Israel's ‘Operation Narnia' plan to kill Iran's top nuclear scientists was 15 years in the making: report
Israel's plan to kill more than a dozen of Iran's top nuclear scientists all at once was the culmination of a decade-and-a-half of stalking and targeting — and seemed so far-fetched it was dubbed 'Operation Narnia.'
The June 13 stealth attack saw nine scientists wiped out when Israel dropped a barrage of missiles onto their Tehran homes in a near-simultaneous onslaught.
At least five more were killed in subsequent strikes by the Jewish state
The timing of the strikes, carried out at the outset of what President Trump has dubbed the '12-day war,' was chosen to ensure the scientists couldn't scatter or go into hiding, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing sources familiar with the plan.
People mourn over the flag-draped coffins of Iranian army generals, nuclear scientists and their family members who were killed in Israeli strikes.
AP
The codename for the plot was a reference to the fantasy world created by author C.S. Lewis — and a nod to its complexity, as it required detailed intelligence about human targets, Israeli air superiority over Iran, and strategic deception by the governments in Jerusalem and Washington
The planners had been closely tracking some of the top scientists since 2003, just a few years after Israeli intelligence first detected efforts by Iran to go nuclear, sources told the Journal.
However, Israel appeared to step up its efforts in 2010, when two scientists were targeted in assassination attempts. One of those killed in this month's strikes — Fereydoon Abbasi, a former head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran — survived an attempt on his life in 2010.
Israel has neither confirmed or denied its role in the deaths of five Iranian scientists between 2010 and 2020.
Most of the scientists taken out in the 12-day war are believed to have been involved in the testing and assembling key parts of a nuclear warhead.
Among those killed was Sayyed Seddighi Saber — a top scientist who had only just been sanctioned by the US due to his work on nuclear weapons, according to Israeli and Iranian media.
The stealth attack on June 13 saw nine scientists wiped out when Israel dropped a barrage of missiles onto their homes in Tehran.
UGC/AFP via Getty Images
Saber was the head of Iran's Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research's Shahid Karimi Group, which specifically worked on explosives-related projects, the State Department said.
'It's one thing to lose that expertise slowly over time, especially if you are not trying to actually build a bomb. You have time to replace them,' Eric Brewer, a former US national security director for counterproliferation, told the outlet.
'But if you're in the middle of trying to build a bomb or if you see that as a potential near-term option, then it's going to have a bigger impact.'
Meanwhile, a separate Israeli mission that wiped out scores of Iran's top military commanders was codenamed 'Red Wedding' — after a notorious scene from the TV show 'Game of Thrones.'
In that attack, more than 200 Israeli Air Force aircraft hit roughly 100 targets, including nuclear facilities and ballistic missile factories.
Dozens of high-ranking Iranian officials — including Gen. Hossein Salami, the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; Mohammad Bagheri, chief of the country's military; and Gholam Ali Rashid, head of Iran's emergency command — were obliterated in the attack.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Senate Budget Bill Is Growing More Regressive
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 23: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) speaks to reporters after leaving ... More the Senate Chambers. (Photo by) The tax provisions of the budget bill being debated on the Senate floor would be even more regressive than the version drafted by the Senate Finance Committee, according to a new Tax Policy Center analysis. On average, the Senate measure released on June 28 would cut 2026 taxes by about $2,900, up about $250 from the Finance Committee's version. But the current Senate version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA ) would distribute most of those additional tax cuts to the highest-income households. The main reason: the way it treats the state and local tax (SALT) deduction. Comparing The Plans The Senate bill would cut taxes by an average of $12,500, or 3.4 percent of after-tax income, for those making $217,000 or more, the highest-income 20 percent of households. That's about $1,500, or 0.4 percent of after-tax income, more than they'd get under the Finance panel's plan. Those making between $460,000 and $1.1 million (the 95th-99th income percentile) would get an average tax cut of $21,000, raising their after-tax incomes by 4.4 percent. That would be roughly identical to the House version but nearly $3,000, or 0.6 percent of after-tax income, more generous than the Finance measure. Similarly, the bill on the Senate floor would cut taxes by an additional $8,000 on average for those who make $1.1 million or more, the top 1 percent of households—and an extra $40,000 for those who make $5 million or more, the top 0.1 percent—compared to the Finance bill. Even with those added tax cuts, the current Senate bill remains slightly less generous than the House measure for the highest-income households. While those high-earners get much more than in the Finance panel's measure, the same can't be said for low- and middle-income households. For example, the lowest-income households, those making about $35,000 or less, would get an average tax cut of $150 under either the Finance Committee's or the Senate's bill and $160 under the House bill, less than 1 percent of their after-tax income. Middle-income households would get an average tax cut of roughly $1,800 under all three measures: a bit more in the House bill and slightly less in the two Senate three versions of the big budget bill Differing Details The House and Senate bills are broadly similar. Both would extend the individual provisions of the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA); continue and enhance some corporate tax provisions; and adopt scaled-back versions of President Trump's tax-related campaign promises, such as tax-free tips and overtime. But they differ in scores of details, some minor and some significant. And the tax cuts in the Senate bill are substantially more expensive. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the pending Senate bill would slash federal revenues by more than $4.4 trillion over the next decade. The House-passed OBBBA would reduce federal revenue by $3.9 trillion, according to JCT. Both bills would allow costly provisions to expire on paper within the 10-year budget window. But because future Congresses are likely to extend those provisions once again, the true cost is likely to be substantially more. To satisfy many factions of Republicans, Senate GOP leaders made several revisions to the Finance draft. They made even deeper cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act and, at the same time, proposed even more generous tax cuts for high-income households. Including spending reductions and other offsets, the Senate bill would increase the federal debt by $3.3 trillion over the next decade, according to CBO. Additional interest would boost the debt by an additional $700 billion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. All About SALT Why are the tax cuts in the latest Senate bill so much more generous than the Finance panel's plan? The primary reason is the state and local tax deduction, including the way it treats owners of pass-through businesses such as partnerships and sole proprietorships. The Finance panel did not address the controversial SALT issue. The Senate bill adopts the House plan to boost the maximum SALT deduction from $10,000 to $40,000, though only through 2029. Crucially, it also allows owners of pass-through businesses to avoid the SALT deduction cap entirely by continuing to take advantage of state-enacted loopholes. That workaround allows these business owners to fully deduct their state and local taxes by paying the levies through their firms. About 36 states allow this. The House and Finance panel bills would have somewhat limited that exemption. But the pending Senate bill keeps the door wide open, effectively freeing very wealthy business owners from any cap on their SALT deductions. Both the House and Senate bills would phase out the more generous deduction for many households starting at $500,000. But since wealthy business owners could continue to fully deduct their state and local taxes if the state workarounds are allowed, the income limit on the cap is meaningless to them. The Finance panel plan faced substantial criticism for its regressivity and cost. But GOP leaders have nonetheless doubled down and written a Senate bill that benefits top earners even more.
Miami Herald
14 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Would Byron Donalds differ from DeSantis as governor? Here's what he told us
President Donald Trump endorsed U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds for Florida governor about a week before Donalds even announced that he would be campaigning for the state's top office. 'RUN, BYRON, RUN!' Trump posted on social media in February. Thus Donalds' campaign began over a year before Election Day. Donalds, a Republican, is polling at about a five-point lead over David Jolly, the most notable Democratic candidate, with about a third of voters still undecided, according to the polling firm Victory Insights. And the possibility of Casey DeSantis challenging him in a Republican primary is beginning to fade, according to lobbyists and consultants. A Brooklyn native who came to the Sunshine State more than 20 years ago to study at Florida A&M University and Florida State University, Donalds has been involved in Florida politics for about a decade. The first race he won was a state House seat in 2016, representing a coastal district near Fort Myers, and he was reelected there in 2018. During that time, Donalds was known as a firm Trump supporter. He was elected to Congress in 2020 and has since been reelected twice. While in D.C., he has aligned himself with the ultraconservative Tea Party caucus, voting hardline MAGA — though Gov. Ron DeSantis accused Donalds in 2023 of siding with then-Vice President Kamala Harris after Donalds criticized statewide education standards that had Florida students being taught that American slaves learned useful skills. Donalds, who is Black, called them 'wrong' on social media and said they needed adjustment. Donalds later endorsed Trump over DeSantis during the 2024 presidential election cycle. Only about half of Floridians recognize Donalds' name — up from a third in February, before he announced his campaign. Who would he be as Florida's governor? The Miami Herald sat down with him to find out. What follows are exchanges from Donalds' interview with the Herald, edited for brevity and clarity. Q: You launched your campaign fairly early. How do you keep people interested in your candidacy over the next 14 months prior to the primary? A: It's really about continuing to add people to your coalition. [Our campaign's] been fortunate to really be in just about every part of our state. We're going to continue to travel the state. And wherever we go to, whether it's CPAC Latino, business owners throughout our state, nonprofits, religious groups — people have been excited. I think that it's just one day at a time. You keep working hard, and it all comes together. Q: Did you time the launch of your campaign and Trump's endorsement to get ahead of potential competitors, like Casey DeSantis? A: No, that was not what happened. The president endorsed and then I was like, oh, all right, I guess we're running for governor. I had been thinking about running, and you have a bunch of different timelines of when you announce. The president's endorsement pretty much changed all that. Q: Is the Democratic Party in Florida dead? Is your only concern during this campaign a Republican primary? A: Yeah, they're pretty much dead. But that doesn't mean you ignore them and take your foot off the gas. Q: What do Floridians want from their next governor? What is the issue or issues they most care about? A: Right now, obviously, people are concerned about insurance. A lot of sticker shock around there. People want to talk about transportation — how am I getting around the state? How might we get some of the traffic off the roads? But overall, as I travel the state, people are happy with Florida. They want it to continue, so their biggest thing is, are we going to keep moving on the same path? Florida is going to remain the free state of Florida. We're going to keep people safe. We're going to make sure kids are getting a quality education. One of the things I focus on is helping children in our state become proficient in core subject matter. About 30% of our kids are proficient in math and reading. We need to raise that bar [to] 50%. If you're proficient in core subjects, now you're even more ready to take on the challenges of the world. We're preparing the future of Florida. Q: Are there any ways that your administration would be different than a DeSantis administration? A: Look, when it comes to policy, the governor and I don't really have disagreements. … I think it's more about careers. The governor was an attorney. I'm a man of finance. So I think it's just a different way of going about your business, but in terms of policy outcomes and political stances, there's not going to be much change. Q: As a former state lawmaker, what are your thoughts on the struggle between DeSantis and the Legislature this past session? A: Every session's different. What most people don't understand is that there are usually conflicts between the governor and the Legislature. It happens a lot more than people realize. It's really just maintaining open lines of communication with House and Senate leadership and really trying to do the early work of trying to get on the same page, really understanding what everybody's priorities and positions are. And just being professional and working through that on a step-by-step basis. Q: If you were to be elected, you would be the first Black Republican governor in the modern history of the party. What do you think that signals for the party? A: Our party is growing. People are far more diverse, but not just diversity for diversity's sake. We are still a party built on ideals. Strong ideas of individual liberty, human freedom, economic growth, sound policy, safe streets and children being educated. Those are principles that whether you're Black, whether you're Cuban, whether you're Puerto Rican or Dominican — you can agree with that. These are the philosophies that build families and maintain strong cultures. That's why I think you see more Black people coming to the Republican Party. They're sick of the dogma and the terrible policies. And the broken promises … [Democrats] never have real solutions. I think people are tired of it. What they're looking at in Republicans is people who are no nonsense. You may agree with us, you may disagree with us, but you're going to get a straight answer. … At the end of the day, people respect that. That's why you're seeing more minorities choose the Republican Party. Q: GOP members of Congress in Miami have called on the Trump administration to be more discerning as it seeks to deport immigrants in the country illegally. Do you agree with that position? A: No, I think the way the president is moving, it's going to continue. Let's be very clear: We have to be consistent when it comes to dealing with immigration law. What we want is more legal immigration, people who come in the right way. What Joe Biden allowed was anarchy, and that anarchy is going to create chaos. It's unfortunate this is what happens when you have terrible policy from the Democratic Party. The first thing: You've got to secure the border. [Trump] has done that. When it comes to deportations, obviously starting with criminal and illegal aliens, and then other people in the country illegally — yes, a lot of people are going to have to go home because we took on more than 10 million people. Our budgets are overwhelmed in every city in America. … We have to do the right thing, which is reset the table. And then we can work on letting people come into the country legally, to be able to come and work in America, if that's what they choose to do, or assimilate in America and become citizens. Q: Any thoughts on Alligator Alcatraz? A: I think the concept is good. Where we are right now, a lot of the county jails are overwhelmed. You have to have a release valve. That's what the governor and the attorney general are doing about that. But I think it's a temporary matter because … when we pass the 'Big Beautiful Bill' in Washington, it's going to give [Trump border czar] Tom Homan and [Homeland Security Secretary] Kristi Noem the resources they need. So it will alleviate the backfill that's happening currently with our sheriffs in Florida.
18 minutes ago
Polls show Americans largely oppose Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' but are more split on Medicaid, immigration specifics
As the "One Big Beautiful Bill" tax and policy bill championed by President Donald Trump winds its way through votes in Congress, polling taken across the past month shows Americans largely disapprove – but are more split when it comes to their views on some of its provisions. Trump has emphasized that he believes Americans support his bill as emblematic of the agenda he campaigned on. He told reporters at a promotional event on Thursday, "Almost every major promise made in the 2024 campaign already will have become a promise kept. That's very important." A wide-ranging Quinnipiac University poll published on Thursday that was taken in late June found that a small majority of registered voters oppose the bill, but are more split on a provision that would create new requirements to be insured through Medicaid. Fifty-five percent of voters said that they oppose the bill, while 29% said they support it and 16% were unsure. Among Republicans, 67% said they support the act while a larger 87% of Democrats oppose it. The bill would impose new work requirements on able-bodied Medicaid recipients who don't have dependents. Asked about how they feel about the Medicaid provisions, voters were largely split – 47% of registered voters said they support them and 46% said they oppose them, effectively a dead heat. A separate poll of registered voters from Fox News taken in mid-June found similar results. 59% of registered voters said they oppose the bill, while 38% of them favored it. (However, around 4 in 10 voters said they don't understand the bill very much or at all.) A smaller plurality of voters – 49% – told Fox News they think the legislation will hurt their families, while 23% said it would help and 26% said it would make no difference. Meanwhile, a poll of American adults taken in early June by the Washington Post and Ipsos found a plurality of adults, 42%, opposing the bill, and 23% supportive of it. But at that time, 34% of American adults said they had no opinion about it, and separately, 66% said they had heard only a little or nothing at all about the bill. However, 49% of Americans told the Washington Post and Ipsos back then that they would support extending the tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a provision of the bill -- although their support spiked to 71% when asked if they'd support or oppose those tax cuts for people who have incomes lower than $100,000, and dropped underwater when asked about individuals with incomes above $400,000 or business corporations. The Pew Research Center, in an early June poll, also found around half – 49% – of Americans opposing the bill and 29% supporting it. Separately, 54% of Americans also felt the bill would have a "mostly negative effect on the country," while 3 in 10 felt it would have a "mostly positive effect." But similar to the Washington Post's poll, Pew found that around half of Americans would favor creating work requirements for Medicaid, with 32% opposed. A provision on money for border security enforcement – which Pew framed as increased funding for detaining and deporting undocumented immigrants – split American adults. 45% said they are opposed and 41% said they favor. The nonprofit health policy research group KFF, meanwhile, found in an early June poll that a larger majority of American adults, 64%, had an unfavorable view of the bill, while 35% had a favorable view of it. Only 17% of respondents felt that the bill would help them and their families, and 44% said it would hurt, although almost 1 in 4 did not think it would make much difference. The poll separately found a lot of support for Medicaid more generally as a program, with 79% of Americans saying they think it is the government's responsibility "to provide health insurance coverage to low-income Americans who cannot afford it."
