Ƶ

Could we see a Palestinian state during Mahmoud Abbas’s 20th year in office thanks to the global coalition?

Special Could we see a Palestinian state during Mahmoud Abbas’s 20th year in office thanks to the global coalition?
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas speaks during the United Nations General Assembly at the UN headquarters on September 26, 2024 in New York City. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 13 January 2025

Could we see a Palestinian state during Mahmoud Abbas’s 20th year in office thanks to the global coalition?

Could we see a Palestinian state during Mahmoud Abbas’s 20th year in office thanks to the global coalition?
  • When Abbas assumed the Palestinian Authority presidency on Jan. 15, 2005, he inherited a fractured political landscape
  • His legacy will be defined by whether he can translate Saudi-led momentum behind Palestinian statehood into tangible results

LONDON: As Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas marks 20 years in office, his leadership remains a complex chapter in the Palestinian national story, characterized by division, disillusionment, but also dogged determination.

Having succeeded Yasser Arafat in 2005, Abbas’ lengthy tenure has been shaped by challenges that have profoundly impacted the Palestinian people, the pursuit of statehood, and the prospects for peace with Israel.

“Ever since taking office, President Abbas has focused all his attention on the realization of an independent Palestinian state using diplomatic and political means,” Daoud Kuttab, an award-winning Palestinian journalist and author, told Arab News.




Posters of presidential candidate Mahmoud Abbas and the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat are seen at the Al-Amaari refugee camp in the West Bank city of Ramallah on January 2005 during the election for Arafat's successor. (AFP)

Abbas’s term was originally meant to last four years, meaning elections should have been held in 2009. However, no presidential elections have taken place since, primarily due to political rivalries between the main parties.

This 20-year milestone invites a reflection on Abbas’ legacy, the ongoing divisions within Palestinian politics, and whether his 20th year in power since succeeding Arafat might see tangible progress toward an independent Palestinian state.

When Abbas assumed the presidency on Jan. 15, 2005, he inherited a fractured political landscape. Arafat’s death in November 2004 left a void in Palestinian leadership, particularly given his unique ability to unite diverse factions under the umbrella of the Palestine Liberation Organization.




Palestinians crowd around the coffin of Fatah Chairman Yasser Arafat after it arrived from Cairo in the West Bank city of Ramallaha on November 12, 2004, for a burial ceremony. (AFP)

Abbas, known for his more pragmatic and diplomatic approach, was seen as a leader who could gain international credibility and potentially re-ignite peace talks with Israel. However, Arafat’s departure also brought long-simmering divisions among Palestinians to the fore.

“Abbas followed a revolutionary leader in Yasser Arafat and had to confront an Islamic movement that is focused on armed resistance,” said Kuttab, referring to the Palestinian militant group Hamas that controls Gaza.

“He attacked Hamas for their rocket attacks on Israel and has been silently disapproving of the Oct. 7, 2023, cross-border Hamas act that has caused huge loss of life as a result of the brutal Israeli revenge response.”




This April 7, 2024, photo shows near Israelis visiting a memorial at Kibbutz Reim in southern Israel, at the site of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on the Supernova music festival, which triggered Israel's genocidal Gaza invasion. (AFP)

The Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on southern Israel left 1,200 people dead, the majority of them civilians, saw some 250 taken hostage, including many foreign nationals, and triggered Israel’s devastating retaliatory war in Gaza.

Fifteen months on, the war has cost the lives of more than 45,000 Palestinians, according to health officials in Gaza, although a new study published by the Lancet medical journal has placed the death toll at 64,260 as of last June.

The rivalry between Abbas’ Fatah and Hamas escalated into a full-blown schism in 2007. Following a short conflict, Hamas seized control of Gaza, leaving Abbas’ Fatah-dominated PA governing only parts of the West Bank.

This division has not only weakened the Palestinian cause but has also complicated efforts to present a unified front in negotiations with Israel.




A Palestinian mourns his daughter and two other relatives who were killed in an Israeli airstrike on Jan. 11, 2025, in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza Strip. Fifteen months on, the Gaza war has cost the lives of more than 46,500 Palestinians and at least 109,660 wounded. (AFP)

Abbas began his presidency with optimism. His platform emphasized nonviolent resistance, institution-building, and a commitment to achieving a two-state solution through negotiations.

His efforts gained initial support from the international community, particularly the US and the EU. The 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was seen as a potential breakthrough, despite being unilateral and limited.

However, hopes for progress soon faded. The victory of Hamas in the 2006 legislative elections, coupled with the failure to reach a consensus on governance, exacerbated divisions.

Meanwhile, peace talks with Israel stalled repeatedly over issues such as settlement expansion, security arrangements, and the status of Jerusalem.




Palestinians rally in the West Bank city of Ramallah on June 13, 2007, calling for a stop to fighting between the Fatah and the Hamas movements in the Gaza Strip. Fatah and Hamas remain rivals to this day. (AFP)

The situation worsened after the 2008-09 Gaza war, further entrenching the divide between Hamas and Fatah. For many Palestinians, Abbas’ commitment to negotiations began to appear futile, especially as Israel’s settlement activity in the West Bank continued unabated.

Critics accused Abbas of presiding over a corrupt and ineffective administration, eroding public trust in the PA.

The split between the West Bank and Gaza remains one of the defining challenges of Abbas’ presidency. Efforts at reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas have repeatedly faltered, with each side blaming the other for the impasse.




Caption

The Oct. 7 attack and the war in Gaza have done little to heal the rift. On Saturday, Fatah issued a rare statement criticizing Hamas for sacrificing Palestinian interests for Iran and causing destruction in Gaza.

The statement supports Fatah’s recent security crackdown in the Jenin refugee camp targeting Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other armed groups, accusing Tehran of funding these factions.

Fatah also condemned the Oct. 7 attack, rejecting Hamas’ strategy of armed conflict, and accused it of seeking to incite chaos in the West Bank




Protesters clash with members of the Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces, in Jenin in the Israel-occupied West Bank, on December 16, 2024. (AFP)

Talks in December between Fatah and Hamas about a nonpartisan Gaza administration have seen no clear progress. Meanwhile, the future governance of Gaza remains uncertain as Israeli leaders debate involving the PA following the defeat of Hamas.

Despite his long absence from the Palestinian Territories in the UAE, Mohammed Dahlan, a former Gaza security chief who was blamed by some within Fatah for the loss of Gaza, has since been tipped as a potential leader of the enclave — if Hamas were removed from power.

The Fatah Central Committee voted to expel Dahlan from the party in June 2011 after Abbas accused him of corruption and of plotting against him. Dahlan denied the allegations and accused Abbas of targeting him for his criticism of Abbas’ handling of the peace process.




In this photo taken on December 31, 2016, supporters of Fatah's former security chief Mohammed Dahlan, an exiled rival to Mahmoud Abbas, clash with supporters of Abbas during a rally in Gaza City. (AFP file)

In spite of this history of division among the Palestinians, Abbas’ administration has achieved some notable successes on the international stage, including securing Palestine’s recognition as a non-member observer state at the UN in 2012.

This diplomatic victory underscored Abbas’ commitment to pursuing Palestinian statehood through nonviolent means and international legitimacy.

However, Abbas’ prolonged tenure has not been without controversy. Now aged 89, he has faced growing criticism for failing to hold elections since 2006, effectively extending his rule far beyond his original mandate.




Palestinian Fatah movement supporters carry portraits of PA President Mahmud Abbas (R) and his late predecessor Yasser Arafat (L) during a march to mark the 16th anniversary of Arafat's death in the village of Dura, near the West Bank city of Hebron on November 11, 2020. (AFP file)

Many Palestinians view the PA as increasingly authoritarian, accusing it of suppressing dissent and prioritizing security coordination with Israel over the needs of its people. The PA’s reliance on international aid has also raised questions about its sustainability.

Economic dependency on donor funding has left the PA vulnerable to political pressure, particularly from the US and Israel. This dependency has fueled perceptions that the PA is complicit in managing the occupation rather than resisting it.

Meanwhile, Abbas has faced internal challenges from younger Fatah leaders and other political factions who view his leadership as out of touch. Calls for generational change have grown louder, with many Palestinians demanding a more inclusive and dynamic approach.

Despite these challenges, Abbas’ 20th year in office arrives at a moment of renewed international focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.




Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (L) meeting with Ƶ's Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman in Riyadh on August 27, 2024. (PPO/AFP)

Ƶ’s emergence as a regional power broker has brought fresh hope for advancing the two-state solution. Under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Kingdom has taken a proactive role in mediating conflicts and fostering dialogue, including between Israel and the Arab world.

In October 2024, Ƶ announced the formation of the Global Alliance for the Implementation of the Two-State Solution. The coalition includes key players such as the US, the EU, and Arab states, with a mandate to address core issues including borders, settlements, refugees, and the status of Jerusalem.

Riyadh’s initiative has been bolstered by an ongoing Arab dialogue with Israel, which includes conditions tied to advancing Palestinian statehood in line with the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.




Since the global alliance for the two-state solution was launched amid the Gaza war, the push for Palestinian statehood championed by Mahmoud Abbas has gained momentum. (Anadolu)

“No doubt Ƶ is playing a leading role in this coalition, leveraging its regional and international influence as well as its longstanding support for the Palestinian cause,” Hani Nasira, an Egyptian writer and political expert, told Arab News.

“The Kingdom has consistently emphasized that the establishment of an independent Palestinian state is essential for peace and stability in the region and that any steps toward normalization with Israel must first secure Palestinian rights.”

This diplomatic strategy reflects Ƶ’s commitment to balancing regional stability with the aspirations of the Palestinian people.

The question remains whether Abbas’ final years in power will witness the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Much depends on the success of Ƶ’s initiative and the willingness of all parties to engage in meaningful negotiations.

“Observers believe that the chances of establishing a Palestinian state under President Mahmoud Abbas remain viable, though significant challenges persist,” said Nasira.




Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (C) and leaders from member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab League during their joint extraordinary summit in Riyadh on November 11, 2024 to discuss efforts at finding a peaceful solution to the question of Palestine. (SPA/AFP)

“These obstacles require internal Palestinian unity and robust Arab and international support — something Ƶ is actively seeking to provide.

“Additionally, many countries and international organizations continue to support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state along the 1967 borders under the current Palestinian leadership.

“This includes the EU and most Islamic nations, as President Abbas seeks backing for a peace initiative rooted in the two-state solution and international resolutions.

“It is therefore clear that the Global Alliance reflects Ƶ’s steadfast commitment to supporting the Palestinian cause and its relentless pursuit of a just and comprehensive peace in the region.

“This initiative aims to guarantee Palestinian rights and establish normalized relations among all countries in the region.”

For Abbas, the stakes are high. His legacy will ultimately be defined by whether he can translate decades of advocacy for Palestinian statehood into tangible results.




A screen shows the results of the vote on the resolution entitled "Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine" at the General Assembly 46th plenary meeting on Dec. 3, 2024, at the UN headquarters in New York City. (AFP)

The PA has expressed cautious optimism about the Saudi-led coalition, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive approach that addresses historic injustices and ensures Palestinian sovereignty.

However, significant obstacles persist. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shown little appetite for concessions, particularly on settlements and security issues, and has even dismissed the two-state solution out of hand.

As Abbas marks two decades in office, the Palestinians find themselves at a crossroads. While statehood remains elusive, renewed international focus on the conflict offers a glimmer of hope.

Abbas’ presidency has been a tale of resilience, missed opportunities, and unfulfilled aspirations. While his commitment to a two-state solution has earned him international respect, the lack of progress on the ground has left many Palestinians disillusioned.

“The Palestinian president remained focused on his peaceful mythology but failed to gain enough support in terms of electoral legitimization of his efforts,” Kuttab told Arab News.

“While Abbas’ direction directly reflected the recommendations of all of Palestine’s allies, they failed to engage or reward him for his rejection of violence and insistence of a politically negotiated solution to the Palestinian conflict.

“Nevertheless, President Abbas’ quest — that is, the national aspiration of Palestinians — remains to be the most logical step forward. Palestinian statehood is the best way to bring peace to the entire Middle East.”


Iran says parliament is preparing bill to leave nuclear non-proliferation treaty

Updated 15 sec ago

Iran says parliament is preparing bill to leave nuclear non-proliferation treaty

Iran says parliament is preparing bill to leave nuclear non-proliferation treaty
DUBAI: Iranian parliamentarians are preparing a bill that could push Tehran toward exiting the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty the foreign ministry said on Monday, while reiterating Tehran’s official stance against developing nuclear weapons.
“In light of recent developments, we will take an appropriate decision. Government has to enforce parliament bills but such a proposal is just being prepared and we will coordinate in the later stages with parliament,” the ministry’s spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said, when asked at a press conference about Tehran potentially leaving the NPT.
The NPT, which Iran ratified in 1970, guarantees countries the right to pursue civilian nuclear power in return for requiring them to forego atomic weapons and cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA.

Israel began bombing Iran last week, saying Tehran was on the verge of building a nuclear bomb. Iran has always said its nuclear program is peaceful, although the IAEA declared last week that Tehran was in violation of its NPT obligations.
President Masoud Pezeshkian reiterated on Monday that nuclear weapons were against a religious edict by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Iran’s state media said that no decision on quitting the NPT had yet been made by parliament, while a parliamentarian said that the proposal was at the initial stages of the legal process.
Baghaei said that developments such as Israel’s attack “naturally affect the strategic decisions of the state,” noting that Israel’s attack had followed the IAEA resolution, which he suggested was to blame.
“Those voting for the resolution prepared the ground for the attack,” Baghaei said.
Israel, which never joined the NPT, is widely assumed by regional governments to possess nuclear weapons, although it does not confirm or deny this.
“The Zionist regime is the only possessor of weapons of mass destruction in the region,” Baghaei said.

Israel says deports last three Gaza flotilla activists to Jordan

Israel says deports last three Gaza flotilla activists to Jordan
Updated 16 June 2025

Israel says deports last three Gaza flotilla activists to Jordan

Israel says deports last three Gaza flotilla activists to Jordan

JERUSALEM: Israel said Monday it deported the last three remaining activists from an aid flotilla that attempted to reach the war-torn Gaza Strip last week.
“The last three participants remaining from the “Selfie Yacht” (flotilla) were transferred this morning to Jordan via the Allenby Crossing,” the foreign ministry said in a statement, adding they included one Dutch and two French nationals.


Israel-Iran battle continues into fourth day with more civilian deaths on both sides

Israel-Iran battle continues into fourth day with more civilian deaths on both sides
Updated 2 min 38 sec ago

Israel-Iran battle continues into fourth day with more civilian deaths on both sides

Israel-Iran battle continues into fourth day with more civilian deaths on both sides
  • At least 5 killed and dozens more wounded in Israel as Iran fires new wave of missile attacks on Monday
  • American consulate in Tel Aviv suffers minor damage as Iranian missile lands nearby
  • Israel says Iranian missiles are “clearly targetting” civilian sites

DUBAI: Iran fired a new wave of missile attacks on Israel early Monday, triggering air raid sirens across the country as emergency services reported at least five killed and dozens more wounded in the fourth day of open warfare between the regional foes that showed no sign of slowing.

Iran announced it had launched some 100 missiles and vowed further retaliation for Israel’s sweeping attacks on its military and nuclear infrastructure, which have killed at least 224 people in the country since last Friday.

The attacks raised Israel’s total death toll to at least 18, and in response the Israeli military said fighter jets had struck 10 command centers in Tehran belonging to Iran’s Quds Force, an elite arm of its Revolutionary Guard that conducts military and intelligence operations outside Iran.

Israeli air defence systems are activated to intercept Iranian missiles over the Israeli city of Tel Aviv amid a fresh barrage of Iranian rockets on June 16, 2025. (AFP)

Powerful explosions, likely from Israel’s defense systems intercepting Iranian missiles, rocked Tel Aviv shortly before dawn on Monday, sending plumes of black smoke into the sky over the coastal city.

Authorities in the central Israeli city of Petah Tikva said Iranian missiles had hit a residential building there, charring concrete walls, shattering windows and ripping the walls off multiple apartments.

 

 

The Israeli Magen David Adom emergency service reported that two women and two men — all in their 70s — were killed in the wave of missile attacks that struck four sites in central Israel.

“We clearly see that our civilians are being targeted,” said Israeli police spokesman Dean Elsdunne outside the bombed-out building in Petah Tikva. “And this is just one scene, we have other sites like this near the coast, in the south.”

The MDA added that paramedics had evacuated another 87 wounded people to hospitals, including a 30-year-old woman in serious condition, while rescuers were still searching for residents trapped beneath the rubble of their homes.

 

Iranian Parliament pens plan to leave Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Iran said Monday its parliament was preparing a bill to leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), adding that Tehran remains opposed to developing weapons of mass destruction. Passing the bill could take several weeks.

Israel is presumed to have a sizable nuclear arsenal but neither confirms nor denies it. It is the only Middle East state that has not signed the NPT.

Democratic senator introduces legislation to prevent Trump from using military force against Iran without permission

A Democratic senator introduced legislation on Monday to prevent US President Donald Trump from using military force against Iran without Congress’s authorization, as an escalating battle between Israel and Iran raised fears of broader conflict.

Tim Kaine of Virginia has tried for years to wrest back Congress’s authority to declare war from the White House.

During Trump’s first term, in 2020, Kaine introduced a similar resolution to rein in Trump’s ability to wage war against Iran. That measure passed both the Senate and House of Representatives, winning some Republican support, but did not garner enough votes to survive the Republican president’s veto.

Kaine said his latest war powers resolution underscores that the US Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the sole power to declare war and requires that any hostility with Iran be explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for the use of military force.

“It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States. I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict,” Kaine said in a statement.

 

 

Iran tells Qatar, Oman it won't negotiate ceasefire with US while under Israeli attack

Israel and Iran launched fresh attacks on Sunday, killing and wounding civilians and raising concerns of a broader regional conflict, with both militaries urging civilians on the opposing side to take precautions against further strikes. 

Israel warned that the worse is to come. It targeted Iran's Defense Ministry headquarters in Tehran and sites it alleged were associated with Iran's nuclear program, while Iranian missiles evaded Israeli air defenses and slammed into buildings deep inside Israel.

An Iranian health ministry spokesperson, Hossein Kermanpour, said the toll since the start of Israeli strikes had risen to 224 dead and more than 1,200 injured, 90 percent of whom he said were civilians. Those killed included 60 on Saturday, half of them children, in a 14-story apartment block flattened in the Iranian capital.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he hoped a meeting of the Group of Seven leaders in Canada on Sunday would reach an agreement to help resolve the conflict and keep it from escalating.

Iran has told mediators Qatar and Oman that it is not open to negotiating a ceasefire with the US while it is under Israeli attack, an official briefed on the communications told Reuters on Sunday. The Israeli military, which launched the attacks on Friday with the stated aim of wiping out Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, warned Iranians living near weapons facilities to evacuate.


Analysis: What happens if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz?

Analysis: What happens if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz?
Updated 18 min 20 sec ago

Analysis: What happens if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz?

Analysis: What happens if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz?
  • Tehran has never fully closed the strategic waterway but it has threatened to do so many times in response to geopolitical tensions
  • Iran-Israel war has potentially immediate ramifications for energy-exporting Gulf states and, in the longer term, for the entire world

LONDON: It is thanks to a quirk of ancient geological history that almost half the global oil and gas reserves are located under or around the waters of the Arabian Gulf, and that the flow of the bulk of bounty to the world must pass through the narrow maritime bottleneck that is the Strait of Hormuz.

On Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the world that Israel’s unprecedented attack on Iran earlier in the day was an act of self-defense, aimed at disrupting its nuclear program.

By Saturday, Israel had broadened its targets from nuclear facilities, ballistic-missile factories and military commanders to oil facilities in apparent retaliation for waves of missile and drone strikes on its population centers.

This handout satellite image released by Planet Labs on June 15, 2025, shows close up view of damaged tunnel entrances at Kermanshah missile facilities, western Iran on June 15, 2025. (© 2025 PLANET LABS PBC via AFP)

In his video broadcast, Netanyahu said: “We will hit every site and every target of the ayatollahs’ regime, and what they have felt so far is nothing compared with what they will be handed in the coming days.”

In a stroke, Israel had escalated the conflict into a crisis with potentially immediate ramifications for all the oil- and gas-producing Gulf states and, in the longer term, for economies of the region and the entire world.

Reports originating from lawmakers in Tehran began to circulate suggesting that Iran was now threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. Sardar Esmail Kowsari, a member of Iran’s parliament and a commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, warned in an interview that closing the waterway “is under consideration and that Iran will make the best decision with determination.”

While the strait is, in the words of the US Energy Information Administration, “the world’s most important oil transit choke point” — about a fifth of the world’s total petroleum liquids consumption passes through it — the two main oil producers, the UAE and Ƶ, are not without alternative routes to world markets for their products.

This handout natural-color image acquired with MODIS on NASA's Terra satellite taken on February 5, 2025 shows the Gulf of Oman and the Makran region (C) in southern Iran and southwestern Pakistan, and the Strait of Hormuz (L) and the northern coast of Oman (bottom). (Photo by NASA Earth Observatory / AFP)

Saudi Aramco operates twin oil and liquid gas pipelines which can carry up to 7 million barrels a day from Abqaiq on the Gulf to Yanbu on the Red Sea coast. Aramco has consistently shown resilience and ability to meet the demands of its clients, even when it was attacked in 2019.

The UAE’s onshore oil fields are linked to the port of Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman — beyond the Strait of Hormuz — by a pipeline capable of carrying 1.5 million barrels a day. The pipeline has attracted Iran’s attentions before. In 2019, four oil tankers, two each belonging to Ƶ and the UAE, were attacked off the port of Fujairah.

Iran has never fully closed the Strait of Hormuz but it has threatened to do so multiple times in response to geopolitical tensions.

Historically, it has used the threat of closure as a strategic bargaining tool, particularly during periods of heightened conflict. In 2012, for instance, it threatened to block the strait in retaliation for US and European sanctions but did not follow through.

This US Navy handout screenshot of a video shows fast-attack craft from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy swarming Panama-flagged oil tanker Niovi as it transits the Strait of Hormuz on May 3, 2023. (AFP/File)

Naturally, disruptions in supplies would cause an enormous increase in energy price and related costs such as insurance and shipping. This would indirectly impact inflation and prices worldwide from the US to Japan.

According to the experts, Iran can employ unmanned drones, such as the Shahed series, to target specific shipping routes or infrastructure in the strait. It may also attempt to use naval vessels to physically obstruct passage through the strait.

Ironically, the one country in the region that would face no direct consequences from a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is Israel. All of its estimated consumption of 220,000 barrels of crude a day comes via the Mediterranean, from countries including Azerbaijan (exported via the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline, which runs through Turkiye to the eastern Mediterranean), the US, Brazil, Gabon and Nigeria.

Opinion

This section contains relevant reference points, placed in (Opinion field)

The capability to disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz is one thing, a full closure is quite another, as it would harm Iran’s own economy given that it relies on the waterway for its oil exports.

History teaches that shutting off the flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf is far easier said than achieved. The first country to attempt to prevent oil exports from the Gulf was Britain, which in 1951 blockaded exports from the Abadan refinery at the head of the Gulf in response to the Iranian government’s decision to nationalize the country’s oil industry.

The motive was purely financial. In 1933 Britain, in the shape of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., a forerunner of today’s BP, had won a lopsided oil concession from the Iranian government and was reluctant to give it up.

The blockade did not last — impoverished post-war Britain needed Abadan’s oil as badly as Iran — but the consequences of Britain’s actions are arguably still being felt today.

The very existence of the current Iranian regime is a consequence of the 1953 coup jointly engineered by Britain and the US, which overthrew then Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, architect of the oil nationalization plan, and set Iran on the path to the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

The first modern blockade of oil shipments in the Gulf happened the following year, when Saddam Hussein, hoping to take advantage of the disruption caused by the revolution and the ousting of the shah, attacked Iran, triggering the disastrous eight-year Iran-Iraq War.

Still equipped with the shah’s US-supplied and trained air force and navy, Iran’s first reaction was successfully to blockade Iraqi warships and oil tankers in Umm Qasr, Iraq’s only deep-water seaport.

Picture released on November 17, 1980 of a column of smoke billowing from an Iranian helicopter shot by Iraqi anti-aircraft fire, near Abadan, during Iran-Iraq war. (AFP/File)

Iraqi aircraft began attacking Iranian shipping in the Gulf, provoking an Iranian response that focused initially on neutral ships bringing supplies to Iraq via Kuwait, a development that soon escalated into attacks by both sides on shipping of all flags.

The first tanker to be hit was a Turkish ship bombed by Iraqi aircraft on May 30, 1982, while loading at Iran’s Kharg Island oil terminal. The first to be declared a total loss was a Greek tanker, struck by an Iraqi Exocet missile on Dec. 18, 1982.

In terms of lives lost and ships damaged or destroyed, the so-called Tanker War was an extremely costly episode, which caused a temporary sharp rise in oil prices. By the time it ended in 1987, more than 450 ships from 15 countries had been attacked, two-thirds of them by Iraq, and 400 crew members of many nationalities had been killed.

Among the dead were 37 American sailors. On May 17, 1987, American frigate the USS Stark, patrolling in the Gulf midway between Qatar and the Iranian coast, was hit by two Exocet missiles fired by an Iraqi Mirage jet.

A port quarter view of the guided missile frigate USS STARK listing to port after being struck by an Iraqi-launched Exocet missile on May 17, 1987. (Wimimedia Commons: Pharaoh Hound)

But at no point throughout the Tanker War was the flow of oil out through the Strait of Hormuz seriously disrupted.

“Iran couldn’t fully close the strait even in the 1980s,” said Sir John Jenkins, former UK ambassador to Ƶ and Iraq.

“It’s true that in those days the UK and others had a significant mine-sweeping capacity, which we lack today. But even if Iran laid mines again or interfered with shipping in the strait in other ways it will almost certainly draw in US maritime forces from the 5th Fleet (based in Bahrain) and perhaps air assets too.

US Navy warships are seen transiting the Strait of Hormuz, during a deployment to the US 5th Fleet area of operations. (AFP/File)

“Also, attempting to close Hormuz will hit their own significant illegal oil trade.”

Regardless, the Iranians “will be very tempted to do this. But it is a delicate calculation — doing enough to get Russia and in particular China involved in support of de-escalation but not enough to provoke US action, effectively on the side of Israel,” Jenkins said.

In an analysis published in February last year, following an uptick in maritime aggression by Iran in and around the Strait of Hormuz, the Center for Security Policy, a Washington think tank, concluded that because 76 percent of the crude oil that passes through it is destined for Asian markets, “as one of Tehran’s sole remaining allies, it would not be in China’s best interest for the strait to fully close.”

Oil tankers pass through the Strait of Hormuz. (REUTERS/File Photo)

Lessons learned during the 1980s Tanker War are relevant today. In the wake of that conflict, an analysis by the Strauss Center for International Security and Law offered a cool-headed assessment of the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz to any attempt at enforced closure by Iran.

“Our research and analysis reveals significant limits to Iran’s ability to materially reduce the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz for a sustained period of time,” the report, published in 2008, said.

“We find that a large-scale Iranian campaign would yield about a 5 percent chance of stopping each tanker’s transit with small boat suicide attacks and a roughly 12 percent chance of stopping each tanker’s transit with volleys of anti-ship cruise missiles.”

Initially, the Tanker War led to a 25 percent drop in commercial shipping and a temporary sharp rise in insurance premiums and the price of crude oil.

Tally of attacks on oil tankers during the so-called Tanker War of the 1980s. (Wikimedia Commons)

“But the Tanker War did not significantly disrupt oil shipments … Even at its most intense point, it failed to disrupt more than 2 percent of ships passing through the Gulf,” the report said.

The bottom line, it said, “is that if a disruption to oil flows were to occur, the world oil market retains built in mechanisms to assuage initial effects. And since the long-term disruption of the strait, according to our campaign analysis, is highly improbable, assuaging initial effects might be all we need.

“Panic, therefore, is unnecessary.”

Israel’s critics say it already has much to answer for in unleashing its unilateral assault on Iran. Netanyahu has been claiming for years that Iran was “only months away” from producing a nuclear weapon and his claim that that is the case now has no more credibility than before.

“Benjamin Netanyahu has started a war with Iran that has no justification,” said Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign policy at Washington think tank the Cato Institute.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s true motives in launching his attack on Iran at this time are not hard for political observers to divine. (Pool Photo via AP, File)

Friday’s opening attacks overtook US President Donald Trump’s statement earlier that same day that “the United States is committed to a diplomatic resolution to the Iran nuclear issue.”

“Iran was not on the precipice of acquiring nuclear weapons,” Logan said. “It had not thrown out IAEA inspectors, from whom all information about the Iran nuclear program flowed. It had not enriched uranium to weapons-grade.”

Netanyahu’s true motives in launching his attack at this time are not hard for political observers to divine.

He has successfully derailed US-Iranian nuclear talks — ongoing negotiations, due to have been continued on Sunday in Oman, were canceled.

The attack has also caused the postponement of the three-day joint Saudi-French Gaza peace summit at the UN, which had been due to begin on Tuesday, with the issue of Palestinian sovereignty high on the agenda — anathema to Netanyahu’s right-wing, anti-two-state government.

“Israel has the right to choose its own foreign policy,” Logan said.

But “at the same time, it has the responsibility to bear the costs of that policy.”
 

 


Former Israeli PM Ehud Barak: Only full-scale war or new deal can stop Iran’s nuclear program

Former Israeli PM Ehud Barak: Only full-scale war or new deal can stop Iran’s nuclear program
Updated 15 June 2025

Former Israeli PM Ehud Barak: Only full-scale war or new deal can stop Iran’s nuclear program

Former Israeli PM Ehud Barak: Only full-scale war or new deal can stop Iran’s nuclear program
  • Speaking to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Barak said Israel’s ability to hold back Tehran’s program was limited
  • Barak said that while military strikes were “problematic,” Israel viewed the action as justified

LONDON: Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak has warned that military action by Israel alone will not be enough to significantly delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions, describing the Islamic republic as a “threshold nuclear power.”

Speaking to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Barak said that Israel’s ability to hold back Tehran’s program was limited.

“In my judgment, it’s not a secret that Israel alone cannot delay the nuclear program of Iran by a significant time period. Probably several weeks, probably a month, but even the US cannot delay them by more than a few months,” he said.

“It doesn’t mean that immediately they will have (a nuclear weapon), probably they still have to complete certain weaponization, or probably create a crude nuclear device to explode it somewhere in the desert to show the whole world where they are.”

Barak said that while military strikes were “problematic,” Israel viewed the action as justified.

“Instead of sitting idle, Israel feels that they have to do something. Probably together with the Americans we can do more.”

The former premier said that stopping Iran’s progress would require either a major diplomatic breakthrough or a regime change.

“My judgment is that because Iran is already what’s called a threshold nuclear power, the only way to block it is either to impose upon it a convincing new agreement or alternatively a full-scale war to topple down the regime,” he said.

“That’s something that together with the United States we can do.”

But he said he did not believe Washington had the appetite for such a move.

“I don’t believe that any American president, neither Trump or any one of his predecessors, would have decided to do that.”

Israel unleashed airstrikes across Iran for a third day on Sunday and threatened even greater force as some Iranian missiles fired in retaliation evaded Israeli air defenses to strike buildings in the heart of the country.

Israeli emergency services said at least 10 people had been killed in the Iranian attacks, while officials in Iran said that at least 128 people had been killed by Israel’s salvos.