How the Israel-Iran standoff took a turn and what's next after a pivotal 24 hours
The past 24 hours have been pivotal in the Israel-Iran conflict, with the U.S. entering the war — a move that has left investors and world leaders on edge.
On Saturday night, American B-2 Spirit stealth bombers and submarines struck three of Iran's most critical nuclear sites: Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan.
The strikes represented the first direct action that the U.S. had taken against Iran since the country was hit by Israeli attacks earlier in June.
Israel and Iran had been trading strikes since Israel preemptively attacked it on June 13, killing key Iranian military figures and nuclear scientists.
Since then, the world has seen reactions from around the globe over the strikes, including from Iran itself, which has called the strikes "outrageous" and vowed "everlasting consequences". Iran's parliament has also voted to close the critical Strait of Hormuz, endangering energy supplies.
Here's a roundup of the events since the U.S. attacks happened, and what could happen next.
At 7.50 p.m. Eastern Time, U.S. President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that the U.S. had conducted a "very successful attack" on the three nuclear sites, and said "NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!".
About an hour later, a U.S. official told Reuters that B-2 Spirits were involved in the bombings. These bombers are believed to be the only planes which have the capability to deliver the weapons powerful enough to penetrate the underground facility at Fordo. The International Atomic Energy Agency later confirmed that all three sites were hit. Following the strikes, world leaders reactions poured in, among which was Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu who thanked Trump for the strikes, calling it a "bold decision."
The IAEA released two updates after the strike, saying that Director General Rafael Grossi would call an emergency meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors to discuss the decision. The agency said it was also informed by Iranian regulatory authorities that there has been no increase in off-site radiation levels after the attacks.
The UN Security Council also met on Sunday to discuss the attack, as Russia, China and Pakistan proposed that the UNSC adopt a resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the Middle East.
China strongly condemned the U.S. attack on Iran and on nuclear facilities supervised by the IAEA, China's U.N. Ambassador Fu Cong said at a UNSC meeting on Sunday.
While U.S. officials, including U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that the attacks were not meant to enact regime change in the Islamic Republic, Trump himself raised the possibility of that happening.
The U.S. president posted on Truth Social that "It's not politically correct to use the term, "Regime Change," but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!"
Oil prices jumped more than 2% on Sunday evening, and continued to rise to just under $80 per barrel for Brent crude, and just under $75 for West Texas Intermediate crude.
The rise comes after Iran's parliament backed closing the critical Strait of Hormuz, where about 20% of the world's oil transits. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has described it as the "world's most important oil transit chokepoint."
However, the final decision to close the Strait lies with Iran's national security council, according to the report.
The Strait currently remains open, but analysts have told CNBC that oil prices could test $100 a barrel if Iran closes the Strait and Western forces try to reopen it by force.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday had also called for China to prevent Iran from closing the Strait.
China is Iran's largest oil customer, accounting for the bulk of Iranian oil exports, and maintains friendly relations with the country.
The world now waits for Iran's response, after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in a statement on X that his nation "reserves all options" in responding to the attack.
"The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences," Araghchi said.
Iranian deputy foreign minister Majid Takht Ravanchi told German media that the country will continue its uranium enrichment program, and that "no one can tell us what to do", according to Reuters citing Iranian media Tasnim News.
Shane Oliver, chief economist and head of investment strategy at Australian bank AMP, said in a Monday note that if Iran only undertakes "a few token moves" and "surrenders unconditionally" as Trump demands, "then oil prices will quickly settle down and shares will rally."Oliver noted that this was basically what happened when the U.S. led-coalition entered the first and second Gulf Wars.
However, if Iran undertakes actions such as hitting U.S. bases in the region, the U.S. is likely to retaliate and this would keep markets on edge, he added.
Vandana Hari, founder of energy intelligence firm Vanda Insights, told CNBC's "Squawk Box Asia" on Monday that the risk of closure remains "absolutely minimalistic."
This is because if Iran follows through, it runs the risk of alienating its neighboring oil-producing countries and customers, including China, which accounts for the majority of Iranian oil exports, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
There is "so very, very little to be achieved, and a lot of self-inflicted harm that Iran could do" if it closed the Strait, Hari said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russia's former president says countries are lining up to give Iran their nukes. Analysts are calling his bluff.
A top Putin aide and Russia's former president slammed the US for its strikes on Iran's nuclear site. Among other claims, Dmitry Medvedev said other countries are ready to give their nukes to Iran. Nuclear analysts told BI that Medvedev's claim is logistically and politically ridiculous. Analysts are casting doubt on Russia's former president's claim that "a number of countries" were considering supplying nuclear warheads to Iran after the Pentagon's salvo of bunker-buster strikes there. Dmitry Medvedev, who was president from 2008 to 2012 and is a top aide to Russian leader Vladimir Putin, didn't specify which countries he was referring to in his Telegram post on Sunday. In his post, he downplayed the damage dealt to Iran's vital nuclear sites. As news of the strikes broke on Saturday, the Pentagon was careful to say that it was still assessing the destruction caused by the 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs and multiple Tomahawk missiles it fired at Iran's nuclear sites. Medvedev wrote that the strikes had "entangled" the US in a new conflict. "A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads," he added. Nuclear weapons analysts speaking to Business Insider said they doubted that Medvedev's statement on such transfers is credible. "It's impossible in practice because nuclear weapons are not like a bomb or just something you can carry in a suitcase," said Pavel Podvig, a senior researcher in the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research's weapons of mass destruction program. Nuclear warheads come as an entire system, with people who need to be trained to keep and service them safely, as well as maintenance facilities and equipment. Even tactical nukes, which are more portable and produce a smaller blast, need high-level storage, Podvig added. "Unless you create a nuclear program or almost a nuclear program in the country, there is no way to just give your nuclear weapons to them," he said. Simply giving such a warhead to another country would break the first article of the UN's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Russia and China have signed. Podvig said that in Europe, where the US stations nuclear weapons, the warheads are in American custody. The same can be said of Russia's nuclear weapons in Belarus. "I don't see this being done technically," Podvig said. Politically, Medvedev could likely only be referring to three countries, said Adam Lowther, a cofounder and the vice president of research at the Ohio-registered think tank National Institute for Deterrence Studies. North Korea, China, and Russia are the only nuclear-armed states considered adversaries or rivals to the US. And Lowther said all three know that supplying Iran with nuclear weapons, even just as a deterrent, would risk intense escalation from the US and Israel. "When you give somebody a nuclear weapon, and they can use it, you can't guarantee how they're going to use it," Lowther said. He added that with Tel Aviv and Washington so focused on preventing Iran from fielding nuclear weapons, Tehran would likely only have two choices if it does receive a warhead: Use the bomb or lose it. And if Iran detonates a gifted nuke, Lowther added, American forensics would easily be able to trace the fissile material and bomb design to identify where the weapon originated. "Then that country would be on the US' hit list," Lowther said. Medvedev is known to make bold, hawkish statements toward Ukraine and the US since the outset of the full-scale Russian invasion. He serves as the deputy chairman — second in rank to Putin — of the Kremlin's security council. His rhetoric has often run parallel to the Kremlin's nuclear threats, repeatedly issued as warnings to the West over military aid to Ukraine. Moscow, however, has consistently not followed through with those threats, even when the US escalated its level of assistance to Kyiv. Lowther said he believes Medvedev's statement was a play against Ukraine, a bid to reduce the West's willingness to help Kyiv. "The Russians say: 'You know what? You give the Ukrainians these weapons? Well, we can give the Iranians weapons as well,'" he said. The Israel Defense Forces declined to comment on Medvedev's remarks. The White House and US State Department did not respond to requests for comment sent outside regular business hours by BI. Read the original article on Business Insider
San Francisco Chronicle
11 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communique — a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs — would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance like Belgium, Canada, France and Italy that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars. On Friday, Trump insisted the U.S. has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada 'a low payer.' NATO's new spending goals The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2%, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5% would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks and preparing societies for future conflict. The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5% on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender. Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros ($920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022. Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election. Why the spending increase is needed There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3%, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned 'capability targets' to play its part. Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that 'the debate must be not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain 'can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1%.' Countries much closer to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Setting a deadline It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2% target that they agreed in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years. The U.S. insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said. ___ Suman Naishadham in Madrid contributed to this report.
Washington Post
14 minutes ago
- Washington Post
NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target , while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies.
