☀️ Good Afternoon! Stay informed with this latest update.
Israel and the US believe Iran's regime is vulnerable, dealing with an economic crisis and the aftermath of protests.
Watch LiveBritish Broadcasting CorporationHomeNewsSportBusinessTechnologyHealthCultureArtsTravelEarthAudioVideoLiveDocumentariesHomeNewsUS & CanadaUKUK PoliticsEnglandN. IrelandN. Ireland PoliticsScotlandScotland PoliticsWalesWales PoliticsAfricaAsiaChinaIndiaAustraliaEuropeLatin AmericaMiddle EastIn PicturesBBC InDepthBBC VerifySportBusinessWorld of BusinessTechnology of BusinessNYSE Opening BellTechnologyWatch DocumentariesArtificial IntelligenceAI v the MindHealthWatch DocumentariesCultureWatch DocumentariesFilm & TVMusicArt & DesignStyleBooksEntertainment NewsArtsWatch DocumentariesArts in MotionTravelWatch DocumentariesDestinationsAfricaAntarcticaAsiaAustralia and PacificCaribbean & BermudaCentral AmericaEuropeMiddle EastNorth AmericaSouth AmericaWorld’s TableCulture & ExperiencesAdventuresThe SpeciaListEarthWatch DocumentariesScienceNatural WondersClimate SolutionsSustainable BusinessGreen LivingAudioPodcast CategoriesRadioAudio FAQsVideoWatch DocumentariesBBC MaestroDiscover the WorldLiveLive NewsLive SportDocumentariesHomeNewsSportBusinessTechnologyHealthCultureArtsTravelEarthAudioVideoLiveDocumentariesWeatherNewslettersWatch LiveBowen: A dangerous moment, but US and Israel see opportunity not to be missed2 hours agoShareSaveJeremy BowenInternational editorShareSaveReutersSmoke rises above Tehran after strikeThe decision by the United States and Israel to plunge into a new war with Iran creates a highly dangerous moment with unpredictable consequences. Israel used the word "pre-emptive" to justify its attack.
The evidence is that this is not a response to an imminent threat, which the word pre-emption implies. Instead, it is a war of choice.
Israel and the United States have calculated that the Islamic regime in Iran is vulnerable; dealing with a severe economic crisis, the fallout from the brutal crackdown on protesters at the start of the year and with defences still badly damaged by last summer's war. Their conclusion seems to have been that this was an opportunity that should not be squandered.
It is also another blow to the tottering system of international law.
In their statements, both President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Iran was a danger to their countries – Trump said it was a global danger. The Islamic regime is certainly their bitter enemy. But it is hard to see how the legal justification of self-defence applies given the huge disparity of power between the US and Israel on one side and Iran on the other.
War is a political act. Armed conflict is inherently hard to control once it starts. Leaders need clear objectives.
Benjamin Netanyahu has seen Iran as Israel's most dangerous enemy for decades. For him, this is a chance to do as much damage as possible to the regime in Tehran and to Iran's military capacity. Netanyahu also faces a general election later in the year. The evidence from the two years of war with Hamas is that he believes his political position strengthens when Israel is at war.
Donald Trump's objectives have veered and changed, characteristically. Back in January, he told protesters in Iran that help was on its way. Much of the US Navy was busy removing the leader of Venezuela at the time, so he lacked military options.
While the US was deploying two carrier strike groups to the region, as well as considerable land-based firepower, Trump talked a lot about the dangers of Iran's nuclear ambitions, even th
0 Comments