Uncategorized
Trump is poised to reinforce Iran’s regime — despite Netanyahu’s pressure
President Donald Trump’s Wednesday meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took place with an air of urgency around Iran. Yet the men left their three-hour conclave without resolving a fundamental divergence: Israel is deeply suspicious of any agreement with the Islamic Republic, and Trump has a visible preference for keeping diplomacy alive.
So visible, in fact, that Trump announced on Truth Social after the meeting that negotiations with Iran will continue. Where does that leave Israel, which is deeply concerned that Trump, in search of a quick win, will go for a deal that eases sanctions — strengthening the Iranian regime at precisely the time when it seems brittle enough to fall? And what about Iranian critics of the regime, who have good reason to feel betrayed by an American president who encouraged them to protest, and now seems poised to pursue accommodation with the authorities who had protesters killed en masse?
Of course, nothing in the Trump era can be analyzed with absolute certainty. Strategic misdirection is a recognized feature of even normal statecraft, and Trump has elevated unpredictability into something close to doctrine. Yet even allowing for that ambiguity, the meeting made clear that Israel and the United States are not aligned on an absolutely key issue — a potentially perilous state of affairs.
What does Israel want?
Israel does not trust the Iranian regime, for myriad reasons. The Islamic Republic’s missile programs, its sponsorship of proxy militias, and its long record of hostility toward Israel are viewed as elements of a single strategic problem.
Because of that deep and deeply justified mistrust, Israel is wary of any deal that might stabilize or legitimize the regime — a risk raised by Trump’s interest in a new nuclear deal. Israeli leaders are concerned about long-term risk. A renewed agreement focused narrowly on nuclear restrictions would almost inevitably entail sanctions relief or broader economic normalization. Such measures, from Jerusalem’s perspective, would strengthen the very Iranian system that has spent decades spreading havoc across the region.
That doesn’t mean Israel would prefer immediate military confrontation, or that it will speak out against any deal. An agreement that would dismantle Iran’s expanding missile range, including systems capable of reaching Europe, and cut funding from its network of allied armed groups — Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Palestinian factions Hamas and Islamic Jihad — would possibly be of interest. Trump has so far not publicly stressed those demands.
Israel is politically divided, but when it comes to Iran, a broad consensus cuts across political lines. The regime must fall or radically change, for the sake of human rights within Iran’s borders, and that of a healthy regional future outside them.
What does Trump want?
The American position is less straightforward, largely because it is filtered through Trump’s distinctive political style, and his limited regional knowledge. Trump often appears unbothered by expert and public opinion; he seeks drama, through visible wins, deals, and dramatic reversals. He will present any outcome as an amazing achievement that no predecessor could have hoped for — even if he ends up signing an agreement that looks quite a lot like former President Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal, which he walked away from in 2018.
Trump’s broader worldview might provide insight. Unlike earlier American administrations that explicitly championed democracy promotion, with mixed results, Trump’s national security posture has consistently downplayed ideological missions. His rhetoric and policy frameworks have reflected skepticism toward efforts to reshape other societies’ political systems, instead emphasizing transactional relationships and the avoidance of prolonged entanglements.
This orientation is reinforced by his political base. A significant segment of MAGA-aligned voters wants a more isolationist foreign policy. Within that framework, negotiations that promise de-escalation and risk reduction are politically attractive. Military confrontation, by contrast, carries unpredictable costs.
Trump’s posture, oscillating between threats of force and enthusiasm for negotiation, reflects the strange truth that American political alignments on Iran defy traditional expectations, with hawkishness losing favor on the right. He has preserved the military option while simultaneously projecting optimism about a deal. Meanwhile, a huge and growing armada is parked in the waters near Iran.
What does Iran want?
Assessing Iranian intentions is notoriously difficult. The regime’s history of opaque decision-making, tactical deception, and disciplined negotiation complicates any definitive reading.
Yet certain baseline assumptions are reasonable. First, the regime seeks survival. Whatever ideological ambitions authorities may harbor, self-preservation remains paramount. Sanctions relief, economic stabilization, and reduced risk of direct confrontation with the U.S. all serve that objective.
Second, Iran is unlikely to accept a permanent prohibition on uranium enrichment, particularly at civilian levels. Tehran has consistently framed demands for “zero enrichment” as infringements on sovereignty — a defensible position under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Third, the regime has strong incentives to resist constraints on its missiles and militias, even though the militias are completely indefensible. But the regime exists, essentially, to export jihad, and those groups have been a central pillar of Iran’s project for decades.
Could the Iranian regime be brought down?
This question lurks behind every discussion of Iran, though policymakers rarely address it directly. Regime change, while rhetorically invoked at times, presents immense practical challenges. Many observers doubt that aerial strikes alone could produce political collapse. Modern regimes, particularly those with entrenched security apparatuses, rarely disintegrate solely under external bombardment. Iran’s leadership has demonstrated resilience under severe economic and military pressure, maintaining internal control despite periodic unrest.
That means meaningful regime destabilization would almost certainly require fractures within the state’s military, intelligence, and security forces, or coordinated ground dynamics that external actors can neither easily predict nor control. Such scenarios introduce enormous risks, including civil conflict, regional spillover and severe disruptions to global energy markets.
The regime’s brutality may reinforce its durability. A leadership willing to impose extreme domestic repression is less vulnerable to popular pressure than one constrained by public accountability. Last month Trump suggested the U.S. would support the protesters; that pledge appears to no longer be on his radar. The protesters were not seeking a better nuclear deal — which is now his apparent sole focus — but better lives.
So what happens now?
All of this suggests that Israel will be unhappy with any outcome to this period of tensions. It is much less likely that pressure from Trump will bring real reform to the Iranian regime is than that Trump will sign off on a deal that seems counter to Israel’s long-term interests.
In the coming days, it may become clearer whether Netanyahu persuaded Trump to expand the scope of negotiations to include Iran’s missile program and its network of proxy militias. It is also possible that talks will collapse, and that military action will follow.
But this much is clear: If the regime survives intact and is strengthened in the process, that would be a profound tragedy. For 47 years, the Islamic Republic has oppressed its own people while exporting instability across the Middle East. That is roughly the same span of time that communism endured in Eastern Europe before popular unrest finally brought it down.
Only a month ago, there was a palpable sense that the Iranian people were courageously pressing for a similar reckoning. To reward a weakened and discredited regime at such a moment by helping it stabilize itself — in exchange for promises about uranium enrichment alone — would be a historic missed opportunity.
The post Trump is poised to reinforce Iran’s regime — despite Netanyahu’s pressure appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
US Owners of Irish Soccer Team Fire Chair for Saying Ireland Should Not Compete Against ‘Genocidal’ Israel
Soccer Football – UEFA Nations League Draw – Brussels Expo, Brussels, Belgium – Feb.12, 2026, General view during the draw. Photo: REUTERS/Benoit Tessier
The director and co-chairperson of the professional Irish soccer club Drogheda United has been fired after saying that Ireland should not compete against Israel in the upcoming UEFA Nations League and that the Jewish state should be “banned and boycotted by all.”
The Trivela Group, the American investment firm that owns the League of Ireland team, said in a statement on Monday that Joanna Byrne was dismissed and thanked her for her “longstanding and ongoing dedication to the Club and its success.” The move came after Byrne said in February that the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) should not play their scheduled UEFA Nations League match against Israel and accused the Jewish state of committing a “genocide” against Palestinians.
Ireland was drawn to go head-to-head against Israel and will play an away game against the Jewish state on Sept. 27 before hosting the Israeli team in Dublin on Oct. 4.
“Trivela Group can confirm that, pursuant to its authority as sole shareholder of Drogheda United FC, Joanna Byrne has been removed by Trivela Group as a director of the Club,” read a statement posted on Drogheda’s website. “At this time, the Board of Directors consists of Benjamin Boycott, Marc Koretzky, Barton Lee, and club CEO Rian Wogan. Mr. Boycott for the time being, will serve as the sole Chairperson, and the club will look to appoint a local director and Co-Chair in due course.”
In a Facebook post on Monday, Byne reiterated her “strong stance” that Ireland “should not play Israel in the UEFA Nations League while a genocide against the Palestinian people continues.” She called her firing a “cold, underhand move by Trivela, initiated in the dark of the night, which was planned and coordinated without any consultation with me. This is symptomatic of the way they do business.”
“I am deeply committed to Drogheda United and want to see it flourish,” she added in part. “I will continue to elevate it, and the League of Ireland more broadly at every opportunity.”
Byrne is the Sinn Féin spokesperson on culture, communications, and sport. Drogheda United was the first League of Ireland Club to appoint a female chairperson.
In February, after the FAI confirmed that it would compete against Israel in the UEFA Nations League, Byrne released a statement denouncing the decision. She noted that the FAI submitted a motion to UEFA in November to ban Israel from its European club and international competitions.
“In November, the FAI voted to submit a motion to UEFA to ban Israel … That was the correct moral and principled position to take,” she said in February. “Therefore, I am extremely angry and dismayed that the FAI have confirmed they will play against Israel. It appears that their morals, and principled position, was only on paper – not in actions where it counts. Israel should not be in this competition.”
“UEFA should have expelled them as soon as Israel went into Gaza on a genocidal, ethnic cleansing mission that has seen tens of thousands of innocents murdered, including hundreds of sports men and women,” she added. She said Israel “should be treated the same as Apartheid South Africa was, and be banned and boycotted by all.”
Byrne also accused the UEFA of having “double standards” for banning Russia after it invaded Ukraine in 2022 but not banning Israel following its military actions in Gaza. Israel launched a military campaign against Hamas after the Palestinian terrorist group invaded southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, massacring 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages to Gaza.
“I hope the FAI knows the furor that will be coming for them from the Irish football fans – the vast vast majority will not want to see our Boys In Green in the same stadium as the Israeli team,” she said in her statement at the time. “I have said it before when I was asked about Israel’s participation in Eurovision and in other sporting fixtures and I will repeat it again now: Israel is an apartheid state who have engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide. Their behavior cannot be accepted or normalized.”
After she made the anti-Israel comments in February, Bryne claimed the board of Drogheda United said her position as chairperson of the club “was no longer tenable” because of her remarks. The board also expressed “an expectation that I would resign, something I have told them that I intend to resist,” she added.
Trivela Group confirmed last week that it issued a written instruction demanding she resign as director and co-chair of the club.
Uncategorized
Bahrain Pushes UN-Backed Action for Hormuz Shipping; France Tables Rival Text
A map showing the Strait of Hormuz is seen in this illustration taken June 22, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration
UN Security Council members have begun negotiating resolutions to protect commercial shipping in and around the Strait of Hormuz, including a Bahraini draft that would authorise the use of “all necessary means” — language France has warned will be difficult to adopt.
The move underscores mounting regional concern that Iran could continue to threaten the strategic chokepoint, which carries about a fifth of global oil supplies and underpins Gulf economies.
Shipping through the waterway has already slowed to a near‑halt after Iran struck vessels amid its conflict with the United States and Israel.
Diplomats said Bahrain‘s draft, seen by Reuters and backed by other Gulf Arab states and the United States, uses diplomatic language to authorize force.
France circulated a more conciliatory alternative text, also seen by Reuters, and diplomats said talks were under way to assess whether the two drafts could be reconciled.
France‘s Foreign Minister Jean‑Noel Barrot told lawmakers that there was little certainty Bahrain‘s bid to permit the use of force — a power the Security Council can grant under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which allows measures from sanctions to military action — would win enough backing among member states. “The coming days will tell,” he said.
BAHRAINI RESOLUTION DETAILS
The Bahraini resolution describes Iran’s actions as a threat to international peace and security.
It would authorize countries — acting alone or through voluntary multinational naval coalitions — to use “all necessary means” in and around the Strait of Hormuz, including in the territorial waters of countries along its shores, to ensure passage and to prevent moves that block or interfere with international navigation.
It also expresses readiness to impose measures, including targeted sanctions.
Bahrain‘s Ambassador to France, Essam al-Jassim, told Reuters discussions were at an early stage.
“External protection has clear limits. International coalitions help secure sea lanes and stabilize markets, but their response remains largely reactive,” he earlier told a defense forum in Paris.
“They do not address, for example, escalating state-backed attacks, and without doing so, disruptions will persist.”
The Bahraini and US missions to the United Nations did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The text “demands that the Islamic Republic of Iran immediately cease all attacks against merchant and commercial vessels and any attempt to impede lawful transit passage or freedom of navigation in and around the Strait of Hormuz.”
FRENCH RESOLUTION MAKES NO MENTION OF IRAN
Diplomats said there was little prospect of such a resolution being adopted by the Security Council as Iran’s partners Russia and China were likely to veto it if necessary.
A Security Council resolution needs at least nine votes in favor and no vetoes by Russia, China, the US, Britain, and France. The Russian and Chinese missions to the United Nations were not immediately available for comment.
France on Monday submitted its own draft, taking a more conciliatory tone and aiming to build broader support within the council.
President Emmanuel Macron, who has suggested having a UN framework for any action in the Hormuz, has refused to take part in any immediate operations to secure the strait, saying that international efforts could only happen once hostilities calm, insurance and shipping firms are consulted and with Iran’s consent.
The French resolution makes no mention of Iran and is not under Chapter VII. It “urges all parties to refrain from further escalation, calls for a cessation of the ongoing hostilities in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman, and calls for a return to the path of diplomacy.”
Rather than authorizing action, the text encourages states with an interest in commercial maritime routes in the strait to coordinate strictly defensive measures — including escorting merchant vessels — in full respect of international law, including the law of the sea.
Uncategorized
Airstrikes Target HQ, Leader of Iran-Backed Shi’ite Militia Umbrella Group in Iraq
Mourners carry the coffin of Saad al-Baiji, the Popular Mobilization Forces’ Anbar operations commander, who was killed in airstrikes that targeted a PMF site in Iraq’s western Anbar province, during his funeral, in Baghdad, Iraq, March 24, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Ahmed Saad
Airstrikes hit a headquarters of Iraq‘s umbrella group for Iran–backed Shi’ite militias and a residence belonging to its leader on Tuesday, killing at least 15 fighters in an escalation of US-Israeli strikes on one of Tehran’s main regional allies.
At least 30 other people were wounded in the strikes on a headquarters of the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq‘s Euphrates valley province of Anbar, according to medical officials who said some were in serious condition and the death toll could rise. Reuters filmed ambulances bringing the wounded to hospital in the regional capital Ramadi during the night.
The dead included the PMF’s operations commander in the province, Saad al-Baiji. Later on Tuesday, a large crowd of angry mourners carried his coffin and portraits through the streets of Baghdad.
Two security sources said the strikes had hit the PMF headquarters during a meeting attended by senior commanders.
A separate airstrike hit a residence belonging to the PMF’s leader Falih al-Fayadh in the northern city of Mosul. He was not present at the building which he uses only during visits to the city, according to the two security sources. A PMF statement said its office in the city was destroyed and one fighter wounded there.
Such damaging strikes against the PMF create political difficulty for Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al‑Sudani, who has to walk a careful line maintaining the support both of Washington and of factions in the Shi’ite-majority country that are aligned with Iran.
Sudani ordered an emergency meeting of the Ministerial Council for National Security to be convened, said a statement from the Iraqi military’s joint operations command.
The statement said the 15 PMF fighters were killed in a “US-Zionist airstrike”, the first time Iraq‘s military has blamed Israel alongside the United States for bombing the PMF.
The PMF, known in Arabic as Hashd al-Shaabi, is an umbrella group of mostly Shi’ite paramilitary factions that was formally integrated into Iraq‘s state security forces and includes several groups aligned with Iran.
Tehran-backed armed groups have launched attacks on US bases in Iraq and the US embassy since the United States and Israel launched their war on Iran on Feb. 28. Washington has had an influential presence in Baghdad since its 2003 invasion that overthrew dictator Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim, and replaced him with Shi’ite-led governments friendly with Iran.
The US-Israeli war on Iran has spilled across Iran‘s borders, with Tehran launching strikes on Israel and Gulf Arab states hosting US military installations, while Israel has carried out attacks in Lebanon following cross-border fire by Iran-aligned Hezbollah.