Iranian missile strikes Israel's 'crown jewel of science'
Iranian scientists were a prime target in a long shadow war
During years of a shadow war between Israel and Iran that preceded the current conflict, Israel repeatedly targeted Iranian nuclear scientists with the aim of setting back Iran's nuclear program.
Israel continued that tactic with its initial blow against Iran days ago, killing multiple nuclear scientists, along with top generals, as well as striking nuclear facilities and ballistic missile infrastructure.
For its part, Iran has been accused of targeting at least one Weizmann scientist before. Last year, Israeli authorities said they busted an Iranian spy ring that devised a plot to follow and assassinate an Israeli nuclear scientist who worked and lived at the institute.
Citing an indictment, Israeli media said the suspects, Palestinians from east Jerusalem, gathered information about the scientist and photographed the exterior of the Weizmann Institute but were arrested before they could proceed.
With Iran's intelligence penetration into Israel far less successful than Israel's, those plots have not been seen through, making this week's strike on Weizmann that much more jarring.
'The Weizmann Institute has been in Iran's sights,' said Yoel Guzansky, an Iran expert and senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies, a Tel Aviv think tank. He stressed that he did not know for certain whether Iran intended to strike the institute but believed it did.
While it is a multidisciplinary research institute, Weizmann, like other Israeli universities, has ties to Israel's defense establishment, including collaborations with industry leaders like Elbit Systems, which is why it may have been targeted.
But Guzansky said the institute primarily symbolizes 'Israeli scientific progress' and the strike against it shows Iran's thinking: 'You harm our scientists, so we are also harming (your) scientific cadre.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
33 minutes ago
- NDTV
What Is 'Doomsday Plane' Spotted In US Skies Amid Iran-Israel Conflict
New Delhi: As tensions continue to flare between Israel and Iran, and Washington ponders over potential military action against the Islamic Republic, one of the US' most secretive aircraft quietly entered the skies above the US capital. On the night of June 17, the E-4B Nightwatch — a hardened airborne command centre built to keep America's top defence and security officials operational during a nuclear crisis — made a flight to Joint Base Andrews. Known as the 'doomsday plane,' the aircraft was spotted by flight trackers taking an unusually circuitous route to Washington, triggering speculation about its timing and purpose. What is the E-4B Nightwatch? The E-4B Nightwatch is a militarised version of the Boeing 747-200. It was repurposed by the US military into a flying war room. It is formally known as the National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) and is designed to function as a mobile command post during a nuclear conflict or national catastrophe. When ground-based communication or leadership infrastructure is compromised, the E-4B helps top American officials to continue coordinating operations from the sky. It functions as an airborne command centre, enabling the President, Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff to maintain command, control and communication capabilities during times of national emergency. Why is it called the 'doomsday plane'? The aircraft is built to withstand nuclear blasts, electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) and other extreme disruptions. It is often described as the 'flying Pentagon' because of its ability to operate as a command-and-control centre even in the event of full-scale war. The E-4B has an unrefuelled endurance of 12 hours, but with mid-air refuelling, it is known to have remained airborne for as long as 35.4 hours, according to a report in The New York Post. Is its recent flight a cause of concern? E-4B flights are not uncommon. They are conducted regularly to maintain operational readiness — this particular sortie stood out. As per data from flight tracking site FlightRadar, the aircraft departed Bossier City, Louisiana, shortly before 6 pm, local time, on June 17 and touched down in Maryland around 10 pm, The New York Times reported. What drew attention was the flight path, which curved along the eastern coastline and looped over Virginia and North Carolina before heading to Maryland. Even more unusual was the callsign — instead of the routine ORDER6, the aircraft used ORDER01. E-4B flight amid geopolitical tensions? The flight coincided with an escalation in the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict. US President Donald Trump has demanded Iran's 'unconditional surrender' as the conflict continues to escalate, according to AP. Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a warning to the US, threatening 'irreparable damage' if it directly intervened. FlightRadar data showed two Iranian government aircraft departed the country's airspace on Wednesday for Oman. It fuelled speculation that Iranian officials might be evacuating amid rising tensions, or that urgent diplomatic talks were being arranged in Muscat, Oman's capital, reported The New York Post. How many E-4B aircraft are there? The United States Air Force operates four E-4Bs, all as part of the 1st Airborne Command and Control Squadron. At any given time, at least one aircraft is on high alert and ready for immediate deployment.
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
Israel-Iran Conflict: How another Middle East War is ripping MAGA apart - will Trump coalition survive?
As war clouds gather over Tehran, the 'America First' coalition fractures—from Carlson's outrage to Cruz's crusade, with Vice President JD Vance echoing the commander-in-chief's every word. The MAGA Movement Promised No More Wars—Now It's on the Brink of One Donald Trump didn't just win the 2024 election—he crushed it with a promise to rebuild America without stumbling into another foreign disaster. 'No more stupid wars' became doctrine. His base connected with this pledge, proud that he hadn't launched any new wars. But now, deep into 2025, that legacy is under pressure. In June, Israel struck Iran's nuclear facilities—and Trump responded by warning Iran's leaders to surrender 'unconditionally,' advising Tehran's civilians to evacuate, and boasting that the U.S. had 'total control of the skies.' The MAGA movement—defined by its distrust of foreign entanglements—is experiencing an identity crisis. The coalition that brought Trump back to power is now split, torn between instincts that fueled his rise. The Anti-War Wing: Carlson, Bannon, Greene, Gaetz—and the MAGA Grassroots Tucker Carlson: MAGA's Foreign Policy Firewall Carlson has emerged as the vocal anti-war leader within MAGA circles. He warned that war with Iran could end Trump's presidency. During a dramatic on-camera exchange with Senator Ted Cruz, he challenged his hawkish views by questioning basic facts about Iran—its population, its sectarian landscape—and called out what he sees as dangerous ignorance dressed up as resolve. To Carlson, this is Iraq 2.0. And allowing MAGA to shift toward intervention is nothing short of a betrayal. Tucker and Ted Cruz Get Into Heated Debate on AIPAC and Foreign Influence Steve Bannon: The Loyal Dissenter Bannon warned that a war with Iran could destroy the MAGA coalition. Yet he tempered the warning with neutrality, noting that even dissenting voices would ultimately fall in line behind Trump. His message: the base doesn't want war, but Trump remains the centre of gravity. Marjorie Taylor Greene: Culture Warrior, Peace Advocate Greene has remained firm in her opposition to escalation. She's made it clear that another conflict in the Middle East would betray the MAGA movement's core promise: to put America first—at home, not in yet another desert war. Matt Gaetz: The Populist Sceptic Gaetz has voiced deep scepticism over renewed interventionism, warning that MAGA should not fall for recycled Bush-era framing. He's dismissed hawkish rhetoric and cautioned that any move toward war must have a clearly defined exit strategy and real American interests at stake. His message is clear: military might is not a substitute for strategic clarity. The War Caucus: Cruz, Rubio, Levin, Hannity—Old Doctrine, New Labels Ted Cruz: Confident, But Clueless? Cruz maintained a hawkish stance in public appearances, even as he fumbled through basic facts about Iran. He's called Iran a threat and said the U.S. must act if necessary. His slip—confusing Israeli actions with American ones—highlighted the extent to which some MAGA hawks are ready for conflict, regardless of the details. Marco Rubio: From Miami to Mossad Now serving as Secretary of State, Rubio has become the administration's leading voice for a hardline Iran policy. He insists that Iran must be denied not just weapons, but even enrichment capacity. His doctrine is simple: Iran cannot even come close to the nuclear threshold. Mark Levin and Sean Hannity: Reagan-era Revivalists Both Levin and Hannity have called for strong action. Levin has floated the idea of regime change. Hannity has embraced the logic of preemptive strikes. They represent the older, more muscular conservatism that sees war not as a failure—but as assertion of American strength. JD Vance: The Loyal Lieutenant, Not the Peacemaker Vice President JD Vance, once the populist realist, now speaks with tight discipline. He hasn't condemned the hawks. He hasn't echoed the doves. He simply follows the President's lead—repeating Trump's lines, offering no deviation, and avoiding ideological entanglement. Vance is not acting as a bridge between factions. He's acting as a megaphone for Trump. His silence is strategic. His discipline is total with the belief that if he holds on long enough, he's a shoo-in to the be Trump's successor. Trump's Game: Maximum Pressure, Minimum Commitment—So Far Trump has long weaponised ambiguity. He's sent American forces into visible alert, named Iranian leaders, threatened air superiority—and yet, he hasn't fired a shot. This is vintage Trump: threatening force without deploying it, posturing without committing. But the longer this game stretches, the more pressure mounts. Hawks want action. The base wants peace. And Trump, ever the tactician, wants both. MAGA's Iraq Flashback: The Ghost That Haunts Them Still The language is all too familiar. Talks of WMDs. Warning of rogue regimes. Accusations of appeasement. MAGA was born in rebellion against this rhetoric. Trump won hearts by denouncing the Iraq War as a historic failure. Now, those ghosts are back. And the question is whether the movement has truly changed—or merely changed labels. The 2025 Test: Can MAGA Survive a Middle East War? Trump's current coalition—rooted in working-class values, suburban nationalism, and youth anti-establishment sentiment—says no to foreign adventures. Most polls show his base is wary of intervention. But a gamble remains: if Trump escalates, that coalition could fracture. The internal pressure is mounting. MAGA's future depends on whether it keeps its promise—or betrays the fierce anti-war impulse that helped redefine American politics in 2025. The Real War Is Inside MAGA This is more than a foreign policy debate—it's an ideological showdown. Anti-war bloc: Carlson, Bannon, Greene, Gaetz—warning against another Iraq, urging focus at home. War caucus: Cruz, Rubio, Levin, Hannity—championing confrontation and regime change. Intercepted by: JD Vance—standing in lockstep with Trump, no deviation. At the centre: Trump—wielding threats and uncertainties while testing the elasticity of a fractured coalition. A strike on Iran may win a skirmish—but MAGA's soul hangs in the balance. The real question now isn't just 'should we go to war?'—it's 'can MAGA survive it?'
Economic Times
34 minutes ago
- Economic Times
As US weighs Iran strike, Pakistan tries to recast itself as anti-terror ally — and India is watching closely
New Delhi: India is watching closely as Pakistan tries to reinvent itself as a victim of terrorism and is seeking to find a place as a key actor against extremism and a possible ally to the US in the conflict with several accounts, the meeting between Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir and US President Donald Trump lasted almost three hours, extending beyond the one hour allocated, and included key US administration advisors for West growing conflict in the region - with the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israel overshadowing other issues and increasingly pointing towards a US intervention - has placed Pakistan in an advantageous position that it will try to leverage, people tracking the situation the core of Pakistani moves, sources feel, is an attempt to rebrand itself from a fountainhead of terrorism to a victim that is seeking Western help to counter outfits that present threats to the West. This is an old plot that Pakistan has successfully played against the West in the past before the discovery of Osama Bin Laden at Abbottabad and the subsequent distancing of the US administration and pulling back of military aid. A renewed attempt is being made, with the Iran crisis coming at a particularly fortunate time for Pakistan as the US looks for allies who can pressurise Tehran and provide support in case American forces decide to enter the battlefield. Sources said Pakistan has managed to find some success in getting to Washington DC by exploiting the gap in the Pentagon that exists due to the structuring of its military commands across the world. The US Central Command (CENTCOM), which deals with Pakistan, is at the centre of action right now due to the troubles in West Asia. The Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) which deals with India and China was earlier more central to decision-making and planning in Washington DC. Its views of Pakistan as a close partner of China, increasingly dependent on Beijing for military equipment, training and intelligence, were a counter to the CENTCOM's motives of using Pakistani support for anti-terror operations in its area of said Pakistan is likely to use the situation to play the US against China, though in the long term it will remain dependent on Beijing for weapons, training and funding. The worry is, that in the short run, Pakistan may bargain to get access to US equipment and technology in the garb of fighting terror. It has been seen in the past, including when India attacked terror camps in Balakot in 2019, that equipment provided to Pakistan to fight terrorism were used against at stake for India will be the partnership with the US that has been growing in the military sphere and includes plans to co-develop cutting edge weapon systems. India has been increasing its dependence on the US for critical defence equipment, including engines for indigenous LCAs, maritime surveillance equipment and satellite difference is that while India is seeking technology and equipment from the US to counter an increasingly aggressive China, Pakistan may try to seek the same against India, in the garb of fighting terrorism.
