The whole world is watching the war between Israel and Iran. International news outlets have been featuring various perspectives and opinions. Right now, it is a question of whether Donald Trump will decide to lend weight to Israel with the USA joining the war. Israel believes that he should. Trump says, “Maybe; maybe not.” Reuters reported on Thursday June 19, that the White House had said Trump would make a decision within the next two weeks, speculating that it would raise pressure on Tehran to come to the negotiating table.
Did
the Israeli attack on Iran surprise the USA?
Perhaps
not. An Al
Jazeera report of June 18, 2025 states,
As the conflict between Iran and
Israel escalates, United States President Donald
Trump’s administration is offering mixed signals about whether it still backs a
diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear programme.
Publicly, it has backed a negotiated
agreement, and US and Iranian negotiators had planned to meet again this week.
As recently as Thursday, Trump insisted in a Truth Social post: “We
remain committed to a Diplomatic Resolution.”
Kelsey Davenport, director for non-proliferation
policy at the US-based Arms Control Association, said Trump’s messaging had
been clear. “I think that President Trump has been very clear in his opposition
to the use of military force against Iran while diplomacy was playing out. And
reporting suggests that he pushed back against [Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin] Netanyahu,” she said.
What’s more likely, Davenport said, is
that “Israel was worried that diplomacy would succeed, that it would mean a
deal” and “that it did not view [this as] matching its interests and objectives
regarding Iran”.
Richard Nephew, a professor at Columbia
University’s School of International and Public Affairs, agreed, saying it was
Trump’s consistent march towards a deal that troubled Israel.
“I think it is that consistency that’s
actually been the thing that’s the problem,” said Nephew, who served as
director for Iran at the US National Security Council from 2011 to 2013 under
then-President Barack Obama.
But Ali Ansari, a professor of Iranian
history at St Andrews University in Scotland, disagreed. “The US was aware. …
Even if the specific timing did surprise them, they must have been aware, so a
wink is about right,” he told Al Jazeera.
“At the same time, the US view is that
Israel must take the lead and should really do this on their own,” he said.
Reuters reported on June 12, 2025, that, “U.S. President Donald Trump said
on Wednesday (11), U.S. personnel were being moved out of the Middle East
because "it could be a dangerous place," adding that the United
States would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
Reuters
reported on Wednesday (11), that the U.S. is preparing a partial
evacuation of its Iraqi embassy and will allow military dependents to leave
locations around the Middle East due to heightened security risks in the
region, according to U.S. and Iraqi sources.”
In
an article titled, ‘Israel Appears Ready to Attack Iran, Officials in U.S.
and Europe Say’, The New York Times reported that;
Israel appears to be preparing to
launch an attack soon on Iran, according to officials in the United States and
Europe, a step that could further inflame the Middle East and derail or delay
efforts by the Trump administration to broker a deal to cut off Iran’s path to
building a nuclear bomb.
The concern about a potential Israeli
strike and the prospect of retaliation by Iran led the United States on
Wednesday to withdraw diplomats from Iraq and authorize the voluntary departure
of U.S. military family members from the Middle East.
‘US withdraws some diplomats and
military families from Middle East amid Iran tensions’, stated a CNN report dated June 12,
2025.
The US State and Defense departments on
Wednesday made efforts to arrange the departure of non-essential personnel from
locations around the Middle East, according to US officials and sources
familiar with the efforts.
It’s not clear what is causing the
sudden change in posture, but a defense official said, US Central Command is
monitoring “developing tension in the Middle East.”
“They are being moved out because it
could be a dangerous place, and we’ll see what happens. But they have been or
we’ve given notice to move out, and we’ll see what happens,” President Donald
Trump told reporters Wednesday upon arriving at a Kennedy Center event.
On Thursday, the US embassy in Israel
issued a security alert restricting government staff and their families from
traveling outside of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Be’er Sheva until further notice,
and warned all US citizens in Israel to exercise “caution and increase personal
security awareness.”
In
a report dated, June 12, 2025, The Times of Israel stated;
The United States on Thursday imposed
travel restrictions on employees and their family members in Israel, expanding cautionary warnings for the region as tensions with Iran
rise amid deteriorating nuclear talks and reports of possible plans for Israeli
military action.
The US notice, citing
“increased regional tensions,” came as Iran said it was holding military drills
aimed at “enemy movements” and threatened a stronger retaliation against Israel
than in the past, spiking fears of an expanded regional conflagration.
Staff in Israel and
their relatives were advised not to travel outside the greater Tel Aviv,
Jerusalem, and Beersheba areas until further notice. Traveling between the
cities and to Ben Gurion Airport is allowed, the notice said.
Therefore,
it would be safe to assume that the US knew of the attack. However, the big
question now is; would the US join Israel in a war against Iran?
What factors
will weigh-in on such a decision by the US?
It is a fact
that the IAEA has noted concerns with regard to Iran’s nuclear program; most
recently in June 2025, May 2025 and March 2025. Earlier, in August 2024, the
Director General of the IAEA submitted to its Board of Governors a twelve-page
report on the ‘Verification and monitoring in the
Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution
2231 (2015)’.
It is also a
fact that the USA held several rounds of talks with Iran on the subject of
Iran’s nuclear program. It
was only on May 27, 2025 that DW reported that the talks between the US and
Iran raised hopes of an imminent new deal.
“According to US President Donald Trump,
nuclear talks with Iran last Friday showed "some real progress, serious
progress."
"We've had some very, very good
talks with Iran," Trump told reporters in northern New Jersey before
returning to Washington on Sunday.
"And I don't know if I'll be
telling you anything good or bad over the next two days, but I have a feeling I
might be telling you something good," Trump said.
The
same report continued,
"Both the US and Iran are taking
the current negotiations very seriously," Sina Azodi, assistant professor
of Middle East policy at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George
Washington University and an expert on international relations with a focus on
Iran's foreign policy and nuclear non-proliferation, told DW. "They want
to reach an agreement," he said.
According to Azodi, a deal with Iran is of great importance to the US
government. "There are three central foreign policy issues for the White
House: the war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza and Iran's nuclear program. An agreement with Iran would be
considered a major foreign policy success," he said.
Meanwhile, the government in Iran is keen on a possible deal, Azodi adds. Iran is running out of
time for the negotiations as the so-called snapback mechanism, a clause in the current agreement, is
coming closer by the hour, he added.
In this case, all United Nations
sanctions against Iran could come back in full force if no agreement is
reached.
Secondly, Israel would not attack Iran without the
consent of the United States. As long as negotiations between the US and Iran
continue, such an attack is unlikely, politicians in Iran believe.
"Thirdly, the economic crisis in
Iran continues to worsen," Azodi told DW. Sanctions are having a massive
impact and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has promised to work towards
lifting them. However, so far, nothing has been achieved.”
Under the mediation of Oman, the US and Iran began talks on a
possible new nuclear agreement in mid-April. As the United States and Iran have
not maintained diplomatic relations since 1979, they have only held talks via
third countries.
The first four rounds of talks were
unsuccessful as the US and Iran were unable to reach an agreement on uranium
enrichment. Iran insists on being allowed to continue
enriching uranium for civilian purposes, while the US insists on a complete
halt to enrichment.
According to reports in the Italian
daily newspaper La Republica, Oman's foreign minister, Badr
al-Busaidi proposed an interim agreement, which is being drafted.
Also, a high-ranking US official told
the Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom that the possibility of a
provisional agreement had been discussed. This would involve freezing uranium enrichment for an
initial period of three years in return for the sanctions being partially
lifted.
It would not be the first provisional
agreement between the US and Iran. Both sides had already signed an interim
agreement in Geneva in November 2013. The negotiations subsequently led to
Iran's nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or
JCPOA, in 2015.
However, that JCPOA agreement was
terminated by US President Trump in 2018 during his first term in office. Back
then, Trump said that he wanted to "get a better deal" with Iran than
his predecessor Barack Obama. The Iranian response was to gradually distance
itself from the agreement.
Today, the country is closer to
building a nuclear bomb than ever before, experts claim. Israel views the
Iranian nuclear program as a threat to its existence. The Iranian leadership
does not recognize Israel and regularly threatens to eliminate it.
Officially, however, Tehran emphasizes
that its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful
purposes. But the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has expressed concerns. According to IAEA chief Rafael
Grossi, Iran is the only non-nuclear weapon state enriching to this level.
The physicist Behrooz Bayat says that
Iran needs a face-saving solution
in order to navigate the issue of uranium enrichment. Bayat worked as an
external consultant for the IAEA and is considered an expert on Iran's nuclear
program.
In his view, one option for Iran could
be to form a consortium of Middle Eastern countries, including Iran, Saudi
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. These countries would then work together
on uranium enrichment.
According
to the British newspaper The Guardian, Iran also proposed in early
May to involve the Gulf states in its enrichment program in order to refute US
objections that Iran does not provide transparency.
However,
it remains unclear how such a model could be implemented in practice,
emphasizes Bayat. For Iran, it would be a face-saving solution that would mean
it could continue to formally enrich uranium, even if its implementation
is highly unlikely.
Meanwhile,
the Gulf states support the current talks between Iran and the US.
"For the countries in the region, it is very important that there is no
new war in the Middle East," Sina Azodi told DW. "Anyone investing in
growth and progress needs security and stability," he added.
In 2019, as tensions between the US and
Iran increased during Donald Trump's first presidency, the Yemeni Houthi rebels, who are allied with
Iran, attacked Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil and gas company,
Aramco.
"After the attack, Riyadh expected
a clear reaction from the US as its most important
ally. But this failed to materialize," Azodi recalls. "Saudi
Arabia came to the realization that stronger ties with Iran could be
strategically more advantageous," he said.
In turn, bilateral relations between
Iran and Saudi Arabia have changed significantly in the
past years. In October 2024, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi visited
the Saudi capital, Riyadh, and met Saudi Arabia's de facto leader, Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman.
In April 2025, a high-ranking return
visit by the Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman Al Saud and a
government delegation to Tehran took place. They met Iran's
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
After years of tension, the two rival
regional powers are working towards normalizing their relations
and even agreed on military cooperation.
On March 3, 2025, the IAEA Director
General reporting to the IAEA Board of Governors said, “Following my last report,
Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% U‑235 has increased to 275 kg,
up from 182 kg in the past quarter. Iran is the only non-nuclear weapon State
enriching to this level, causing me serious concern.”
“It has been four years since Iran
stopped implementing its nuclear-related commitments under the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), including provisionally applying its
Additional Protocol and therefore it is also four years since the Agency was
able to conduct complementary access in Iran.”
“You also have before you my report on
the NPT Safeguards Agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran says it
has declared all nuclear material, activities and locations required under its
NPT Safeguards Agreement. However, this statement is inconsistent with the
Agency’s findings of uranium particles of anthropogenic origin at undeclared
locations in Iran. The Agency needs to know the current location(s) of the
nuclear material and/or of contaminated equipment involved.”
“There is also a discrepancy in the
material balance of uranium involved in uranium metal production experiments
conducted at Jaber Ibn Hayan Mutli-purpose Laboratory, for which Iran has not
accounted. Having stated it had suspended such implementation, Iran still is
not implementing modified Code 3.1, which is a legal obligation for Iran.”
I am seriously concerned that the
outstanding safeguards issues remain unresolved. They stem from Iran’s
obligations under its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and need to be
resolved for the Agency to be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear
programme is exclusively peaceful.”
It
was on June 9, 2025 that the IAEA Director General reported to the Board
saying, “The rapid accumulation of highly enriched uranium – as detailed in my
other report before you: Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of
Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015) – is of serious concern and adds to the complexity of
the issues I have described. Given the potential proliferation implications,
the Agency cannot ignore the stockpiling of over 400 kg of highly enriched
uranium.
I call upon Iran urgently to cooperate
fully and effectively with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unless and
until Iran assists the Agency in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues,
the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear
program is exclusively peaceful. I am convinced that the only way forward goes
through a diplomatic solution, strongly backed by an IAEA verification
arrangement. I will continue to support and encourage the US and Iran to spare
no effort and exercise wisdom and political courage to bring this to a
successful conclusion. The effect of a stabilized situation in Iran with
regards to its nuclear program will be immediate and bring the Middle East one
big step closer to peace and prosperity.”
“Despite the efforts of the
International Atomic Energy Agency and the series of US-Iran talks mediated by
Oman, Israel attacked several sites in Iran on June 13, 2025. Analysing the
situation, Fabian Hinz, a Research Fellow for
Missile Technologies and UAVs said,
“Israel’s attack on Iran has exposed critical weaknesses in Tehran’s broader
military strategy.” He added, “Its depleted medium-range missile arsenal and
weakened regional allies leave it with limited options for retaliation against
Israel.”
The attack surprised many around the
world including the IAEA Director General who said, “Early this morning, the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was informed of the military operation launched by
Israel which includes attacks on nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic of
Iran.”
“We are currently in contact with the
Iranian nuclear safety authorities to ascertain the status of relevant nuclear
facilities and to assess any wider impacts on nuclear safety and security. At
present, the competent Iranian authorities have confirmed that the Natanz
enrichment site has been impacted and that there are no elevated radiation
levels. They have also reported that at present the Esfahan and Fordow sites
have not been impacted.”
“This development is deeply concerning.
I have repeatedly stated that nuclear facilities must never be attacked,
regardless of the context or circumstances, as it could harm both people and
the environment. Such attacks have serious implications for nuclear
safety, security and safeguards, as well as regional and international peace
and security.”
“In this regard, the IAEA recalls the
numerous General Conference resolutions on the topic of military attacks
against nuclear facilities, in particular, GC(XXIX)/RES/444 and
GC(XXXIV)/RES/533, which provide, inter alia, that “any armed attack on and
threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a
violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law
and the Statute of the Agency”.
“Furthermore, the IAEA has consistently
underlined that “armed attacks on nuclear facilities could result in
radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries
of the State which has been attacked”, as was stated in GC(XXXIV)/RES/533.”
“As Director General of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, and consistent with the objectives of the
IAEA under the IAEA Statute, I call on all parties to exercise maximum
restraint to avoid further escalation. I reiterate that any military action that
jeopardizes the safety and security of nuclear facilities risks grave
consequences for the people of Iran, the region, and beyond.”
“Yesterday, the Board of Governors
adopted an important resolution on Iran’s safeguards obligations.
In addition to this, the Board resolution stressed its support for a diplomatic
solution to the problems posed by the Iranian nuclear program.”
“The IAEA continues to monitor the
situation closely, stands ready to provide technical assistance, and remains
committed to its nuclear safety, security and safeguards mandate in all
circumstances. I stand ready to engage with all relevant parties to help ensure
the protection of nuclear facilities and the continued peaceful use of nuclear
technology in accordance with the Agency mandate, including, deploying Agency
nuclear security and safety experts (in addition to our safeguards inspectors
in Iran) wherever necessary to ensure that nuclear installations are fully
protected and continue to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes.”
“I wish to inform the Board that I have
indicated to the respective authorities my readiness to travel at the earliest
to assess the situation and ensure safety, security and non-proliferation in
Iran.”
“I have also been in contact with our
inspectors in Iran and Israel. The safety of our staff is of paramount
importance. All necessary actions are being taken to ensure they are not
harmed.”
“Despite the current military actions
and heightened tensions, it is clear that the only sustainable path forward—for
Iran, for Israel, the entire region, and the international community—is one
grounded in dialogue and diplomacy to ensure peace, stability, and cooperation.”
(Emphasis mine.)
“The International Atomic Energy
Agency, as the international technical institution entrusted with overseeing
the peaceful use of nuclear energy, remains the unique and vital forum for
dialogue, especially now.”
“In accordance with its Statute and
longstanding mandate, the IAEA provides the framework and natural platform
where facts prevail over rhetoric and where engagement can replace escalation.”
“I reaffirm the Agency’s readiness to
facilitate technical discussions and support efforts that promote transparency,
safety, security and the peaceful resolution of nuclear-related issues in Iran.”
As
the world ponders the serious consequences of a war that could have negative
social and economic impacts on countries near and far, various governments have
already begun taking measures to mitigate the impacts on their populations.
The
Consequences
One
of the key responses has been the rush to call for diplomatic negotiations. The
region immediately affected is the middle east. The first casualty if you will,
is the price of oil which was around USD 64 a barrel of crude before June 13,
2025. Analysts expect the price to rise beyond USD 100 per barrel if there is a
major war involving the US. Capital Economics.com had this forecast
on June 18, 2025. “Oil
prices could feasibly surge to $130-150pb were hostilities between Israel and
Iran to escalate in a way that resulted in major disruption to Middle Eastern
energy exports and/or shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. However, so long
as the conflict does not become a long-lasting war with no “off ramp”, history
suggests that any initial spike in the oil price would dissipate before long.”
IG
International (ig.com) cautions, “… the path ahead depends on whether
geopolitical risks translate into actual supply disruptions or diplomatic
resolution.”
Directly
affected are the populations of 90 million people in Iran and 10 million in
Israel. The second is the citizenry of various countries stranded in Iran and
Israel without an easy exit from the war zone. Many are being directed by their
native countries to neighboring countries bordering both Iran and Israel. As of June 19, 2025, Sri Lanka had 35
nationals in Iran and approximately 20,000 migrants in Israel and had reached
out to India for for assistance in the repatriation of Sri Lankan students in
Iran. India which has
a large workforce in the middle east has evacuated over 100 Indian students
from Iran via Armenia. The flight has landed in New Delhi June 19, according to
the Hindu. Nearly 9 million Non-resident Indians
(NRI) live the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and
Bahrain according to figures provided by the Indian External Affairs Ministry
in 2023. That is 66%
of the 13.4 million NRIs domiciled overseas.
Australians
are resorting to chartering armored cars and ferries to flee Israel, or
sheltering in place in Iran, as Australia’s embassies scramble to organise
evacuations in a region where flights are not operating and conflict is
escalating The Sydney Morning Herald reported June
19, 2025.
Almost
3000 Australians have registered to be evacuated out of Israel and Iran,
representing a near doubling in the number of people seeking to flee for each
day the conflict has continued, and some have accused the government’s response
of being “delinquent”.
At
least two buses have already left Israel for Jordan with Australians on board,
including one organised by insurers and the other by the government, but others
are paying private companies for evacuation via armoured car or ferries to
Cyprus.
Penelope
Ying-Yen Wong (Australia’s Minster of Foreign Affairs) told ABC News
Breakfast on Thursday, the missile strikes between Israel and Iran
made the situation difficult because they made it impossible to conduct
evacuation flights.
“It’s
a very, very difficult situation on the ground at the moment,” Wong said.
“Obviously, there are more opportunities [to evacuate people] in relation to
Israel. We took the opportunity to get a small group out across by land
crossing yesterday. And we’ll seek to continue that … Iran is a very
complicated situation, a very risky situation.”
Other
countries including China and Russia face similar difficulties. That Trump’s
decision would take two more weeks would bring a sigh of relief for all
countries seeking to repatriate their citizens from the war zone; more so for
US allies seeking to get their citizens out of harm’s way.
Reuters reported Thursday that Russia
had warned that a strike on Iran’s Bushehr Nuclear Plant could cause a Chernobyl-style
catastrophe. The
report went on to say that the warning had come from the head of Russia's
nuclear energy.
Bushehr
is Iran's only operating nuclear power plant and was built by Russia, the
report continued, stating that President Vladimir Putin had told journalists in
the early hours of Thursday that Israel had promised Russia that Moscow's
workers - who are building more nuclear facilities at the Bushehr site - would
be safe, even as Israel tries to degrade Iran's nuclear capabilities by force.
The
head of Russia's state nuclear corporation Rosatom warned on Thursday that the
situation around the plant was fraught with risk, it said. "If there is a
strike on the operational first power unit, it will be a catastrophe comparable
to Chernobyl," the state RIA news agency cited Alexei Likhachev as saying,
according to the Reuter report.
Many
countries have also shifted their operational diplomatic offices away from
Teheran and Tel Aviv. The US would be weighing the risks of getting involved in
an all-out war that could polarize a world already grappling with various
challenges including Trump’s tariffs. The US could also lose the friendly
relations with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain and other middle eastern
countries Trump was keen to woo, with his first overseas visit as he began his
send term as President of the USA.
TRT
Global in its report dated June 19, outlines the severe consequences that could
be faced by the Gulf Cooperation council (GCC) countries.
Earlier, the Gulf Cooperation Council
(GCC)—comprising Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United
Arab Emirates—has activated emergency measures to prepare for potential
radiological or environmental fallout.
Bahrain has readied 33 shelters and
tested nationwide sirens, while in Oman, authorities circulated safety guidance
urging residents to seal homes and stay indoors in case of contamination,
according to media reports.
Regional leaders have voiced alarm over
what they describe as reckless military actions that risk devastating shared
waters and critical resources.
The UAE’s foreign minister, Sheikh
Abdullah bin Zayed, warned against “miscalculated actions that could extend
beyond the borders” of Iran and Israel, while Qatar highlighted fears of
“uncalculated strikes” that could endanger Gulf states' water supplies. The
straight-line distance (as the crow-flies) between Dubai and Iran according to
Google is 781.30 km or 485.48 miles.
Almost 60 million people across the
Gulf rely on desalinated water from the Gulf. A significant radiological leak
could contaminate this source, endangering drinking water, agriculture, and
marine life.
Qatar’s Prime Minister Mohammed Al
Thani previously warned that such a scenario could leave countries like Qatar,
Kuwait, and the UAE without usable water in just three days.
The BBC reports that, The Metro calls
it the ArmagedDon and says speculation over whether Donald Trump will order US
strikes against Iran dominates Thursday's papers. The Telegraph reports Donald
Trump telling reporters on the White House South Lawn, “Next week will be
decisive regarding Iran, and it may happen before the end of the week. I may do
it; I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do. I can tell you
this, that Iran’s got a lot of trouble,” he said. It has since been extended to
two weeks. One can only hope that the US government has a proper understanding
of the wider humanitarian concerns as they make the all-important decision. END.
P.S. – Events have overtaken and escalated the
situation with the US joining-in since this post was written on June 20, 2025.
