Sunday, July 19, 2026

TNR - Politics / July 15, 2026 - Can We Lose the Same War Twice? With Trump, Anything’s Possible - Joe Cirincione

Joe Cirincione

TNR - Politics /

July 15, 2026

BUCKLE UP

Can We Lose the Same War Twice? With Trump, Anything’s Possible

Phase One of the Iran war ended in defeat and humiliation. Phase Two could be just as bad—or worse.

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

The first phase of Donald Trump’s war on Iran ended in defeat and humiliation. Iran emerged battered but stronger, with two new weapons: control of the Strait of Hormuz and a demonstrated drone and missile force that can cripple the economies of its Persian Gulf neighbors and wreak havoc on U.S. bases. Both are new instruments of power more usable than nuclear weapons.

The two New Jersey property managers Trump sent to negotiate his surrender produced a poorly written memorandum of understanding, or MOU, that captured the new power relations—Iran got nearly everything it demanded, including a $300 billion reconstruction fund, while the United States got vague promises of talks on all the issues Trump had started the war to resolve.

In particular, point five of the MOU, which seems dictated by Iran and accepted by the hapless Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, clearly gave Iran authority over all traffic through the strait: “Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only.”

So why did Trump restart the war? As Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan write in their new book, Regime Change, “Unlike recent Presidents, Trump had shown he was entirely comfortable using extraordinary presidential powers on a whim.”

Those extraordinary powers include the ability to launch waves of destructive attacks solely on his order. But these attacks, now numbering hundreds of sorties, are pointless. If it were possible to bomb Iran into submission, it would have worked the first time.

Trump has been stewing over his loss. He accomplished none of the objectives he repeatedly promised, including:

Overthrowing the Iranian regime. The government is likely stronger than before the war and certainly more hard-line.
Obliterating Iran’s nuclear program. Trump and Israel failed last July to destroy the program and failed again this year. Though it is damaged, Iran retains significant quantities of enriched uranium and can rebuild its production facilities.
Destroying Iran’s missile fleet. Iran retained 70 percent of its missile capabilities after the war, according to U.S. intelligence, and is rebuilding the rest. Its drone fleet is also intact and perhaps more capable than its missiles.
Ending support for regional militias. A key goal for Israel, Iran’s network of regional militants is substantially weaker, but much of this happened before the war (Israel’s post–October 7 decapitation of Hezbollah, notably), and in any case, Iran shows no sign of ending its support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and others.
Destroying Iran’s navy. Much of Iran’s surface fleet was destroyed, but hundreds of fast patrol boats remain capable of executing their main mission: interdicting shipping through the strait.
Demonstrating U.S. power and resolve. The U.S. has lost credibility regionally and globally and weakened its alliances, the greatest source of U.S. global power. Persian Gulf states are reassessing the U.S. bases built on their territory since the 1991 Iraq War. Once seen as security assets, they now appear to be a security liability.

As with his 2020 election loss, Trump now seeks to bend reality. He didn’t lose the war, he claims, he won it. He achieved all his objectives, he says. In an absurd social media post Monday, Trump claimed that the Strait of Hormuz is “OPEN, and will remain OPEN, with or without Iran.”

He told Fox News, “We are going to keep the strait. We will probably run it. We’ll become the guardian of the strait. Maybe we’ll call it the ‘guardian angel’ of the strait.” He announced that he would charge a 20 percent fee on all cargo shipped (a claim he retracted on Tuesday).

In so doing, Trump not only demonstrated the severe state of his delusions but undermined his own administration’s repeated assertions that, as Marco Rubio said, “No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway.”

He is now also violating international law. Long before the Law of the Sea Treaty guaranteed free passage through international waters, the United States fought a war against those we called the Barbary Pirates (off “the shores of Tripoli”) to uphold the right of unhindered shipping.

Trump’s boasts also helped legitimize Iran’s position on charging its own fees. Iran, which has been excellent at trolling Trump, immediately posted back. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi tweeted, “POTUS is absolutely right. Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service.” He mocked Trump’s weird capitalization, saying that “Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER. 20% is of course too much. We will be fair.”

Trump’s claim that the strait is open is an obvious lie. On Sunday, only 14 ships transited the strait, one-tenth the prewar volume. There is no way the U.S. Navy, even if it were to triple the number of ships deployed, could keep the strait open. One drone hitting one tanker can send insurance rates so high as to make transit prohibitively expensive.

Before Trump’s new attacks over the past week, the strait was slowly getting back to prewar traffic. But it was all through Iranian waters, under Iranian authority.

Iran directed all ships to transit through the Iranian side of the strait. Trump, as he does domestically, then tried to assert an authority he does not have. The U.S., working with Oman, sent ships through routes along the Omani side, promising to protect them. It could not. Iran, claiming this was a violation, struck the ships (which is also a violation of the MOU pledge not use force or threats of force). The U.S. struck back at Iran; Iran launched attacks on U.S. bases in Kuwait, Jordan, Oman, and other nations; the U.S. struck again, and a new cycle of war was launched.

So, where will this go? With two volatile, fanatical, authoritarian regimes involved, it is difficult to predict. My best guess, in order of probability, is one of three scenarios:

The fighting will peter out after a few weeks. There is no viable military strategy for Trump. There is no way to actually force open the strait and keep it safe. Omani and Pakistani mediators are working to bring the two sides back to the table. They could work out a compromise, likely largely along Iranian terms.
We enter a new forever war. The current round of strikes ends, but there is no peace agreement. Traffic resumes but at low levels. Fighting flares up and dissipates in repeated cycles.
Violent escalation. One side causes damage so severe that the other side responds with even greater violence. Iranian strikes on U.S. bases could kill scores of troops. U.S. strikes on Kharg Island could severely damage Iran’s main oil terminal. These or many other possibilities could trigger a larger war than either side desired.

Democratic Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, rightly called out Trump’s new folly. “I wholeheartedly condemn the president’s suggestion that the United States is going to take over the Strait of Hormuz,” he wrote to his colleagues on Monday. “There is likely no scenario in which the U.S. could take total control of the Strait of Hormuz without significantly escalating the conflict. It is past time for [Republicans] to work with us to ensure the president finds a diplomatic solution to ending a war he never should have started.”

We have to hope sufficient pressure builds to do just that.

Joe Cirincione

Joseph Cirincione is a national security analyst and author in Washington, D.C. He is a member of the Council for Foreign Relations and the author or editor of seven books, including Nuclear Nightmares: Securing the World Before It Is Too Late and Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons. Cirincione is the vice chair of the Center for International Policy Board of Directors and the publisher of Strategy & History on Substack

19 Temmuz 2026, - Dışişleri Bakanlığı Sözcüsü Öncü Keçeli’nin Yunanistan’ın Batı Trakya Türk Azınlığı’na Ait Sekiz İlkokulu Daha Kapatması Hakkındaki Soruya Cevabı

19 Temmuz 2026, Dışişleri Bakanlığı Sözcüsü Öncü Keçeli’nin Yunanistan’ın Batı Trakya Türk Azınlığı’na Ait Sekiz İlkokulu Daha Kapatması Hakkındaki Soruya Cevabı

Yunanistan’ın, öğrenci sayısının yetersizliği bahanesiyle Batı Trakya Türk Azınlığı’na ait sekiz ilkokulu kapatma kararını kınıyoruz. Bu son kararla birlikte Azınlık ilkokullarının sayısı 76’ya düşürülmüştür.

İskeçe 1. Türk Azınlık İlkokulu’nda birinci sınıfa kayıtlarda yeni engellerin çıkarılması da Batı Trakya Türk Azınlığı’nın eğitim haklarının aşındırılmasına yönelik sistematik uygulamaların bir diğer örneğidir.

Bu baskıcı karar ve uygulamalar, Lozan Barış Antlaşması hükümlerinin ihlali niteliğindedir.

Batı Trakya Türk Azınlığı’yla ilgili hak ihlallerini tespit eden uluslararası mahkeme kararlarını ve başlıca Avrupa kurumlarının tavsiyelerini uygulamaktan kaçınan Yunanistan’ı bir kez daha azınlık ve temel insan haklarına ilişkin ahdi yükümlülükleri doğrultusunda hareket etmeye davet ediyoruz.

Türkiye, Batı Trakya Türk Azınlığı’nın hak ve hukuk mücadelesini kararlılıkla desteklemeye devam edecektir.

GATESTONE - Iran: Cashing Chips Won in War - by Amir Taheri - July 19, 2026 at 4:00 am

Iran: Cashing Chips Won in War

by Amir Taheri
July 19, 2026 at 4:00 am

Faced with such a foe... the worst thing to do is wound him but let him live.
After almost half a century, it must now be clear to all that the Khomeinist regime is incapable of reforming itself unless it is for the worse.
The negotiating process that, in the absence of grown-ups, that is to say professional diplomats from the US, produced the shambolic "memorandum of mis-understanding" is at a dead end. Those in Tehran who might want a deal don't have the power to do so. And those who have the power don't want a deal.
The good news is that for the first time in almost half a century, the idea of regime change is gaining traction inside Iran, even within the regime's core support base.
The "Iran problem" is a multifaceted challenge that cannot be met solely by bombing. It requires political spadework with elements within the regime and its peripheries that fear the loss of their wealth or even lives.

After almost half a century, it must now be clear to all that the Khomeinist regime is incapable of reforming itself unless it is for the worse. Pictured: Members of the Iranian security forces stand under a billboard of Iran's Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei on April 9, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

After more than a year of war, albeit with on-and-off fighting spells, it is perhaps time for US President Donald Trump to take stock of what has happened so far as a guide to what he might do next.

But before he does that, he needs to ponder the key question: is this a war of choice or of necessity?

Wars of choice seldom produce the results desired by those who start them. One example was the US war in Vietnam, later expanded to Cambodia and Laos. Another was the 1956 British-led war against Egypt. The Soviet involvement in Afghanistan was another example of wars of choice, as was President Bill Clinton's decision to intervene in Somalia.

Currently the most glaring example is the war that Russian President Vladimir Putin started against Ukraine. In wars of choice, even if you emerge as victor, which is seldom the case, the reward you get is often less than the price you paid in blood and treasure.

Wars of choice are children of jingoistic minds. The disastrous Crimean War began in 1853 with the chant: "We don't want war - but by jingo if we do. We've the men, the ships and the money too!"

In contrast, a war of necessity happens because the status quo you find yourself confronted with has become intolerable on a medium- to long-term basis or because you have been attacked and you have no choice but to respond. In 1939, despite its comparative weakness in men and materiel, Britain couldn't have thrown in the towel without at least testing the first rounds of combat.

Back to the current war: judged by six different administrations in Washington, the status quo that existed between the unsavory Khomeinist regime in Tehran and the United States had not morphed into a clear and present danger to either side.

Based on that judgment, the US administrations tried a number of schemes to prevent the Islamic Republic from becoming a clear and present danger in the future. They imagined that down the line, Tehran's rulers, besotted by a deadly ideology, would develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, fit them with nuclear warheads, and threaten to hit New York.

But even if that assumption were right, you already have North Korea, which has the missiles and the nuclear warheads. The difference is that Kim Jong Un threatens to hit San Francisco.

Seen from the US and many other countries, especially in the region, the Islamic Republic is a deadly threat. Iran is a large country, rich in natural and human resources, that if mobilized for doing mischief, could do a great deal of harm. From that angle, it is not just a competitor, rival, or mere adversary. Nor is it just another classical enemy or foe. It has shown it will massacre its own citizens by the thousands and deprive them of daily bread to finance the killing of Syrians and Lebanese, among many other nations.

Faced with such a foe, or hostis humani generis as the old Latin phrase says, the worst thing to do is wound him but let him live. With such a foe, you either kill him or transform him into a friend. Successive US administrations never managed to decide which of the two options to seriously pursue. President George W. Bush spoke of "goodwill breeding goodwill" only to see more Americans being seized as hostages by the Khomeinists.

Clinton's shibboleth was "containment" plus cuddling the mullahs. He was rewarded by attacks on US embassies and bases in the region. Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden bought into Tehran's narrative and forged the disastrous JCPOA "nuclear deal" based on a non-existent fatwa by Ali Khamenei. This gave that expert in Madison Street-style self-promotion, General Qassem Soleimani, the ability to build an empire that at one point controlled four Arab capitals.

After almost half a century, it must now be clear to all that the Khomeinist regime is incapable of reforming itself unless it is for the worse. The current war has shown that short of a full military invasion of Iran, there is little chance of the truncated leadership in Tehran to substantially change its behavior.

Right now, almost all options seem unattractive. Bombing the same targets in Iran again and again achieves little even in military terms. Even taking control of the Omani side of the Strait of Hormuz by the US won't restore normal navigation.

The "nuclear threat" from Iran is more remote than ever. Almost the whole nuclear industry has been shut for at least the past six months. The "targeted killing" of Iran's top 23 nuclear scientists has produced a gap that could take years to bridge.

The negotiating process that, in the absence of grown-ups, that is to say professional diplomats from the US, produced the shambolic "memorandum of mis-understanding" is at a dead end. Those in Tehran who might want a deal don't have the power to do so. And those who have the power don't want a deal.

The good news is that for the first time in almost half a century, the idea of regime change is gaining traction inside Iran, even within the regime's core support base. For obvious reasons, the war halted that traction but didn't end it. If Trump cannot change the regime in Tehran, it doesn't mean that Iranians can't either.

Despite the brouhahas prompted by Trumpophobia, the Islamic Republic has been defeated in this war and knows it. And defeat in war is often a prelude to regime change.

The regime is clearly indicating its fear that a halt to bombing by the US while "maximum pressure" measures continue could encourage its many opponents inside Iran, including sections of the Khomeinist constituency, to restart the revolts that shook it last winter.

The "Iran problem" is a multifaceted challenge that cannot be met solely by bombing. It requires political spadework with elements within the regime and its peripheries that fear the loss of their wealth or even lives.

Contact is also needed with opposition forces inside Iran and diplomatic efforts to persuade regional and European nations to sing from the same hymn sheet on Iran. The ultimate aim would be to translate military victory into a political one. There are times when war is the continuation of politics by other means. But there are also times that politics is the means of cashing the chips won in war. That strategy, however, requires patience and persistence, not yawing from one tweet to another.

Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987. He graciously serves as Chairman of Gatestone Europe.
Gatestone Institute would like to thank the author for his kind permission to reprint this article in slightly different form from Asharq Al-Awsat.

GATESTONE INSTITUTE INTERNATIONAL POLICY COUNCIL -- Trump Must Abandon His Dangerous Plan to Sell F-35s to Turkey by Con Coughlin • July 19, 2026 at 5:00 am

GATESTONE

INSTITUTE

INTERNATIONAL POLICY COUNCIL

Trump Must Abandon His Dangerous Plan to Sell F-35s to Turkey

by Con Coughlin • July 19, 2026 at 5:00 am

Trump's willingness to even consider lifting the F-35 ban is being seen in the context of his charm offensive to forge closer ties with Erdogan, an initiative the American leader has undertaken despite the Turkish leader's well-documented support for radical Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Erdogan also seems to have initiated a charm offensive, most likely with at least a partial view to prying loose those F-35s.

According to the report published by Israel's i24News, Kurdish militias were preparing to launch an attack on Iran with the aim of instigating a nationwide rebellion against the ayatollahs' tyrannical rule when the US halted the operation due to pressure from Erdogan.

Apart from Erdogan's long-held support for the Islamist ideology espoused by the expansionist Muslim Brotherhood and its allies, the Turkish leader has also been accused of actively thwarting the Trump administration's attempts to disarm Hamas terrorists in Gaza as part of its peace initiative in the enclave.

Efforts to pressure Hamas's terrorist leadership into fulfilling its disarmament obligations have, though, been stymied by the interventions of Turkey and Qatar, the Gulf state that also supports a variety of Islamist groups, which have actively used their influence to delay the disarmament process.

Turkey's obstructive approach to the disarmament issue in Gaza follows a series of public statements in which Erdogan has explicitly stated that he regards Israel as a potential enemy, and that the two countries could soon find themselves involved in a direct military confrontation. With Turkey desperately jockeying to replace Iran as the region's dominant power, such a prospect cannot be dismissed lightly.

US President Donald Trump's willingness to even consider lifting the F-35 ban is being seen in the context of his charm offensive to forge closer ties with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, an initiative the American leader has undertaken despite the Turkish leader's well-documented support for radical Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Pictured: Trump speaks with Erdogan during the NATO summit on July 7, 2026 in Ankara, Turkey. (Photo by Emrah Gurel/Pool/Getty Images)

US President Donald Trump must abandon his plans to sell Turkey highly sophisticated F-35 stealth fighters because of the deeply duplicitous conduct Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan displayed during efforts to end hostilities between the US and Iran.

Trump's courtship of Erdogan, moreover, is continuing despite concerns being raised about Turkey's duplicitous involvement in peace talks to end the Iran war. While, in public, Ankara has said its main objective is to end hostilities in the Gulf, it has also been working quietly behind the scenes to provide support for the beleaguered ayatollahs.

The latest evidence highlighting Erdogan's continued support for the Iranian regime is contained in reports that Turkey actively thwarted a joint military operation backed by the US and Israel to launch a Kurdish-led incursion of Iran in the early stages of the war aimed at overthrowing the Islamic regime.

Erdogan's openly Islamist agenda certainly also makes a compelling argument for Trump to give serious consideration to reversing his decision to lift the ban preventing Ankara's acquisition of F-35 warplanes.

The requirement for Hamas to fully surrender all of its weapons was a key demand of Trump's 20-point Gaza peace plan.

Erdogan also seems to have initiated a charm offensive, most likely with at least a partial view to prying loose those F-35s.

Despite Erdogan's professed Islamist sympathies and his deepening antagonism towards Israel, Trump has nevertheless expressed his intention to sell the F-35s to Ankara after meeting with Erdogan at the start of the recent NATO summit in Ankara.

Trump previously blocked Turkey's participation in the F-35 programme during his first term in the White House, following Ankara's decision to purchase Russia's S-400 air defence system.

Erdogan is arguing that he has not yet unpacked the S-400s, which were built for one reason: to target and defeat the F-35s. Presumably he will unpack them after the F-35s have been safely delivered.

The move prompted fears within the Pentagon that allowing Turkey access to the top-secret F-35 programme would enable the Russians, who have close ties with Ankara, to gain access to the warplane's stealth technology, thereby compromising its ability to evade Russian anti-aircraft systems.

Despite these well-documented objections to Turkey's participation in the F-35 programme, with Ankara said to be lobbying to purchase up to 100 of the stealth fighters, Trump now appears minded to ease the ban he imposed during his first term and allow the sale of the aircraft to Turkey to proceed.

When asked at the NATO summit about lifting the ban on Turkey buying the warplanes, Trump replied, "That's a decision we're going to make... it's a great plane, the best plane by far, and it's certainly something we will consider."

Trump's change of heart on the F-35 issue has already prompted widespread criticism from numerous quarters. Greece, which historically remains at odds with Turkey on a number of regional issues, such as Turkey's continued occupation of northern Cyprus, has indicated its dismay at the decision.

Trump's move should also attract strong opposition from Israel, the other country most immediately threatened by a frequently bellicose Turkey (as here, here, here and here). Israel has already successfully integrated the F-35 into its air force, with the stealth warplane playing a pivotal role in the recent military campaigns against Iran.

The Israel Air Force has been so impressed with the F-35's performance that the Israeli government recently announced its intention to purchase a further 50 of the planes, a move deemed to be vital to maintaining Israel's all-important air superiority in the Middle East.

Any move by the US to sell F-35s to Ankara could compromise Israel's air supremacy by providing the Turks with the ability to analyse the top-secret technology that gives the Israel Air Force a decisive advantage in air combat.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already voiced his opposition to the proposed deal, warning in an interview with CNN that the sale of America's most advanced fighter aircraft "doesn't make Turkey a friendly state to the United States." In part of an escalating dispute with Erdogan, Netanyahu described Ankara as "a regime that's infected with the Muslim Brotherhood, which hates the United States."

Trump's proposal to sell F-35s to Turkey should provoke fierce opposition in the US Congress, which one hopes will be unwilling to lift the ban imposed on Turkey because of its close ties with Russia and Iran, as well as its ongoing, if temporarily subdued, hostility to Israel and Greece, and expanding its hold on occupied Cyprus.

The first public move against a possible policy change on the F-35 issues has come from US Representative Dina Titus (D-NV), who has gathered the signatures of 18 members on a letter to the leadership of the House of Representatives.

The lawmakers are calling for guarantees that current US law will be upheld and that Congress will be ready to intervene if the administration attempts to move ahead with Turkey's return to the programme.

With opposition mounting on all sides to the proposed deal, Trump would be well-advised to take heed of his critics and abandon his plan to provide the world's most sophisticated warplanes to Turkey's openly pro-Islamist, charming but ruthless leader — who thinks nothing of decimating his country's military, disabling any political opposition, and imprisoning, torturing and deporting journalists, persecuting Christians, Kurds, Alevis and other perceived dissidents.

Con Coughlin is the Telegraph's Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Cyprus Mail - A very British and a very Cypriot coup - Sunday 19 July | 09:00 15 Comments By Alper Ali Riza

CYPRUS MAİL

A very British and a very Cypriot coup

Archbishop Makarios

came to symbolise the

Greek Cypriot nation

With Andy Burnham about to take over as UK prime minister in a very British coup, Cyprus marked 52 years since the coup against President Makarios with sirens blaring at 8.20am on Wednesday, July 15.

In the UK, prime ministers are removed mid-term without general elections by political intrigue instead of tanks. Since 1990, five prime ministers have been removed this way: Margaret Thatcher, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Keir Starmer.

The coup d’etat in Cyprus was an attempt to kill the democratically elected president of the Republic of Cyprus (RoC) with a view not just of a change of president but of regime change.

Makarios was controversial but he had wit and charm and style and was far and away the only Cypriot president with the personality and gravitas of a world statesman.

By 1974 he came to symbolise the Greek Cypriot nation and the RoC as it began to emerge as a Cypriot entity rather than a state in transition to Enosis – union with Greece. The change began with the presidential elections of 1968 when Makarios was challenged by Dr Takis Evdokas, a pro Enosis candidate after Makarios proclaimed that while Enosis was desirable, it was not feasible, and won 96 per cent of the Greek Cypriot vote for his pragmatism.

He was elected president again, this time unopposed, in February 1973, but faced a very Cypriot ecclesiastical coup in March that year, when the Cypriot Holy Synod of three Bishops purported to defrock him of his status as archbishop on the ground that it was incompatible with holding the secular office of president —whereupon he became known as plain Michalis Mouskos in pro-Enosis circles.

Makarios’ reaction was that being president was not incompatible with his ecclesiastical role as it had a spiritual dimension, which he argued unconvincingly. Nonetheless, he was able to convene a Supreme Pan Orthodox Synod in Nicosia that annulled his defrocking and defrocked the three local bishops for impertinence.

The local bishops had a point, even if they were motivated by his alleged betrayal of Enosis. Makarios’ status as archbishop gave him an unfair electoral advantage in Cyprus where the church was – still is – very influential. Local ecclesiastical law was changed in 1980 to prohibit churchmen from seeking or holding secular office.

So much for the very British coup and the very Cypriot ecclesiastical coup that for all their disruptive effect did not involve regime change.

A few days before the coup d’état in Cyprus of July 1974, that did involve an attempt at regime change, Makarios gave a television interview to BBC TV from the presidential gardens, in an idyllic setting surrounded by flowers and birdsong that belied his precarious predicament.

He had already sent a mildly pompous letter to President Gizikis of Greece in which he expressed his awareness of an invisible hand from Athens threatening his physical existence and in which he requested that the Greek Army officers in Cyprus be withdrawn.

“And what would happen if they refuse?” his interviewer asked. Makarios gave a humorous reply: “well in that case I shall disband the national guard and they can stay in here as tourists”. The reply to Makarios’ letter was the coup.

July 15, 1974 was a typical summer morning and Cyprus was teeming with tourists, many of them British. Makarios had arrived at the presidential palace from his summer retreat at Troodos early and was showing some Greek Egyptian schoolchildren round the presidential palace when tanks and armoured cars of the Greek Cypriot National Guard under Greek army officers rolled up and started firing at the palace to kill Makarios.

The schoolchildren were caught in the crossfire but were otherwise unharmed and survived to recount their ordeal many years afterwards. Makarios escaped via a back exit and travelled to Paphos by car, from where he made a broadcast in his deep familiar voice most Greek Cypriots knew well from his many speeches. “Eimai o Makarios – I am Makarios,” he said, confirming he was alive and that the coup had failed. He ended his short address to the people of Cyprus with his favourite classical line:“nin hyper panton o agon – now the struggle is for everything.”

The Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation (CyBC) that had been taken over by the putschists had announced that Makarios was dead, so it was important for him to say he was alive and that the struggle for democracy and against dictatorship was existential and would continue.

He was pursued to Paphos by army units loyal to the putschists where his only escape was to call on the British for assistance. What is less well known is how the British reacted to the coup and how they extracted Makarios from Paphos.

According to reliable British sources, immediately after the coup Britain, as a guarantor power, urgently considered a counter-coup to reinstate Makarios, but this was vetoed by the service chiefs who warned that British forces could be trapped in a guerrilla war.

However, on being informed by Makarios’ aids and UN peacekeepers that he was in a corner and needed to be rescued, British forces at RAF Akrotiri on orders from UK prime minister Harold Wilson immediately flew out a rescue helicopter accompanied by two heavily armed Westland helicopters to extract Makarios and take him to the British airbase at Akrotiri and then to London.

When the rescue helicopter landed in Paphos there was an unexpected hitch because Makarios had a phobia of helicopter travel borne of post traumatic stress. In 1970, there had been an attempt on his life when the helicopter that had taken off from the Archbishopric in old Nicosia was shot down. His Greek airforce helicopter pilot was injured but landed the helicopter safely, from which Makarios emerged unscathed but with an understandable phobia of helicopter travel.

In the end his survival instinct overcame his phobia and he flew out to Akrotiri from where he was flown first to Malta and then to London and Claridge’s hotel in Mayfair – historically the hotel of choice of exiled royalty.

He left London to attend the UN Security Council in New York on July 19, where he made the most difficult speech of his life. Before he left for New York, however, he held a press conference in which he made the wittiest remark of his political career: “they tried to kill me, as you see I am alive, but tell me were my obituaries good,” he said memorably to wide acclaim.

AP - US military launches new airstrikes to "swiftly punish" Iran for deaths of US troops -- BY JON GAMBRELL, TOQA EZZIDIN AND KONSTANTIN TOROPIN - Updated 6:10 AM GMT+3, July 19, 2026

US military launches new airstrikes t0 "swiftly punish" Iran for deaths of US troops

BY JON GAMBRELL, TOQA EZZIDIN AND KONSTANTIN TOROPIN

Updated 6:10 AM GMT+3, July 19, 2026

Leer en español

1.68k

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The U.S. military said that it carried out new airstrikes against Iran on Sunday to “swiftly punish” the country’s Revolutionary Guard after an attack on a base in Jordan killed two American service members, left one missing and four requiring hospitalization.

The strikes were designed to further degrade Iran’s ability to restrict the traffic of oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. Central Command said. The waterway accounted for roughly 20% of global oil supplies before the war. Iran effectively closed the strait to shipping traffic after the war started with U.S. and Israeli strikes on Feb. 28.

The new strikes came after the U.S. military announced its first troop deaths from direct Iranian fire since the opening days of the war, following a drone and missile attack on a base in Jordan on Friday. The dead were not identified, and Central Command didn’t offer any further details on the deaths.

Since the war began, 16 U.S. service members have been killed and over 430 wounded.

Strikes target southern Iran

An area near Sirik, on the Strait of Hormuz, was targeted around 1:30 a.m. local time, according to Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency, which cited local authorities in southern Hormozgan province.

In the same province, a location near Hajiabad was targeted and explosions were heard in Bandar Abbas, according to IRNA. An area near Qeshm Island, which is inside the strait, was also targeted, according to Iran’s state-run broadcaster, IRIB.

On Saturday, Iranian state media reported that U.S. airstrikes had hit an electricity and desalination plant in Hormozgan and damaged tunnels and bridges, disrupting a main highway toward Bandar Abbas, the site of Iran’s main port near the narrowest part of the strait.

An official in Khuzestan province, also on the Gulf, said a strike hit near the city of Shadegan, according to state media.

Trump has threatened to target Iran’s power stations and bridges to try to compel Tehran to loosen its hold on the Strait of Hormuz.

The U.S. in the past week also reimposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports to halt its shipments of crude oil, and the military on Saturday said it had redirected five ships and disabled one since then.

Iranian authorities said Saturday that at least 50 people have been killed and more than 500 wounded in U.S. strikes in the past three weeks, including eight killed in a strike on a bridge Friday.

Strikes hit Iraq’s Kurdish region

In neighboring Iraq, a base of the Kurdistan Freedom Party, an Iranian Kurdish dissident group, near Irbil was struck by a drone early Sunday, wounding eight of its members, according to Rebaz Sharifi, a military official with the group.

Residents of Irbil, the capital of Iraq’s semi-autonomous northern Kurdish region, also heard explosions from air defenses early Sunday.

Irbil has been targeted by drone attacks multiple times over the past four days, which coincided with a visit by new Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi to Washington last week and an ongoing escalation between the U.S. and Iran.

No group has claimed responsibility for the attacks, but in the past both Iran and Iran-backed Iraqi militias have launched attacks in the Kurdish region, where both U.S. troops and armed Kurdish Iranian dissident groups are present.

Iran’s supreme leader warns of ‘unforgettable lessons’

Minutes before the U.S. announced the troop deaths earlier Saturday, Iran’s supreme leader warned of “unforgettable lessons” if the U.S. keeps attacking the Islamic Republic.

The remarks read out on state TV and attributed to Mojtaba Khamenei, still unseen since the war began, called President Donald Trump’s signature “worthless and invalid.” An Iranian negotiator said Tehran was suspending its commitments to the interim deal signed about a month ago and aimed at permanently ending the fighting.

Iran’s joint military command said that U.S. “covetousness, bullying, totalitarianism or brutality” would meet with a “devastating response.”

Tehran’s declarations snapped another fragile thread as the war shows no end in sight. Now Khamenei warns of “lessons” not only from Iran but also its armed proxies in the region, calling them the “Axis of Resistance.” The U.S. issued a global travel alert over the rising tensions.

The battle has focused on control of the Strait of Hormuz. The widening strikes now threaten civilians and infrastructure, including desalination plants for drinking water, while the global economy again is on alert.

The U.S. has violated its commitments under the deal and now Iran is “no longer implementing them,” Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, told state TV.

There was no new word on mediation efforts.

US soldiers face growing risks

The last recorded death of a U.S. service member was that of a helicopter pilot who crashed in the Arabian Sea earlier this month. Early in the war, an Iranian drone strike on a command center in Kuwait killed six soldiers. Another soldier died after an attack on a base in Saudi Arabia, and six were killed when a refueling aircraft crashed in Iraq.

On Saturday, the most significant damage from Iranian strikes occurred in Kuwait, where a water desalination plant and an oil facility were hit, according to the Kuwait authorities and the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation. Both declined to provide locations.

It was the second attack against a desalination plant in two days in the tiny desert nation that depends on desalination for 90% of its drinking water. The strikes injured several people at the oil facility and caused a fire at the desalination plant, forcing several power generation units offline.

Several firefighters and a worker were injured while battling two other blazes sparked by Iranian strikes, according to the Kuwait Fire Force. Kuwait briefly closed its airspace due to missile threats, and Kuwait Airways said it was rescheduling most flights to and from the capital.

Jordan’s state-run Petra news agency said the kingdom’s air defense systems had downed Iranian missiles, while air sirens sounded multiple times in Bahrain throughout the day and in Saudi Arabia in the morning, according to their governments.

The secretary-general of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council, Jasem Mohamed al-Budaiwi, accused Iran of war crimes for strikes on infrastructure and civilian facilities.

___

This story has been corrected to change the day to Sunday from Saturday to reflect the Dubai, United Arab Emirates Dateline.

___

Ezzidin reported from Cairo and Toropin from Washington. Associated Press writers Amir Vahdat in Tehran; Melanie Lidman in Tel Aviv, Israel; Stella Martany in Irbil, Iraq; and Matt Lee and Josh Boak in Washington contributed to this report.

JON GAMBRELL

Gambrell is the news director for the Gulf and Iran for The Associated Press. He has reported from each of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, Iran and other locations across the world since joining the AP in 2006.