&w=3840&q=100)
Hit 900 targets in Iran since conflict began and killed 11 nuclear scientists, says Israel
Israel said it struck over 900 targets in Iran during Operation Rising Lion, killing 11 nuclear scientists and 30 senior security officials, according to a report read more
A satellite image shows damage to the tunnel entrances of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Research Centre, following US airstrikes amid the Iran-Israel conflict, in Isfahan, Iran. Maxar Technologies/Reuters
Israel's military has said that it carried out strikes on more than 900 targets inside Iran as part of the unprecedented 'Operation Rising Lion' during its conflict with Tehran.
According to a CNN report, citing the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), the operation also killed 11 Iranian nuclear scientists and 30 senior security officials, including three top commanders.
In total, the operation hit over 900 targets, according to the IDF, including the destruction of 200 missile launchers, claimed to represent half of Iran's arsenal.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The strikes also took out aircraft and missile production facilities, which the IDF said 'prevented the manufacture of thousands of additional missiles.'
Earlier on Thursday, Israel's Defence Minister Israel Katz said in an interview with Channel 13 that there had not been an opportunity to assassinate Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during Operation Rising Lion – but said Israel would have 'taken him out' if one had arisen.
A 12‑day conflict between Israel and Iran erupted on June 13 after Israel launched air strikes on Iranian military, nuclear, and civilian sites, killing at least 606 people and injuring 5,332, according to Iran's Health Ministry.
Tehran launched retaliatory missile and drone strikes on Israel, killing at least 29 people and wounding more than 3,400, according to figures released by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The conflict came to a halt under a US-sponsored ceasefire that took effect on June 24.
With inputs from agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
How the US helped oust Iran's government in 1953 and reinstate the Shah
When US missiles struck Iran's key nuclear facilities on June 22, history seemed to repeat itself. Seventy-two years ago, a covert CIA operation toppled Iran's democratically elected government. Now, as American rhetoric drifts once more toward regime change, the ghosts of 1953 are stirring again. The coordinated US air and missile strike, codenamed Operation Midnight Hammer, targeted three of Iran's principal nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center. The attack immediately reignited fears of a broader war in the Middle East. In the hours that followed, US President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social: 'It's not politically correct to use the term 'Regime Change. But if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Though officials in Washington, including Vice President JD Vance, rushed to clarify that regime change was not formal policy, many in Iran heard echoes from 1953, when the US and UK orchestrated the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. After being appointed as the prime minister of Iran in 1951, Mossadegh moved to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, then controlled by the British, who had long funneled Iranian oil profits to London. 'He ended a long period of British hegemony in Iran… and set the stage for several decades of rapid economic growth fueled by oil revenues,' wrote Mark Gasiorowski, a historian at Tulane University, in an essay for the volume The Middle East and the United States: History, Politics, and Ideologies (2018). 'He also tried to democratise Iran's political system by reducing the powers of the shah and the traditional upper class.' Mossadegh argued that Iran, like any sovereign state, deserved control over its resources. Appearing before the International Court of Justice in 1952, he laid out Iran's case: 'The decision to nationalise the oil industry is the result of the political will of an independent and free nation,' he said. 'For us Iranians, the uneasiness of stopping any kind of action which is seen as interference in our national affairs is more intense than for other nations.' Britain saw the nationalisation as both a strategic and economic threat. It imposed a blockade and led a global oil boycott, while pressuring Washington to intervene. The British adopted a three-track strategy: a failed negotiation effort, a global boycott of Iranian oil and covert efforts to undermine and overthrow Mossadegh, writes Gasiorowski . British intelligence operatives had built ties with 'politicians, businessmen, military officers and clerical leaders' in anticipation of a coup. Initially, the Truman administration resisted intervention. But President Dwight D Eisenhower's election ushered in a more aggressive Cold War posture. 'Under the Truman administration, these boundaries [of acceptable Iranian politics] were drawn rather broadly,' Gasiorowski wrote. 'But when Eisenhower entered office, the more stridently anti-Communist views of his foreign policy advisers led the US to drop its support for Mossadegh and take steps to overthrow him.' Fear of communism's spread, particularly via Iran's Tudeh Party, believed to be the first organised Communist party in the Middle East. 'Although they did not regard Mossadegh as a Communist,' Gasiorowski wrote, 'they believed conditions in Iran would probably continue to deteriorate… strengthening the Tudeh Party and perhaps enabling it to seize power.' While Britain lobbied for a coup, Mossadegh appealed directly to Eisenhower. Eisenhower, in a letter in June 1953, offered sympathy but warned that aid was unlikely so long as Iran withheld oil: 'There is a strong feeling… that it would not be fair to the American taxpayers for the United States Government to extend any considerable amount of economic aid to Iran so long as Iran could have access to funds derived from the sale of its oil.' Mossadegh's response was blunt. He accused Britain of sabotaging Iran's economy through 'propaganda and diplomacy,' and warned that inaction could carry lasting consequences: 'If prompt and effective aid is not given to this country now, any steps that might be taken tomorrow… might well be too late,' he wrote. Weeks later, in August 1953, the CIA and Britain's MI6 launched a covert operation to oust Mossadegh and restore the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to power. 'A decision was made to develop and carry out a plan to overthrow Mussadiq and install Zahedi as prime minister,' Gasiorowski wrote. 'The operation was to be led by Kermit Roosevelt, who headed the CIA's Middle East operations division.' The mission, code-named Operation Ajax, used anti-Mossadegh propaganda, bribes, and orchestrated street unrest. After an initial failure and the Shah's brief exile, loyalist military units staged a successful coup on August 19. Mossadegh was arrested, tried, and placed under house arrest until his death in 1967. In 2013, the CIA officially acknowledged its role, releasing declassified documents that described the coup as 'an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government.' In Iran, schoolchildren learn about the 1953 coup in classrooms. State media airs annual retrospectives on Mossadegh's downfall. His name recurs in graffiti, political speeches, and university lectures. In his book The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the Roots of Modern U.S.-Iranian Relations, the historian Ervand Abrahamian called the operation 'a defining fault line not only for Iranian history but also in the country's relations with both Britain and the United States.' It 'carved in public memory a clear dividing line — 'before' and 'after' — that still shapes the country's political culture,' he wrote. While Cold War defenders portrayed the coup as a check on communism, Abrahamian sees oil and empire as the true motivators. 'The main concern was not so much about communism as about the dangerous repercussions that oil nationalisation could have throughout the world,' he argues. Following the coup, the Shah ruled with increasing autocracy, supported by the US and bolstered by SAVAK (Sazeman-e Ettela'at va Amniyat-e Keshvar), a secret police trained by the CIA. Decades of repression, inequality, and corruption gave way to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which toppled the monarchy and established the Islamic Republic. 'The strategic considerations that led US policymakers to undertake the 1953 coup helped set in motion a chain of events that later destroyed the Shah's regime and created severe problems for US interests,' wrote Gasiorowski. On November 4, 1979, the US Embassy in Tehran was seized. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days. Revolutionaries repeatedly cited 1953 as the origin of their mistrust. Though Washington denied involvement for decades, few Iranians ever doubted the CIA's role in Mossadegh's fall. 'The coup revealed how the United States began almost instinctively to follow in the footsteps of British imperialism,' write David W Lesch and Mark L Haas editors of The Middle East and the United States: History, Politics, and Ideologies . 'Demonstrating a preference for the status quo rather than the forces of change.' Even President Barack Obama, in a 2009 speech in Cairo, acknowledged the long shadow of 1953, noting that the coup had created 'years of mistrust.' No US president has ever issued a formal apology. Dr Omair Anas, director of research at the Centre for Studies of Plural Societies, a non-profit, non-partisan, independent institution dedicated to democratising knowledge, sees the 1953 events as not just a turning point but a template for today's impasse. 'The 1953 coup was staged in the backdrop of the Cold War which resulted in Iran's inclusion into the CENTO alliance along with Pakistan and Turkiye,' he said. He is sharply critical of current regime change rhetoric, describing it as detached from Iran's internal political conditions. 'The most important player is Iran's domestic politics,' he said. 'At this stage, it is not willing and prepared for a regime change.' Anas points out that the government has already absorbed considerable dissent: 'Previous anti-hijab protests have already accommodated many anti-regime voices and sentiments.' But absorbing discontent, he suggests, is not the same as welcoming systemic change. 'Any regime change at this stage would immediately lead the country to chaos and possible civil war, as the new regime won't be able to de-Islamise the state in the near future.' Trump's rhetoric, therefore, landed with particular resonance. While senior officials have attempted to distance the administration from talk of regime change, many in Iran and beyond see a familiar playbook: pressure, provocation, and the threat of externally imposed political outcomes. Dr Anas contends that many of the so-called alternatives to the Islamic Republic are politically inert. 'Anti-regime forces since 1979 have lost much ground and haven't been able to stage a major threat to the revolution,' he said. 'The West is fully aware that the Pahlavi dynasty or the Mujahidin-e-Khalq (MEK) have the least popularity and organisational presence to replace the Khamenei-led regime of Islamic revolution.' As he sees it, the system's survival is not merely a matter of repression but of strategic logic. 'Khamenei can only be replaced by someone like him,' he said. 'The continuity of the Islamic revolution of Iran remains more preferable than any other disruptive replacement.' He also warns that a forced collapse of the current order could have serious regional implications. 'In the case of violent suppression of Islamist forces, the new Iranian state might seek the revival of the Cold War collaboration with Pakistan and Turkiye and a strong push against Russia.' For India, a country that has generally maintained a policy of non-intervention, such a development could be deeply destabilising. 'Any abrupt change would complicate India's West Asia and South Asia strategic calculus,' he said, 'and more fundamentally India's Pakistan strategy.' Dr Anas also sees Western credibility as severely eroded across the region. 'The West has left no credibility whatsoever about human rights, freedom, and democracy after the Israeli-Gaza war,' he said. 'The Middle Eastern public opinion, including that of Kurds, Druze and Afghans, have lost hope in Western promises. They prefer any autocratic regime to West-backed regimes.' India, he said, risks being caught flat-footed if political transitions come suddenly. 'India generally stays away from the normative politics of the Middle East,' he said. 'While this shows India's principled stand on no intervention in internal politics, it also puts India in a weak position once the regime changes, as happened in Syria.' His recommendation? 'India needs to engage more actively with West Asian civil society to have more balanced relations beyond states.' Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
22 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Iran rules out US talks, vows revenge, suspends UN nuclear oversight
Iran has ruled out plans to meet with the United States, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in an interview on state television on Thursday, directly contradicting US President Donald Trump's claim that talks were scheduled for next week, The Times of Israel reported. Araghchi stated that Tehran was still evaluating whether engaging in renewed talks with Washington served the nation's interests. He recalled that five previous rounds of negotiations were cut short following attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities by Israel and subsequently the United States. While Washington and Jerusalem said the strikes aimed to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, Tehran insists its programme is strictly for civilian use. However, Iran's uranium enrichment to 60 percent is widely recognised as suitable only for weapons. Jerusalem claims to have intelligence that Tehran was actively pursuing a nuclear bomb. Araghchi described the damage from the recent 12-day conflict with Israel as "serious," adding that assessments were underway. "A detailed assessment of the damage is being carried out by experts from the Atomic Energy Organization," he said. "Now, the discussion of demanding damages and the necessity of providing them has been placed as one of the important issues on the country's diplomatic agenda," he added. "These damages are serious, and expert studies and political decision-making are underway at the same time." Meanwhile, Iranian lawmakers passed a "binding" bill to suspend cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog. Araghchi confirmed that the bill had been passed by the legislature and approved by the top vetting body. "From now on, our relationship and cooperation with the agency will take a new form," he said. In a speech on Thursday, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called the outcome of the conflict a "victory" for Iran, stating the country would never succumb to US pressure, and that Washington had been dealt a humiliating "slap," The Times of Israel reported. "The American president exaggerated events in unusual ways, and it turned out that he needed this exaggeration," Khamenei said. He dismissed claims that the strikes had significantly damaged Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem also hailed what he called Iran's victory, claiming it had proven its ability to stand alone against the United States and Israel. Hezbollah, still reeling from the 2023-2024 war it began with Israel, stayed out of the 12-day conflict after warnings from Lebanon's government. "We in Lebanon, as Hezbollah, support the independent capabilities of Iran, and we resist Israel and the American hegemony," Qassem said. He added that the US and Israel had failed in their objectives to stop Iran's uranium enrichment and missile programme, or to topple the regime. The United States, however, maintained that its strikes were effective. President Trump said American B-2 bombers had "obliterated" key Iranian nuclear sites, including the underground Fordo enrichment facility. While some reports suggested Iran might have moved 400 kilograms of enriched uranium ahead of the strikes, Trump rejected this on Truth Social: "Nothing was taken out... too dangerous, and very heavy and hard to move!" He added that trucks seen in satellite images before the strikes were part of efforts to shield the facility with concrete. The Times of Israel also noted that a leaked classified US assessment suggested the damage may only delay Iran's nuclear programme by a few months, though this was contested by senior US officials. CIA Director John Ratcliffe said several nuclear facilities would need to be rebuilt over years. Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said the US had used GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles, asserting, "President Trump created the conditions to end the war, decimating -- choose your word -- obliterating, destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities." In retaliation, Iran launched over 500 ballistic missiles and nearly 1,000 drones at Israel, killing 28 people and injuring thousands, according to Israeli health authorities. The strikes hit residential buildings, universities, and a hospital. Iran also targeted a US base in Qatar, which Qatar reported was intercepted. Israel has defended the campaign as necessary to prevent Iran from carrying out its threat to destroy the Jewish state. French President Emmanuel Macron said the strikes were "genuinely effective," while warning that Tehran's potential withdrawal from the global non-proliferation treaty could be the "worst-case scenario.
News18
39 minutes ago
- News18
Relief But Don't Enrich: Trump Floats $30 Billion Civilian Nuclear Deal For Iran
Last Updated: The Trump administration may allow Iran $30 billion for a civilian nuclear program if it stops uranium enrichment, with Gulf allies funding the initiative. The Donald Trump administration is weighing a proposal that could allow Iran access to as much as $30 billion to build a civilian nuclear energy program- just days after US military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, CNN reported. Key US and Middle Eastern officials have been in discreet contact with Iranian counterparts in an effort to revive stalled nuclear negotiations, the report claimed. The US-led effort is supported financially by Gulf allies and aims to fund the creation of a non-enrichment nuclear program in Iran- intended solely for civilian energy use. The program could involve a $20–30 billion investment and would require Iran to completely halt uranium enrichment- a red line for the White House which has been a demand Tehran has long resisted. 'This is about creating an alternative that satisfies Iran's domestic energy needs without letting them near a bomb," a senior Trump official told CNN, adding, 'Zero enrichment. That's the non-negotiable." Details of the plan were discussed in a secret White House meeting just 24 hours before the US launched strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, including the Fordow enrichment site. At the time, US special envoy Steve Witkoff met Gulf state envoys for hours to outline possible terms of a new agreement, the report claimed citing people in the know. One floated idea was the replacement the Fordow site with a new nuclear facility, funded by US-allied Gulf nations, to produce nuclear energy under strict international oversight. The financial assistance would not come from US as the White House envisions Gulf states footing the bill in exchange for regional stability, the report added. In addition to infrastructure support, the draft proposal also includes limited sanctions relief and the possible unfreezing of $6 billion in Iranian assets currently held in foreign accounts. Negotiations have largely been conducted through regional intermediaries- with Qatar playing a crucial role in both ceasefire diplomacy and nuclear discussions. Sources told CNN that Doha has been 'instrumental" in relaying messages between Washington and Tehran. This comes as US President Donald Trump confirmed that his administration was seeking 'a comprehensive peace agreement" while downplaying the urgency of reaching a nuclear deal. 'I don't care if I have an agreement or not," Donald Trump said, adding, 'I could get a statement that they're not going to go nuclear- we're probably going to ask for that." First Published: June 27, 2025, 15:45 IST
