The National Interest Foundation Newsletter

Issue 287, May 30, 2025

Welcome to our NIF Newsletter. In this week’s edition, we delve into the mounting international criticism against Israel and the condemnation of its use of starvation as a weapon of war, while also examining the importance of Iran nuclear talks and what the collapse of them could lead to.

Editor: Bassam Tarbush

Mounting International Criticism Against Israel and Condemnation of Its Use of Starvation as a Weapon of War

The expansion of Israel’s egregious military assault on Gaza has drawn strong recent opposition from the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Germany, Spain, and others. (Photo from Getty Images)

Israel has been facing growing international rebuke and isolation over its actions in Gaza, with an array of countries recently voicing strong levels of public criticism. Earlier this week, German officials threatened of potential measures against Israel, joining others such as the United Kingdom, France, Canada, and Spain who had previously done so as well. All of this comes as the European Union (EU) also announces that it will review its political and economic ties with Israel in light of the appalling human rights violations and war crimes taking place in Gaza. The expansion of Israel’s military assault, the widely denounced aid distribution takeover, and Israel’s continued weaponization and politicization of humanitarian relief have all elicited deserved condemnation from a host of entities – and even prompted the resignation of the head of the controversial group created to spearhead the aid distribution takeover plan, who himself acknowledged that the operation failed to adhere to humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality, and independence. United Nations (UN) agencies and the world’s other major aid organizations have refused to participate in the aforementioned takeover plan due to it being a violation of international law with blatant underlying Israeli political motivations.

Throughout the course of the Gaza War, humanitarian groups have sought to draw attention to Israel’s reprehensible use of starvation as a weapon of war. The obstruction of humanitarian aid and its weaponization is a war crime, and now on top of these longstanding violations, the Israeli government is clearly seeking to use the aid takeover plan as a means of manipulating its distribution for political and military purposes – hence why so many have been quick to denounce it. The Mossad is behind the controversial organization – Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) – that was set up to front the aid takeover operation, with Israel financing the agency through shell companies abroad in order to hide the clear ties to the Israeli government. While much of the world has spoken out against this and urged that impartial humanitarian organizations instead be allowed to resume their relief services in Gaza, the current U.S. government on the other hand warrants its share of culpability for its role in enabling Israel’s war crimes and violations, as well as the implementation of the highly condemned aid takeover plan. The U.S.-backed Israeli aid takeover operation has been criticized for a number of reasons. Firstly, by limiting distribution points to a few locations, it forces further displacement of Gazan civilians – a crime against humanity – while providing no mechanism for those most vulnerable like the elderly and disabled to access humanitarian aid. Even for those who are able-bodied, the aid takeover operation requires them to individually collect and haul boxes weighing up to nearly 45 lbs. for miles from isolated sites. The amount of aid itself is also far from sufficient, and as many have outlined, a “drop in the ocean” to the surge that is actually desperately needed. On top of all of these shortcomings, the aid takeover is overtly politicized and militarized, rather than free from these destructive influences as should be the case with these types of relief operations. In fact, this week, witnesses at an aid distribution site in southern Gaza described scenes of chaos which left several people dead and dozens injured as Israeli troops stationed nearby opened fire. Aid group officials have expressed how, regrettably, this is the inevitable consequence of such a reckless and inhumane plan being carried out as opposed to simply opening up crossings into Gaza and allowing independent humanitarian groups to function and do their work.

Many countries, particularly in Europe, have recently ramped up their public criticism towards Israel for its ongoing actions in Gaza. On Sunday, Spain hosted a meeting in Madrid in which the country’s foreign minister remarked that the international community should look to impose sanctions on Israel as a means of putting an end to its military assault on Gaza. This follows last week’s joint statement from the United Kingdom, France, and Canada whereby the leaders of the respective nations conveyed horror at Israel’s military escalations in Gaza and threatened to take concrete actions. One of the elements that is becoming more and more undeniable to government officials around the world is that Israel’s accelerated military operations in Gaza serve no objective other than to mask naked aggression and attempt to expand illegal occupation. There has also been increased acknowledgement from some senior European officials regarding Israel’s use of aid and starvation as weapons of war. Several countries have taken steps to reassess their diplomatic and trade relations with the Israeli government, with the United Kingdom suspending free trade negotiations and imposing sanctions on illegal Israeli settlers.

Denunciation of Israel’s conduct in Gaza has reached a point where it has grown internally as well. Israeli officials themselves have voiced that the country is becoming an “outcast among nations” as a result of the government’s approach to the war. As one put it, “A sane country doesn’t engage in fighting against civilians, doesn’t kill babies as a hobby, and doesn’t set for itself the goals of expelling a population.” Perhaps most notably, Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert relayed his heavy criticisms earlier this week when he declared that Israel is committing war crimes and that “the government of Israel is currently waging a war without purpose, without goals or clear planning, and with no chances of success.” Olmert openly admitted that Israel’s actions in Gaza were indiscriminate and cruel – condemnation which spoke volumes and revealed a lot coming from a former head of the Israeli government.

In recent days, Israel has also garnered condemnation for its announced plan to expand illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank – a move which is in open defiance of international law. Officials went as far as brazenly disclosing that the expansion is aimed at further obstructing any possibility of a viable Palestinian state. Rights groups have underlined how this is the largest single illegal settlement expansion in decades, and serves as the latest example of Israeli officials carrying out increased violations in the West Bank such as home demolitions, settler violence, unlawful land seizures, and mass displacements, while much of the world’s attention is fixated on its war crimes and abuses in Gaza. They also point out that it demonstrates illegal settlement expansion is an evident central goal of the current Israeli government. Spain, Finland, the United Kingdom, and others have strongly criticized the decision and labeled it a grave violation of international law and United Nations resolutions, which undermines the prospects for peace. On this note, activists have alluded to the fact that the Israeli government is making it clear with actions like this that it prefers deepening the illegal occupation over pursuing peace.

The Importance of Iran Nuclear Talks and What the Collapse of Them Could Lead To

The latest talks took place last week in Rome, with expectations to hold a sixth round soon. (Photo from Reuters)

The ongoing high-stakes nuclear talks between Iran and the United States, which have been mediated by Oman, saw the completion of a fifth round of negotiations this past week in Rome. Participants outlined that the talks had yielded some progress, but without a conclusive breakthrough yet as they move into an expected sixth round of talks soon. As observers convey hopes for the possibility of a deal, the importance of the Iran nuclear talks cannot be overstated. For starters, the threat of a bellicose Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites continues to loom over the situation. In fact, it was revealed this week that U.S. President Trump had cautioned Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu not to attack Iran as the talks continue – in the latest evidence of tension between the two. While there is concern that Israel might launch an attack on Iran irrespective of Trump’s warnings and a potential Iran nuclear deal being reached, a collapse of talks between the United States and Iran would increase the likelihood of this even further. In recent weeks, Trump has repeatedly suggested that there will either be a diplomatic deal or military action, and therefore this combined with Israel’s clear desire and eagerness to attack Iran has heightened the significance of the current nuclear talks and sparked unease regarding what the collapse of them could mean.

In addition to this fear of widening regional escalations and hostilities, there are other factors propelling the gravity of the ongoing Iran nuclear talks. The government in Iran is keen on a possible deal that would provide much-needed economic relief, and there is also the prospect of United Nations (UN) sanctions against Iran being reimposed if a new nuclear deal is not reached over the coming months. The dubbed “snapback mechanism” which allows for the automatic reinstatement of previous UN sanctions expires in October of this year, and there is a chance that the E3 countries of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany could invoke this in the absence of a new agreement. Iran has a vested interest in seeking to obtain substantial sanctions relief, as the U.S. measures have hurt its economy and limited its ability to trade or bank internationally – while also undermining its key industries and infrastructure. With respect to the state of nuclear talks, there is a sense of some optimism coming out of the most recent fifth round of negotiations last week in Rome. Iranian officials expressed that the talks had been “one of the most professional rounds of negotiations” so far, and that while an agreement had not been reached, the Iranian side was “not discouraged.”

During the ongoing nuclear talks, the enrichment of uranium remains one of the core sticking points, with the United States raising concerns about Iran’s enrichment levels while Iran maintains that this is for civilian purposes and is a matter of national sovereignty. Iran has reportedly proposed that the United States publicly recognize its right to enrich uranium for civilian use under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and approve the release of Iranian oil revenues frozen under American sanctions. At one point, there were hopes of a potential compromise whereby Iran may pause uranium enrichment in an interim deal that could lead to a broader nuclear accord. However, at least publicly, Iranian officials have shot down the prospect of an enrichment freeze for several years while talks continue. Another idea that has been floated is the notion of a possible consortium in the Middle East that would be backed by regional countries and the United States which would allow for limited uranium enrichment by Iran under international oversight. For Iran, there is also apprehension regarding the durability of any U.S. deal given that Trump unilaterally pulled out of the last one and as a result, it is seeking guarantees from the United States that it will not withdraw from a future nuclear deal.

Analysts and experts highlight that ultimately reaching a deal will require concessions from both sides, but in the bigger picture, an agreement that grants oversight over Iran’s nuclear sites in exchange for some sanctions relief would prove greatly beneficial – especially if it prevents expanded regional conflict that risks entangling and drawing in the United States. For now, it is at least a positive sign that nuclear talks are expected to continue, although the sixth round has yet to be set.