Latest news with #IranNuclearThreat
CBC
11 hours ago
- Politics
- CBC
Israel believes it has proof Iran is close to a nuclear weapon. Others doubt it
This time, Israel's fears over Iran's intention to build a nuclear bomb really may be valid. Or not. And for better or worse, it will be U.S. President Donald Trump making the decision about what facts to accept or to reject. For most of his nearly 20 years leading Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been stoking international concerns that his country faces the threat of "nuclear annihilation" if Iran is able to build an atomic weapon. As early as 1996, he proclaimed: "Time is running out." Sixteen years later, in 2012, Netanyahu stood before the UN with an almost cartoon-like drawing of a round bomb with a lit fuse, urging the international community to stop Iran's ayatollahs before it was too late. Finally, seven nights ago, Netanyahu gave the order to attack Iran directly, stating that the mission is to take out Iran's institutions, facilities and scientists related to its nuclear program. "If not stopped, Iran could take steps to produce a weapon in a very short time," Netanyahu said in a video statement justifying his decision. Israel's sweeping campaign of airstrikes in and around Tehran has wiped out the top tier of Iran's military command, damaged its nuclear capabilities and killed hundreds. Iranian retaliatory strikes, meanwhile, have killed at least two dozen civilians in Israel. But finishing the job of destroying Iran's nuclear program may be beyond Israel's capabilities. With some key components and facilities fortified up to 80 metres underground, it may require weaponry and heavy bombs possessed only by the U.S. Trump — under intense pressure domestically from many Republicans who want him to intervene, and perhaps an equal number who want him to stay out of the fight — said Thursday he'll make a decision within the next two weeks on what course to take, to give diplomacy with Iran more time. At least one former top Israeli intelligence official believes the evidence of both Iran's capability and intent to produce such a weapon of mass destruction is incontrovertible. "I think the last report of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) says that Iran has more than 400 kilograms of 60 per cent enriched uranium, which, if you enrich it to 90+, is enough for 10 nuclear devices," said Sima Shine, a former officer at Israel's spy agency Mossad who is now with the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. The only outstanding issue was Iran's willingness to build a bomb, she said, given that such a move would surely invite a devastating Israeli response. "Our impression was that in the last year, the interest of Iran to go the extra mile and actually reach a nuclear, military nuclear capability has changed, if we compare to its previous use," Shine told CBC News. She said since the Oct. 7, 2023 assault on Israel, Israeli attacks have critically weakened Iran's key proxy militias in Gaza and Lebanon — Hamas and Hezbollah. That's left Iran deeply weakened, she said, forcing the ayatollahs to change Iran's calculations about the necessity of building a nuclear weapon to project-strength. Military enrichment? Other Iran watchers in the West share Shine's assessment. "There is no purpose at all for having that level of nuclear enrichment and that stock of enriched uranium other than military," said John Sawers, former chief of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service MI6, speaking to the BBC. Israeli authorities have suggested their own intelligence efforts have also turned up proof of Iran's intentions, beyond what the IAEA has reported. Quoting unnamed sources, the Wall Street Journal said Israeli agents learned of Iran's interest in developing and perfecting chain-reaction explosions, which are required for nuclear weapons. Megan Sutcliffe, an analyst with the private intelligence firm Sibylline, said that beyond the actual manufacture of a nuclear device, it's also possible the Iranians were working on improving missiles and rockets that could carry a bomb. "The IAEA does not monitor this," she said. "And so the intelligence that Israel is likely referring to is something to do with Iran possibly making strides toward testing the viability of some form of delivery system." Doubts persist Still, in the absence of that information being shared publicly, doubts persist about both Iran's intentions and its capabilities. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's director of national intelligence, told Congress earlier this year that U.S. intelligence agencies did not believe Iran had made a decision to weaponize its nuclear program. The Washington-based Arms Control Association, a think-tank that promotes arms control and diplomacy, issued a statement earlier this week, denouncing any U.S. involvement in Israel's war against Iran. "There was no imminent threat that Iran was weaponizing its nuclear program before Israel's attack began," it wrote. The group argued U.S. intervention could have the opposite effect — strengthening Tehran's resolve and leading it to weaponize its nuclear program, if it is not completely destroyed or is eventually rebuilt. And while the chief of the IAEA ruled last week that Iran was in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for a lack of disclosure, Raphael Grossi also said the global nuclear watchdog had seen no evidence that Iran's enriched uranium was being steered toward military or non-civilian purposes. "We cannot say that we at the IAEA have enough credible elements which would be pointing directly at this," he said. In an interview with CBC News, Iran's ambassador in Geneva reiterated his country's right to have a nuclear program and to develop enriched uranium from it. "There is no evidence of Iran moving toward military nuclear activities," said Ali Bahreini. "Our nuclear activities are peaceful." Enriched uranium can also be used to produce medical isotopes or as fuel for nuclear power plants. WATCH | About That on how the U.S. might be pulled into the Israel-Iran war: How deep will the U.S. be pulled into the Israel-Iran war? | About That 2 hours ago Duration 25:38 U.S. President Donald Trump has consistently denied his country's involvement in the intensifying conflict between Israel and Iran. But Andrew Chang explains the role the U.S. has already played. Then, Will South Korea's new leader save the country? Israel's nuclear program Israel is widely believed to have had its own nuclear weapon capabilities for several decades, although the country's official policy is deliberate ambiguity with regards to the existence of such a program. "Essentially, it is widely acknowledged that Israel does have a nuclear arsenal and that they also have … a nuclear submarine, which gives them a second-strike capability; the ability to respond to a nuclear weapon being fired toward them," said Sutcliffe. Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has not accepted IAEA safeguards on some of its principal nuclear activities, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation notes. The Washington-based group also notes that "the lack of clarity surrounding an Israeli nuclear weapons program is a key obstacle to establishing a weapons of mass destruction free zone in the Middle East." Nonetheless, most countries — including Israel's current and historic adversaries — have generally accepted the country's nuclear policies. Sutcliffe said she believes the different treatment between Iran and Israel on their nuclear programs stems from long-standing, repeated statements from Iran's leaders about their intent to destroy Israel, if given the opportunity. "Iran has characterized itself as being a threat to Israel — both through its direct actions, but also through its support of proxies to threaten Israel," she said. Iran's leadership has expressed strong support for Palestinians being free of Israeli occupation, and it was a strong financial and military supporter of Hamas in Gaza. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, however, has repeatedly said Iran's support of Hamas has not helped the Palestinian cause, nor been beneficial to the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. For both Trump and Netanyahu, the decision over which intelligence and analysis to go with will have immense consequences — for Israel and far beyond. Gershon Baskin, a longtime advocate for peaceful coexistence between Arabs and Israelis and fierce Netanyahu opponent, said he believes that most Israelis hope Trump jumps into the war on their side. "They're living this kind of hubris that Israel can do whatever it wants, wherever it wants, at any time," said Baskin referring to public sentiment over the damage Israel's military has inflicted on Iran's nuclear facilities and the assassinations of its nuclear scientists. But he cautioned domestic politics could shift quickly against Netayahu and his efforts to reign in his Iranian enemies, should his calculations over damaging Iran's nuclear program backfire.
Fox News
a day ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Vance defends Gabbard as 'critical part' of Trump team after president dismissed Iran nuke threat comments
Print Close By Diana Stancy Published June 18, 2025 Vice President JD Vance insists Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is still an essential team member in Trump's "coalition" after President Donald Trump said he "didn't care" what she'd previously told lawmakers about Iran's nuclear threat. "DNI Gabbard is a veteran, a patriot, a loyal supporter of President Trump and a critical part of the coalition he built in 2024," Vance said in a statement Wednesday to Fox News Digital. "She is an essential member of our team, and we're grateful for her tireless work to keep America safe from foreign threats." TRUMP BLOWS OFF GABBARD DOWNPLAYING IRAN NUKE THREAT, BUT WH STILL SAYS PRESIDENT AND INTEL CHIEF ARE IN SYNC Vance and Gabbard have both historically been outspoken leaders of the non-interventionist camp making up the Trump administration. Both historically have backed a foreign policy doctrine that supports minimal interference with other nations' affairs. By comparison, other, more hawkish members of Trump's Cabinet, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have historically backed military intervention in foreign conflicts. Vance has publicly supported Trump as the administration contemplates next steps to address Iran, though. Vance said Tuesday that while those worried about foreign intervention are right to be concerned, Trump has "earned some trust on this issue." "And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals," Vance said in a Truth Social post Tuesday. "Whatever he does, that is his focus." Vance's statement of support for Gabbard comes after Trump appeared to discount Gabbard's March Senate Intelligence Committee statements, when she said she believed Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. Gabbard told lawmakers in March the intelligence community assessed that Iran was "not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003," she said. ISRAEL-IRAN CONFLICT: LIVE UPDATES She did add that "Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons." "Iran will likely continue efforts to counter Israel and press for U.S. military withdrawal from the region by aiding, arming and helping to reconstitute its loose consortium of like-minded terrorist actors, which it refers to as its axis of resistance," she said during the March hearing. Additionally, Gabbard released a video June 10 in which she stated the world was "on the brink of nuclear annihilation." Politico reported that Trump told associates at the White House that Gabbard was out of line and believed the video was an attempt to prevent him from endorsing Israel attacking Iran. Alexa Henning, Gabbard's deputy chief of staff, said in a post on X Tuesday that Politico's story was "total clickbait." HOW CLOSE WAS IRAN TO A NUCLEAR WEAPON BEFORE ISRAEL'S STRIKE ON TEHRAN? Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One Monday he believed Iran was "very close" to obtaining a nuclear weapon. When asked specifically about Gabbard's March testimony, Trump stood firm in his assessment of Iran's nuclear capabilities. "I don't care what she said," Trump said. "I think they were very close to having one." Still, an official with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in a statement to Fox News Digital Wednesday that Gabbard and the president are aligned on Iran. "Just because Iran is not building a nuclear weapon right now doesn't mean they aren't 'very close' as President Trump said on Air Force One," the official said. "POTUS and DNI Gabbard's statements are congruent." Gabbard wasn't invited to Camp David in Maryland to convene with other military officials and Cabinet members in June. However, she was in the White House's Situation Room Tuesday as Trump kept an eye on updates in the Middle East. A White House official told Fox News Digital Tuesday that Trump and Gabbard's views and statements on the matter are consistent with one another, noting that Gabbard said in March that she believed Iran had the capability to build a nuclear weapon. VANCE DEFENDS TRUMP'S IRAN POSITION AMID 'CRAZY STUFF ON SOCIAL MEDIA' Trump told reporters Wednesday at the White House he hadn't decided yet whether he would engage the U.S. in strikes targeting Iran but said that the coming days or the "next week is going to be very big." "Yes, I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do. I can tell you this, that Iran's got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate," Trump told reporters Wednesday. "And I said, 'Why didn't you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction? Why didn't you go?' I said to people, 'Why didn't you negotiate with me two weeks ago? You could have done fine. You would have had a country.' It's very sad to watch this." Fox News' Emma Colton contributed to this report. Print Close URL
Russia Today
2 days ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
‘If Iran falls, we all lose': Why Tehran's allies see this war as civilizational
In his first public address since the beginning of Operation Rising Lion, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to strip Iran of the ability to develop nuclear weapons, eliminate its ballistic missile capabilities, and remove what he called an existential threat to the State of Israel. 'This is a battle for survival,' Netanyahu told reporters in a Zoom press conference on Monday. 'We will continue this operation until the Islamic Republic of Iran is no longer a nuclear threat – not to Israel, not to the region, not to the world.' Netanyahu's bold declaration came as Israeli jets continued a fourth day of coordinated strikes deep into Iranian territory. According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), over 370 missiles and hundreds of UAVs have been launched from Iran since Friday, prompting swift Israeli retaliation. The IDF claims to have struck more than 90 strategic targets across Iran, including suspected missile depots, radar installations, and command centers near Tehran, Esfahan, and along the Persian Gulf coast. The operation has already resulted in more than 200 casualties in Iran, though precise numbers remain unverified due to restricted access for international media. Satellite imagery reviewed by analysts at the Institute for Science and International Security showed significant damage to facilities near Natanz and Parchin, long suspected of being part of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. But critics of the Israeli campaign – and its justification – are raising serious concerns about the underlying motives of Netanyahu and his allies. Mohammad Marandi, a prominent Iranian academic, political analyst, and adviser to Iran's nuclear negotiating team, rejects Netanyahu's claims outright. 'The regime is lying about nuclear programs just to justify aggression and murder,' Marandi told RT. 'Tulsi Gabbard, who is the Director of US National Intelligence, just recently said Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. So it's clear that the issue is Netanyahu, neat escalation, and the Zionist lobby in the United States is behind him.' Iran's nuclear program has long been a subject of contention. While Tehran has enriched uranium and developed advanced centrifuge technology, it has consistently denied seeking nuclear weapons. Iranian officials argue that their nuclear program is designed solely for peaceful energy production and medical research – a position grounded, they say, in religious doctrine that prohibits weapons of mass destruction. To prove its intentions, Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, an international accord with the US and European powers that limited uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief. However, in 2018, then-President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the deal, reigniting tensions. Since then, Tehran has allowed international inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) limited access to its facilities, but Israel remains unconvinced. According to Marandi, Israel's true objective lies far beyond neutralizing a nuclear threat. 'It's always been so-called regime change,' he said. 'Whether it's the Israeli regime or the Americans or the Europeans. That's how they are. They don't want independent countries, and especially countries like Iran, which support the Palestinian cause.' Marandi is not alone in his assessment. Syrian analyst Taleb Ibrahim, a longtime commentator on Iranian affairs and an author of several books on the Islamic Republic, agrees that Western powers – particularly the United States – are pursuing a broader geopolitical agenda. 'If the United States will put its hands on Iran again [like it was before 1979],' Ibrahim told RT, 'they will block the Russian southern wall. This means that Russia will not be able to expand its influence beyond the Caspian Sea. And it will be restricted to a very narrow place between Central Asia and the Arctic.' Ibrahim warns that China, too, would suffer consequences from a weakened Iran. 'China will not be able to reach the Middle East. Because if Iran becomes part of the Western bloc, it will sever China's access. And the most important thing of all – a new world order will emerge. It will be a new American world order.' Ibrahim believes this is not a regional conflict, but part of a sweeping strategy to restore American hegemony. 'To make America great again is to regain American control across the globe. The war in Iran is just a chapter in that plan.' President Donald Trump has thus far distanced himself from the Israeli operation, saying America's goals are purely defensive and promising that he will not be starting any wars. But Ibrahim is unconvinced. 'In strategy, if you want to make war, talk about peace,' he said. 'The United States is preparing for a very big war – first against China, then Russia. After this, they will try to build an American century. One government for the world, headquartered in the White House. That's the final goal.' Both Marandi and Ibrahim agree that forced regime change in Iran would unleash chaos across the region. The fall of Tehran's current government could lead to the fragmentation of Iran – a multi-ethnic nation with Kurds, Azeris, Arabs, and Baloch who may pursue autonomy or independence in the power vacuum. It could ignite sectarian warfare akin to what unfolded in Iraq after the 2003 US invasion, and destabilize fragile neighbors like Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Turkey. Moreover, Iran's alliances with Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Shia militias across Iraq and Syria mean that a collapse in Tehran could trigger cascading violence across the Middle East. Global oil markets, already rattled, could see disruptions on a historic scale. Yet, both experts maintain that such an outcome is unlikely. 'Regime change is more likely in Israel and across Europe than anywhere near Iran,' Marandi said. 'These Western governments failed with Russia, failed with China, and they'll fail with Iran too.' Ibrahim agrees: 'It is impossible to make regime change in Iran by force. The Iran-Iraq war was designed to do exactly that – to overthrow the Islamic Republic established by Ayatollah Khomeini. But after eight years of war, billions of dollars, and support from the US, France, and Gulf states, Iran survived – and emerged stronger. The only way to change the regime is through the Iranian people. And right now, the Iranian people are standing with their leaders. They believe they are fighting the Satan – the US, the bigger Satan, and Israel, the smaller one. And that gives them unity and strength.' As Israel continues its campaign and the international community watches nervously, the implications of the current conflict are far from limited to the Middle East. 'This war,' Ibrahim concluded, 'will be the starting point of reshaping the world. If Iran wins – and I believe it will, eventually – the world will shift to a multipolar order. That is the shared vision of Iran, Russia, and China. But if Iran loses, we will all live under an American empire. The White House will rule from Washington to Beijing. This is a decisive battle – not just for Iran, but for the destiny of the world.' As missiles fly and rhetoric intensifies, what began as a regional standoff may ultimately determine the balance of power in the 21st century.
Russia Today
3 days ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
‘If Iran falls, we all lose' – Why Tehran's allies see this war as civilizational
In his first public address since the beginning of Operation Rising Lion, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to strip Iran of the ability to develop nuclear weapons, eliminate its ballistic missile capabilities, and remove what he called an existential threat to the State of Israel. 'This is a battle for survival,' Netanyahu told reporters in a Zoom press conference on Monday. 'We will continue this operation until the Islamic Republic of Iran is no longer a nuclear threat – not to Israel, not to the region, not to the world.' Netanyahu's bold declaration came as Israeli jets continued a fourth day of coordinated strikes deep into Iranian territory. According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), over 370 missiles and hundreds of UAVs have been launched from Iran since Friday, prompting swift Israeli retaliation. The IDF claims to have struck more than 90 strategic targets across Iran, including suspected missile depots, radar installations, and command centers near Tehran, Esfahan, and along the Persian Gulf coast. The operation has already resulted in more than 200 casualties in Iran, though precise numbers remain unverified due to restricted access for international media. Satellite imagery reviewed by analysts at the Institute for Science and International Security showed significant damage to facilities near Natanz and Parchin, long suspected of being part of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. But critics of the Israeli campaign – and its justification – are raising serious concerns about the underlying motives of Netanyahu and his allies. Mohammad Marandi, a prominent Iranian academic and political analyst, and advisor to Iran's nuclear negotiating team, rejects Netanyahu's claims outright. 'The regime is lying about nuclear programs just to justify aggression and murder,' Marandi told RT. 'Tulsi Gabbard, who is the Director of US National Intelligence, just recently said Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. So it's clear that the issue is Netanyahu, neat escalation, and the Zionist lobby in the United States is behind him.' Iran's nuclear program has long been a subject of contention. While Tehran has enriched uranium and developed advanced centrifuge technology, it has consistently denied seeking nuclear weapons. Iranian officials argue that their nuclear program is designed solely for peaceful energy production and medical research – a position grounded, they say, in religious doctrine that prohibits weapons of mass destruction. To prove its intentions, Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, an international accord with the United States and European powers that limited uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief. However, in 2018, then President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the deal, reigniting tensions. Since then, Tehran has allowed international inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) limited access to its facilities, but Israel remains unconvinced. According to Marandi, Israel's true objective lies far beyond neutralizing a nuclear threat. 'It's always been so-called regime change,' he said. 'Whether it's the Israeli regime or the Americans or the Europeans. That's how they are. They don't want independent countries, and especially countries like Iran, which support the Palestinian cause.' Marandi is not alone in his assessment. Syrian analyst Taleb Ibrahim, a longtime commentator on Iranian affairs and an author of several books on the Islamic Republic, agrees that Western powers – particularly the United States – are pursuing a broader geopolitical agenda. 'If the United States will put its hands on Iran again [like it was before 1979],' Ibrahim told RT, 'they will block the Russian southern wall. This means that Russia will not be able to expand its influence beyond the Caspian Sea. And it will be restricted to a very narrow place between Central Asia and the Arctic.' Ibrahim warns that China, too, would suffer consequences from a weakened Iran. 'China will not be able to reach the Middle East. Because if Iran becomes part of the Western bloc, it will sever China's access. And the most important thing of all – a new world order will emerge. It will be a new American world order.' Ibrahim believes this is not a regional conflict, but part of a sweeping strategy to restore American hegemony. 'To make America great again is to regain American control across the globe. The war in Iran is just a chapter in that plan.' President Donald Trump has thus far distanced himself from the Israeli operation, saying that American goals are purely defensive and promising he will not be starting any wars. But Ibrahim is unconvinced. 'In strategy, if you want to make war, talk about peace,' he said. 'The United States is preparing for a very big war – first against China, then Russia. After this, they will try to build an American century. One government for the world, headquartered in the White House. That's the final goal.' Both Marandi and Ibrahim agree that forced regime change in Iran would unleash chaos across the region. The fall of Tehran's current government could lead to the fragmentation of Iran – a multi-ethnic nation with Kurds, Azeris, Arabs, and Baloch who may pursue autonomy or independence in the power vacuum. It could ignite sectarian warfare akin to what unfolded in Iraq after the 2003 US invasion, and destabilize fragile neighbors like Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Turkey. Moreover, Iran's alliances with Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Shia militias across Iraq and Syria mean that a collapse in Tehran could trigger cascading violence across the Middle East. Global oil markets, already rattled, could see disruptions on a historic scale. Yet, both experts maintain that such an outcome is unlikely. 'Regime change is more likely in Israel and across Europe than anywhere near Iran,' Marandi said. 'These Western governments failed with Russia, failed with China, and they'll fail with Iran too.' Ibrahim agrees: 'It is impossible to make regime change in Iran by force. The Iran-Iraq war was designed to do exactly that – to overthrow the Islamic Republic established by Ayatollah Khomeini. But after eight years of war, billions of dollars, and support from the US, France, and Gulf states, Iran survived – and emerged stronger. The only way to change the regime is through the Iranian people. And right now, the Iranian people are standing with their leaders. They believe they are fighting the Satan – the US, the bigger Satan, and Israel, the smaller one. And that gives them unity and strength.' As Israel continues its campaign and the international community watches nervously, the implications of the current conflict are far from limited to the Middle East. 'This war,' Ibrahim concluded, 'will be the starting point of reshaping the world. If Iran wins – and I believe it will, eventually – the world will shift to a multipolar order. That is the shared vision of Iran, Russia, and China. But if Iran loses, we will all live under an American empire. The White House will rule from Washington to Beijing. This is a decisive battle – not just for Iran, but for the destiny of the world.' As missiles fly and rhetoric intensifies, what began as a regional standoff may ultimately determine the balance of power in the 21st century.
CNA
3 days ago
- Politics
- CNA
G7 faces challenges but shows unexpected unity on Iran and Ukraine: Analyst
Aurel Braun, Professor of International Relations at the University of Toronto, tells CNA about the complex dynamics facing the Group of Seven summit. He highlights the emerging unity on addressing Iran's nuclear threat alongside ongoing challenges in maintaining support for Ukraine.
