Israel Thanks US' CIA For Help In "Joint" Operation Against Iran War
Tel Aviv:
The head of Israel's Mossad intelligence service thanked the US Central Intelligence Agency on Wednesday for its help in "joint" operations during the recent 12-day war with Iran.
In a video distributed to Israeli media on the second day of a fragile ceasefire between the warring countries, Mossad chief David Barnea thanked his agents for their work making Israel "safer, more powerful and better prepared for the future".
"I also wish to express my gratitude and appreciation to our key partner -- the CIA -- for the joint action and the operations that were successfully carried out, as well as to its director, who supported the Mossad in making the right decisions," added the spy chief, who rarely offers public remarks.
Israel's attacks on Iran starting June 13 targeted not only the Islamic republic's missile and nuclear facilities, but also senior military figures and atomic scientists.
Analysts say the strikes underlined how Israel's intelligence services had succeeded in penetrating the Iranian state, although the extent of the purported help provided by the CIA is unknown.
The US military helped shoot down Iranian missiles fired at Israel, and US President Donald Trump ultimately joined Israel's campaign with strikes using massive bunker-busting bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities.
"We will continue to keep our eyes wide open on all of Iran's undertakings -- projects we know in depth -- and we will be there, as we always have been," Barnea said in his video statement.
After the ceasefire went into effect on Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed Israel would crush any effort by Iran to rebuild its nuclear programme.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
13 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Iran's Supreme leader Khamenei was Israel's top target during recent conflict
Israel had plans to assassinate Iran's top leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, during the recent 12-day war, but the right moment never came, according to the country's defense minister. Defense Minister Israel Katz, who had openly threatened to kill Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, he confirmed those efforts in a televised interview.(AP) The Israeli military had been actively searching for Khamenei during the conflict, which ended earlier this week after a cease-fire was brokered with help from US President Donald Trump. Defense Minister Israel Katz, who had openly threatened to kill Khamenei, confirmed those efforts in a televised interview. 'I estimate that if Khamenei had been in our sights, we would have taken him out,' he said. 'But Khamenei understood this, went underground to very great depths and broke off contacts with the commanders who replaced those commanders who were eliminated, so it wasn't realistic in the end,' he added. Donald Trump threatened Ayatollah Ali Khamenei President Donald Trump also threatened Khamenei's life during the war, he wrote on X (formerly known as Twitter) on June 17: 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (Kill!), at least not for now.' Also Read: Inside 'Operation Narnia,' the Daring Attack Israel Feared It Couldn't Pull Off Khamenei became Israel's top target last week after an Iranian missile hit a hospital in Beersheba, injuring around 80 people and destroying several parts of the facility. After that strike, Katz warned that 'Khamenei will pay for his crimes,' and said future operations would 'shake' the foundations of Iran's regime, as cited by New York Post report. Ayatollah disappeared on June 13 The ayatollah disappeared from the public eye once Israeli airstrikes began on June 13. He remained out of sight for days, reappearing Thursday with bold claims that Iran had come out on top against both Israel and the United States. 'The Islamic Republic was victorious and, in retaliation, delivered a hand slap to America's face,' Khamenei said, despite the serious damage inflicted on Iran's military and infrastructure. He also dismissed reports from the US and UN about the effectiveness of American airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Washington confirmed it had used deep-penetrating bombs to target nuclear sites, but Khamenei downplayed the outcome. 'US couldn't achieve much…': Khamenei 'US hit nuclear sites but couldn't achieve much,' Khamenei said during a televised speech. He also took aim at former President Trump, saying, 'US President Trump needed to do showmanship,' marking his first public comments since the cease-fire started on Tuesday, as cited by Daily Mail report. So far, the cease-fire has held. Meanwhile, American and Qatari officials are trying to pull Iran back into negotiations over its nuclear program.
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
China benefits from being on the sidelines of the Iran-Israel war. Here's why
The Middle East is reeling from Israel's strikes on Iranian soil, followed by Donald Trump's surprising bombing of Iran's nuclear sites. China's stance so far has been articulate, but its actions conspicuously restrained, revealing a strategic calculus that prioritises long-term interests over short-term posturing. Beijing's stance concerning this escalating conflict — marked by clear signalling, selective support for Iran, and a steadfast restraint in military intervention — offers a window into China's broader foreign strategy: One that seeks to project influence without entanglement, capitalise on its rival's missteps, and safeguard material benefits in a volatile setting. China's response to the crisis has been swift and unequivocal in its condemnation of Israel and, more implicitly, the United States. On June 14, the Chinese envoy to the UN decried Israel's attacks as a violation of 'Iran's sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity'. President Xi Jinping, in a June 19 statement, warned that further escalation would bring 'greater losses', urging an immediate ceasefire. Through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), China helped put together a condemnation of Israel's strikes, a move that drew a refusal from India, an SCO member adopting a differentiated view towards Israel. These statements, stronger than Beijing's response to last fall's Iran-Israel clashes, signal an escalation of rhetorical stance. Yet, for all its verbal firepower, China has offered little material aid — no weapons, no troops. This gap between rhetoric and action has frustrated some in Tehran, where analysts like Andrea Ghiselli note that Iran craves 'concrete help, like anti-aircraft systems or fighter jets.' Western observers, too, have seized on China's inaction, framing it as evidence of Beijing's limited clout in the Middle East. They argue that China's absence underscores the widening gap between its great power aspirations and its inability to shape fast-moving crises. Such critiques, however, miss the point: China's restraint is not a weakness, but a deliberate choice, rooted in a strategic discipline that has allowed it to outgrow its major rival for decades. Beijing's approach reflects a fundamental disillusionment with military intervention as leverage, a lesson drawn from the USSR's collapse and America's quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq. Oriana Skylar Mastro, a former Pentagon strategist, sees the US's renewed entanglement as a blunder, diverting attention from the Asia-Pacific and depleting US resources without clear strategic gains. The war in Afghanistan, which cost the equivalent of 10 Belt and Road Initiatives, stands as a cautionary tale for Beijing. Why, then, would China replicate America's mistakes by diving into the Iranian quagmire? Instead, Beijing has chosen to support Iran through non-military means: Purchasing a large portion of Iran's oil, brokering the 2023 Iran-Saudi reconciliation, and signing a 25-year cooperation agreement in 2021. These efforts have kept Iran afloat amid US sanctions, proving more impactful than any military adventure. For sure, China's economic stakes in the region are immense. Half of its oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz, and its investments span Iran's energy sector and Saudi Arabia's infrastructure. A wider conflict could disrupt these flows, threatening China's core economic interests. Yet, Beijing's diversified energy ties give it flexibility. Analysts from Fitch Ratings suggest that even a total loss of Iranian oil exports could be offset by spare capacity from OPEC-plus producers. Meanwhile, China's push for energy independence, with renewables now accounting for 56 per cent of its power plant capacity, reduces its long-term vulnerability to geostrategic crisis. Western media and policy circles, eager to paint Iran as China's Achilles' heel, have exaggerated the extent and depth of China's partnership with Iran, branding the relationship as an 'Axis of Upheaval'. They advocate for expanded US sanctions on Chinese refineries and banks involved in Iranian oil purchases, hoping to force China into a corner: Either double down on Iran and alienate Arab partners or abandon Tehran and lose face. But China has deftly avoided this trap. Its non-confrontational approach allows it to 'hedge its bets', maintaining ties across rivalries. By condemning Israel's actions without committing resources, China preserves much of its economic leverage and diplomatic credibility in the region. The conflict even presents China with unexpected opportunities. Iran's outdated air defences, exposed by Israel's dominance, could open new markets for Chinese defence technology. Pakistan's recent accord, using Chinese J-10C fighter jets and air defence systems, has piqued interest in Tehran, which may revisit arms deals with Beijing for the first time since 2005. Such sales would bolster China's defence industry without requiring direct involvement in the conflict — a low-risk, high-reward prospect. China's strategic restraint extends beyond Iran. Its non-interference policy, applied consistently in conflicts like Russia-Ukraine and India-Pakistan, reflects a broader aversion to foreign entanglements. Even as Western critics decry China's 'rhetorical but not material' support, Beijing sees no contradiction. This stance frustrates those who expect China's behaviour to mirror America's interventionist model, yet it aligns with China's long-term goal: To develop without the burdens of global policing. For Beijing, the conflict could be a distraction that serves its interests. After all, a contained Middle East war keeps the US preoccupied, easing pressure in the Indo-Pacific. China, therefore, benefits from America's overextension. The US pivot to Asia, perpetually delayed by crises elsewhere, largely remains a pipedream. By staying on the sidelines, China avoids the fate of the USSR, whose global military overextension led to economic collapse. Many anti-West enthusiasts from the global south may clamour for Beijing to take a more active role, but their expectations align uncomfortably with the Western hawks' desire to 'drag' China into the conflict. Such a move would undermine the very strategy — economic focus, diplomatic agility, and military restraint — that has fuelled China's rise. Beijing's loud condemnations and quiet pragmatism are not signs of indecision but of confidence in a winning formula. As the US burns through resources and goodwill, China watches, calculates, and waits, secure in the knowledge that restraint is its greatest asset. In the end, China's approach to the Iran-Israel-US episode is neither altruistic nor timid. It is strategic patience, designed to maximise benefits while minimising risk. The writer is among China's new generation of India watchers
Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- Indian Express
As NATO revises defence-spending goals, Germany arms up to position itself as the backbone of European security
On the final day of its summit in The Hague on June 25, NATO reached a historic consensus: Member states would raise their collective defence spending pledge to 5 per cent of their respective gross domestic product (GDP). This ambitious new benchmark reflects NATO's recalibrated strategic posture amid growing global threats. The commitment is structured across two critical domains — 3.5 per cent will support core defence aligned with NATO Capability Targets, while the remaining 1.5 per cent will enhance infrastructure resilience, cyber defence, innovation, and preparedness. While some countries, including Spain and Slovakia, have voiced hesitation about this rapid escalation, Germany has taken a leading role by announcing an unprecedented increase in military spending. Berlin has pledged to raise its defence expenditure to 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2029 — up from 2.4 per cent in 2025, marking its most significant rearmament drive since reunification. The announcement preceded the summit, where US President Donald Trump renewed pressure on allies to increase contributions, underlining that sustained American commitment to NATO would hinge on equitable resource sharing. The allies agreed to a phased strategy to achieve the 5 per cent target, underscoring a consensus that the security environment demands urgent action. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who hosted the summit, emphasised alliance unity: 'NATO does not have opt-outs. Every member must do their part.' For years, Germany and others had fallen short of NATO's previous 2 per cent target. Berlin only crossed that threshold in 2024, thanks in part to temporary funding measures. With rising geopolitical volatility, spurred by Russia's war in Ukraine, growing Chinese assertiveness, and Middle Eastern instability, NATO's leaders have called for a structural reassessment though these areas are not mentioned in the five-paragraph communique. Germany's new defence framework lays out a transformative vision. Starting from €86 billion in 2025 (2.4 per cent of GDP), defence spending is set to rise to around €153 billion by 2029 (3.5 per cent). These are the largest military allocations Germany has undertaken in peacetime. The scale and scope represent a strategic turning point that builds on former Chancellor Olaf Scholz's 'Zeitenwende' speech in 2022. To finance this transformation, Germany has taken several bold fiscal steps. It has suspended its constitutional 'debt brake', which previously limited deficit spending, and is seeking an EU exemption under the Stability and Growth Pact to classify defence spending as exceptional investment. This allows Berlin to borrow beyond the 1 per cent GDP limit usually imposed for such purposes. A €100 billion fund, established in 2022 in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, will be exhausted by 2027. After that, defence spending will be drawn entirely from Germany's core federal budget — a signal that the shift is not temporary but systemic. Germany's strategy also aligns with NATO's broader definition of security. In line with the 1.5 per cent category under NATO's new 5 per cent framework, Berlin will invest significantly in military-relevant infrastructure — digital systems, transport corridors, logistics hubs, and dual-use facilities. Chancellor Friedrich Merz has openly backed such dual-purpose infrastructure, describing it as vital to national and alliance resilience. Germany is committed to substantially increasing military aid to Ukraine. For 2025, €8.3 billion has been earmarked, with a further €8.5 billion annually for the following years. Although not part of NATO's official summit declaration, these pledges reflect Germany's bilateral and EU-level commitment to Ukraine's defence. In comparison, Germany's defence budget in 2024 stood at €74.5 billion. The 2029 projection of over €153 billion is more than double that figure. To fund the leap, the German government enacted fiscal reforms earlier this year, establishing a €500 billion infrastructure fund. Between 2025 and 2029, Berlin plans to borrow €378 billion for defence-related purposes. Public borrowing is projected to rise from €33.3 billion in 2024 to €126 billion by 2029. Finance minister Lars Klingbeil has acknowledged the scale of the challenge, estimating that annual budget forecasts will need to be revised upwards by at least €47 billion to accommodate these commitments. The government frames these outlays as long-term investments in national and continental security. Defence is now being treated not merely as a cost but as a pillar of Germany's strategic infrastructure. Merz's approach builds on 'Zeitenwende' but moves the goalposts further. The 3.5 per cent GDP pledge significantly exceeds the original 2 per cent target. If realised, Germany will become one of Europe's leading defence spenders, with outlays exceeding €649 billion over five years. This would position Berlin as the backbone of European security. Yet, this is not without political friction. Within the ruling coalition, there are concerns about the long-term fiscal sustainability of such a debt-driven strategy. Critics also question whether the Bundeswehr has the capacity to absorb such a rapid expansion in resources without bureaucratic delays and inefficiencies. Beyond the budget, Berlin plans to significantly enhance its military capabilities. Defence minister Boris Pistorius has proposed the creation of five to seven new heavy brigades, each of 5,000 troops and full armoured equipment. This could increase Bundeswehr personnel by 50,000 from the current strength of 182,000. This troop surge will require major investments in recruitment, training, logistics, and procurement. Persistent bottlenecks in the delivery of aircraft, tanks, and digital systems must be addressed. Procurement reform and faster decision-making will be essential. Merz has stressed the importance of upgrading civilian infrastructure — from highways to ports — for military use, a clear nod to NATO's emphasis on resilience and mobility. Plans are also in place to streamline procurement and redefine certain civil assets as defence-relevant. Germany's pledge sends a powerful signal to both allies and adversaries. It answers NATO's call for greater burden-sharing and signals a more assertive German posture in Europe and beyond. Yet, implementation remains key. Parliamentary approval is still required, and turning budget numbers into real capabilities will test the government's resolve. As NATO reorients itself amid evolving threats from Russia to the Indo-Pacific, Berlin's message is unmistakable: The era of under-commitment is over. Germany is ready to lead with clarity, scale, and purpose. The writer is former ambassador to Germany, Indonesia, Ethiopia ASEAN and the African Union
