Nitin Pai

The Geneva Conventions make it clear that attacks may only be directed against military objectives. A civilian object like a block of flats loses its protection only if it is being used to make an "effective contribution to military action."

Trump says U.S. “knew nothing” about Israel’s attack on South Pars. Trump knew and supported it, as we reported today, seeing it as a message to Tehran over the Strait of Hormuz. He then decided no more attacks on Iranian energy sites (which he semi-confirms re: South Pars).

We're only three weeks into this war of choice, imposed on both Iranians and Americans. This $200b is the tip of the iceberg. Ordinary Americans can thank Benjamin Netanyahu and his lackeys in Congress for the trillion-dollar "Israel First tax" that's about to hit U.S. economy.

Much remarked on: in the Economist the mediator in the Iran US talks, Oman’s foreign minister Badr Albusaidi writes the US has lost control of its foreign policy to Israel. He wrote this before Trump said he did not know Israel was going to bomb South Pars gas field in Iran, leading to the disastrous Iranian retaliation in Qatar. (Earlier in the conflict we had been told the US Israeli military operation was seamless) “For Gulf states an economic model in which global sport, tourism, aviation and technology were to play an important role is now endangered. Plans to become a global hub for data centres may need to be revised. The effects of Iran’s retaliation are already being felt globally, as maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is severely disrupted, driving up energy prices and threatening deep recession. If this had not been anticipated by the architects of this war, that was surely a grave miscalculation. The American administration’s greatest miscalculation, of course, was allowing itself to be drawn into this war in the first place. This is not America’s war, and there is no likely scenario in which both Israel and America will get what they want from it. Hopefully America’s commitment to regime change is just rhetorical, whereas Israel explicitly seeks the overthrow of the Islamic Republic and probably cares little about how the country is governed, or by whom, once this has been achieved. With this objective in mind Israel’s leadership seems to have persuaded America that Iran had been so weakened by sanctions, internal divisions and the American-Israeli bombings of its nuclear sites last June, that an unconditional surrender would swiftly follow the initial assault and the assassination of the supreme leader. But it should now be clear that for Israel to achieve its stated objective will require a long military campaign to which America would have to commit troops on the ground, opening a new front in the forever wars which President Donald Trump previously vowed to end. This is not what America’s government wants. Nor do its people, who certainly do not see this as their war. The question for friends of America is simple. What can we do to extricate the superpower from this unwanted entanglement? First of all, America’s friends have a responsibility to tell the truth. That begins with the fact that there are two parties to this war who have nothing to gain from it, and that the national interests of both Iran and America lie in the earliest possible end to hostilities. This is an uncomfortable truth to tell, because it involves indicating the extent to which America has lost control of its own foreign policy. But it must be told. The leadership of the United States will then need to decide where its national interests really lie, and act accordingly. A sober assessment of those interests would indicate that they must include a definitive and decisive end to nuclear-weapons proliferation in the region, secure energy supply chains and renewed investment opportunities in the context of the region’s growing global economic significance. All of these would be best achieved with Iran at peace with its neighbours. They can perhaps be identified as shared objectives for all the countries of the Gulf. How to get there from today’s catastrophe is the challenge.” Highly recommend a subscription to the Economist since in the article he also sets out how the talks could even now be revived. More generally the speeches of the foreign minister are worth a read.

First, we are capable of producing at least 2,000 effective and combat-proven interceptors every day. We can produce more – it depends on investment. We need about 1,000 interceptors a day, and we can supply at least another 1,000 a day to our allies. Second, we know how to build radar and acoustic coverage to respond to how “shaheds” and other drones approach. Third, we have software that allows radars to keep working even under electronic warfare jamming. In real time, we analyze enemy frequencies and respond to them. And because of this system, we understand how effective our defense is against almost every attack drone, and we can move our positions and air defense to get better results. This iPad gives full control of the situation because we have a system for using our defense tools. If a “shahed” needs to be stopped in the Emirates – we can do it. If it needs to be stopped in Europe or the United Kingdom – we can do it. It is a matter of technology, investment, and cooperation. And the fact that we got through this winter – which Russia tried to make deadly for all our families – shows that our solutions work. From my address to the Parliament of the United Kingdom (4/7)