Category: 2. World

Here are the key events on day 1,226 of Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Here is how things stand on Friday, July 4:

Fighting

• Russia launched 539 drones and 11 ballistic and cruise missiles at Ukraine overnight in the largest aerial attack since the war began, according to Ukraine’s air force.
• The military said its air defences shot down 270 drones while 208 more were redirected by the army or were drone simulators lacking warheads.
• The attacks on Kyiv injured at least 23 people, damaging railway infrastructure and setting buildings and cars on fire, authorities said.
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said of the latest attack that Russia will not stop its strikes without large-scale pressure.
• Russia’s air defence units destroyed 48 Ukrainian drones overnight, Russia’s TASS news agency reported.
• Ukraine launched a drone attack on the Sergiyev Posad district near Moscow, injuring one person and leaving parts of the religiously significant centre without power, the head of the district said.
• Ukraine’s drone attack on Russia’s Rostov region killed at least one woman and forced the evacuation of dozens of people from their homes, the acting governor said.
• Russia has increased its use of chemical weapons in Ukraine, Germany’s BND foreign intelligence agency said on Friday, citing evidence it obtained alongside its Dutch counterparts.

Weapons

• Zelenskyy said he hoped to speak with his United States counterpart, Donald Trump, about the supply of US weapons to Ukraine.
• In a phone call on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump did not discuss the US decision to halt some shipments of critical weapons to Ukraine, Putin aide Yuri Ushakov said.

Politics and diplomacy

• Trump said he made no progress during his phone call with Putin, who reportedly reiterated he would stop his invasion only if the conflict’s “root causes” were tackled.
• Trump also said he was planning to discuss the conflict with Ukraine’s Zelenskyy on Friday.

Hamas leaders are close to accepting a proposed deal for a ceasefire in Gaza but want stronger guarantees that any pause in hostilities would lead to a permanent end to the 20-month war, sources close to the militant Islamist organisation have said.

Hamas officials met on Thursday in Istanbul to discuss the new ceasefire proposals and later issued a statement confirming they were talking to other “Palestinian factions” before formally announcing a response.

The militant Islamist group has come under immense pressure in recent months, with its military leadership decimated and the Israeli military forcing its fighters out of former strongholds in the southern and central parts of Gaza.

In recent days, Israel has ramped up its offensive, launching an intense wave of airstrikes across Gaza, killing more than 250 Palestinians, according to medical and civil defence officials, including many women and children.

Hardline factions within Hamas have now reluctantly accepted the need for a ceasefire to allow the organisation to regroup and plan a new strategy, one source familiar with the internal debate said.

Since a previous ceasefire collapsed in March, more than 6,000 people have been killed in Gaza and an acute humanitarian crisis has worsened.

Efforts for a new truce in Gaza gathered momentum after the US secured a ceasefire to end the 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran last month.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, is expected to fly to Washington on Sunday for talks with Trump about the war in Gaza, the recent war between Israel and Iran, and other regional issues.

Netanyahu has long resisted a permanent end to the war in Gaza, partly to retain the support of far-right allies in his ruling coalition. But Israel’s successes in the war with Iran have strengthened his political position and opinion polls in Israel show strong support for a deal.

On Tuesday, Trump announced that Israel had accepted the conditions needed to finalise a 60-day ceasefire with Hamas, during which the parties will work to end the war.

Israel’s security cabinet met on Thursday night to discuss options for Gaza, including an escalation of the current offensive.

“Judging by the signals from Hamas, there is a high probability that we will start proximity talks in the next few days. If there is consent to proximity talks, there will be a deal,” senior Israeli officials told Channel 12, a major Israeli TV network.

A senior Israeli official close to Netanyahu told Reuters that preparations were now in place to approve the ceasefire deal. Another Israeli source said that an Israeli delegation was preparing to join indirect talks brokered by Qatar and Egypt to cement the deal if Hamas responded positively.

The proposal includes the release of 10 living Israeli hostages held in Gaza since the Hamas attack into southern Israel in October 2023 that triggered the conflict, and the return of the bodies of 18 more in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, an official familiar with the negotiations said on Thursday.

Hamas seized 251 hostages during the 2023 attack. Less than half of the 50 who remain in Gaza are believed to be alive.

Aid would enter Gaza immediately under the agreement, and the Israeli military would carry out a phased withdrawal from parts of the territory, according to the proposal. Negotiations would immediately start on a permanent ceasefire.

“We sure hope it’s a done deal, but I think it’s all going to be what Hamas is willing to accept,” Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, told Israel’s Channel 12 on Thursday. “One thing is clear: the president wants it to be over. The prime minister wants it to be over. The American people, the Israeli people, want it to be over.”

Speaking to journalists while on his way to a rally in Iowa on Thursday, Trump said: “I want the people of Gaza to be safe. That’s more important than anything else. They’ve gone through hell.”

Netanyahu visited Israel’s Nir Oz kibbutz on Thursday for the first time since the 2023 Hamas attack. The community was one of the worst-hit in the attack, with nearly one in four residents kidnapped or killed.

“I feel a deep commitment – first of all to ensure the return of all of our hostages, all of them. There are still 20 who are alive and there are also those who are deceased, and we will bring them all back,” Netanyahu said.

The Israeli prime minister has been heavily criticised for refusing to take responsibility for the failures that allowed the 2023 attack, during which Hamas-led militants killed 1,200, mostly civilians, and has been repeatedly accused of prioritising his political survival over the fate of the hostages.

Israel’s retaliatory military campaign has killed at least 57,00 people in Gaza, also mostly civilians, according to a count by the territory’s Ministry of Health that is considered reliable by the United Nations and many western governments.

The Israeli military said it “follows international law and takes feasible precautions to mitigate civilian harm” when striking “terrorist targets”.

President Donald Trump speaks with reporters.
| Photo Credit: AP

Good morning. On Wednesday, MPs including home secretary Yvette Cooper wore sashes to celebrate the legacy of the Suffragettes, whose methods included arson attacks, non-lethal bombings, and disabling railway lines. Then many of them voted to make wearing a Palestine Action t-shirt punishable by up to six months in prison, and membership of the group liable for a sentence of up to 14 years.

The legislation is the result of Cooper’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action. Today, the high court will hear a case brought by co-founder Huda Ammori asking for a temporary block on the order. If it fails, a group which pursues disruptive direct action aimed at buildings, equipment, and institutions rather than violence will be designated a terrorist entity for the first time.

Cooper says that Palestine Action must be banned because it attacks the UK’s defence industry, which is “vital to the nation’s national security”. For today’s newsletter, I spoke to Martha Spurrier, a human rights barrister and former director of Liberty, about a new frontier in the UK’s view of the line between disruptive protest and menacing force.

This is my last newsletter for a while – I’m going on paternity leave, ahead of the imminent arrival of our, er, second edition. Aamna will be with you from Monday, and I’ll be back in the autumn. Here are the headlines.

Five big stories

1. UK politics | The MP Zarah Sultana, who was suspended from Labour last year, has said she will “co-lead the founding of a new party” with Jeremy Corbyn. But Corbyn, who has not yet publicly committed to establishing a formal party, is understood to be frustrated at Sultana’s unilateral announcement and reluctant to take on the title of leader.

2. Diogo Jota | Jürgen Klopp and Cristiano Ronaldo led the tributes from across the football world to Diogo Jota after the 28-year-old Liverpool and Portugal forward was killed in a car accident in Spain. Jota’s brother, André, also died in the crash in the province of Zamora.

3. Middle East | Israel has escalated its offensive in Gaza before imminent talks about a ceasefire, with warships and artillery launching one of the deadliest and most intense bombardments in the devastated Palestinian territory for many months. In all, about 300 people may have been killed this week and thousands more injured, officials said.

4. US politics | The US House of Representatives narrowly passed Donald Trump’s sweeping tax and spending bill on Thursday. The “big beautiful bill” makes sweeping cuts to safety net programs but adds trillions to the national debt through major tax cuts and spending increases on immigration enforcement and the military.

5. UK politics | Rachel Reeves said she is “cracking on with the job” of chancellor after her she was seen visibly distressed in the Commons on Wednesday. Speaking after a public show of unity alongside Keir Starmer at the launch of the NHS 10-year plan, she said she had been upset over a “personal issue”.

In depth: ‘People who can’t afford to be arrested simply won’t show up​’

Yvette Cooper announced the decision to proscribe Palestine Action a few days after activists from the group broke into RAF Brize Norton and spray painted two military planes red.

The home secretary called that incident “disgraceful”, and said it was part of a “long history” of criminal damage that has “increased in frequency and severity”. She said that the attacks had done millions of pounds worth of damage and sparked panic among bystanders, who had been “subjected to violence”. But she did not suggest that Palestine Action is a group devoted to violence as the mechanism for securing its political aims, because it isn’t.

The proscription order was voted through parliament this week – but doesn’t come into force until Saturday. Here’s what you need to know.

---

What’s at stake in today’s hearing?

At the high court today, Huda Ammori will seek an interim order from the judge on the case, Martin Chamberlain, preventing Cooper’s decision from taking effect until a court makes a decision on a judicial review. It is not a full examination of the substantive issues raised by the case, Martha Spurrier said. “It will probably be focused on questions of process: does the complainant understand why the order was made? Has she been given the underlying evidence and the reasons? Has the process been fair, and have the right people been consulted?

“Part of it will be about creating the legal mood music for the judge,” she added. “This has all happened very fast, and the level of the debate has not really been proportionate to the seriousness and novelty of the change, and so they will hope that the judge will find it more attractive to press pause and ventilate the issues thoroughly in court in a few weeks time.”

The government, for its part, is likely to argue that the threat posed by Palestine Action is so serious and immediate that the UK’s national security requires an instant response. If they succeed, the order will take effect on Saturday and place Palestine Action alongside the likes of Islamic State, al-Qaida, and the neo-Nazi group National Action.

Here are some of the consequences. (For more detail, see Netpol’s useful breakdown.)

Membership or encouraging others to support the group will become a criminal offence, punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Informal expressions of support, including through clothes and banners, will become a criminal offence that could attract a six-month prison sentence. (None of this would apply retrospectively, and challenging or protesting the ban itself would still be allowed.)

Organising or attending meetings of as few as three people would be banned along with fundraising or providing logistical support. Payment platforms would face investigation if they facilitated donations.

Intelligence services and police would not be granted new powers of surveillance and infiltration directly, but proscription would likely increase resources flowing to monitoring suspected members of the group and might strengthen the case for warrants.

---

Can the proscripton order still be overturned if the government wins today?

If the government prevails, that is not the end of the story – but the route to overturning the ban becomes significantly harder. “The minute the order is effective it is strengthened by being the status quo,” Spurrier said. “The deference shown to the government on national security issues is enormous.”

Should the case enter the appeals process, the first route is to the home secretary, whose view seems fairly predictable. After that it enters the legal system – but rather than being heard in open court, the case might end up in closed hearings, where Palestine Action would be represented by special advocates under severe limits on what they can share with their clients.

For that to happen, the government would have to demonstrate that it has evidence which presents a national security risk to share publicly. If they succeed, the challenge for Palestine Action becomes incredibly steep, because they will only hear the parts of the case against them that have been agreed by the court not to present a national security risk.

“You can’t answer the specific allegations, whether by saying I wasn’t there on that date, or if you think our modus operandi is X or Y I can prove that it’s not,” Spurrier said. “It’s the special advocate’s job to make the strongest case they can in the absence of their client being able to give them instructions – but fundamentally they are working with both hands tied behind their back.”

---

Is this a new frontier in the definition of terrorism?

In the 1990s, Greenpeace was involved in a number of radical direct actions, like occupying the Brent Spar oil platform so it couldn’t be disposed of in the sea, and destroying a field of genetically-modified maize. When the terrorism bill under which the Palestine Action decision has been made was going through parliament in 1999, Jack Straw, the home secretary at the time, dealt with the question of whether Greenpeace could be caught in the definition.

“I make it clear that the new definition will not catch the vast majority of so-called domestic activist groups,” Straw said. “To respond to a recent example, I know of no evidence whatever that Greenpeace is involved in any activity that would fall remotely under the scope of this measure.”

“I don’t think there’s any evidence that parliament’s intention was that groups like this would be caught by the definition of the terrorism act,” Spurrier said. “This is the first time where the primary accusation is of property damage and not harm to people.”

That obviously opens the way to wider applications in an era where direct action – often over the climate crisis – has become a major political issue, she added. “It’s really unclear to me what the principled distinction would be if Just Stop Oil began another wave of damage to property. There would surely be at the very least a political conversation about whether they should be proscribed.”

Crucially, there are already plenty of laws in place for which members of groups like Palestine Action can be prosecuted for criminal damage – and which do not involve imposing the draconian restrictions of proscription. That is part of a wider political shift in the definition of acceptable protest, Spurrier said.

“I remember giving evidence to MPs about this a few years ago – and it was so noticeable that the fault line, which had always been peaceful or not peaceful, had moved – and suddenly it was disruptive or not disruptive. I had MPs saying to me that if it got in the way of the school run surely it should be banned. So there has been a paradigm shift.”

---

What will it mean in practice?

If the ban goes ahead, “I don’t expect you’ll see white grannies being carted away for carrying a Palestine Action sign,” Spurrier said. “They will be astute in who they arrest and who they prosecute. But you will see communities of colour bearing the brunt of it in the way they always do. And there will be a chilling effect – people who can’t afford to be arrested because they will lose their job or they are just frightened by the prospect, simply won’t show up.”

There are reasons to worry about the broader consequences, including how the ban might interact with a bill going through parliament seeking to criminalise face coverings at protests and expanding the use of facial recognition. It might also lead to children being referred to the authorities under the Prevent scheme if they tell a teacher that their parents support the group, Spurrier said. “There are so many pieces of architecture that can sweep people up for things that aren’t criminal acts but speak to some kind of intention – and then you’re in the dragnet.”

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

With all that in mind, it may seem extraordinary that the legislation passed the House of Commons this week by 385 votes to 26. “I was really disappointed,” Spurrier said. “But, whether you’re talking about protest or asylum or criminal justice, the prevailing view is that a hardened anti-rights, anti-rule of law stance is almost a centrist position. So I was surprised that the numbers were quite so low. But I was never under the illusion that it would meet with serious resistance.”

What else we’ve been reading

• Holloman Lake, a 1965 wastewater pond in New Mexico, was a wildlife oasis until researchers tested strange shoreline foam and uncovered the devastating impact of forever chemicals on the ecosystem. Aamna

• A year after winning the election, Labour is at a low ebb, Polly Toynbee writes. It is time to be honest about the need for significant tax rises, she says – and to “remind citizens that their taxes go to things everyone values most”. Archie

• A jury has acquitted Sean “Diddy” Combs of sex trafficking, convicting him only of transporting male prostitutes. The case hinged on consent: the women said no; he said yes. The jury sided with him, cementing what feminist Moira Donegan calls the #MeToo backlash era. Aamna

• Ahead of the first date of the Oasis reunion tour tonight, I enjoyed Simon Armitage’s tribute: as they return to the stage, “fans will be back on each other’s shoulders or arm in arm, singing gnomic phrases and occasional nonsense, united by some irresistible bond.” Archie

• To save time, people brush their teeth in the shower or wear slip-on shoes. Are these “life hacks” clever conveniences, or a depressing sign of how overstretched, overworked and overwhelmed we’ve all become? Aamna

Sport

Football | “It is impossible not to feel a deep sense of pain, sadness and shared heartbreak at news of the sudden death of Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva,” Barney Ronay writes. He was “the kind of footballer who barely seems to leave a dent in the grass, who, for all the tactical match-smarts seems still to be playing the same endless teenage game.”

Tennis | The British No 1 Jack Draper was taught a grand slam lesson by the veteran Marin Cilic, losing 4-6, 3-6, 6-1, 4-6 in the second round at Wimbledon. Iga Świątek went about her business almost unnoticed as she defeated Caty McNally 5-7, 6-2, 6-1 to reach the third round.

Football | It took under 90 seconds for Esther González to score the first goal for Spain against Portugal in the Women’s Euros, and then they came quickly, finishing up at 5-0. Italy defeated Belgium 1-0 with Arianna Caruso’s stunning, curling first-half goal.

The front pages

The Guardian splashes on “Hundreds killed as Israel steps up Gaza strikes despite ceasefire hope.” The Times leads with “NHS app to give patients a ‘doctor in your pocket’,” while the Mail has “The doctor in your pocket will see you now.” The FT leads on “Big asset managers piled in to gilts as markets dipped during Reeves crisis,” the i Paper has “Pensions face tax hike to pay for Labour welfare U-turn,” and the Telegraph goes with “Corbyn’s hard-left challenge to Starmer.”

Pictures of Diogo Jota, who died in a car crash in Spain, feature on many front pages. The Mirror splashes on “Liverpool star tragedy: Devastating,” for the Sun, it’s “Football has lost a champion,” and the Express leads with “‘Our hearts are broken’ …fans in shock over death of Kop star.”

Something for the weekend

Our critics’ roundup of the best things to watch, read, play and listen to right now

TV
Gaza: Doctors Under Attack | ★★★★★
Several powerful documentaries have emerged on Palestine this year, but this is the most unflinching. Its central thesis: the IDF systematically targets medics in all 36 of Gaza’s hospitals. The pattern they lay out is chilling: first bombardment, then siege, followed by raids with tanks and bulldozers. Medical staff are detained, hospitals destroyed and the forces move on. The aim appears to be long-term devastation and ensuring Palestinians have nothing to return to. The documentary’s slow, methodical unfurling of this thesis is the stuff of nightmares. Stuart Heritage

Film
Heads of State | ★★★★☆
Idris Elba and John Cena return in this gun show from Nobody director Ilya Naishuller, playing a UK prime minister and US president at odds. After a joint press conference goes sideways and derails a Nato-backed energy deal, the two are forced to fly together to repair the damage, only for their Air Force One trip to end in a fiery crash. Elba deftly toggles between Odd Couple chemistry with Cena and romantic tension with Priyanka Chopra. Naishuller delivers action with pratfalls and one-liners. This is the perfect summer movie – fun, fiery, and totally frivolous. Andrew Lawrence

Music
. (Period): Kesha | ★★★★☆
Kesha’s sixth album marks a fresh start, bringing back the artist who once brushed her teeth with Jack Daniel’s and danced with giant penises on stage. Only the piano ballad Cathedral feels fully rooted in her recent legal battles. This is clearly an album designed to put Kesha back at the centre of pop. The songs are strong, full of smart twists, drops, and funny, self-referential lines: “You’re on TikTok / I’m the fucking OG.” The army of collaborators, from Jonathan Wilson to Madison Love, rally behind her. Kesha plays the part of Kesha 1.0 to perfection. For all the lyrical excess, nothing feels forced. Why would it? She’s simply reclaiming the role she created. Alexis Petridis

Today in Focus

Guilty … and not guilty: understanding the Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs verdict – podcast

The rapper faced charges often levied at mafia bosses. Anna Betts explains what the jury heard, and Andrew Lawrence tells Nosheen Iqbal what the verdict means for the music mogul

The Upside

A bit of good news to remind you that the world’s not all bad

Spain’s women’s football team has battled systemic misogyny and poor treatment for years, culminating in a World Cup win in 2023 overshadowed by an unwanted kiss from football chief Luis Rubiales.

The incident ignited global outrage and amplified calls for equality. The outcome of the scandal was that it sparked wider social debate in Spain about gender and power, and ultimately gave young women the voice they needed. The players now say that this turning point has led to a positive change.

Player Aitana Bonmatí says, “It was tough to play here; the situation wasn’t good … Now everything is better.”

Bored at work?

And finally, the Guardian’s puzzles are here to keep you entertained throughout the day. Until tomorrow.

Ukraine has accused Vladimir Putin of “publicly humiliating” Donald Trump after Russia launched a devastating attack with a record number of drones and ballistic missiles on Kyiv, hours after the two leaders spoke by phone.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy described the seven-hour raid as a “deliberate act of terror” which “immediately followed the call between Washington and Moscow”. It was one of the most severe assaults of the entire war and a “clear interpretation of how Moscow interprets diplomacy”, he added.

The sustained and coordinated night-time attack involved more than 550 Russian drones and ballistic missiles – a record. Families in Kyiv spent the night in metro stations, basements and underground parking garages.

Drones could be heard circling the skies above the capital one after another. There were numerous booms and explosions, and the staccato rattle of machine-gun fire, as Ukrainian air defence units tried to shoot down the missiles.

The air raid ended at 9am local time, leaving a thick pall of choking black smoke over the city. Residents were advised to keep their windows shut because of fires. According to officials, at least 23 people were injured, 14 of whom were taken to hospital. Blasts damaged apartment blocks, cars and warehouses.

There was also disruption to the normally reliable rail network. Passengers arriving at Kyiv’s main station on Thursday night had to file out through underground tunnels, with the main concourse closed and many services on Friday delayed.

After his conversation with Putin on Thursday, Trump said they had discussed the war “in a pretty long call”. But he said there was no movement towards a ceasefire, with Putin reportedly insisting on Ukraine’s capitulation. “I’m not happy about that. No, I didn’t make any progress with him today at all,” Trump said.

Thursday’s attack came after the Pentagon this week halted the delivery of some weapons shipments to Ukraine, including replacement interceptor missiles used in Patriot air defence systems. Ukrainians have said the decision leaves their cities defenceless, emboldens Russia and facilitates deadly attacks.

The Ukrainian government has been careful not to criticise the US president directly. But it wants Washington and other allies, including the UK and EU, to put further pressure on Moscow to stop the war and its relentless aerial attacks on civilians.

“There must be consequences – not eventually, but now,” Zelenskyy said. “Strengthened sanctions. Immediate delivery of air defence systems. A shift from caution to clarity. The Kremlin is watching the world’s reaction. So are others.”

Zelenskyy said he hoped to speak with Trump on Friday about the supply of US weapons, amid low expectations of a change in White House policy.

One senior Ukrainian official suggested Trump’s apparent strategy of appeasing Putin was not working. Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to the head of Zelenskyy’s office, said any US phone call with Putin “inevitably results in massive demonstrative shelling of Kyiv – with enormous destruction”.

Putin treated these conversations as “an opportunity to publicly humiliate the other side’s reputation”. It was a “way to demonstrate his [Putin’s] boundlessness and willingness to kill ever more brazenly,” Podolyak posted on social media.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

With supplies of anti-aircraft missiles running low, Ukraine is increasingly using home-produced drones to take down incoming Shahed missiles. But it is struggling to cope with the overwhelming numbers flooding its skies. According to the Ukrainian air force, 72 out of 550 drones and missiles hit their targets in Thursday’s raid.

The attack was the latest in a series of Russian airstrikes on Kyiv that have intensified in recent weeks and included some of the deadliest assaults of the war on the city of 3 million people.

Kyiv’s mayor, Vitali Klitschko, said damage was recorded in six of Kyiv’s 10 districts on both sides of the Dnipro River, which bisects the city, and falling drone debris set a medical facility on fire in the Holosiivskyi district.

Klitschko said two fires had broken out in the western Sviatoshynskyi district when drone debris fell on a warehouse, while debris from another drone set fire to cars in the courtyard of a 16-storey residential building.

Drones also triggered two fires on a roof and in a courtyard in buildings in the neighbouring Solomianskyi district, and a residential building in the Shevchenkivskyi district, he said.

Ukraine, meanwhile, launched a drone attack on the city of Sergiyev Posad near Moscow, injuring at least one person. Explosions were reported in at least four locations, the head of the district, Oksana Yerokhanova, said on Friday.

“I ask everyone to remain calm, not to approach the windows, not to photograph the work of the air defence,” Yerokhanova wrote in a post on the Telegram messaging app.

Another drone attack on the southern Russian region of Rostov region killed at least one person, the acting governor of the region, Yury Slyusar, said on Telegram on Friday.

Since taking office, U.S. President Donald Trump has gone for gold in the Middle East. He launched a dramatic military operation against Iran’s nuclear program, building on the broader dismantling of the country’s regional power. He then brokered a cease-fire between Israel and Iran and indicated a willingness to talk with the Iranian government. These outcomes have provided hope that if the United States can focus on the essential—the continued containment and further weakening of Iran—and avoid overcommitment to myriad other regional policy objectives, the Middle East might finally have the stability and normalcy it has long lacked.

But the region has seen similar optimism: after the Yom Kippur War in 1974, the defeat of Iran and then Iraq from 1988 to 1991, and after the takedown of the Taliban in 2001. In each case, the Middle East had reached a critical point of danger, prompting successful American intervention, followed by diplomatic campaigns to lock in these moments of stability. The Camp David accords, for instance, normalized relations between Egypt and Israel, and Israel and Jordan later signed a peace treaty of their own.

Yet after brief periods of peace, the region has always devolved back into chaos. First came the Iranian revolution and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The Oslo accords, which set up a peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians, ultimately collapsed after 2000. The American invasion of Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks, like the Soviet one before it, stretched on for years, and it ultimately ended with the Taliban back in power. The invasion of Iraq heralded two decades of conflict, including indirect fighting with Iran and direct combat against the al-Qaeda offshoot the Islamic State, or ISIS.

This history represents decades-long American policy failures. For years, the United States has managed to secure the Middle East from hostile dominance, but containment policy there differed dramatically from that in Asia and Europe. Asian and European states eventually established stable domestic institutions and regional cooperation systems, leaving the United States to focus on organizing collective security against China and Russia. In the Middle East, however, the United States has had to intervene repeatedly in internal and regional conflicts that undercut stability and containment—even after the Soviet Union passed from the scene.

This time, though, the situation may well be different. Thanks to a year and a half of war, Iran and its proxies are very weak. New leaders are reshaping the region’s power dynamics in Tehran’s absence. The Trump administration thus has a chance to do what its predecessors could not and truly stabilize the region.

UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT

Since the collapse of ISIS, Iran has been the Middle East’s primary generator of regional instability. Its proxy groups have unleashed attacks on Israel, U.S. forces, Arab Gulf states, and commercial ships in the Red Sea. But after Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, Tehran’s tools have largely evaporated. Hamas and Hezbollah were significantly degraded by Israel’s offensives. Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria collapsed, and Iran’s nuclear, offensive missile, and air defense systems have been demolished by Israel and the United States. Iran can still count on its influence in Iraq and on the Houthis, and it has at least the remnants of its nuclear program. But it cannot erase the reality that these setbacks are its fault, first by allowing its proxies to attack Israel and then by joining in the fight directly, in 2024. As a result, the path toward regional stability is now much smoother.

Tehran’s decline has coincided with the rise of new power brokers in the Middle East. Israel, Turkey, and the Gulf states have become major international players, integrating themselves into the global economy and making internal reforms that both advance and reflect their more cosmopolitan populations and economies. Other than Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the region’s leaders have not abandoned formal and informal relations with Israel over the huge civilian losses in Gaza. Arab leaders have demonstrated this new self-confidence by largely embracing the new Syrian government, choosing to look past President Ahmed al-Shara’s terrorist history and coordinating with Erdogan to push an initially reticent Trump administration to embrace Damascus’s leader.

For its part, the United States has been playing a far more effective regional role under Presidents Biden and Trump since the outbreak of the war in Gaza. It has neither pivoted away from the region nor dived into every social, political, and security problem. In a speech during his tour of the Middle East in May, Trump declared that the region has the ability to develop prosperity and peace on its own, with only some American support. Trump is handling military threats, if possible, via negotiations. When diplomacy is not possible, he is relying on massive, rapid military force to achieve limited, definable goals that Americans can understand—such as protecting freedom of navigation and stopping the development of an Iranian nuclear bomb. He has, in short, updated the 1980s Powell Doctrine, which held that military force should be a last resort but should be used decisively when necessary, with clear goals supporting national interests and popular support. Trump has benefited from having Steve Witkoff and Tom Barrack as envoys, a knowledgeable team that enjoys his trust. And he does not have to contend as much with Moscow, a perennial troublemaker that has been unable to support its partners in Iran and Syria. 

SECOND TIME’S THE CHARM

If this propitious moment holds, the path to lasting stability is to further contain the Iranian threat, with Washington working by, with, and through its partners. Although difficult, this outcome is not impossible. In the 1990s, following its defeat in the Iraq War, Iran was all but supine in the region. The Trump administration thus should pay attention to why Iran broke out after 2000, exacerbating mayhem through the Levant and beyond and building huge nuclear and ballistic missile programs in the face of American, Arab, and Israeli opposition.

There are two complementary explanations for what went wrong. The first is that this loose coalition focused on other, ultimately less destabilizing issues, including counterterrorism, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Arab Spring, and Israeli-Palestinian relations. The second is that regional actors disputed the nature of Iran’s threat and so they attempted remedies that were both diverse and ineffective.

To handle Tehran, Washington considered both regime change and rapprochement. But ultimately reluctant to address the full dangers Iran posed head on, the United States and others turned to negotiations. They hoped that by treating Iran as normal state, they could both solve specific problems and nudge it toward a broader rapprochement with the region. The assumption here was that when met with enough understanding, dialogue, and concessions, Iran would shed its distrust and insecurity, cease its nuclear and missile projects, and stop inciting its proxy network. This group saw military responses as futile, as Iran was assumed to have escalation dominance. Consequently, Washington and an international coalition struck a nuclear deal with the country in 2015. But the agreement was only temporary, did nothing to constrain Iran’s broader destabilizing behavior, and gave the regime new sources of revenue. As a result, the first Trump administration withdrew in 2018.

Developments in the Middle East since October 7 have demonstrated that Iran will not behave like a normal state, no matter what analysts may wish. Negotiations alone can slow the country down, yet they will not tame it. But decisive military action can cripple Iran’s capabilities and temper its taste for conflict, as Iraq’s offensives and the U.S. confrontation with Iran in the Gulf in 1988, the killing of the Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani by the United States in 2020, and, so far, the Israeli and U.S. military operations all have.

In light of this, Washington should prioritize eliminating Iran’s nuclear weapons program and defeating its proxy forces. Victory could lead to comprehensive diplomatic openings or even a different Iran. But renewed dialogue or regime change should not be goals unto themselves. Instead, the United States must focus on making sure Iran retains no nuclear program that it could use to develop weapons.

SEIZE THE DAY

To achieve this aim, Washington should apply economic and, if necessary, military pressure until Iran comes clean on its weaponization programs and abandons all or almost all uranium enrichment for perpetuity. This is the most clear-cut and important mission and one that the United States now completely owns with its decision to use force against Iran. Israel has its own existential interest here, but by necessity it must coordinate with Washington. Critics of military action are correct that the nuclear dispute with Iran will end only with negotiations. But negotiations are not an end in themselves, only a means to prevent any possibility of nuclear weaponization. And in the absence of immense pressure, it will not be achieved.

Washington must also better calibrate its policies to block Iran’s proxies from returning to Gaza and Syria and to reduce Tehran’s influence in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. Proxy pushback is hard, and these countries all have other issues—energy, terrorism, humanitarian relief—that vie for Washington’s attention. But to truly stamp out Iran’s regional influence, the United States must subordinate these concerns and focus on combating Iran’s partners. Regional states, whose security has been repeatedly threatened by instability in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, should play a leading role. Yet Washington must be willing to counter Tehran’s tactic of attacking via its proxies by retaliating not against them but against Iran.

Outside Iran, the United States should heed Trump’s words and allow regional states to exercise their own agency, as it largely does in Asia and Europe. But there are exceptions—issues that affect overall security and in which Americans can clearly help. One is the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, which although not the core source of regional dysfunction, is significant. Until better managed, beginning with a Gaza settlement, it will be a drain on American and Israeli regional goals, including Arab-Israeli integration. The budding rivalry between the two most powerful regional states, Israel and Turkey, also bears attention. They do not have underlying security conflicts. Instead, their rivalry is partly a function of their two leaders’ mutual animosity and partly the inevitable result of realpolitik. Trump, who works well with both leaders, has an interest in calming their relations.

The Middle East requires U.S. engagement in other ways, as well, including ensuring the export of hydrocarbons, maintaining global transport routes, and managing terrorism threats and refugee flows. But the United States now has a chance, in concert with the region’s leaders, to more permanently stabilize the region and dramatically reduce its nonstop diplomatic crisis management and half century of nearly continuous combat operations. It should seize the moment.

Loading…