Israel says it destroyed Iran's 'internal security headquarters'
Defence Minister Israel Katz has said that Israeli air force jets have destroyed Iran's "internal security headquarters", shortly after the army announced it was striking Tehran.
"Air Force jets have just destroyed the internal security headquarters of the Iranian regime - the main arm of repression of the Iranian dictator," Katz said, adding that Israel would "strike symbols of governance and hit the Ayatollah regime wherever it may be".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
26 minutes ago
- Arabian Post
Economic Fallout Of Israel-Iran Conflict Could Extend Way Beyond Region
By K Raveendran With the likelihood of a diplomatic solution appearing increasingly distant, West Asia is now clearly veering toward a longer and more intense confrontation, one that may significantly reshape economic, geopolitical, and energy dynamics not only in the Middle East but globally. What was initially perceived as a retaliatory exchange following months of simmering tensions and occasional flare-ups has morphed into something far more strategic and entrenched. The operational tempo, the choice of targets, and the statements emanating from both capitals suggest that the two sides are not simply signalling strength, but engaging in sustained military campaigns with long-term goals. Israel's stated aim of destroying Iran's nuclear capability is no longer being couched in terms of surgical strikes or symbolic action. Officials have openly indicated that such an operation could span at least two weeks, possibly longer, which already places it well beyond the scale of previous escalations, including the direct exchanges in April and October of 2024. The implication is that Israel has committed itself to a campaign with significant military depth—one that targets infrastructure critical to Iran's nuclear ambitions but also disrupts its broader strategic and economic posture. The scope of Israel's recent operations makes this point explicit. The strikes have not been confined to nuclear facilities or military installations, but have also encompassed a broader swath of targets, including missile storage depots, airports, air defence systems, gas fields, and even regime-linked individuals. This reflects an evolving doctrine—one that seeks to degrade Iran's retaliatory capacity, political command structure, and economic backbone simultaneously. Of particular note are the attacks on Iran's energy sector, including a refinery in Abadan and facilities at the South Pars gas field—the world's largest. These moves mark a clear shift from traditional containment strategies toward an approach that aims to kneecap Iran's economic and technological lifelines in the medium term. The targeting of the energy sector introduces a potent economic dimension to the conflict. Iran currently contributes around 3 percent of global oil production and approximately 7 percent of global gas output. While these figures might seem marginal at first glance, they are anything but negligible in an already tight global energy market. Any prolonged disruption of Iranian oil and gas flows—especially from critical nodes like South Pars—would likely inject new volatility into global energy prices. The geopolitical risk premium on oil has already edged upwards since the early stages of the conflict, and with each additional strike on infrastructure, traders and policymakers are recalibrating their forecasts. More worrying still is the risk of cascading impacts: tanker rerouting, shipping insurance hikes, and logistical bottlenecks could all conspire to push prices higher, not just in oil but in related commodities and manufacturing inputs. The most immediate victims of this unfolding crisis are, unsurprisingly, the economies in the region. Tourism has already declined precipitously in countries like Jordan and Lebanon, and even Gulf states, which had enjoyed a post-COVID resurgence in travel and entertainment, are starting to see the signs of consumer hesitation. Major airlines are reconsidering routes, and insurance rates for regional air travel and maritime shipping have surged. Investors, both foreign and domestic, are pulling capital from Middle Eastern equity markets in favour of safer havens, leading to sell-offs in sectors ranging from real estate to technology. The psychological impact of a prolonged conflict, specially one involving missile exchanges and potential attacks on critical infrastructure, hard to quantify but undeniably corrosive. Consumer confidence has taken a hit, and businesses are postponing or scrapping investment plans across multiple sectors. Israel, despite its sophisticated Iron Dome and layered defence architecture, is not immune to these pressures. Iran's response has been far more expansive and effective than its strikes in October 2024. It has managed to hit sensitive targets within Israel, reportedly overwhelming some defence systems through sheer volume and timing coordination. This level of effectiveness complicates Israel's security calculus and introduces new variables into its decision-making. The domestic impact is already visible: air raid sirens, disruptions to schools and workplaces, and heightened public anxiety. In the longer term, the economic consequences could be significant, especially if investor sentiment sours and foreign tech companies, a backbone of Israel's export economy, begin to reassess their risk exposure. Yet what is perhaps most striking about this conflict so far is the calibrated restraint shown by third countries. Both sides have so far kept their military actions bilateral—pointed but not yet spiralling into a regional conflagration. The United States, though vocally supportive of Israel and deeply suspicious of Iran, has thus far avoided direct military engagement. Gulf nations, many of whom harbour strategic anxieties about both Israeli expansionism and Iranian destabilization, have been walking a diplomatic tightrope—issuing statements of concern, boosting local security readiness, but stopping short of involvement. This containment, however, is precarious. Should Iran escalate further and target American assets in the region or oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia or the UAE, a much broader conflict becomes likely. U.S. retaliation would almost certainly follow, and with that, the spectre of a major Middle East war with implications far beyond the region. Indeed, the interconnected nature of global trade and finance means the economic fallout from such a widening would be swift and far-reaching. Oil prices, already volatile, could soar well past $100 per barrel, reigniting inflation concerns in Europe and North America and undermining efforts by central banks to stabilize post-pandemic recoveries. Emerging markets, particularly those dependent on energy imports, would face sharp balance-of-payments challenges. Even the global shipping industry could be disrupted if the Strait of Hormuz—through which nearly a third of the world's seaborne oil passes—becomes contested or risky. That alone would prompt emergency responses from global powers, whether through naval deployments or strategic reserve releases, but these would do little to allay market fears in the short term. The risk to global supply chains extends beyond energy. With the Red Sea already having witnessed Houthi attacks on commercial vessels in recent months, a broader Israeli-Iranian war could embolden proxy groups across the region—from Yemen to Iraq to Lebanon. Any attacks on ports, pipelines, or fibre optic cables could have knock-on effects on data flows and container shipping, both critical to global commerce. The psychological impact on global markets would likely be profound, with equity markets dipping on fears of sustained conflict, while gold and other safe-haven assets spike in value. Domestically, Iran faces a complex balancing act. While hardliners may be emboldened by a sense of national victimhood and the perceived righteousness of retaliatory strikes, the economic cost of continued conflict is considerable. The country is still grappling with the effects of years of sanctions, high inflation, and a restive population increasingly disillusioned with the regime's priorities. A prolonged war, particularly one that inflicts damage on civilian infrastructure and energy exports, could deepen domestic discontent and amplify internal dissent. This in turn may make the regime more aggressive internationally as a way to consolidate control at home—a dangerous feedback loop that reduces the likelihood of de-escalation. (IPA Service)
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
As Trump weighs bombing Iran's Fordow, 'mission creep' lurks behind US attack
US President Donald Trump believes he is only weighing military strikes on Iran's Fordow nuclear plant, but the history of Middle East "mission creep" lurks behind his deliberations. Mission creep is when a military campaign's objectives start to shift and devolve into a longer, unforeseen commitment, and has often characterised US military adventures around the world. "If the US does join the war in Iran - and right now I think it won't - it will go in planning only to do some limited bombing. But as we all know, once you're in a war, there can be a lot of surprises. It is much easier to get into a war than to get out of one,' Tom E Ricks, the author of Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, told Middle East Eye. On Thursday evening, The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump approved a US attack plan on Iran but is waiting to see if he can get Iran to renounce its nuclear programme. The New York Times also followed that with a report saying Iran was willing to accept Trump's offer to meet. But history shows that the US may struggle to stop at Fordow, even if Trump wants to. His deliberation on whether to attack Iran is being compared to the 2003 decision to invade Iraq, but that might be a false comparison. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The story of the US's involvement in Iraq is one of incremental involvement. In 1991, the US implemented a no-fly zone to protect Iraq's Kurdish minority. Then, in 1998, the US and UK launched widespread strikes on Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein failed to allow weapons inspectors access to his country. The decision to invade fully came in 2003 after the US falsely claimed the country had weapons of mass destruction and was linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda militant group. Even then, experts say there are key differences from now. Although Israel lobbied the US for many years to invade Iraq, that war was US-led. US joins 'Israel-led war' Now, Trump is on the cusp of joining Israel in what is the zenith of its long campaign to rewrite the balance of power in the Middle East since the Hamas-led attack on 7 October 2023. That attack set off a region-wide war with Israeli ground troops occupying the Gaza Strip. Israel degraded Hezbollah in Lebanon and has repeatedly launched strikes in Syria, both while Bashar al-Assad's government was in power there and after his overthrow in December 2024. 'Iraq was a US war,' Paul Salem, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told MEE. 'What we have seen since 7 October [2023] is something different; Israeli-led and designed wars with Israeli objectives and the US coming along.' If Trump does launch strikes on Iran, he will do so under justifications that echo 2003, but it's still not an apples-to-apples comparison. Then, the US falsely claimed that Iraq's Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. But there are key differences now. 'What makes this precipice of intervention unique is that the US was engaged in direct negotiations with Iran,' Fawaz Gerges, author of What Really Went Wrong: The West and the Failure of Democracy in the Middle East, told MEE. 'What makes this precipice of intervention unique is that the US was engaged in direct negotiations with Iran' - Fawaz Gerges, academic and author Indeed, just before the Israeli attack, Iran and the US were set to meet in Oman for the sixth round of nuclear talks aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear programme. And the reality is that this agreement would just be a follow-up deal to the nuclear deal that Iran and the US signed during President Barack Obama's tenure, which Trump unilaterally exited from during his first tenure. However, in 2003, Hussein ultimately rejected requests for inspectors to enter Iraq. The Bush administration then used false intelligence to justify its attack. Trump's own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, said in March that Iran was not seeking to build a nuclear weapon. Trump disregarded her assessment. 'I don't care what she said,' Trump said on Tuesday about the assessment. 'I think they were very close to having a weapon.' As of Thursday, Trump was still vacillating between striking Iran and appearing to use Israel's pummelling of the Islamic Republic as a negotiating card to achieve what he says his aim is - Iran renouncing all enrichment of uranium. "I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do," Trump said in the Oval Office. He earlier called for Iran's 'unconditional surrender'. Arab officials whose countries have been trying to mediate between Iran and the US told MEE earlier that they believe Trump is more likely than not to order US strikes on Iran. The expected target of American strikes is Fordow, the Iranian enrichment facility buried half a kilometre underground. Israel needs the US's 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs and B-2 aircraft to have a chance at destroying the plant through conventional strikes. Mission creep The US has conducted limited bombing campaigns elsewhere in the Middle East, but has rarely avoided being drawn into a deeper commitment. One example where it did so was 1986 in Libya, when the Reagan administration bombed Muammar Gaddafi's regime in retaliation for the bombing of a disco in West Berlin that killed two US service members. Ethan Chorin, a former US diplomat and author, said the closest parallel to today is the Obama administration's 2011 decision to lead a Nato bombing campaign on Libya during the Arab Spring. 'Initially, US intervention in Libya was ostensibly to protect civilians in Benghazi,' Chorin said, author of Exit the Colonel: The Hidden History of the Libyan Revolution. But Chorin said the comparisons stop there. 'Libya was seen as a 'safer bet' for intervention during the Arab Spring. No one thinks Iran is marginal. There is a big difference. But the concern about mission creep is there.' Diego Garcia: The Indian Ocean base the US can use to target Iran Read More » 'Assume you destroy Fordow and have an agitated regime that is still in power. What lessons will they (the regime) have learned?' he added. The Trump administration has not stated that its goal is regime change in Iran, but Trump didn't rule it out, saying on Truth Social that the US knows where he is but has decided not to take him out, "at least not for now". But Israel has made no secret that a positive outcome for them of the attacks on Iran's senior chain of command, energy infrastructure and military capabilities could collapse the government. 'It could certainly be the result, because Iran is very weak,' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News on Monday. 'The decision to act, to rise up, at this time, is the decision of the Iranian people.' If Trump does enter the war with Israel, suggesting its goals are regime change, it would be a major pivot for a US president who visited the Gulf in May and excoriated 'interventionists' and 'nation-builders'. Libya, a predominantly Sunni Muslim country of just seven million people, is a bad comparison. The spark for the protests against Gaddafi was organic, coming as part of the wider Arab Spring movement. It then descended into a civil war, fuelled in part by Gulf states backing rival militias. Even Iraq, where the US carried out De-Ba'athification after ousting Hussein's secular government, does not compare to Iran, Gerges told MEE. 'There is a delusion of raw power here,' he told MEE. 'The objectives have changed, but here the goal seems to be to destroy as much as possible in the military infrastructure and see if, as a side effect, you bring about regime change or just chaos.'
Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Trump promised not to go to war. His most ardent supporters want him to keep his word
"This war isn't about Iran's nuclear weapons for Israel, it is about one thing: regime change. Hear me now: this is not going to stop at some bombing campaigns around Iran's nuclear programme. That's just the appetiser, not the entree... Does America really want to be Israel's dance partner to this siren song?" If those words sound like they came from a progressive, Bernie Sanders-aligned, anti-imperial voice, they did not. Those are the words of former congressman, Matt Gaetz, one of the most loyal supporters of US President Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement since its inception. Gaetz - since resigning from the House of Representatives after a slew of ethics violations - now has his own show on the far-right TV channel One America Network. "When you call someone a modern-day Hitler, it is a permission structure to kill them," Gaetz went on to say after playing a clip of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu telling ABC News that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is a "modern-day Hitler". New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Gaetz then went on to interview his former colleague, Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, another vocal and often controversial "America Firster". "Matt, I see it just as you do, and you laid that out so well," she said. "We've watched for decades propaganda news. I'll call out Fox News and The New York Post. They're known to be the neocon[servative] network news... the American people have been brainwashed into believing that America has to engage in these foreign wars in order for us to survive. And it's absolutely not true." Greene has been urging the Trump administration to stay out of Israel's attacks on Iran since they began last Friday. On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump told senior aides he had approved plans to attack Iran but had not yet given the final order to carry them out. A new paradigm? The questions and posture that challenge the American establishment's penchant for war have not, in recent memory, been as organised, as targeted, or as influential as the voices of MAGA's most well-known cast of characters. Take Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News pundit, who appeared on Steve Bannon's War Room show on YouTube earlier this week. Bannon himself is a former White House strategist from Trump's first term in office, and remains one of the most influential people in the MAGA circuit. "I grew up in a world that espoused violence. That's what the US government does," Carlson told Bannon. "If you think - and I said this to an Israeli official - if you think I'm anti-Israel, man, you have lost the plot," he said of the anti-war stance he's adopted. "Let's have a rational conversation about what our aims are here. And maybe you can convince me that we need to support a regime change war in Iran. Tell me how that plays out in a country of 90 million people. Have you thought it through? Do you even care? And the answer is no," Carlson said. State Department pushes 'peace' narrative as Trump threatens Iran Read More » "You may have a plan for regime change, it's fine, but you got to bring the American people on," Bannon agreed. As of Wednesday, that clip had some 7,000 views. Carlson then interviewed Bannon on his show on YouTube, and the one-hour and 18-minute conversation generated one million views in less than 24 hours. Bannon outlined the three pillars on which he says Trump was elected: "Stop the forever wars, seal the border and deport the illegal aliens - the illegal invaders - and redo the commercial relationships in the world around trade deals." Reneging on one of them would potentially undo the others, Bannon said, with a stark warning. "I'm a big supporter of Israel, yes. And I'm telling people, hey, if we get sucked into this war - which inexorably looks like it's going to happen on the combat side - it's... going to thwart what we're doing with the most important thing, which is the deportation of the illegal alien invaders that are here. If we don't do that, we don't have a country," he said of Trump's plan to deport at least one million undocumented immigrants every year, as well as foreigners who may have civil or criminal violations. Bannon also cautioned that joining and expanding the war on Iran could mean "the end of Israel, because of the way these decisions have been made". Carlson, expressing remorse for supporting the invasion of Iraq in 2003, said optics and public opinion should be critical to guiding the White House's decisions. "[Abraham] Lincoln told us, what you need is popular opinion to have your back. And we don't do enough about educating the American people on what reality is," he said. Much like the allegation that Iraq had a weapon of mass destruction, Bannon said Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who was handpicked by Trump, confirmed to lawmakers in a public hearing in March that Iran was not assessed to be close to building a nuclear bomb. "They don't have a programme. They haven't had a programme," Bannon emphasised. Trump takes on his base In a new interview with Texas Senator and longtime war hawk Ted Cruz, posted on Wednesday on YouTube, Carlson repeatedly challenged him on Iran's population, its makeup, and precisely how the Bible says that Christians must support Israel (which Cruz cites as his reasoning). "I was taught from the Bible, those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed. And from my perspective, I want to be on the blessing side of things," Cruz, a Republican who did not support Trump until he became president in 2017, told Carlson on his show. Carlson asked him where in the Bible it said that, and Cruz said he doesn't remember. "You don't have context for it. You don't know where in the Bible it is, but that's like your theology? I'm confused. What does that even mean... We are commanded, as Christians, to support the government of Israel?" "We are commanded to support Israel," Cruz responded, as the two continuously cut each other off. "God is talking about the nation of Israel." "Is that the current borders, the current leadership?" Carlson asked. US Senator Ted Cruz faces backlash for not knowing basic facts about Iran Read More » "Yes, nations exists, and he's discussing a nation," Cruz said. The Iran hawks in Congress, all of whom are also staunch supporters of Israel, have been lobbying the White House to join Israel's war. Many of them take cues from pro-Israel lobbying groups, which have also dispatched members of proxy think tanks like the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) to go on channels like Fox News and advocate for full US military engagement. As the debate rages, Trump himself was on the defensive in an interview with The Atlantic. "For those people who say they want peace - you can't have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon. So for all of those wonderful people who don't want to do anything about Iran having a nuclear weapon - that's not peace," he said. "Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb, very simple. Regardless - Israel or not Israel - Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb," he added. On Monday, he took aim directly at Carlson. 'I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen,' Trump told reporters, implying that Carlson no longer had the viewership and reach he had as a mainstream media broadcaster. And as of Sunday, the US was not yet operationally engaged in the war, Trump told ABC News. "We're not involved in it. It's possible we could get involved. But we are not at this moment involved," the president said. But that's not what Cruz appeared to let slip in his discussion with Carlson. Iran is "trying to murder Donald Trump," Cruz said. "We're carrying out military strikes today." "You said Israel was?" Carlson asked. "I've said we - Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them," Cruz responded. "Well this is you breaking news here," Carlson responded, alluding to a White House spokesperson who denied US operational involvement in a post on X. "We're not bombing them, Israel's bombing them," Cruz said. "You just said we were." "We are supporting Israel," Cruz said. The US president has been cryptic in his messaging on what course of action he will take next in Iran, giving mixed signals regarding being open to talks but saying it's too late to talk and then also saying that the US may strike, but they may not. Trump's MAGA base, however, has not yet given up in trying to dissuade the American president from what they think will become another costly entanglement in the Middle East - and a potential fracture in the Republican Party's voter base.
