How Cameron squirmed after being grilled on Israeli terrorism against Iran

By Reza Javadi

The criticism against the UK's stance on Iran’s retaliatory military operation against Israel gained momentum this week after British foreign secretary David Cameron’s startling remarks.

In an interview with Sky News earlier this week, Cameron harshly criticized Iran for its military strikes against the Israeli regime but hastened to add that the UK would have reacted similarly if one of its embassies came under attack.  

Late on Saturday, Iran launched a barrage of drones and missiles directly against occupied territories in response to the attack on Iran's consulate in Damascus that led to the assassination of seven individuals, including three senior Islamic Revolution Guards Corps commanders. 

The Israeli attack, according to legal luminaries, was in violation of international law and the Vienna Convention of 1961, as embassies are considered the soil of that particular country.

During the interview, when asked by the Sky News journalist about how Britain would react if one of its embassies was "flattened", Cameron said, "We would take very strong action," drawing criticism from all across the world for UK’s double standards on the matter.

The 57-year-old former British prime minister attempted to justify his remarks by differentiating between Israel's actions in Damascus and Iran's attack on occupied territories in response, highlighting the magnitude and scale of Iran's retaliation.

There was a "massive degree of difference" between what Israel did in Damascus and Iran's unprecedented attack, Cameron stressed.

"I would argue there is a massive degree of difference between what Israel did in Damascus and, as I said,” referring to “301 weapons”, “36 cruise missiles”, and “185 drones” launched by Iran against military targets in the occupied territories.

While making the comparison, Cameron struggled to differentiate between the Iranian and Israeli casualties in the attacks. The Israeli regime’s attack against the Iranian embassy in Syria assassinated seven people, while there have been no formal reports of any casualties in the Iranian attack.

He also couldn’t differentiate between the pre-attack warnings from both sides. Israel targeted the Iranian consulate without any prior warning, as the intention was to assassinate Iranian diplomats in breach of international law, while the Iranian military intended to target the regime’s military facilities.

The foreign secretary’s remarks were widely criticized across social media, with thousands of people condemning the UK government for its blatant hypocrisy.

Following the UK foreign secretary’s controversial comments on Sky News and his government’s backing of the Israeli regime, the Iranian foreign ministry condemned the move, expressing astonishment at the UK's criticism of Iran's legitimate response to Israel's attack on its embassy.

In a telephone conversation on Monday, Iranian foreign minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian condemned Cameron's stance and questioned the UK's unwavering support for Israel despite its illegal actions, including the daily massacres of civilians in Gaza.

“What does the British government gain from this amount of irresponsible support for Israel?” Amirabdollahian asked Cameron.

The top Iranian diplomat stressed that Iran's retaliatory measures align with the principle of legitimate defense outlined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

The foreign ministers’ exchange of remarks came after Iran's foreign ministry summoned the ambassadors of the UK, France, and Germany to question their "irresponsible stance" regarding Tehran's retaliatory strikes on the Israeli regime.

The director for Western Europe at Iran's foreign ministry warned against the three countries’ "double standards" and questioned their bias in opposing a UN Security Council statement condemning Israel's attack on Iran's embassy in Syria earlier in the month.

"Iran's military action against the Zionist regime's (Israel) bases is well within the framework of the right to legitimate defense stipulated in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and it is in response to a series of crimes, including the recent attack on the embassy compound in Syria," the official added.

The British diplomat’s controversial comments were also met with criticism from George Galloway, a member of the UK Parliament, who warned against the West’s double standards on Israel and Iran.

Exposing the inconsistency in Western attitudes, Galloway said that if international standards were applied uniformly, then Western governments would have condemned Israel’s “blatant” bombing of the Iranian embassy building in Syria, and not just Iran’s response to the Israeli regime’s actions.

"The mantra that Israel has a right to defend itself clearly does not apply to Iran. The mantra that there's a rules-based order, that there is Vienna Convention protecting the inviolability of diplomatic premises of every country in every other country is clearly bunkum,” the firebrand British MP said.

“It doesn't apply to those that the Western empire disapproves of. Otherwise, every Western government would have condemned Israel’s blatant brazen destruction of Iran’s embassy in Damascus. They would have done if it was anyone else, Wouldn’t they?”

Meanwhile, continuing its pivotal military support for the Israeli regime, the UK authorities claimed that the Royal Air Force (RAF) came to the defense of the Israeli regime during Saturday night’s attacks.

As part of Operation Shader, the codename for British military interventions in West Asia since 2014, several jets and air refueling tankers were dispatched to the region, according to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who confirmed that RAF jets intercepted and brought down "a number" of Iranian drones.

Speaking in the House of Commons on Monday, Sunak said “our pilots put themselves in harm's way” to protect the regime, and acknowledged the UK's contribution of “important intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support for our partners.”

UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps also confirmed the deployment of further military assets in the occupied territories as a demonstration of solidarity with the Israeli regime.

"In response to escalation in the region and in partnership with our allies, the Prime Minister and I have authorized the deployment of additional Royal Air Force assets,” Shapps was quoted as saying.

The UK is a staunch ally of Israel, supporting the regime with a raft of lethal arms. The UK has authorized approximately £472 million in "standard" arms exports to Israel since 2015, alongside 58 "open" licenses of unlimited value, raising transparency issues and allowing unrestricted quantities, according to the figures by Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT).

Reza Javadi has a PhD in British studies from the University of Tehran.

'Irresponsible, unconstructive': Iran slams US veto of Palestinian bid for full UN membership

The spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry has strongly condemned the "irresponsible and unconstructive" US veto of a Palestinian request to the United Nations Security Council for full UN membership, blocking the world body’s recognition of a Palestinian state.

"Washington's move disclosed the hypocritical nature of the US foreign policy and the isolation of this country's position in the international community more than ever before," Nasser Kan'ani said on Friday.

The vote at the 15-member UN Security Council on Thursday on the statehood was put forward by Algeria, which represents Arab nations on the Security Council.

While 12 Council members voted yes, the US predictably cast its veto against the bid. Meanwhile, the UK and Switzerland abstained.

Kan'ani said the US provides "unilateral and unlimited" support for Israel in the political, economic, military, legal and international fields.

He added that Washington's ineffective support for the Tel Aviv regime is at the expense of the American people and at the cost of sacrificing regional and international peace and security over the past seven decades.

The US support for the Israeli regime has disgraced it in the world public opinion and proved that the country is not a neutral player and a responsible actor in the international community, the Iranian spokesman emphasized.

He once again reaffirmed the Palestinian people's "legitimate and undeniable" right to form an independent state with al-Quds as its capital across the historical land of Palestine "from the river to the sea."

"The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that the will of the resilient and heroic people of Palestine will ultimately overcome the will of the enemies of the Palestinian people, especially the fake, apartheid and criminal Israeli regime," Kan'ani pointed out.

Palestine is currently a non-member observer state. An application to become a full UN member needs to be approved by the Security Council and then at least two-thirds of the UN General Assembly.

Washington’s veto came amid the Israeli regime’s war on the Gaza Strip that has increased sympathy towards Palestinians and international calls for the recognition of the State of Palestine.

Since the start of the offensive on October 7, the Tel Aviv regime has killed at least 34,012 Palestinians, mostly women and children, and injured nearly 76,833 others.

Iran slams G7 statement, vows no iota of doubt to respond to aggression

G7 leaders discuss Iranian retaliation against Israel over a video meeting in this picture obtained from social media, Brussels, Belgium, April 14, 2024. (Photo by Reuters)

Iran has condemned the G7 statement regarding Iran's retaliation of Israel's attack on its consulate in Syria, pledging that it will not hesitate for a second in responding to aggressors.

Leaders of the G7 nations claimed in their joint statement that "With its actions, Iran has further stepped toward the destabilization of the region and risks provoking an uncontrollable regional escalation".

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kan'ani shot back Thursday, saying the statement is "in line with the well-known approach of these circles based on double and contradictory standards and behaviors".

Kan'ani touched on the group's "passive and encouraging position toward the aggressor regime" following Israel's attack on Iran's diplomatic headquarters in Damascus in gross violation of the UN  Charter and international conventions, while condemning the Islamic Republic's "legitimate action and proportionate and deterrent response against the source of armed aggression".

"The government and the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while remaining responsible toward regional and global peace and security and adhering to international laws and regulations, will not hesitate an iota to defend national security and interests and they will give a decisive, regretful and deterrent response to the aggressors.

"They are not affected by the political and propaganda hype of the founders of the existing conditions in the region and the world," Kan'ani said.

He called the US and some European countries as the sponsors of the biggest wars, occupations and insecurities in West Asia for more than half a century, which have "put the occupying, apartheid and criminal regime of Israel under protection and immunity above all international laws and resolutions".

"Expressing concern for peace and security stability in the region and the world by such governments is ridiculous," Kan'ani said.

The G7, which calls itself the Group of Seven industrial democracies, groups the United States, Canada, Italy, Britain, France, Germany and Japan, as well as the European Union. 

Kan'ani said, "Instead of blindly supporting the Zionist regime, the leaders of the European Union and members of the Group of Seven should stop supporting the regime that threatens regional and international peace and security."

Instead, they should "appreciate the Islamic Republic of Iran for taking proportionate and legitimate action in punishing the aggressor", he added. 

"European and G7 authorities know very well that the main root of the crisis and instability in West Asia and, of course, on a wider scale in the world, is the occupation of Palestine and the crimes of the Zionist regime in the occupied territories for several decades and depriving the oppressed Palestinian people of their basic and obvious rights," Kan'ani said.

"There is no doubt that turning a blind eye to the obvious facts and baseless accusations against others by the US and Europe will not solve the problem of regional and international security." 

‘Hands on the trigger’: How will Iran respond if its nuclear sites are threatened

By Wesam Bahrani

In the wake of what appear to be lame threats by the Zionist regime to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Islamic Republic has warned that such a foolhardy and adventurous move will see the illegal occupation’s nuclear military sites decimated. 

This time, the response will be more powerful than Operation True Promise, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps’ commander Ahmad Haqtalab said on Thursday while making an important statement. 

“If the Zionist regime wants to take action against our nuclear centers and facilities, we will surely and categorically reciprocate with advanced missiles against their nuclear sites,” Haqtalab said. 

“Our hands are on the trigger,” the IRGC commander responsible for the protection of nuclear sites added in a clear and categorical warning.

He also hinted at the possibility of the Islamic Republic “reconsidering’ its nuclear doctrine, under which it has voluntarily agreed to keep the enrichment of uranium lower than what it is capable of.

This marks a significant shift in the country’s nuclear doctrine but also reflects the colossal geopolitical changes in West Asia in the wake of the Zionist regime’s continued provocations.

The besieged Gaza Strip has been flattened by the Israeli regime since October 2023, with the help of the US and other Western allies, especially the United Kingdom, who have shamelessly taken international law into their own hands, violating every charter of the Geneva Conventions. 

So, no wonder, the US Department of State spokesman was puzzled when a journalist earlier this week asked him whether Washington recognizes and respects the international law. It doesn’t.

Those opposed to genocide have been labeled as terrorists and anti-Semites. The perpetrators of genocide have had regular shipments of American, German, and British weapons to restock arms caches that were depleted against civilians, including children and women, in Gaza. 

An Israeli terrorist attack against a sovereign nation’s consulate in another country is now considered fair game and legal. Western allies of the Israeli regime have been trying to defend the indefensible.

Western hypocrisy was on display for all to see during the British foreign secretary David Cameron’s exchange with veteran Sky News presenter Kay Burley, where the former British PM struggled to justify the terror attack against the Iranian consulate. 

Iran’s retaliation, with a 72-hour notification against Zionist military bases and non-civilian sites, sent a message to Tehran’s adversaries that the era of “hit and run” is over. 

It also reminded the world how so-called international rules-based warfare operates. 

The first time Iran retaliated militarily against a nuclear power was the US following the assassination of the IRGC’s Quds Force Commander General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad on January 3, 2020. 

Days after the drone strike authorized by then-US President Donald Trump, Iran flattened the huge and illegally US-occupied Ain al-Assad military base in Iraq’s Anbar province. 

Tehran notified Washington in advance of the attack, so American soldiers were not killed by the Iranian military response. Iran had the option of not informing and attacking but it didn’t do that.

Likewise, a 72-hour notification was issued before Iran launched its retaliatory military operation involving hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles toward the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and still achieved the desired direct hits against Zionist military sites. 

No Israeli setter was killed. Only the military sites were damaged, and interceptions were the bare minimum. This is humanity in warfare like no other seen in modern history.

It is the complete opposite of the American-installed rogue Zionist regime that planned the terrorist attack on the Iranian consulate for two months while consulting with its sponsor in Washington before shredding international law for the umpteenth time. 

If the Israelis try to attack Iran’s nuclear plants, which are peaceful in nature according to the US intelligence community as well as more than a dozen International Atomic Energy Agency reports, there is no doubt Iran will strike back.

A senior IRGC official has indicated as much. Recent events offer a stronger case for retaliation. 

There were reports of explosions in the central Iranian city of Isfahan early on Friday, which the Israeli media claimed was a missile strike at an Iranian nuclear facility.

It turned out a hoax. A few micro-drones were spotted in the sky and swiftly downed, most probably the handiwork of local sleeping cells affiliated with the regime’s spy agency.

It was a failed attempt to carry out another sabotage because they don’t have what it takes to confront the Iranian military directly, without the support of their American masters.

If at all the regime carries out an attack on any Iranian nuclear facility, the consequences can be damning. What will this exchange look like is the real question. 

The Zionist regime has between 200 and 300 nuclear warheads. That hasn’t frightened the Gaza-based resistance groups Hamas or Islamic Jihad, let alone the wider Axis of Resistance. 

It has no military advantage against Iran, which has no nuclear weapons, especially when the Islamic Republic can strike Zionist nuclear plants in retaliation for attacks against Iranian nuclear plants. 

The Israeli regime shouldn’t be attacking Iranian nuclear facilities as that stands against international protocolsas well as laws and regulations concerning nuclear sites, as stated by Iranian officials.

But as is evident, this rogue US-backed regime has no regard for international law. 

This is why Iran has‌, for a long time, prepared itself to confront these threats while making plans to counter them. In the event of any such foolhardiness, Iranian retaliation will be swift and strong.

What was seen on Saturday night is just a glimpse of what is in store for the Israeli regime.

All the Zionist nuclear centers have already been identified (especially the Dimona nuclear weapons site) by the IRGC. The Iranian military force has at its disposal all the necessary data and information about the objectives of each Zionist nuclear site. 

If the Israeli regime decides to strike Iranian nuclear plants or other related facilities, the IRGC has powerful defense systems that can detect and intercept incoming projectiles from reaching such sensitive sites. 

Any foolish US-Zionist attempt to even try and strike Iranian nuclear facilities will also be seen as a significant escalation by Iran that warrants a stronger response with more powerful missiles being fired by Tehran than what was launched during Operation True Promise.

Iran has the missile technology and capability to destroy any target in West Asia while, for decades, maintaining the wisdom to refrain from doing so, for the sake of regional peace and security. 

That was until the Zionist terrorist bombing of the Iranian consulate in Syria - after Tel Aviv failed to achieve any of its stated goals in the Gaza Strip - crossed all red lines.

Today, the region is not the same as it was before the Israeli genocide in Gaza. What can be said with certainty is that Iran has made its position clear and is ready for any scenario.

Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet want to drag the region into a full-blown war. The same fascist ministers see an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities as the way to achieve that goal.  

The gloves are off now. The Israelis and the Americans may want to reconsider any plans that seek to hit nuclear facilities inside Iran. 

Recent evidence shows that the response will be very painful for the Zionist entity and potentially, US bases scattered across the Persian Gulf. Something both Washington and Tel Aviv may regret.

Wesam Bahrani is an Iraqi journalist and commentator.

‘Netanyahu trying to drag West into full-scale war in region’

London, IRNA – Iran’s chargé d'affaires in London says Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has set a trap to drag the West into a full-scale war in West Asia, warning that such an occurrence will have incalculable consequences for the region and the world.

In an interview with the British daily Guardian, Seyyed Mehdi Hosseini Matin rejected the British Prime Minister's claim that Tehran had made a miscalculation with the operation "True Promise" against the Zionist regime.

Iran examined its actions very carefully and realized that Netanyahu had set up a trap not for Iran but for Western countries to drag them into a full-scale war, in a way that the world may not be able to bear its consequences, he explained.

The Iranian diplomat warned that the Islamic Republic will respond stronger, more severely and without any prior warning if the Zionist regime commits "another mistake" by attacking Iran again. "The response to the next mistake of the Zionists will not take 12 days. The action will be immediate and without warning”.

Hosseini Matin further emphasized that Iran, before its reciprocal strikes on the occupied territories, had asked the West to support a UN Security Council statement regarding the condemnation of the Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, a move that was rejected by British Foreign Secretary, David Cameron.

Iran’s chargé d'affaires also exposed Cameron’s double standard citing his remarks during a television program on Monday where he admitted that if a hostile country razes the British consulate to the ground, it will face a strong response from London. But at the same time he claimed that Iran's attack was beyond the expected level and could have caused civilian casualties if missiles were not intercepted with the help of the United States and its allies (including the United Kingdom).

"Iranian forces did not target any populated area to prevent human casualties and did not attack government buildings and centers. It was a legitimate defense operation that was carried out with prior warnings, "Hosseini Matin said while countering Cameron’s remarks.

"Now the mission is accomplished and this is what we have announced publicly," he underlined, adding that Iran's punitive response has provided a good opportunity for Western countries to “show that they are rational actors and are not going to be caught in Netanyahu's trap and his goal to stay in power."

Hosseini Matin described the operation "True Promise" a demonstration of Iran's military power and said that the action was necessary to create deterrence so that no country would dare threaten Iran's security.

NATO’s never-ending war: The 75-year-old bully is faltering

by Dr Ramzy Baroud

A view of flags of NATO members at the NATO Defence College, which has been operating in Rome since 1966 in Rome, Italy on September 27, 2023 [Barış Seçkin – Anadolu Agency]

The western discourse on the circumstances behind the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), 75 years ago, is hardly convincing.

Yet, that over-simplified discourse must be examined in order for the current decline of the organisation to be appreciated beyond the self-serving politics of NATO’s members.

The history records page of the US State Department speaks of the invention of NATO in a language suitable for a US high school history book.

“After the destruction of the Second World War, the nations of Europe struggled to rebuild their economies and ensure their security,” it reads, which compelled the US to take action: “(integrating) Europe as vital to the prevention of communist expansion across the continent.”

This is the typical logic of NATO’s early doctrine. It can be gleaned from most of the statements made by Western countries that established and continue to dominate the organisation.

The language oscillates between a friendly discourse – for example, Harry Truman’s reference to NATO as a “neighbourly act” – and a threatening one, also Truman’s tough language against “those who might foster the criminal idea of having recourse to war.”

The reality, however, remains vastly different.

Indeed, the US did emerge much stronger, militarily and economically after WWII. That was reflected in the Marshall Plan, an ‘Economic Recovery Plan’, which was a strategic, not a charitable act. It engineered the economic recovery of selected countries who would become the US’s global allies for decades to come.

Upon its establishment, then Canadian Secretary of State Lester Pearson referred to the NATO “community” as part of the “world community”, linking the strength of the former to “preserving the peace” for the latter.

As innocuous as such language may seem, it introduced a paternal relationship between the US-dominated NATO and the rest of the world. Thus, it allowed the powerful members of the organisation to define, on behalf of the rest of the world – and often outside the umbrella of the United Nations – such notions as ‘peace’, ‘security’, ‘threat’, and, ultimately, ‘terrorism’.

A case in point is that the first major conflict instigated by NATO did not target external threats to Europe or US territories, but took place thousands of miles away, on the Korean Peninsula.

The West’s political discourse wanted to view the civil war in the Peninsula, prior to NATO’s intervention as an example of “communist aggression”. This “aggression” supposedly forced NATO’s hands to react. Needless to say, the Korean War (1950-53) was a destructive one.

The 75 years since then proved the flimsiness of that argument. The Soviet Union has long been dismantled, and North Korea has been desperately fighting to break out of its isolation. Yet, a fractious state of no war, no peace remains in place. It could turn into an outright war at any time.

However, what the war has achieved is something entirely different. The constant state of non-peace provides a justification for the permanent US military presence in the region.

Similar outcomes followed most of NATO’s other interventions: Iraq (1991 and 2003), Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Libya (2011) and so on.

Yet, the ability to start or exacerbate conflicts, and the inability, or perhaps unwillingness to permanently end wars, is not the real crisis at NATO, 75 years after its establishment.

In an article marking the anniversary, UK Secretary of Defense, Grant Shapps, wrote in the Daily Telegraph that NATO must accept that it is now in a “pre-war world”.

He lashed out at those NATO members who were “still failing” to meet the minimally required spending on defence, which equals two per cent of total national GDPs. “We cannot afford to play Russian roulette with our future,” he wrote.

READ: EU leaders to discuss Iran sanctions following retaliatory strike on Israel

Shapps’ anxieties are often expressed by other top NATO leaders and officials, who are either warning of an imminent war with Russia or criticising each other for the dwindling influence of the once-powerful organisation.

Much of that blame was placed on former US President Donald Trump, who outright threatened to leave NATO during his only term in office.

Trump’s disparaging comments and threats, however, were hardly the instigator of the crisis. They were symptoms of growing problems, which have continued for years after Trump’s dramatic exit from the White House.

NATO’s crisis can be summarised as this:

First, the geopolitical formations that existed following the collapse of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact no longer exist.

Second, the main aspect of the new global competition cannot be reduced to military terms. Rather, it is economic.

Third, Europe is now largely dependent on energy sources, trade and even technological integration with countries that the US perceives as enemies: China, Russia and others. Therefore, if Europe allows itself to subscribe to the US polarised language on what constitutes enemies and allies it will pay a heavy price, especially as EU economies are already struggling under the weight of continued wars and constant disruption of energy supplies.

Fourth, fixing all of these challenges and more through the dropping of bombs is no longer an option. The ‘enemy’ is far too strong, and the changing nature of warfare makes traditional war largely ineffectual.

Though the world has greatly changed, NATO remains committed to a political doctrine from a bygone era. And even if the two per cent threshold is met, the problem will not go away.

It is time for NATO to re-examine its 75-year-old legacy, and be courageous enough to change directions altogether; instead of opting for a state of non-peace it should seek real peace.

Hitler's allies, Netanyahu's allies

Tehran, IRNA -- It is known that Adolf Hitler, the leader of the Nazi Party of Germany, committed many crimes against humanity in World War II, and for example, nearly 2 million people were killed in the Auschwitz camp as the worst camp of the Nazi army. In the Second World War, the great powers in the form of "Axis forces" made up of Germany, Austria, Japan and Italy and the "Allied forces" faced each other and in the war, almost most of the world's countries made sacrifices.  

After the end of the war, the allies of Hitler and Nazi Germany were blamed by the global community for their crimes and they were mentioned as Hitler's genocidal partners.

The Nuremberg Tribunal and the Tokyo Trial were established to investigate war crimes, and apart from the agents of Nazi Germany, 28 Japanese defendants were tried in the Tokyo court, including four prime ministers, four foreign ministers, five ministers of war, and a number of other people.

Today, Netanyahu and Israel have replaced Hitler and Nazi Germany. It has been more than six months that with all kinds of crimes against civilians and the genocide in Gaza, regardless of the number of the missing people, close to 40,000 civilians have been martyred.

As in the Second World War, some countries such as Japan, Austria, and at one point Italy were complicit in Hitler's crimes. Today, a number of countries, including the US, the UK, France, Germany and Canada, are complicit in Israel's crimes, and this disgrace will not be forgotten soon.

Meanwhile, unfortunately, a number of Muslim and Arab countries are also directly or indirectly, with the continuation of economic cooperation and especially the sale of oil, support Israel and their hands are stained with the blood of the Palestinian people. If these countries cut off the economic arteries of the Zionist regime and suspend their relations with this regime at least until a permanent ceasefire is established and Hamas conditions are met, Israel will suffer a heavy defeat.

Today, out of the $12.7 billion of exports from the North American continent to the Zionist regime, $11.7 billion dollars is the share of the United States. Israel's food and oil exports from this region are mainly carried out by Brazil and Argentina. The total export of South American countries to the occupied territories is about $1.4 billion and includes agricultural-food products, oil and coal, and the role of Brazil in providing oil to the occupiers is significant.

Gabon and South Africa are other main sources of oil supply for the Zionist regime. Europe supplies about 40% of the imported goods of the occupying regime, which mainly include agricultural products, chemicals, machinery and means of transportation.

40% of the energy consumption in Israel depends on oil, and among the member countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Zionist regime supplies 25% of its oil needs from Kazakhstan and through loading in the Red Sea and the Black Sea.

Ron Ishai, the former ambassador of Israel to Kazakhstan, announced that the value of annual oil exports from this country to the occupied territories had stood at $1.4 billion two years ago. The Republic of Azerbaijan supplies 43% of the oil needed by the Zionist occupiers with the participation of Turkiye through the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.

In total, the two countries of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan export 220,000 barrels of oil per day to Israel, which includes approximately 60% of the total oil exports to the Zionist regime. Israel also imports other goods including wheat, minerals, cotton and plastic from Kazakhstan, the value of which was over $360 million. The Zionist regime’s exports to Kazakhstan in 2021 was worth about $32.5 million, which included military products.

According to the data of the Turkish Exporters Association, the value of Turkish exports to the occupied territories reached $6.4 billion in 2022. It has been a historical record, but the share of Israel in the total exports of Turkiye during this period has been announced ats 2.6%.

Dollars to Israel have had the largest volume. The volume of UAE exports to the Zionist regime in 2022 is about $1.8 billion, and in the same year, the value of Israel's exports to the UAE reached nearly $670 million.

Egypt's exports to the occupied territories amounted to $115 million in 2022, and the volume of trade between the two sides has reached $300 million.

The value of Jordanian exports to the Zionist regime in 2021 increased by 86.2% to $391.4 million. Bahrain’s annual exports to Israel were worth $3.5 million, and the volume of trade between the two sides in 2021 was $20 million.

Trade exchanges between Maghreb kingdoms and Israel saw a significant jump in 2022, estimated at $500 million annually.

Today's supporters of Israel are acting like Hitler's allies of yesterday, and the world will judge the allies of the Zionist regime as it judged the allies of Nazi Germany yesterday. Nuremberg and Tokyo will be tried. There is no hope for Israel's traditional supporters in the West today, but it is expected that Muslim countries will refrain from participating in Israel's crimes and not expose themselves to the blame of future generations, the role of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation will be very influential in this process.