U.S. strikes failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites, intelligence report says
On June 13, Israel launched a series of air strikes in Iran, targeting key military installations and nuclear facilities. In the strikes, Israel killed several key generals, scientists, and other top officials in Iran. This prompted retaliation from Iran, which began firing back at Israel, including targeting civilian areas.
On June 22, the U.S. joined the conflict, targeting three Iranian Nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. United States President Donald Trump claimed the facilities were obliterated, although later reports dispute this. On June 23, a ceasefire was declared. Both sides violated the ceasefire the following day, but they stopped, and as of June 27, the ceasefire remains in effect.
The conflict between Israel and Iran is long and complex. Israel and the U.S. both enjoyed good relations with Iran until 1979 when it was under the rule of the Pahlavi Monarchy. Iran was a Western ally. During the rule of Mohammad Reza Shah, the last Shah (monarchy) in Iran, the country underwent several social reforms, becoming more Westernised and free. Critics point out, however, that these reforms primarily only affected the urban middle and upper classes. Most of the country remained traditional, conservative Muslims who opposed the Shah’s modernist agenda.
Additionally, in the eyes of many, he was seen as a puppet because he had come to power twice with foreign backing. The first time was in World War II when he overthrew his father, thanks to an Anglo-Soviet invasion. The British sought to utilise Iranian railroads to transport supplies to the Soviets. However, many Iranian railroads had German administrators whom Reza Shah (the father of the last Shah) refused to dismiss.
The second time came 12 years later. The power of the Shah had been reduced gradually through democratic reforms in the early 1950s. This led to the Shah eventually abdicating and fleeing to Europe. At the head of this was Mohammad Mossadegh, an Iranian nationalist politician. In 1953, a coup backed by the American CIA and British MI6 overthrew Mossadegh and reinstated the Shah.
This was because Mossadegh nationalised Iranian oil, which was previously owned by the Anglo-American oil company British Petroleum. Additionally, despite not being a communist, many in the communist Tudeh Party supported him. In the midst of the Cold War, this led to fears that he was a Soviet puppet.
Fast forward to the 1970s, and the Iranian economy is in turmoil. Education increased significantly during the Shah’s reign, resulting in a new generation of educated urban youth. Unfortunately, there was a shortage of work, resulting in widespread unemployment. Additionally, resentment by the conservative religious majority, as well as resentment over the Shah being seen as an American puppet, prompted his overthrow in the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The 1970s was a period of religious revival in the Muslim world, with many in the Islamic World abandoning secular nationalist or socialist ideals for Islamism.
In the Arab world, both Arab Nationalism and Socialism were seen as failures following defeats in the 6-day war and the death of Gamal Abdul Nasser, the popular leader of Egypt. In Pakistan, a military regime, under General Zia ul-Haq, began using Islamism as a tool to run the state, implementing draconian religious laws. In Iraq and Syria, Ba’athist dictators came to power that, while officially secular, instituted a sectarian and clan-based hierarchy, fueling religious separatism.
Additionally, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had at that point, become a unifying cause for Muslims around the world. The new Iranian regime that has remained in power since would declare the U.S. “the Great Satan” and Israel “the Little Satan,” playing into deep resentments in society.
However, 46 years later, the Iranian economy remains in shambles. Iran’s population, increasingly educated, even more than in the Shah’s time, now resents the regime for its repressive and authoritarian tendencies. Nationalistic grievances over the regime being more concerned about its foreign proxies than the suffering masses have led to several protests across the country for the last several years.
Additionally, the murder of an unveiled woman, Masha Amini, showed the profound disconnect between the old Islamist values of the regime and the increasingly secular and modernist values of Iranians today. It is in this climate that the Shah’s son has begun promoting himself as a successor to the Ayatollahs.
Many of his supporters saw this as his opportunity. He used the strikes to call for the ayatollahs to abdicate and promised his followers a new era for Iran. His hopes were dashed when Trump announced a ceasefire and the Israelis agreed to join.
While a ceasefire remained in place, it became clear to many that this was an opportunity for regime change. This is something to watch out for if the ceasefire breaks in the coming weeks.
GroenLinks-PvdA members back weapons embargo on Israel
Members of the centre-left to left-wing Labour Party (PvdA) and Groenlinks (GL) recently held a conference. The conference was notable for two reasons. The first was that it represented a win for those pushing for a merger of the two parties as they voted overwhelmingly to run together in the 2025 election and merge into one party in 2026. The second is the victory of a motion by MP Kati Piri to issue a total arms embargo on Israel. This motion faced significant backlash from former leaders and represented a deep divide between the past and present. To understand the significance of this, we must look back at history.
Beginning with PvdA. The party was formed after World War II. At the time, the Netherlands had a system of pillarisation, characterised by social segregation between pillars, namely Protestants, Catholics, Social Democrats/Socialists, and Freethinkers/Liberals. These pillars had their universities, unions, sports teams, newspapers, employers, and so on.
The PvdA was a merger of the Social Democratic Workers’ Party (SDAP) from the social democratic and socialist pillars, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) from the Protestant community, and the Free-thinking Democratic League (VDB). They were joined by individuals from the Catholic resistance group Christofoor, as well as some of the more progressive members of the Protestant Christian Historical Union (CHU).
This was part of the movement to end pillarisation, which lasted until the 1960s. However, the Social Democratic elements would come to dominate the party, and it would become a broad centre-left party responsible for establishing much of the Dutch welfare state.
Disaffected members would leave for other parties, such as the former VDB members, who, along with the Freedom Party (PvdV), would go on to form the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), which remains one of the most influential parties today.
In the 1970s, following the end of Pillarisation, the three largest Christian parties —the Catholic People’s Party (KVP), the Anti-Revolutionary Party (ARP), and the CHU—merged to form the CDA.
From the 1970s to the 2010s, these were the three main parties, with two of the three being represented in every coalition. These three parties made up the top three parties in the elections of 1977, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1989, 1994, 1998, and 2003. In 2002, 2006, 2010, and 2012, one of the parties would still be the largest.
Then, in 2017, a political earthquake occurred. Like much of the rest of the democratic world, centre-left parties traditionally adopted third-way social democracy in the 1980s and 1990s. This was characterised by deregulation, free trade, privatisation, and a shift away from traditional working-class and union bases to gain a broader appeal among the middle and upper classes.
PvdA was no exception, adopting this under the leadership of Wim Kok. This style was popular for a time, and Kok became Prime Minister from 1994 to 2002. Additionally, PvdA was a junior partner to the CDA from 1989 to 1994 and 2007 to 2010.
However, following the 2008 crash and 2011 Eurozone crisis, a harsh policy of austerity swept Europe. Public sentiment began to turn, and those on the left demanded more vigorous opposition. This led to the Socialist Party (SP) briefly leading the polls leading up to the 2012 election, before PvdA was able to make a comeback and finish second behind the ruling VVD.
PvdA challenged the VVD, the incumbent party in power at the time, and criticised their austerity policy. However, following the 2012 election, they formed a grand coalition. They implemented a series of harsh austerity measures, leading many voters to feel betrayed by them.
The subsequent 2017 election was an earthquake, as the PvdA entered with 36 seats and ended up with just 9. Losing three-quarters of their seats was, in the eyes of many, the definitive rebuke of the centrist third-way politics they needed, and the party began moving to the left. But in moving to the left, they found a partner in GL and its leader, Jesse Klaver.
GL was founded in 1989 as a merger of several Christian Left and Socialist parties. The party acted as opposition throughout the 1990s and 2000s. While it achieved good results at times, such as in 1998 and 2010, it never posed a serious threat of becoming one of the main parties on its own. In 2012, it was reduced to just four seats.
Then, in 2015, they elected a new leader, Jesse Klaver. Klaver was a young, fresh face often compared to Barack Obama or Justin Trudeau. He increased the party’s representation from four seats to 14 in 2017. Among his achievements is that he was one of the leading voices in Groenlinks, pushing for cooperation among the left.
While cooperation with parties like D66 and SP fails for various reasons, this opportunity resonated with PvdA. This led to the parties refusing to join a coalition without the other after the 2021 election and the parties forming joint lists in the 2023 regional and parliamentary elections.
However, now many old members and those on the right argue that GL hijacks PvdA and is being forced to move left against its will.
This sentiment came front and centre when several former party leaders spoke against a motion by Piri to ban arms sales to Israel, including defensive ones, such as for the Iron Dome. The membership, younger, more sympathetic to the Palestinians, and much less pro Israel than past leadership, booed them. The motion would pass overwhelmingly.
Many old PvdA members have left. However, both parties have reported that thousands more have joined the party. Party membership recently surpassed 100,000. The conference should send a clear message. PvdA’s base and membership are no longer the same as they were 10 years ago. They are younger, more left-wing, and more combative.
Leave a Reply