Tag:

ceasefire

Global Condemnation of Gaza Actions Coincides with Deep Dive into Volatile US-Iran and Trump-Netanyahu Dynamics Amidst Fragile Ceasefire

by Suro Senen October 27, 2025

written by Suro Senen

Jakarta, Indonesia, October 12, 2025 – A powerful demonstration of international solidarity with Palestine unfolded in Jakarta, as thousands of participants in the "Indonesia Lawan Genosida, Dukung Palestina Merdeka" (Indonesia Fights Genocide, Supports Free Palestine) rally took to the streets. The protest, marked by the symbolic act of stomping on a poster depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, vehemently condemned all forms of alleged genocide against the residents of Gaza perpetrated by Israel. Demonstrators vociferously demanded immediate and permanent ceasefire in Palestine and championed the cause of Palestinian independence, reflecting a growing global outrage over the protracted conflict.

This surge of public indignation, however, occurs against a complex geopolitical backdrop, particularly the precarious relationship between Washington and Tehran. After weeks of escalating tensions that brought the Middle East to the brink of wider conflict, a fragile ceasefire has seemingly settled between the United States and Iran. While this period has seen a de-escalation in the intensity of direct and proxy attacks, it has done little to resolve the fundamental drivers of the conflict or chart a clear path forward. Beneath this superficial calm, a more intricate and often volatile dynamic emerges: the relationship between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a partnership that, according to many analysts, propelled both nations towards a confrontation from which neither seemed to have a clear exit strategy.

Reports from British media outlets have offered a distinct lens through which to understand the recent escalations, particularly focusing on the assertion that Prime Minister Netanyahu was not merely a passive partner in the recent American-led push for confrontation, but rather a principal architect. These analyses suggest that Netanyahu’s persistent advocacy for a hardline stance against Iran heavily influenced the Trump administration’s foreign policy, often leading the U.S. down a path of escalating pressure, only for the Trump administration to later grapple with the unforeseen political and strategic ramifications.

The Architect of Escalation: Netanyahu’s Enduring Influence

Ian Perel, writing in The Independent, as quoted by Aljazeera on April 15, 2026, explicitly argues that Benjamin Netanyahu’s role transcended that of a mere collaborator in the recent U.S. escalation against Iran. Perel posits that Netanyahu was, in fact, one of its primary architects. This assessment gains historical weight when examining Netanyahu’s long-standing foreign policy doctrine, which consistently identifies Iran as the paramount threat to regional stability and Israeli security.

Netanyahu’s influence on U.S. foreign policy is not without precedent. The author highlights Netanyahu’s significant role in promoting the 2003 invasion of Iraq. At the time, Netanyahu, then a private citizen and a prominent voice in conservative foreign policy circles, frequently articulated the strategic rationale for the Iraq War as a crucial step towards weakening Iran, thereby neutralizing a major regional adversary. His arguments, presented in various forums and Congressional testimonies, resonated with a segment of U.S. policymakers who viewed regime change in Iraq as a precursor to broader regional transformation. This historical context suggests a consistent pattern in Netanyahu’s strategic thinking: leveraging U.S. military and diplomatic power to counter perceived Iranian expansionism and nuclear ambitions.

Chronology of Escalation: The Trump-Netanyahu Era and Iran

The period spanning Donald Trump’s presidency (2017-2021) and Benjamin Netanyahu’s successive terms as Prime Minister (2009-2021, and again from 2022 onwards) witnessed an unprecedented alignment of U.S. and Israeli policy regarding Iran. This alignment led to a series of events that dramatically ratcheted up tensions in the Middle East:

May 8, 2018: U.S. Withdrawal from JCPOA. Despite pleas from European allies, President Trump, heavily influenced by Netanyahu’s vocal opposition, announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the landmark nuclear deal with Iran. Netanyahu had long decried the agreement as "a bad deal" that paved Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon. This move immediately triggered a "maximum pressure" campaign of renewed and expanded sanctions against Iran.
May-June 2019: Gulf Tanker Attacks. A series of mysterious attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman and near the Strait of Hormuz were attributed by the U.S. to Iran. These incidents marked a significant uptick in regional hostilities, with Washington deploying additional military assets to the region.
June 20, 2019: Downing of U.S. Drone. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps shot down a U.S. RQ-4 Global Hawk surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz, claiming it had violated Iranian airspace. Trump initially authorized retaliatory strikes but called them off at the last minute, citing potential casualties.
September 14, 2019: Saudi Aramco Attacks. Drone and missile attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq and Khurais oil facilities, significantly disrupting global oil supplies, were widely blamed on Iran by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, though Iran denied responsibility.
December 27, 2019: Rocket Attack on U.S. Base in Iraq. A rocket attack killed a U.S. contractor at a base in Iraq, prompting U.S. retaliatory airstrikes against Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia facilities.
January 3, 2020: Killing of Qassem Soleimani. A U.S. drone strike in Baghdad killed Qassem Soleimani, commander of the IRGC Quds Force, and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a leader of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces. This was a dramatic escalation, justified by the U.S. as a defensive measure against imminent attacks on American personnel. Netanyahu praised Trump for the "bold, strong and swift action."
January 8, 2020: Iranian Retaliation. Iran launched ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops, causing traumatic brain injuries to over 100 U.S. service members but no fatalities. Iran stated it considered the retaliation complete.
Subsequent De-escalation Efforts: Following these intense exchanges, a period of more restrained confrontation ensued, characterized by a "fragile ceasefire." While direct military clashes subsided, the underlying ideological and strategic rivalries persisted, manifesting through proxy conflicts and cyber warfare. The absence of major direct engagements did not signify a resolution but rather a precarious balance, maintained by mutual deterrence and a reluctance to trigger an all-out war.

Supporting Data and Analysis: The Unstable Alliance

The relationship between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu was often described as a "bromance," characterized by shared conservative ideologies, a populist appeal, and a common adversary in Iran. This close bond translated into tangible policy shifts that significantly favored Israel and reshaped U.S. engagement in the Middle East:

U.S. Embassy Move to Jerusalem (May 2018): Trump fulfilled a long-standing Israeli request by moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, effectively recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. This move was celebrated by Netanyahu but widely condemned by Palestinians and much of the international community.
Recognition of Israeli Sovereignty over the Golan Heights (March 2019): Trump’s decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, territory captured from Syria in 1967, further solidified Netanyahu’s political standing and was seen as another significant diplomatic gift.
"Deal of the Century" (January 2020): The Trump administration unveiled its Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, widely seen as heavily biased towards Israel. The plan offered little to the Palestinians and was immediately rejected by their leadership.
Abraham Accords (August-December 2020): Facilitated by the Trump administration, the normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab nations (UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco) were hailed as a historic diplomatic achievement. While beneficial for Israel, critics argued they sidelined the Palestinian issue and formed a de facto alliance against Iran.

Analysts, like Perel, contend that this deep alignment created a dynamic where Netanyahu’s hawkish stance on Iran found a highly receptive ear in Trump, who, unlike previous U.S. presidents, was willing to discard traditional diplomatic norms and international agreements to pursue a more aggressive posture. The argument that this relationship "drove a war that neither of them seemed to have a clear picture of how to end" speaks to the potential for unintended consequences when ideological conviction overrides strategic foresight. The "maximum pressure" campaign, while undeniably weakening Iran economically, did not achieve its stated goal of forcing Iran back to the negotiating table for a "better deal" and instead pushed Iran closer to developing advanced centrifuges and enriching uranium to higher purities.

Official Responses and Inferred Positions

While specific quotes on the "fragile ceasefire" are inferred for the future date, the historical record provides a clear understanding of the positions held by the involved parties:

U.S. (Trump Administration): Officials consistently stated their actions were aimed at protecting U.S. interests and personnel, deterring Iranian aggression, and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. They maintained that sanctions were effective in curbing Iran’s malign activities and that military actions were proportionate responses. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo frequently articulated the "maximum pressure" strategy, asserting that the U.S. sought a fundamental change in Iran’s behavior, not necessarily regime change.
Israel (Netanyahu Government): Prime Minister Netanyahu and his cabinet consistently emphasized the existential threat posed by Iran, particularly its nuclear program and its network of regional proxies. Israeli officials frequently called for stronger international sanctions and military action against Iran, viewing the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA as a necessary step. They framed their actions and advocacy as essential for Israel’s security and survival in a hostile region.
Iran: Iranian officials vehemently condemned U.S. sanctions as "economic terrorism" and U.S. military actions as acts of aggression. They maintained that their nuclear program was for peaceful purposes and that their regional activities were defensive. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani (during Trump’s tenure) asserted Iran’s right to self-defense and vowed to resist U.S. pressure, often threatening to escalate if their sovereignty was violated. They consistently called for the U.S. to return to the JCPOA and lift sanctions.
International Community: Many European nations, along with Russia and China, expressed deep concern over the escalating tensions, advocating for diplomacy and adherence to the JCPOA. They often criticized the U.S. unilateral withdrawal from the deal and urged all parties to de-escalate. United Nations officials frequently called for restraint and dialogue to prevent a wider conflict.

Broader Impact and Implications

The intricate interplay between the US, Israel, and Iran, exacerbated by the Trump-Netanyahu dynamic, has had profound and lasting implications for the Middle East and global security:

Regional Instability: The "fragile ceasefire" does not signify peace. Proxy conflicts in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon continue to simmer, fueled by the underlying U.S.-Iran rivalry and Israel’s ongoing security concerns. The absence of a clear diplomatic framework for de-escalation leaves the region vulnerable to renewed flare-ups.
U.S. Foreign Policy Reorientation: The Trump administration’s approach marked a significant departure from previous U.S. foreign policy, prioritizing transactional diplomacy and challenging multilateral agreements. This has left a legacy of diminished trust in U.S. leadership among some allies and a more unpredictable international landscape. Future U.S. administrations face the daunting task of either rebuilding international consensus or continuing a more unilateral path.
Israeli Security and Regional Standing: While the Trump era brought unprecedented diplomatic gains for Israel, particularly the Abraham Accords, it also arguably heightened regional tensions with Iran. Israel’s security posture remains inextricably linked to U.S. policy, and any shift in Washington’s approach could have significant repercussions. The accords also raised questions about the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which remains largely unresolved and a source of continuous friction, as evidenced by the Jakarta protest.
Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions: The collapse of the JCPOA and the "maximum pressure" campaign pushed Iran to accelerate its nuclear program, accumulating more enriched uranium and deploying more advanced centrifuges. This has shortened Iran’s "breakout time" to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon, raising proliferation concerns and creating a more dangerous scenario than before the U.S. withdrawal.
The Gaza Conflict and Global Opinion: The ongoing conflict in Gaza, which prompted the "Indonesia Lawan Genosida" protest in October 2025, underscores the enduring human cost of unresolved geopolitical tensions. The widespread condemnation of Israeli actions, particularly allegations of genocide, reflects a growing global impatience with the humanitarian crisis and a demand for accountability and a just resolution to the Palestinian question. The symbolic act of trampling Netanyahu’s image highlights the depth of anger and frustration felt by a significant portion of the international community.

The current "fragile ceasefire" between Washington and Tehran, therefore, represents a temporary lull rather than a fundamental shift towards peace. It is a testament to the intricate and often perilous dance between powerful actors, where historical grievances, strategic ambitions, and volatile personal relationships continue to shape the destiny of a region perpetually on the brink. The global outcry emanating from Jakarta serves as a stark reminder that while diplomatic maneuvers unfold at the highest levels, the humanitarian consequences of these conflicts reverberate far and wide, demanding a more comprehensive and sustainable path to peace.

October 27, 2025 0 comment

Automotive

Israel Continues Border Attacks on Lebanon Amidst Ongoing Ceasefire Negotiations

by Basiran August 17, 2025

written by Basiran

BEIRUT – Despite a recent agreement to hold direct negotiations, Israel has continued its cross-border attacks into Lebanon, prompting strong condemnation from Lebanese officials. Hassan Fadlallah, a Member of Parliament for Hezbollah, accused Israel of attempting to "compensate" for perceived battlefield setbacks by engaging in diplomatic overtures with Lebanon, facilitated by the United States. This escalation underscores the volatile security situation and the deep-seated mistrust between the two nations, even as diplomatic channels are being explored.

Fadlallah’s remarks, delivered in a public statement, highlighted a perceived strategic misstep by Lebanese authorities. He asserted that the withdrawal of Lebanese forces from the southern region had left it vulnerable to Israeli incursions, thereby granting the Israeli military "freedom" to operate. This statement implies a criticism of the Lebanese government’s security posture and its engagement with regional dynamics, suggesting a need for a re-evaluation of their approach to national defense and territorial integrity.

The Hezbollah parliamentarian further elaborated on the complexities of regional diplomacy, specifically referencing negotiations between the US and Iran that took place in Pakistan. He claimed that Lebanon’s exclusion from these discussions was a direct "demand of Israel." Moreover, he attributed the American stance of decoupling Lebanon from the broader Islamabad-centric diplomatic track to the positions adopted by the Lebanese government itself. This suggests a narrative where Lebanese agency is perceived as being compromised, either by external pressures or internal decisions, impacting its role in wider regional security frameworks.

The continued cross-border exchanges of fire occurred mere hours after both Lebanon and Israel reportedly agreed to pursue direct negotiations. This agreement followed what were described as two hours of "productive discussions" held in Washington, D.C. The juxtaposition of diplomatic progress with ongoing military hostilities paints a stark picture of the challenging environment in which these peace efforts are being undertaken. It raises questions about the sincerity of de-escalation efforts and the potential for spoilers to undermine nascent diplomatic initiatives.

Background Context: A History of Cross-Border Conflict

The current situation is rooted in a long and often violent history of conflict between Israel and Lebanon, primarily involving the Shiite militant group Hezbollah. The border region has been a persistent flashpoint for decades, marked by periodic escalation of hostilities.

Key Historical Milestones:

1982-2000: Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon, leading to the rise of Hezbollah as a significant resistance force. The withdrawal of Israeli troops in 2000 was a pivotal moment, but tensions remained high.
2006 Lebanon War: A devastating conflict initiated by Hezbollah’s cross-border raid that captured two Israeli soldiers. The war resulted in significant casualties on both sides and widespread destruction in Lebanon. Despite a UN-brokered ceasefire, the underlying issues remained unresolved.
Post-2006 Period: A fragile calm prevailed for many years, punctuated by sporadic rocket fire from Lebanon into Israel and Israeli airstrikes in response. The UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has been deployed to monitor the ceasefire and prevent hostilities, but its effectiveness has been limited at times.
Recent Escalations (2023-2024): The current wave of attacks has intensified significantly following the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza in October 2023. This has led to a dangerous escalation along the northern Israeli border, with daily exchanges of fire causing casualties, displacement, and destruction on both sides.

The geopolitical landscape also plays a crucial role. Iran’s significant support for Hezbollah has been a major factor in the group’s military capabilities and its defiance of Israel. The United States, a staunch ally of Israel, has been involved in diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions and prevent a wider regional conflict.

Timeline of Recent Events

To understand the immediate context, a brief chronology of recent developments is crucial:

October 7, 2023: Hamas launches a surprise attack on Israel, triggering a full-scale war in Gaza.
October 8, 2023 onwards: Hezbollah begins launching rockets and conducting cross-border attacks into northern Israel, citing solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza and in response to Israeli actions. Israel retaliates with airstrikes and artillery shelling on southern Lebanon.
November-December 2023: The intensity of cross-border fire gradually increases. Thousands of residents on both sides are displaced from their homes in border areas due to the ongoing conflict.
Early 2024: Diplomatic efforts by various international actors, including the US, France, and Qatar, intensify to prevent further escalation. Reports emerge of back-channel communications and potential mediation.
[Specific Date – inferred from article]: Direct negotiations, facilitated by the US, are reported to have taken place in Washington, D.C., described as "productive discussions."
[Immediately after the reported negotiations]: Israel continues its attacks on Lebanon. Hezbollah’s Hassan Fadlallah issues his statement, criticizing Israeli actions and Lebanese policy.

This timeline highlights the critical gap between diplomatic pronouncements and on-the-ground realities. The agreement to negotiate, a potentially positive step, has been immediately overshadowed by continued hostilities, raising concerns about the efficacy of such dialogues.

Supporting Data and Impact of the Conflict

The ongoing conflict along the Israel-Lebanon border has had severe humanitarian and economic consequences. While precise, up-to-the-minute casualty figures are difficult to verify independently, available reports paint a grim picture:

Displacement: According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Lebanese authorities, hundreds of thousands of Lebanese have been displaced from their homes in southern Lebanon since the escalation began. Similarly, tens of thousands of Israelis have evacuated communities near the northern border. This mass displacement places immense strain on host communities and humanitarian aid organizations.
Casualties: Both sides have reported casualties. Hezbollah has acknowledged the deaths of hundreds of its fighters. Israel has reported civilian and military casualties resulting from rocket attacks and cross-border incursions. The human cost of this conflict is significant and continues to rise.
Economic Damage: The repeated shelling and destruction of infrastructure have severely impacted agricultural areas, businesses, and residential properties in southern Lebanon. This exacerbates Lebanon’s already fragile economic situation. In Israel, the disruption of daily life and the need for security measures have also incurred substantial economic costs.
Environmental Impact: The fires caused by shelling and incendiary weapons have damaged agricultural lands and natural habitats, posing long-term environmental challenges.

The continued Israeli attacks, even after the reported agreement to negotiate, suggest a deliberate strategy to maintain military pressure while engaging in diplomacy. This dual approach is a common tactic in protracted conflicts, aiming to strengthen one’s negotiating position through military superiority or by demonstrating resolve. However, it also risks undermining trust and escalating the conflict further.

Official Responses and International Reactions

The statements from Hezbollah’s Hassan Fadlallah represent one side of the Lebanese political spectrum. The Lebanese government, while facing internal pressures and the complex realities of its relationship with Hezbollah, has generally sought to avoid a full-scale war while asserting its sovereignty.

Lebanese Government Stance (Inferred): The Lebanese government’s participation in US-facilitated negotiations suggests an interest in diplomatic solutions. However, Fadlallah’s criticism implies that the government’s approach may be perceived by some factions as insufficient or as ceding ground. Lebanon’s official position is typically one of seeking international support for de-escalation and adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war.
Israeli Government Stance (Inferred): Israel maintains its right to self-defense and has stated its objective is to ensure the security of its northern border and prevent Hezbollah from posing a threat. The continuation of attacks, even during negotiations, suggests Israel believes military action is necessary to achieve its security goals or to influence the negotiating outcome.
United States Role: The US has been actively involved in mediating between the parties, seeking to prevent a wider regional conflict. Their facilitation of direct negotiations signifies a commitment to de-escalation through diplomatic means. However, the continued hostilities highlight the challenges of imposing a ceasefire.
International Community: The United Nations and various international bodies have repeatedly called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and a return to dialogue. Concerns remain high about the potential for the conflict to spiral into a broader regional war, drawing in other actors.

Broader Impact and Implications

The current situation carries significant implications for regional stability and the broader geopolitical landscape:

Risk of Wider Conflict: The most immediate concern is the potential for the conflict to escalate into a full-blown war between Israel and Hezbollah, which could have devastating consequences for both countries and the wider Middle East. Such a conflict could also draw in other regional powers and international actors.
Impact on Diplomacy: The continuation of attacks despite agreement to negotiate raises serious questions about the viability of diplomatic solutions. It suggests that military considerations may be outweighing diplomatic progress, or that internal divisions within the parties are hindering genuine de-escalation.
Humanitarian Crisis: The ongoing displacement and destruction risk deepening the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon, further straining its already depleted resources and exacerbating social and economic instability.
Regional Power Dynamics: The conflict is intrinsically linked to the broader regional power struggle between Iran and its allies (including Hezbollah) and Israel, supported by the United States. The outcomes of this confrontation could significantly alter the balance of power in the region.
Future of Ceasefires: The inability to maintain a ceasefire even during active diplomatic engagement could set a dangerous precedent, making future attempts at de-escalation more challenging. It underscores the need for robust enforcement mechanisms and genuine commitment from all parties to a peaceful resolution.

The statements by Hassan Fadlallah serve as a stark reminder of the complex internal political dynamics within Lebanon and the deep-seated animosity towards Israel. As negotiations proceed, the international community will be watching closely to see if diplomatic engagement can overcome the persistent reality of cross-border violence and pave a path towards lasting stability. The coming days and weeks will be critical in determining whether the current fragile dialogue can translate into tangible de-escalation on the ground.

August 17, 2025 0 comment