Trump Vetoes Ayatollah Assassination.
Trump Warns Israel.
Donald Trump told Netanyahu straight about killing the Supreme Leader of Iran. Israel, in its first raid on Iran, bumped off leaders of Iran's military and Revolutionary Guard. Israel has always killed enemy leaders. More often, the group or country replaces that fallen leader with another. Israel took out the Secretary General of Hezbollah and killed many of the group's top leaders. The fighting between Hezbollah and Israel has stopped, more or less. Hezbollah today is headed by Naim Qaim (forgive me if I got his name wrong). The group is still around, but it has been weakened by conflict with Israel. The group is considering whether it should respond to Israeli attacks on Iran. Given Hezbollah's tenuous situation, the Iran- backed group might sit this out. Hamas has been reduced to a shadow of its former self in Gaza, Israel taking out its top men. However, the group is still resisting the IDF despite all the munitions Israel has dumped on Gaza. Only the Houthis, who have been pounded by the US recently and even by Israel, remain in the game. The US and the Houthis agreed to a ceasefire, provided the group did not shoot at ships in the Red Sea. However, the Houthis are still free to fire missiles and drones at Israel.
If Trump had given the go-ahead for Israel to target the Ayatollah, what would have happened? Chaos, anger, and panic without this old man at the centre of power. Ayatollah Khamenei has been in power since the founder of the Islamic Revolution popped his sandals in 1989. Of course, he would have been replaced, but how quickly one cannot say. Would it stop Iran's onslaught on Israel with missiles and drones raining down? Probably not, if anything, Iran might step up its missile attacks on Israel.
Trump, for some reason, said "No" to killing this old cleric. The Ayatollah is looked on by Shia Muslims as a figurehead. Admired and honoured by Iranians in Iran and the diaspora. He is the Supreme Leader of Iran in charge of every facet of Iranian life. He has supreme power over Iran's President, which does leave the President much room to breathe. Iran has a parliament with elected MPs, both male and female. Iran, though a theocracy, is also a democracy as long as political candidates meet the standards of the Islamic Revolutionary constitution. People running for President and MPs must meet these exacting standards. Presidential candidates are either moderates or follow the Constitution to the letter.
So, what are Netanyahu's war aims? Simply put, if he can cause the downfall of the Ayatollahs, he'll be a happy man. Like George Bush I, Netanyahu has called on the Iranian people to "Push the Dictator aside" to use Bush's words when he told the Iraqis to rise and topple Saddam. Well, we all know how that ended, Saddam still in power and the rebels dead or imprisoned. There's no guarantee any Iranian rising against the clerical regime would work, but there's no guarantee it might not work.
Meanwhile, Bibi sits safe in Jerusalem spouting this and that while others go out and do his fighting. Long gone are the days when leaders fought alongside their soldiers. So what are the Iranians' aims? If Netanyahu were taken out by one of their missiles, that would be quite a coup for Tehran. Would they like to see, for whatever reason, the fall of Netanyahu's government? Yes, why wouldn't they want that? However, Iran is in a weakened position. Many of its proxies are gone or at least weakened. Only the Houthis remain in the fight for Iran. Sanctions are biting, people are striking and getting fed up with the regime, and there are power outages. Israel, knowing this, will do all it can to encourage the regime's end, covertly and in the open. If the regime survives and Israel's onslaught ends, that will be victory enough.
However, if Trump gets involved on Israel's side, it might be game over. In that regard, how will Iran's Allies, Russia, China, and North Korea react? Will they openly side with Iran, supply Iran with armaments as the US and the West supply Israel or leave it to its fate?
About the Creator
Nicholas Bishop
I am a freelance writer currently writing for Blasting News and HubPages. I mainly write about politics. But have and will cover all subjects when the need arises.
Keep reading
More stories from Nicholas Bishop and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Israel Strikes Iran!
Israel has struck 100 targets overnight. Hitting targets, including military sites, nuclear sites, with top Iranian commanders and personnel dead. Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, said the US had nothing to do with it. He stated that the operation was Israel acting on its own. However, the Iranian Foreign Minister wasn't so sure. He poured scorn on the idea that it is just Israel acting on its own. The question is, could Israel conduct such an operation on its own? Israel has bombed Iranian targets before, when it attacked selected targets across Iran after Iran launched missiles and drones at Israel. Back in 1981, Iran attacked Iraq's nuclear site in Baghdad. So, certainly Israel can hit targets beyond its border. It has bombed the Houthis in response to their attacks on its territory. How much the US aids or does not aid Israel in such attacks is open to question.
By Nicholas Bishop7 months ago in The Swamp
Israel, Syria Agree to Dedicated Communication Line in US-Brokered Talks
In a rare diplomatic breakthrough in the volatile Middle East, Israel and Syria have agreed to establish a dedicated communication line, aimed at preventing accidental military confrontations and improving crisis management between the two nations. The agreement, brokered by the United States, comes amid heightened regional tensions and marks a subtle yet significant step toward stabilizing one of the world’s most conflict-prone borders. Bridging a Historical Divide Israel and Syria have long shared a turbulent history marked by wars, territorial disputes, and decades of mistrust. While the countries have technically remained at war since 1948, various periods of ceasefire have punctuated their relations, often brokered by external powers. The creation of a direct communication channel represents a pragmatic move to reduce misunderstandings, particularly in the tense and militarized Golan Heights region. For years, incidents along the border have risked escalating into larger conflicts, with accidental airstrikes, miscommunications, and proxy actions by regional allies adding to the volatility. Analysts suggest that a dedicated line can act as a lifeline to prevent minor incidents from spiraling out of control, providing both nations with an immediate platform to verify intentions and de-escalate tensions. The Role of US Diplomacy The agreement was facilitated by US officials, who have been actively mediating between Israel and its neighbors in recent months. Washington’s approach emphasizes crisis management and conflict prevention rather than full diplomatic normalization, reflecting the delicate realities on the ground. A senior US diplomat involved in the talks stated, “The goal is simple: prevent accidental clashes and provide a mechanism for dialogue in moments of tension. Both sides recognized the potential benefits of having a direct line of communication.” The US sees this development as a strategic win, enhancing its influence in the region while contributing to broader stability efforts. Practical Implications The dedicated communication line is expected to function much like traditional military hotlines seen in other high-tension regions, such as the India-Pakistan Line of Control or US-Russia Cold War-era channels. Military officials on both sides will have immediate access to counterparts in the event of border incidents, including airspace violations, troop movements, or drone activity. In addition to preventing accidental clashes, the line could facilitate coordination on humanitarian issues. With the ongoing Syrian civil war and complex involvement of multiple regional actors, there are frequent scenarios where civilians, aid convoys, or displaced persons might inadvertently enter conflict zones. Prompt communication can ensure such situations are handled safely and efficiently. Cautious Optimism Among Analysts While the development is being hailed as a positive step, experts urge caution. Dr. Leila Haddad, a Middle East policy analyst, notes, “A communication line is a practical tool, not a peace treaty. It reduces the risk of unintended escalation but doesn’t address the underlying political and territorial disputes between Israel and Syria.” The Syrian government has indicated that the hotline is a confidence-building measure rather than a sign of improved diplomatic relations. Meanwhile, Israel views the line as an operational necessity, particularly as it continues to monitor Iranian-backed militias and other actors in Syrian territory. Regional Repercussions The agreement could have wider implications for the Middle East. Neighboring countries and international observers are closely monitoring the arrangement, viewing it as a potential model for other tense borders in the region. Experts suggest that while the hotline is a modest step, its successful implementation could pave the way for more comprehensive agreements, including intelligence sharing, border monitoring, or limited coordination on security threats. Looking Ahead Both nations face significant challenges in maintaining trust and stability. The success of the dedicated communication line will depend on consistent engagement, clear protocols, and the willingness of military leadership to prioritize conflict prevention over political signaling. Nonetheless, the agreement signals a willingness to explore pragmatic solutions amid a region historically defined by entrenched animosities. In the short term, the hotline may not resolve the decades-long disputes between Israel and Syria, but it represents a tangible mechanism to prevent unnecessary escalation and safeguard lives on both sides of the border. Conclusion The establishment of a dedicated communication line between Israel and Syria underscores the importance of crisis management in a region fraught with volatility. While not a political breakthrough or a step toward normalization, the US-brokered initiative highlights how even small, operational measures can play a crucial role in reducing the risks of unintended conflict. For a part of the world often defined by instability, the line may serve as a modest yet meaningful bridge toward greater security and understanding.
By Fiazahmedbrohi 6 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.