Latest news with #nuclearconflict
Al Arabiya
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Iran holds state funeral for top brass slain in war 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 8:00 am local time (0430 GMT). 'The ceremony to honor 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. The United States had carried out strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend, joining its ally Israel's bombardments of Iran's nuclear program 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 US 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. 'Historic' state funeral The ceremony in Tehran 'to honor the martyrs' will be followed by a funeral procession to Azadi Square, about 11 kilometers (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 honor at least 30 other top commanders. Of the 60 people who are to be laid to rest after the ceremony, four are children. '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 program. Iran, which insists its nuclear program 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 program 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.
Al Arabiya
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Will the Iranian government surrender?
As the war between Israel and Iran intensifies, a seismic shift has emerged in the rhetoric of world leaders and the trajectory of the conflict. US President Donald Trump issued a stark and sweeping demand: Iran must surrender unconditionally. The demand, made publicly during a press conference at the White House, draws on growing speculation that the Iranian government may be nearing the end of its capacity to fight a prolonged war. That speculation has only intensified following a major escalation: the United States has now formally joined Israel in direct military action, launching coordinated airstrikes against three of Iran's most sensitive and fortified nuclear sites – Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. The attack marks a significant turning point in the conflict, signaling a unified Western resolve to eliminate Iran's nuclear infrastructure and weaken its military-industrial backbone. Israel, for its part, has gained a clear edge in the ongoing hostilities. Within days of the initial exchange of fire, the Israeli military had not only asserted aerial superiority but also inflicted severe damage on Iran's military infrastructure. Airstrikes have decimated command centers, missile stockpiles, and key nuclear sites that once stood at the heart of Iran's defense doctrine. The joint US-Israeli assault on Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow sent an unmistakable message: The international patience with Iran's nuclear ambitions has run out, and the gloves are off. More shockingly, several of Iran's top military leaders – figures considered irreplaceable by many analysts – have been killed in the campaign. The effectiveness of Israel's offensive, now bolstered by US involvement, has led some observers to wonder: Is this the beginning of the end for the Islamic Republic? And if so, will Iran's leadership actually surrender? In many wars, especially those that reach a point of severe imbalance, the conclusion comes not through negotiated settlements but through one-sided surrenders. This pattern of collapse is often followed by either a peace agreement, a political transition, or a complete restructuring of governance. The logic of war would suggest that Iran, overwhelmed by superior firepower, international isolation, and internal decay, should ultimately throw in the towel. But when it comes to the Islamic Republic, things are not so simple. For many reasons – political, psychological, and existential – Iran's government is unlikely to surrender. In fact, it is more probable that the leadership will choose to fight to the bitter end, even if the battlefield is reduced to shadows, bunkers, and ruins. One of the most significant reasons Iran's ruling elite will resist surrender is fear – fear of what might follow their collapse. Over the past decade, the Islamic Republic has been rocked by some of the largest, most sustained protest movements in its history. Millions of Iranians have poured into the streets demanding justice, economic reform, an end to corruption, and a complete dismantling of the clerical establishment. From the 2019 protests over fuel prices to the nationwide uprising following the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022, Iran's streets became a recurring theater of revolt. In such a climate of public anger and mistrust, the ruling class knows that any surrender could open the floodgates to retribution. If the government collapses, the Iranian people – or the transitional government that follows – may seek to hold top officials accountable. Crimes against humanity, corruption, human rights violations, and political repression could all come under scrutiny in a post-government Iran. The prospect of facing international tribunals or even domestic trials is enough to make surrender unthinkable for those currently in power. They understand that stepping down might not just mean the loss of office, but the loss of their freedom – or even their lives. Adding to this paranoia is the reality that there are few viable exit routes available to Iran's ruling elite. While some might think these are the places Iranian leaders can flee to – countries like Russia, Venezuela, or Cuba – these supposed sanctuaries are far from secure. Russia, embroiled in its own international isolation and economic decline, may not have the capacity or willingness to indefinitely host high-profile fugitives from Iran. Latin American nations, while sympathetic to anti-American governments, have their own political instabilities to contend with. Moreover, even if Iran's leaders do manage to flee, there's always the looming risk of extradition. If a new Iranian government emerges and establishes diplomatic ties with the West, it could easily demand the return of former officials to stand trial. Life in exile, then, would likely be a shaky and paranoid existence – not the dignified retirement that many political elites might envision for themselves. Faced with these bleak prospects, Iran's leadership may instead seek to cling to power by disappearing into the shadows. Rather than formally surrendering, the government could fracture into a loosely connected network of bunkers, loyalist militias, and underground command centers. From these hiding places, they could continue to rule – albeit weakly – over a disintegrating country. In such a scenario, the Iranian state would effectively become a ghost government, battered by war but still refusing to admit defeat. Israel, meanwhile, seems poised to continue its campaign of degrading Iran's military and nuclear capabilities. With air superiority already established, the Israeli Air Force can now operate with relative impunity over Iranian skies. Each passing day brings more missile strikes, more military targets reduced to rubble, and deeper damage to Iran's infrastructure. The addition of US firepower – especially the high-precision targeting of critical nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow – has amplified the scale and intensity of the assault. These coordinated strikes have not only crippled Iran's nuclear advancement but also served to isolate the regime further on the international stage. Iran's leaders are likely betting that this air war will remain limited in scope. They may believe that as long as the conflict does not descend into a ground war, they can survive the onslaught. Their strategy, it seems, is to endure, absorb the damage, and hope that international diplomacy or domestic resilience can offer them a way back from the brink. This is a gamble, of course – but one that similar governments have made before. The leadership may calculate that it is better to be weak but in power than to surrender and risk annihilation. A model they may be looking at is Hezbollah in 2025. Despite Israel's intensive air campaign that has severely damaged Hezbollah's weapons stockpiles, command centers, and missile infrastructure in southern Lebanon, the group has not been eliminated. A weakened but still intact Hezbollah remains embedded within the Lebanese political and social structure, continuing to function as both a militia and a political actor. Iran's leaders may be drawing parallels from this outcome. Even after suffering immense military losses, Hezbollah endures – and that endurance might offer Iran a psychological and strategic template. The thinking may be that if Hezbollah can survive relentless Israeli assaults and retain some form of operational and political presence, then perhaps the Islamic Republic, even in a debilitated state, can also weather the storm and rebuild over time. But the comparison only goes so far. Unlike Hezbollah, Iran is a state – with embassies, a currency, critical infrastructure, and a deeply embedded security apparatus. The fall of Iran's central authority would unleash a level of chaos that Hezbollah never had to contend with. From separatist movements to tribal rivalries to economic collapse, the unraveling of Iran would be immense. This, too, informs the government's thinking. By continuing to fight, even in diminished form, they maintain a grip – however tenuous – on the direction of the country. Surrender, on the other hand, means handing the wheel to forces that may be hostile, chaotic, or revolutionary. In the end, Iran's government may very well continue to fight – not because it believes it can win, but because it might see surrender as worse. The government sees the future in stark terms: fight and possibly survive, or surrender and face oblivion. And given that calculus, the outcome appears inevitable. The Islamic Republic, like several similar governments before it, will most likely choose defiance over defeat, even if it means ruling over rubble. For now, the war grinds on. Missiles fall, airstrikes roar, and civilians brace for whatever comes next. The recent US-Israeli joint strikes on Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow have dealt a devastating blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions, yet the regime remains unbowed. Whether that refusal leads to prolonged devastation or a final reckoning remains to be seen. But one thing is increasingly clear: the Iranian government does not seem to be surrendering anytime soon.
Al Arabiya
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
No turning back: Israel and Iran locked in direct military confrontation
What had long been feared and anticipated has finally erupted into full-blown war. After years of rising tensions, covert and limited strikes, and proxy battles, a direct and massive confrontation broke out last week between Iran and Israel. The long-standing animosity and threats culminated in an Israeli surprise offensive of unprecedented scale – signaling that the shadow war has now become an open and expansive military conflict. What was once looming has now broken into the open, unleashing consequences that may reshape the Middle East for decades. For all the latest headlines, follow our Google News channel online or via the app. From Israel's perspective, this war is not just a reaction to threats; it is a preemptive act of survival. Officials in Tel Aviv had increasingly warned that Iran was approaching a nuclear threshold, and that time was running out to stop the Islamic Republic from acquiring the capability to develop and potentially use nuclear weapons. For months, military and intelligence agencies in Israel had reportedly drawn up extensive plans for a decisive strike – a scenario that would cripple Iran's nuclear ambitions in one swift blow. That moment came last week, as waves of Israeli fighter jets, drones, and cyber units launched a surprise offensive, striking deep inside Iranian territory. The operation, reportedly called 'Operation Rising Lion,' was massive in scope and shockingly effective. Within a span of less than 48 hours, Israeli forces conducted coordinated strikes on over one hundred critical targets, including uranium enrichment facilities in Natanz and Fordow, missile production plants, and weapons storage sites. Even more strikingly, Israel successfully assassinated multiple senior Iranian nuclear scientists and top military commanders, including figures seen as central to Iran's nuclear program and regional military strategy. These were not symbolic casualties – among the dead were General Hossein Salami, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), General Mohammad Bagheri, Iran's military chief of staff, and General Gholam Ali Rashid, a key strategic planner. The sudden loss of such high-ranking officials has left Iran's military leadership severely fragmented and scrambling to regain control. In addition to the airstrikes, the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, reportedly carried out precision ground operations within Iran to sabotage radar systems, disable air defense units, and guide airstrikes to their intended targets. The element of surprise was total. Iran, which had long anticipated Israeli threats, was caught off guard. According to both Western intelligence and regional analysts, the effectiveness of the attack was not only due to Israel's superior technology but also its ability to exploit internal disorganization and political distractions within Iran. Iran's response was swift but lacked the coordination and impact of the Israeli assault. Within hours of the attacks, the Iranian military launched a barrage of over one hundred drones and several hundred ballistic missiles toward Israeli territory. The Islamic Republic declared that it would retaliate and vowed to exact revenge for what it called an act of war and a violation of its sovereignty. What makes this confrontation different from past escalations is its sheer scale and direction. Unlike previous episodes, which often involved a few strikes, some limited retaliation, and a quick return to uneasy quiet, this conflict appears to be heading into uncharted territory. Both sides seem to have abandoned any pretense of restraint. Israeli officials have hinted that they are prepared to continue operations. Iran, for its part, has issued statements signaling that it sees this as an existential conflict and will not cease until Israel 'pays a heavy price.' The language and actions on both sides suggest that this is not another tit-for-tat exchange – it is an all-out war, and it may not stop until one side suffers a definitive military defeat. The key question now is: Who holds the upper hand – geopolitically, strategically, and militarily? The answer, at least for now, appears to favor Israel. Iran is entering this war from a position of profound weakness. Its strategic alliances and regional influence have been severely diminished. The al-Assad regime in Syria, once a reliable partner and host to Iranian forces, collapsed following internal revolt and international isolation. Hezbollah in Lebanon, long considered Iran's most powerful proxy, has been depleted by war and Israeli airstrikes. Hamas has suffered significant setbacks in Gaza, both militarily and politically. The Iranian regime, therefore, finds itself more isolated than ever before, with its regional influence waning at a critical moment. At home, Iran faces a deeply discontented population. Widespread protests in recent years have laid bare the depth of frustration within Iranian society, particularly among the younger generation. Decades of economic hardship, international sanctions, government repression, and unmet political promises have created a volatile environment. Although the regime maintains tight control through the Revolutionary Guards and internal security forces, public morale is low and trust in leadership is deteriorating. Launching a major war at such a time poses extraordinary risks. If the military suffers major defeats or if civilian casualties mount, the government could face another wave of mass protests, this time fueled by both anger and despair. In contrast, Israel sees itself in a far stronger position. Having systematically weakened Iran's regional proxies, it now finds itself freer to act directly against Tehran without the immediate fear of multi-front retaliation. Strategically, the collapse of the Syrian regime has eliminated one of the key platforms through which Iran projected force toward Israel. Hezbollah's diminished arsenal and Hamas's recent defeats mean fewer distractions at Israel's northern and southern borders. Most importantly, Israel enjoys steadfast support from the United States, which has provided air defense coordination. From a military standpoint, the war is not expected to involve ground invasions. Instead, it is being waged almost entirely through air and missile power. And in this arena, Israel enjoys a clear and overwhelming advantage. Its air force, among the most technologically advanced in the world, includes stealth fighters, satellite-guided munitions, and electronic warfare capabilities that Iran cannot match. Israeli pilots are highly trained, and the country's air defense systems have proven themselves again and again under intense pressure. Iran, by contrast, relies heavily on older aircraft, drones, and ballistic missiles that are often intercepted before reaching their targets. While Iran can inflict damage, it lacks the ability to deliver sustained, precision strikes at the scale Israel can. Cyber capabilities also play a role, and again, Israel leads. As the dust settles from the first week of this conflict, one thing is clear: Iran's government finds itself in a deeply vulnerable and constrained position. With senior leadership eliminated, nuclear progress rolled back, air defense systems compromised, and limited retaliatory capacity, Tehran faces an uphill battle. Its options are few, and none of them are without risk. Escalation may lead to further destruction and internal unrest. Concessions may appear as weakness and erode legitimacy further. Israel, while facing inevitable costs and the unpredictability of extended war, has so far executed a well-coordinated, high-impact campaign. It controls the pace and scope of escalation and holds most of the tactical advantages. Whether it chooses to press forward with further strikes or negotiate from a position of strength will depend on evolving strategic calculations. But for now, it holds the military and geopolitical upper hand. As the world watches anxiously, the future of the Middle East hangs in the balance. This is not merely a military clash – it is a historic showdown between two regional powers, one weakened and cornered, the other emboldened and empowered. The coming weeks will determine whether this war reshapes regional order, or ignites an even wider and more devastating conflagration.
Arab News
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Pakistan warns of ‘first water war' under nuclear shadow if India cuts off river flows
KARACHI: The head of Pakistan's diplomatic mission touring world capitals to explain Islamabad's position on a recent military standoff with New Delhi warned Friday India's threat to cut off his country's water supply could lead to the 'first water war' between two nuclear-armed states at a think tank in Brussels. The warning came after New Delhi announced in April it was suspending the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, a World Bank-brokered agreement seen as a cornerstone of India-Pakistan water cooperation, following a deadly gun attack in Kashmir, which it blamed on Pakistan. Islamabad denied any involvement and called for an impartial international probe. However, tensions quickly escalated, with both sides deploying fighter jets, missiles, drones and artillery fire before a US-brokered ceasefire was announced by President Donald Trump on May 10. Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, Pakistan's former foreign minister and the current head of the country's diplomatic outreach, told the European think tank India's threat to disrupt river flows affecting 240 million people amounted to a 'war crime.' 'It would turn this into an existential crisis, and we would be left with no choice but to embark on the first water war… between two nuclear-armed states,' he said. Bhutto-Zardari described the Indus Waters Treaty as 'the gold standard in diplomacy,' noting it had survived multiple wars and had been replicated in over 40 other international water-sharing agreements. He said recent Indian actions, such as the delayed or excessive release of water, had already damaged Pakistan's crops and posed a humanitarian risk. 'Just a few days' delay in water release can have devastating consequences for our agriculture,' he said. 'This is the only water supply into Pakistan. In the context of climate vulnerability, the last thing we need is a fault line developing where cooperation once existed.' His other delegation members maintained undermining the treaty would set a dangerous global precedent, allowing upper riparian states anywhere in the world to disregard binding water-sharing agreements. 'If this treaty is in abeyance, then no treaty signed after World War II is worth the paper it's written on,' Musadik Malik, the climate change minister, said. 'That threatens the rights of lower riparian countries across Africa, South America and beyond.' Earlier, in a brief exchange with reporters, Bhutto-Zardari welcomed renewed interest from Washington in mediating between India and Pakistan. 'As you have seen, President [Donald] Trump said once again yesterday that he is ready to mediate on Kashmir,' he noted. 'At the moment, Pakistan is talking about peace, America is also talking about peace. If anyone is still talking about war, it is India, and, by the grace of God, they will step back from this position soon.' Responding to a query, Bhutto-Zardari strongly condemned Israel's military operations against Iran and its broader regional policies. 'We strongly oppose the attack on Iran and the way the war is being waged in this region,' he said. 'No amount of condemnation is enough. We demand that this war be stopped and that the entire world plays its role. Peace is very important in our territory. We cannot afford Israel's war on Iran to continue for long.'
LBCI
30-05-2025
- General
- LBCI
Pakistan, India close to completing border troop reduction, senior Pakistani general says: Reuters
Pakistan and India are close to reducing the troop build-up along their border to levels before the conflict erupted between the nuclear-armed neighbors this month, a top Pakistani military official told Reuters on Friday. However, he warned the crisis had increased the risk of escalation in the future. Both sides used fighter jets, missiles, drones, and artillery in four days of clashes, their worst fighting in decades before a ceasefire was announced. Reuters
