Latest news with #Houthi
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
What is Samson Option, Israel's nuclear threat that's no longer a theory?
Tensions between Israel and Iran have escalated sharply after 'Operation Rising Lion' — Israel's largest strike on Iranian nuclear sites since the 1981 Osirak raid. Iran has responded with missile and drone attacks, straining Israeli defence systems and prompting fears of wider conflict. With Hezbollah mobilising in the north, Houthi threats rising in the Red Sea, and the possibility of a multi-front war looming, Israeli security doctrine is under renewed global scrutiny. At the centre of that attention is the Samson Option, Israel's undeclared but long-assumed nuclear last-resort policy. Once regarded as a Cold War-era relic, the Samson Option has re-emerged as a global worry with serious implications for global security, defence markets, and diplomatic stability. What is the Samson Option? The Samson Option is widely understood as Israel's nuclear last-resort strategy: threat of massive retaliation if the country's survival is at stake. The name is derived from a reference of the biblical figure Samson, who brought down a Philistine temple upon himself and his enemies, an allegory for apocalyptic deterrence. Though Israel has never confirmed possessing nuclear weapons, its policy of 'Amimut' (Israel's policy of neither confirming nor denying the possession of nuclear weapons), or deliberate ambiguity, has kept adversaries guessing. However, foreign assessments suggest Israel has 80 to 400 nuclear warheads, with delivery systems spanning land-based missiles, submarines, and aircraft. The doctrine entered public discourse in the 1990s via US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who, in his book The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, explored Israel's nuclear journey and its relation with the United States. Since then, Israel hardened its 'strategic ambiguity' concept over the possession of a nuclear arsenal. How did Israel build its nuclear arsenal? Israel's nuclear journey began in the 1950s, with the then Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion envisioning a survival insurance policy for the newly-formed Jewish nation. With covert help from France and Norway, Israel established the Dimona nuclear facility, presented publicly as a research centre. By the time of the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel is believed to have constructed its first nuclear weapon. Who is Samson, and why is Israel's nuclear policy named after him? The doctrine's name draws from the Book of Judges, where Samson, betrayed, blinded, and imprisoned, sacrifices himself to destroy his enemies. This story, ingrained in Israeli strategic thinking, underlines the nation's message: if its destruction is imminent, it will not go quietly. Yet unlike the doomed biblical hero, modern Israel is a technologically advanced military power. The Samson Option, therefore, is not desperation, but a calculated deterrent, designed to force potential adversaries to think twice. What nuclear weapons does Israel have? Although never confirmed, Israel is among the nine nuclear-armed nations alongside the United States, Russia, China, the UK, France, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Estimates suggest Israel possesses about 90 warheads, with enough plutonium to build up to 200 more, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Its arsenal is believed to include: > Aircraft: Modified F-15, F-16, and F-35 jets capable of carrying nuclear payloads. > Submarines: Six Dolphin-class submarines, reportedly capable of launching nuclear cruise missiles. > Ballistic missiles: The land-based Jericho missile family, with a range of up to 4,000 km. Around 24 of these missiles are believed to be nuclear-capable. What was the Vela incident? Israel is the only nuclear power which has not openly conducted a nuclear test. The closest indication came in September 1979, when US satellites detected a double flash over the South Atlantic, an event known as the 'Vela Incident'. At the time, US President Jimmy Carter reportedly believed Israel had conducted a nuclear test in collaboration with apartheid-era South Africa. 'We have a growing belief among our scientists that the Israelis did indeed conduct a nuclear test,' Carter later wrote in his diaries, which were made public in 2010. Despite speculation, Israel has never confirmed its involvement in the incident. How was Israel's nuclear arsenal revealed to the world? In October 1986, former nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu exposed Israel's nuclear programme in an explosive interview with the Sunday Times. Having worked at the Dimona plant for nearly a decade, Vanunu revealed that Israel was capable of producing 1.2 kg of plutonium per week, enough for 12 warheads annually. He also disclosed how Israeli officials had deceived US inspectors during visits in the 1960s with false walls and concealed elevators, hiding entire underground levels of the facility. Vanunu was later abducted by Mossad in Rome, tried in Israel, and sentenced to 18 years in prison, spending over half that time in solitary confinement. Even after his release in 2004, he remains under strict surveillance, barred from foreign travel and media engagement. With West Asia at the edge of a potential multi-front war, Israel's Samson Option has moved from the realm of whispered deterrence to an option in real-world decision-making. Its existence, unconfirmed but globally acknowledged, adds a nuclear dimension to an already combustible region.
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Business
- Straits Times
What if Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz?
What if Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz? Israeli aerial bombardment has wiped out much of Iran's ballistic missile capability and decapitated its military command, but Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has refused to stop fighting, even promising 'irreparable damage' to the US if it intervenes in the conflict in support of its staunch ally. This has stoked speculation that Iran's leadership may reach for another way to pressure its enemies to relent – blocking or effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz to shipping. This narrow waterway at the mouth of the Persian Gulf handles around a quarter of the world's oil trade. So if Iran were able to deny access to the giant tankers that ferry oil and gas to China, Europe and other major energy consuming regions, it would send oil prices shooting higher and potentially destabilise the global economy. Iran has targeted merchant ships traversing the choke point in the past, and has even threatened to block the strait. The UK issued a rare warning to mariners days before Israel began bombarding Iran, saying increased tensions in the region could impact shipping, while Frontline, one of the world's largest oil-tanker operators, said it would be more cautious about offering its vessels to haul cargoes from the Persian Gulf. Where is the Strait of Hormuz? The waterway connects the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean, with Iran to its north and the United Arab Emirates and Oman to the south. It is almost 161km long and 34km wide at its narrowest point, with the shipping lanes in each direction just 3km wide. Its shallow depth makes ships potentially vulnerable to mines, and the proximity to land – Iran, in particular – leaves vessels open to attack from shore-based missiles or interception by patrol boats and helicopters. The strait is essential to the global oil trade. Tankers hauled almost 16.5 million barrels per day of crude and condensate from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Iran through the strait in 2024, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The strait is also crucial for liquefied natural gas, or LNG, with more than one-fifth of the world's supply – mostly from Qatar – passing through during the same period. Could Iran really block the Strait of Hormuz? Iran would have no legal authority to order a halt to traffic through Hormuz, so it would need to achieve this by force or the threat of force. If its navy tried to bar entry to the strait, it would likely be met with a strong response from the US Fifth Fleet and other Western navies patrolling the area. But it could cause severe disruption without a single Iranian warship leaving port. One option would be to harry shipping with small, fast patrol boats. Or it could launch drones and fire missiles toward ships from coastal or inland sites. That could make it too risky for commercial ships to venture through. Similar tactics have been employed successfully by the Houthi militia in Yemen to disrupt traffic through the Bab el Mandeb strait leading into the Red Sea on the other side of the Arabian peninsula. The Houthis have mostly fired missiles and drones at ships after warning owners of vessels linked to the US, the UK and Israel that they will be attacked if they approach the area. A US-led force in the Red Sea is seeking to protect shipping there. But the number of ships sailing through the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden was still down about 70 per cent in June compared with the average level of 2022 and 2023, according to Clarkson Research Services, a unit of the world's largest shipbroker. This has forced vessel operators to reroute their traffic around the southern tip of Africa instead of going through the Suez Canal – a lengthier and more expensive journey for ships traveling between Asia and Europe. Closing the Strait of Hormuz would quickly hit Iran's own economy as it would prevent it from exporting its petroleum. And it would antagonise China, the biggest buyer of Iranian oil and a critical partner that has used its veto power at the UN Security Council to shield Iran from Western-led sanctions or resolutions. When has Iran disrupted shipping? Iran has used harassment of ships in the Gulf for decades to register its dissatisfaction with sanctions against it, or as leverage in disputes. In April 2024, hours before launching a drone and missile attack on Israel, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps seized an Israel-linked container ship near the Strait of Hormuz. Iran released the ship's crew the following month, according to trade publication Lloyd's List. Tehran claimed that the MSC Aries had violated maritime regulations, but analysts pointed to its Israeli ownership connection as a motive. When it seized a US-bound tanker in April 2023, Iran said the ship had struck another vessel. But the move appeared to be retaliation for the seizure off Malaysia's coast of a ship loaded with Iranian crude by US authorities on the grounds of sanctions violations. In May 2022, Iran seized two Greek tankers and held them for six months, presumably a response to the confiscation by Greek and US authorities of Iranian oil on a different ship. The cargo was eventually released and the Greek tankers freed. So, too, was the oil on a tanker that Iran said it impounded in January 'in retaliation for the theft of oil by the US'. Has Iran ever closed the Strait of Hormuz? Not so far. During the 1980 to 1988 war between Iraq and Iran, Iraqi forces attacked an oil export terminal at Kharg Island, northwest of the strait, in part to provoke an Iranian retaliation that would draw the US into the conflict. Afterward, in what was called the Tanker War, the two sides attacked 451 vessels between them. That significantly raised the cost of insuring tankers and helped push up oil prices. When sanctions were imposed on Iran in 2011, it threatened to close the strait, but ultimately backed off. Commodore Alireza Tangsiri, head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps naval forces, said shortly before the MSC Aries seizure that Iran has the option of disrupting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, but chooses not to. How did the US and allies respond to threats to Hormuz shipping in the past? During the Tanker War, the US Navy resorted to escorting vessels through the Gulf. In 2019, it dispatched an aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers to the region. The same year, the US started Operation Sentinel in response to Iran's disruption of shipping. Ten other nations – including the UK, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain – later joined the operation, known now as the International Maritime Security Construct. Since late 2023, much of the focus on protecting shipping has switched away from the Strait of Hormuz and onto the southern Red Sea, the region's other vital waterway, and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait that connects it to the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. Attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis on shipping entering or exiting the Red Sea became a greater concern than the Strait of Hormuz. Who relies most on the Strait of Hormuz? Saudi Arabia exports the most oil through the Strait of Hormuz, though it can divert shipments to Europe by using a 1200km pipeline across the kingdom to a terminal on the Red Sea, allowing it to avoid both the Strait of Hormuz and the southern Red Sea. The UAE can export some of its crude without relying on the strait, by sending 1.5 million barrels a day via a pipeline from its oil fields to the port of Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman to the south of Hormuz. With its oil pipeline to the Mediterranean closed, all of Iraq's oil exports are currently shipped by sea from the port of Basra, passing through the strait, making it highly reliant on free passage. Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain have no option but to ship their oil through the waterway. Most of the oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz heads to Asia. Iran also depends on transit through the Strait of Hormuz for its oil exports. It has an export terminal at Jask, at the eastern end of the strait, which was officially opened in July 2021. The facility offers Tehran a means to get a little of its oil into the world without using the waterway and its storage tanks were slowly being filled with crude late last year. BLOOMBERG Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
CNBC
2 hours ago
- Politics
- CNBC
Europe and Iran to hold talks as Trump sets two-week deadline for U.S. strikes decision
Top U.K., France and Germany diplomats are pushing for eleventh-hour diplomacy with Iran in Geneva on Friday, as Washington weighs the possibility of joining Israel's military campaign against Tehran over the next two weeks. Iran and Israel have been trading fire for the past week, in the latest climax of tensions that have been simmering since the Tehran-backed Hamas' terrorist attack against the Jewish state in October 2023. Israel has since been fighting a war on multiple battles against the Palestinian militant group and other Iranian proxies, such as Lebanon's Hezbollah and Yemen's Houthi — which Tehran says are acting independently. The conflict has risked further escalation since the start of the week, amid signals that the U.S. — historically a close ally and weapons supplier of Israel — could intervene militarily against Tehran. "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks," U.S. President Donald Trump said, according to a statement read out on Thursday by White House Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt. Following a Thursday meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff, U.K. Foreign Minister David Lammy said the three "discussed how a deal could avoid a deepening conflict" and that "a window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution." "There is no room for negotiations with the U.S. until Israeli aggression stops," Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who is expected to attend talks in Geneva, was quoted as saying on Iranian state TV on Friday, according to Reuters. Trump's aversion to Iran's nuclear program has been a central point of his statesmanship across both mandates. The White House leader pulled the U.S. out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) during his first presidency, tightening the noose on Iran's coffers through a string of stringent financial and oil-linked sanctions. Self-proclaimed 'peacemaker' Trump has so far fruitlessly pursued a second nuclear program deal since the start of his second term, initially expressing a preference for a diplomatic breakthrough — the likes of which European officials are now hoping to strike. "In the United States, [there are] many political officials who are convinced that we must not once more make the errors of the past. What we saw in Libya, what we saw in Afghanistan, what we saw in Iraq, we do not want to see reproduced," French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said in a TV interview with French media, according to a CNBC translation. Notably, the U.K., France and Germany — alongside Iran's allies Russia and China — were previously involved in the JCPOA with Washington and Tehran. Markets have been rattled by the possibility of the conflict destabilizing the wider oil-rich Middle East and potentially drawing in the world's largest economy, spurring investors on a flight to safe-haven assets and broader focus on defense companies and initiatives.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 hours ago
- Business
- First Post
Israel-Iran war could set oil markets in fire, Goldman Sachs sees $10 per barrel spike
Goldman Sachs recently revised its assessment of geopolitical risk in oil markets, suggesting that Brent crude prices could climb by approximately $10 per barrel due to conflict in West Asia read more The escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran has rattled global oil markets, with major financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs forecasting a significant spike in oil prices. According to analysts, the uncertainty surrounding regional stability, especially with the potential involvement of the United States, is poised to inject volatility into oil pricing, which had recently settled into relative calm. Geopolitical unrest alters price projections Goldman Sachs recently revised its assessment of geopolitical risk in oil markets, suggesting that Brent crude prices could climb by approximately $10 per barrel due to conflict in West Asia. This would place Brent above the $85 per barrel mark, rising from levels in the mid-$70s, as reported by Irina Slav. The bank noted that if Iranian oil supply were disrupted more severely prices could surge even further, possibly exceeding $90 per barrel. In particular, Goldman highlighted vulnerabilities in oil transport through strategic chokepoints such as the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, previously targeted by Yemen's Houthi rebels. These flashpoints illustrate the broader risks to oil infrastructure in a highly combustible region. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Threat of US involvement intensifies market jitters Adding to market unease is the potential for the United States to enter the conflict. President Donald Trump has publicly flirted with the idea of US intervention, stating ambiguously, 'I may do it. I may not do it.' Though Trump has acknowledged internal political resistance to renewed military engagement in West Asia citing criticism from Republican figures like Steve Bannon, he also emphasised the threat of a nuclear Iran as a possible justification for action. As a result, traders are adopting a cautious stance. Oil prices initially dipped slightly amid the uncertainty with Brent crude settling at $76.56 per barrel and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) at $75.22, awaiting clearer US policy signals. War escalation sends prices climbing Events quickly shifted on the ground. Oil prices surged nearly 3 per cent as of June 19 following Israel's direct strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and Iran's retaliatory missile barrage, which included an attack on an Israeli hospital. Brent crude closed at $78.85 per barrel, its highest since January, while WTI climbed to $77.20. These strikes marked a dramatic escalation, dispelling any illusions of a short-lived skirmish. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed that Iran's leaders would 'pay the full price,' while Tehran warned against foreign nations—implicitly the US—joining the fray. Rory Johnston, analyst and founder of Commodity Context, said market consensus is tilting toward US participation in the conflict, which would significantly compound the risks to oil infrastructure and supply routes. Strategic chokepoints and oil supply at stake Iran's role as the third-largest oil producer in OPEC places it at the heart of this crisis. With a production output of approximately 3.3 million barrels per day, Iran remains a crucial supplier—particularly to China, which absorbs the majority of its 2 million daily barrels of crude exports. More critically, the Strait of Hormuz—a narrow passage bordering southern Iran—serves as the gateway for 18 to 21 million barrels of oil and oil products each day. RBC Capital analyst Helima Croft emphasised that this waterway could become a primary target if Iran perceives an existential threat. She warned that attacks on tankers and energy installations would likely follow any US military involvement. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD JP Morgan went further, positing a worst-case scenario in which conflict spreads across the broader region and leads to the closure of the Strait. Under such circumstances, oil prices could spike to between $120 and $130 per barrel. Risk premiums and market sentiment Goldman Sachs reiterated its position that a geopolitical risk premium of around $10 per barrel is now reasonable, considering the lower availability of Iranian oil and potential for wider supply disruption. Even in the event of a de-escalation, it believes that Brent prices will not return to the low $60s seen in the recent past. Similarly, Barclays warned that if half of Iran's oil exports were halted, Brent could hit $85 per barrel. A broader war could push prices past the $100 threshold. Price Futures Group analyst Phil Flynn noted that the market had been lulled into a 'complacency' that has now been shattered. 'The market has been underplaying geopolitical risk,' he said, arguing that this latest flare-up will keep prices elevated as long as uncertainty remains. Temporary or sustained price hike? Despite the price spike, some observers maintain that any surge will likely be short-lived. DBRS Morningstar, in a note released Thursday, cautioned that higher oil prices might hurt the global economy by intensifying tariff-related pressures and suppressing demand. In their view, once the conflict recedes, the war premium would deflate and oil prices could cycle lower. Nonetheless, the potential for prolonged instability keeps the market on alert. With no clear exit strategy from either Israel or Iran, and Washington's decision on intervention still pending, investors are bracing for further upheaval. Opec+ response and the global oil balance In response to the emerging tensions, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak advised the Opec+ alliance not to overreact. Speaking at an economic forum in St Petersburg, Novak recommended that oil producers stick to current plans to increase supply in light of rising summer demand. His comments sought to reassure markets and prevent price volatility from spiralling further. Yet, whether Opec+ output increases will be enough to stabilise prices amid the shockwaves of a regional war remains to be seen. Market dynamics are now driven more by geopolitical risk than traditional supply and demand fundamentals. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD A market on the edge The Israel-Iran conflict represents a potential inflection point for global energy markets. Analysts from Goldman Sachs to JP Morgan are now factoring in a war risk premium, with oil prices already trending upward and possibly heading for triple digits if the situation worsens. The spectre of US military involvement could dramatically shift the balance, not only disrupting Iranian exports but also imperiling vital shipping routes. While some believe any price surge would be short-lived, the combination of strategic vulnerability and political unpredictability suggests that volatility will persist for the foreseeable future. Whether oil prices stabilise or soar above $100 per barrel may ultimately depend not just on battlefield developments, but on decisions yet to be made in Washington.
Khabar Agency
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Khabar Agency
Massive Explosion in Yemen's Taiz After Houthi Missile Launch Fails
A powerful explosion rocked Al-Huban, east of Yemen's Taiz, on Wednesday evening after a Houthi-fired ballistic missile malfunctioned and detonated mid-launch, local sources reported. The Iran-backed Houthi militia had attempted to launch the missile from one of its military sites in Al-Huban toward Israeli-occupied territories. However, the projectile exploded shortly after takeoff, sending a deafening blast across the area and triggering panic among residents. Witnesses described the explosion as catastrophic, with its shockwaves heard across large parts of the city. Nearby neighborhoods were plunged into chaos as terrified civilians scrambled for safety. The incident highlights the Houthis' continued use of populated areas as military staging grounds—a reckless tactic that endangers civilian lives and violates international humanitarian law.
