Latest news with #MohammadMehdiTehranchi
Khaleej Times
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Khaleej Times
Iran holds state funeral for top brass killed in 12-day conflict with Israel
Iran began a state funeral service Saturday for around 60 people, including its military commanders, killed in its war with Israel, after Tehran's top diplomat condemned Donald Trump's comments on supreme leader Ali Khamenei as "unacceptable". The proceedings in Tehran for the nuclear scientists and military commanders killed in Israeli strikes began at 8am local time (0430 GMT). "The ceremony to honour the martyrs has officially started," state TV said, showing footage of people donning black clothes, waving Iranian flags and holding pictures of the slain military commanders. Images showed coffins draped in Iranian flags and bearing portraits of the deceased commanders in uniform near Enghelab Square in central Tehran. 'Historic' state funeral The ceremony in Tehran "to honour the martyrs" will be followed by a funeral procession to Azadi Square, about 11km (seven miles) across the sprawling metropolis. Mohsen Mahmoudi, head of Tehran's Islamic Development Coordination Council, vowed it would be a "historic day for Islamic Iran and the revolution". Among the dead is Mohammad Bagheri, a major general in Iran's Revolutionary Guards and the second-in-command of the armed forces after the Iranian leader. He will be buried alongside his wife and daughter, a journalist for a local media outlet, all killed in an Israeli attack. Nuclear scientist Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, also killed in the attacks, will be buried with his wife. Revolutionary Guards commander Hossein Salami, who was killed on the first day of the war, will also be laid to rest after Saturday's ceremony -- which will also honour at least 30 other top commanders. Of the 60 people who are to be laid to rest after the ceremony, four are children. 12-day conflict with Israel The US had carried out strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend, joining its ally Israel's bombardments of Iran's nuclear programme in the 12-day conflict launched on June 13. Both Israel and Iran claimed victory in the war that ended with a ceasefire, with Iranian leader Khamenei downplaying the US strikes as having done "nothing significant". In a tirade on his Truth Social platform, Trump blasted Tehran Friday for claiming to have won the war. He also claimed to have known "EXACTLY where he (Khamenei) was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces... terminate his life". "I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH, and he does not have to say, 'THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP!'" the US leader said. Trump added he had been working in recent days on the possible removal of sanctions against Iran, one of Tehran's main demands. "But no, instead I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief, and more," Trump said. Hitting back at Trump Saturday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the Republican president's comments on Khamenei. "If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei," Araghchi posted on social media platform X. "The Great and Powerful Iranian People, who showed the world that the Israeli regime had NO CHOICE but to RUN to 'Daddy' to avoid being flattened by our Missiles, do not take kindly to Threats and Insults." The Israeli strikes on Iran killed at least 627 civilians, Tehran's health ministry said. Iran's attacks on Israel killed 28 people, according to Israeli figures. 'Imminent threat' During his first term in office, Trump pulled out in 2018 of a landmark nuclear deal — negotiated by former US president Barack Obama. The deal that Trump had abandoned aimed to make it practically impossible for Iran to build an atomic bomb, while at the same time allowing it to pursue a civil nuclear programme. Iran, which insists its nuclear programme is only for civilian purposes, stepped up its activities after Trump withdrew from the agreement. After the US strikes, Trump said negotiations for a new deal were set to begin next week. But Tehran denied a resumption, and leader Khamenei said Trump had "exaggerated events in unusual ways", rejecting US claims Iran's nuclear programme had been set back by decades. Israel had claimed it had "thwarted Iran's nuclear project" during the 12-day war. But its foreign minister reiterated Friday the world was obliged to stop Tehran from developing an atomic bomb. "The international community now has an obligation to prevent, through any effective means, the world's most extreme regime from obtaining the most dangerous weapon," Gideon Saar wrote on X.
Gizmodo
7 days ago
- Politics
- Gizmodo
Targeting Nuclear Scientists Used to Be Covert Ops. Israel Just Blew It Open
At least 14 nuclear scientists are believed to be among those killed in Israel's Operation Rising Lion, launched on June 13, 2025, ostensibly to destroy or degrade Iran's nuclear program and military capabilities. Deliberately targeting scientists in this way aims to disrupt Iran's knowledge base and continuity in nuclear expertise. Among those assassinated were Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, a theoretical physicist and head of Iran's Islamic Azad University, and Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, a nuclear engineer who led Iran's Atomic Energy Organization. Collectively, these experts in physics and engineering were potential successors to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, widely regarded as the architect of the Iranian nuclear program, who was assassinated in a November 2020 attack many blame on Israel. As two political scientists writing a book about state targeting of scientists as a counterproliferation tool, we understand well that nuclear scientists have been targeted since the nuclear age began. We have gathered data on nearly 100 instances of what we call 'scientist targeting' from 1944 through 2025. The most recent assassination campaign against Iranian scientists is different from many of the earlier episodes in a few key ways. Israel's recent attack targeted multiple nuclear experts and took place simultaneously with military force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, air defenses and energy infrastructure. Also, unlike previous covert operations, Israel immediately claimed responsibility for the assassinations. But our research indicates that targeting scientists may not be effective for counterproliferation. While removing individual expertise may delay nuclear acquisition, targeting alone is unlikely to destroy a program outright and could even increase a country's desire for nuclear weapons. Further, targeting scientists may trigger blowback given concerns regarding legality and morality. Targeting nuclear scientists began during World War II when Allied and Soviet forces raced to capture Nazi scientists, degrade Adolf Hitler's ability to build a nuclear bomb and use their expertise to advance the U.S. and Soviet nuclear programs. In our data set, we classified 'targeting' as cases in which scientists were captured, threatened, injured or killed as nations tried to prevent adversaries from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Over time, at least four countries have targeted scientists working on nine national nuclear programs. The United States and Israel have allegedly carried out the most attacks on nuclear scientists. But the United Kingdom and Soviet Union have also been behind such attacks. Meanwhile, scientists working for the Egyptian, Iranian and Iraqi nuclear programs have been the most frequent targets since 1950. Since 2007 and prior to the current Israeli operation, 10 scientists involved in the Iranian nuclear program were killed in attacks. Other countries' nationals have also been targeted: In 1980, Mossad, Israel's intelligence service, allegedly bombed Italian engineer Mario Fiorelli's home and his firm, SNIA Techint, as a warning to Europeans involved in the Iraqi nuclear project. Given this history, the fact that Israel attacked Iran's nuclear program is not itself surprising. Indeed, it has been a strategic goal of successive Israeli prime ministers to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and experts had been warning of the increased likelihood of an Israeli military operation since mid-2024, due to regional dynamics and Iranian nuclear development. By then, the balance of power in the Middle East had changed dramatically. Israel systematically degraded the leadership and infrastructure of Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. It later destroyed Iranian air defenses around Tehran and near key nuclear installations. The subsequent fall of Syria's Assad regime cost Tehran another long-standing ally. Together, these developments have significantly weakened Iran, leaving it vulnerable to external attack and stripped of its once-feared proxy network, which had been expected to retaliate on its behalf in the event of hostilities. With its proxy 'axis of resistance' defanged and conventional military capacity degraded, Iranian leadership may have thought that expanding its enrichment capability was its best bet going forward. And in the months leading up to Israel's recent attack, Iran expanded its nuclear production capacity, moving beyond 60% uranium enrichment, a technical step just short of weapons-grade material. During Donald Trump's first term, the president withdrew the U.S. from a multilateral nonproliferation agreement aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program. After being reelected, Trump appeared to change tack by pursuing new diplomacy with Iran, but those talks have so far failed to deliver an agreement – and may be put on hold for the foreseeable future amid the war. Most recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors declared Iran in non-compliance with its nuclear-nonproliferation obligations. In response, Iran announced it was further expanding its enrichment capacity by adding advanced centrifuge technology and a third enrichment site. Even if the international community anticipated the broader attack on Iran, characteristics of the targeting itself are surprising. Historically, states have covertly targeted individual scientists. But the recent multiple-scientist attack occurred openly, with Israel taking responsibility, publicly indicating the attacks' purpose. Further, while it is not new for a country to use multiple counter-proliferation tools against an adversary over time, that Israel is using both preventive military force against infrastructure and targeting scientists at once is atypical. Additionally, such attacks against scientists are historically lower tech and low cost, with death or injury stemming from gunmen, car bombs or accidents. In fact, Abbasi – who was killed in the most recent attacks – survived a 2010 car bombing in Tehran. There are outliers, however, including the Fakhrizadeh assassination, which featured a remotely operated machine gun smuggled into Iranian territory. Why target nuclear scientists? In foreign policy, there are numerous tools available if one state aims to prevent another state from acquiring nuclear weapons. Alongside targeting scientists, there are sanctions, diplomacy, cyberattacks and military force. Targeting scientists may remove critical scientific expertise and impose costs that increase the difficulty of building nuclear weapons. Proponents argue that targeting these experts may undermine a state's efforts, deter it from continuing nuclear developments and signal to others the perils of supporting nuclear proliferation. Countries that target scientists therefore believe that doing so is an effective way to degrade an adversary's nuclear program. Indeed, the Israel Defense Forces described the most recent attacks as 'a significant blow to the regime's ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction.' Despite Israel's focus on scientists as sources of critical knowledge, there may be thousands more working inside Iran, calling into question the efficacy of targeting them. Further, there are legal, ethical and moral concerns over targeting scientists. Moreover, it is a risky option that may fail to disrupt an enemy nuclear program while sparking public outrage and calls for retaliation. This is especially the case if scientists, often regarded as civilians, are elevated as martyrs. Targeting campaigns may, as a result, reinforce domestic support for a government, which could then redouble efforts toward nuclear development. Regardless of whether targeting scientists is an effective counter-proliferation tool, it has been around since the start of the nuclear age – and will likely persist as part of the foreign policy toolkit for states aiming to prevent proliferation. In the case of the current Israeli conflict with Iran and its targeting of nuclear scientists, we expect the tactic to continue for the duration of the war and beyond. Jenna Jordan, Associate Professor of International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology and Rachel Whitlark, Associate Professor of International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
NDTV
20-06-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
How Israel Is Targetting Key Iranian Nuclear Scientists
Atlanta: At least 14 nuclear scientists are believed to be among those killed in Israel's Operation Rising Lion, launched on June 13, 2025, ostensibly to destroy or degrade Iran's nuclear program and military capabilities. Deliberately targeting scientists in this way aims to disrupt Iran's knowledge base and continuity in nuclear expertise. Among those assassinated were Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, a theoretical physicist and head of Iran's Islamic Azad University, and Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, a nuclear engineer who led Iran's Atomic Energy Organization. Collectively, these experts in physics and engineering were potential successors to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, widely regarded as the architect of the Iranian nuclear program, who was assassinated in a November 2020 attack many blame on Israel. As two political scientists writing a book about state targeting of scientists as a counterproliferation tool, we understand well that nuclear scientists have been targeted since the nuclear age began. We have gathered data on nearly 100 instances of what we call "scientist targeting" from 1944 through 2025. The most recent assassination campaign against Iranian scientists is different from many of the earlier episodes in a few key ways. Israel's recent attack targeted multiple nuclear experts and took place simultaneously with military force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, air defenses and energy infrastructure. Also, unlike previous covert operations, Israel immediately claimed responsibility for the assassinations. But our research indicates that targeting scientists may not be effective for counterproliferation. While removing individual expertise may delay nuclear acquisition, targeting alone is unlikely to destroy a program outright and could even increase a country's desire for nuclear weapons. Further, targeting scientists may trigger blowback given concerns regarding legality and morality. A policy with a long history Targeting nuclear scientists began during World War II when Allied and Soviet forces raced to capture Nazi scientists, degrade Adolf Hitler's ability to build a nuclear bomb and use their expertise to advance the US and Soviet nuclear programs. In our data set, we classified "targeting" as cases in which scientists were captured, threatened, injured or killed as nations tried to prevent adversaries from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Over time, at least four countries have targeted scientists working on nine national nuclear programs. The United States and Israel have allegedly carried out the most attacks on nuclear scientists. But the United Kingdom and Soviet Union have also been behind such attacks. Meanwhile, scientists working for the Egyptian, Iranian and Iraqi nuclear programs have been the most frequent targets since 1950. Since 2007 and prior to the current Israeli operation, 10 scientists involved in the Iranian nuclear program were killed in attacks. Other countries' nationals have also been targeted: In 1980, Mossad, Israel's intelligence service, allegedly bombed Italian engineer Mario Fiorelli's home and his firm, SNIA Techint, as a warning to Europeans involved in the Iraqi nuclear project. Given this history, the fact that Israel attacked Iran's nuclear program is not itself surprising. Indeed, it has been a strategic goal of successive Israeli prime ministers to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and experts had been warning of the increased likelihood of an Israeli military operation since mid-2024, due to regional dynamics and Iranian nuclear development. By then, the balance of power in the Middle East had changed dramatically. Israel systematically degraded the leadership and infrastructure of Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. It later destroyed Iranian air defenses around Tehran and near key nuclear installations. The subsequent fall of Syria's Assad regime cost Tehran another long-standing ally. Together, these developments have significantly weakened Iran, leaving it vulnerable to external attack and stripped of its once-feared proxy network, which had been expected to retaliate on its behalf in the event of hostilities. With its proxy "axis of resistance" defanged and conventional military capacity degraded, Iranian leadership may have thought that expanding its enrichment capability was its best bet going forward. And in the months leading up to Israel's recent attack, Iran expanded its nuclear production capacity, moving beyond 60% uranium enrichment, a technical step just short of weapons-grade material. During Donald Trump's first term, the president withdrew the US from a multilateral nonproliferation agreement aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program. After being reelected, Trump appeared to change tack by pursuing new diplomacy with Iran, but those talks have so far failed to deliver an agreement - and may be put on hold for the foreseeable future amid the war. Most recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors declared Iran in non-compliance with its nuclear-nonproliferation obligations. In response, Iran announced it was further expanding its enrichment capacity by adding advanced centrifuge technology and a third enrichment site. Even if the international community anticipated the broader attack on Iran, characteristics of the targeting itself are surprising. Historically, states have covertly targeted individual scientists. But the recent multiple-scientist attack occurred openly, with Israel taking responsibility, publicly indicating the attacks' purpose. Further, while it is not new for a country to use multiple counter-proliferation tools against an adversary over time, that Israel is using both preventive military force against infrastructure and targeting scientists at once is atypical. Additionally, such attacks against scientists are historically lower tech and low cost, with death or injury stemming from gunmen, car bombs or accidents. In fact, Abbasi - who was killed in the most recent attacks - survived a 2010 car bombing in Tehran. There are outliers, however, including the Fakhrizadeh assassination, which featured a remotely operated machine gun smuggled into Iranian territory. Israel's logic in going after scientists Why target nuclear scientists? In foreign policy, there are numerous tools available if one state aims to prevent another state from acquiring nuclear weapons. Alongside targeting scientists, there are sanctions, diplomacy, cyberattacks and military force. Targeting scientists may remove critical scientific expertise and impose costs that increase the difficulty of building nuclear weapons. Proponents argue that targeting these experts may undermine a state's efforts, deter it from continuing nuclear developments and signal to others the perils of supporting nuclear proliferation. Countries that target scientists therefore believe that doing so is an effective way to degrade an adversary's nuclear program. Indeed, the Israel Defense Forces described the most recent attacks as "a significant blow to the regime's ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction." Despite Israel's focus on scientists as sources of critical knowledge, there may be thousands more working inside Iran, calling into question the efficacy of targeting them. Further, there are legal, ethical and moral concerns over targeting scientists. Moreover, it is a risky option that may fail to disrupt an enemy nuclear program while sparking public outrage and calls for retaliation. This is especially the case if scientists, often regarded as civilians, are elevated as martyrs. Targeting campaigns may, as a result, reinforce domestic support for a government, which could then redouble efforts toward nuclear development. Regardless of whether targeting scientists is an effective counter-proliferation tool, it has been around since the start of the nuclear age - and will likely persist as part of the foreign policy toolkit for states aiming to prevent proliferation. In the case of the current Israeli conflict with Iran and its targeting of nuclear scientists, we expect the tactic to continue for the duration of the war and beyond. (Author: Jenna Jordan, Associate Professor of International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology and Rachel Whitlark, Associate Professor of International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology) (Disclaimer Statement: Rachel Whitlark is a nonresident senior fellow in the Forward Defense practice of the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. Jenna Jordan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.)
AllAfrica
20-06-2025
- Politics
- AllAfrica
The Israeli logic of assassinating Iran's nuclear scientists
At least 14 nuclear scientists are believed to be among those killed in Israel's Operation Rising Lion, launched on June 13, 2025, ostensibly to destroy or degrade Iran's nuclear program and military capabilities. Deliberately targeting scientists in this way aims to disrupt Iran's knowledge base and continuity in nuclear expertise. Among those assassinated were Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, a theoretical physicist and head of Iran's Islamic Azad University, and Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, a nuclear engineer who led Iran's Atomic Energy Organization. Collectively, these experts in physics and engineering were potential successors to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, widely regarded as the architect of the Iranian nuclear program, who was assassinated in a November 2020 attack many blame on Israel. As two political scientists writing a book about state targeting of scientists as a counterproliferation tool, we understand well that nuclear scientists have been targeted since the nuclear age began. We have gathered data on nearly 100 instances of what we call 'scientist targeting' from 1944 through 2025. The most recent assassination campaign against Iranian scientists is different from many of the earlier episodes in a few key ways. Israel's recent attack targeted multiple nuclear experts and took place simultaneously with military force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, air defenses and energy infrastructure. Also, unlike previous covert operations, Israel immediately claimed responsibility for the assassinations. But our research indicates that targeting scientists may not be effective for counterproliferation. While removing individual expertise may delay nuclear acquisition, targeting alone is unlikely to destroy a program outright and could even increase a country's desire for nuclear weapons. Further, targeting scientists may trigger blowback given concerns regarding legality and morality. Targeting nuclear scientists began during World War II when Allied and Soviet forces raced to capture Nazi scientists, degrade Adolf Hitler's ability to build a nuclear bomb and use their expertise to advance the U.S. and Soviet nuclear programs. In our data set, we classified 'targeting' as cases in which scientists were captured, threatened, injured or killed as nations tried to prevent adversaries from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Over time, at least four countries have targeted scientists working on nine national nuclear programs. The United States and Israel have allegedly carried out the most attacks on nuclear scientists. But the United Kingdom and Soviet Union have also been behind such attacks. Meanwhile, scientists working for the Egyptian, Iranian and Iraqi nuclear programs have been the most frequent targets since 1950. Since 2007 and prior to the current Israeli operation, 10 scientists involved in the Iranian nuclear program were killed in attacks. Other countries' nationals have also been targeted: In 1980, Mossad, Israel's intelligence service, allegedly bombed Italian engineer Mario Fiorelli's home and his firm, SNIA Techint, as a warning to Europeans involved in the Iraqi nuclear project. Given this history, the fact that Israel attacked Iran's nuclear program is not itself surprising. Indeed, it has been a strategic goal of successive Israeli prime ministers to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and experts had been warning of the increased likelihood of an Israeli military operation since mid-2024, due to regional dynamics and Iranian nuclear development. The wrecked cars in which four of Iran's nuclear scientists were assassinated in recent years are displayed on the grounds of a museum in Tehran in 2014. Photo: Scott Peterson / Getty Images via The Conversation By then, the balance of power in the Middle East had changed dramatically. Israel systematically degraded the leadership and infrastructure of Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. It later destroyed Iranian air defenses around Tehran and near key nuclear installations. The subsequent fall of Syria's Assad regime cost Tehran another long-standing ally. Together, these developments have significantly weakened Iran, leaving it vulnerable to external attack and stripped of its once-feared proxy network, which had been expected to retaliate on its behalf in the event of hostilities. With its proxy 'axis of resistance' defanged and conventional military capacity degraded, Iranian leadership may have thought that expanding its enrichment capability was its best bet going forward. And in the months leading up to Israel's recent attack, Iran expanded its nuclear production capacity, moving beyond 60% uranium enrichment, a technical step just short of weapons-grade material. During Donald Trump's first term, the president withdrew the US from a multilateral nonproliferation agreement aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program. After being reelected, Trump appeared to change tack by pursuing new diplomacy with Iran, but those talks have so far failed to deliver an agreement and may be put on hold for the foreseeable future amid the war. Most recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors declared Iran in non-compliance with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. In response, Iran announced it was further expanding its enrichment capacity by adding advanced centrifuge technology and a third enrichment site. Even if the international community anticipated the broader attack on Iran, characteristics of the targeting itself are surprising. Historically, states have covertly targeted individual scientists. But the recent multiple-scientist attack occurred openly, with Israel taking responsibility, publicly indicating the attacks' purpose. Further, while it is not new for a country to use multiple counter-proliferation tools against an adversary over time, that Israel is using both preventive military force against infrastructure and targeting scientists at once is atypical. Additionally, such attacks against scientists are historically lower tech and low cost, with death or injury stemming from gunmen, car bombs or accidents. In fact, Abbasi – who was killed in the most recent attacks – survived a 2010 car bombing in Tehran. There are outliers, however, including the Fakhrizadeh assassination, which featured a remotely operated machine gun smuggled into Iranian territory. Why target nuclear scientists? In foreign policy, there are numerous tools available if one state aims to prevent another state from acquiring nuclear weapons. Alongside targeting scientists, there are sanctions, diplomacy, cyberattacks and military force. Targeting scientists may remove critical scientific expertise and impose costs that increase the difficulty of building nuclear weapons. Proponents argue that targeting these experts may undermine a state's efforts, deter it from continuing nuclear developments and signal to others the perils of supporting nuclear proliferation. Countries that target scientists, therefore, believe that doing so is an effective way to degrade an adversary's nuclear program. Indeed, the Israel Defense Forces described the most recent attacks as 'a significant blow to the regime's ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction.' Posters featuring images of Iranian nuclear scientists are displayed in Tehran, Iran, on June 14, 2025. Photo: Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images / The Conversation Despite Israel's focus on scientists as sources of critical knowledge, there may be thousands more working inside Iran, calling into question the efficacy of targeting them. Further, there are legal, ethical and moral concerns over targeting scientists. Moreover, it is a risky option that may fail to disrupt an enemy nuclear program while sparking public outrage and calls for retaliation. This is especially the case if scientists, often regarded as civilians, are elevated as martyrs. Targeting campaigns may, as a result, reinforce domestic support for a government, which could then redouble efforts toward nuclear development. Regardless of whether targeting scientists is an effective counter-proliferation tool, it has been around since the start of the nuclear age – and will likely persist as part of the foreign policy toolkit for states aiming to prevent proliferation. In the case of the current Israeli conflict with Iran and its targeting of nuclear scientists, we expect the tactic to continue for the duration of the war and beyond. Jenna Jordan is associate professor of international affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology and Rachel Whitlark is associate professor of international affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Straits Times
18-06-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
Oil prices rise as Israel launches air strikes on Iran, putting in doubt Mid-East supplies
The worsening Middle East conflict raises the risk of disruptions to oil supplies from key oil- producing nations in the region. PHOTO: REUTERS SINGAPORE – Oil prices spiked to their highest level in three years early on June 13 as news broke that Israel had launched dozens of air strikes against Iran, targeting its nuclear programme and military facilities, and killing its senior commanders. Futures on global benchmark Brent crude oil soared by as much as 13 per cent – the biggest intraday move since March 2022 – to US$78.50 a barrel. Prices pulled back to US$73.07 at 3.50pm Singapore time, still up 5.3 per cent from their previous close. Shock waves from the oil market also hit stock markets across Asia, from Hong Kong and Shanghai to Malaysia and Japan. The Straits Times Index, the Singapore stock benchmark, closed 0.3 per cent lower to 3,911.42 points. The fall was led by stocks likely to be impacted by higher oil prices. Seatrium, which builds offshore oil and gas platforms, slipped 2.8 per cent. Worries that jet fuel prices may also gain contributed to Singapore Airlines going down 1.3 per cent. The large-scale Israeli attack could push the Middle East – home to some of the world's top oil-exporting nations – to the brink of a new war and upend global oil supply and demand dynamics, analysts said. Oil prices were on a downtrend, hitting a low of about US$60 in May after the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) on May 3 decided to increase production for a second month in a row. Increased output, if sustained, was expected to restore nearly 2.2 million barrels per day of output by October and keep prices around US$60 or lower. Iranian state television said the Natanz site in central Iran, one of the country's two main nuclear plants, was struck. It also said several senior figures were killed, including Major-General Hossein Salami, head of the elite Revolutionary Guards; Professor Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, a prominent physicist; and Mr Fereydoon Abbasi, a former head of Iran's atomic organisation. The worsening Middle East conflict raises the risk of disruptions to oil supplies from key oil- producing nations in the region, said Ms Priyanka Sachdeva, senior market analyst at Phillip Nova, an affiliate of Singapore's investment manager PhillipCapital Group. 'The risk appetite of oil investors will likely be tested today with immense volatility and uncertainty,' she said. Fear of retaliation by Iran may prompt oil traders to secure more supplies before the weekend, pushing prices through June 13 higher, analysts said. Most of the Middle East oil flows from the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz. The strait is one of the world's most important oil transit choke points. Any material shipping disruptions resulting from a blockage of the Hormuz could have profound consequences for the global economy. But Asia's largest economies would be the most vulnerable. Around 80 per cent of oil flows from the Gulf is destined for Asian markets, with India, China, Japan and South Korea accounting for around two-thirds of those flows. Ms Selena Ling, OCBC Bank's chief economist and head of treasury research and strategy, said: 'The question is if this situation escalates into a broader regional conflict. If yes, then there is definitely upside risk to oil prices.' She added that if the conflict escalates and there are further sanctions on Iran, or the Strait of Hormuz is blocked, it could also pose risks to the pullback in inflation that most central banks have been counting on to ease monetary policy. 'The issue is whether tensions escalate and if they are prolonged.' There are, however, some mitigating factors to consider. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – the world's top oil exporters – have the capacity to divert a meaningful portion of their current Gulf exports through pipelines, which would partially alleviate the adverse effects of any closure or major shipping disruptions. The alternative ports are, however, in the Red Sea and thus vulnerable if Yemen decides to join the fray. The US halted its bombing campaign against Yemen's Houthis in May after the Iran-aligned group agreed to stop targeting shipping in the Red Sea. The closure of Hormuz is always flagged as a risk whenever tension arises in the Middle East. But so far, despite Iran's repeated threats to do so, it has yet to follow through, due to the adverse consequences for its own oil outlet, let alone the potential response from the international community. Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
