The National Interest Foundation Newsletter

Issue 289, June 13, 2025

Welcome to our NIF Newsletter. In this week’s edition, we examine Israel’s major unprovoked and reckless attacks on Iran that have sparked fears of an all-out war, provide analysis regarding President Trump’s reinstated travel ban targeting a number of Muslim-majority countries among others, and delve into Israel’s kidnapping of activists aboard an international aid boat bound for Gaza.

Editor: Bassam Tarbush

Israel’s Major Unprovoked and Reckless Attacks on Iran Spark Fears of an All-Out War

The scenario that many had long feared was growing in likelihood unfolded late last night into today as Israel launched a massive wave of bellicose attacks across Iran. The unprovoked and reckless strikes have thrown the Middle East into dangerous uncertainty, and sparked grave concern regarding an all-out regional war and further destabilization that could drag in the United States. Israel’s attacks have included the bombing of nuclear and missile sites, residential areas, sabotage operations, and the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and military leaders. They also come just days before Iran and the United States were slated to hold a sixth round of nuclear talks in Oman, with these now being indefinitely suspended in light of what has transpired. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly sought to derail these efforts, and observers point to this as one of the clear motivations behind the attacks on Iran.

Iran has vowed to avenge the Israeli attacks, and stated that it will respond forcefully to the offensive and belligerent military actions, as it has begun to fire missiles towards Israel in retaliation to the attacks. The Iranian government has insisted that the attack demonstrates Israel does not adhere to any international rules or laws and instead brazenly seeks to perpetuate conflict and hostilities. It also contends that Israel’s behavior illustrates its unhinged aggression and the fact that it is the entity which is dangerously threatening the security of the region. While U.S. officials insist that Israel took unilateral action against Iran, for many analysts, the Trump administration bears culpability for what has materialized regardless of whether or not it was explicitly involved or covertly approved of the Israeli attacks. The evacuation of U.S. embassy personnel from the Middle East prior to the recent attacks on Iran suggests that American officials had some awareness regarding the serious potential of an Israeli military operation. President Trump himself has even expressed to media outlets that the U.S. had been aware of the impending Israeli attack. Thus, Israel’s carrying out of the attack indicates that either Trump is unable to restrain the actions of Netanyahu or that public U.S. statements of opposition to the Israeli attack are coupled with behind-the-scenes tacit consent – both equally troubling realizations whichever is the case. Now, the region risks spiraling towards heightened conflict and violence.

Israel’s attacks on Iran have taken place after yesterday’s news that the global nuclear watchdog’s Board of Governors approved a resolution declaring that Iran is not complying with its commitment to international safeguarding measures. This had prompted concerns over the potential for escalation, which did indeed manifest with the Israeli bombardment of Iran. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) finding was the first time in 20 years that the organization has formally ruled Iran is not meeting its obligations, with 19 of the 35 countries on the IAEA board voting in favor of the motion. Last week, the IAEA had released an additional report which stated that Iran had enough uranium enriched to possibly make nuclear bombs, but the Iranian government insists that its nuclear activities are for peaceful civilian purposes and a matter of national sovereignty. The IAEA’s resolution had also raised fear of an uptick in tensions due to the fact that the move could spur an effort to restore United Nations sanctions on Iran later this year. The noncompliance declaration might now be referred to the United Nations Security Council, which has the power to “snap back” the sanctions that were lifted under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal if Iran is deemed to be failing to fulfill its obligations. The ability to reimpose sanctions expires later this year in October, and European nations have repeatedly threatened to trigger the mechanism if Iran does not cooperate with the IAEA.

However, for the time being and as a result of Israel’s reckless attacks on Iran, the IAEA developments have taken a back seat to the more pressing concern over what will ensue in the coming days as the region faces the prospect of further calamitous escalations. The threat has perhaps never been greater in recent years that the United States could be dragged into a widened conflict in the Middle East, and it remains to be seen what unravels next. One thing that is evident at this point is that while Trump came back into office vowing to end wars in the Middle East and elsewhere, his administration’s policies have not only failed to do this, but they have also risked increased U.S. entanglement to the detriment of America’s interests.

President Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban 2.0

Last week, President Trump announced a sweeping new travel ban which went into effect as of this past Monday, June 9th – reviving a controversial and heavily criticized policy that he had enacted during his first term and promised to restore when elected back into office. The latest iteration blocks individuals from 12 countries (Afghanistan, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, the Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen) from entering the United States, and sets partial restrictions on those from another 7 (Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela). Rights groups and advocacy organizations have condemned the reinstated ban for a host of reasons. Firstly, they have been quick to point out its discriminatory nature in targeting mostly Muslim-majority and African nations. While attempting to sell the ban under the guise of a national security policy, ironically, it actually undermines this by serving to stir up division and vilify certain communities. Additionally, the travel ban contradicts American values such as refugee protection and harms the country’s reputation as a welcoming safe haven for those fleeing oppression, persecution, and conflict. In fact, alarmingly, many of the nations on the travel ban list are ones suffering major humanitarian crises including Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Haiti, Myanmar, and Chad. Thus, the policy will undoubtedly negatively impact individuals and families seeking safety from these circumstances.

One of the core reasons why the revived Trump travel ban has garnered such backlash is for its weaponizing of immigration policy to dangerously scapegoat particular communities. Rather than making the United States safer as supposedly intended, this type of policy will only sow more ignorance, fear, and animosity towards what are already vulnerable minority and immigrant groups – stoking the flames of those who regrettably contend that there is a racial and foreign threat. It could also lead to an uptick in profiling and unjust visa denials at the hands of U.S. immigration officials, not to mention the hardship for families who will be separated due to the restrictions and the disproportionately detrimental effect that it will have on people seeking refuge from humanitarian crises. The manner in which the new ban was rolled out has received criticism as well. In his video announcement, Trump attempted to link it to a recent attack in Colorado despite the perpetrator being an Egyptian national – not from a country included on the renewed restricted list. For many, this is just further indication of the major concerns surrounding the reinstated ban and how it lacks any real basis or substance.

On this note, analysts have outlined that there is no consistent set of criteria that adequately explains why the 19 countries targeted in the new travel ban have been chosen – as instead, it seems to be a combination of ones that are politically motivated and others being oddly added to try and convince observers that the list is broad and not selectively targeted. Furthermore, the justifications themselves purportedly used for the specific list of countries in the travel ban are questionable. For example, the Trump administration has claimed that nations were chosen for having the highest number of people who overstay their visas, however, immigration experts have noted that this is not the case. If it was, countries like Spain would have been included on the list given that more visitors from there overstayed their visas in the United States than the combined total of several banned nations on the actual list. Ultimately, it is evident that some countries were targeted whereas others with even higher overstay rates were left off.

While there is clearly inconsistency, the additional time to try and put together a more expanded and comprehensive policy compared to the more haphazard travel ban during Trump’s first term in office has resulted in a belief that the current version is on more solid legal footing – especially considering that U.S. law gives the president broad powers over immigration policy. The 2017 ban was the subject of multiple legal challenges and revisions before a third iteration of it was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. Of course, the reinstated travel ban is certain to elicit court battles and legal challenges as well, but experts seem to be of the mind that this one has a higher likelihood of remaining in effect in its current form. Still, civil liberty groups and immigrant advocacy organizations have had time – just as the Trump administration has – to prepare for the potential of contentious legal challenges and the aforementioned lack of consistency and clarity could be means for doing so on grounds like pursuing discrimination claims.

Israel’s Kidnapping of Activists Aboard the International Aid Boat Bound for Gaza

Israel has drawn criticism for its illegal seizure of the Madleen, a Gaza-bound international aid boat seeking to deliver humanitarian supplies, which saw Israeli forces abduct and detain all of the activists onboard. The ship was intercepted outside of any country’s territorial waters in the middle of the night, adding to the outrage over the unlawful move. The dozen civilian passengers traveling on the boat included climate activist Greta Thunberg and European Parliament member Rima Hassan. As various officials and organizations were quick to point out, Israel had no legal authority to stop, let alone arbitrarily kidnap and apprehend those on the boat since the crew members were meant to be considered protected civilian activists on a humanitarian mission. Furthermore, Israel elicited rebuke for seeking to charge the activists with “illegal entry” despite the fact that they were forcibly brought to Israel against their will after being abducted in international waters and then held in isolation at a detention facility unless they agreed to leave immediately. Of the entire group of 12 passengers on the vessel who were illegally detained and taken into custody, ten – including Thunberg – have been deported while the two remaining activists are expected to be deported today.

Back in early June, the group of global activists hailing from the seven countries of Sweden, France, Brazil, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and Turkey set sail on the boat from Italy with the aim of breaking Israel’s unlawful blockade on Gaza and delivering much-needed food and medical supplies to the territory’s besieged civilians. Israel’s actions against the Madleen are yet another demonstration of how far it is willing to go in order to try and silence increasing solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. It is merely one of the latest examples of Israel brazenly and blatantly violating norms of international law. Respected groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam, and others have long documented Israel’s use of starvation as a weapon of war, and it is evidence of this and the calamitous consequences that have prompted attempted actions like that of the Madleen and its crew. The already dire humanitarian conditions in Gaza have worsened even further since early March when Israel imposed a total siege, preventing any aid from entering for over 11 weeks. Since mid-May, the highly inadequate and widely criticized Israeli aid takeover has been disastrous, with repeated instances of civilians being killed by Israeli forces indiscriminately opening fire on crowds gathered at the distribution sites.

While in custody, human rights groups documented how the activists were subjected to abuse and mistreatment at the hands of Israeli authorities. Even during the illegal seizure of the boat itself, Israeli drones had dropped a mysterious white chemical irritant that caused burning eyes and obstructed vision. One of the French members of the boat’s crew recounted acts of ill-treatment while the group was unlawfully detained including threats of physical violence, the denial of access to toilets, sleep deprivation, mockery, and the blocking of efforts to speak with lawyers and family members. Still, despite the dehumanizing circumstances that they faced, many of the activists have maintained that the public should focus less on what they endured and more on the continued war crimes and human rights abuses in Gaza. As one remarked, the kidnapping of the activists pales in comparison to what civilians in Gaza have been enduring for the past 20 months.

Regrettably, the illegal seizure of the Madleen and the abduction of its passengers does not come as a surprise to those that have been closely following Israel’s actions in Gaza and the scope of its violations of international law. It also marks the second time now in recent months that an aid boat bound for Gaza has been hindered or attacked while in international waters – following the early May incident involving the Conscience whereby the vessel was hit by drones attributed to Israel off the coast of Malta, forcing the mission to be abandoned. As the Madleen sailed towards Gaza, the activists on board had even repeatedly warned and suspected a potential Israeli assault of the boat. Thus, while hope was always slim that the humanitarian aid boat would actually reach Gaza, the latest occurrence with the Madleen helps to at least shed further light on the increasingly commonplace Israeli breaches of international law and human rights abuses.