil tanker operator reportedly paid Tehran a $2 million fee for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran is now charging “favoured” countries millions of dollars per oil tanker for safe passage, even as gasoline prices have crossed $8 a gallon in some US pumps. The cost of war: Oil companies feel the pinch; Iran mulls Strait of Hormuz transit surcharge According to Lloyd’s List Intelligence, cited by the Financial Times and other media, at least one tanker operator is understood to have paid around $2 million as part of an agreement to transit via Iran’s newly established “safe corridor” along the Strait of Hormuz. This is a route near Iranian territorial waters around Larak Island, where the IRGC Navy and port authorities are reportedly conducting visual vetting and verification of vessels. Based on recent reports, at least nine vessels have used this corridor, mostly from diplomatically cleared nations such as India, Pakistan and China. As per reports, India did not pay for passage of its LPG carriers Shivalik and Nanda Devi. A Pakistan-flagged Karachi tanker was also similarly cleared through government-to-government talks. While Iran is negotiating such arrangements with operators on a case-by-case basis, its parliament is debating formalised surcharges. Iran, in effect, is creating a “protection” racket in Strait of Hormuz. Also read: Iran missile strike hits Haifa oil refinery, Israel reports ‘no significant damage’ Trump administration moves to allow passage of Iranian oil Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the US will allow 140 million barrels of Iranian oil already at sea to move. This de-sanctioning will free up roughly 10–14 days of global supply and drive prices down in the near term. This Iranian oil was originally headed mostly to China. This is the second instance of the US de-sanctioning oil in recent weeks, following the decision to allow Russian oil meant mainly for India to pass through. These are short-term releases of existing cargoes to bring down global oil prices, which have crossed $100 per barrel in recent days. Also read: US to release 140 million barrels of sanctioned Iranian oil floating on water, says Bessent Iran’s twin war strategy: Shut Hormuz, attack Gulf energy installations In the past few days, Iran has intensified attacks on oil and gas installations in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait. Combined with its threats of selective closure of the Strait of Hormuz to enemy vessels, the strategy appears to be working in driving up oil prices. Surcharges and payments to Iran for passage would amount to the country funding the war through its leverage over Hormuz traffic. While Bessent framed the freeing up of Iranian oil as using its own barrels “against Tehran”, the real goal appears to be to stabilise oil prices for US consumers and industry: America acts when Americans are pinched. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-attacks-on-oil-infrastructure-in-west-asia-triggers-price-spike-1773926960482/embed Brent crude has spiked by up to 60 per cent since the joint US–Israeli strikes on Iran on 28 February started the war, hitting $118 per barrel at one point. At the pump, US gas prices are up sharply, with some reports citing increases of up to 90 cents per gallon nationally. In reality, overall tanker traffic through Hormuz has collapsed. Only around 15 vessels have transited in recent days, mostly Iran-linked ones.

<p>Iran is leveraging control over the Strait of Hormuz by charging tanker fees, and US is desanctioning Iranian oil stuck at sea. Spike in global crude prices is driving up US petrol costs. All in all, we are witnessing an economic warfare</p>

Crude war: Oil tanker firm paid Iran $2 million for Strait of Hormuz safe passage; Iran mulls surcharge as US gas costs $8 at some pumps

<p>The 2003 Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction claims and the current Iran nuclear weapon justification share a clear parallel in pattern: A US president and administration publicly citing an active threat as the rationale for military action, despite US intelligence assessments saying otherwise. History is repeating in several ways. Here is how:</p><h2>Iraq 2003: The "smoking gun" that wasn't</h2><p>In the run-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the George W Bush administration claimed that the country possessed active chemical or biological weapons stockpiles, a reviving nuclear programme, and mobile production labs, with links to terrorism. The most famous public presentation was Colin Powell's February 5, 2003, UN Security Council briefing. The then Secretary of State displayed photos, diagrams, and defector testimony as a "smoking gun" proving that Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein was hiding WMDs and reconstituting banned programmes. Words and phrases like 'aluminium tubes for centrifuges' and 'yellowcake uranium' were thrown in for good measure. President Bush warned of "mushroom clouds" and an imminent threat.</p><p>Soon, the US invaded Iraq, starting a war that resulted in the removal of the Hussein regime, his trial and hanging.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/saudi-arabia-warns-iran-of-military-actions-after-attack-on-oil-facilities-12-arab-nations-issue-statement-1773895488630">Saudi Arabia warns Iran of 'military actions' after attack on oil facilities, 12 Arab nations issue statement: Is the war expanding?</a></p><h2>Post-invasion reality of Iraq: Where were the WMDs?</h2><p>Several reviews after the invasion, including the Iraq Survey Group report of 2004, found no WMD stockpiles or active programmes. Iraq's WMD capabilities had been dismantled after the 1991 Gulf War. It emerged that intelligence had been cherry-picked, exaggerated, and unreliable sources like dissidents and exiles overtly relied upon.</p><p>It was releaved that even some internal US assessments and IAEA findings that had raised doubts about going into war with Iraq were sidelined.</p><p>US official inquiries later said the Bush administration misled the public and the US Congress on the urgency of the invasion and the existence of the threat.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-drone-seen-over-us-army-base-housing-rubio-hegseth-raises-security-alarm-wion-1773912557332/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-drone-seen-over-us-army-base-housing-rubio-hegseth-raises-security-alarm-wion-1773912557332/embed</a></p><h2>What the US intelligence assessment said about Iran nuclear weapon threat&nbsp;</h2><p>In an eerie repeat of the 2003 events, the current US intelligence assessment is that Iran did not resume uranium enrichment activities—which are required for building a nuclear bomb—since the US and Israeli strikes during the 12-Day war of June 2025. In Operation Midnight Hammer, the US air strikes that ended that war, &nbsp;Iran's nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan were razed, with President Donald Trump and his aides claiming to have "obliterated" the enrichment programme.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/chernobyl-in-the-gulf-us-israel-missile-hits-iran-s-bushehr-nuclear-plant-is-the-world-at-risk-of-regional-scale-radiological-disaster-russia-1773875738801">Chernobyl in the Gulf: US-Israel missile hits Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant. World at risk of 'regional-scale radiological disaster'?</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>On Wednesday (Mar 18), in sworn testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said, “As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.” The intel assessment said that entrances to underground facilities were "buried and shuttered with cement".</p><p>Gabbard confirmed no rebuild efforts occurred in the intervening months from Iran, directly undercutting one of President Trump's central public justifications for the ongoing war.</p><p>This is what she said in her written testimony, but in oral remarks, Gabbard softened or omitted the "no efforts/no rebuild" language. This prompted Democratic senators to accuse her of avoiding direct contradiction of the president.</p><h2>Boots on the ground in Iran?&nbsp;</h2><p>In spite of this divergence of assessment within the administration, there is a likelihood that the US would go for an invasion of Iran, similar to what it did against Iraq in 2003. Trump is reportedly mulling sending over a thousand specialist marines to Iran, as the decapitation strikes appear to have failed in bringing Iran to its knees.</p><p>A section of the US administration appears to think that a ground invasion is required to ensure Strait of Hormuz security, create buffer zones, and secure any remnant nuclear material.</p><p>Similar to Iran, the 2003 Iraq war had started with air strikes before becoming a US-led ground invasion and occupation.</p><h2>Building the narrative: Iran and the bomb</h2><p>The US Operation Epic Fury launched on February 28 against Iran came after days of Israeli and American claims that Tehran was very close to building a nuclear bomb. Trump repeatedly claimed Iran was "starting it all over", attempting to rebuild its nuclear programme, and posed an imminent threat. Clearly, public rhetoric is outshining the government's own intelligence.</p><h2>Iran war turns murkier with counterterror centre chief's resignation, blaming Israel</h2><p>In his letter of resignation as National Counterterrorism Center director this week, Joe Kent explicitly said Iran did not pose any imminent threat to the US. He wrote that Israel is misleading the US into the war, the same way he alleged it had done for Iraq.</p><p>Kent, who said he could not support the ongoing conflict in good conscience, is facing investigations for allegedly leaking classified material.</p><p>This is similar to how critics of the Iraq war alleged external influences, including from unreliable exiles and faulty intelligence from allies. The narrative was carefully built in spite of internal doubts.</p>

Iran war situation is increasingly turning similar to the Iraq invasion runup: US intelligence says Iran halted nuclear activity after 2025 strikes, contradicting Trump's war rhetoric. Flawed WMD claims were used in 2003 to justify the invasion of Iraq

The 2003 Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction claims and the current Iran nuclear weapon justification share a clear parallel in pattern: A US president and administration publicly citing an active threat as the rationale for military action, despite US intelligence assessments saying otherwise. History is repeating in several ways. Here is how: Iraq 2003: The "smoking gun" that wasn't In the run-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the George W Bush administration claimed that the country possessed active chemical or biological weapons stockpiles, a reviving nuclear programme, and mobile production labs, with links to terrorism. The most famous public presentation was Colin Powell's February 5, 2003, UN Security Council briefing. The then Secretary of State displayed photos, diagrams, and defector testimony as a "smoking gun" proving that Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein was hiding WMDs and reconstituting banned programmes. Words and phrases like 'aluminium tubes for centrifuges' and 'yellowcake uranium' were thrown in for good measure. President Bush warned of "mushroom clouds" and an imminent threat. Soon, the US invaded Iraq, starting a war that resulted in the removal of the Hussein regime, his trial and hanging. Also read: Saudi Arabia warns Iran of 'military actions' after attack on oil facilities, 12 Arab nations issue statement: Is the war expanding? Post-invasion reality of Iraq: Where were the WMDs? Several reviews after the invasion, including the Iraq Survey Group report of 2004, found no WMD stockpiles or active programmes. Iraq's WMD capabilities had been dismantled after the 1991 Gulf War. It emerged that intelligence had been cherry-picked, exaggerated, and unreliable sources like dissidents and exiles overtly relied upon. It was releaved that even some internal US assessments and IAEA findings that had raised doubts about going into war with Iraq were sidelined. US official inquiries later said the Bush administration misled the public and the US Congress on the urgency of the invasion and the existence of the threat. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-drone-seen-over-us-army-base-housing-rubio-hegseth-raises-security-alarm-wion-1773912557332/embed What the US intelligence assessment said about Iran nuclear weapon threat In an eerie repeat of the 2003 events, the current US intelligence assessment is that Iran did not resume uranium enrichment activities—which are required for building a nuclear bomb—since the US and Israeli strikes during the 12-Day war of June 2025. In Operation Midnight Hammer, the US air strikes that ended that war, Iran's nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan were razed, with President Donald Trump and his aides claiming to have "obliterated" the enrichment programme. Also read: Chernobyl in the Gulf: US-Israel missile hits Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant. World at risk of 'regional-scale radiological disaster'? On Wednesday (Mar 18), in sworn testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said, “As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.” The intel assessment said that entrances to underground facilities were "buried and shuttered with cement". Gabbard confirmed no rebuild efforts occurred in the intervening months from Iran, directly undercutting one of President Trump's central public justifications for the ongoing war. This is what she said in her written testimony, but in oral remarks, Gabbard softened or omitted the "no efforts/no rebuild" language. This prompted Democratic senators to accuse her of avoiding direct contradiction of the president. Boots on the ground in Iran? In spite of this divergence of assessment within the administration, there is a likelihood that the US would go for an invasion of Iran, similar to what it did against Iraq in 2003. Trump is reportedly mulling sending over a thousand specialist marines to Iran, as the decapitation strikes appear to have failed in bringing Iran to its knees. A section of the US administration appears to think that a ground invasion is required to ensure Strait of Hormuz security, create buffer zones, and secure any remnant nuclear material. Similar to Iran, the 2003 Iraq war had started with air strikes before becoming a US-led ground invasion and occupation. Building the narrative: Iran and the bomb The US Operation Epic Fury launched on February 28 against Iran came after days of Israeli and American claims that Tehran was very close to building a nuclear bomb. Trump repeatedly claimed Iran was "starting it all over", attempting to rebuild its nuclear programme, and posed an imminent threat. Clearly, public rhetoric is outshining the government's own intelligence. Iran war turns murkier with counterterror centre chief's resignation, blaming Israel In his letter of resignation as National Counterterrorism Center director this week, Joe Kent explicitly said Iran did not pose any imminent threat to the US. He wrote that Israel is misleading the US into the war, the same way he alleged it had done for Iraq. Kent, who said he could not support the ongoing conflict in good conscience, is facing investigations for allegedly leaking classified material. This is similar to how critics of the Iraq war alleged external influences, including from unreliable exiles and faulty intelligence from allies. The narrative was carefully built in spite of internal doubts.

<p>Iran war situation is increasingly turning similar to the Iraq invasion runup: US intelligence says Iran halted nuclear activity after 2025 strikes, contradicting Trump's war rhetoric. Flawed WMD claims were used in 2003 to justify the invasion of Iraq</p>

No smoking gun? How US intel assessment of no Iran nuclear weapon threat is eerily similar to the run-up to Iraq invasion of 2003

<p>There is a growing view that the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, as a strategy by Iran amid the war, is affecting countries that have nothing to do with its ongoing conflict with US and Israel. The strait, which carries roughly 20–25 per cent of global oil traffic and other goods, has become a central flashpoint of the war. Analysts, officials, the shipping and freight industries, and even US allies are explicitly arguing that the strait’s security and Iran’s leverage over it should be treated as a distinct issue, separate from the joint US-Israeli military campaign against Iran.</p><p>No amount of US or allied attempts to secure the strait by military means is likely to be sustainable. Air or naval strikes, warship or coastguard escorts, or coalition-building efforts would not fully wrest control. Iran will still maintain some level of disruption capacity due to the advantages of geography, asymmetric capabilities, and the nature of commercial risks associated with the chokepoint.</p><h2>Nobody wants to ‘shift the war to the Strait of Hormuz’</h2><p>European allies of the US, such as Germany’s Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, along with countries including the UK, France, Canada, India and China, have either refused or diluted calls for warship coalitions to escort tankers. Such participation, they feel, would entangle them in the war while not securing their energy needs.</p><p>There is a perception that the war has “shifted to the Strait of Hormuz” in recent days. However, Hormuz is not just a military issue. International bodies treat safe passage as a global shipping concern, not the responsibility of any single belligerent in the war. The International Maritime Organization has stated that naval escorts alone cannot guarantee the safety of vessels passing through, particularly without Iranian cooperation.</p><p>Many believe that the strait crisis should not be allowed to escalate or become an extension of the war.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/saudi-arabia-has-offered-alternative-to-strait-of-hormuz-but-there-s-a-problem-1773669907156">Saudi Arabia has offered alternative to Strait of Hormuz - but there's a problem</a></p><h2>Navies or militaries cannot take Hormuz control away from Iran</h2><p>Several shipping, freight and oil industry executives, regional experts, military planners and officials are of the view that Iran has enduring leverage over the strait, having influenced traffic through it for decades.</p><p>Iran borders the narrow strait, which is only about 21 miles wide at its narrowest point. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) can conduct mine-laying and has demonstrated the ability to launch drone or missile strikes, or engage in swarm tactics using fast boats from the sea or shore.</p><p>These capabilities remain cheap, dispersed and quickly replaceable. Mines and coastal threats persist even after US strikes significantly degraded Iranian naval assets.</p><p>Military escorts and naval presence are not enough for commercial vessels, given the volume of traffic transiting the strait. Insurers, shipping firms and crews still consider passage too risky even with naval protection. The strait effectively becomes a high-risk “kill zone” because threats cannot be eliminated, increasing war-risk premiums for freight passage.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-war-fruit-exporters-face-mounting-losses-disruption-1773746062782/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-war-fruit-exporters-face-mounting-losses-disruption-1773746062782/embed</a></p><h2>US is aware of Iran’s capacity for nuisance and disruption</h2><p>US officials initially underestimated Iran’s willingness to escalate in the strait. However, Pentagon briefings now indicate that escort missions are currently too dangerous.</p><p>Even if the US prioritises military operations to secure control of the strait, restoring transit could take months; it is prudent not to worsen the situation.<br>Mine-clearing alone could take weeks. Restoring full transit and trade is more complex than achieving military dominance.</p><p>Markets respond to perceived risk rather than raw force, and this has already been reflected in stock markets as well as crude oil and gas prices.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-us-allowing-iranian-oil-tankers-through-strait-of-hormuz-to-maintain-global-supply-says-scott-bessent-1773664766747">'US allowing Iranian oil tankers through Strait of Hormuz to maintain global supply', says Scott Bessent</a></p><h2>Iran has de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz: The world needs to live with it</h2><p>For all practical purposes, Iran retains de facto control over the strait. Even attempting to wrest that control through bombardment would not secure safe transit for the ships. Beyond mine-clearing, Iran’s capacity to disrupt the strait through guerrilla-style or asymmetric operations from the near shore or mainland cannot be ruled out.</p><p>If the US were to attempt full control of the strait through military means, it would also need control over adjacent coastal territory. This would imply creating a ‘buffer zone’ to push Iranian forces away—an idea that might be unworkable.&nbsp;</p><p>Given Iran’s ability to launch missile and drone strikes from inland, even a limited physical presence near the coast would not be necessary for Tehran to disrupt shipping.</p><h2>Negotiate a deal for Hormuz, separate trade from war</h2><p>It is important that hostilities around the Strait of Hormuz end as soon as possible. Strategic oil reserve releases or contingency plans for oil- and gas-importing countries cannot be sustained for more than a few weeks. Iran’s selective allowance of ship passage through the strait is also not sustainable.</p><p>Iran’s disruption capacity vis-à-vis the strait is proximity-based. Restoring safe global oil transit will remain difficult as long as Hormuz remains a factor in the war. The situation echoes the 1980s Tanker War, where escorts mitigated risks but never eliminated the threat without addressing land-based sources. It is imperative to end this crisis fast, even if the main war drags on.</p>

Amid the Iran–US–Israel conflict, theres' a growing view that the Strait of Hormuz must be treated separately. Military action cannot eliminate Iran’s disruption capacity, nor can constant Navy escorts be used to ensure safe global oil transit 

There is a growing view that the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, as a strategy by Iran amid the war, is affecting countries that have nothing to do with its ongoing conflict with US and Israel. The strait, which carries roughly 20–25 per cent of global oil traffic and other goods, has become a central flashpoint of the war. Analysts, officials, the shipping and freight industries, and even US allies are explicitly arguing that the strait’s security and Iran’s leverage over it should be treated as a distinct issue, separate from the joint US-Israeli military campaign against Iran. No amount of US or allied attempts to secure the strait by military means is likely to be sustainable. Air or naval strikes, warship or coastguard escorts, or coalition-building efforts would not fully wrest control. Iran will still maintain some level of disruption capacity due to the advantages of geography, asymmetric capabilities, and the nature of commercial risks associated with the chokepoint. Nobody wants to ‘shift the war to the Strait of Hormuz’ European allies of the US, such as Germany’s Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, along with countries including the UK, France, Canada, India and China, have either refused or diluted calls for warship coalitions to escort tankers. Such participation, they feel, would entangle them in the war while not securing their energy needs. There is a perception that the war has “shifted to the Strait of Hormuz” in recent days. However, Hormuz is not just a military issue. International bodies treat safe passage as a global shipping concern, not the responsibility of any single belligerent in the war. The International Maritime Organization has stated that naval escorts alone cannot guarantee the safety of vessels passing through, particularly without Iranian cooperation. Many believe that the strait crisis should not be allowed to escalate or become an extension of the war. Also read: Saudi Arabia has offered alternative to Strait of Hormuz - but there's a problem Navies or militaries cannot take Hormuz control away from Iran Several shipping, freight and oil industry executives, regional experts, military planners and officials are of the view that Iran has enduring leverage over the strait, having influenced traffic through it for decades. Iran borders the narrow strait, which is only about 21 miles wide at its narrowest point. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) can conduct mine-laying and has demonstrated the ability to launch drone or missile strikes, or engage in swarm tactics using fast boats from the sea or shore. These capabilities remain cheap, dispersed and quickly replaceable. Mines and coastal threats persist even after US strikes significantly degraded Iranian naval assets. Military escorts and naval presence are not enough for commercial vessels, given the volume of traffic transiting the strait. Insurers, shipping firms and crews still consider passage too risky even with naval protection. The strait effectively becomes a high-risk “kill zone” because threats cannot be eliminated, increasing war-risk premiums for freight passage. https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-war-fruit-exporters-face-mounting-losses-disruption-1773746062782/embed US is aware of Iran’s capacity for nuisance and disruption US officials initially underestimated Iran’s willingness to escalate in the strait. However, Pentagon briefings now indicate that escort missions are currently too dangerous. Even if the US prioritises military operations to secure control of the strait, restoring transit could take months; it is prudent not to worsen the situation. Mine-clearing alone could take weeks. Restoring full transit and trade is more complex than achieving military dominance. Markets respond to perceived risk rather than raw force, and this has already been reflected in stock markets as well as crude oil and gas prices. Also read: 'US allowing Iranian oil tankers through Strait of Hormuz to maintain global supply', says Scott Bessent Iran has de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz: The world needs to live with it For all practical purposes, Iran retains de facto control over the strait. Even attempting to wrest that control through bombardment would not secure safe transit for the ships. Beyond mine-clearing, Iran’s capacity to disrupt the strait through guerrilla-style or asymmetric operations from the near shore or mainland cannot be ruled out. If the US were to attempt full control of the strait through military means, it would also need control over adjacent coastal territory. This would imply creating a ‘buffer zone’ to push Iranian forces away—an idea that might be unworkable. Given Iran’s ability to launch missile and drone strikes from inland, even a limited physical presence near the coast would not be necessary for Tehran to disrupt shipping. Negotiate a deal for Hormuz, separate trade from war It is important that hostilities around the Strait of Hormuz end as soon as possible. Strategic oil reserve releases or contingency plans for oil- and gas-importing countries cannot be sustained for more than a few weeks. Iran’s selective allowance of ship passage through the strait is also not sustainable. Iran’s disruption capacity vis-à-vis the strait is proximity-based. Restoring safe global oil transit will remain difficult as long as Hormuz remains a factor in the war. The situation echoes the 1980s Tanker War, where escorts mitigated risks but never eliminated the threat without addressing land-based sources. It is imperative to end this crisis fast, even if the main war drags on.

<p>Amid the Iran–US–Israel conflict, theres' a growing view that the Strait of Hormuz must be treated separately. Military action cannot eliminate Iran’s disruption capacity, nor can constant Navy escorts be used to ensure safe global oil transit&nbsp;</p>

Trade zone, not war zone: Decouple Strait of Hormuz from Iran-US-Israel conflict if the global economy is to stay afloat

<p>Don Quixote, a great literary character, is a cautionary tale of a self-proclaimed hero acting on flawed perceptions, often influenced by misleading advice. Actions similar to his— going into battle with perceived enemies like windmills — are called ‘quixotic’. With no immediate end in sight, the Iran war is slowly proving that President Donald Trump and his administration may have made a series of quixotic mistakes. These include not understanding Iran’s resilience, misjudging the speed of victory, not anticipating that Tehran would expand the war into the Gulf region, failing to secure allies' support, and not taking into account the global consequences of a war in which the world economy itself became a weapon. Here are 20 reasons why Trump is proving to be a new-age Don Quixote:</p><h2>1. Bad advice and overconfidence</h2><p>Trump and his team, led by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, appear to have relied on overly optimistic assessments that downplayed the risks of war. Shortly before the war escalated, Energy Secretary Chris Wright dismissed fears of oil market disruption. Advisers reportedly ignored warnings of sustained Iranian economic retaliation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is said to have portrayed Iran’s regime as a fragile “house of cards” likely to collapse quickly under sustained bombardment. Some military officials’ cautions about Iran’s unwillingness to yield quickly were sidelined.</p><h2>2. Lack of domestic or allied nations' support</h2><p>The US struggled to secure backing from key allies, including those in Europe and members of the NATO military alliance. Trump’s requests for naval support to secure the Strait of Hormuz—including minesweepers and warships—were either declined or limited by partners such as the UK and Japan. Trump publicly criticised allies for a lack of reciprocity after decades of US security commitments. As he faces a midterm elections, both the Democrats and much of the American media are not enthused about the war, either.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-we-don-t-need-oil-on-day-18-of-war-trump-says-he-attacked-iran-to-save-other-countries-1773713367047">'We don't need oil': On Day 18 of war, Trump says he attacked Iran to...</a></p><h2>3. Iran regime change assumptions fail in the face of reality</h2><p>The US-Israeli strategy assumed that decapitation strikes—targeting top leadership and killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—would lead to sudden regime collapse or capitulation. Instead, Iran replaced its leadership with a younger, more hardline figure, Mojtaba Khamenei. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) continued operating effectively, often appearing independent of any central command structure. The regime suppressed internal unrest. Weeks into the conflict, there was no meaningful shift in control or regime change.</p><h2>4. Operational strains and military incidents</h2><p>Reports surfaced of a refuelling aircraft crashing in Iraq, the warship USS Abraham Lincoln suffering technical issues, and USS Gerald R Ford experiencing a fire while deployed in the Red Sea. Though not combat-related, these incidents exposed US operational strain during wartime deployment.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/is-iran-being-framed-abbas-araghchi-claims-trump-is-using-lucas-drones-that-match-shahed-perfectly-to-attack-arab-nations-1773580911417">Is Iran being framed? Abbas Araghchi claims US is using 'LUCAS' drones that match Shahed 'perfectly' to attack Arab nations</a></p><h2>5. Iran’s economic warfare via the Strait of Hormuz</h2><p>US planners underestimated Iran’s ability to retaliate asymmetrically using its control of the Strait of Hormuz as leverage. Iran threatened tankers, laid mines, and launched selective drone strikes on oil infrastructure in the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Targets included the Shah gas field near Abu Dhabi, the Fujairah Oil Industry Zone, Fujairah oil terminal, and Saudi Aramco facilities. Iran also warned civilians to evacuate ports and forced a halt in Gulf shipping, leading to a surge in oil prices of over 40 per cent. US gasoline costs rose, while global energy, food, fertiliser markets, and freight transport were disrupted.</p><h2>6. Too much time spent on build-up gave Iran time to prepare</h2><p>For weeks, the US carried out a military build-up before striking Iran on February 28, even as talks were ongoing for what Trump described as a ‘deal’, primarily centred on Iran giving up nuclear weapons ambitions. The prolonged build-up allowed Iran to harden defences, hide or reposition military assets, and prepare asymmetric responses such as drone attacks.&nbsp;</p><h2>7. Underestimating Iran’s resilience and pain tolerance</h2><p>Iran, which has prepared for decades for such a conflict, demonstrated a high tolerance for sustained war. Its multi-layered governance and defence systems allowed continuity despite leadership losses. Treating the war as existential, Iran used sustained missile and drone attacks to deplete US, Israeli, and allied air defence systems.</p><h2>8. Misjudging war duration and costs involved</h2><p>The US has already spent tens of billions of dollars on the war effort, with costs continuing to rise. Officials initially estimated the war would end within four to five weeks, but it has already entered the third week. Trump is alternating between claims of victory and appeals for international assistance.&nbsp;</p><h2>9. Iran’s quick regional escalation was unexpected</h2><p>Trump indicated he had not been advised that Iran would attack neighbouring US allies in the Gulf. Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait were targeted, along with attempted drone attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad. Iran also disrupted regional infrastructure, including airports and urban centres.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/saudi-arabia-s-mbs-speaks-with-trump-regularly-urges-harsh-actions-against-iran-report-1773651226374">Saudi Arabia’s MBS speaks with Trump regularly, urges harsh actions against Iran: Report</a></p><h2>10. A global war already</h2><p>The conflict quickly had global consequences. Economic fallout affected US and international markets, and Washington was forced to ease restrictions on Russian oil exports to stabilise global supply.&nbsp;</p><h2>11. Iran's proxies keep the war simmering</h2><p>Hezbollah is engaging Israeli forces in Lebanon, while the Houthis in Yemen have threatened to disrupt shipping through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait at the Red Sea chokepoint. With no boots on the ground in Iran from either the US or Israel, decisive battlefield victory remains elusive. The war has become multi-front rather than single-theatre.</p><h2>12. Iranian power structures are more entrenched than anticipated</h2><p>The war has further consolidated the Islamic Republic’s internal power. Public displays of support, including large turnouts during Quds Day rallies, highlight internal cohesion. This reduces the likelihood that external military pressure alone can produce decisive outcomes.</p><h2>13. Mismatch between military success and real outcomes</h2><p>Trump frequently claimed that Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities have been largely destroyed. However, continued US attacks—including on strategic locations such as Kharg Island—suggest otherwise. Iran’s missile-launching capability may be degraded, but it continues to launch attacks, indicating the presence of hidden or dispersed assets.</p><h2>14. Nuclear disarmament or military degradation — unclear objective</h2><p>The US and Israel entered the war with the stated aim of eliminating Iran’s nuclear weapons capability and missile arsenal. Neither objective has been fully achieved. Iran continues to insist on retaining its civilian nuclear programme, complicating negotiations and prolonging the conflict.</p><h2>15. Iran turned US military presence in Gulf into a vulnerability</h2><p>Iran’s attacks on US military bases in Gulf countries—often using low-cost drones—have exposed vulnerabilities in these high-value installations. This has made the US presence a liability for host nations, many of which have remained defensive rather than actively joining the conflict.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-trump-slams-allies-over-hormuz-mission-cites-no-enthusiasm-wion-1773733486200/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-trump-slams-allies-over-hormuz-mission-cites-no-enthusiasm-wion-1773733486200/embed</a></p><h2>16. The trap of the escalation ladder</h2><p>Both sides appear locked in an escalation cycle, unwilling to de-escalate, yet unable to deliver a decisive blow. Iran has steadily increased the cost of war, while US-Israeli strikes have not achieved a breakthrough, creating a prolonged stalemate.</p><h2>17. Global supply chain strain as a weapon</h2><p>From the Strait of Hormuz to regional airports, Iran’s calculated targeting has created logistical disruptions. Missile and drone attacks have affected global supply chains, impacting everything from energy shipments to manufactured goods and food distribution.</p><h2>18. Cyberwar and non-traditional warfare opened new fronts</h2><p>Iran-linked groups have conducted cyberattacks on infrastructure and institutions, adding a significant cyber warfare dimension. Information warfare has also intensified, including control over domestic internet systems. These multiple fronts complicate the definition of victory.</p><h2>19. Economic interdependence limits decisive action</h2><p>Global oil market volatility, inflation risks, and energy supply disruptions have put pressure on all sides to avoid extreme escalation. As a result, neither side is pursuing total war, contributing to a prolonged stalemate.</p><h2>20. Iran’s ability to strike Israel over long distances</h2><p>Iran has demonstrated the capability to strike Israel from thousands of kilometres away. Some missile and drone attacks have penetrated Israeli air defence systems and landed within Israeli territory, exposing vulnerabilities despite the geographical distance.</p><p>Don Quixote had an adviser, Sancho Panza, who often protected him—even by giving misleading information to prevent reckless actions. The question remains whether Trump received sound advice. Did his aides, including son-in-law Jared Kushner, mislead him on the Iran war? Whatever the case, Trump may ultimately need to rely on his dealmaking approach to end the conflict through negotiations rather than prolonged warfare.</p>

The Iran war is slowly exposing US miscalculations—from overconfidence and weak allied backing to Iran’s resilience, proxy warfare and economic disruption. With no decisive victory in sight, is this turning out to be a quixotic excursion for Trump?

Don Quixote, a great literary character, is a cautionary tale of a self-proclaimed hero acting on flawed perceptions, often influenced by misleading advice. Actions similar to his— going into battle with perceived enemies like windmills — are called ‘quixotic’. With no immediate end in sight, the Iran war is slowly proving that President Donald Trump and his administration may have made a series of quixotic mistakes. These include not understanding Iran’s resilience, misjudging the speed of victory, not anticipating that Tehran would expand the war into the Gulf region, failing to secure allies' support, and not taking into account the global consequences of a war in which the world economy itself became a weapon. Here are 20 reasons why Trump is proving to be a new-age Don Quixote: 1. Bad advice and overconfidence Trump and his team, led by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, appear to have relied on overly optimistic assessments that downplayed the risks of war. Shortly before the war escalated, Energy Secretary Chris Wright dismissed fears of oil market disruption. Advisers reportedly ignored warnings of sustained Iranian economic retaliation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is said to have portrayed Iran’s regime as a fragile “house of cards” likely to collapse quickly under sustained bombardment. Some military officials’ cautions about Iran’s unwillingness to yield quickly were sidelined. 2. Lack of domestic or allied nations' support The US struggled to secure backing from key allies, including those in Europe and members of the NATO military alliance. Trump’s requests for naval support to secure the Strait of Hormuz—including minesweepers and warships—were either declined or limited by partners such as the UK and Japan. Trump publicly criticised allies for a lack of reciprocity after decades of US security commitments. As he faces a midterm elections, both the Democrats and much of the American media are not enthused about the war, either. Also read: 'We don't need oil': On Day 18 of war, Trump says he attacked Iran to... 3. Iran regime change assumptions fail in the face of reality The US-Israeli strategy assumed that decapitation strikes—targeting top leadership and killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—would lead to sudden regime collapse or capitulation. Instead, Iran replaced its leadership with a younger, more hardline figure, Mojtaba Khamenei. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) continued operating effectively, often appearing independent of any central command structure. The regime suppressed internal unrest. Weeks into the conflict, there was no meaningful shift in control or regime change. 4. Operational strains and military incidents Reports surfaced of a refuelling aircraft crashing in Iraq, the warship USS Abraham Lincoln suffering technical issues, and USS Gerald R Ford experiencing a fire while deployed in the Red Sea. Though not combat-related, these incidents exposed US operational strain during wartime deployment. Also read: Is Iran being framed? Abbas Araghchi claims US is using 'LUCAS' drones that match Shahed 'perfectly' to attack Arab nations 5. Iran’s economic warfare via the Strait of Hormuz US planners underestimated Iran’s ability to retaliate asymmetrically using its control of the Strait of Hormuz as leverage. Iran threatened tankers, laid mines, and launched selective drone strikes on oil infrastructure in the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Targets included the Shah gas field near Abu Dhabi, the Fujairah Oil Industry Zone, Fujairah oil terminal, and Saudi Aramco facilities. Iran also warned civilians to evacuate ports and forced a halt in Gulf shipping, leading to a surge in oil prices of over 40 per cent. US gasoline costs rose, while global energy, food, fertiliser markets, and freight transport were disrupted. 6. Too much time spent on build-up gave Iran time to prepare For weeks, the US carried out a military build-up before striking Iran on February 28, even as talks were ongoing for what Trump described as a ‘deal’, primarily centred on Iran giving up nuclear weapons ambitions. The prolonged build-up allowed Iran to harden defences, hide or reposition military assets, and prepare asymmetric responses such as drone attacks. 7. Underestimating Iran’s resilience and pain tolerance Iran, which has prepared for decades for such a conflict, demonstrated a high tolerance for sustained war. Its multi-layered governance and defence systems allowed continuity despite leadership losses. Treating the war as existential, Iran used sustained missile and drone attacks to deplete US, Israeli, and allied air defence systems. 8. Misjudging war duration and costs involved The US has already spent tens of billions of dollars on the war effort, with costs continuing to rise. Officials initially estimated the war would end within four to five weeks, but it has already entered the third week. Trump is alternating between claims of victory and appeals for international assistance. 9. Iran’s quick regional escalation was unexpected Trump indicated he had not been advised that Iran would attack neighbouring US allies in the Gulf. Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait were targeted, along with attempted drone attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad. Iran also disrupted regional infrastructure, including airports and urban centres. Also read: Saudi Arabia’s MBS speaks with Trump regularly, urges harsh actions against Iran: Report 10. A global war already The conflict quickly had global consequences. Economic fallout affected US and international markets, and Washington was forced to ease restrictions on Russian oil exports to stabilise global supply. 11. Iran's proxies keep the war simmering Hezbollah is engaging Israeli forces in Lebanon, while the Houthis in Yemen have threatened to disrupt shipping through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait at the Red Sea chokepoint. With no boots on the ground in Iran from either the US or Israel, decisive battlefield victory remains elusive. The war has become multi-front rather than single-theatre. 12. Iranian power structures are more entrenched than anticipated The war has further consolidated the Islamic Republic’s internal power. Public displays of support, including large turnouts during Quds Day rallies, highlight internal cohesion. This reduces the likelihood that external military pressure alone can produce decisive outcomes. 13. Mismatch between military success and real outcomes Trump frequently claimed that Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities have been largely destroyed. However, continued US attacks—including on strategic locations such as Kharg Island—suggest otherwise. Iran’s missile-launching capability may be degraded, but it continues to launch attacks, indicating the presence of hidden or dispersed assets. 14. Nuclear disarmament or military degradation — unclear objective The US and Israel entered the war with the stated aim of eliminating Iran’s nuclear weapons capability and missile arsenal. Neither objective has been fully achieved. Iran continues to insist on retaining its civilian nuclear programme, complicating negotiations and prolonging the conflict. 15. Iran turned US military presence in Gulf into a vulnerability Iran’s attacks on US military bases in Gulf countries—often using low-cost drones—have exposed vulnerabilities in these high-value installations. This has made the US presence a liability for host nations, many of which have remained defensive rather than actively joining the conflict. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-trump-slams-allies-over-hormuz-mission-cites-no-enthusiasm-wion-1773733486200/embed 16. The trap of the escalation ladder Both sides appear locked in an escalation cycle, unwilling to de-escalate, yet unable to deliver a decisive blow. Iran has steadily increased the cost of war, while US-Israeli strikes have not achieved a breakthrough, creating a prolonged stalemate. 17. Global supply chain strain as a weapon From the Strait of Hormuz to regional airports, Iran’s calculated targeting has created logistical disruptions. Missile and drone attacks have affected global supply chains, impacting everything from energy shipments to manufactured goods and food distribution. 18. Cyberwar and non-traditional warfare opened new fronts Iran-linked groups have conducted cyberattacks on infrastructure and institutions, adding a significant cyber warfare dimension. Information warfare has also intensified, including control over domestic internet systems. These multiple fronts complicate the definition of victory. 19. Economic interdependence limits decisive action Global oil market volatility, inflation risks, and energy supply disruptions have put pressure on all sides to avoid extreme escalation. As a result, neither side is pursuing total war, contributing to a prolonged stalemate. 20. Iran’s ability to strike Israel over long distances Iran has demonstrated the capability to strike Israel from thousands of kilometres away. Some missile and drone attacks have penetrated Israeli air defence systems and landed within Israeli territory, exposing vulnerabilities despite the geographical distance. Don Quixote had an adviser, Sancho Panza, who often protected him—even by giving misleading information to prevent reckless actions. The question remains whether Trump received sound advice. Did his aides, including son-in-law Jared Kushner, mislead him on the Iran war? Whatever the case, Trump may ultimately need to rely on his dealmaking approach to end the conflict through negotiations rather than prolonged warfare.

<p>The Iran war is slowly exposing US miscalculations—from overconfidence and weak allied backing to Iran’s resilience, proxy warfare and economic disruption. With no decisive victory in sight, is this turning out to be a quixotic excursion for Trump?</p>

Donald Quixote? Iran is no windmill- 20 reasons why Trump may have been misled by advisors, allies about winning the war

<p>When Mojtaba Khamenei’s first message as Iranian Supreme Leader was read out by TV anchors of the Islamic Republic on Thursday (Mar 12), historical parallels were not lost on observers. Smuggled audio cassettes containing the messages and sermons of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had once contributed to sparking the Iran Revolution that established the Islamic Republic in 1979. Mojtaba’s message was a clear call for Iranians to fight to safeguard that revolution and the Islamic Republic. He may or may not succeed in ruling through audio or text messages, but Iranians certainly remember the parallels from history.</p><h2>Mojtaba is ‘ghosting’. But this is nothing new for the Islamic Republic</h2><p>Mojtaba Khamenei was appointed Supreme Leader this month after his father and the second Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ali Khamenei, was killed in a joint Israel-US strike on February 28 that sparked the ongoing Iran war. Mojtaba’s first public statement was primarily a written one, without him making himself seen. This creates an ironic modern parallel with Khomeini: the founder of the Islamic Republic built revolutionary momentum through prolific voice recordings while in exile, and the current leader is operating through messaging without making any appearance since being chosen.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-aytollah-mojabata-is-injured-and-hiding-underground-hegesth-claims-us-struk-15000-targets-in-iran-1773404739066">'Ayatollah Mojtaba is disfigured and hiding underground': Hegseth claims US struck 15,000 targets in Iran</a></p><h2>Khomeini’s audio tape revolution</h2><p>The audio cassette phenomenon took place ahead of and during Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, making it one of the most striking instances of low-tech media being used to power a mass uprising. Exiled since 1964, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini recorded sermons and political speeches while living in Najaf, Iraq, until 1978, and later from a rented house in Neauphle-le-Château, a village west of Paris in France, from October 1978 until his return to Iran. The tapes became the most powerful and ubiquitous underground communication tool of the revolution.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-trump-claims-war-has-started-to-stop-iran-s-nuclear-programme-1773404983868/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-trump-claims-war-has-started-to-stop-iran-s-nuclear-programme-1773404983868/embed</a></p><h2>How Khomeini’s tapes were produced, smuggled and distributed</h2><p>Khomeini’s most influential tapes, which were played via loudspeakers during and after the Islamic Revolution, were recorded on ordinary tape recorders in the 1970s, mostly from the French village. Cassette copies were cheaply duplicated in France or Iraq and then smuggled into Iran through clandestine channels. Trusted couriers, merchants, and Shia pilgrims returning from holy sites in Iraq brought the tapes to Iran, often hidden in personal luggage, clothing, suitcases, or mixed with ordinary goods. Despite strict monitoring by SAVAK, the Iranian Shah’s secret police, many of these cassettes still found their way into the nation.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-fm-seyed-abbas-araghchi-mocks-us-diplomacy-claims-no-nuclear-weapons-deal-failed-because-of-american-negotiators-technical-ignorance-1773384353579">Iran FM Abbas Araghchi mocks US diplomacy; claims 'NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS' deal failed because of American negotiators' 'technical ignorance'</a></p><h2>Audio messages of Khomeini mobilised a grassroots network</h2><p>The tapes were eagerly listened to by Khomeini’s followers, creating a grassroots network primed for revolution. Cheap home cassette recorders were used by activists and mosque networks to reproduce hundreds of duplicates from a single master copy of Khomeini’s cassettes. At the peak of revolutionary mobilisation in Iran, some 90,000 mosques across the country simultaneously duplicated and circulated Khomeini’s audio messages. His voice became ubiquitous while he remained physically absent from the country.</p><p>The cassettes were passed through bazaars, private homes, student circles, and religious gatherings, and were sold cheaply on the streets. They were so much in demand that the cassettes were resold for around $1.25, giving daily profits to the sellers. Khomeini’s speeches and sermons were openly played during Friday prayers, effectively turning mosques into revolutionary broadcast hubs. The regime could not fully suppress the spread of his message, as the cassettes bypassed the Shah’s tight control over radio, television, and the print media networks.</p><p>What followed was the Islamic Revolution.</p><h2>What was the message of Khomeini in the smuggled audio tapes?</h2><p>In the tapes, Khomeini’s calm, authoritative and slow voice denounced the Shah as a tyrant. He described the Westernisation of Iran at the time as cultural imperialism and called for a new government based on Islamic identity. His voice reached millions directly, bypassing media censorship.</p><p>He framed the revolution as a war to safeguard the Islamic faith. The message resonated with vast segments of Iranian society — from bazaari merchants and clerics to students and ordinary Shia Muslim believers who formed the backbone of the revolution.</p><h2>The silent revolution that paralysed Iran</h2><p>Historians described the tapes as a “silent revolution” organised in mosques and religious seminaries. They helped coordinate protests, strikes, and mass demonstrations that paralysed the country in 1978–79. Even though Khomeini had not been physically present in Iran for over a decade, his voice remained in constant contact with followers inside the country.</p><p>The tapes also contained specific instructions to clerics. According to one description, the recordings became “as vital as a daily newspaper” by late 1978. Bloody crackdowns eroded the Shah’s legitimacy and convinced millions that an Islamic Republic under Khomeini was not only possible but inevitable.</p><p>Under the weight of the public uprising, the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, fled Iran on 16 January 1979. On 1 February 1979, Khomeini returned from exile in a chartered Air France jet to a hero’s welcome by millions in Tehran.&nbsp;</p><p>All this while, he was not a ghostly figure to them. His voice had already enabled the nationwide unification of people under the principles and ideas he had shared for years through those audio messages.</p>

Mojtaba Khamenei’s absence while giving his first public message as Iran's Supreme Leader recalls the role of Ayatollah Khomeini’s smuggled audio cassette tapes in the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. Here is how his underground sermons from exile mobilised protests and helped topple the Shah

When Mojtaba Khamenei’s first message as Iranian Supreme Leader was read out by TV anchors of the Islamic Republic on Thursday (Mar 12), historical parallels were not lost on observers. Smuggled audio cassettes containing the messages and sermons of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had once contributed to sparking the Iran Revolution that established the Islamic Republic in 1979. Mojtaba’s message was a clear call for Iranians to fight to safeguard that revolution and the Islamic Republic. He may or may not succeed in ruling through audio or text messages, but Iranians certainly remember the parallels from history. Mojtaba is ‘ghosting’. But this is nothing new for the Islamic Republic Mojtaba Khamenei was appointed Supreme Leader this month after his father and the second Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ali Khamenei, was killed in a joint Israel-US strike on February 28 that sparked the ongoing Iran war. Mojtaba’s first public statement was primarily a written one, without him making himself seen. This creates an ironic modern parallel with Khomeini: the founder of the Islamic Republic built revolutionary momentum through prolific voice recordings while in exile, and the current leader is operating through messaging without making any appearance since being chosen. Also read: 'Ayatollah Mojtaba is disfigured and hiding underground': Hegseth claims US struck 15,000 targets in Iran Khomeini’s audio tape revolution The audio cassette phenomenon took place ahead of and during Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, making it one of the most striking instances of low-tech media being used to power a mass uprising. Exiled since 1964, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini recorded sermons and political speeches while living in Najaf, Iraq, until 1978, and later from a rented house in Neauphle-le-Château, a village west of Paris in France, from October 1978 until his return to Iran. The tapes became the most powerful and ubiquitous underground communication tool of the revolution. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-trump-claims-war-has-started-to-stop-iran-s-nuclear-programme-1773404983868/embed How Khomeini’s tapes were produced, smuggled and distributed Khomeini’s most influential tapes, which were played via loudspeakers during and after the Islamic Revolution, were recorded on ordinary tape recorders in the 1970s, mostly from the French village. Cassette copies were cheaply duplicated in France or Iraq and then smuggled into Iran through clandestine channels. Trusted couriers, merchants, and Shia pilgrims returning from holy sites in Iraq brought the tapes to Iran, often hidden in personal luggage, clothing, suitcases, or mixed with ordinary goods. Despite strict monitoring by SAVAK, the Iranian Shah’s secret police, many of these cassettes still found their way into the nation. Also read: Iran FM Abbas Araghchi mocks US diplomacy; claims 'NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS' deal failed because of American negotiators' 'technical ignorance' Audio messages of Khomeini mobilised a grassroots network The tapes were eagerly listened to by Khomeini’s followers, creating a grassroots network primed for revolution. Cheap home cassette recorders were used by activists and mosque networks to reproduce hundreds of duplicates from a single master copy of Khomeini’s cassettes. At the peak of revolutionary mobilisation in Iran, some 90,000 mosques across the country simultaneously duplicated and circulated Khomeini’s audio messages. His voice became ubiquitous while he remained physically absent from the country. The cassettes were passed through bazaars, private homes, student circles, and religious gatherings, and were sold cheaply on the streets. They were so much in demand that the cassettes were resold for around $1.25, giving daily profits to the sellers. Khomeini’s speeches and sermons were openly played during Friday prayers, effectively turning mosques into revolutionary broadcast hubs. The regime could not fully suppress the spread of his message, as the cassettes bypassed the Shah’s tight control over radio, television, and the print media networks. What followed was the Islamic Revolution. What was the message of Khomeini in the smuggled audio tapes? In the tapes, Khomeini’s calm, authoritative and slow voice denounced the Shah as a tyrant. He described the Westernisation of Iran at the time as cultural imperialism and called for a new government based on Islamic identity. His voice reached millions directly, bypassing media censorship. He framed the revolution as a war to safeguard the Islamic faith. The message resonated with vast segments of Iranian society — from bazaari merchants and clerics to students and ordinary Shia Muslim believers who formed the backbone of the revolution. The silent revolution that paralysed Iran Historians described the tapes as a “silent revolution” organised in mosques and religious seminaries. They helped coordinate protests, strikes, and mass demonstrations that paralysed the country in 1978–79. Even though Khomeini had not been physically present in Iran for over a decade, his voice remained in constant contact with followers inside the country. The tapes also contained specific instructions to clerics. According to one description, the recordings became “as vital as a daily newspaper” by late 1978. Bloody crackdowns eroded the Shah’s legitimacy and convinced millions that an Islamic Republic under Khomeini was not only possible but inevitable. Under the weight of the public uprising, the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, fled Iran on 16 January 1979. On 1 February 1979, Khomeini returned from exile in a chartered Air France jet to a hero’s welcome by millions in Tehran. All this while, he was not a ghostly figure to them. His voice had already enabled the nationwide unification of people under the principles and ideas he had shared for years through those audio messages.

<p>Mojtaba Khamenei’s absence while giving his first public message as Iran's Supreme Leader recalls the role of Ayatollah Khomeini’s smuggled audio cassette tapes in the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. Here is how his underground sermons from exile mobilised protests and helped topple the Shah</p>

Is presence of a leader needed to unite Iran? How smuggled audio tapes of Khomeini from exile helped establish Islamic Republic

<p>Mojtaba Khamenei, in his first public message since being chosen as Iran’s Supreme Leader, vowed revenge for those killed in the ongoing Israel–US attacks that began on February 28. He called for continued pressure on the Strait of Hormuz, warned neighbouring countries hosting US bases, and urged national unity. In the message, he also highlighted the Quds Day protests, calling for strong public participation and framing the rallies as a demonstration of resolve against Iran’s enemies. But what is Quds Day, which falls on Friday (Mar 13) this year? How did it come to symbolise themes of resistance, unity, and confrontation with Israel? Here is what you should know.</p><h2>What did Mojtaba Khamenei say about Quds Day?</h2><p>In various translations of his message circulated in Iranian media, Mojtaba Khamenei urged &nbsp;massive turnout at Quds Day events to project strength against Israel, the US, and ‘enemies of the Islamic Republic.’ One translation of his message read: “I remind you of the importance of attending the Quds Day rallies, where the spirit of wanting to crush the enemy must be everyone’s focus.” Another translation quoted him as saying: “Public presence on the streets, especially during the Quds Day ceremonies, must be strong and prominent.”</p><h2>What is Quds Day?</h2><p>Quds Day, short for International Al-Quds Day, is observed on the last Friday of Ramadan. In 2026, it falls on March 13. It is an annual international event marked by rallies, marches, speeches, and demonstrations across parts of the Muslim world and in diaspora communities. Participants express support for the Palestinian people. Events often feature symbols of opposition to Israel, Zionism, and what participants describe as Israeli occupation of Jerusalem and Palestinian territories.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-tehran-claims-largest-us-radar-in-gulf-destroyed-1773384296616/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-tehran-claims-largest-us-radar-in-gulf-destroyed-1773384296616/embed</a></p><h2>The origins of Quds Day</h2><p>Quds Day was established by Iran’s first Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, soon after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that brought the current theocratic state to power. Khomeini declared the last Friday of Ramadan as a day for Muslims worldwide to demonstrate unity and solidarity with Palestinians. He framed the occasion as opposition to Israel, which he described as an illegitimate occupier of Jerusalem. First observed in 1979, the day has since been marked annually. The largest events are typically held in Iranian cities such as Tehran, where state-organised rallies draw large crowds.</p><h2>What does the word ‘Quds’ mean?</h2><p>Quds Day literally means “Jerusalem Day”. Al-Quds is the Arabic name for Jerusalem and means the Holy or the Holy City. The word has Semitic roots and is linguistically related to the Hebrew term “kodesh”, meaning “holy”, and to “Ir HaKodesh”, meaning “Holy City”. The name became a common Arabic designation for Jerusalem around the ninth century, reflecting the city’s religious importance to Muslims, Jews, and Christians.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/live-blog-us-iran-israel-war-live-blog-updates-west-asia-war-khamenei-trump-netanyahu-strait-of-hormuz-supreme-leader-mojtaba-khamenei-hezbollah-dubai-qatar-1773369073746">Iran FM Abbas Araghchi mocks US diplomacy; claims 'NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS' deal failed because of American negotiators' 'technical ignorance'</a></p><h2>Why Quds Day is important in Iran’s political calendar</h2><p>Quds Day is observed according to the Islamic lunar calendar, on the last Friday of Ramadan, a month of fasting and prayer for Muslims. In Iran’s political context, it has become one of the largest annual mobilisations in the Islamic Republic’s ideological calendar, often legitimising its rule as a defender of the faith. State-organised rallies in Tehran and other major cities feature speeches by political and religious leaders, anti-Israel slogans, and demonstrations expressing support for the Palestinian cause and for the legacy of the 1979 revolution.</p><p>The symbolism stresses on Muslim unity, resistance to perceived occupation, and solidarity with what Iranian leaders describe as oppressed peoples.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/live-blog-us-iran-israel-war-live-blog-updates-west-asia-war-khamenei-trump-netanyahu-strait-of-hormuz-supreme-leader-mojtaba-khamenei-hezbollah-dubai-qatar-1773369073746">US-Iran-Israel war LIVE | Israel says struck over 200 targets in Iran in past day</a></p><h2>Iran has promoted Quds Day internationally&nbsp;</h2><p>As part of its revolutionary messaging, Iran-linked groups and activist networks observe Quds Day in other countries, although it is not an official public holiday outside Iran. Rallies frequently witness chants such as “Death to Israel” or “Death to America”, the burning of Israeli or US flags, and expressions of support for groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Jewish organisations and several Western governments have criticised the events, arguing that some demonstrations promote antisemitism, hatred, or extremist rhetoric.</p><h2>Violence associated with Quds Day</h2><p>Violence has occasionally occurred during or around Quds Day events. In 1985, during the Iran–Iraq War, bombs exploded at a Quds Day gathering in Iran, killing 28 people and injuring hundreds.</p><p>Clashes have also occurred in Palestinian territories. In 2018 and 2021, protests linked to Quds Day in Gaza and parts of the West Bank escalated into confrontations between Palestinians and Israeli forces, involving stone-throwing, border incidents, and gunfire that resulted in deaths and injuries. Quds Day marches in Western cities have also drawn controversy. Some demonstrations have led to hate-crime investigations or public-order concerns due to antisemitic slogans or the display of symbols linked to militant groups.</p><h2>Security concerns and tensions around Quds Day 2026</h2><p>The 2026 Quds Day observances are taking place in the backdrop of Iran war.</p><p>Security has been tightened around planned demonstrations in several countries.&nbsp;</p><p>In London, the traditional Al-Quds Day march was banned due to intelligence assessments of a serious risk of public disorder. Police allowed only a limited static protest and deployed officers to prevent clashes between demonstrators and counter-protesters.</p><p><i><strong>Disclaimer: WION takes utmost care to accurately and responsibly report ongoing conflicts in West Asia involving Israel, Iran, US, Gulf nations and non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, Islamic State, and others. Claims and counterclaims, disinformation and misinformation are being made online and offline. Given this context, WION cannot independently verify the authenticity of all statements, social media posts, photos and videos.</strong></i><br>&nbsp;</p>

Quds Day is of huge significance to Iran. It is marked for supporting Palestinians and opposing Israel. Amid Iran's war with US and Israel, this year's Quds Day assumes greater significance. Read about its history, meaning, and why security concerns surround Quds Day 2026

Mojtaba Khamenei, in his first public message since being chosen as Iran’s Supreme Leader, vowed revenge for those killed in the ongoing Israel–US attacks that began on February 28. He called for continued pressure on the Strait of Hormuz, warned neighbouring countries hosting US bases, and urged national unity. In the message, he also highlighted the Quds Day protests, calling for strong public participation and framing the rallies as a demonstration of resolve against Iran’s enemies. But what is Quds Day, which falls on Friday (Mar 13) this year? How did it come to symbolise themes of resistance, unity, and confrontation with Israel? Here is what you should know. What did Mojtaba Khamenei say about Quds Day? In various translations of his message circulated in Iranian media, Mojtaba Khamenei urged massive turnout at Quds Day events to project strength against Israel, the US, and ‘enemies of the Islamic Republic.’ One translation of his message read: “I remind you of the importance of attending the Quds Day rallies, where the spirit of wanting to crush the enemy must be everyone’s focus.” Another translation quoted him as saying: “Public presence on the streets, especially during the Quds Day ceremonies, must be strong and prominent.” What is Quds Day? Quds Day, short for International Al-Quds Day, is observed on the last Friday of Ramadan. In 2026, it falls on March 13. It is an annual international event marked by rallies, marches, speeches, and demonstrations across parts of the Muslim world and in diaspora communities. Participants express support for the Palestinian people. Events often feature symbols of opposition to Israel, Zionism, and what participants describe as Israeli occupation of Jerusalem and Palestinian territories. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-tehran-claims-largest-us-radar-in-gulf-destroyed-1773384296616/embed The origins of Quds Day Quds Day was established by Iran’s first Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, soon after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that brought the current theocratic state to power. Khomeini declared the last Friday of Ramadan as a day for Muslims worldwide to demonstrate unity and solidarity with Palestinians. He framed the occasion as opposition to Israel, which he described as an illegitimate occupier of Jerusalem. First observed in 1979, the day has since been marked annually. The largest events are typically held in Iranian cities such as Tehran, where state-organised rallies draw large crowds. What does the word ‘Quds’ mean? Quds Day literally means “Jerusalem Day”. Al-Quds is the Arabic name for Jerusalem and means the Holy or the Holy City. The word has Semitic roots and is linguistically related to the Hebrew term “kodesh”, meaning “holy”, and to “Ir HaKodesh”, meaning “Holy City”. The name became a common Arabic designation for Jerusalem around the ninth century, reflecting the city’s religious importance to Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Also read: Iran FM Abbas Araghchi mocks US diplomacy; claims 'NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS' deal failed because of American negotiators' 'technical ignorance' Why Quds Day is important in Iran’s political calendar Quds Day is observed according to the Islamic lunar calendar, on the last Friday of Ramadan, a month of fasting and prayer for Muslims. In Iran’s political context, it has become one of the largest annual mobilisations in the Islamic Republic’s ideological calendar, often legitimising its rule as a defender of the faith. State-organised rallies in Tehran and other major cities feature speeches by political and religious leaders, anti-Israel slogans, and demonstrations expressing support for the Palestinian cause and for the legacy of the 1979 revolution. The symbolism stresses on Muslim unity, resistance to perceived occupation, and solidarity with what Iranian leaders describe as oppressed peoples. Also read: US-Iran-Israel war LIVE | Israel says struck over 200 targets in Iran in past day Iran has promoted Quds Day internationally As part of its revolutionary messaging, Iran-linked groups and activist networks observe Quds Day in other countries, although it is not an official public holiday outside Iran. Rallies frequently witness chants such as “Death to Israel” or “Death to America”, the burning of Israeli or US flags, and expressions of support for groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Jewish organisations and several Western governments have criticised the events, arguing that some demonstrations promote antisemitism, hatred, or extremist rhetoric. Violence associated with Quds Day Violence has occasionally occurred during or around Quds Day events. In 1985, during the Iran–Iraq War, bombs exploded at a Quds Day gathering in Iran, killing 28 people and injuring hundreds. Clashes have also occurred in Palestinian territories. In 2018 and 2021, protests linked to Quds Day in Gaza and parts of the West Bank escalated into confrontations between Palestinians and Israeli forces, involving stone-throwing, border incidents, and gunfire that resulted in deaths and injuries. Quds Day marches in Western cities have also drawn controversy. Some demonstrations have led to hate-crime investigations or public-order concerns due to antisemitic slogans or the display of symbols linked to militant groups. Security concerns and tensions around Quds Day 2026 The 2026 Quds Day observances are taking place in the backdrop of Iran war. Security has been tightened around planned demonstrations in several countries. In London, the traditional Al-Quds Day march was banned due to intelligence assessments of a serious risk of public disorder. Police allowed only a limited static protest and deployed officers to prevent clashes between demonstrators and counter-protesters. Disclaimer: WION takes utmost care to accurately and responsibly report ongoing conflicts in West Asia involving Israel, Iran, US, Gulf nations and non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, Islamic State, and others. Claims and counterclaims, disinformation and misinformation are being made online and offline. Given this context, WION cannot independently verify the authenticity of all statements, social media posts, photos and videos.

<p>Quds Day is of huge significance to Iran. It is marked for supporting Palestinians and opposing Israel. Amid Iran's war with US and Israel, this year's Quds Day assumes greater symbolism. Read about its history, meaning, and why security concerns surround Quds Day 2026</p>

There will be blood on Quds Day? Why this occasion in Islamic Republic calendar matters more this year amid Iran war

<p>LPG is at the heart of India's domestic cooking solutions. Its availability is not a crisis until it is, because it has become overwhelmingly used in households and commercial outlets. As the Iran war is straining the LPG supply chain, it is interesting to ask: How did LPG become India's main cooking fuel? From where is India getting LPG? What percentage of India's cooking fuel is LPG? Does India produce LPG? Here is what you should know about India's tryst with LPG:</p><h2>How India embraced LPG as the main cooking fuel</h2><p>Liquefied Petroleum Gas became India's dominant cooking fuel as a result of long-term subsidies, the creation of infrastructure, and the massive government push through the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) since 2016.</p><p>Before the red cylinders became ever-present, rural cooking used wood, dung, crop residue, timber and coal, among others. Earlier, LPG was largely used in urban or middle-class households. But that changed in the last decade.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/lpg-consumption-across-india-top-states-using-the-most-cylinders-from-uttar-pradesh-to-west-bengal-1773325207709">LPG consumption across India: Top states using the most cylinders, from Uttar Pradesh to West Bengal</a></p><h2>Burshane: The first brand of LPG</h2><p>LPG was introduced in India in December 1955 by Burmah Shell, from which evolved BPCL, under the brand Burshane. Mumbai saw the first packed LPG cylinders of Burshane, followed later by cities in Gujarat and Maharashtra. M/s L.D. Bhave &amp; Sons, India's first dedicated LPG distributor, began operations in Pune in January 1956.</p><p>The first major LPG brand, Indane, was launched by Indian Oil in Kolkata in October 1965. India manufactured its first local gas cylinder in 1967.</p><p>But these were the days when LPG was seen as an urban fuel. It was not so popular due to high costs, the lack of enough bottling plants, a shortage of cylinders, and challenges in distribution. There was also the fear of cylinder blasts, which made many people see LPG as unsafe.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/india-lpg-cylinder-shortage-6-simple-alternatives-to-keep-your-kitchen-running-1773307213431">India LPG cylinder shortage: 6 simple alternatives to keep your kitchen running</a></p><h2>LPG usage grew in the 1990s</h2><p>With the liberalisation era of the 1990s, public sector oil marketing companies like Indian Oil, Bharat Petroleum, and Hindustan Petroleum expanded LPG networks.</p><p>The two and a half decades between 2000 and 2015 saw the growth of rural usage of LPG. The 2009 Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitaran Yojana (RGGLVY) set up rural LPG distributors even in remote areas.</p><h2>Direct Benefit Transfer for LPG changed the game</h2><p>Even though subsidies on LPG cylinders had existed for decades for domestic use, they were benefiting mostly higher-income urban users. The DBTL, known locally as ‘PAHAL’, short for Pratyaksh Hanstantrit Labh, was introduced by the Narendra Modi government to curb leakages through cash transfers of the government subsidy directly to beneficiary bank accounts. Equally important was the "GiveItUp" scheme aimed encouraging affluent users to voluntarily give up their subsidies. Once the subsidies were rationalised, millions of poor households also moved to LPG as their cooking fuel.</p><p>Also read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/how-do-lpg-lng-png-and-cng-fuel-india-s-homes-transport-and-industry-know-the-differences-1773309737906"> How do LPG, LNG, PNG and CNG fuel India’s homes, transport and industry? Know the differences</a></p><h2>The Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana and the rural expansion of LPG in India</h2><p>Modi launched PMUY on 1 May 2016, giving deposit-free LPG connections to women from Below Poverty Line (BPL) households, including a gas stove and a first refill subsidy of 1,600 rupees. The scheme benefited lower castes and tribes, forest dwellers, migrants, and other marginalised groups.&nbsp;</p><p>Ujjwala 2.0, launched in August 2021, simplified the eligibility criteria for LPG connections. Ujjwala reduced indoor air pollution, empowered women by saving time, and helped address air pollution and deforestation.</p><p>By 2024, India had 328.3 million active domestic LPG consumers, nearly doubling from 166.3 million in 2016. National LPG coverage jumped from around 62 per cent in 2016 to near-saturation today.</p><p>Household LPG consumption went up by more than 50 per cent by 2019 and has grown ever since.&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-india-lpg-prices-surge-amid-west-asia-war-pm-modi-says-no-need-to-panic-wion-1773259205110/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-india-lpg-prices-surge-amid-west-asia-war-pm-modi-says-no-need-to-panic-wion-1773259205110/embed</a></p><h2>LPG is now the primary cooking fuel for most Indians</h2><p>The National Sample Survey Office Comprehensive Annual Modular Survey of 2022–23 showed that 63 per cent of Indian households use clean fuels, overwhelmingly LPG, as their primary cooking fuel: 93 per cent in urban areas and around 50 per cent in rural areas.</p><p>Nearly all LPG in India goes to household cooking, making it the nation's main cooking fuel by a wide margin. An estimated 16 per cent of LPG use is in commercial and industrial sectors.</p><p>However, nearly 37 per cent of households, mostly in rural areas, still use solid biomass fuels. Many rural and urban households also mix their fuels, combining LPG with wood or other biomass fuels or induction cooking.</p><h2>India's LPG production capacity</h2><p>India produces LPG domestically as a by-product of crude oil refining at public sector refineries of IOCL, BPCL and HPCL, as well as at private facilities such as Reliance Industries' Jamnagar complex.</p><p>In FY 2024–25, domestic LPG production was around 40 per cent, about 12.8 million metric tonnes (MMT) out of total consumption of 31.3 MMT.</p><p>The government is confident about the supply amid the Iran war because it can boost domestic production of LPG when required by diverting refinery streams of propane and butane from petrochemicals. India can also diversify its LPG imports from sources such as the US Gulf Coast.</p><h2>Why the Iran war is affecting LPG supplies to India</h2><p>In different years, India imports between 59 and 67 per cent of LPG. The Middle East accounted for more than 90 per cent of LPG imports in 2024. Qatar is often the largest single supplier. Other major suppliers are the UAE and Saudi Arabia. A large percentage of LPG &nbsp;shipments from the Middle East to India pass through the Strait of Hormuz, which is a flashpoint in the Iran war. As tensions rose, several Gulf nations have either reduced production or curbed shipments of LPG. Indian LPG consumers are now slowly feeling the pinch.</p>

It's only at crisis times like this that we wonder how LPG became India’s main cooking fuel. Once used mostly by urban and affluent households, LPG saw nationwide adoption through subsidies and schemes. Here is that story

LPG is at the heart of India's domestic cooking solutions. Its availability is not a crisis until it is, because it has become overwhelmingly used in households and commercial outlets. As the Iran war is straining the LPG supply chain, it is interesting to ask: How did LPG become India's main cooking fuel? From where is India getting LPG? What percentage of India's cooking fuel is LPG? Does India produce LPG? Here is what you should know about India's tryst with LPG: How India embraced LPG as the main cooking fuel Liquefied Petroleum Gas became India's dominant cooking fuel as a result of long-term subsidies, the creation of infrastructure, and the massive government push through the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) since 2016. Before the red cylinders became ever-present, rural cooking used wood, dung, crop residue, timber and coal, among others. Earlier, LPG was largely used in urban or middle-class households. But that changed in the last decade. Also read: LPG consumption across India: Top states using the most cylinders, from Uttar Pradesh to West Bengal Burshane: The first brand of LPG LPG was introduced in India in December 1955 by Burmah Shell, from which evolved BPCL, under the brand Burshane. Mumbai saw the first packed LPG cylinders of Burshane, followed later by cities in Gujarat and Maharashtra. M/s L.D. Bhave & Sons, India's first dedicated LPG distributor, began operations in Pune in January 1956. The first major LPG brand, Indane, was launched by Indian Oil in Kolkata in October 1965. India manufactured its first local gas cylinder in 1967. But these were the days when LPG was seen as an urban fuel. It was not so popular due to high costs, the lack of enough bottling plants, a shortage of cylinders, and challenges in distribution. There was also the fear of cylinder blasts, which made many people see LPG as unsafe. Also read: India LPG cylinder shortage: 6 simple alternatives to keep your kitchen running LPG usage grew in the 1990s With the liberalisation era of the 1990s, public sector oil marketing companies like Indian Oil, Bharat Petroleum, and Hindustan Petroleum expanded LPG networks. The two and a half decades between 2000 and 2015 saw the growth of rural usage of LPG. The 2009 Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitaran Yojana (RGGLVY) set up rural LPG distributors even in remote areas. Direct Benefit Transfer for LPG changed the game Even though subsidies on LPG cylinders had existed for decades for domestic use, they were benefiting mostly higher-income urban users. The DBTL, known locally as ‘PAHAL’, short for Pratyaksh Hanstantrit Labh, was introduced by the Narendra Modi government to curb leakages through cash transfers of the government subsidy directly to beneficiary bank accounts. Equally important was the "GiveItUp" scheme aimed encouraging affluent users to voluntarily give up their subsidies. Once the subsidies were rationalised, millions of poor households also moved to LPG as their cooking fuel. Also read: How do LPG, LNG, PNG and CNG fuel India’s homes, transport and industry? Know the differences The Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana and the rural expansion of LPG in India Modi launched PMUY on 1 May 2016, giving deposit-free LPG connections to women from Below Poverty Line (BPL) households, including a gas stove and a first refill subsidy of 1,600 rupees. The scheme benefited lower castes and tribes, forest dwellers, migrants, and other marginalised groups. Ujjwala 2.0, launched in August 2021, simplified the eligibility criteria for LPG connections. Ujjwala reduced indoor air pollution, empowered women by saving time, and helped address air pollution and deforestation. By 2024, India had 328.3 million active domestic LPG consumers, nearly doubling from 166.3 million in 2016. National LPG coverage jumped from around 62 per cent in 2016 to near-saturation today. Household LPG consumption went up by more than 50 per cent by 2019 and has grown ever since. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-india-lpg-prices-surge-amid-west-asia-war-pm-modi-says-no-need-to-panic-wion-1773259205110/embed LPG is now the primary cooking fuel for most Indians The National Sample Survey Office Comprehensive Annual Modular Survey of 2022–23 showed that 63 per cent of Indian households use clean fuels, overwhelmingly LPG, as their primary cooking fuel: 93 per cent in urban areas and around 50 per cent in rural areas. Nearly all LPG in India goes to household cooking, making it the nation's main cooking fuel by a wide margin. An estimated 16 per cent of LPG use is in commercial and industrial sectors. However, nearly 37 per cent of households, mostly in rural areas, still use solid biomass fuels. Many rural and urban households also mix their fuels, combining LPG with wood or other biomass fuels or induction cooking. India's LPG production capacity India produces LPG domestically as a by-product of crude oil refining at public sector refineries of IOCL, BPCL and HPCL, as well as at private facilities such as Reliance Industries' Jamnagar complex. In FY 2024–25, domestic LPG production was around 40 per cent, about 12.8 million metric tonnes (MMT) out of total consumption of 31.3 MMT. The government is confident about the supply amid the Iran war because it can boost domestic production of LPG when required by diverting refinery streams of propane and butane from petrochemicals. India can also diversify its LPG imports from sources such as the US Gulf Coast. Why the Iran war is affecting LPG supplies to India In different years, India imports between 59 and 67 per cent of LPG. The Middle East accounted for more than 90 per cent of LPG imports in 2024. Qatar is often the largest single supplier. Other major suppliers are the UAE and Saudi Arabia. A large percentage of LPG shipments from the Middle East to India pass through the Strait of Hormuz, which is a flashpoint in the Iran war. As tensions rose, several Gulf nations have either reduced production or curbed shipments of LPG. Indian LPG consumers are now slowly feeling the pinch.

<p>It's only at crisis times like this that we wonder how LPG became India’s main cooking fuel. Once used mostly by urban and affluent households, LPG saw nationwide adoption through subsidies and schemes. Here is that story</p>

India's tryst with LPG: How the red cylinders became nation's main cooking fuel. A lookback amid Iran war shortage news

<p>At least 168 people, mostly schoolgirls aged between seven and 17, were killed when a missile struck an Iranian school in the first hours of the US–Israel strikes against Iran on February 28. A preliminary American military investigation suggested that the US was likely responsible for the strike that destroyed the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in the city of Minab. Could the attack, one of the deadliest civilian incidents of the early phase of the conflict, be considered a war crime? Here is how Minab school attack raises questions under international humanitarian law (IHL).</p><h2>Minab school attack: What happened?</h2><p>The strike took place during the morning hours, when students were attending classes. The building collapsed, trapping children and staff underneath the rubble.</p><p>The school was reportedly located near a facility linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which may have been the intended target. Reports and analysis suggested that the strike may have involved a US Tomahawk cruise missile.</p><p>According to early findings first reported in the media, the attack may have been the result of outdated intelligence that misidentified the site as a military compound.</p><p>The bombing was widely condemned, with UNESCO and other international bodies noting that schools are protected civilian sites under the laws of war. They called for accountability if those protections were violated.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/initial-military-inquiry-finds-us-forces-responsible-for-strike-on-iran-school-that-killed-168-children-1773245071103">Initial military inquiry finds US forces responsible for strike on Iran school; cites outdated intelligence</a></p><h2>Minab school attack: What does the law of war say?</h2><p>The main legal framework applicable in this case is international humanitarian law (IHL), often referred to as the law of war, specifically the rules governing attacks during armed conflict. Many of these rules are contained in the Geneva Conventions and related customary international law.</p><p>One of the core principles is ‘distinction’. Combatants must distinguish between military targets and civilian objects. Schools are considered ‘civilian objects’, unless they are being used for military purposes.</p><p>Another principle is ‘proportionality’. An attack is unlawful if the expected civilian harm is excessive when weighed against the anticipated military advantage.</p><p>The law also requires ‘precautions’ in attack. Parties to a conflict must take all feasible steps to verify targets and minimise civilian casualties.</p><p>The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court's definitions of war crimes includes intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, including buildings dedicated to education.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/minab-school-bombing-did-ai-error-lead-to-bombing-of-iran-school-1773246548175/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/minab-school-bombing-did-ai-error-lead-to-bombing-of-iran-school-1773246548175/embed</a></p><h2>When would the Iranian school attack be considered a war crime?</h2><p>Although investigations are ongoing, the school strike could be considered a war crime depending on the findings of those inquiries.</p><p>One key question is whether the school itself was intentionally targeted. If investigators determine that the school was deliberately attacked despite being known to be a civilian facility, it would likely constitute a clear war crime.</p><p>Another possibility is that the intended target was a nearby military facility but the attack caused foreseeable civilian harm. In such a case, the strike could still be unlawful if the commanders involved failed to adequately consider the presence of a school and the expected civilian harm was disproportionate to the anticipated military advantage.</p><p>A third scenario is a targeting error despite reasonable precautions. If the strike resulted from an honest mistake despite verification and precautionary measures, it may be difficult to legally establish it as a war crime.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/trump-blames-iran-for-minab-school-bombing-but-his-press-secretary-says-we-re-investigating-who-said-what-1773210974497">US hiding truth behind Minab school bombing? Trump blames Iran but his press secretary says 'we're investigating'</a></p><h2>Minab could become a case study on how the world treats attacks on schools during war</h2><p>The Minab strike may become an important case study in how the international community responds to attacks on schools during armed conflict.</p><p>During its war with Hamas in Gaza, Israel was accused of striking school buildings, though the circumstances of those incidents remain contested. Israeli authorities repeatedly argued that Hamas used civilian infrastructure, including schools and hospitals, for military purposes. Whether similar arguments will emerge in the case of the Minab strike remains to be seen.</p><p>Even if the attack was unintentional, the scale of civilian casualties, particularly among children, is deeply disturbing. It raises serious questions: how closely were targeting procedures followed? How reliable was the intelligence used? And what accountability mechanisms exist in modern high-technology warfare?</p><p>Those questions are likely to shape the investigations and debates that follow.&nbsp;</p><p>And answers are needed.</p>

In the opening hours of US–Israel war with Iran, a missile strike on a girls’ school in Minab killed over 160 people. Could this attack constitute a war crime under international law?

At least 168 people, mostly schoolgirls aged between seven and 17, were killed when a missile struck an Iranian school in the first hours of the US–Israel strikes against Iran on February 28. A preliminary American military investigation suggested that the US was likely responsible for the strike that destroyed the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in the city of Minab. Could the attack, one of the deadliest civilian incidents of the early phase of the conflict, be considered a war crime? Here is how Minab school attack raises questions under international humanitarian law (IHL). Minab school attack: What happened? The strike took place during the morning hours, when students were attending classes. The building collapsed, trapping children and staff underneath the rubble. The school was reportedly located near a facility linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which may have been the intended target. Reports and analysis suggested that the strike may have involved a US Tomahawk cruise missile. According to early findings first reported in the media, the attack may have been the result of outdated intelligence that misidentified the site as a military compound. The bombing was widely condemned, with UNESCO and other international bodies noting that schools are protected civilian sites under the laws of war. They called for accountability if those protections were violated. Also read: Initial military inquiry finds US forces responsible for strike on Iran school; cites outdated intelligence Minab school attack: What does the law of war say? The main legal framework applicable in this case is international humanitarian law (IHL), often referred to as the law of war, specifically the rules governing attacks during armed conflict. Many of these rules are contained in the Geneva Conventions and related customary international law. One of the core principles is ‘distinction’. Combatants must distinguish between military targets and civilian objects. Schools are considered ‘civilian objects’, unless they are being used for military purposes. Another principle is ‘proportionality’. An attack is unlawful if the expected civilian harm is excessive when weighed against the anticipated military advantage. The law also requires ‘precautions’ in attack. Parties to a conflict must take all feasible steps to verify targets and minimise civilian casualties. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court's definitions of war crimes includes intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, including buildings dedicated to education. https://www.wionews.com/videos/minab-school-bombing-did-ai-error-lead-to-bombing-of-iran-school-1773246548175/embed When would the Iranian school attack be considered a war crime? Although investigations are ongoing, the school strike could be considered a war crime depending on the findings of those inquiries. One key question is whether the school itself was intentionally targeted. If investigators determine that the school was deliberately attacked despite being known to be a civilian facility, it would likely constitute a clear war crime. Another possibility is that the intended target was a nearby military facility but the attack caused foreseeable civilian harm. In such a case, the strike could still be unlawful if the commanders involved failed to adequately consider the presence of a school and the expected civilian harm was disproportionate to the anticipated military advantage. A third scenario is a targeting error despite reasonable precautions. If the strike resulted from an honest mistake despite verification and precautionary measures, it may be difficult to legally establish it as a war crime. Also read: US hiding truth behind Minab school bombing? Trump blames Iran but his press secretary says 'we're investigating' Minab could become a case study on how the world treats attacks on schools during war The Minab strike may become an important case study in how the international community responds to attacks on schools during armed conflict. During its war with Hamas in Gaza, Israel was accused of striking school buildings, though the circumstances of those incidents remain contested. Israeli authorities repeatedly argued that Hamas used civilian infrastructure, including schools and hospitals, for military purposes. Whether similar arguments will emerge in the case of the Minab strike remains to be seen. Even if the attack was unintentional, the scale of civilian casualties, particularly among children, is deeply disturbing. It raises serious questions: how closely were targeting procedures followed? How reliable was the intelligence used? And what accountability mechanisms exist in modern high-technology warfare? Those questions are likely to shape the investigations and debates that follow. And answers are needed.

<p>In the opening hours of US–Israel war with Iran, a missile strike on a girls’ school in Minab killed over 160 people. Could this attack constitute a war crime under international law?</p>

Iran war Minab school strike: Could it be considered a war crime? What the law says

<p>The Iran–Israel conflict of June 2025 lasted 12 days, ending after American B-2 bombers targeted alleged Iranian nuclear sites. The new US-Israel joint strikes on Iran started exactly 12 days ago, but there is no sign of it ending as fast as last time. Neither has the Islamic Republic regime fallen, nor is Iran waving the white flag, having declared a pause to all negotiations. Regime change and the capitulation of Iran were the supposed aims of the war. The US now seems to have changed the goalposts, suggesting that regime change was not the aim. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government will not let the regime be, with his officials suggesting that the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is a ‘legitimate’ target for assassination. If the US and Israel were thinking it would be an ‘in and out’ war, they are being proven wrong. Direct war was not the only card Iran had. It has used a number of tactics that could force the international community to pressure the US and Israel to end the war.</p><h2>16 ways in which Iran is still staying in the war</h2><p>The following are the key ways in which Iran’s war strategy is helping it not to lose. This goes beyond actual ground or air offensives, with Tehran incorporating regional expansion of the conflict and the choking of global energy supplies for strategic edge over adversaries.</p><p>1. <strong>Iran attacked specific targets in regional countries, making them indirect ‘party to the conflict’</strong>: The UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Iraq were attacked with Iranian drones and missiles, bringing both their defence systems and economies under stress. This is putting pressure on the Gulf nations to bring back normalcy fast through diplomatic means as their defence systems slowly wear out.</p><p>2. <strong>Iranian attacks targeted both oil and gas sites and military bases of the Gulf nations</strong>: The Iranian calculation was not off the mark, as the cascading effect is now felt in everything from oil and gas prices to food and living costs in the region and all the way to Europe and Asia.</p><p>3.<strong> Iran made tactical use of the Strait of Hormuz:</strong> It had only threatened to block the global fuel trade chokepoint without much action, and yet shocks are being felt in fuel prices because big container carriers have partially or fully suspended operations through the waterway.</p><p>4. <strong>Iran is making the best use of the asymmetry of cost in this war: </strong>Its thousands of cheap Shahed drones and missiles are slowly exhausting million-dollar defence systems of the Gulf nations.</p><p>5. <strong>The Iranian regime has made sure that there are no large-scale street protests </strong>: The ostensible trigger point for the joint US–Israel decapitation strikes was the massive nationwide protests against the regime. But all of a sudden, the political opposition that many thought would replace the Islamic Republic is nowhere in sight.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/live-blog-iran-us-israel-war-news-live-west-asia-crisis-uae-qatar-nahrain-gulf-trump-netanyahu-khamenei-mojtaba-hezbollah-hamas-china-russia-india-middle-east-1773196724144">US-Iran-Israel war LIVE | Four injured after drones fall near Dubai airport</a></p><p>6. <strong>The Islamic Republic system is still intact</strong> : It stands in spite of the decapitation strike that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Day One of the war. A new Supreme Leader has now been named, and secondary leadership is still running the country.</p><p>7. &nbsp;<strong>‘All systems running’ for Iran in spite of airstrikes: </strong>Iran's military bases, airports, oil installations, warships, nuclear and ballistic missile sites were targeted. But the Iranian regime continues to operate, and post propaganda on social media. It still has the on-and-off switch of the Iranian internet, which has gone dark for several days for everyone except the regime.</p><p>8. <strong>Iran's military doctrine is designed to function despite leadership losses and disruption:</strong><br><strong>I</strong>ran’s ‘mosaic defence’ has decentralised command and control structures. Local units of IRGC are capable of continued fighting even if senior leadership or communications are destroyed. The expectations was that the commanders would be killed and infrastructure bombed, but combat operations must continue.&nbsp;</p><p>9. <strong>Terrain makes a decisive military victory against Iran extremely difficult:</strong> From a war analysis point of view, Iran is ‘blessed by geography’. It is a vast country with mountainous terrain, underground facilities, and dispersed military infrastructure. Missile sites, command bunkers, and storage depots are spread across a large territory rather than concentrated in a few locations, many of them underground, making it hard to destroy only through strikes from above.<br>10. <strong>Ground invasion of Iran is yet to happen: </strong>Large-scale ground operations would be needed to completely destroy Iran's nuclear, missile and drone sites. The US and Israel appear reluctant, given the troop commitments and potential casualties.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/live-blog-iran-us-israel-war-news-live-west-asia-crisis-uae-qatar-nahrain-gulf-trump-netanyahu-khamenei-mojtaba-hezbollah-hamas-china-russia-india-middle-east-1773196724144">Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei ‘safe and sound’ despite war injuries, says President Pezeshkian's son</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>11. <strong>Iran missile and drone arsenal can confront long-term pressure: </strong>Iran still possesses thousands of ballistic missiles and possibly tens of thousands of drones. Having one of the largest missile forces in the Middle East helps Iran strike intermittently for extended periods, preventing the conflict from ending quickly.</p><p>12. <strong>Iranian regime is accustomed to operating under extreme sanctions and isolation:</strong> The US, the West and Israel used sanctions for decades against Iran as a ‘war by other means’. This meant Iran always functioned under economic siege conditions with its smuggling networks, informal trade channels, and state control mechanisms to cushion shocks.<br>13. <strong>War fatigue and political constraints in the attacking countries</strong>: There are domestic political limits on long wars, in a world that is worn out by continuing wars since the start of the new decade. Iran is deliberately making this conflict prolonged and costly for the other parties, even those who are not direct belligerents.</p><p>14. <strong>Ambiguity around Iran’s nuclear capability is a deterrent: </strong>Iran insists it does not have a nuclear weapon, but not many are sure. Can it quickly develop and use a nuclear weapon? That doubt raises the stakes for adversaries, as a desperate Iran could accelerate nuclear weaponisation.</p><p>15. <strong>Attackers not sure of the final desired outcome of the war: </strong>A military campaign can succeed only when objectives are defined. What do Israel and US want to achieve in Iran — territorial control, destruction of nuclear and missile capabilities, destruction of armed forces, or regime change? Their lack of clarity on this is helping Iran.&nbsp;<br>16. <strong>Survival itself is strategic victory for Iran:</strong> For all practical purposes, not losing fast can itself amount to winning for Iran. Iran is facing a test of survival against much stronger adversaries. The burden of expectations of victory is on US and Israel, not Iran.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/-oil-markets-and-security-at-risk-did-us-iran-conflict-expose-economic-fault-lines-across-the-middle-east-1773151045233">'Oil, markets and security at risk': Did US–Iran conflict expose economic fault lines across the Middle East?</a></p><h2>Global realities are helping Iran not to lose, though not winning the war</h2><p>For much of the global community, including India, the Islamic Republic is still the government. The Indian external affairs minister, for instance, held at least three phone calls with his Iranian counterpart. Other global players like China and Russia consider it the legitimate government. Iranian ethnic factions like the Kurds are not having much of an impact in the actual war. European nations are yet to fully rally behind either the US or Israel and more worried about continued fuel supply from the region. The US-led military alliance NATO has not invoked the ‘one for all, all for one’ clause in its Article 5, which would have seen them enter the war militarily. Even the US is being forced to acknowledge the need for global energy flows to continue, exemplified in the de-sanctioning of Russian oil supplies to India. Globalisation is helping Iran in odd ways, as fuel supply disruptions caused by the war would affect economies, including that of the US.</p><p>Iran, which is accused of raising proxies like Hamas, the Houthis and Hezbollah, does not seem to need them to stay in the war. Most of them are not even fully active in the war to support Iran, yet.</p><h2>Domestic concerns of Trump and Netanyahu may have led to the war. Now they don't know how to get out</h2><p>For the past three decades, Netanyahu has been talking about Iran being ‘very near to building a nuclear bomb’. But there is no sign of Iran detonating a bomb. Iran has threatened to target Israel’s nuclear facility. Many observers believe Israel probably has nuclear weapons, or at least the capability to develop them. Iran went ahead and threatened the main Dimona nuclear site, a message pretty similar to the gangsters’ phrase: ‘we know where you live’.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-us-midterms-2026-republicans-fear-iran-war-could-hurt-election-prospects-wion-1773192585039/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-us-midterms-2026-republicans-fear-iran-war-could-hurt-election-prospects-wion-1773192585039/embed</a></p><p>The war happened at pivotal points for the political survival of both Trump and Netanyahu. Trump was facing the fallout from the Epstein files, which could affect the Republican Party’s prospects in this year's US midterm elections. If his party loses its majority in the US Congress, he would become a ‘lame-duck’ president for the next two years, opening a Pandora’s box of further legal scrutiny of his actions. He is yet to get congressional approval for the war. He needs something to show as having been achieved through the Iran operation. He could go deeper into Iran, including even boots on the ground to ‘secure uranium’ and prevent Iran from acquiring the nuclear bomb. Even that could probably not lead to total regime change in Iran.</p><p>Netanyahu is facing corruption cases, and Trump even publicly pleaded with the Israeli president to pardon him, which is yet to happen. He is currently leading a minority government, essentially clinging to power thanks to the war situation. In fact, the last elections did not give him a clear majority, but he managed to stay in office largely because most of his tenure has been about the war on Hamas and now on Iran. He is also facing the next general elections, scheduled this year. The elections could make both Trump and Netanyahu less powerful. But Iran’s own specific form of elections has no such burdens.</p><p>Ultimately, both the US and Israel are realising that this war is not going to get over in 12 days, like the last one did.</p>

As the war enters 12th day, Iran is not losing. Geography, decentralised military, missile and drone capabilities, resilience under sanctions, and political constraints on its adversaries are helping Tehran turn mere survival into a strategic advantage

The Iran–Israel conflict of June 2025 lasted 12 days, ending after American B-2 bombers targeted alleged Iranian nuclear sites. The new US-Israel joint strikes on Iran started exactly 12 days ago, but there is no sign of it ending as fast as last time. Neither has the Islamic Republic regime fallen, nor is Iran waving the white flag, having declared a pause to all negotiations. Regime change and the capitulation of Iran were the supposed aims of the war. The US now seems to have changed the goalposts, suggesting that regime change was not the aim. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government will not let the regime be, with his officials suggesting that the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is a ‘legitimate’ target for assassination. If the US and Israel were thinking it would be an ‘in and out’ war, they are being proven wrong. Direct war was not the only card Iran had. It has used a number of tactics that could force the international community to pressure the US and Israel to end the war. 16 ways in which Iran is still staying in the war The following are the key ways in which Iran’s war strategy is helping it not to lose. This goes beyond actual ground or air offensives, with Tehran incorporating regional expansion of the conflict and the choking of global energy supplies for strategic edge over adversaries. 1. Iran attacked specific targets in regional countries, making them indirect ‘party to the conflict’: The UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Iraq were attacked with Iranian drones and missiles, bringing both their defence systems and economies under stress. This is putting pressure on the Gulf nations to bring back normalcy fast through diplomatic means as their defence systems slowly wear out. 2. Iranian attacks targeted both oil and gas sites and military bases of the Gulf nations: The Iranian calculation was not off the mark, as the cascading effect is now felt in everything from oil and gas prices to food and living costs in the region and all the way to Europe and Asia. 3. Iran made tactical use of the Strait of Hormuz: It had only threatened to block the global fuel trade chokepoint without much action, and yet shocks are being felt in fuel prices because big container carriers have partially or fully suspended operations through the waterway. 4. Iran is making the best use of the asymmetry of cost in this war: Its thousands of cheap Shahed drones and missiles are slowly exhausting million-dollar defence systems of the Gulf nations. 5. The Iranian regime has made sure that there are no large-scale street protests : The ostensible trigger point for the joint US–Israel decapitation strikes was the massive nationwide protests against the regime. But all of a sudden, the political opposition that many thought would replace the Islamic Republic is nowhere in sight. Also read: US-Iran-Israel war LIVE | Four injured after drones fall near Dubai airport 6. The Islamic Republic system is still intact : It stands in spite of the decapitation strike that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Day One of the war. A new Supreme Leader has now been named, and secondary leadership is still running the country. 7. ‘All systems running’ for Iran in spite of airstrikes: Iran's military bases, airports, oil installations, warships, nuclear and ballistic missile sites were targeted. But the Iranian regime continues to operate, and post propaganda on social media. It still has the on-and-off switch of the Iranian internet, which has gone dark for several days for everyone except the regime. 8. Iran's military doctrine is designed to function despite leadership losses and disruption: Iran’s ‘mosaic defence’ has decentralised command and control structures. Local units of IRGC are capable of continued fighting even if senior leadership or communications are destroyed. The expectations was that the commanders would be killed and infrastructure bombed, but combat operations must continue. 9. Terrain makes a decisive military victory against Iran extremely difficult: From a war analysis point of view, Iran is ‘blessed by geography’. It is a vast country with mountainous terrain, underground facilities, and dispersed military infrastructure. Missile sites, command bunkers, and storage depots are spread across a large territory rather than concentrated in a few locations, many of them underground, making it hard to destroy only through strikes from above. 10. Ground invasion of Iran is yet to happen: Large-scale ground operations would be needed to completely destroy Iran's nuclear, missile and drone sites. The US and Israel appear reluctant, given the troop commitments and potential casualties. Also read: Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei ‘safe and sound’ despite war injuries, says President Pezeshkian's son 11. Iran missile and drone arsenal can confront long-term pressure: Iran still possesses thousands of ballistic missiles and possibly tens of thousands of drones. Having one of the largest missile forces in the Middle East helps Iran strike intermittently for extended periods, preventing the conflict from ending quickly. 12. Iranian regime is accustomed to operating under extreme sanctions and isolation: The US, the West and Israel used sanctions for decades against Iran as a ‘war by other means’. This meant Iran always functioned under economic siege conditions with its smuggling networks, informal trade channels, and state control mechanisms to cushion shocks. 13. War fatigue and political constraints in the attacking countries: There are domestic political limits on long wars, in a world that is worn out by continuing wars since the start of the new decade. Iran is deliberately making this conflict prolonged and costly for the other parties, even those who are not direct belligerents. 14. Ambiguity around Iran’s nuclear capability is a deterrent: Iran insists it does not have a nuclear weapon, but not many are sure. Can it quickly develop and use a nuclear weapon? That doubt raises the stakes for adversaries, as a desperate Iran could accelerate nuclear weaponisation. 15. Attackers not sure of the final desired outcome of the war: A military campaign can succeed only when objectives are defined. What do Israel and US want to achieve in Iran — territorial control, destruction of nuclear and missile capabilities, destruction of armed forces, or regime change? Their lack of clarity on this is helping Iran. 16. Survival itself is strategic victory for Iran: For all practical purposes, not losing fast can itself amount to winning for Iran. Iran is facing a test of survival against much stronger adversaries. The burden of expectations of victory is on US and Israel, not Iran. Also read: 'Oil, markets and security at risk': Did US–Iran conflict expose economic fault lines across the Middle East? Global realities are helping Iran not to lose, though not winning the war For much of the global community, including India, the Islamic Republic is still the government. The Indian external affairs minister, for instance, held at least three phone calls with his Iranian counterpart. Other global players like China and Russia consider it the legitimate government. Iranian ethnic factions like the Kurds are not having much of an impact in the actual war. European nations are yet to fully rally behind either the US or Israel and more worried about continued fuel supply from the region. The US-led military alliance NATO has not invoked the ‘one for all, all for one’ clause in its Article 5, which would have seen them enter the war militarily. Even the US is being forced to acknowledge the need for global energy flows to continue, exemplified in the de-sanctioning of Russian oil supplies to India. Globalisation is helping Iran in odd ways, as fuel supply disruptions caused by the war would affect economies, including that of the US. Iran, which is accused of raising proxies like Hamas, the Houthis and Hezbollah, does not seem to need them to stay in the war. Most of them are not even fully active in the war to support Iran, yet. Domestic concerns of Trump and Netanyahu may have led to the war. Now they don't know how to get out For the past three decades, Netanyahu has been talking about Iran being ‘very near to building a nuclear bomb’. But there is no sign of Iran detonating a bomb. Iran has threatened to target Israel’s nuclear facility. Many observers believe Israel probably has nuclear weapons, or at least the capability to develop them. Iran went ahead and threatened the main Dimona nuclear site, a message pretty similar to the gangsters’ phrase: ‘we know where you live’. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-us-midterms-2026-republicans-fear-iran-war-could-hurt-election-prospects-wion-1773192585039/embed The war happened at pivotal points for the political survival of both Trump and Netanyahu. Trump was facing the fallout from the Epstein files, which could affect the Republican Party’s prospects in this year's US midterm elections. If his party loses its majority in the US Congress, he would become a ‘lame-duck’ president for the next two years, opening a Pandora’s box of further legal scrutiny of his actions. He is yet to get congressional approval for the war. He needs something to show as having been achieved through the Iran operation. He could go deeper into Iran, including even boots on the ground to ‘secure uranium’ and prevent Iran from acquiring the nuclear bomb. Even that could probably not lead to total regime change in Iran. Netanyahu is facing corruption cases, and Trump even publicly pleaded with the Israeli president to pardon him, which is yet to happen. He is currently leading a minority government, essentially clinging to power thanks to the war situation. In fact, the last elections did not give him a clear majority, but he managed to stay in office largely because most of his tenure has been about the war on Hamas and now on Iran. He is also facing the next general elections, scheduled this year. The elections could make both Trump and Netanyahu less powerful. But Iran’s own specific form of elections has no such burdens. Ultimately, both the US and Israel are realising that this war is not going to get over in 12 days, like the last one did.

<p>As the war enters 12th day, Iran is not losing. Geography, decentralised military, missile and drone capabilities, resilience under sanctions, and political constraints on its adversaries are helping Tehran turn mere survival into a strategic advantage</p>

Not so fast: Iran war reaches 12 days, and Tehran is not losing - 16 reasons why

<p>NATO, the top military alliance of the West led by the US, is not helping Washington’s military interests in its ongoing joint operations with Israel against Iran. This is a sharp contrast with how the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was eager to help Ukraine against Russia, even though Kyiv is not even a member of the military alliance. What explains the dichotomy? Here is what you should know.</p><h2>NATO only gives political support, but avoids joining the military campaign led by US</h2><p>So far, NATO appears to have limited its role to defensive measures, rhetorical backing and possible logistical support. Forces of the 32-member alliance are not directly participating in airstrikes on Iran.</p><p>NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said many European leaders ‘support the goals’ of the operation.</p><p>“I feel widespread support in Europe,” Rutte said, while expressing backing for taking out Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities.</p><p>But Rutte spoke mainly about defending Nato territory, not about direct military help. He described Iran as "an exporter of chaos that posed far-reaching danger" and warned the alliance would protect its members if needed.</p><p>Noting that Iran is ‘an exporter of chaos that posed far-reaching danger’, he stressed that NATO’s focus remains defensive, and vowed to defend ‘every inch of NATO territory if needed.’</p><p>"NATO is well-postured to defend Allied populations against ballistic threats," he added.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/europe-s-reluctance-to-support-us-israel-military-operations-on-iran-what-about-democracy-human-rights-etc-iran-war-analysis-1773124922550">Europe's reluctance to support US-Israel military operations on Iran. What about democracy, human rights, etc.?</a></p><h2>The Turkey question: How NATO defended its member's airspace</h2><p>Interestingly, when it comes to ‘NATO territory’, one must remember that Turkey, which borders the Middle East, is also a NATO member.</p><p>Some ballistic missiles launched from Iran entered Turkish airspace and were intercepted by NATO defence systems. However, most of the incidents are being viewed as unintended spillover, even as Turkish officials warned Iran against violating their airspace.</p><p>Debris from intercepted missiles fell in southern Turkey. It is unclear whether Iran was directly targeting Turkey to provoke a NATO response. Some analysts believe the ballistic missiles were intended for the Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey or targets near Gaziantep.</p><p>Iran officially denied targeting Turkey. NATO condemned the actions, and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan warned Tehran that violations of Turkish sovereignty would not be tolerated.</p><p>"Turkey does not want to be dragged into this war," Erdoğan said.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/middle-east-spillover-us-orders-evacuation-of-adana-consulate-as-iran-conflict-hits-turkey-1773077400350">Middle East spillover: US orders evacuation of Adana Consulate as Iran conflict hits Turkey</a></p><h2>NATO has not invoked Article 5, the collective defence clause of “one for all, all for one”</h2><p>Rutte has made it clear that “nobody's talking about Article 5.” &nbsp;Article 5 is Nato’s collective defence clause, under which an armed attack on one member is considered an attack on all.</p><p>One reason it has not been invoked so far in the Iran war is that Article 5 requires a direct armed attack on a NATO member in Europe or North America.&nbsp;</p><p>One could stretch that argument to Turkey, but missile interceptions over Turkish airspace did not trigger collective defence discussions. Most Iranian strikes so far have targeted US facilities in the Middle East, not NATO territory.</p><p>Some analysts and officials say invoking Article 5 would require a ‘large-scale attack or invasion of a NATO member,’ which has not happened.</p><h2>Trump is not too keen to take help from NATO</h2><p>The UK, Italy and France have reportedly allowed the use of some bases and equipment. The UK also deployed four additional Typhoon fighter jets to Qatar for regional defence.</p><p>However, this support came after initial hesitation. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at first restricted US access to some bases, including facilities linked to Cyprus. He called for diplomacy and questioned the legality of the conflict.</p><p>"The conflict could continue for some time... the best way forward for Iran would be a negotiated settlement," Starmer said earlier.</p><p>Later, the UK allowed limited use of its facilities by American forces.</p><p>US President Donald Trump criticised the delay. In a post on Truth Social, he wrote: "We don’t need your help if you’re going to hesitate and then claim credit later."</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-strikes-iran-but-european-allies-choose-defence-over-war-nato-split-over-tehran-1772984675816/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-strikes-iran-but-european-allies-choose-defence-over-war-nato-split-over-tehran-1772984675816/embed</a></p><h2>NATO member Spain openly resisted military involvement</h2><p>What also stood out like a sore thumb on the presumed NATO unity was Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s refusal to allow the US access to Spanish bases. Calling the US actions in Iran illegal under international law, he reiterated Spain’s position of "No to war."</p><p>Another NATO member Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned about the lack of a clear exit strategy.&nbsp;</p><h2>Trump has been openly critical of the NATO stance</h2><p>"Some traditional US allies are hemming and hawing about the use of force," he said. He also said he was unhappy with Starmer, saying the British leader "took far too much time to reverse course" on base access.</p><p>Trump also attacked Spain’s position. "Spain has been terrible... cut off all dealings with Spain," he said.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nato-to-enter-iran-war-alliance-adjusts-force-posture-eu-chief-affirms-unity-after-cyprus-attack-1772457342134">NATO to enter Iran war? Alliance adjusts force posture, EU slams attack on Cyprus base</a></p><h2>NATO double standards? How it supported non-NATO member Ukraine to the hilt</h2><p>NATO member countries strongly supported Ukraine after Russia’s invasion in 2022, even though Kyiv is not a member of the alliance. The alliance helped arm Ukraine heavily despite its military asymmetry with Russia. NATO countries — including the US, mainly under President Joe Biden — supplied Ukraine with billions of dollars and euros in weapons, training, intelligence and air-defence systems. The power acquired through military and financial aid helped Ukraine prolong its resistance to the Russian invasion for more than four years.</p><p>The argument is that Ukraine had the right to self-defence against what the alliance called Russia’s "brutal and unprovoked war of aggression."</p><p>NATO also sees Russia as the most significant and direct threat to Allied security. The Russian invasion was viewed by many European NATO members as a direct and potentially existential threat, making Ukraine’s defence central to European stability.</p><p>The cautious NATO stance in the Iran war, by contrast, stems partly from the fact that the US-Israel campaign is viewed by many allies as an offensive operation launched outside NATO territory.</p><p>That distinction limits NATO’s legal mandate under Article 5. There has also been no formal request from the US for NATO military intervention. Trump has occasionally said the US can finish the job in Iran on its own.</p><p>Rutte described the situation as an “and-and” approach: enabling US actions in the Middle East while ensuring Ukraine "has what it needs to stay strong in the fight."</p><p>The difference reflects NATO’s doctrine: strong support for defensive wars that directly affect European security, but far greater caution about joining offensive conflicts abroad. NATO nations in Europe are already worn out by the Russia-Ukraine war. They just cannot afford to get drawn into another conflict, happening away from its core area of operation.</p>

NATO supported US goals in the Iran war politically but has so far avoided a combat role. The alliance’s restraint contrasts with its strong support for non-member Ukraine against Russia. Why? Because, priorities…

NATO, the top military alliance of the West led by the US, is not helping Washington’s military interests in its ongoing joint operations with Israel against Iran. This is a sharp contrast with how the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was eager to help Ukraine against Russia, even though Kyiv is not even a member of the military alliance. What explains the dichotomy? Here is what you should know. NATO only gives political support, but avoids joining the military campaign led by US So far, NATO appears to have limited its role to defensive measures, rhetorical backing and possible logistical support. Forces of the 32-member alliance are not directly participating in airstrikes on Iran. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said many European leaders ‘support the goals’ of the operation. “I feel widespread support in Europe,” Rutte said, while expressing backing for taking out Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. But Rutte spoke mainly about defending Nato territory, not about direct military help. He described Iran as "an exporter of chaos that posed far-reaching danger" and warned the alliance would protect its members if needed. Noting that Iran is ‘an exporter of chaos that posed far-reaching danger’, he stressed that NATO’s focus remains defensive, and vowed to defend ‘every inch of NATO territory if needed.’ "NATO is well-postured to defend Allied populations against ballistic threats," he added. Also read: Europe's reluctance to support US-Israel military operations on Iran. What about democracy, human rights, etc.? The Turkey question: How NATO defended its member's airspace Interestingly, when it comes to ‘NATO territory’, one must remember that Turkey, which borders the Middle East, is also a NATO member. Some ballistic missiles launched from Iran entered Turkish airspace and were intercepted by NATO defence systems. However, most of the incidents are being viewed as unintended spillover, even as Turkish officials warned Iran against violating their airspace. Debris from intercepted missiles fell in southern Turkey. It is unclear whether Iran was directly targeting Turkey to provoke a NATO response. Some analysts believe the ballistic missiles were intended for the Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey or targets near Gaziantep. Iran officially denied targeting Turkey. NATO condemned the actions, and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan warned Tehran that violations of Turkish sovereignty would not be tolerated. "Turkey does not want to be dragged into this war," Erdoğan said. Also read: Middle East spillover: US orders evacuation of Adana Consulate as Iran conflict hits Turkey NATO has not invoked Article 5, the collective defence clause of “one for all, all for one” Rutte has made it clear that “nobody's talking about Article 5.” Article 5 is Nato’s collective defence clause, under which an armed attack on one member is considered an attack on all. One reason it has not been invoked so far in the Iran war is that Article 5 requires a direct armed attack on a NATO member in Europe or North America. One could stretch that argument to Turkey, but missile interceptions over Turkish airspace did not trigger collective defence discussions. Most Iranian strikes so far have targeted US facilities in the Middle East, not NATO territory. Some analysts and officials say invoking Article 5 would require a ‘large-scale attack or invasion of a NATO member,’ which has not happened. Trump is not too keen to take help from NATO The UK, Italy and France have reportedly allowed the use of some bases and equipment. The UK also deployed four additional Typhoon fighter jets to Qatar for regional defence. However, this support came after initial hesitation. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at first restricted US access to some bases, including facilities linked to Cyprus. He called for diplomacy and questioned the legality of the conflict. "The conflict could continue for some time... the best way forward for Iran would be a negotiated settlement," Starmer said earlier. Later, the UK allowed limited use of its facilities by American forces. US President Donald Trump criticised the delay. In a post on Truth Social, he wrote: "We don’t need your help if you’re going to hesitate and then claim credit later." https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-strikes-iran-but-european-allies-choose-defence-over-war-nato-split-over-tehran-1772984675816/embed NATO member Spain openly resisted military involvement What also stood out like a sore thumb on the presumed NATO unity was Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s refusal to allow the US access to Spanish bases. Calling the US actions in Iran illegal under international law, he reiterated Spain’s position of "No to war." Another NATO member Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned about the lack of a clear exit strategy. Trump has been openly critical of the NATO stance "Some traditional US allies are hemming and hawing about the use of force," he said. He also said he was unhappy with Starmer, saying the British leader "took far too much time to reverse course" on base access. Trump also attacked Spain’s position. "Spain has been terrible... cut off all dealings with Spain," he said. Also read: NATO to enter Iran war? Alliance adjusts force posture, EU slams attack on Cyprus base NATO double standards? How it supported non-NATO member Ukraine to the hilt NATO member countries strongly supported Ukraine after Russia’s invasion in 2022, even though Kyiv is not a member of the alliance. The alliance helped arm Ukraine heavily despite its military asymmetry with Russia. NATO countries — including the US, mainly under President Joe Biden — supplied Ukraine with billions of dollars and euros in weapons, training, intelligence and air-defence systems. The power acquired through military and financial aid helped Ukraine prolong its resistance to the Russian invasion for more than four years. The argument is that Ukraine had the right to self-defence against what the alliance called Russia’s "brutal and unprovoked war of aggression." NATO also sees Russia as the most significant and direct threat to Allied security. The Russian invasion was viewed by many European NATO members as a direct and potentially existential threat, making Ukraine’s defence central to European stability. The cautious NATO stance in the Iran war, by contrast, stems partly from the fact that the US-Israel campaign is viewed by many allies as an offensive operation launched outside NATO territory. That distinction limits NATO’s legal mandate under Article 5. There has also been no formal request from the US for NATO military intervention. Trump has occasionally said the US can finish the job in Iran on its own. Rutte described the situation as an “and-and” approach: enabling US actions in the Middle East while ensuring Ukraine "has what it needs to stay strong in the fight." The difference reflects NATO’s doctrine: strong support for defensive wars that directly affect European security, but far greater caution about joining offensive conflicts abroad. NATO nations in Europe are already worn out by the Russia-Ukraine war. They just cannot afford to get drawn into another conflict, happening away from its core area of operation.

<p>NATO supported US goals in the Iran war politically but has so far avoided a combat role. The alliance’s restraint contrasts with its strong support for non-member Ukraine against Russia. Why? Because, priorities…</p>

Iran war and NATO: ‘One for all, all for one’, really? Why alliance is not eager to help top ally US as much as non-member Ukraine

<p>Before the US and Israel started bombarding Iran in late February, European leaders were often vocal critics of the Islamic Republic regime's alleged human rights violations and protest suppressions. But there has been a conspicuous absence of united rhetoric or action on the ground to change the regime since the war began. What accounts for Europe's muted response, particularly stark when compared with the high-pitched rhetoric during the Russia–Ukraine war? How did European leaders respond to the war, essentially started by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu? Is Europe only worried about the continuous flow of heating oil, crude oil products and gas, and not so much about democracy or human rights in Iran?</p><h2>Europe's cautious, balanced language on the Iran war</h2><p>Official statements from the European Union or specific European leaders condemned Iranian actions such as retaliatory strikes on Gulf states. The statements mostly urged de-escalation and restraint without either endorsing or directly criticising the US–Israeli airstrikes. They paid lip service to democracy and human rights in Iran while expressing solidarity with the Iranian people. European leaders called for a “credible transition” or peaceful change rather than offering any justification for US-Israel military action.</p><h2>Europe engages in diplomatic hedging on Iran war</h2><p>Europe's response is best described as diplomatic hedging. Many of its 27 member states are also part of the security alliance NATO, of which the US is the main partner. European leaders do not want to alienate the Trump administration, which could affect ongoing Russia–Ukraine negotiations and broader security cooperation. At the same time, they are worried about how trade flows could be affected, for instance if Iran blocks ships carrying goods to Europe via the Strait of Hormuz — something Tehran has repeatedly threatened to do.</p><p>The European Union's High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, described Iran as an “exporter of war” and accused it of seeking to escalate the conflict by attacking regional neighbours. But Kallas stopped short of supporting the US–Israeli strikes, instead stressing the need for de-escalation.</p><p>A European Union joint statement on March 1 urged Iran to end its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes and stop repression against its citizens. But again, the emphasis was on “maximum restraint” from all parties, without naming the US or Israel as aggressors.</p><p>EU Council President António Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen held a videoconference with Middle Eastern leaders on Monday (Mar 9) in which they condemned “indiscriminate attacks by Iran” and expressed solidarity with affected Gulf states. There too, they stressed diplomatic solutions without endorsing the war launched by the US and Israel.</p><p>This is a sharp contrast with Europe’s collective fury over Russia’s actions in Ukraine, where terms like “unprovoked aggression” were regularly used.</p><h2>Mixed message from the European Union on Iran war?</h2><p>Analysts also pointed to internal leadership tussles and turf wars between Kallas and von der Leyen, which could be contributing to mixed messaging from Europe on the Iran war.&nbsp;</p><p>Von der Leyen, in a post on X, said: “Europe stands with the people of Iran in their legitimate fight for freedom,” and called for a “credible transition in Iran.”</p><p>Kallas appeared to explicitly oppose another war, saying Europe should use Iran’s “weakest point” to pursue a “diplomatic solution”.</p><p>Overall, the tone of EU statements has been one of supporting the Iranian people’s “right to determine their own future” and condemning regime violence. But European leaders appear reluctant to endorse the use of force for regime change, which Israel and the US are widely believed to be attempting.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/centcom-5000-targets-iran-operation-epic-fury-strike-video-1773119657977">CENTCOM claims 5,000 targets hit in Iran during first 10 days of ‘Operation Epic Fury’, releases strike video</a></p><h2>No major European leader openly supported US–Israel attacks on Iran</h2><p>No top European leaders spoke in favour of the war or endorsed the US–Israeli strikes as a means to promote democracy or human rights in Iran. The statements were carefully calculated, choreographed and deliberately neutral. French President Emmanuel Macron called the strikes an “outbreak of war” with serious consequences for international peace. He sought an urgent UN Security Council meeting while urging negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme. He also offered French military assistance to Middle Eastern partners. However, he did not praise the US–Israel offensive.</p><p>German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who before the war had predicted that the regime in Iran would fall soon, made statements such as “international law is no longer respected” and said Germany must prioritise its own interests. This implied a reluctance to openly support the Israel–US offensive, as Merz also expressed hope that the war would “end quickly”.</p><p>In a joint statement with France and Germany, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned Iran against missile attacks. But there too the call was for intensive diplomacy and military coordination in a defensive context rather than support for offensive action.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/from-four-weeks-to-war-is-very-complete-to-not-won-enough-trump-contradicts-himself-about-endgame-of-iran-war-khamenei-dead-netanyahu-israel-1773117026231">From 'four weeks' to 'war is very complete' to 'not won enough': Trump contradicts himself on endgame of Iran war</a></p><h2>Some European leaders openly opposed the war</h2><p>Contrary to the general expectation that the West would stand united with the US, some European leaders openly opposed the war. They warned that it could cause global instability, trigger more migration and disrupt energy supplies.</p><p>Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, one of the most vocal critics of the war, rejected the US–Israel strikes on Iran outright. “The world has seen this type of conflict before when the US attacked Iraq, promising democracy and stability. The conflict only led to a rise in jihadist terrorism, a migration crisis in Europe and higher energy prices,” he said.</p><p>Sánchez went one step further, accusing Trump and Netanyahu of using the war to “hide their own failures” domestically, even as he rejected US requests for assistance.&nbsp;</p><p>Reportedly, Italy, the UK, Germany and France excluded Sánchez from some discussions because of his stance.</p><p>Europe’s stress appears to be on de-escalation. While von der Leyen and Costa jointly urged “maximum restraint” to avoid undermining global nuclear non-proliferation efforts, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, in talks with China, agreed to work towards de-escalation and a political solution while respecting Iranian aspirations.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-strikes-back-irgc-warns-gulf-states-of-200-oil-if-attacks-continue-wion-1773102593952/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-strikes-back-irgc-warns-gulf-states-of-200-oil-if-attacks-continue-wion-1773102593952/embed</a></p><h2>So what is Europe’s worry — gas and oil, or more?</h2><p>It would not be far off the mark to say Europe appears to be more worried about uninterrupted gas and oil supplies than spreading Western ideas of human rights and democracy in Iran. Energy security for Europe has become a central concern in discussions because of the continent’s vulnerability if supplies are disrupted.</p><p>The Strait of Hormuz is a critical chokepoint through which roughly one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments pass. Any disruption there immediately affects global markets, including Europe. Oil prices have been hovering around $100 per barrel after jumping sharply during the escalation, while European natural gas prices have also risen significantly.</p><p>Disruptions to Qatar’s LNG exports are affecting Europe at a time when gas storage levels remain relatively low.</p><p>All this could lead to a cascading effect in Europe, including stagflation, higher inflation and economic slowdown — especially in gas-dependent economies such as Germany.</p><h2>If the war continues, food costs would rise for Europe</h2><p>Western ideas such as freedom for Iranians have now become secondary to more pragmatic concerns about energy shocks, new waves of migration and broader economic fragility. Europe is already dealing with the economic consequences of the Ukraine war. Energy-import-dependent economies in Europe cannot easily afford to endorse yet another war in the Middle East.</p><p>Europe is vulnerable to high energy prices and is not well placed to cushion a major shock, according to analysts. The best course for Europe, therefore, may be a more pragmatic rather than ideological approach to the situation. That is why the entire region now appears cautious and largely silent about any bolder approach towards “regime change” in Iran.</p>

European leaders responded cautiously to the US–Israel war on Iran, urging restraint and diplomacy. But why? Their own energy security, trade risks and geopolitical calculations seem to have outweighed usual paeans to democracy or regime change

Before the US and Israel started bombarding Iran in late February, European leaders were often vocal critics of the Islamic Republic regime's alleged human rights violations and protest suppressions. But there has been a conspicuous absence of united rhetoric or action on the ground to change the regime since the war began. What accounts for Europe's muted response, particularly stark when compared with the high-pitched rhetoric during the Russia–Ukraine war? How did European leaders respond to the war, essentially started by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu? Is Europe only worried about the continuous flow of heating oil, crude oil products and gas, and not so much about democracy or human rights in Iran? Europe's cautious, balanced language on the Iran war Official statements from the European Union or specific European leaders condemned Iranian actions such as retaliatory strikes on Gulf states. The statements mostly urged de-escalation and restraint without either endorsing or directly criticising the US–Israeli airstrikes. They paid lip service to democracy and human rights in Iran while expressing solidarity with the Iranian people. European leaders called for a “credible transition” or peaceful change rather than offering any justification for US-Israel military action. Europe engages in diplomatic hedging on Iran war Europe's response is best described as diplomatic hedging. Many of its 27 member states are also part of the security alliance NATO, of which the US is the main partner. European leaders do not want to alienate the Trump administration, which could affect ongoing Russia–Ukraine negotiations and broader security cooperation. At the same time, they are worried about how trade flows could be affected, for instance if Iran blocks ships carrying goods to Europe via the Strait of Hormuz — something Tehran has repeatedly threatened to do. The European Union's High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, described Iran as an “exporter of war” and accused it of seeking to escalate the conflict by attacking regional neighbours. But Kallas stopped short of supporting the US–Israeli strikes, instead stressing the need for de-escalation. A European Union joint statement on March 1 urged Iran to end its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes and stop repression against its citizens. But again, the emphasis was on “maximum restraint” from all parties, without naming the US or Israel as aggressors. EU Council President António Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen held a videoconference with Middle Eastern leaders on Monday (Mar 9) in which they condemned “indiscriminate attacks by Iran” and expressed solidarity with affected Gulf states. There too, they stressed diplomatic solutions without endorsing the war launched by the US and Israel. This is a sharp contrast with Europe’s collective fury over Russia’s actions in Ukraine, where terms like “unprovoked aggression” were regularly used. Mixed message from the European Union on Iran war? Analysts also pointed to internal leadership tussles and turf wars between Kallas and von der Leyen, which could be contributing to mixed messaging from Europe on the Iran war. Von der Leyen, in a post on X, said: “Europe stands with the people of Iran in their legitimate fight for freedom,” and called for a “credible transition in Iran.” Kallas appeared to explicitly oppose another war, saying Europe should use Iran’s “weakest point” to pursue a “diplomatic solution”. Overall, the tone of EU statements has been one of supporting the Iranian people’s “right to determine their own future” and condemning regime violence. But European leaders appear reluctant to endorse the use of force for regime change, which Israel and the US are widely believed to be attempting. Also read: CENTCOM claims 5,000 targets hit in Iran during first 10 days of ‘Operation Epic Fury’, releases strike video No major European leader openly supported US–Israel attacks on Iran No top European leaders spoke in favour of the war or endorsed the US–Israeli strikes as a means to promote democracy or human rights in Iran. The statements were carefully calculated, choreographed and deliberately neutral. French President Emmanuel Macron called the strikes an “outbreak of war” with serious consequences for international peace. He sought an urgent UN Security Council meeting while urging negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme. He also offered French military assistance to Middle Eastern partners. However, he did not praise the US–Israel offensive. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who before the war had predicted that the regime in Iran would fall soon, made statements such as “international law is no longer respected” and said Germany must prioritise its own interests. This implied a reluctance to openly support the Israel–US offensive, as Merz also expressed hope that the war would “end quickly”. In a joint statement with France and Germany, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned Iran against missile attacks. But there too the call was for intensive diplomacy and military coordination in a defensive context rather than support for offensive action. Also read: From 'four weeks' to 'war is very complete' to 'not won enough': Trump contradicts himself on endgame of Iran war Some European leaders openly opposed the war Contrary to the general expectation that the West would stand united with the US, some European leaders openly opposed the war. They warned that it could cause global instability, trigger more migration and disrupt energy supplies. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, one of the most vocal critics of the war, rejected the US–Israel strikes on Iran outright. “The world has seen this type of conflict before when the US attacked Iraq, promising democracy and stability. The conflict only led to a rise in jihadist terrorism, a migration crisis in Europe and higher energy prices,” he said. Sánchez went one step further, accusing Trump and Netanyahu of using the war to “hide their own failures” domestically, even as he rejected US requests for assistance. Reportedly, Italy, the UK, Germany and France excluded Sánchez from some discussions because of his stance. Europe’s stress appears to be on de-escalation. While von der Leyen and Costa jointly urged “maximum restraint” to avoid undermining global nuclear non-proliferation efforts, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, in talks with China, agreed to work towards de-escalation and a political solution while respecting Iranian aspirations. https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-strikes-back-irgc-warns-gulf-states-of-200-oil-if-attacks-continue-wion-1773102593952/embed So what is Europe’s worry — gas and oil, or more? It would not be far off the mark to say Europe appears to be more worried about uninterrupted gas and oil supplies than spreading Western ideas of human rights and democracy in Iran. Energy security for Europe has become a central concern in discussions because of the continent’s vulnerability if supplies are disrupted. The Strait of Hormuz is a critical chokepoint through which roughly one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments pass. Any disruption there immediately affects global markets, including Europe. Oil prices have been hovering around $100 per barrel after jumping sharply during the escalation, while European natural gas prices have also risen significantly. Disruptions to Qatar’s LNG exports are affecting Europe at a time when gas storage levels remain relatively low. All this could lead to a cascading effect in Europe, including stagflation, higher inflation and economic slowdown — especially in gas-dependent economies such as Germany. If the war continues, food costs would rise for Europe Western ideas such as freedom for Iranians have now become secondary to more pragmatic concerns about energy shocks, new waves of migration and broader economic fragility. Europe is already dealing with the economic consequences of the Ukraine war. Energy-import-dependent economies in Europe cannot easily afford to endorse yet another war in the Middle East. Europe is vulnerable to high energy prices and is not well placed to cushion a major shock, according to analysts. The best course for Europe, therefore, may be a more pragmatic rather than ideological approach to the situation. That is why the entire region now appears cautious and largely silent about any bolder approach towards “regime change” in Iran.

<p>European leaders responded cautiously to the US–Israel war on Iran, urging restraint and diplomacy. But why? Their own energy security, trade risks and geopolitical calculations seem to have outweighed usual paeans to democracy or regime change</p>

Europe's reluctance to support US-Israel military operations on Iran. What about democracy, human rights, etc.?

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Vinod Janardhanan

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.