Connect with us

உலகம்

The Iran war has exposed the limits of neutrality

Published

on

The US-Israeli war on Iran exposed the limits of containment, divided allies and forced the world to choose between cautious diplomacy and risky regime change.

Executive Director of the Middle East Council on Global Affairs.

The recent US-Israeli military confrontation with Iran is not merely a limited military operation or another round in the cycle of mutual deterrence. Rather, it presents a revelatory moment for the entire structure of the international order. This confrontation redrew geopolitical divisions in an unprecedented way, exposing the limits of assumptions that had governed the behaviour of major powers for decades, chief among them the belief that conflicts could be contained through neutrality or conventional diplomatic instruments.

What became clear in the earliest days of the war is that the world no longer operates according to the logic of managed tensions and deliberate restraint, but within a highly interconnected environment where geography intersects with transnational networks, and regional crises can rapidly transform into direct global shocks. Iran launched strikes across several countries in the region in the first few days of the war alone, targeting American assets as well as Gulf energy and other infrastructure – almost immediately causing global market disruption.

The course of the war demonstrated that the concept of “neutrality” is no longer viable in contemporary regional contexts, particularly in the Middle East. When the instruments of conflict extend through armed proxies, the closure of vital maritime corridors and threats to global energy supplies, any state, regardless of its efforts, finds itself drawn into the trajectory of the crisis in one form or another. Qatar, for example, had invested years in mediation between Washington and Tehran, keeping channels open with all sides, yet faced Iranian strikes on its civilian infrastructure and energy installations hours after the war began.

Neutrality is easier to declare than to maintain. Iranian strikes on energy infrastructure across Gulf states forced several producers to declare force majeure and suspend their operations. In Qatar, Qatar Energy halted LNG production, and the effects were felt almost immediately in Europe through a surge in gas prices of almost 50 percent in the Netherlands and the UK, a reminder that the global economy, energy security and supply chains are now directly tied to the stability of this region.

Engagement with difficult or intransigent regimes has remained a persistent challenge. Several NATO member states signalled reluctance, or declined altogether, to support Washington’s request for expanded cooperation. At the multilateral level, divisions within the UN Security Council became evident: while some members condemned Iran’s strikes on Gulf states, the Council was unable to reach a consensus regarding the US-Israeli strikes, underscoring deep disagreements among major powers over how to approach and engage with Iran.

The ceasefire camp draws on a weighty historical record. Military interventions, such as those in Iraq and Libya, for example, have demonstrated that toppling regimes by force does not necessarily lead to the construction of stable systems; more often, it opens the door to chaos and institutional collapse. In both Iraq and Libya, external military interventions contributed to prolonged conflict, fragmentation and institutional collapse, from which both countries are still recovering.

This camp holds that war is a crisis multiplier and that the priority must be to halt the humanitarian and economic toll and return to the diplomatic track, even if that means coexisting with a difficult or intransigent regime. It also considers relative stability preferable to chaos with no predictable outcome.

However, this argument faces a central dilemma: it assumes that the Iranian regime is amenable to containment within the rules of conventional diplomacy, an assumption that Iran’s own actions since February 28 have now called into question. For example, Iran struck several Gulf states, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which had both given explicit assurances that their territories would not be used to launch any offensive operations against Iran.

The regime change camp takes the opposing view, arguing that the war did not create the crisis but rather revealed its true nature. It contends that Iranian behaviour, whether through targeting maritime corridors or expanding proxy wars, has proven that the regime cannot be contained or tamed through traditional instruments. Decades of diplomacy and sanctions did not prevent the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Proponents of this position maintain that decades of diplomacy, including the nuclear agreement and regional mediation, have helped expand Iran’s capabilities and expand its influence rather than contain them. For this camp, the solution lies in changing the very structure of the regime itself.

Nevertheless, this argument raises a profoundly complex question: what comes after regime change? Previous experiences in the region offer no successful model for state reconstruction following the overthrow of regimes, making this option riskier than its potential gains may justify. The opening strike of this war, the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was itself premised on the assumption that removing the head of state would precipitate collapse. Instead, a successor was selected shortly after the initial strike, and state institutions continued to function.

Indeed, this war reveals a deeper transformation in the nature of the threats confronting the international order. Threats are no longer conventional or confined within state borders; they have become networked and able to spread across military, economic and digital fronts simultaneously. They originate not only from regular armies but from the convergence of multiple instruments: militias, cyberattacks, economic targeting and the closure of maritime passages. This complexity makes it exceedingly difficult to rely on traditional tools, whether diplomatic or military, to address crises effectively.

Calling for a cessation of hostilities without addressing the root causes of the crisis may amount to nothing more than postponing the inevitable explosion, while pursuing radical change without a clear vision for the day after may open the door to even wider chaos.

Between these two options, the world confronts a fundamental question: How can it deal with a regime widely viewed by many states as part of the problem, without allowing the pursuit of its transformation to create an even greater one?

What appears evident is that the coming phase will leave little room for the grey zone within which states have long been accustomed to manoeuvring. It will be either the logic of cautious containment or the logic of decisive resolution. In either case, the cost of the decision will be steep, not only at the regional level but for the international order as we know it.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/4/17/the-iran-war-has-exposed-the-limits-of-neutrality?traffic_source=rss

உலகம்

Police in Belfast use water cannon as anti-immigrant unrest continues

Published

on

Clashes come as family of knife attack victim calls for calm and condemns violence targeting immigrants.

Unrest in Northern Ireland: Second day of anti-immigration protests in Belfast

Police in the United Kingdom city of Belfast have used water cannon to disperse dozens of far-right protesters during a second night of unrest triggered by a knife attack involving a Sudanese refugee.

The clashes on Wednesday came as the family of the stabbing victim appealed for calm and condemned the wave of anti-immigrant violence in the city in Northern Ireland.

Police said the protesters threw “missiles” such as rocks and bottles at officers, while images from the scene showed several fires burning on the streets.

Police said officers deployed “water cannon in an attempt to maintain public order”.

But the unrest was markedly less severe than on Tuesday evening, when hundreds of masked men burned families out of their homes and set vehicles alight.

“We want to make it absolutely clear that overnight unrest is not welcome, and peaceful protest is the only way forward,” the family of the victim, Stephen Ogilvie, said in a statement.

“We have many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our country… We do not want this terrible tragedy to be used to divide people or fuel hostility,” it said.

The family added that Ogilvie, who lost an eye and suffered serious wounds to his neck and face, was in a stable condition.

Their appeal came as the suspect in the attack, a 30-year-old ‌Sudanese national named Hadi Alodid, appeared in court on charges including attempted murder.

He was remanded in custody, and the case was adjourned to July 8.

Videos of the stabbing attack circulated online all day on Tuesday, sparking calls on social media for violent protest. Police had to help one family escape from a burning house, according to the Reuters news agency, while several cars and a bus were set on fire and reduced to shells.

Local politicians and a pastor said many of those targeted were Black.

UK minister Ruth Anderson said at least 27 people were made homeless in Belfast “because people went door-to-door to try and target foreign nationals”.

Resident Jamie Corry, 33, said he could only watch on as his house went up in flames.

“I was actually standing right there watching my whole house just go up, slowly but surely,” he told Reuters. “I told them and all, when they were lighting a car up on fire, ‘that’s my property, that’s my property’… and they still didn’t care.”

The attack comes at a time of heightened tensions in the UK following the murder of a student in Southampton who was handcuffed by police as he lay dying from stab wounds after his killer, a Sikh man, had falsely alleged a racist attack.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk reposted many messages that blamed migration on violence in the UK, sharing a post that argued that the “very deliberate policy of mass uncontrolled immigration and open borders” is increasing tensions.

Amid calls from Musk, other far-right agitators like Tommy Robinson called for more protests on Wednesday, Northern Ireland’s police chief said ⁠an extra 200 officers were being deployed on the streets.

“These idiots didn’t just target ethnic minority groups… they targeted society,” Chief ⁠Constable Jon Boutcher said of Tuesday night’s rioters.

Officers had to take a family that included a two-month-old baby to safety during Tuesday’s violence, which he branded “a huge act of self-harm by mindless idiots”.

Speaking in London, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the knife attack raised serious questions, but that “driving people out of their homes is not … the right way to respond”.

He condemned the unrest as “shocking and completely unacceptable”.

Anna Turley, the chairwoman of the UK’s governing Labour Party, meanwhile, said that online platforms were “playing a role in driving” the unrest and suggested Musk was one of the “bad faith actors” inflaming tensions.

The United Nations human rights chief Volker Turk condemned what he called “incitement” on social media. “Dehumanisation of whole groups within a society is totally unacceptable and frankly despicable,” he told reporters in Geneva, adding that the violence in both Northern Ireland and Southampton had been “really shocking”.

Social media providers, he insisted, must take seriously their responsibility to prevent hate speech and incitement to violence.

Immigration has historically been low in Northern Ireland, partly due to the three-decade conflict between mainly Catholic Irish nationalists seeking Irish unity and predominantly Protestant pro-British “loyalists” wanting to stay in the UK and the British military.

However, migration has increased in recent years, and there has been an increasing sentiment against it in both Northern Ireland and parts of the Republic of Ireland.

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/11/police-in-belfast-use-water-cannon-as-anti-immigrant-unrest-continues?traffic_source=rss

Continue Reading

உலகம்

Dahiyeh crowds rally in favour of Iranian support against Israel

Published

on

Dahiyeh crowds rally in favour of Iranian support against Israel

Defiant crowds of Hezbollah supporters rallied in Beirut’s Dahiyeh neighbourhood to support Iran’s role in standing against Israel, and rejecting efforts to separate Lebanon’s war from Iran’s. Al Jazeera’s Heidi Pett reports.

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/6/11/dahiyeh-crowds-rally-in-favour-of-iranian-support-against-israel?traffic_source=rss

Continue Reading

உலகம்

OpenAI says China-based actors stoking opposition to AI data centres

Published

on

AI company says ChatGPT accounts sought to ‘exploit and amplify existing public concerns’ about energy prices.

China-based actors are likely behind the use of ChatGPT for “covert influence operations” aimed at stoking opposition to data centres in the United States, OpenAI has said.

In a research report released on Wednesday, the company behind the world’s most popular AI chatbot said it had banned a cluster of accounts likely based in China for attempting to “manipulate a legitimate debate about American AI”.

OpenAI, whose release of ChatGPT in 2022 kicked off a global frenzy around AI, said the accounts were used to generate social media comments and images that blamed data centres for rising electricity prices in communities across the US.

Among other content, the accounts generated a comic strip showing a cigar-chomping businessman holding bags marked with dollar signs as a family reacted in shock to their electricity bill, according to the San Francisco-based company.

OpenAI said a second cluster of accounts had generated content casting US tariffs as an effort to “dominate technological competition” with China, and specified that the material should not mention Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

While the campaign sought to “exploit and amplify existing public concerns” about energy prices, OpenAI found no evidence that it had a “meaningful” influence, the company said.

“Foreign influence operations have long sought to latch onto existing local issues and sincerely held beliefs, using them to build credibility, amplify divisions or exacerbate public distrust,” the ChatGPT creator said.

“In this case, the operators attempted to covertly insert themselves into an ongoing American debate about the future of the country’s AI capabilities while hiding who they were and what motivated them.”

China’s embassy in Washington, DC, said it was not familiar with the report but that it opposed “any groundless attacks or smears against China”.

“AI is profoundly changing the way people work and live. It is a new frontier for all humanity,” an embassy spokesperson said in a statement provided to Al Jazeera.

“China believes in a people-centered approach to AI and advocates openness and inclusiveness to ensure AI is a force for good and for all.”

OpenAI is the latest prominent voice to suggest foreign influence could be behind opposition to AI in the US.

In May, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum told a policy event hosted by Breitbart News that the public’s increasingly negative sentiment towards the construction of data centres was not “organic” and could, in some cases, be linked to “foreign-sourced dark money”.

Darren Linvill, a professor at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina, who studies foreign influence campaigns, expressed doubt that the campaign identified by OpenAI or any other coordinated effort would have much impact on the “volume or tone” of the public debate.

“My team is very familiar with the work of various Chinese influence actors, and the AI work China has done to date has been interesting but not effective,” Linvill told Al Jazeera.

“It’s getting better with each passing month, and I’m concerned what they may be capable of in the future, but they aren’t there yet.”

“If China were really serious about meaningfully influencing the discourse around data centres using AI chat bots, I question if they would use OpenAI to do it,” Linvill added.

Opposition to the construction of data centres has been on the rise in the US, with at least 36 projects blocked or delayed between May 2024 and June 2025, according to Data Center Watch, a research project by AI security company 10a Labs.

In March, Senator Bernie Sanders and House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced legislation that would impose a moratorium on new data centres until the introduction of national safeguards to mitigate the risks of AI.

The legislation has little chance of becoming law in the near future due to US President Donald Trump’s laissez-faire approach to AI regulation and Republicans’ control of both chambers of Congress.

Opposition to data centres has been driven in part by the huge amounts of energy they consume supporting the computing power needed to train and run AI models such as ChatGPT.

The facilities accounted for 1.5 percent of global electricity use in 2024, with consumption growing 12 percent annually over the last five years, according to the International Energy Agency.

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/6/11/openai-says-china-based-actors-stoking-opposition-to-ai-data-centres?traffic_source=rss

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 by 7Tamil Media, All rights reserved.