President Donald Trump Tuesday teased that he will soon have a major announcement — as he met Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. Trump did not reveal the details but said it might not be about trade, but it will be “as big as it gets”.

Tired of too many ads? go ad free now

Though it might not be in connection with Canada, Carney who spoke next said he was on the edge of his seat.

But what is this ‘truly earth-shattering’ thing that Trump teased? It is in connection with his Middle East trip as he said, “We’re going to, as you know, the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, we’re going to UAE and Qatar, and that will be, I guess, Monday night,” Trump said. “Some of you are coming with us, I think.”

“Before then, we’re going to have a very, very big announcement to make, like as big as it gets, and I won’t tell you on what, but it’s very positive, and also I’d tell you if it was negative or positive, I can’t keep that up.

It is really, really positive, and that announcement will be made either Thursday or Friday or Monday before we leave. But it will be one of the most important announcements that have been made in many years about a certain subject, very important subject.

”

“We’re going to have a great announcement,” he said, “and I’m not necessarily saying it’s on trade, going to the beginning. We’re going to have a great announcement over the next few days, announcement that will be so, so incredible, so positive, and I’m not saying I don’t want you to think it’s necessarily on trade just to finish.”

Renaming the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf

The Associated Press, citing multiple US officials, reported that Trump is expected to announce that the US will begin referring to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf or the Gulf of Arabia. And this announcement will be made during his Saudi Arabia visit. But it is not known whether this renaming is the earth-shattering announcement that Trump teased and closely guarded yesterday.

Trump always refers to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf

In 2017, Trump used the term Arabian Gulf for the waterway, which is known as the Persian Gulf. Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, blasted any attempt to rename the Persian Gulf and said it will have no validity apart from bringing the wrath of all the Iranians.

If there’s one thing that transcends Iranians’ personal beliefs and politics, it’s the name of the body of water historically known as the Persian Gulf — a name that has become a point of national pride amid efforts by some Arab states to rename it the Arabian Gulf.

So it came as little surprise that Iranians responded with outrage after a report that US President Donald Trump had endorsed the suggested name change.

The Associated Press reported on May 7 that Trump was planning to announce a change to either the “Arabian Gulf” or the “Gulf of Arabia.”

The announcement, the AP report said, would come during Trump’s visit to the Middle East next week.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi on May 7 dismissed the report as likely part of a “disinformation” effort to “provoke and agitate Iranians worldwide.”

He warned that while such a move would carry “no validity or legal or geographical effect,” it would “only bring the wrath of all Iranians from all walks of life and political persuasion in in Iran, the US, and across the world.”

Can It Hurt Opposition Support For Trump Policies?

Behnam Taleblu, senior director of the Iran program at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), warned that the move risked alienating Trump’s support among Iranians who back his strong stance against the Islamic republic.

“This decision will have the inadvertent effect of watering down [Trump’s] pro-max pressure constituency inside and outside the US and Iran that has supported the White House’s Iran agenda while bolstering voices skeptical of his approach,” he wrote on X.

The State Department and White House have consistently used the name Persian Gulf in line with the official policy of the US Board on Geographic Names, which has rejected proposals to change it to “Arabian Gulf.”

In contrast, US Central Command and the US Navy often use “Arabian Gulf” in regional communications and documents, especially to align with Arab partners, though their usage sometimes varies between “Arabian Gulf” and the more neutral “the Gulf.”

Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, noted that the US military has used the term “Arabian Gulf” for years. But, he added, “In my experience, there’s one thing that unites Iranians: ensuring it’s called Persian Gulf.”

Indeed, Iranian-American organizations with sharply differing political views issued separate statements on X opposing any name change.

“There has always been and will only ever be one name for the Persian Gulf,” declared the National Union for Democracy in Iran. The National Iranian American Council echoed the sentiment: “It’s the Persian Gulf — today, tomorrow, and forever.”

The name of the waterway is a deeply emotional issue for many Iranians, tied to pride in their country’s heritage as the heart of the ancient Persian Empire.

Tensions flared in 2017 during Trump’s first term when he referred to it as the “Arabian Gulf,” prompting then-President Hassan Rouhani to quip that Trump should “study geography.”

At the time, Iran’s former crown prince Reza Pahlavi wrote a letter to Trump urging him to refrain from referring to the “historically unchallengeable Persian Gulf” by any other name. Pahlavi’s supporters have been reposting his letter on X, though some have questioned the veracity of the reported plan to change the name.

Implications Beyond National Pride

Some have argued that changing the name of the Persian Gulf in the United States can do more than just hurt the pride of Iranians, such as leading to a breakdown in nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington.

Abdolrasool Divsallar, a security expert and adjunct professor at the Universita’ Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan, said the move would be “a very bad decision in a very bad time.”

He argued that it would “certainly have major negative implications on the nuclear talks, likely to cause Iran’s unexpected reactions.”

Meanwhile, Iran-based political commentator Mostafa Najafi speculated that the move could affect the legal status of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb — three small but strategically important islands in the Persian Gulf that are controlled by Iran but claimed by the United Arab Emirates.

“Tehran backing down in the face of Trump’s potential move, encouraged by Arab emirs and monarchs, would deal a major blow to Iran’s national security and regional standing,” he wrote on X.

This comes months after Trump’s executive order in January to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.”

The AP declined to adopt the new terminology, prompting the White House to restrict its journalists from covering most official events.

In response, the AP filed a lawsuit against the administration. In April, a US district judge ruled that the First Amendment protects the wire service from government retaliation over editorial decisions and ordered that its full access to White House events be reinstated.

Smoke and fire rise from the site of a missile attack in Haifa, Israel, on June 15. – Photo by Reuters

The world stands on the precipice of a catastrophic war as the conflict between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran accelerates beyond containment. Following Israel’s surprise airstrikes on Tehran, an unprecedented and bold provocation that claimed the lives of senior Iranian military commanders, Iran retaliated with precision missile attacks on Israeli strategic facilities. The reverberations of these strikes are now shaking the entire region, fueling fears that this is not merely another flare-up in a volatile Middle East, but the prelude to a broader and perhaps irreversible global war.

At the heart of this unfolding nightmare lies a calculated gamble — one spearheaded by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, emboldened by unwavering U.S. support and an international community too fractured to stop him. What we are witnessing is not just the escalation of a regional feud, but the systematic ignition of a conflict that could, if left unchecked, metastasize into World War III.

A deliberate provocation

Sources within Israel’s defense establishment and intelligence community now acknowledge privately what the government refuses to admit publicly: the airstrikes on Iran were not merely retaliatory or defensive — they were designed to provoke. For years, Netanyahu has warned of Iran’s growing power and nuclear ambitions, often using fear as political currency. But this time, the prime minister appears to be playing a much more dangerous game.

The operation, targeting Iranian military leadership deep inside Tehran, represents a direct assault on Iranian sovereignty. It was an act designed to force Iran into open war. The logic is chillingly Machiavellian: by compelling Iran to retaliate, Israel positions itself as a victim and secures American involvement. The hope is that Iran, by launching missiles or drone attacks in response, crosses a red line that compels the United States to enter the fray on Israel’s behalf — militarily, financially and diplomatically.

This is not a theory. Multiple high-ranking Israeli sources have confirmed that Netanyahu’s inner circle views U.S. involvement as the only way to permanently neutralize Iran. In this context, the airstrikes were not a mistake. They were bait.

The U.S. role: Enabler or ally?

The United States, under President Trump’s second administration, has not only stood by Israel, but has actively enabled its campaign of aggression. In recent months, U.S. arms shipments to Israel have increased dramatically. American-made jets, missiles and precision-guided bombs have turned Gaza into an open-air graveyard. Now, those same tools are being used against Iran.

The White House has offered no condemnation of Israel’s preemptive strikes. In fact, several administration officials, speaking on background, suggested that the U.S. views Israel’s actions as “defensive in nature” and “within the scope of their sovereign right to security.” This framing deliberately ignores the broader context of Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza and its historical campaign of regional hegemony.

By backing Israel unconditionally, the United States has made itself a party to these acts of aggression. It is no longer simply Israel’s protector. It is Israel’s partner in war.

The implications of this alliance are vast. If Iran retaliates further and Israeli casualties mount, Washington will be under immense pressure to respond. U.S. military assets stationed in Iraq, Syria, Bahrain and Qatar are already on high alert. American naval strike groups in the Mediterranean have been repositioned. One wrong move — one misinterpreted radar signature, one stray missile — and the U.S. could find itself in a shooting war with Iran. From there, the path to global escalation is not just possible. It is probable.

Civilian terror and human suffering

Lost amid the geopolitical chessboard and diplomatic maneuvering are the millions of civilians who now live in daily terror. In Gaza, already reduced to rubble, Israel’s unrelenting bombardment continues. In Iran, major cities are bracing for further Israeli attacks. Air raid sirens wail. People sleep in basements. Hospitals overflow. Supermarkets are emptying.

The psychological trauma being inflicted on the region cannot be overstated. In Gaza, where over 55,000 civilians have been killed — many of them women and children — the survivors are left to bury their loved ones with their bare hands. In Tehran and Isfahan, families wait helplessly as their leader’s vow revenge. No one knows what tomorrow will bring, except that it may be worse than today.

And yet, the world’s response has been paralyzed. International organizations, from the U.N. to the Red Cross, have issued statements of concern — but these are words, not actions. No meaningful sanctions have been levied. No arms embargoes enacted. No international tribunal has been empowered to investigate war crimes. The global order is not merely failing. It is complicit.

A path to world war III

The current trajectory is disturbingly familiar to students of history. A localized assassination in 1914 led to trench warfare across Europe. An ideological movement in the 1930s led to a world consumed by fascism and genocide. Today, a preemptive strike by a nuclear-armed state, backed by the most powerful military on earth, is once again setting the world on fire.

Geopolitical analysts now openly warn that a regional war between Israel and Iran would not remain confined to those two nations. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria, Ansar Allah forces in Yemen and even elements in Pakistan and Afghanistan could be drawn in. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt — already walking a tightrope of neutrality — could be forced to take sides. Turkey, with its own ambitions and anxieties, may not remain passive.

Most dangerously, global powers like Russia and China may see strategic opportunity in an overextended United States. Moscow, still reeling from Western sanctions, may choose to support Iran covertly, dragging the Ukraine conflict into a broader East-West confrontation. Beijing, watching closely, could exploit U.S. distraction to make moves in Taiwan or the South China Sea.

What begins as an Israeli gamble could end as a global conflagration.

Manufactured consent

What makes this moment even more volatile is the narrative being sold to the public — particularly in the United States. Mainstream media coverage has framed Israel as acting in “self-defense”, conveniently omitting its role as the initiator of this current cycle of violence. Pundits speak of Iranian aggression without acknowledging the thousands of dead Palestinian civilians or the military occupation that has fueled resistance movements for decades.

This one-sided portrayal fosters public support for further escalation. By omitting critical context and amplifying Israeli government talking points, American media outlets are manufacturing consent for a war that most citizens do not fully understand.

The consequences of this consent are lethal. Already, Congress is debating an emergency military aid package to Israel, potentially exceeding $20 billion. Defense contractors are quietly preparing for expanded operations. The machinery of war is not just in motion — it is accelerating.

Voices of resistance

Amid the darkness, there are still voices calling for de-escalation. A coalition of former diplomats, military generals and international law experts have issued a joint letter to the United Nations urging immediate intervention. Progressive lawmakers in the U.S. have demanded congressional hearings on America’s role in the crisis. Millions of protesters have taken to the streets in cities around the world, demanding an end to the bloodshed.

But these voices are being drowned out. Social media platforms are throttling Palestinian content. Whistleblowers face retaliation. And in authoritarian regimes, even mild criticism of Israeli or American policy is met with imprisonment or worse.

It is this suppression of dissent that makes peace all the more elusive. When the only voices heard are those calling for war, war becomes inevitable.

The world watches — and waits

As the dust settles from the most recent exchange of fire between Israel and Iran, the world waits for the next move. Will Iran retaliate again? Will Israel double down? Will the United States intervene militarily, or will it continue to supply weapons and diplomatic cover from the sidelines?

For now, the answers remain uncertain. But one truth is indisputable: the actions of the past week have changed the geopolitical landscape permanently. Whether this moment becomes a cautionary tale or the first chapter of World War III will depend on what the world does next.

– Amjad Khan is a contributing writer for The Arab American News. He is a K-12 educator and academic researcher who cares deeply about the challenges facing the Muslim world. Through his writing, he hopes to inspire dialogue and help chart a path forward toward unity, justice and peace.

Water levels plummet at drought-hit Iraqi reservoir

DUKAN: Water levels at Iraq’s vast Dukan Dam reservoir have plummeted as a result of dwindling rains and further damming upstream, hitting millions of inhabitants already impacted by drought with stricter water rationing.

Amid these conditions, visible cracks have emerged in the retreating shoreline of the artificial lake, which lies in northern Iraq’s autonomous Kurdistan region and was created in the 1950s.

Dukan Lake has been left three quarters empty, with its director Kochar Jamal Tawfeeq explaining its reserves currently stand at around 1.6 billion cubic meters of water out of a possible seven billion.

That is “about 24 percent” of its capacity, the official said, adding that the level of water in the lake had not been so low in roughly 20 years.

Satellite imagery analyzed by AFP shows the lake’s surface area shrank by 56 percent between the end of May 2019, the last year it was completely full, and the beginning of June 2025.

Tawfeeq blamed climate change and a “shortage of rainfall” explaining that the timing of the rains had also become irregular.

Over the winter season, Tawfeeq said the Dukan region received 220 millimeters (8.7 inches) of rain, compared to a typical 600 millimeters.

Upstream damming of the Little Zab River, which flows through Iran and feeds Dukan, was a secondary cause of the falling water levels, Tawfeeq explained.

Also buffeted by drought, Iran has built dozens of structures on the river to increase its own water reserves.

Baghdad has criticized these kinds of dams, built both by Iran and neighboring Turkiye, accusing them of significantly restricting water flow into Iraq via the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Iraq, and its 46 million inhabitants, have been intensely impacted by the effects of climate change, experiencing rising temperatures, year-on-year droughts and rampant desertification.

At the end of May, the country’s total water reserves were at their lowest level in 80 years.

On the slopes above Dukan lies the village of Sarsian, where Hussein Khader Sheikhah, 57, was planting a summer crop on a hectare of land.

The farmer said he hoped a short-term summer crop of the kind typically planted in the area for an autumn harvest — cucumbers, melons, chickpeas, sunflower seeds and beans — would help him offset some of the losses over the winter caused by drought.

In winter, in another area near the village, he planted 13 hectares mainly of wheat.

“The harvest failed because of the lack of rain,” he explained, adding that he lost an equivalent of almost $5,700 to the poor yield.

“I can’t make up for the loss of 13 hectares with just one hectare near the river,” he added.

The water shortage at Dukan has affected around four million people downstream in the neighboring Sulaimaniyah and Kirkuk governorates, including their access to drinking water.

For more than a month, water treatment plants in Kirkuk have been trying to mitigate a sudden, 40 percent drop in the supplies reaching them, according to local water resource official Zaki Karim.

In a country ravaged by decades of conflict, with crumbling infrastructure and floundering public policies, residents already receive water intermittently.

The latest shortages are forcing even “stricter rationing” and more infrequent water distributions, Karim said.

In addition to going door-to-door to raise awareness about water waste, the authorities were also cracking down on illegal access to the water network.

In the province of roughly two million inhabitants, the aim is to minimize the impact on the provincial capital of Kirkuk.

“If some treatment plants experience supply difficulties, we will ensure that there are no total interruptions, so everyone can receive their share,” Karim said.

JERUSALEM — During his first major overseas trip this week, President Donald Trump is set to visit three countries in the Middle East — Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — without stopping in Jerusalem. It’s not the first time he has bypassed Israel — or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

From embarking on nuclear talks with Iran to attempting hostage talks with Hamas without Israel’s knowledge, Trump has increasingly sidelined Netanyahu, stoking anxieties in a country long accustomed to being consulted by successive U.S. administrations.

Last week, Israelis thought they saw more cracks emerge between the “America First” president and Israel, after Trump said he had struck a truce with Yemen’s Houthi rebels that curbed the group’s attacks on U.S. ships — but did not cover Israel. Days later, reports emerged that Trump was considering offering Saudi Arabia access to civil nuclear technology without demanding that the kingdom normalize relations with Israel, a precondition that had been set by President Joe Biden.

Advertisement

play Play now NaN min Follow on Podcast episode Spotify Apple Google Amazon

On Sunday, senior Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya said the group would release Israeli American hostage Edan Alexander following direct talks with U.S. officials.

Now, many Israelis are wondering whether Israel is the next U.S. ally to be left behind by a president they considered, just months ago, to be the most pro-Israel in history.

“It’s disconcerting,” said Michael Oren, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington.

“It’s total panic,” said Shalom Lipner, a former Netanyahu aide and a fellow at the Atlantic Council, describing the mood in Jerusalem.

Israeli concerns about Trump’s negotiations with Iran and other threats to Israel “are not being taken into account, or if they are, they’re dismissed,” said Dennis Ross, a former senior State Department official who served as a Middle East envoy under both Democratic and Republican presidents.

Advertisement

Voices in the Trump administration who advocate for fewer U.S. military entanglements in the Middle East are in the ascendancy, Ross noted, while Trump is likely to put top priority during his trip on bringing billions of dollars of investments from wealthy Persian Gulf monarchies to the United States.

“What you’re seeing is that President Trump has an idea of what is in our interest, and that comes first,” Ross said. “He defines the nature of our interests abroad not through a geopolitical or security context, but an economic, financial and trade frame. I think President Trump might have the view that ‘We give them $4 billion a year in military assistance. I do plenty to support the Israelis.’”

In an interview that aired Thursday, the new U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, pushed back on the assertion that the administration was overlooking Israeli concerns and told an Israeli television channel that “the United States isn’t required to get permission from Israel” to reach a ceasefire with the Houthis. A day later, Huckabee took to his X account to denounce what he described as “reckless & irresponsible” media reports that suggested Trump and Netanyahu were “not getting along.”

Advertisement

In Israel today, the soaring anxieties mark a sharp reversal from November, when many celebrated Trump’s election. Netanyahu hailed it as “history’s greatest comeback.” Ministers in his far-right cabinet saw a green light for expansionism and immediately called for the annexation of the occupied West Bank, along with unfettered warfare and new Jewish settlements in Gaza.

But the mood began to shift even before Trump’s inauguration. Privately, some Netanyahu allies groused about Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, pressuring Netanyahu into a ceasefire agreement with Hamas and claimed that Witkoff was influenced by personal business ties with Qatar. Others began to fear that Trump’s preference for dealmaking would preclude a military strike on Iran or result in a nuclear accord that would allow Iran to keep some uranium-enrichment capabilities.

In the Oval Office in April, Trump announced in front of Netanyahu and the assembled press that the U.S. would hold direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program. The Israeli prime minister, who has pushed U.S. leaders for more than a decade to use military force to dismantle Iran’s nuclear facilities, glanced away, appearing visibly surprised.

Advertisement

One Trump adviser, who described Trump’s treatment of Netanyahu as “one notch above” his fractious White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky three months ago, said influential MAGA voices have worked throughout the spring to resist efforts by pro-Israel lobbying groups and neoconservative Republicans to install Iran hawks and others seen as overly sympathetic to Netanyahu in key national security posts.

Former national security adviser Michael Waltz was removed from his position after he appeared to have engaged in intense coordination with Netanyahu about military options against Iran, which angered Trump, The Washington Post reported this month.

“In MAGA, we are not Bibi fans,” said the Trump adviser, using Netanyahu’s nickname. “Trump is adamant: He wants people to put the guns down.” The adviser, like several others cited in this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly about relations between the two leaders.

Advertisement

The rise of an Israel-skeptic wing in Washington, particularly within a Republican Party that is traditionally seen as close to Israel, poses a new challenge, Israeli officials and analysts say.

For decades, when American presidents, from Republican George H.W. Bush to Democrat Barack Obama, have clashed with Israel on matters ranging from West Bank settlement policy to strategy toward Iran, Israel has depended on its supporters in Congress to push back. And yet even after Netanyahu and some of Israel’s supporters threw their weight behind Trump, a number of Republican lawmakers allied with the president, such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), are increasingly turning away from Israel, leaving it without recourse in Congress.

“There is more and more criticism, with people saying: We put all our eggs in one basket, and now we are empty-handed,” said Amit Segal, a prominent Israeli political analyst. “What will Israel do now? Call [Rep.] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? It’s a problem.”

Advertisement

For their part, Netanyahu allies have downplayed any rift between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. One member of Netanyahu’s Likud party said the anxieties in Israel were simply due to mismatched expectations.

“Many people were so happy it wasn’t Kamala Harris that they thought Trump would be an American president from the Likud party who would do whatever Israel wanted,” said that ally. “But those expectations were never realistic, and I think the prime minister has always understood that.”

Another Israeli official praised Trump for providing heavy munitions to the Israeli military and said that while Biden administration officials had frequently pressured Israel to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza, Trump made no such requests during the first few months of his term.

Still, even the perception of Netanyahu losing favor with Trump could dent a veteran Israeli premier who has staked his public image on being able to navigate — and influence — American politics better than any of his domestic rivals.

During hard-fought parliamentary elections in 2019, Netanyahu unfurled a massive billboard along Tel Aviv’s main highway showing him shaking hands with Trump above the tagline: “Netanyahu, in a different league.” A campaign video released by Likud showed Netanyahu pledging to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to historically contested Jerusalem — and then jump-cut to Trump announcing precisely that.

Advertisement

But a year later, Netanyahu angered Trump by announcing that he would annex parts of the occupied West Bank, contributing to the collapse of a Middle East peace plan that Trump had touted as the “deal of the century.” Netanyahu infuriated Trump further by congratulating Biden on his election victory while Trump was disputing the results, the president recounted in interviews with Axios in 2021.

In recent days, Netanyahu’s opponents seized on the moment to question his handling of U.S. relations. Yair Lapid, the centrist opposition leader, called the direct negotiations between the United States and Hamas over hostages a “disgraceful diplomatic failure” by Netanyahu and said “the responsibility for their return lies with the government.”

Yair Golan, the leader of a left-leaning party, said, “The Americans are moving forward on a deal with the Saudis, moving forward on a deal with Iran, moving forward on a new multibillion-dollar regional plan, but ignoring Netanyahu and Israel.”

Oren, the former Israeli ambassador, said many in Israel forget that Trump “is not a fan of settlements; he was against annexation of the West Bank and espoused a two-state plan” during his first term.

Some very influential pro-Israel voices are no longer in the White House, Oren added. “Let’s be realistic.”