Iran's Air Defence Systems Respond To Israeli Attacks
ISTANBUL, June 20 (Bernma-Anadolu) -- Iran's air defence systems responded to Israeli airstrikes over Gorgan, Anadolu Ajansi, citing Iranian media, reported Friday.
The reports said aerial battles were detected between Iranian and Israeli forces over the city, which is the capital of northeastern Golestan Province.
Hostilities broke out last Friday when Israel launched airstrikes on several sites across Iran, including military and nuclear facilities, prompting Tehran to launch retaliatory strikes.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malaysiakini
33 minutes ago
- Malaysiakini
What the Iran-Israel escalation really revealed
LETTER | From the outside, the latest Iran–Israel escalation looked like a tightly controlled spectacle, one more episode in the long tradition of geopolitical theatre. Symbolic strikes. Calibrated optics. Narratives exchanged more than missiles. However, something disrupted the performance. Someone, somewhere inside Iran, broke the script. All signs point to the conflict being originally designed as a limited, performative escalation, meant to simulate confrontation while avoiding real strategic consequences. Israel's opening salvo was telling: a high-visibility strike on Iran's state broadcaster (Irib), carried out during a live news segment but without catastrophic loss of life. A communication centre, yes, but also a deeply symbolic, civilian-facing target. Iran's initial response also bore the hallmarks of restraint. The state narrative emphasised successful interception, dismissed damage as minimal, and sought to contain the emotional temperature. There was no immediate mobilisation. No red-line rhetoric. No retaliatory frenzy. On both sides, a choreography of ambiguity seemed to be in play. One cannot help but recall the February 2025 skirmish between India and Pakistan - another flashpoint marked by cries of 'nuclear escalation', which briefly dominated headlines, diverted attention from Ukraine, then dissolved quietly. Iran retaliates The Israel - Iran episode seemed to follow a similar script: controlled, symbolic, narratively contained. But this time, something went off-script. Instead of a symbolic missile volley and a return to messaging, Iran escalated. Precisely. Deliberately. Repeatedly. Multiple waves of drones and missiles penetrated Israel's multi-layered defence system. Strategic infrastructure was hit. Regional allies, like the Houthis, entered the fray. The US ambassador in Tel Aviv reportedly had to seek shelter five times in a single night - a detail that says less about the danger than it does about the surprise. If the strikes were meant to be symbolic, someone forgot to send the memo. The missiles kept coming. Iranian officials later clarified: they were using only older missile stockpiles. In other words, this wasn't even their real answer. It was a demonstration of capacity, not desperation. If the original script called for symbolic retaliation, this wasn't it. This shift suggests something profound: that the escalation was not fully controlled from the top, or at least not uniformly. Within Iran's complex power structure, factions exist that vary in loyalty, alignment, and ideology. Some lean toward diplomatic preservation. Others are fiercely nationalistic. Still others are, quietly, compromised. It is entirely plausible that the original limited response was shaped by internal actors influenced, directly or structurally, by foreign interlocutors. Agreements may have been made. Visibility exchanged for restraint. Missile arcs are calculated for narrative rather than damage. But it seems that within Iran's strategic apparatus, a patriot faction intercepted the script. Whether it was the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a missile command directorate, or a leadership cell with a longer memory and shorter patience that chose to halt the performance. To let Israel strike symbolic targets unchallenged would have been to accept ritual humiliation. Instead, they answered with precision, message, and method. Real deterrence, not managed optics, became the reply. No appetite for nukes For decades, Iranian leaders has been assassinated, sanctioned, bombed, and blamed, often with little or no international recourse. Its alleged nuclear weaponisation programme has been banned internally by fatwa, repeatedly affirmed in official United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) submissions and embedded in domestic law. In a revealing turn, a senior Iranian official recently called for the fatwa to be revoked only to be swiftly overruled by the top command. Although largely ignored in the West, the episode is telling. You do not attempt to revoke what does not exist. Still, Israel, backed by Western powers, continues to invoke the so-called Iranian nuclear threat as a pretext for assassinations, sabotage, and strikes. Scientists have been assassinated, nuclear infrastructure bombed, and broader infrastructure damaged through cyberattacks, and the West calls it self-defence. Obviously, when such aggression is met only with narrative containment, credibility dies. Internally and externally. Iran's patriotic factions may have concluded that survival now requires reimposing real fear into deterrence - not just words, but capabilities demonstrated under fire. And that is exactly what they did. The escalation has now created a paradox. Those who designed the conflict to be seen but not felt - whether in Tel Aviv, Washington, or even segments of Tehran - now find themselves cornered by consequences they never intended. Israel's might challenged Israel, long buffered by US-backed impunity, has now absorbed real strategic damage. Its famed Iron Dome has revealed critical gaps. Key infrastructure has been shaken. Even its domestic media, typically used to project victimhood to international audiences, has gone curiously quiet. Meanwhile, the Western narrative, still stuck in Cold War templates, tries to reassert control: nuclear threat, rogue state, axis of evil. But the public is growing resistant. Especially when Iran has shown, again and again, a legal, religious, and strategic rejection of nuclear arms, while operating with more restraint than its adversaries. Much like with Ukraine, the US administration has tried to walk both sides of the line, claiming non-involvement while orchestrating logistics. Refuelling Israeli jets, sharing satellite intel, and shooting down Iranian drones. But just as in Kyiv, control is slipping. Behind the scenes, indirect talks between the US and Iran have already collapsed - not over uranium levels or inspection terms, but over a deeper structural fault line. Tehran rightfully demanded that any talks be on equal grounds and that any agreement remain binding across US administrations. But Washington, fractured by partisanship and strategic inconsistency, simply cannot guarantee continuity. The collapse revealed a deeper asymmetry: Iran acts with institutional memory and policy coherence, while the US lurches between administrations and abandons commitments. This wasn't a technical failure. It was systemic. And Iran refuses to anchor its future to a partner built on shifting ground. US President Donald Trump, now in open conflict with the military-industrial establishment, has attempted to disentangle the US from these open-ended entanglements. But he is boxed in. The war machine continues with or without presidential blessing. And Israel is its most entrenched proxy. US President Donald Trump Ironically, Israel's collapse may have been triggered not by its enemies but by the very system that built it (refer to 'Zionism at the Edge: The Terminal Overreach of a Fading Project'). What this moment reveals is not just a rift between Iran and Israel but a schism within narrative power itself. M'sia asserting its stand Malaysia has positioned itself not on the battlefield but in the domain of narrative sovereignty. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has voiced strong support for Iran, not through military alignment, but through moral and political solidarity. In truth, Iran does not need boots on the ground. It has already demonstrated its military precision. What it needs now are narrative allies - states like Malaysia that are willing to challenge Western propaganda and defend the principles of lawful multipolarity. In today's conflict, the real front line is discursive, not kinetic and Malaysia is holding it. A war that was meant to be managed became real because someone inside refused to betray their country's dignity for another photo op. In doing so, they exposed: the weakness of Israeli defences, the limits of US orchestration, the fragility of Western narrative monopoly. And perhaps most importantly, they reminded the world that true deterrence is not choreographed. It is earned in silence, in precision, and in refusal to be cast in someone else's script. Dr Rais Hussin is the Founder of EMIR Research, a think tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research. The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.
Barnama
2 hours ago
- Barnama
Iran Says Ending War Depends On Israel Ceasing Airstrikes Without Conditions
ISTANBUL, June 20 (Bernama-Anadolu) -- Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Friday that the only path to ending the current war is for Israel to cease its airstrikes unconditionally, Anadolu Ajansi (AA) reported. "We have always pursued peace and stability," Pezeshkian said in a statement, according to Iranian media. He noted that 'under the current circumstances, lasting peace will only be possible if the Zionist enemy ceases its hostilities and provides firm guarantees to end its terrorist provocations.'
Sinar Daily
2 hours ago
- Sinar Daily
Netanyahu's Gambit? A deep dive into the factors behind 'Operation Rising Lion'
Starting on June 13, 2025, Israel launched a massive attack on Iran. The unprovoked attack, which it labelled as `Operation Rising Lion,' was the culmination of tensions that had been building for decades. To understand why Israel carried out the attack, it is essential to examine several key historical, political and strategic factors that influence the relationship between the two countries. A handout picture provided by the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's office shows him waving during a ceremony on the occasion of 36rd death anniversary of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in Tehran on June 4, 2025. Khamenei vowed on June 18, 2025 that his country would show no mercy towards Israel's rulers, hours after US President Donald Trump demanded Tehran's "unconditional surrender". (Photo by / AFP) Pre-Revolutionary Iran-Israel Relations Before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran, under the rule of King Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, had established good relations with Israel. This situation arose due to the good relations between the Iranian government and the United States government, which, through its spy agency, the CIA and in collaboration with the British MI6, had carried out Operation Ajax in 1953 to overthrow the Iranian Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh and restore Mohammad Reza Shah to the throne after the latter had fled abroad. Mossadegh had earlier nationalised Iran's oil industry, so the primary motives of the United States and Britain were to safeguard Western oil interests and counter the influence of the Soviet Union. After 1953, the United States provided military aid to strengthen the Reza Shah Pahlavi regime while profiting from billions of dollars in sophisticated weapons sales to Iran, such as F-14 Tomcat fighter jets. However, King Reza Shah's extravagant lifestyle, while most Iranians lived in poverty, made many dissatisfied with his rule. An iron-fisted approach toward the people also characterised his rule. Through the Savak intelligence agency, his regime arrested and tortured thousands of Iranians who dared to challenge his authority. The growing dissatisfaction and hatred of the Iranian people eventually led to the violent revolution in 1979 that toppled him and forced him into exile to the US and later to Mexico, Panama and Egypt, where he eventually died. Post-Revolution Attitude towards Israel The previous good relations between King Reza Shah and the US gave rise to anti-American attitudes among Iranians during and after the revolution. Iranians perceived the US as directly interfering in Iran's affairs and stealing its resources. This attitude hardened during the post-revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran, led by Ayatollah Khomeini. He severed diplomatic relations with the United States and Israel. Khomeini even called Israel the "little devil" and the United States the "great devil". Indirect War However, until very recently, Iran and Israel chose not to engage in any direct conflicts. Instead, they were engaged in what can be called a `shadow war' where Iran will use proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon to attack Israel using weapons supplied by Iran. Other proxies are Shiite militia movements in Iraq and Yemen. Meanwhile, Israel also avoided attacking Iran directly before this. Instead, Israel only attacked through cyber warfare, such as the usage of the `Stuxnet virus' to undermine Iran's nuclear programme. In addition, Israel was also believed to be behind the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in 2020. Direct Conflict After October 2023 However, the conflict between the two countries became more intense following Hamas's Operation on October 7, 2023 and Hezbollah's launching of rockets and artillery attacks on Israeli positions in the Shebaa Farms and the Golan Heights, areas illegally occupied by Israel. Hezbollah declared this action as an action to show "solidarity with the Palestinian people" and an effort to divert the focus of Israeli forces from Gaza. Israel responded to the attack on September 27, 2024, by bombing Hezbollah's facilities on the outskirts of South Beirut, killing Hezbollah's prominent leader in Lebanon, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, along with several senior commanders. With the death of Hasan Nasrallah, Iran was forced to show more support for Hezbollah by increasing the supply of weapons, including Falaq-2 rockets and kamikaze drones, which allowed Hezbollah to attack targets in central Israel, such as Haifa and Tel Aviv. Israel continued to attack Lebanon, which resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 Lebanese, including more than 2,000 Hezbollah fighters, while more than 13,000 people were injured. Additionally, 1.2 million Lebanese were displaced, primarily those residing in southern Lebanon and Beirut. In April 2024, Israel stepped up its attack on Iranian interests by bombing the Iranian embassy in Syria, which killed the commander of the Quds Force, Mohammad Reza Zahedi, forcing Iran to respond by launching missiles from Iranian territory into Israel. However, whether intentionally or unintentionally, no Israeli was killed, and for more than a year after that, the situation between Iran and Israel calmed down. However, on June 13, 2025, despite ongoing indirect negotiations between the US and Iran in Oman regarding its nuclear programme, Israel suddenly attacked Iran. It killed several top Iranian military leaders and two nuclear scientists. It also attacked the Iranian nuclear facility complex in Natanz. Israel's stated reason for its latest attack was to thwart Iran's efforts to develop a nuclear bomb, claiming that Iran now has enough material to build 15 nuclear bombs `in a matter of days' and was, therefore, a threat to Israel, a threat that needed to be eliminated immediately, a view that was not shared by many US leaders who felt that Iran would need many more years to develop a nuclear bomb. Iran responded by attacking Israel with rockets and missiles. The ensuing tit-for-tat actions over the following days have resulted in the deaths of more than 200 Iranians and more than 20 Israelis as of June 17, 2025. There is a strong possibility that the conflict will worsen due to the factors discussed below. Domestic Political Factors in Israel Many Israelis themselves believe that an essential factor why Benjamin Netanyahu decided to attack Iran was to ensure his well-being since he is currently facing corruption charges, which can lead to his being imprisoned. However, by initiating a direct war with Iran, his trial will have to be postponed indefinitely. Additionally, most Israelis also oppose his efforts to implement judicial reforms aimed at strengthening his political position. His coalition government is currently very fragile and could collapse at anytime. A few days before he ordered the attack on Iran, the Israeli parliament was almost dissolved. The war with Iran will reduce the likelihood of the collapse of his government because it forces all Israelis to rally behind him to fight a common enemy. Future Possible Scenario The Iranian government has never been interested in directly attacking Israel because of the costs that the country will incur. It also knows it cannot afford to continue the current war and is hoping Israel will stop its attacks. It has already stated that it is willing to stop its retaliatory attacks on Israel if Israel stops attacking it. However, as stated above, Netanyahu is eager to continue the war in support of his agenda, even though he knows Israel cannot afford to continue the war. Therefore, an integral part of Netanyahu's plan is to draw the US into the war, thereby reducing the burden of the war for Israel. Moreover, Israel seems keen to affect a regime change in Iran by inflicting maximum damage on the country. They are hoping the Iranians who hate the Iranian government will seize the opportunity to take over the reins of power. Currently, it is already using Iranian dissident groups within Iran which are opposed to the Iranian government to carry out bombing attacks on its behalf. The Iranian military has captured some of them. Ordinary Iranians who hitherto had hated the Iranian government are now rallying behind it because of nationalistic sentiments. Moreover, the deaths of hundreds of ordinary Iranians due to the Israeli bombings will serve to strengthen their support of the government. They will not help Israel to achieve its objective of `regime change'. Implications for the Situation in Palestine This conflict between Iran and Israel will not produce any sudden changes in Palestine. Israel continues to commit its crime of genocide in Gaza with impunity. The world's attention that has been diverted to this conflict has made it easier for Israel to continue killing more Palestinians. However, in the long run, this war will be detrimental to Israel because the perception among the American people towards Israel is increasingly negative. Israel is seen as a country that is not only inhumane for killing women and children in Gaza, but it also likes to fight other countries. Moreover, the recent statements by Netanyahu imploring the US to support Israeli in its current war with Iran are making more Americans, including those on the right wing of the political divide, be more vocal in warning Trump to remember his promise to his supporters that the US under him will not be involved in endless wars in far-flung places. Notable figures like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Green have made it their mission to stop the US from supporting Israel with weapons and money. Most Americans, especially those who are suffering from cost-of-living problems, are increasingly disgusted with the fact that their money is being used to fund Israel to kill more innocent women and children in Iran and Palestine. Conclusion Israel's attack on Iran is the culmination of a decades-long conflict between the two countries. Several factors contribute to what is happening, namely, Israel's concerns about Iran's nuclear weapons, Netanyahu's personal and political agenda, the struggle for regional influence through proxies and the failure of international diplomacy. In the short run, both Iran and Israel will suffer huge losses from this war. However, in the long run, Israel will suffer more due to the erosion of support from the American public. Many Americans, including among the right-wingers, are disgusted with Netanyahu's instigation to get America to be involved in the war and continue to support its endless wars against neighbouring countries. Since the ability of the Israeli military depends entirely on support from the United States, any reduction in American support for Israel will mean that the chances of the Palestinians being free from the oppressive Zionist grip on them will become brighter. From this perspective, despite the tragedy of the loss of so many innocent lives, the ongoing war between Iran and Israel is good for the future of Palestine. Emeritus Professor Mohd Nazari Ismail is the director of Hashim Sani Centre for Palestine Studies at Business and Economics Faculty of Universiti Malaya. The opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Sinar Daily.
