Category World News

Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, the prime minister of Qatar, made the call for diplomacy and peace less than 24 hours after Iran launched an attack on the country’s Al Udeid Air Base. He claimed that Qatar’s regional relationship with Iran had suffered a “scar.”

What did Israel accomplish in Iran after 11 days of incessant bombing? Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed in his statement acknowledging the ceasefire that the Israeli goals have been achieved. Such an assertion seems problematic, to say the least.

At the start of the short-lived war, he declared two goals: “decapitating the nuclear programme” and “regime change”.

Was the nuclear programme decapitated? The answer is likely negative. It seems that Iran transported fissionable material out of the Fordow facility attacked by the United States. This stockpile is the most important part of the nuclear programme, so “decapitation” seems to have failed.

What damage, if any, did Israel inflict on the Iranian nuclear programme? That is also unclear. Israel managed to persuade the US to attack Iranian nuclear facilities using bunker-busting bombs, Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), but the US did little else to help the Israeli offensive. The extent of destruction would be hard to evaluate since Iran is unlikely to grant outside access.

Has Israel generated “regime change” in Iran? The brief answer is that it has very much achieved the opposite. Israel attempted to trigger an uprising against the regime by killing military leaders of Iran’s various security structures. This strategy is based on the firm Israeli belief that the best way to destabilise an enemy is through assassinations of senior leaders. This has never worked. The only possible exception was the effect Hassan Nasrallah’s death had on Hezbollah in Lebanon, but that had a great deal to do with internal Lebanese political dynamics. In all other cases, Israeli assassinations have failed to create any major political change.

In the case of Iran, the assassinations rallied the people around the government. Israel assassinated the senior commanders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), perhaps the most powerful element in current Iranian politics, but also one of the most hated by the Iranian public. Regardless, many Iranians who consider themselves staunch opponents of the Islamic Republic and especially of the IRGC found themselves supporting it. Iranians saw Iran in its entirety under attack and not just “the regime”.

Israel’s attempts to bomb “regime symbols” only made the situation worse. It attempted to spin its air strikes on Evin Prison, infamous for the torture of political prisoners, as a contribution to the struggle of the Iranian people against the repression of the Islamic Republic. But Israel’s bombs effectively worsened the situation of the prisoners, as the authorities moved many of them to unknown locations.

Bombing the “Israel doomsday clock”, which Israelis often employ as a demonstration of Iran’s commitment to Israel’s destruction, was simply pathetic.

Israel’s bombing of the Iranian state broadcaster IRIB was also absurd. Israel claimed it was curtailing the regime’s attempt to spread propaganda. As many Israelis pointed out, this bombing gave the Iranians the vindication they needed to threaten Israeli television stations as well.

If Israel did not manage to achieve its stated war goals, did it at least manage to rally the world behind it, to make the public forget about Gaza and recast Israel again as fighting the good fight? That seems dubitable at best. True, President Donald Trump and the US did strike Iranian nuclear facilities. By doing so, they violated several major rules of international law. This is likely to have long-term implications. However, Trump did not join the war alongside Israel. Immediately after the strike, the strategic bombers returned to the US.

Before and after carrying out the bombing, Trump iterated and reiterated his desire for a deal between the US and Iran, one that may also include Israel. It seems likely that the US president assisted Israel to serve his own interests as well as those of his allies in the Gulf.

While several world leaders, most notably German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, were quick to support the US strikes and “Israel’s right to defend itself”, no one adopted Israel’s stringent list of demands, which included that  Iran should not be able to enrich uranium at all.

The world returned to the formula of “no nuclear weapon”, with which Iran had already announced it was willing to comply.

When it comes to the operational development of the Middle East, the world appears to find Iran a legitimate partner for doing business. This is a loss for Israel and a victory for Iran.

The very real damage to the Israeli heartland should also be considered. Israel achieved aerial dominance over Iran very quickly and struck almost at will. Iranian missiles, however, repeatedly managed to penetrate the famed Israeli air defence system, strike at the heart of Israel and across the entire country, and bring it to a standstill while inflicting an unprecedented number of casualties as well as massive destruction. Israel was running low on interceptor missiles without hopes of immediate replenishment. The Israeli economy was quickly grinding to a halt. This was another triumph for Iran.

Iran emerged from the war bruised and bombed, suffering hundreds of casualties and real damage from incessant bombing around the country. But the Islamic Republic did not crumble, even when facing a massive Israeli force.

Iranian missiles hit home, Iran’s image was not tarnished (it was seen by most of the world as a victim of an Israeli attack), and Iran’s options for response were not severely constrained. Iran successfully de-escalated by warning in advance about its “retaliation” for the US strike on its military base in Qatar.

Iran was powerful enough to convince Trump to warn Israel not to attack after the ceasefire appeared to have been violated. Iran emerged as it prefers to emerge – still standing, and with potential for the future.

The ceasefire between Israel and Iran is already showing signs of strain – and has triggered frustration, and a televised expletive, from United States President Donald Trump, who accused Israel of undermining the deal just hours after its announcement.

The ceasefire, brokered by the US and Qatar, came into effect late Monday following days of intensive missile barrages between the two foes. Israel’s last wave of strikes targeted Iranian military infrastructure near Isfahan, prompting retaliatory drone launches by Tehran.

Iran violated the ceasefire, “but Israel violated it too”, Trump told reporters on the White House’s South Lawn on Tuesday as he departed for the NATO summit.

“So I’m not happy with them. I’m not happy with Iran either. But I’m really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning.”

“I’ve got to get Israel to calm down,” he said. “Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I’ve never seen before.”

As he prepared to head to a NATO summit in The Hague in the Netherlands, Trump’s anger flared on the White House Lawn: “We have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f*** they’re doing.”

A day earlier, Trump boasted on his Truth Social app that “the Ceasefire is in effect!”

“ISRAEL is not going to attack Iran. All planes will turn around and head home, while doing a friendly ‘Plane Wave’ to Iran. Nobody will be hurt,” Trump wrote.

Trump’s unusually public display of anger at Israel saw the US leader apparently trying to force his ally to call off warplanes in real time on Tuesday.

Earlier the same morning, he had posted on Truth Social: “ISRAEL. DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS” – without it being clear which bombs he was referring to.

“IF YOU DO IT IS A MAJOR VIOLATION. BRING YOUR PILOTS HOME, NOW!”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed to quickly accede, with his office saying in a statement on Tuesday that Israel still carried out one more attack near Tehran after Trump’s appeal, but is refraining from “further strikes”.

Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz had said earlier on Tuesday that he had ordered the military to mount new strikes on targets in Tehran in response to what he claimed were Iranian missiles fired in a “blatant violation” of the ceasefire.

Iran denied launching any missiles and said Israel’s attacks had continued for an hour and a half beyond the time the ceasefire was meant to start.

For his part, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that his country would not fire at Israel if it was not fired upon, but that a “final decision on the cessation of our military operations will be made later”.

Despite the rocky start, Trump voiced support for the ceasefire itself, clarifying he is not seeking regime change in Iran, after some mixed messaging in recent days, and insisting that the ceasefire remains in effect.

If it holds, the truce would be a big political win for Trump in the wake of his risky gamble to send US bombers over the weekend to attack three nuclear facilities in Iran that Israel and the United States claim were being used to build an atomic bomb in secret.

US intelligence and the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog had previously recorded no indication Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem said Iranian officials appeared to welcome Trump’s remarks, viewing them as a potential opening for diplomatic engagement.

“It might give the impression that Trump is serious about this ceasefire,” Hashem said.

In Washington, Al Jazeera’s Phil Lavelle, said Trump is feeling “quite annoyed” at and perhaps “betrayed” by Netanyahu violating the ceasefire.

“He was angry with both Israel and Iran. But you could really tell some of the extra anger there, the extra fury was aimed at Israel,” Lavelle said.

The US leader had said the truce would be a phased 24-hour process beginning at about 04:00 GMT Tuesday, with Iran unilaterally halting all operations first. He said Israel would follow suit 12 hours later.

Israel has been bombing Iran in an offensive that began June 13. The US joined the attack with a mission starting overnight Friday to Saturday against the deeply-buried and hard-to-access Fordow complex and two other sites.

In Donald Trump’s 2024 election campaign, he and many of his supporters spoke out against American resources and lives being wasted in conflicts around the world. Ending the United States’ “forever wars” was a major slogan.

But on February 1, a mere 10 days after being inaugurated for a second time, President Trump announced that the US had carried out air strikes targeting senior leadership of ISIL (ISIS) in Somalia. His post on X read, “These killers, who we found hiding in caves, threatened the United States.” This marked Trump’s first military action overseas, but it wouldn’t be his last.

Israel has been armed and supported by the US since then, and it has launched attacks on Yemen and even attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities. At the same time, in the Horn of Africa, US strikes have more than “doubled” since last year, according to US Africa Command (AFRICOM).

According to the think tank New America, which uses AFRICOM data to track strikes in Somalia, at least 43 air strikes were carried out in the continent in 2025. More than half of those, which are conducted in coordination with Somalia’s federal government, targeted IS-Somalia, the ISIL affiliate in northeast Puntland state, while the remainder targeted al-Shabab.

According to US officials, the rise in US air strikes against IS-Somalia is a result of growing concerns that the organization has become a hub for regional and global ISIL affiliates in terms of funding and attacks.

At the same time, experts also note the recent worrying gains being made by al-Shabab in Somalia.

But why is this a conflict that the “Make America Great Again” Trump administration is increasingly involved in, especially given how much controversy, disaster, and failure have plagued US policy in Somalia over the years?

American intervention in Somalia: a complete failure?

“Ever since Black Hawk Down, Somalia was a no-go zone for the US”, said Abukar Arman, a Somali analyst and former special envoy to the US, referring to the failed 1993 US military intervention in Somalia during which 18 US troops and thousands of Somali civilians were killed.

“The situation changed after September 11 when Somalia emerged as one of the main locations for the so-called GWOT]global war on terror.” That political facade has three objectives: It justifies US sustained lethal drone attacks in the public psyche, it enables the US to guard its geopolitical interests in the Horn of Africa,]and] it enables American predatory capitalists to engage in economic exploitation”, Arman told Al Jazeera.

In its so-called “war on terror,” Somalia became the first country on the African continent to suffer an airstrike in the wake of September 11. In the decades that followed, US aerial bombardment of the country has not only persisted but intensified.

More than 50 US air strikes on Somalia were carried out during the combined 16 years of former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, according to New America, while a staggering 219 were carried out in Trump’s first term. With dozens more strikes just five months into his second term, analysts say if it continues at this rate, Trump is sure to surpass the 51 strikes the Biden administration conducted during its entire four years in office.

According to Jethro Norman, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, Trump has created the ideal setting for a remotely projecting US power capabilities in Somalia because it combines high firepower, minimal oversight, and minimal domestic political risk.

“By loosening Obama-era restrictions, he enabled a surge in preemptive strikes with minimal vetting or accountability. The logic was theatrical, not just strategic; it was a tactic to show toughness against previous governments and make claims that counterterrorism “wins” without getting stale,” Norman told Al Jazeera.

“So, what you see now is a spike in drone activity, but without any corresponding investment in long-term peacebuilding or governance support”, he explained.

Norman also cited the ongoing infighting between the Trump White House and Somalia regarding US policy direction.

“There were also competing camps within his]Trump’s] administration. Some pressed for kinetic engagement in Yemen and Somalia, while others argued that great-power rivalry with China was a distraction from counterterrorism.

” That policy push and pull]between spectacle and strategy] helps explain why air strikes surged even as Trump talked about ending forever wars, “he said.

Al-Shabab gains

According to some analysts, al-Shabab’s unprecedented counteroffensive this year may be a contributing factor to the rise in US strikes. In it, the armed group reversed most of the Somali government’s territorial gains and seized&nbsp, dozens of towns and villages in the Middle Shabelle region of the semi-autonomous Hirshabelle state – the home base of President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud.

Further complicating matters is that al-Shabab was able to advance on the capital and establish checkpoints along Mogadishu’s main thoroughfares during this counteroffensive. This shows not only the deep structural weakness within the Somali security forces but also the resilience of the armed group as they inched closer to the seat of power in Mogadishu, experts say.

According to David Sterman, the deputy director of New America’s Future Security program, “These recent US strikes] seem to relate more to the conditions on the battlefield,” and particularly the perceived threat from an al-Shabab offensive, which has partially revers the gains of earlier Somali government offensives.

” There may also be other factors, including a greater interest in targeting senior al-Shabab leaders, “he added.

Some claim that the Trump administration’s bombing campaign will only give access to the same armed organizations it claims to be fighting.

” The current drone diplomacy would continue to help al-Shabab. These attacks also kill people and livestock in civilian attacks. Ensuing grievances are utilised by armed groups that take advantage of these sentiments, “said Arman, the Somali analyst, who also noted a” lack of a comprehensive US-Somalia policy that is based on a strategic partnership that keeps the interest of both countries at heart”.

He continued, citing drones and military might, “It is foolish to think that all problems could be resolved with a hammer.”

Civilian deaths, ‘ lack of accountability ‘

Rights organizations and media outlets reported numerous civilian casualties from US airstrikes in Somalia during Trump’s first term in office. This was further compounded when AFRICOM admitted that civilians died in strikes it carried out.

Amnesty International claimed that the US had “could commit” possible war crimes” in Somalia as a result of its drone war, which reached its pinnacle in 2019. None of the victims of US drone strikes were ever compensated despite calls for accountability by rights groups and US lawmakers.

The “consistent lack of accountability for civilian victims of US air strikes,” especially under the previous Trump administration, speaks volumes. It reveals a profound lack of transparency that is deeply concerning, “said Eva Buzo, the executive director of Victims Advocacy International, &nbsp, an organisation seeking accountability for victims of human rights abuses in conflict zones across the globe.

She said that the US acknowledges the harm to civilians and has allocated funds, but it continues to ignore these crucial payments. She added that a willingness to “genuinely communicate with impacted communities” is required to better understand the real effects of drone strikes on people’s lives and what can be done tangibly to acknowledge this impact.

Meanwhile, adding to the complexity in the battle space in Somalia is that groups like al-Shabab often live and operate among the civilian population. This conceals casualties, but it also means that those at war with armed groups can’t often distinguish between fighters and civilians when striking targets.

US strikes often rely on patchy human intelligence in the rural countryside where al-Shabab is most present and where clan rivalries, informal economies and shifting loyalties are all factors that tend to be overlooked by the US. According to experts, this makes it more difficult to target accurately and makes it more difficult to harm non-combatants.

While there isn’t an official death toll from US strikes, the years of attacks are believed to have killed anywhere from 33 to 167 civilians in Somalia, according to separate tallies by New America and the nonprofit conflict watchdog, Airwars.

According to Norman of the Danish Institute, these civilian deaths caused by US airstrikes undermine the US’s standing in the area and feed into the myth that armed groups like al-Shabab thrive on foreign hostilities and Somali betrayal.

” These incidents don’t just cause resentment, they offer propaganda gold. Al-Shabab exploits the aftermath when civilians are killed or even forced to flee. They move quickly to frame themselves as defenders of Somali lives and sovereignty against a foreign aggressor and a weak federal government, “he said.

Drone strikes without accountability can actually help the insurgencies that they are trying to eradicate prosper, he continued.

Adding more fuel to the fire

After nearly two decades of US aerial bombardment, many analysts agree that air strikes alone cannot defeat an armed movement embedded in the fabric of Somali society, its social networks and those who thrive off consecutive foreign interventions. This presents challenges for taming these armed groups, let alone bringing them under control.

” There are interesting parallels to Afghanistan, local forces struggle to hold territory, US strikes fill the vacuum temporarily, but the long-term trajectory remains bleak. “Airpower can suppress, but it cannot transform,” Norman said.

” That gap between US rhetoric and Somali reality is precisely where al-Shabab thrives. The organization actively manipulates these situations, claiming to be the only actor who will fight for the lives of Somalis.

“In this sense, the loss of legitimacy is not abstract, it shapes local decisions, fuels recruitment, and weakens prospects for genuine partnership between Somali civilians and international actors”.

Analysts predict that the Trump administration’s continued aerial bombardment of Somalia will only serve as fuel for the conflict because it will grant support to the same foe it claims to be fighting. At the same time, they say, the cost of drones and missiles to fight a boogeyman halfway across the globe is a waste of US taxpayer money.

The chances of a military intervention in Somalia are slim, according to experts on US military and counterterrorism policies.

“It is unlikely that the US and its Somali partners can fully eliminate al-Shabab given its demonstration of resilience over time, and doing so would require a different approach than what these strikes appear to be. The New America deputy director, Sterman, said IS-Somalia does not possess quite the same level of resilience.

“There is, of course, the question of what defeat and destruction actually means for a non-state group”, he noted.

Despite that, US objectives are likely narrower than those of these groups’ defeat or destruction, with particular attention being placed on either containment or the eradication of particular capabilities or network connections.