Latest news with #USIntelligence
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
a day ago
- Politics
- First Post
Months or years, how far has Israel pushed back Iran's nuclear programme with Operation Rising Lion?
As Iran-Israel war escalates, speculations surround over how far Operation Rising Lion has pushed Iran's nuclear programme, and will Trump get his nuclear deal with Tehran? read more June 13, 2025, turned out to be 'Friday the 13th' for Iran after Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion , targeting the Persian nation's nuclear and military sites. The Israeli attack not only eliminated some of the top brass of the Iranian military, but it also pushed back Tehran's highly controversial Nuclear programme . Soon after the attack, Israel revealed for the first time Iran's secret and accelerating plan for the development of a nuclear weapon that could threaten Israel. It is pertinent to note that the country's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been making accusations for years, even once presenting a cartoon of a bomb at the UN in 2012. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Israeli intelligence believed Iran was just weeks —or even days—away from assembling a nuclear bomb, with enough enriched uranium for up to 15 bombs and advanced missile capabilities. However, the country did not produce any evidence backing this claim. How far was Iran developing Nuclear weapons? Following Israel's assertion, the UN nuclear watchdog , which carries out inspections in Iran, noted that while it cannot guarantee Iran's nuclear programme is entirely peaceful, it has 'no credible indication' of an active, coordinated weapons programme either. Amid debates on the timeline, a US Intelligence assessment revealed that Iran was up to three years away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon, countering Israel's claim that Tehran was just a few weeks away from assembling an atomic weapon. The assessments are coming at a time when the Trump administration has been pushing for a nuclear deal with Iran. Both nations were conducting several rounds of talks regarding a deal before Israel launched strikes on Iranian territory. Many argued that the latest attack has reaffirmed Iran's ambition to develop nuclear weapons. How far the Israeli attacks pushed Iran's weapons program The Israeli operation targeted key nuclear facilities, missile factories, and air defences, and killed at least 14 of Iran's top nuclear scientists, severely disrupting the expertise needed to complete a bomb. Israel also destroyed critical documentation and computer backups from Iran's nuclear archive, further setting back the programme's progress. However, many argue that not much has happened with Iran's nuclear program. According to a report by CNN, US intelligence officials believe that Israeli airstrikes might have set back Iran's nuclear program by only a few months. Meanwhile, satellite images have shown significant damage to the Natanz nuclear site, which is touted as Iran's most significant nuclear enrichment facility. Apart from this, a nuclear research centre in Isfahan was also hit in the attack. Despite Iran's uranium stockpiles being stored at the heavily fortified Fordo facility , Israel claims its strikes and intelligence coups have set back Iran's ability to quickly weaponise its nuclear material. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The loss of senior scientists and destruction of records means Iran's successors will struggle to revive the programme at the same pace, according to Israeli officials. US intelligence sources told CNN that even after the strikes, Iran would need a maximum of up to three years to develop and deliver a nuclear warhead if it restarted its weapons programme now. Hence, it remains unclear how Iran would come out of this.
Russia Today
2 days ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
US intel still has no evidence Iran is building nuclear weapon
US intelligence still assesses that Iran, despite stockpiling enriched uranium, has not taken steps to develop nuclear weapons – a view which has remained unchanged since March, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat. US President Donald Trump claimed on Tuesday, however, that he believes Tehran was 'very close' to obtaining nuclear weapons at the time of Israel's recent military strikes. His statement contradicts earlier remarks by his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who told lawmakers that Iran 'is not building' one. The Iranian authorities insist that their nuclear program is purely peaceful and that they have every right to pursue it. In an interview with MSNBC on Wednesday, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Democratic Senator Mark Warner, said senators were briefed this week – following the Israeli strikes – that US spy agencies still find no evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. He criticized Trump's remarks as 'foreign policy by tweet,' calling them irresponsible and perplexing, given that they contradict the intelligence briefings lawmakers have received. Warner noted that in March, Gabbard stated that Iran had 'taken no steps toward building a bomb.' 'And we got reconfirmed… Monday of this week, that the intelligence hasn't changed,' he added. At the time, she said the US intelligence community 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.' When Trump was reminded of this by journalists on Tuesday, he replied: 'I do not care what she said.' Responding to Trump's remark, Warner said, 'you've got the president basically dismissing all of the intelligence.' He added that even as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he is unclear on the current US strategy, asking: 'If I don't have the foggiest idea, what do the American people know?' Trump said he has not yet decided whether to support Israel's military action against Iran, but echoed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's claim that Iran was 'weeks away' from developing a nuclear weapon. Since launching its campaign against Iran last week, Israel has targeted uranium enrichment infrastructure, bombing centrifuge facilities – including a site at Natanz, south of Tehran – and laboratories used to convert uranium gas into metal, according to Israeli officials and the IAEA. Trump has called for Iran's 'unconditional surrender,' claiming that the US now controls its airspace. He also said killing Khamenei would be 'easy.' Media reports suggest he may soon join Israel's military campaign. Tehran has vowed not to yield to pressure and warned it will retaliate if attacked.
Malay Mail
2 days ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Israel's early triumphs impressed Trump to lull him into pushing for Iran's unconditional surrender — Phar Kim Beng
JUNE 19 — The world is teetering on the edge of a strategic delusion. With the early tactical success of Israel's air campaign against Iran, and the muted or supportive reactions from G7 capitals, a dangerous overconfidence has begun to shape the logic of war. What was originally conceived as a limited strategic strike is rapidly transforming into a maximalist doctrine of total victory, with growing pressure for Iran's unconditional surrender. Trump has been the first to jump on board. This is a moment where military hubris, not prudence, is steering policy—and the global fallout could be severe. The mirage of early success Israel's military achievements in the opening salvos of this conflict are significant. Supported by US intelligence, satellite coverage, and logistical coordination, the Israeli Air Force successfully degraded large segments of Iran's air defense systems, radar infrastructure, and command centers. Cyber operations have reportedly paralyzed segments of Iran's communications grid, leaving key military sites exposed and vulnerable. These gains, however, risk being misread. Their data are too slim. Yet in the corridors of power in Washington, London, Rome, and Berlin, a narrative of imminent triumph is taking root. The war is no longer about containment or deterrence—it is about collapse. With G7 countries such as Italy and Germany expressing open or tacit support, the operation now carries the moral and political weight of Western backing. Germany, in particular, has gone further than most in affirming its solidarity with Israel, framing the campaign as a matter of existential defense. Demonstrators protest US involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict in Los Angeles, California on June 18, 2025. — AFP pic The erosion of Iran's proxy shield Iran's traditional deterrence strategy has long relied on a network of capable regional allies: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen. But this axis of resistance is showing clear signs of degradation. Hamas, battered by successive conflicts and unprecedented retaliation after October 7, 2023, has lost much of its senior leadership and key weapons caches. Israel's overwhelming use of force and blockade strategies have deeply diminished the group's operational effectiveness. Hezbollah, though still possessing thousands of rockets, is constrained by Lebanon's political paralysis and economic meltdown. The group faces Israeli intelligence penetration, targeted strikes on its supply chains, and growing domestic disillusionment within Lebanon's Shi'a communities. Its capacity for sustained warfare is greatly reduced, and its deterrent effect is no longer what it was a decade ago. The Houthis, after months of joint US-U.K. operations targeting their drone launch sites and missile stockpiles, are now operating under constant threat of pre-emptive strikes. Their ability to project force beyond Yemen has shrunk, and regional naval coordination has curbed their effectiveness in disrupting Red Sea shipping lanes. The result is clear: Iran's buffer zones have been punctured. The Islamic Republic stands more isolated today than at any time in the past two decades. Phased escalation and the pursuit of total war With this regional context in mind, Israeli and US military planners are reportedly advancing a phased strategy: Phase One: Eliminate Iran's air defense grid through cyberwarfare and coordinated drone/stealth bomber attacks to blind its surveillance and response systems. Phase Two: Obliterate nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, Arak, and Isfahan using Massive Ordnance Penetrators and long-range precision-guided munitions also known as bunker buster bombs. Phase Three: Cripple Iran's conventional military, targeting naval bases, IRGC command centers, missile depots, and logistics hubs, while disrupting communication and power infrastructure to foment internal dissent. At this stage, the war would shift from military degradation to political disruption. Information warfare, satellite-fed psychological operations, and social media manipulation would aim to fracture Iran's ruling elite and ignite domestic opposition. The risks of strategic overreach Yet the belief that Iran can be reduced to total surrender through external bombardment is strategically naive. Iran may not possess nuclear weapons, but it retains a diverse range of asymmetric capabilities—cyber units, foreign operatives, and clandestine partners across West Asia and beyond. At 92 million people, Tehran has built redundancy into its political and military architecture; even if core institutions are destroyed, resistance may continue through irregular means. More dangerously, the use of overwhelming force may catalyze long-term instability. A shattered Iran could become a crucible for insurgent groups, sectarian strife, and proxy wars reminiscent of Iraq post-2003. Instead of regime change yielding regional peace, the result may be permanent state fragmentation and the rise of uncontrollable non-state actors. The global political backlash is already brewing. While NATO members appear divided on how far to follow Washington's lead, Germany has made its position clear: full support for Israel's right to defend itself. Others, such as Japan and France, remain concerned about the strategic wisdom and legal legitimacy of the campaign but have refrained from open condemnation. Across the Global South, however, the perception is starkly different. Leaders in ASEAN, the African Union, and Latin America view the unfolding war as a neo-imperial intervention devoid of multilateral legitimacy. With no United Nations mandate and no effort at collective security mechanisms, the campaign could further fracture global trust in Western-led international norms. Conclusion: When dominance breeds disorder Israel's military is capable. Its early strikes have been successful. Its adversaries are weakened. But these are precisely the conditions in which the temptation for overreach becomes most seductive—and most dangerous. With G7 support coalescing, particularly from countries like Germany, the campaign against Iran risks being transformed from a limited preemptive strike into a doctrine of regime obliteration. And in this shift lies the peril: a war that is technically winnable but strategically unsustainable. Victory cannot be defined solely by Iran's military collapse or political surrender. The real measure is whether regional and global stability can be preserved—or whether yet another Middle East war plunges the world deeper into division, disorder, and the decline of international law. * Phar Kim Beng is a professor of ASEAN Studies, International Islamic University Malaysia and a Cambridge Commonwealth Fellow * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Arab News
2 days ago
- Business
- Arab News
Firms led by US military veterans deliver aid in Africa and Gaza, alarming humanitarian groups
SOUTH SUDAN: Swooping low over the banks of a Nile River tributary, an aid flight run by retired American military officers released a stream of food-stuffed sacks over a town emptied by fighting in South Sudan, a country wracked by conflict. Last week's air drop was the latest in a controversial development: private contracting firms led by former US intelligence officers and military veterans delivering aid to some of the world's deadliest conflict zones, in operations organized with governments that are combatants in the conflicts. The moves are roiling the global aid community, which warns of a more militarized, politicized and profit-seeking trend that could allow governments or combatants to use life-saving aid to control hungry civilian populations and advance war aims. In South Sudan and Gaza, two for-profit US companies led by American national security veterans are delivering aid in operations backed by the South Sudanese and Israeli governments. The American contractors say they're putting their security, logistics and intelligence skills to work in relief operations. Fogbow, the US company that carried out last week's air drops over South Sudan, says it aims to be a 'humanitarian' force. 'We've worked for careers, collectively, in conflict zones. And we know how to essentially make very difficult situations work,' said Fogbow President Michael Mulroy, a retired CIA officer and former senior defense official in the first Trump administration, speaking on the airport tarmac in Juba, South Sudan's capital. But the UN and many leading non-profit groups say US contracting firms are stepping into aid distribution with little transparency or humanitarian experience, and, crucially, without commitment to humanitarian principles of neutrality and operational independence in war zones. 'What we've learned over the years of successes and failures is there's a difference between a logistics operation and a security operation, and a humanitarian operation,' said Scott Paul, a director at Oxfam America. ''Truck and chuck' doesn't help people,' Paul said. 'It puts people at risk.' 'We don't want to replace any entity' Fogbow took journalists up in a cargo plane to watch their team drop 16 tons of beans, corn and salt for South Sudan's Upper Nile state town of Nasir. Residents fled homes there after fighting erupted in March between the government and opposition groups. Mulroy acknowledged the controversy over Fogbow's aid drops, which he said were paid for by the South Sudanese government. But, he maintained: 'We don't want to replace any entity' in aid work. Shared roots in Gaza and US intelligence Fogbow was in the spotlight last year for its proposal to use barges to bring aid to Gaza, where Israeli restrictions were blocking overland deliveries. The United States focused instead on a US military effort to land aid via a temporary pier. Since then, Fogbow has carried out aid drops in Sudan and South Sudan, east African nations where wars have created some of the world's gravest humanitarian crises. Fogbow says ex-humanitarian officials are also involved, including former UN World Food Program head David Beasley, who is a senior adviser. Operating in Gaza, meanwhile, Safe Reach Solutions, led by a former CIA officer and other retired US security officers, has partnered with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a US-backed nonprofit that Israel says is the linchpin of a new aid system to wrest control from the UN, which Israel says has been infiltrated by Hamas, and other humanitarian groups. Starting in late May, the American-led operation in Gaza has distributed food at fixed sites in southern Gaza, in line with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's stated plan to use aid to concentrate the territory's more than 2 million people in the south, freeing Israel to fight Hamas elsewhere. Aid workers fear it's a step toward another of Netanyahu's public goals, removing Palestinians from Gaza in 'voluntary' migrations. Since then, several hundred Palestinians have been killed and hundreds more wounded in near daily shootings as they tried to reach aid sites, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Witnesses say Israeli troops regularly fire heavy barrages toward the crowds in an attempt to control them. The Israeli military has denied firing on civilians. It says it fired warning shots in several instances, and fired directly at a few 'suspects' who ignored warnings and approached its forces. It's unclear who is funding the new operation in Gaza. No donor has come forward, and the US says it's not funding it. In response to criticism over its Gaza aid deliveries, Safe Reach Solutions said it has former aid workers on its team with 'decades of experience in the world's most complex environments' who bring 'expertise to the table, along with logisticians and other experts.' South Sudan's people ask: Who's getting our aid drops? Last week's air drop over South Sudan went without incident, despite fighting nearby. A white cross marked the drop zone. Only a few people could be seen. Fogbow contractors said there were more newly returned townspeople on previous drops. Fogbow acknowledges glitches in mastering aid drops, including one last year in Sudan's South Kordofan region that ended up with too-thinly-wrapped grain sacks split open on the ground. After gaining independence from Sudan in 2011, South Sudan has struggled to emerge from a civil war that killed nearly 400,000 people. Rights groups say its government is one of the world's most corrupt, and until now has invested little in quelling the dire humanitarian crisis. South Sudan said it engaged Fogbow for air drops partly because of the Trump administration's deep cuts in US Agency for International Development funding. Humanitarian Minister Albino Akol Atak said the drops will expand to help people in need throughout the country. But two South Sudanese groups question the government's motives. 'We don't want to see a humanitarian space being abused by military actors ... under the cover of a food drop,' said Edmund Yakani, head of the Community Empowerment for Progress Organization, a local civil society group. Asked about suspicions the aid drops were helping South Sudan's military aims, Fogbow's Mulroy said the group has worked with the UN World Food Program to make sure 'this aid is going to civilians.' 'If it wasn't going to civilians, we would hope that we would get that feedback, and we would cease and desist,' Mulroy said. In a statement, WFP country director Mary-Ellen McGroarty said: 'WFP is not involved in the planning, targeting or distribution of food air-dropped' by Fogbow on behalf of South Sudan's government, citing humanitarian principles. A 'business-driven model' Longtime humanitarian leaders and analysts are troubled by what they see as a teaming up of warring governments and for-profit contractors in aid distribution. When one side in a conflict decides where and how aid is handed out, and who gets it, 'it will always result in some communities getting preferential treatment,' said Jan Egeland, executive director of the Norwegian Refugee Council. Sometimes, that set-up will advance strategic aims, as with Netanyahu's plans to move Gaza's civilians south, Egeland said. The involvement of soldiers and security workers, he added, can make it too 'intimidating' for some in need to even try to get aid. Until now, Western donors always understood those risks, Egeland said. But pointing to the Trump administration's backing of the new aid system in Gaza, he asked: 'Why does the US ... want to support what they have resisted with every other war zone for two generations?' Mark Millar, who has advised the UN and Britain on humanitarian matters in South Sudan and elsewhere, said involving private military contractors risks undermining the distinction between humanitarian assistance and armed conflict. Private military contractors 'have even less sympathy for a humanitarian perspective that complicates their business-driven model,' he said. 'And once let loose, they seem to be even less accountable.'
CNN
3 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
Israel says Iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon. US intel says it was years away
CNN — When Israel launched its series of strikes against Iran last week, it also issued a number of dire warnings about the country's nuclear program, suggesting Iran was fast approaching a point of no return in its quest to obtain nuclear weapons and that the strikes were necessary to preempt that outcome. But US intelligence assessments had reached a different conclusion – not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, it was also up to three years away from being able to produce and deliver one to a target of its choosing, according to four people familiar with the assessment. Another senior US official told CNN that Iran is 'about as close as you can get before building (a nuclear weapon). If Iran wanted one, they have all the things they need.' Now, after days of Israeli airstrikes, US intelligence officials believe that so far, Israel may have set back Iran's nuclear program by only a matter of months, according to one of those people, a US official. Even as Israel has done significant damage to Iran's facility at Natanz, which houses centrifuges necessary to enrich uranium, a second, heavily fortified enrichment site at Fordow has remained effectively untouched. Israel lacks the capability to damage Fordow without specific US weapons and aerial support, defense experts say. 'Israel can hover over those nuclear facilities, render them inoperable, but if you really want to dismantle them it's either a US military strike or a deal,' said Brett McGurk, a former top diplomat to the Middle East under the Trump and Biden administrations and a CNN analyst. That raises a key dilemma for the Trump administration, which is struggling to avoid becoming entangled in a costly, complex war in the Middle East. Although President Donald Trump has made clear that he does not want to involve the US in Israel's efforts to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure, the administration recognizes that the only way Israel can knock out Iran's nuclear program is with American military assistance, sources told CNN over the weekend – in particular, US bombs capable of damaging underground facilities and the B-2 bombers that carry them. It's a tightrope that has led to debate among the more isolationist members of the president's advisers and some of Trump's more hawkish Republican allies – as well as some hedging from the president. 'We're not involved in it. It's possible we could get involved. But we are not at this moment involved,' Trump told ABC News on Sunday morning. Trump, speaking from the G7 Summit in Canada on Monday, urged Israel and Iran to begin talks 'before it's too late.' US Central Command, responsible for American military operations in the Middle East, has conveyed a greater sense of urgency than the civilian intelligence community when it comes to Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. In the lead-up to Israel's latest attack, Central Command had endorsed a more dire timeline, believing Iran could obtain a usable nuclear weapon more quickly if it were to sprint towards that goal, according to a source familiar with the discussions. In recent weeks, some US military leaders, including US Central Command chief Gen. Michael Kurilla, have requested more resources to defend and support Israel as it continues to trade fire with Iran – although not to help it launch offensive attacks. '{Kurilla} would want to be prepared for the most challenging contingency,' according to a source familiar with the matter, referring to his push for positioning US assets in the Middle East in support of Israel. The US is realigning forces in the region as the conflict escalates to ensure American forces are protected and help defend Israel if necessary. On Monday, a US official told CNN that the USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group is moving to the Middle East 'without delay.' Some US naval assets capable of defending against ballistic missiles already in the Middle East are expected to move into the eastern Mediterranean 'in the coming days,' the official added. Two US Navy ships intercepted missiles in defense of Israel at least twice over the weekend, the official said. Same intelligence, different conclusions US military and intelligence officials have long said that the US and Israel often differ on how to interpret information on Iran's nuclear program, although they closely share it. Trump's Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified in March that the US intelligence community, 'continues to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized a nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' Trump, asked where he personally stands on how close Iran was to getting a nuclear weapon, given what Gabbard testified just months ago, told reporters on Air Force One early Tuesday, 'very close.' When pressed on her specific testimony that they weren't, Trump said, 'I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having it.' Gabbard insisted Tuesday there was no daylight between Trump's assessment and her own prior characterization that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. 'President Trump was saying the same thing that I said in my annual threat assessment back in March,' Gabbard told reporters as she arrived on Capitol Hill Tuesday for an appearance before the Senate Appropriations Committee. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was pressed Sunday during an interview with Fox News on why Israel's intelligence differed from Gabbard's congressional testimony. Asked if something changed between the end of March and this week and if the US intel was wrong, Netanyahu said: 'The intel we got and we shared with the United States was absolutely clear, was absolutely clear that they were working, in a secret plan to weaponize the uranium. They were marching very quickly.' Prev Next The International Atomic Energy Agency, a top international watchdog, said last week that Iran had amassed enough uranium enriched at levels just below weapons-grade to potentially make nine nuclear bombs, which it termed 'a matter of serious concern.' The challenge, for Iran, is producing not merely a crude nuclear weapon – which experts say Iran could potentially do within the space of months if it decided to – but also producing a working delivery system, which could take much longer. As US intelligence officials – and the IAEA – work to assess the damage Israel has caused to Iran's nuclear architecture, there is some concern that the blitz might cause Iran to do what US officials believe it hasn't up until now: pursue weaponization. But, said one source familiar with the latest intelligence, 'Iran is reeling. Not sure they have the capacity or expertise to do that anymore.' Iran's fortified enrichment facility Israel has yet to seriously damage perhaps the most impenetrable fortress of Iran's nuclear program: Fordow, an enrichment facility buried deep beneath a mountain. 'It comes back to one question: Fordow, Fordow, Fordow,' McGurk told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Monday. 'That is something the United States can take out. That is something the Israelis will have a lot of difficulty doing. If this ends with Fordow intact, you could actually have a worse problem,' said McGurk. 'You could actually have Iran more inclined to go to a nuclear weapon and they have that infrastructure intact.' Trump and his administration have made the case that a diplomatic solution could still come to fruition. But Iran has told Qatar and Oman that it will not engage while it is under attack from Israel, a regional diplomat told CNN, and Israel has signaled no short-term end to the operation.
