Iran forms new defense council for handling affairs in wartime
Aug. 3 (UPI) -- The Iranian government announced Sunday that it had formed a new National Defense Council for handling the country's affairs in wartime.
The establishment of the council was approved by the Supreme National Security Council within the framework of Article 176 of the country's constitution, according to reports in Iranian state media agency IRNA and the semi-official Tasnim News Agency.
The Iranian government said that the council also aims to review defense plans and centralize military decision-making.
The new council will be chaired by President Masoud Pezeshkian and will include the heads of the Iranian Armed Forces and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, among other ministries, according to the pro-Iranian political blogger Middle East Spectator.
In another article, the Tasnim News Agency likened the structure and purpose of the new council to that of the United States' National Security Council, noting that the American agency "plays a coordination in national security and defense policymaking."
The move comes in the aftermath of the 12-day war between Iran and Israel earlier this year, which marked one of the most direct and intense confrontations between the two nations in decades.
Although both sides claimed victory, Iran emerged from the conflict with significant military and economic setbacks. Israeli strikes reportedly damaged key air defense systems, missile infrastructure, and IRGC command centers in western Iran.
Meanwhile, Iran's retaliatory attacks failed to breach Israeli missile defenses in a meaningful way, highlighting vulnerabilities in Iran's conventional military capabilities.
Since the conflict, Iran has faced renewed domestic pressure as its economy, which is already strained by international sanctions. The Iranian leadership has focused on consolidating internal power structures, streamlining military command, and projecting efforts of international diplomacy with other Muslim nations.
Iranian Army Maj. Gen. Amir Hatami said Sunday that Iran believes threats from Israel are not over and that it had only witnessed a glimpse of its rival's "brutality."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
5 minutes ago
- Newsweek
We Must Protect American Courtrooms From Foreign Interference
In most American courtrooms today, a party in court could be financed by foreign interests (and other unrelated third parties) without the other party ever knowing it. This alternate funder may be an investor hoping for uncorrelated returns, a wealthy donor with personal or business interests in the case, or an affiliate of an adversarial nation seeking to undermine U.S. competitiveness. The third-party litigation funding industry operates in the Wild West. Any outside group can pay the bills for a party in a legal dispute. They do this often in exchange for a percentage of an eventual settlement. Absent a handful of states that have passed disclosure laws affecting their own state court systems, the vast majority of state and federal courts do not require parties to disclose who's paying their legal costs—not to other parties and not even to the presiding judge. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. Getty Images But disclosure is critical and not just for transparency's sake. Incentives matter in the courtroom. The American civil litigation system is premised on fairness, impartiality, and the pursuit of justice. If a party's funders have hidden motives that stray from the desire to fairly resolve a dispute, trust in the system is put at risk. Foreign sources of litigation funding introduce a whole new set of perverse incentives. A foreign funder may finance a case in order to gain access to sensitive intellectual property or even to evade sanctions that prohibit transactions or investments in U.S. capital markets. Also, since litigation funders have their own monetary and non-monetary goals, the funder may push its client to demand steeper settlement terms than the client would otherwise consider. These are not hypothetical situations. In 2024, Bloomberg Law reported that a group of sanctioned Russian billionaires created an investment fund to back bankruptcy lawsuits in New York and London thus allowing the oligarchs to steer (launder) tens of millions into western financial institutions. In another instance, China-based technology firm PurpleVine financed several intellectual property lawsuits against Samsung. This was discovered by a lone overseeing judge in Delaware who luckily requires litigation financing disclosure in his courtroom. Had the case not crossed his desk, the defendants may never have known that their case was hardly a mere legal challenge but, in actuality, a case with national security importance. Foreign donors may also fund lawsuits that advance their personal agendas. Last year, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings revealed that an Australian mining billionaire was paying the legal bills for a coalition of environmental nonprofits in their lawsuit against ExxonMobil. The billionaire, Andrew Forrest, runs a mining empire that he aims to convert into a clean-energy provider—demonstrating both ideological and anticompetitive reasons to target an American oil major that he would not otherwise have standing to sue. This backdoor litigation is getting foreign companies and even foreign governments into American courtrooms they otherwise wouldn't be able to access. Since the third-party litigation funding industry is entirely unregulated, each of these examples only came to light by accident: strong investigative reporting; a lone judge's standing transparency order; and a buried FARA filing. But in each instance, the discovery of foreign funding changed both public perception and legal strategy. Routine civil suits became vehicles for money laundering, corporate espionage, and personal grievance. Unregulated third-party litigation financing is a crucial vulnerability for American competitiveness and national security. In order to secure a just and fair civil justice system, it's only common sense that parties should know who they're up against. We must act quickly as this "hidden party" industry is growing at a pace stressing the non-existent regulatory regime. One estimate values the global market at $17.5 billion in 2025, and it is forecasted to grow to $67.2 billion by 2037. Naturally, it's also becoming more complex. Opportunistic actors are developing secondary markets—a "stock exchange for lawsuits"—which, if left unregulated as well, will only create new avenues for foreign actors to distort the civil justice system and surreptitiously move capital. Regulators can be certain that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and other adversarial nations have taken notice of this influx of cash into the industry. The CCP may be responsible for a significant part of this cash flow, but we cannot be sure. Under the current system, neither national security officials nor legal professionals have any way to discern the source of billions of dollars propping up civil suits from behind the curtain. A number of bills in state legislatures and in Congress have been introduced to require disclosure of any third-party litigation financing—of foreign funding in particular. This is a welcome development. Lawmakers in Washington and in statehouses across the country should move with alacrity and act on this issue before American companies, our justice system, and our capital markets are subjected to further foreign meddling. Former Representative Michael Patrick Flanagan (R-Ill.) previously represented the 5th District of Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives and sat on the Committee on the Judiciary. An attorney, he previously served in the U.S. Army and retired at the rank of captain. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Newsweek
6 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Fewer Than 1,000 Trump Gold Cards Will Be Sold—Experts
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. While Trump administration officials have said that more than 70,000 people have expressed interest in the Trump "gold card" visa, some industry experts suggest the number of sales may be significantly lower. Latitude Managing Director Chris Willis told Newsweek, "In the end, less than 1,000 Trump Cards will be sold—far below the standards for a golden visa program." Newsweek has contacted the U.S. Commerce Department for comment. Why It Matters The gold card proposal, introduced in February, would grant U.S. residency to foreign nationals who invest $5 million in the United States. The fast-track pathway targets high-net-worth individuals looking for a route to American citizenship. Since returning to office on January 20, President Donald Trump has enacted sweeping changes to U.S. immigration policy and has moved to limit other immigration pathways, with his administration pausing the processing of some green card applications and ending the temporary legal status of certain migrant groups. A person in Shanghai, China, holds a smartphone displaying the website for registering interest in the new U.S. gold card visa on June 12. A person in Shanghai, China, holds a smartphone displaying the website for registering interest in the new U.S. gold card visa on June 12. Wang Gang/VCG via AP What To Know Since Trump announced the gold card visa program, it has drawn criticism, with experts calling it too expensive. "The key flaw with the Trump Card is that it's overpriced. The Trump administration is overestimating the value of American citizenship," said Latitude CEO Eric Major, who founded HSBC's Global Investor Immigration Services. Latitude, a global advisory firm, advises wealthy clients on dual passports and gold visas worldwide. "A required $5 million donation—not even an investment—is at least five times higher than comparable pathways in Europe," Major told Newsweek. "Without a proper legal basis, the Trump Card lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the market," he added. A key feature of the proposed visa is that recipients would be taxed solely on income they earn in the U.S., rather than on their worldwide income. The program faces several obstacles, Major said. To create such a pathway, the U.S. would need to significantly revise the Internal Revenue Code. This would include establishing a new classification of taxpayers that is separate from citizens, green card holders and those meeting the substantial presence test. These groups are currently taxed on worldwide income. Such changes cannot be made through executive order. It would require legislation passed by both chambers of Congress. According to the global investment migration firm Henley & Partners, interest in U.S. residency programs among wealthy individuals has increased, driven in part by renewed attention to established initiatives such as the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program following the gold card announcement. The EB-5 program, created in 1990, requires applicants to pay fees ranging from $100,000 to $200,000 to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, invest between $800,000 and $1 million, and create a minimum of 10 jobs for American workers. In June, the administration launched a website where foreign nationals can register their interest in the program. Registration is open to anyone. What People Are Saying Latitude CEO Eric Major told Newsweek: "The Trump Card, as currently presented, appears to have been launched for political branding. Even though they appear to have received close to 70,000 registrations, this reflects expressions of interest only. No formal applications have been processed, and the scheme still faces severe legal and legislative uncertainty, including whether Congress will approve the new visa category." Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, previously told Newsweek: "President Trump is a businessman and innovator who is always looking for new ways to bring investment back to the United States and encourage legal immigration." David Lesperance, the managing partner at Lesperance & Associates, told Newsweek: "I doubt if the Trump Card will ever see the light of day." What Happens Next While individuals and businesses can register their interest in the visa on details about official application procedures and the vetting and approval processes have not been announced.
Axios
6 minutes ago
- Axios
Speaker Johnson to visit Israeli settlement in occupied West Bank
House Speaker Mike Johnson is expected to visit a settlement in the occupied West Bank on Monday as part of a private visit to Israel organized by a pro-Israel advocacy group, according to two Israeli officials. Why it matters: While many Republican Congress members have visited West Bank settlements, it is highly unusual visit for a speaker of the house to do so. Johnson's unannounced trip with a group of Republican lawmakers to Israel and was only made public after Israeli ministers issued statements about ther meeting with the delegation. Driving the news: The speaker was supposed to visit Israel several weeks ago to address a session of the Israeli Knesset, but his trip was postponed due to the Israel-Iran war. Johnson traveled to Israel on Sunday with Reps. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas), Michael Cloud (R-Texas) and Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.), who heads the Friends of Judea and Samaria caucus in Congress, which supports Israeli settlements and advocates for annexation of the West Bank. Two Israeli officials said Johnson's visit to Israel is expected to be unusually long. He is scheduled to leave on Aug. 10. A spokesperson for Johnson did not respond to a request for comment. Behind the scenes: The trip isn't an official congressional delegation and is designated as a private trip. Three Israeli officials with direct knowledge told Axios the trip was organized by Heather Johnston, the founder of the U.S. Israel Education Association, a conservative pro-Israeli advocacy group. The Israeli officials said the Israeli embassy in Washington was surprised by the trip and was not involved in its preparation. The Israeli foreign ministry and the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem were also not involved. Neither Ambassador Mike Huckabee nor anybody on his team joined Johnson's meetings on Sunday with the Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz and F oreign Minister Gideon Saar, the officials said. What to watch: The Israeli officials said Johnson and his delegation were expected to travel to Gaza and visit the U.S.- and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) aid centers.
