Latest news with #militarycampaign
ABC News
36 minutes ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Israel warns of 'prolonged' war with Iran, as Tehran targets Tel Aviv and Haifa
Israel's war against Iran will be "prolonged", military chief Eyal Zamir has said, as the arch rivals traded fire and European powers held talks with the Islamic republic. "We must be ready for a prolonged campaign," Mr Zamir told Israelis in a video statement, eight days after his country launched a massive wave of strikes it said aimed at stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons -- an ambition Tehran has denied. "We have embarked on the most complex campaign in our history to remove a threat of such magnitude," said Mr Zamir. "The campaign is not over. Although we have made significant achievements, difficult days still lie ahead." Iran has responded with barrages of missiles and drones, which Israeli authorities say have killed at least 25 people. A hospital in the Israeli port city of Haifa reported 19 injured, including one person in a serious condition, after the latest Iranian salvo, which President Isaac Herzog said hit a mosque. Iran said on Sunday that Israeli strikes had killed at least 224 people since June 13, including military commanders, nuclear scientists and civilians. As US President Donald Trump mulls the prospect of entering the war between the two foes, top diplomats from Britain, France and Germany were meeting with their Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi on Friday. French President Emmanuel Macron said the Europeans were "putting a diplomatic solution on the table". On the ground, Israel's military said it struck missile launchers in southwestern Iran after overnight air raids on dozens of targets including what it called a "nuclear weapons project" research and development centre. In Israel, sirens sounded in the afternoon after missiles were launched from Iran for the second time on Friday, with a military official saying that "approximately 20 missiles were launched towards Israel". Iran's Revolutionary Guards said they had targeted military sites and air forces bases. Mr Trump has said he will decide "within the next two weeks" whether to involve the United States in the fighting. Britain's Foreign Secretary David Lammy said "a window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution", while agreeing with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio that "Iran can never develop or acquire a nuclear weapon". Western governments suspect Iran of seeking a nuclear weapons capability. The International Atomic Energy Agency said that while Iran was the only country without nuclear weapons to enrich uranium to 60 per cent, there was no evidence it had all the components to make a functioning nuclear warhead. "So, saying how long it would take for them, it would be pure speculation because we do not know whether there was somebody ... secretly pursuing these activities," the agency's chief Rafael Grossi told CNN. "We haven't seen that and we have to say it." France's foreign ministry spokesperson Christophe Lemoine said that "military solutions are not long-term solutions" to ensure Iran respects its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Addressing the UN Human Rights Council on Friday, Mr Araghchi said Israel's attacks were a "betrayal" of diplomatic efforts to reach a nuclear deal between Tehran and Washington. "We were attacked in the midst of an ongoing diplomatic process," he said. In an interview with German publication Bild, Israel's top diplomat Gideon Saar said he did not "particularly" believe in diplomacy with Iran. "All diplomatic efforts so far have failed," said Mr Saar, whose country had supported Trump's 2018 decision to abandon a previous nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers. The UN Security Council convened on Friday for a second session on the conflict, which was requested by Iran with support from Russia, China and Pakistan, a diplomat told AFP on Wednesday. The escalating confrontation is quickly reaching "the point of no return", Türkiye's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned on Friday, saying "this madness must end as soon as possible". UN chief Antonio Guterres meanwhile pleaded with all sides to "give peace a chance". Any US involvement in Israel's campaign would be expected to involve the bombing of an underground uranium enrichment facility in Fordo, using powerful bunker-busting bombs that no other country possesses. In Iran, people fleeing Israel's attacks described frightening scenes and difficult living conditions, including food shortages. Government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani said authorities had restricted internet access to avoid "problems" like cyberattacks. Iranian authorities have arrested a European "who sought to spy on sensitive areas of the country", Tasnim news agency reported on Friday. Protests were held in Tehran and other cities after Friday prayers, with demonstrators chanting slogans in support of their leaders, state television showed. "I will sacrifice my life for my leader," read a protester's banner, a reference to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Switzerland announced it was temporarily closing its embassy in Tehran, adding that it would continue to fulfil its role representing US interests in Iran. AFP/ABC
Al Arabiya
4 days ago
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Netanyahu says Israel's military campaign against Iran has ‘three main objectives'
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin said on Monday Israel was 'pursuing three main objectives' with its military campaign against Iran, adding that Israel is 'changing the face of the Middle East.' Speaking at a press conference in which he outlined Israel's strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets, Netanyahu said Israel was 'pursuing three main objectives: the elimination of the nuclear program, the elimination of ballistic missile production capability, and the elimination of the axis of terrorism,' referring to Iranian-backed militant groups in the Middle East. 'We will do what is necessary to achieve these goals, and we are well coordinated with the United States,' he said. Netanyahu said Israel was 'changing the face of the Middle East' with its military campaign against Iran which could lead to 'radical changes' in the country. 'We are changing the face of the Middle East and that can lead to radical changes inside Iran itself,' he said. After decades of enmity and a prolonged shadow war, Israel on Friday launched a surprise aerial campaign against targets across Iran. Iran has launched several waves of missiles in retaliation at Israel, sparking fears of a wider regional conflict. 'We have eliminated Iran's security leadership, including three chiefs of staff, the commander of their air force, two intelligence chiefs,' Netanyahu added. 'We are eliminating them, one after the other.' Netanyahu asserted that Iranians perception of their government had changed. 'They understand that the regime is much weaker than they thought – they realize it, and that could lead to results,' he said. Israel's strikes have so far killed at least 224 people, including top military commanders, nuclear scientists and civilians, according to Iranian authorities. The Israeli prime minister's office says 24 people have been killed in Iranian attacks since Friday.
The National
4 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Netanyahu's war on Iran is perilous on so many levels
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has launched a high-stakes military campaign against Iran – an initiative that not only undermines US President Donald Trump's stated objective of negotiating a diplomatic resolution to Iran's nuclear programme, but also risks entangling the Americans in another protracted conflict in the Middle East. This escalation imperils regional energy infrastructure, reinforces Tehran's rationale for nuclear deterrence and inadvertently could legitimise the Islamic Republic's long-standing narrative portraying Israel as the existential adversary of Iran and Iranians. Mr Netanyahu's calculus is strategically comprehensible. Deprived of its most capable non-state proxy, Lebanese Hezbollah, and with auxiliary Iran-backed militias across Syria and Iraq demonstrating operational ineffectiveness, Iran finds itself unable to impose credible deterrent costs on Israel. Its indigenous missile capabilities remain largely incapable of penetrating multi-layered and integrated air defence systems of Israel and its allies. Furthermore, Iran's own air defences are porous, leaving it vulnerable to precision strikes. From Mr Netanyahu's perspective, this moment presents a rare opportunity. Should Iran escalate matters – by targeting regional energy assets to internationalise the crisis or retaliating against US forces in the region – Israel hopes for direct American involvement. Thus, it is plausible that Mr Netanyahu's war aims extend beyond the degradation of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. His objectives may include leadership decapitation, regime collapse and perhaps even the fragmentation of the Iranian state through civil strife. Indeed, Mr Netanyahu has goaded the Iranian public to stand up against Tehran's ruling class. And although Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar later insisted that regime change is not his government's goal, US officials have since leaked information that Mr Trump vetoed an Israeli plan to assassinate Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In any case, Israel's high-risk strategy against Iran could end up becoming an open-ended conflict beyond its control. Mr Netanyahu may have persuaded Mr Trump that sustained Israeli military pressure would compel Tehran to give greater concessions in the nuclear negotiations with the US. Yet Iran has suspended all talks, and Mr Khamenei – while notably omitting criticism of the US in his initial reaction – appears to be recalibrating his government's strategic posture. Mr Trump, for his part, praised the Israeli strikes as 'excellent', but there is no clear indication that he intends to commit US forces to a full-scale regional war. More significantly, Israel's pre-emptive strike may have fundamentally shifted Iran's nuclear doctrine. In the aftermath of Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980 and Baghdad's use of ballistic missiles against Iranian population centres, Tehran launched its missile development programme as a deterrent. Today, the inability to deter or respond meaningfully to Israeli aggression could catalyse a similar doctrinal evolution. This trajectory involves adopting a policy of nuclear latency or outright breakout, akin to North Korea's path. Pyongyang's acquisition of a rudimentary nuclear arsenal – despite global isolation and sanctions – enabled it to deter foreign intervention and preserve regime continuity. Iran's probable goal will be to assemble – and potentially test – a nuclear device to alter the regional strategic balance. A dual-capacity arsenal, capable of both signalling and retaliation, would enable Tehran to deter future existential threats. However, this would mean absorbing sustained Israeli strikes, overcoming technical blows to its nuclear programme, surviving leadership decapitation attempts, navigating potential ethnic insurgencies backed by external actors, and enduring severe economic attrition for a prolonged period – potentially six to 12 months. This scenario recalls the incremental degradation of the Iraqi state in the 1990s, which ultimately culminated in a full-scale US ground invasion to remove Saddam Hussein. Barring a comparable deployment of US ground forces in Iran, the Islamic Republic's coercive apparatus may be sufficient to retain control over any potential domestic unrest. In parallel, Iran may adjust its asymmetric deterrence doctrine by shifting focus from hardened Israeli targets to vulnerable energy and commercial assets in the Arabian Gulf. Regional hydrocarbon infrastructure could be targeted as part of a coercive strategy to compel de-escalation. Tehran may be willing to absorb reciprocal attacks against its own oil infrastructure in exchange for imposing strategic and economic costs on its Arab neighbours and the global energy market in the hope of mobilising international pressure on Israel to stop the war. Moreover, Mr Netanyahu may have inadvertently resolved a core ideological problem within the Islamic Republic's anti-Israel narrative. Iran and Israel, historically non-contiguous and without direct territorial disputes, have long had a pragmatic history of co-operation – both under the Pahlavi monarchy and even during the early years of the Islamic Republic, when Israel supplied Iran with US-origin arms during the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988. The Islamic Republic's anti-Zionist posture often rang hollow with ordinary Iranians, who struggled to identify a direct threat from Israel. Now, with Israeli munitions striking Tehran, killing civilians and targeting critical infrastructure, Israel's role as an adversary has acquired visceral legitimacy among the Iranian populace. Ultimately, Iran's decision-making in the coming weeks will be driven by regime survival imperatives in an increasingly precarious operating environment. Mr Netanyahu's gamble may have thrown Israel, Iran and the entire region in an open-ended conflict beyond Israel's control.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The Grim Reality of the Conflict in Iran
A damaged residential building in Tehran, Iran, on June 13, 2025. Credit - Middle East Images—AFP/Getty In the early hours of Friday morning, Israel launched a sweeping military campaign against Iran. The ongoing operation, which was reportedly planned to unfold over several days, is targeting a list of nuclear and military facilities, as well as senior regime officials, that grows longer by the hour. Iran has thus far retaliated with drones and a substantial missile barrage that could see Israel expand its targeting further still. In a region that has seen endless bloodshed since Hamas's October 2023 attacks, the grim reality is that things may get much worse before they get even worse. Under the Islamic Republic that took power in 1979, enmity toward Israel has been a core ideological tenet of Iranian foreign policy and a key driver in its regional policy. Over decades, their rivalry played out mainly through indirect actions by Iran and by covert operations from Israel. That dynamic changed last year. In April and again in October, the two sides engaged in direct hostilities, with Iran twice launching massive missile salvoes largely repelled by Israeli and allied air defenses. After the second strike, which came shortly after Israel severely degraded the upper ranks of Hizbollah in Lebanon—the most powerful of Iran's proxies—Israel targeted Iranian air defences and missile production facilities, facing little resistance or response. But while Iran's regional power projection was diminishing and its arsenal of missiles and drones twice proved largely ineffective, a third concern—a nuclear threat which Israel considered existential—was still growing. Tehran had been steadily expanding the scale and scope of its nuclear activity ever since President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal during his first term; President Joe Biden's Administration sought and failed to revive it. In March, Trump announced that he had reached out to Iran's leadership to negotiate a new deal, and his administration conducted five rounds of talks in Muscat and Rome in attempts to reach one. For Iran, which sought sanctions relief for its embattled economy, the success of negotiations with the U.S. hinged on concessions it has long opposed: Dismantling its nuclear program altogether or even ceasing the domestic enrichment of uranium. For Israel, eliminating, rather than merely restricting, the production of fissile material that could be used to fuel a weapon has been paramount. For President Trump, the prospect of a military strike by Israel seems a means of strengthening Washington's hand in a diplomatic agreement in which he still remains interested. But at the moment, the question may be less a matter of whether diplomacy can succeed than how grievously the situation could escalate. The worst-case scenarios are dire: A cycle of Israeli and Iranian counterstrikes that draw in the U.S., Iran's non-state allies, and regional states, cause grievous harm to civilians on all sides, and inject profound uncertainty into global markets. Over time, Iran's regime could attempt to reconstitute its nuclear activity from the rubble, only with an explicit aim of fashioning a weapon in the shortest possible time as a means of deterrence in the future. Another disastrous scenario is that the regime in Tehran falls and there is a protracted war for power and chaos or an even harder line regime armed with nuclear weapons. Is there a path out of this deepening crisis? Perhaps, though not a particularly promising one. Trump's stated objective—even as the fire is exchanged in two directions—remains a deal with Iran, and Tehran could offer concessions on the stipulation that it also involve an immediate cessation of hostilities with Israel. Were Iran to concede on its red lines in an effort to stave off greater destruction, perhaps Trump would be keen enough to avert a widening conflagration to also press Israel into ending the escalation cycle as well. Iran's government has previously demonstrated that when facing particularly inauspicious circumstances, especially those that might threaten the very foundations of the regime itself, it can make concessions necessary for its survival. But facing perhaps the gravest crisis it has faced since the eight-year-long war with Iraq in the 1980s, it may end up doubling down to the detriment of its people and the region. Contact us at letters@
Russia Today
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Ukraine can't stop it, maps can't hide it: Russia's summer blitz redraws the war
As the spring sun gave way to the heat of early summer, a new phase of the military campaign began to unfold across the front lines – and this time, the initiative clearly belongs to Russia. After months of grinding attritional warfare, Russian forces have launched a sweeping spring-summer offensive that is already delivering tangible results. From the borderlands of Sumy to the contested hills near Chasov Yar and the approaches to Dnepropetrovsk, the tempo has shifted decisively. Ukraine, battered and overextended, is now struggling to contain simultaneous breakthroughs across multiple sectors. The silence of Western media around these developments only underscores the magnitude of what is unfolding on the ground. A coordinated advance is in motion – methodical, strategic, and, by all appearances, effective. Following the liberation of Sudzha in early March 2025, the fighting quickly spilled across the border into Ukraine's Sumy Region. Moscow officially described its objective as the creation of a buffer zone – meant to safeguard the resumption of peaceful civilian life in Russia's neighboring Kursk Region. Motivated by political considerations, the Ukrainian Army has been trying to cling to a narrow foothold just across the border, in the village of Tyotkino in Kursk Region. In fact, Kiev has deployed some of its most experienced and ideologically committed units to this stretch of the front. But rather than showcasing Ukrainian resolve, the situation in Tyotkino has underscored the growing imbalance in offensive capabilities between Ukrainian and Russian forces in 2025. From the Russian side, Tyotkino is essentially a logistical cul-de-sac. But for Ukraine, the village connects to a critical rear supply hub in Belopolye. Even so, Ukrainian efforts to expand their presence in the area have ended in near catastrophe. In mid-May, the commander of Ukraine's 47th Brigade came close to staging a mutiny, accusing his superiors of issuing reckless orders that led to needless casualties. Elsewhere along the Sumy front, Ukrainian forces – many of them retreating from Sumy and the surrounding areas – have taken heavy losses. This remains a strategically vital axis for Ukraine. The authorities have announced mandatory evacuations in another 11 settlements, bringing the total number of evacuated towns and villages in the region to 213. Notably, this marks the first time Russian forces have entered Sumy Region since spring 2022. As of now, Russian advances appear to be accelerating. The front line has moved to within roughly 20km of the city of Sumy itself. Liman (also known as Krasny Liman) is a strategic city in the Donetsk People's Republic, with a pre-war population of around 20,000. Situated along the Kharkov-Donetsk railway, it serves as a key transportation hub in eastern Ukraine. After brief fighting, the city fell under Russian control in late May 2022 – but was later lost during Ukraine's Kharkov offensive in October of the same year. Today, Russian forces appear intent on retaking Liman by cutting off a single critical road that leads northwest toward Izium. The current offensive seems focused precisely on this objective. On May 15, Russian troops secured the village of Torskoye, followed by the capture of Redkodub May 29-30. Both settlements are considered vital defensive outposts for the Ukrainian Army along the route to Liman. From the south, the Liman front is effectively sealed off by the Seversky Donets River. During the brutal fighting in 2022, neither side managed to establish a crossing. With the evolution of drone warfare, any river assault today would be even more difficult to carry out. Russian forces are now within 10km of Liman and just 7km from the Izium road. The offensive is ongoing. As of early June, the stretch of the front from Dzerzhinsk (also known as Toretsk) to Mirnograd has become one of the most active battle zones. Russian forces have advanced up to 10km along a 30-kilometer-wide front, capturing 12 settlements and securing more than 15km of a key bypass highway linking Pokrovsk to Konstantinovka. These gains suggest that a southern encirclement of Konstantinovka – a city with a pre-war population of 67,000 – may now be underway. Simultaneously, fighting has intensified on the northern flank around Chasov Yar. The terrain in this area poses serious tactical challenges: Chasov Yar sits on elevated ground beyond the Seversky Donets–Donbass Canal, complicating efforts to establish supply lines or mount a full-scale offensive from that direction. Notably, this sector – among the three fronts currently in focus – has received the least media attention. That may soon change. Given its strategic positioning, it could emerge as a central axis of Russia's summer campaign. In the past week, Russian forces dismantled a significant Ukrainian stronghold north of the village of Zarya. The terrain here is rugged and uneven, but if fully secured, it would open a path for Russian troops to push toward the southern outskirts of Konstantinovka. Pokrovsk (Krasnoarmeysk), a city of 65,000 before the war, has been under siege since autumn 2024. After Russia's swift capture of nearby Novogrodovka and Selidovo, it initially appeared that Pokrovsk would fall just as quickly. But in a surprising pivot, Russian command redirected its main effort toward the Kurakhovo axis. Since the winter, Ukrainian forces have attempted to push Russian troops back from the city's outskirts, but those efforts have largely failed to yield results. Further south, across the Volchya River, the offensives launched last year around Kurakhovo and Velikaya Novoselka are still ongoing. Russian troops have taken control of the town of Bogatyr and several surrounding settlements. The front line now lies just 3-15km from the Dnepropetrovsk regional border, depending on the sector. An interesting development in this sector: Russia's Central, Eastern, and Southern military groups are coordinating their offensive operations here – a rare show of multi-group integration. On June 8, the Russian Defense Ministry announced that units from the 90th Tank Division, part of the Center Group of Forces, had reached the western boundary of the Donetsk People's Republic and were advancing into neighboring Dnepropetrovsk Region.
