Iranian rationale of attacking US base in Qatar

On June 23, 2025, as tensions between Iran and Israel reached their highest point in years, several Iranian ballistic missiles struck the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. This was no ordinary target, it is the main hub for US military operations in West Asia and a key symbol of American power projection in the region. 

Iran informed the US about the attack 12 hours before it was to happen, according to information previously disclosed by the Tehran Times. The official American response was swift and predictable - both Washington and Doha downplayed the incident, claiming there were no casualties or significant damage. However, reality soon overrode the narrative. Satellite images published days later confirmed the destruction of a geodesic dome that housed critical communication systems of the US Central Command.

Far from being anecdotal, this episode marks a strategic turning point. Iran has shown it can strike critical infrastructure under American protection, redrawing the contours of deterrence in the Persian Gulf. The missile ceases to be merely a weapon of war; it becomes a tool of sovereignty and strategic assertion.

Between official denial and satellite evidence

The US version was clear and firm from the outset “No casualties, no damage,” repeated Pentagon spokespeople. But satellite evidence, analyzed by international media and independent agencies, told a different story.

Images taken between June 23 and 25 showed the disappearance of a US$15 million communications dome, debris, and collateral damage to surrounding structures. Although the base remained operational, the loss of a key component for electronic warfare cast doubt on the effectiveness of US missile defenses—and on the credibility of the official account.

Washington’s refusal to acknowledge the strike follows a dual logic - maintaining control over the media narrative and avoiding the perception of vulnerability before an actor—Iran—that, despite sanctions and isolation, has reached a notable level of technological sophistication.

Al Udeid: A symbol of hegemony in question

Located about 30 kilometers from Doha, Al Udeid is more than just a military base. It serves as the forward headquarters of CENTCOM and is the nerve center for coordinating operations in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Its symbolism goes beyond the military - it is the cornerstone of the security architecture the United States has built in the region since the First Persian Gulf War.

The fact that Iran managed to strike such a site—and that US forces reportedly evacuated aircraft and sensitive personnel beforehand—does not diminish the significance of the attack. On the contrary, it indicates that Tehran sent a precise warning and that Washington took it seriously. Deterrence, long monopolized by the US and Israel, is no longer a one-way street.

The missile as national strategy: Evolution and autonomy

The strike on Al Udeid was not an isolated act but the result of a deliberate evolution. For over two decades, Iran has systematically invested in ballistic missile development as an asymmetric response to the air and nuclear superiority of its adversaries. Faced with Western restrictions, Tehran adopted a doctrine of defensive self-sufficiency based on three pillars:

Diversification: Short, medium, and long range missiles like Shahab-3, Ghadr, Qiam, and Sejjil, capable of reaching Israel, US bases, and parts of southern Europe.

Mobility: Mobile launch systems that are hard to detect and neutralize.

Precision: Advanced guidance systems that have reduced the margin of error to levels that even Western analysts now acknowledge.

Unlike other regional missile programs, Iran’s development is overwhelmingly domestic. This technical and logistical autonomy has allowed the country to bypass embargoes and threats, turning the missile into the backbone of its defense doctrine.

Following Israel’s offensive against nuclear, military, and civilian sites inside Iran, Tehran responded with a large-scale launch of over a hundred ballistic missiles and suicide drones targeting Israeli military positions. For the first time, Iran’s ballistic arsenal was used en masse in open conflict.

Despite the Iron Dome and other Israeli defenses, several missiles penetrated and struck Tel Aviv, Haifa, and military bases. The missile attacks not only caused physical damage but also had a strategic impact: saturating defenses, prompting emergency deployments, and creating unprecedented internal pressure on Israeli authorities.

The Al Udeid strike was the culmination of a graduated strategy - to hit Israel, neutralize its offensive capacity, and send a direct message to the United States. The ceasefire that followed days later cannot be understood without factoring in the missile component as a deterrent force.

Sovereignty and independence: The Iranian perspective

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran’s foreign and defense policy has been rooted in the principle of non-negotiable sovereignty. In a hostile environment—surrounded by foreign bases and under sanctions—the development of ballistic missiles has not been framed as a belligerent impulse, but as a survival strategy.

Tehran maintains that its only guarantee in the face of threats like the US “maximum pressure” campaign or Israeli targeted strikes is its ability to respond. Effective deterrence, it argues, is only possible when there is certainty that any aggression will come at a high cost.

The attack on Al Udeid follows this logic - it was calibrated, precise, and deliberately non-lethal. Its aim was not to trigger a regional war but to underscore that Iran has both the capacity—and the resolve—to defend its vital interests. The missile, in this vision, is not a threat; it is a political argument.

 

Devastating civilian toll in Iranian capital

Tehran’s Mayor Alireza Zakani has laid bare the human cost of the Israeli regime’s 12-day military aggression against Iran, disclosing that 3,600 civilian residential units across the capital were damaged in the assault.

In a somber address on Tuesday, Zakani confirmed hundreds of families remain displaced from their homes, underscoring a "defining experience" for the city’s crisis management infrastructure.

"According to documented statistics, 3,600 residential units suffered damage during this imposed war," Zakani stated.

"Among these, 200 units require complete reconstruction, 250 need fundamental reinforcement, and 1,500 necessitate repairs."

Minor damage, including shattered windows and doors, affected the remainder. The mayor emphasized that municipal teams are mobilizing to complete minor repairs, such as window and door replacements, by late July.

The Israeli assault that took place in June plunged ordinary citizens into profound hardship, with some communities bearing the brunt of the impact.

Currently, 350 displaced families are sheltering in hotels leased by the municipality, with another 450 households urgently requiring temporary housing while their homes undergo rebuilding.

For those whose residences were fully destroyed or require major reconstruction, Zakani outlined a support package, "Affected families will receive 1.5 billion tomans for deposits and 30 million tomans monthly rent assistance" to alleviate their burdens.

Beyond housing, the mayor reported extensive ancillary damage. "Claims have been formally registered for 875 civilian vehicles struck during the attacks," he said, adding that municipal teams are now documenting losses of household belongings for future compensation.

The devastation unfolded during the 12-Day War — a coordinated US-Israeli assault launched on June 13, 2025, targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, civilian infrastructure, and military compounds. The offensive extended to the assassinations of senior commanders and scientists, many executed in residential areas.

Iran’s human toll has been severe. At least 1,060 Iranians were martyred, according to Saeed Ohadi, head of Iran’s Foundation of Martyrs and Veterans Affairs, who said the figure could rise to 1,100 given the critical condition of many wounded.
 

 

Israel strikes Yemen, Houthis retaliate

According to Reuters, Israel struck Houthi targets at three Yemeni ports and a power plant, the military said early on Monday, in its first attack on Yemen in nearly a month.

The strikes hit the ports of Hodeidah, Ras Isa and Salif, as well as the Ras Qantib power plant on the coast.

Hours later, Israel said two missiles were launched from Yemen. Attempts were made to intercept them, though the results were still under review.

The Houthi forces said they had fired missiles and drones at multiple targets in Israel in retaliation for the strikes on Yemen.

Since the start of the war in Gaza in October 2023, the Houthis have fired at ships carrying goods to and from Israel. The group claims their acts in solidarity with the Palestinians.

Israel said its attacks on Monday also targeted a ship, the Galaxy Leader, which was seized by the Houthis in late 2023 and held in Ras Isa port.

"The Houthi terrorist regime's forces installed a radar system on the ship, and are using it to track vessels in international maritime space in order to promote the Houthi terrorist regime’s activities," the military said.

The Houthi military spokesperson said the group's air defences had responded to the Israeli attack with "a large number of domestically produced surface-to-air missiles".

Israel's military told residents to evacuate the three ports before it launched its attacks. Residents of Hodeidah told Reuters that the strikes on the power station had knocked out electricity. There was no immediate information on casualties.

The Israeli assault comes hours after a ship was attacked off of Hodeidah and the ship's crew abandoned it as it took on water. No one immediately claimed responsibility for the attack, but security firm Ambrey said the vessel fit the typical profile of a Houthi target.

 

 

 

Understanding US and Russian policies towards Taliban

Russia has become the first country to recognize Taliban government in Afghanistan. It is on record that the United States and Russia have had different policies toward Taliban due to their distinct strategic interests, historical experiences, and regional alliances. Here’s a breakdown of some of the key reasons behind this divergence:

The United States has fought Taliban directly for over two decades after 9/11, viewing them as terrorist allies of al-Qaeda. This includes the US led NATO invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to topple the Taliban regime.

Interestingly, Russia has not fought Taliban directly but has a history of conflicts in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion (1979–1989), where the US and others supported the Mujahideen, some of these are now termed Taliban).

Russia sees Taliban as part of the post-Soviet regional security dynamic, not necessarily as a direct enemy.

Most interesting is the US perspective because it considers Taliban a threats to US homeland and allies. The history shows that Afghans/ Taliban never attacked the United States. It is also said that Osama bin Laden was a Saudi, which supported Mujahideen in averting the USSR attack on Afghanistan to get access to the warm waters.

The US, which never wanted to leave Afghanistan believes that Taliban rule could once again turn the country into a safe haven for global jihadis like al-Qaeda or ISIS-K. Some analysts openly say that be it al-Qaeda or ISIS-K, these are ‘B’ teams of CIA.

The prime focus of Russia is more on Central Asian stability and drug trafficking from Afghanistan. Russia fears spillover of extremism into its southern borders but engages pragmatically with Taliban to keep its influence in the region.

Both the US and Russia are keen in engaging with Taliban. The US was initially hostile, but later engaged diplomatically, courtesy Doha talks, culminating in the 2020 US-Taliban agreement. After the 2021 withdrawal, the US maintains non-recognition and economic sanctions, demanding women rights, inclusivity, and action against terrorism.

As against, Russia has hosted Taliban delegations for talks in Moscow and calls for inclusive governance but does not condition engagement as strictly as the US. Russia did not officially recognize the Taliban either, but it was more flexible in diplomacy.

Strategic Interests

The US claims, to that many do not agree, that the super power is busy in global fight against terrorism and avoids getting entangled again in the Afghan conflict. Since withdrawal of troops the US has kept Taliban under pressure through sanctions and diplomatic isolation, including freezing foreign exchange reserves of Afghanistan.

The prime Russian interest is, ending US hegemony in the region. It also wants to protect its interests in Central Asia (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan). On top of all Russia seems to be keen in developing regional alliances that include Taliban as a reality, not a pariah.

Over the decades, the United States has maintained its hegemony through regional alliances, working closely under the NATO umbrella. The US policy towards Taliban is part of a broader Western approach tied to liberal values and counterterrorism.

Realizing its limitations Russia works closely with China, Iran, Central Asian republics. It often coordinates with anti-Western powers and is less constrained by democratic or human rights norms.

To get control over countries two of the world’s largest super powers, the United States as well as Russia have often used arsenal power. As against this China has used diplomacy and economic assistance to establish its influence.

During the election campaign Donald Trump had promised to pull the United States out of wars, but his unconditional support to Israeli genocide in Gaza and direct attacks on Iran prove he is also the tout of military complexes and would never like to end wars where the United States is involved directly or indirectly.

 

US presidents have history of attacking countries without Congress approval

According to The Hill, Democrats bashing President Trump for striking Iran without congressional consent are bumping into an inconvenient history, Democratic presidents have done the same thing for decades.

From Bill Clinton, to Barack Obama, to Joe Biden, every Democratic president of the modern era has employed US military forces to attack targets overseas, including strikes in Bosnia, Syria, Libya and Yemen. While they sought approval from Capitol Hill in some of those cases, Congress never provided it.

That history has muddled the Democrats’ current argument that Trump, in striking three Iranian nuclear facilities last weekend, violated the Constitution by acting on his own, without the formal approval of Congress.

The dynamic has not been overlooked by Republican leaders, who have hailed the strikes on Iran as a national security necessity and defended Trump’s powers to launch them unilaterally.

Those voices are pointing specifically to the actions of Clinton, Obama and Biden to bolster their arguments.

“Since World War II we have had more than 125 military operations from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. They have occurred without a Declaration of War by Congress,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters after the strikes. “Presidents of both parties have exercised that authority frequently.”

Johnson ticked off a few examples under the most recent Democratic administrations. Biden, he noted, ordered strikes against Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Obama sustained a months-long bombing campaign in Libya. And Clinton had bombed parts of the former Yugoslavia during the Bosnian war of the mid-1990s. 

“Every one of those actions were taken unilaterally and without prior authorization from Congress,” Johnson said. 

That background is forcing Democrats to reckon with that past just as many of them are now demanding that Trump cease all military operations in Iran without explicit congressional approval. Some of them are quick to acknowledge the incongruity, voicing something like regret that Congress didn’t stand more firm in the face of those unilateral Democratic missions.

“Just because it was wrong then doesn’t mean it’s not wrong now,” said Rep. Ted Lieu, a former Air Force attorney who’s now the vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “The Constitution is the Constitution. And it says only Congress has the power to declare war. And it’s been a bipartisan problem, with Congress ceding way too much power to the executive branch.”

Rep. Pete Aguilar, the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, seemed to agree. He lamented that the politics of Washington have sometimes curtailed Congress’s appetite for asserting its war powers as a check on the president, especially when Congress and the White House are controlled by opposing parties. 

“That part is unfortunate. Maybe we’ve missed a few opportunities,” Aguilar said. 

“But that doesn’t mean that we turn a blind eye right now,” he quickly added. “It doesn’t mean that we just let Donald Trump walk all over us. It means that we stand up for our authority and speak up on behalf of our constituents at every opportunity.”

The Constitution makes clear that Congress and the White House both play crucial roles in conducting military operations. Article I lends Congress the power to declare war, and Article II stipulates that the president is “Commander and Chief” of the Armed Forces, responsible for executing wars that Congress sanctions. 

Yet that conceptual balance has tilted heavily toward the executive branch over most of the last century. The last time Congress formally declared war was in 1941, after Pearl Harbor. And since then, the president has assumed virtually all power, not only to steer the Armed Forces, but also to launch them into battle.

In 1973, in the wake of Vietnam, Congress sought to reassert its authority by passing the War Powers Act. (President Nixon vetoed the bill, but Congress overrode him).

The law requires presidents to “consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities,” but it does not demand the formal authorization of the legislative branch.

As tensions in the Middle East exploded earlier in the month, lawmakers in both parties sought to limit US involvement with war powers resolutions requiring Trump to get explicit congressional consent before using military force in Iran.

One was sponsored by three leading Democrats: Reps. Gregory Meeks, Jim Himes and Adam Smith. Another was bipartisan, championed by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).

Supporters of the resolutions are quick to acknowledge that the president has the power to act unilaterally in extraordinary circumstances, like if the nation is attacked. But there’s no evidence, they say, to indicate that Iran posed an immediate threat to Americans ahead of Trump’s strikes. 

“Any president has self-defense authority under Article II of the Constitution. But to meet that threshold, you have to show that there was an imminent risk of attack against Americans or US facilities. That’s the standard,” said Rep.

Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a former Army Ranger who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. “As a member of the Armed Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, I have not seen any evidence leading up to the attack that there was an imminent risk to Americans or to US facilities to meet that threshold.”

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) delivered a similar assessment. “If our country is attacked, all and any powers go to the president to act,” she said. “That didn’t exist here, so the president should have come to Congress.”

Complicating their argument are the actions of Democratic presidents who also activated the Armed Services without congressional consent.

In 1998, for instance, in response to the terrorist bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton ordered the launch of cruise missiles targeting al Qaeda strongholds in Sudan and Afghanistan. He also joined NATO forces in bombing Serbian targets in the former Yugoslavia. 

Obama infuriated liberals in Congress in launching strikes against numerous countries during his eight-year reign, including an extensive campaign in Libya in 2011, which helped in the toppling of President Muammar Gaddafi, as well as subsequent incursions in Syria, Yemen and Somalia. 

Obama had asked Congress for specific authorization in some cases, but lawmakers on Capitol Hill couldn’t agree on a resolution to provide it. Instead, those operations leaned heavily on a 2001 resolution — known as an authorization of military force, or AUMF — passed by Congress to sanction the Afghanistan War after the attacks of 9/11. 

In the same vein, Biden used US forces to target Syria, Yemen and Iraq. 

Lieu, for one, emphasized that he was opposed to Obama’s use of force without Congress giving the OK. 

“I publicly stated at the time that Obama needed congressional authorization to strike Syria. I believe Trump needs congressional authorization to strike Iran,” he said.

“My view of the Constitution does not change based on what party the president happens to belong to.” 

Other Democrats sought to keep the debate focused more squarely on current events.

“We can write books and fill your column inches with regrets under this dome. We’ll save that for other days,” Aguilar said. “But what is in front of us today, are we going to stand up for our constitutional authority?”

A week after the strikes, the debate over war powers may already be academic. 

On Tuesday, Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel that, if it holds, may make the constitutional disagreement moot. Massie has said he won’t force a vote on his war powers measure if the ceasefire continues.

Johnson has refused to consider such a resolution in any event, calling the War Powers Act unconstitutional. And Trump officials are expected to meet with Iranian officials later this week, when the US will seek a commitment from Tehran to abandon any plans to produce nuclear weapons.

Still, there are plenty of questions swirling about the ultimate success of the strikes in dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities. And Trump, asked whether he would attack again if necessary, didn’t hesitate. 

“Without question,” he said. “Absolutely.”

 

 

Trump biggest warmonger, not peacekeeper

It’s been said that Donald Trump’s decision to join Israel’s war with Iran underscores his failures as a peacemaker. This is a preposterous statement because the idea of Trump being “a peacemaker and unifier” has always been nothing short of preposterous.

Yes, long before his ascendance to the White House, Trump had managed to paint him as a peacemaker, promising to end America’s “endless wars.” But most people in the United States of Amnesia seem to have forgotten that during his first four-year tenure in the White House Trump embarked on a dangerous path with a series of reckless foreign policy decisions that threatened peace and made the world a far more dangerous place.

Trump walked away from an Iran deal and withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty while US air wars became broader and “increasingly indiscriminate.”

Iraq, Somalia, and Syria were among the countries that Trump loosened the rules of engagement for US forces. Trump also ordered the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani and threatened “fire and fury” against North Korea.

In addition, Trump increased tensions between Israelis and Palestinians by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the US embassy there from Tel Aviv.

The president of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas said at the time that Trump’s decision undermined all peace efforts and called his actions “a crime,” while the political leader of the Hamas movement, Ismail Haniya, who was assassinated by the Israeli Mossad in Tehran on July 31, 2024, called for a new “intifada.”

Shortly upon assuming the Office of the President of the United States for the second time, Trump embarked on a jingoistic journey by threatening to take over Greenland (an idea he had floated back in 2019), make Canada the 51st state, reclaim the Panama Canal, and attack Mexico. And just as he had done during his first term in office, he withdrew the US from the landmark Paris climate agreement, even though the climate crisis is an existential one and is expected to increase the risk of armed conflict.

Trump’s war mania

According to Reuters, US President Donald Trump sharply criticized Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei, on Friday, dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran and said he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels.

Trump reacted sternly to Khamanei's first remarks after a 12-day conflict with Israel that ended when the United States launched bombing raids last weekend against Iranian nuclear sites.

Khamanei said Iran "slapped America in the face" by launching an attack against a major US base in Qatar following the US bombing raids. Khamanei also said Iran would never surrender.

Trump said he had spared Khamanei's life. US officials told Reuters on June 15 that Trump had vetoed an Israeli plan to kill the supreme leader.

"His Country was decimated, his three evil Nuclear Sites were OBLITERATED, and I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the US Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life," Trump said in a social media post.

"I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH," he said.

Iran said a potential nuclear deal was conditional on the US ending its "disrespectful tone" toward the Supreme Leader.

"If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt followers," Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in a post on X in the early hours of Saturday.

Trump also said that in recent days he had been working on the possible removal of sanctions on Iran to give it a chance for a speedy recovery. He said he had now abandoned that effort.

"I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief, and more," he said.

Trump said at a White House news conference that he did not rule out attacking Iran again, when asked about the possibility of new bombing of Iranian nuclear sites if deemed necessary at some point.

 

"Sure, without question, absolutely," he said.

Trump said he would like inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency - the UN nuclear watchdog - or another respected source to be able to inspect Iran's nuclear sites after they were bombed last weekend.

Trump has rejected any suggestion that damage to the sites was not as profound as he has said.

The IAEA chief, Rafael Grossi, said on Wednesday that ensuring the resumption of IAEA inspections was his top priority as none had taken place since Israel began bombing on June 13.

However, Iran's parliament approved moves on Wednesday to suspend such inspections. Araqchi indicated on Friday that Tehran may reject any request by the head of the agency for visits to Iranian nuclear sites.

 

SCO Defense Ministers Meet in China

Against the backdrop of intensifying global conflicts, defense ministers from the ten member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) convened this week in China’s eastern city of Qingdao, reaffirming their commitment to dialogue, multilateralism, and regional stability.

Hosted by Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun, the annual SCO Defense Ministers’ Meeting on June 26 emphasized strategic coordination in the face of growing international uncertainty—particularly as tensions escalate in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

During a bilateral meeting on June 25, Chinese Defense Minister Dong met with his Iranian counterpart Aziz Nasirzadeh, who is in China to attend the SCO gathering. Dong reaffirmed China’s support for Iran’s legitimate position and criticized unilateralism and hegemonic behavior, calling them major sources of global instability.  

“In a world undergoing profound changes, unilateralism, protectionism, and power politics are eroding the international order,” Dong said. “The defense departments of SCO member states must uphold founding principles of the SCO, deepen practical cooperation, and safeguard a peaceful environment for development.”  

In response, Minister Nasirzadeh thanked China for its understanding and support in the face of the recent aggression.  

“Iran has recently come under attack, and we are grateful for China’s just position. We hope China will continue to play a constructive role in preserving the ceasefire and easing regional tensions,” he said.

In a joint statement released on June 23, the SCO expressed serious concern over the recent escalation in the Middle East, strongly condemning the United States' military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which the organization said violated international law, the UN Charter, and the SCO Charter, particularly the principle of non-use of force in international relations.  

“The attack on Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity has seriously undermined regional and global peace and stability,” the statement read, calling for the crisis to be resolved through political and diplomatic means.  

The meeting also saw defense chiefs from India and Pakistan share the same table for the first time since a military flare-up in Kashmir last month.

Belarus and Iran, the SCO’s newest full members, participated in the event for the first time in this capacity—highlighting the organization’s growing breadth and influence.  

Dong welcomed all attendees with a call for greater defense coordination under the Global Security Initiative proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping, which promotes common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security.  

Xiao Bin, Deputy Secretary-General of the SCO Research Center at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, described the SCO as a rare example of a multilateral security platform that emphasizes non-alignment, non-confrontation, and consensus-based cooperation.  

“It plays a unique role in stabilizing the regional landscape, curbing destabilizing factors, and promoting peaceful dialogue in times of conflict,” Xiao said.

As the rotating chair, China has overseen a year of active defense diplomacy. According to Senior Colonel Zhang Xiaogang, spokesperson for China’s Ministry of National Defense, recent SCO events have helped build trust and amplify the organization’s collective voice on global security.  

“These meetings provided a vital platform for dialogue and consensus-building among all member states,” Zhang noted.  

The Qingdao meeting, held in a city symbolic for being where China first proposed the “SCO Community of Shared Destiny” in 2018, delivered a timely reminder of the group’s mission, to uphold peace, sovereignty, and shared development in an increasingly fragmented world.

As tensions mount across multiple regions, the SCO has emerged as a platform where strategic communication, mutual respect, and regional cooperation can still flourish.

 

 

Khamenei claims victory over Israel

According to media reports, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said his country emerged victorious over Israel and “delivered a slap to America’s face” on Thursday.

The speech in a video broadcast marked Khamenei's first public comments since a US-brokered ceasefire was declared between the two countries following 12 days of conflict.

He told viewers that Washington had only intervened in the fighting because “it felt that if it did not intervene, the Israeli regime would be utterly destroyed.”

Khamenei said “US has achieved no gains from this war."

“The Islamic Republic was victorious and, in retaliation, delivered a slap to America’s face,” he said, in apparent reference to an Iranian missile attack on a US base in Qatar on Monday, which resulted in all rockets neutralized and no casualties.

Khamenei has not been seen in public since reportedly taking shelter in a secret location after the outbreak of the conflict on June 13, when Israel struck multiple military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran.

Following a massive US bombing attack last Sunday that struck Iran's main nuclear facility, Fordow, with bunker-buster bombs, Washington and President Donald Trump negotiated a ceasefire that came into effect on Tuesday.

Khamenei did release a video message last Sunday at the height of the conflict, and state-run media outlets announced he would make an appearance in a video message to his compatriots on Thursday.

The ayatollah also congratulated Iran "on the victory" over Israel in a post on X.

Khamenei downplayed the impact of the US strike on three of the country's nuclear sites, suggesting they had "failed to achieve anything significant".

This directly contradicts Donald Trump's claims that the US had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear program when 125 military aircraft targeted the sites of Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.

Speaking at the Nato summit in the Netherlands on Wednesday, Trump rejected a Pentagon intelligence report that suggested the US had only set back Iran's program "by a few months".

Instead, Trump insisted that the nuclear sites in Iran were "completely destroyed" and accused the media of "an attempt to demean one of the most successful military strikes in history".

Standing alongside Trump at the Nato podium, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also dismissed the report, and argued that the evidence of what had been bombed "is buried under a mountain, devastated and obliterated".

And this was followed up by CIA director John Radcliffe, who later said there was "credible intelligence" Iran's nuclear program had been "severely damaged".

Iran's supreme leader said the US military action was never about nuclear issues or nuclear enrichment — but about "surrender".

Khamenei continued, saying that the Iranian people demonstrated their unity — sending a message "our people are one voice".

He said Trump called on Iran to "surrender", but his comments were “too big for the mouth of the president of the United States”.

"For a great country and nation like Iran, the very mention of surrender is an insult," Khamenei added.

He said Trump accidentally revealed a truth — that the Americans have been opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran from the very beginning.

He said Trump had made an “unusually exaggerated” account of what had taken place.

It was clear he needed to do it, said Khamenei, adding that anyone listening could tell the US were overstating things to distort the truth.

"We attacked one of the US’s key bases in the region, and here, they tried to downplay it," he said.

Khamenei's speech came a day after Iran’s parliament approved a bill to suspend cooperation with the UN’s nuclear watchdog, as politicians unanimously supported the move against the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), according to Iranian state media.

The bill, which states that the Supreme National Security Council must authorize any future IAEA inspection, will need to be approved by the unelected Guardian Council to become law.

“The International Atomic Energy Agency, which refused to even marginally condemn the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, put its international credibility up for auction,” Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said on state television.

“The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran will suspend its cooperation with the IAEA until the security of our nuclear facilities is guaranteed,” he added.

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei stated on Thursday morning that Tehran has a "right" to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

"Iran has the full right under Article 4 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and it is determined to uphold that right under any circumstances," Baghaei said.

The US "must be held accountable for the aggression it committed against Iran in collusion with Israel," he added, claiming that the bunker buster strikes "destroyed diplomacy".

China can continue to purchase Iranian oil

President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that China can continue to purchase Iranian oil after Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire, a move that the White House clarified did not indicate a relaxation of US sanctions, reports Reuters.

"China can now continue to purchase Oil from Iran. Hopefully, they will be purchasing plenty from the US, also," Trump said in a post on Truth Social, just days after he ordered US bombings of three Iranian nuclear sites.

Trump was drawing attention to no attempts by Iran so far to close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers, as a closure would have been hard for China, the world's top importer of Iranian oil, a senior White House official told Reuters.

"The president continues to call on China and all countries to import our state-of-the-art oil rather than import Iranian oil in violation of US sanctions," the official said.

After the ceasefire announcement, Trump's comments on China were another bearish signal for oil prices, which fell nearly 6%.

Any relaxation of sanctions enforcement on Iran would mark a US policy shift after Trump said in February he was re-imposing maximum pressure on Iran, aiming to drive its oil exports to zero, over its nuclear program and funding of militants across the Middle East.

Trump imposed waves of Iran-related sanctions on several of China's so-called independent "teapot" refineries and port terminal operators for purchases of Iranian oil.

"President Trump's green-light for China to keep buying Iranian oil reflects a return to lax enforcement standards," said Scott Modell, a former CIA officer, now CEO of Rapidan Energy Group.

In addition to not enforcing sanctions, Trump could suspend or waive sanctions imposed by executive order or under authorities a president is granted in laws passed by Congress.

Trump will likely not waive sanctions ahead of coming rounds of US-Iran nuclear talks, Modell said. The measures provide leverage given Tehran's demand that any deal includes lifting them permanently.

Jeremy Paner, a partner at Hughes Hubbard & Reed law firm, said if Trump chooses to suspend Iran oil-related sanctions, it would require lots of work between agencies.

 

Trump Blasts at Israel and Iran on Ceasefire Violations

What began as a high-profile diplomatic success is now unraveling, as US President Donald Trump openly criticized both Israel and Iran on Tuesday for violating the newly declared ceasefire. Speaking bluntly to the press, Trump said both countries have been fighting so long that “they don’t know what… they’re doing.”

The frustration comes after fresh violence erupted just hours into the ceasefire. Iran launched two missiles at northern Israel, prompting Defense Minister Israel Katz to authorize immediate retaliatory strikes on Tehran. In response, Trump expressed outrage over Israel’s rapid air assault, reportedly the most intense bombing campaign yet.

“I’m not happy with Israel,” Trump admitted. “You don’t go out in the first hour and drop everything you have on [them].” He added, “I gotta get Israel to calm down now,” before warning that the scale of the strikes exceeded anything previously witnessed.

While Trump insisted he was equally unhappy with Iran, his focus was on halting Israel’s response. He announced plans to travel to Israel to personally intervene and prevent the conflict from reigniting. “I’m gonna see if I can stop it,” he told reporters.

On social media, Trump doubled down, writing: “Israel is not going to attack Iran. All planes will turn around and head home, while doing a friendly 'Plane Wave' to Iran. Nobody will be hurt, the Ceasefire is in effect.”

Despite his demands, Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly held firm during a phone call with Trump, insisting that a retaliatory strike was still “necessary.”

Ultimately, Israeli officials agreed to scale back their response to a single target in Tehran a compromise that maintains deterrence while keeping diplomatic lines open.

Trump’s remarks come at a critical juncture. With the ceasefire already showing signs of collapse, and international attention focused on Jerusalem and Tehran, Israel continues to act within its right to defend itself while weighing the diplomatic costs of continued escalation.

 

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states strongly condemn Iranian attack on Qatar

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states strongly condemned the aggression launched by Iran against the State of Qatar, reports Saudi Gazette.

"Saudi Arabia views this act as a flagrant violation of international law and the principles of good neighborliness," the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement, while asserting that it is unacceptable and cannot be justified under any circumstances.

Saudi Arabia affirmed its solidarity and full support for Qatar, stating that it is deploying all its capabilities to support Qatar in all measures it deems necessary, according to the statement carried by the Saudi Press Agency.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) strongly condemned the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s targeting of Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, describing the act as a blatant violation of Qatar’s sovereignty and airspace, as well as a clear breach of international law and the United Nations Charter.

The UAE reaffirmed its unequivocal rejection of any aggression that endangers Qatar’s security and undermines regional stability, according to a statement issued by the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The ministry expressed the UAE’s full solidarity with Qatar and its unwavering support for all measures aimed at safeguarding the safety and security of its citizens and residents. The ministry also emphasized the urgent need to de-escalate militarily, warning that continued provocative actions risk destabilizing regional security and could lead the region down a dangerous path with potentially catastrophic consequences for international peace and stability.

Oman’s Foreign Ministry has condemned the ongoing regional escalation in the region, which was caused by Israel with the attack on Iran on June 13 and the continuous exchange of missile attacks since then, including the recent Iranian missile attack on sovereign sites in Qatar.

The Sultanate of Oman has condemned the act that violates the sovereignty of a member state of the Gulf Cooperation Council, contradicts the policy of good neighborliness, and threatens to expand the scope of the conflict, which has no benefit except more damage and destruction and undermines the foundations of security, stability, and the safety of the peoples of the region.

The foreign ministry spokesman expressed Oman's solidarity with the State of Qatar and the measures it is taking to preserve its security and stability. The spokesman also called for an immediate cessation of all military and missile operations, the adoption of wisdom in resorting to peaceful negotiations, and adherence to international law in addressing the causes of the conflict and achieving a just settlement through legitimate means.

Bahrain strongly condemned the attack carried out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps targeting the sovereignty of the State of Qatar and considered it a blatant violation of Qatar’s sovereignty and airspace, as well as a breach of international law and the Charter of the United Nations.

In an official statement, Bahrain affirmed its full support and solidarity with Qatar following the Iranian attack on Qatari territory. Bahrain expressed its unwavering support of Qatar, emphasizing that this solidarity stems from the deep-rooted bonds among the GCC states. The Kingdom underscored the importance of collective unity during this critical period, calling for concerted efforts to exercise restraint, avoid escalation, and resolve disputes through peaceful means.

Kuwait strongly condemned Iran’s missile attack on Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the foreign ministry said in a statement on Monday, calling the strike a “flagrant violation of Qatar’s sovereignty and airspace.” The attack represents a violation of international law and UN Charter, and poses a major threat to regional peace, security and stability, the ministry said.

Kuwait stands fully with Qatar and fully supports all measures it may take in order to protect its sovereignty, security and stability, including its right to retaliate in the way it deems fit, the ministry said, reiterating Kuwait’s readiness to provide all capabilities in helping Qatar.

GCC Secretary General Jassim Albudaiwi condemned in the strongest terms the missile attack launched by Iran against Qatar. "This attack constitutes a flagrant violation of the sovereignty of Qatar and a direct threat to the security of all GCC states," he said while reiterating that the security of the GCC states is indivisible, and that the council stands united with the State of Qatar in confronting any threat to its security and territorial integrity.

"While the State of Qatar and the GCC states strongly condemn the Israeli attacks on Iranian territory and are making every effort to achieve a ceasefire and mediation, they are surprised by this Iranian missile attack, which constitutes a violation of all international and UN norms, treaties, and laws," Albudaiwi said while calling on the international community and the UN Security Council to shoulder their responsibilities in condemning this aggressive act.

He also urged to take effective steps to deter Iran's irresponsible actions, as well as to work to restore stability and prevent further escalation in the region, and adopt dialogue and diplomacy to preserve the security of the region and the peace of its people.

"We cannot let history repeat itself", Sanders

Senator Bernie Sanders on Sunday drew similarities between the US air strikes on Iran this weekend and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He said, “We cannot let history repeat itself” reports CNN.

Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, told the Texas crowd, “Brothers and sisters, we cannot let history repeat itself. The United States faces enormous problems here at home. We should be spending our money and our manpower rebuilding America, not going into a war against Iran.”

The progressive Vermont senator, speaking at a town hall in Fort Worth as part of his “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, highlighted how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Donald Trump used similar language around the strikes on Iran to what Netanyahu and then-President George Bush said surrounding the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Sanders quoted a Netanyahu congressional testimony from 2002, in which the Israeli leader said, “There is no question that Saddam Hussein is seeking nuclear weapons.”

Sanders then emphasized how “George Bush said, ‘Saddam’s regime is seeking a nuclear bomb,’ and he argued for a preemptive attack,” referencing an analogy by the then-president that the United States could not afford to wait for “the smoking gun which could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

“No weapons of mass destruction were ever found,” Sanders continued. “That war was based on a lie. A lie that cost US 4,500 young Americans, 32,000 wounded and trillions of dollars.”

Bush in 2003 announced the invasion of Iraq under the pretext of disarming it from weapons of mass destruction, a claim that was later debunked.

Netanyahu and Trump have both cited the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program, with the US president saying Saturday from the White House, “Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s No. 1 state sponsor of terror.”

Regime change could make Iran more confrontational

Dina Esfandiary, the Middle East lead for Bloomberg Geoeconomics, outlined in an analysis this week, why regime change (were it to occur) could lead to a more confrontational Iran. Her replies were written before President Donald Trump launched airstrikes on Iran. Still, her replies are worth reading for the readers of this blog. 

How likely is regime change in Iran at this point, and what would that entail?

Regime change won’t come at the hands of Israel’s bombs. When an external enemy attacks, there tends to be a strong rally-around-the-flag effect in Iran, not unlike other countries. This means that whatever discontent Iranians feel — and that discontent has been rising — gets pushed aside momentarily so the country can unite in the face of an external enemy. For as long as these strikes continue, and the more images of death and destruction get shared, the stronger this sentiment gets. And this is exactly what Iran’s leadership wants, because it buys them some time and breathing space. 

You’ve written that the removal of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could lead to an even more confrontational Iran, why is that?

The Islamic Republic is no monolith. There are reformists, pragmatists and hardliners within the elites. There is also a rising cadre of young, more ideological elements within the system who believe that the Islamic Republic has lost its way, and call for a return to the tenants of the 1979 revolution. The system has been preparing for the Supreme Leader’s succession for several years now, with each faction within the political system jostling to get their preferred candidate in the winning seat. There is a chance that this young ideological cohort of officials are able to get someone in that represents their views, or that the Revolutionary Guards, who are traditionally more hardline on Iran’s foreign policy, are able to get someone in. That might make Iran more confrontational. 

If we did see regime change in Iran, what would you be watching next? Who gains, who loses, and how might markets respond?  

It’s really difficult to tell what will come next because there is no viable, organized opposition in Iran right now. There are a few figures outside the country, but they are divisive and unlikely to get much support inside the country. This means that the field will be open to those who are stronger inside. The vision of the next leader, along with what relationships that person has, inside and outside the country, will tell us a great deal about what direction they hope to take the country in. Will they be open to bringing Iran out of isolation or will they double down and harden Iran’s stance internationally? Markets are likely to panic at first, especially if the person is unknown.

Iranian missiles hit Israeli port city

According to CNN, nearly two dozen people were wounded in parts of Israel on Friday after Iran unleashed a fresh barrage of missiles. Foreign ministers from the Britain, France, and Germany met their Iranian counterpart in Geneva on Friday.

The talks come as US President Donald Trump says he will decide within two weeks whether to join Israel’s ongoing military campaign against Iran, amid reports that Washington is actively considering intervention.

Iran said the latest attack targeted “military objectives, defense industries, and command centers” in Israel, a spokesperson for the country’s Revolutionary Guard said.

Haifa's mayor stressed need for peace after the Iranian missile barrage on Friday.

The “name of the game is peace,” Yona Yahav, mayor of the northern Israeli city, told CNN. He said the two-week deadline set by President Donald Trump to decide on whether the US will join Israel’s military action on Iran is too long.

Speaking to CNN’s Nic Robertson from the city in the aftermath of a fresh Iranian missile barrage, Mayor Yona Yahav confirmed that no one had been killed in the attack.

According to Israeli emergency services, a total of 21 people were injured in Haifa during the attacks, including three with severe injuries.

Yahav also said “I don’t like wars,” after having personally experienced 10 of them, adding that the “name of the game is peace.”

He said his culturally mixed city has been a mostly peaceful home to both Jews and Arabs for over 100 years.

When asked about the talks that are being held in Geneva between Iran and European countries, Yahav said he hoped that a peace treaty would be the ultimate end result.

The mayor said that the two-week deadline President Trump had given to decide US actions on Iran was “too much,” as he said it is difficult for residents to live while wrapped up in war.

“A fixed answer I can’t get from Trump, and this bothers me,” he said.

“Because I like stability, and I think that he has to give me this stability.”

Western media paving way for Israel to act against Iran

In the wake of Iran’s missile response on Israeli military centers, a wave of media and diplomatic reactions has started in the West and Israel seeking to pave the way for intensifying strikes and engineering a global consensus against Tehran through resorting to playing blame game and highlighting civilian casualties. 

The propaganda, supported by the Zionist security and media as well as Western mainstream, aims to provide the audience with a biased narration of the recent developments, introducing the Islamic Republic as the country that creates crisis and threat, not a nation giving a natural defensive response to the aggression.

In this regard, Western media such as CNN, BBC, and FOX News try to depict an emotional and dramatic image of attack on Soroka Medical Center, while, Iran targeted military and security positions and has not confirmed any reports on damage against medical centers.

Similarly, Israeli media has initiated a propaganda campaign regarding the medical center to take advantage of the incident, turning it into the symbol of Iran’s crimes in a bid to prepare ground for the international arena to pile more pressure on Iran.

What is important about this campaign is that it excludes Israel’s aggression on the Gaza Strip, aggression on Syria, assassination of the Iranian scientists, and continued violation of regional countries’ sovereignties. 

It presents a biased narration to the global audience, drawing attention to the emotional and biased consequences of Iran’s response, not explaining the reasons for the natural reaction.

What is taking place is a multi-layered project to play the blame game, manage public opinion in the world, and pave the way for exerting further political, security, and military pressure on Iran. 

To react effectively against this media hype, it is necessary for pro-Resistance media and independent elites to correct this narration, clarifying the defensive and deterrence nature of this response since it is regarded as legitimate and essential for nations to effectively respond to continued acts of aggression.

Who has killed more civilians? Israel or Iran

The killing of civilians in conflicts involving Israel and Iran is a deeply complex and politically charged issue. A cursory look show the following:

Israel:

The recent killing in Gaza and earlier conflicts show a high number of civilian casualties caused by Israeli military actions. In the ongoing Gaza conflict – post October 07, 2023, thousands of Palestinian civilians, including women and children, have been killed due to Israeli airstrikes and ground operations.

UN, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other observers have accused Israel of disproportionate use of force and potential war crimes.

However, Israel claims it targets militants and Hamas infrastructure, and blames Hamas for operating among civilians.

Iran:

Iran has been involved indirectly in several regional conflicts through proxy groups like: Hezbollah (Lebanon), Houthis (Yemen) and Shiite militias (Iraq, Syria). These groups have been accused of launching rockets or attacks that have killed civilians in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

Iran’s direct role in killing civilians is less visible, but its support of armed groups has fueled violence that resulted in civilian deaths.

Media reports suggest Houthi attacks on Saudi airports and civilian targets; Hezbollah rockets into Israeli towns; Syrian regime backed by Iran targeting civilian areas.

It may be concluded that Israel is directly responsible for a large number of Palestinian civilian deaths, particularly in Gaza.

Iran is indirectly responsible through its proxies, contributing to civilian casualties across the region.

Both Israel and Iran (often through proxies) have been responsible for civilian deaths, but Israel's military actions tend to cause more immediate, large-scale casualties, especially in Gaza. Iran’s impact is more indirect, spread across multiple countries and conflicts.

As regards the most recent conflict between Israel and Iran, which has escalated sharply in mid‑June 2025, following are the observations:

Recent Israeli airstrikes on Iran

As part of a large-scale bombing campaign targeting nuclear and military sites—including Arak, Natanz, Isfahan, and Tehran—Israel launched over hundreds of airstrikes on Iran beginning around June 13, 2025.

According to Iranian human rights monitors, less than 650 people have been killed, of whom around 260 are civilians.

Official Iranian health authorities report 224 civilian deaths, with over 90% of casualties in hospitals being women and children.

Independent sources estimate fatalities ranging from 400 to 650, with up to 260 civilian deaths.

Iranian retaliatory strikes on Israel

Iran has fired approximately 450–650 ballistic missiles and drones at Israeli territory. These strikes have resulted in at least 220 to 240 deaths in Israel, including around 24 civilian casualties.

Israeli strikes on Iran are currently responsible for significantly more civilian deaths—estimates far exceed 200—while Iran’s retaliatory attacks have caused dozens of civilian fatalities in Israel.

It is a fact that civilians in both the countries have been killed.

The largest civilian toll is currently in Iran, due to Israel’s ongoing air campaign.

In Israel, Iranian missiles and drones have also killed civilians, though on a much smaller scale.

 

 

 

Israeli attacks on Iran, what it gained or lost?

No one could believe that the United States or Israel launch attacks on Iran in the middle of a diplomatic process. The sixth round of indirect nuclear talks with the US was scheduled later in the week. There were expectations a breakthrough was possible this time.

US President Donald Trump had urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avoid attacking Iran. Even if Trump is "crazy," many analysts argued, he seemed capable of clear thinking when it came to West Asia, understanding that another war in the region - especially one that involves Iran - would benefit no one.

However, Trump turned out to be just as crazy and ignorant as people knew he was. He provided Israel with logistics and intelligence needed to strike residential buildings, nuclear facilities, and military sites across Iran while a meeting was scheduled in Oman.

Why did Israel attack Iran?  

Netanyahu claims the attacks aimed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons a justification few accept, even those minimally informed about Iran s nuclear program.  

The IAEA and Western intelligence agencies have confirmed time and time again that despite nuclear advancements, Iran has neither pursued nuclear weapons nor demonstrated political will to do so. If Iran develops such weapons in the future, it will likely be a direct result of Israel s brazen aggression, making them feel such arms are necessary.

Israeli attacks on the Natanz and Fordow nuclear facilities failed to cause significant damage. As per Iran's nuclear chief's latest announcement, both sites are currently operating normally. This did not come as a surprise, as the whole world had known for a while that the main part of Iran's nuclear facilities are placed deep under the ground, and that it is impossible to destroy them with conventional weapons.. 

To understand why Iran was attacked, we must first examine the Israeli offensive.  

Israeli operation against Iran comprised of three elements: 1) assassinating military leaders, 2) attacking nuclear sites, and 3) terrorizing civilians.  

Israel believed its offensive would result in three things: 1) The assassination of top Iranian commanders would delay or prevent retaliation, 2) All or a significant number of Iran's missile launchers, depots, and military sites would be destroyed through Friday's campaign, and 3) Killing of Iranian civilians and striking the heart of Tehran would pit the people against the government and spur an uprising

All assumptions proved false. While the loss of five of its top military leaders did deal a blow to Iran, it did not cripple the Iranian Armed Forces. Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei took only a couple of hours to replace the assasinated generals. 

While analysts don't know how much damage Israel has managed to inflict on Iran's military assets, it is clear that a large part of the country's defensive and offensive calibilties are still in tact. 

Since the conflict began, Iran has launched multiple waves of missile strikes against the occupied territories, hitting critical targets like the Haifa oil refinery, the Mossad and Aman headquarters, military bases, and nuclear research centers. The Iranian Armed Forces claim they have enough missiles to hit Israeli targets every day for two years.  

Another Israeli prediction that proved false was that given the various financial and societal issues gripping Iran in recent years, the people would choose to topple the government in order to "save" their lives.

Netanyahu issued a message to the Iranian people, and later did an interview with a US-based Persian speaking channel to tell them he was only at war with the government, and that he wanted to bring Iranians freedom and prosperity.

The Israeli aggression only made Iranians more united and even prompted well-known individuals with a long history of anti-goverment activisim to rally behind Ayatollah Khamenei.

What Israel gained or lost? 

Netanyahu managed to gain a temporary period of Euphoria. Settlers in the occupied territories are accustomed to waging war not facing existential threats. For the first time in Israel s history, its citizens fear for their lives. Iranian missiles strike at will, a reality Israelis recently confronted. As Hebrew media reports, residents barred by authorities from fleeing now pay smugglers to transport them by boat to Cyprus.

Journalists say they are appalled at what's happening, military analysts say Israel's interceptors, which have so far only downed older Iranian missiles designed to preoccupy air defense systems, will be out soon.

Netanyahu and Trump essentialy entered a war they can not finish. It appears Israel failed in estimating Iranian capabilities. They may have to sit back and watch how Iran writes the ending to their story.

 

Trump calls unconditional surrender by Iran

Iran and Israel launched new missile strikes at each other on Wednesday as the air war between the two longtime enemies entered a sixth day despite a call from US President Donald Trump for Tehran's unconditional surrender, reports Reuters.

The Israeli military said two barrages of Iranian missiles were launched toward Israel in the first two hours of Wednesday morning. Explosions were heard over Tel Aviv.

Israel told residents in a southwestern area of Tehran to evacuate so its air force could strike Iranian military installations. Iranian news websites said Israel was attacking a university linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guards in the east of the capital.

Iranian news websites said Israel was also attacking a university linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guards in the country's east, and the Khojir ballistic missile facility near Tehran, which was also targeted by Israeli airstrikes last October.

The US Office of the Director of National Intelligence says Iran is armed with the largest number of ballistic missiles in the Middle East. Iran has said its ballistic missiles are an important deterrent and retaliatory force against the US, Israel and other potential regional targets.

Trump warned on social media on Tuesday that US patience was wearing thin. While he said there was no intention to kill Iran's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei "for now," his comments suggested a more aggressive stance toward Iran as he weighs whether to deepen US involvement.

"We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding," he wrote on Truth Social. "We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now ... Our patience is wearing thin."

Three minutes later Trump posted, "Unconditional Surrender!"

Trump's contradictory and cryptic messaging about the conflict between close US ally Israel and longtime foe Iran has deepened the uncertainty surrounding the crisis. His public comments have ranged from military threats to diplomatic overtures, not uncommon for a president known for an often erratic approach to foreign policy.

A source familiar with internal discussions said Trump and his team are considering a number of options, including joining Israel on strikes against Iranian nuclear sites.

A White House official said Trump spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by phone on Tuesday.

Trump also met for 90 minutes with his National Security Council on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the conflict, a White House official said. Details were not immediately available.

The US is deploying more fighter aircraft to the Middle East and extending the deployment of other warplanes. The US has so far only taken indirect actions in the current conflict with Iran, including helping to shoot down missiles fired toward Israel.

A source with access to US intelligence reports said Iran has moved some ballistic missile launchers, but it is difficult to determine if they were targeting US forces or Israel.

 

 

 

 

Trump joins Israel in erasing Iranian nuclear facilities

US President Donald Trump said he wanted a "real end" to the nuclear dispute with Iran. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said meanwhile that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could face the same fate as Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who was toppled in a US-led invasion and eventually hanged after a trial, reports Reuters.

"I warn the Iranian dictator against continuing to commit war crimes and fire missiles at Israeli citizens," Katz told top Israeli military officials.

Speaking to reporters after his early departure from Canada, where he attended the Group of Seven nations summit on Monday, Trump predicted that Israel would not be easing its attacks on Iran.

Trump said his departure from the G7 summit had "nothing to do with" working on a deal between Israel and Iran, after French President Emmanuel Macron said the U.S. had initiated a ceasefire proposal.

Khamenei has seen his main military and security advisers killed by Israeli air strikes, leaving major holes in his inner circle and raising the risk of strategic errors.

Israel's military said Iran's military leadership is "on the run" and that it had killed Iran's wartime chief of staff Ali Shadmani overnight four days into his job after replacing another top commander killed in the strikes.