Netanyahu says Israel "very close" to achieving goals in Iran, vows to avoid "war of attrition"
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel is nearing its objectives in Iran, having significantly damaged its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Following US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Netanyahu vowed to continue the campaign until all goals are met, emphasizing the elimination of nuclear and ballistic threats.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that Israel is "very close" to achieving its goals in Iran, having inflicted significant damage to its ballistic missile program and its nuclear facilities, The Times of Israel reported.Addressing reporters in a pre-recorded press conference on Sunday following the US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, Netanyahu pledged not to let Israel get dragged into a "war of attrition" with Tehran but emphasised that it does not imply he would end the campaign until all the objectives are achieved."We won't pursue our actions beyond what is needed to achieve [the goals], but we also won't finish too soon," vowing to avoid entering a war of attrition. Speaking to reporters, he said, "When the objectives are achieved, then the operation is complete and the fighting will stop."https://x.com/netanyahu/status/1936877823714578648Netanyahu stated, "I have no doubt that this is a regime that wants to wipe us out, and that's why we embarked on this operation to eliminate the two concrete threats to our existence: the nuclear threat and the ballistic missile threat. We are moving step by step towards achieving these goals. We are very, very close to completing them."He said that "very serious damage" has been inflicted on Iran's nuclear site in Furdow. However, he did not mention the details regarding the extent of the damage. Regarding Iran's nuclear program, he said, "We are sending them back, we are removing the threat."The Pentagon on Sunday announced that the US launched Operation Midnight Hammer and conducted "precision strikes" at three of Iran's key nuclear facilities, including Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.Asked about the whereabouts of Iran's 400 kilograms of 60-per-cent enriched uranium, he claimed that Israel has "interesting intel" related to the issue. However, he refused to elaborate on the details.Netanyahu said, "We've been following that very closely. I can tell you that it's an important component of a nuclear program." He said, "It's not the sole component. It's not a sufficient component. But it is an important component and we have interesting intel on that, which you will excuse me if I don't share with you."About the timing of Israel's campaign against nuclear facilities in Iran, Netanyahu said Israel "had to act" as Tehran was making efforts toward nuclear weaponisation after Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah's killing in September 2024.Israel's PM mentioned Iran's plans to build 300 ballistic missiles per month as a deciding factor to initiate the campaign at this time. According to him, over half of the ballistic missile launchers in Iran had been taken out in the past 10 days.Netanyahu said he had shared his concerns with US President Donald Trump and told him of the need to act. He said, "I told him of our need to act, and he understood it very well. And I knew that when push comes to shove, he would do the right thing," The Times of Israel reported.Israeli PM said, "He would do the right thing for America. He would do the right thing for the free world. He would do the right thing for civilisation."Netanyahu insisted that the attacks in Iran would help Israel in achieving its goals in the Gaza Strip. He said, "Without the Iranian scaffolding, it all collapses." According to him, the war in Israel "could end tomorrow."He stated, "It could end today if Hamas surrenders, lays down all its arms, releases all the hostages. It's over in a moment." He said, "We think we can give Gaza a different future," The Times of Israel reported.The conflict in Gaza started after Hamas launched an attack on Israel in 2023, in which some 1,200 people were killed and 251 were taken hostage. In response to the Hamas attack, Israel vowed to destroy the group.Hamas is still holding 50 hostages, including 49 of the 251 abducted on October 7, and the body of a soldier killed in 2014. They include the bodies of at least 28 confirmed dead by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF). 20 are believed to be alive, while concerns have been raised regarding the well-being of two others.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
41 minutes ago
- Indian Express
When can US go to war? Here's what its Constitution says
In 1973, a war-weary US Congress passed the War Powers Act to rein in presidents who overstepped in Vietnam. Five decades later, President Donald Trump's unilateral strike on Iran has reignited a debate the Founders thought they had settled in 1787. On June 22, when Trump announced a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities — hitting targets in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — he did so without notifying Congress, let alone securing its approval. The sites were hit with precision-guided missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-busters. While Tehran stopped short of a formal declaration of war, officials warned that retaliation was inevitable. At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, Iran's ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, accused the United States of having 'destroyed diplomacy,' warning that the Iranian military would determine the 'timing, nature, and scale' of its retaliation, the Associated Press reported. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi immediately flew to Moscow for consultations with Russia, a sign of how fast this confrontation could escalate beyond bilateral hostilities. Back in Washington, President Trump's aides termed the strike as a limited action. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on Fox News to clarify the administration's position: 'This is not a war against Iran,' he said. 'It's a targeted operation to prevent nuclear escalation.' Yet just hours later, President Trump posted a message online: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The message prompted widespread speculation. Was the administration pursuing regime change in Iran? And if so, was the United States already engaged in war? Global markets reacted nervously. Oil prices surged, and analysts warned of long-term consequences for nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability. More profoundly, Trump's decision reignited a centuries-old question: who gets to declare war? The US Constitution is unequivocal: under Article I, Section 8, only Congress — not the President — holds the authority to declare war. This separation was no accident. It was a deliberate check on executive power, forged in reaction to the British monarchy, where kings could drag nations into conflict at will. The Founders sought to ensure that decisions as grave as war would require the consent of the people's representatives. The Constitution also designates the president as Commander in Chief under Article II, granting authority to direct military operations once war is authorised. The executive also retains the capacity to respond swiftly to sudden attacks. The most notable test came in 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports at the outset of the Civil War, months before Congress officially declared war on the Confederacy. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Lincoln's actions, ruling that the President has the authority to 'repel sudden attacks.' For much of US history, this balance endured. From the War of 1812 through World War II, major military engagements were accompanied by formal declarations of war from Congress. Formal declarations of war have remained rare. The United States has declared war only 11 times. (Source: But in the post-1945 world, that constitutional clarity began to blur. The first major rupture came in 1950, when President Harry Truman committed US troops to Korea without seeking congressional approval, framing the war as a 'police action' under the United Nations banner. Subsequent presidents followed suit. John F Kennedy escalated America's presence in Vietnam by sending military advisors and weapons, sidestepping a formal declaration. By 1969, President Richard Nixon was conducting a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, entirely without the knowledge or consent of Congress. This executive overreach eventually sparked legislative backlash. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, designed to reassert its authority, overriding Nixon's veto in the process. The act required presidents to consult with Congress before engaging in hostilities and to withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorised further action. In theory, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was crafted to restrain precisely the kind of unilateral action President Trump has now taken. Passed in the aftermath of Vietnam, the law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US forces into hostilities and to withdraw them within 60 days unless Congress grants explicit authorisation. In practice, it has proven all but toothless. Every president since its passage has sidestepped or outright ignored its provisions. Trump did not inform Congress before ordering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, nor, critics argue, has he offered a convincing legal justification under the US or international law. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department, told the New York Times. The law, like many of its post-Watergate era peers, was built on trust and precedent. It had no true enforcement mechanism. And so, it has repeatedly failed to restrain the very power it was meant to check. Trump's decision fits a well-established pattern of executive overreach in foreign military engagements. President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada and airstrikes on Libya without congressional approval. President George HW Bush invaded Panama in 1989, triggering legal debate over constitutional boundaries. President Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999 as part of the Kosovo conflict, again without seeking congressional consent. President Barack Obama launched a prolonged air campaign in Libya in 2011 and later against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, citing outdated authorisations rather than requesting new ones. Even President Joe Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authorised airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen in 2024 without congressional sanction. Each administration justified its actions as necessary and time-sensitive. But cumulatively, these precedents have normalised unilateral war-making, eroding Congress's role and the public's voice in questions of war and peace. Technological change has accelerated this shift. Drones, cyber tools, and remote strike capabilities have made it easier to conduct military operations with minimal personnel and lower political risk. A key enabler of this executive drift has been the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The resolution granted the president authority to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the attacks and those who harboured them. Originally intended to target al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the 2001 AUMF has since been used to justify military actions in at least seven countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. It has also been invoked against newer groups like ISIS, despite no explicit congressional authorisation for those operations. Multiple presidents have promised to revise or repeal the AUMF. None have succeeded. Its broad language remains a legal foundation for perpetual military engagement. Trump's 2025 strikes have brought these longstanding tensions to a head. Legal scholars, military experts, and members of Congress are warning that US war-making has entered a constitutional grey zone. By allowing the executive to define and initiate acts of war without oversight, Congress risks ceding one of its most fundamental constitutional powers. Trump ran for office promising to end America's entanglements abroad. Instead, with his June strike, he has intensified one of the longest-running debates in US history. At its core, the question remains unchanged since 1787: who gets to take the United States to war? 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
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
'It was a ruse': Inside Trump's war room; how 'Operation Midnight Hammer' against Iran was planned
US President Donald Trump in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) In a move that marks a dramatic escalation in US-Iran tensions, American President Donald Trump ordered a high-precision military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday, authorising the first major US military action on Iranian soil since the fall of the American-backed Shah in 1979. The operation, carried out by a small fleet of US B-2 stealth bombers, was planned under intense secrecy and executed just hours after Trump returned from his New Jersey golf club to the White House. In classic Trump fashion, he announced the strike minutes after it concluded, "Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!. " Photo: Inside Trump's war room - a secretive, surgical attack The White House later released tightly controlled photos from the classified Situation Room, showing Trump, wearing his signature red MAGA hat, flanked by his war cabinet. CIA director John Ratcliffe, defense secretary Pete Hegseth, and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles were present, though national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard was conspicuously missing, amid rumours of internal friction. US President Donald Trump in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) Photos blurred key documents on the table, echoing the Obama-era images of the 2011 Bin Laden raid. But where Obama's photos suggested deliberation and calm, Trump's leaned into theatrics— part documentation, part spectacle, all calculated for impact. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What She Did Mid-Air Left Passengers Speechless medalmerit Learn More Undo US President Donald Trump in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) A strike months in the making, publicly denied until the last hour Though Trump projected uncertainty all week, publicly musing on whether he might "take two weeks" to decide, the internal gears of war were already in motion. By Thursday, he had approved detailed attack plans. By early Saturday morning, seven B-2s were already airborne. "It was a ruse," a senior administration official admitted, according to The Washington Post. Only a tight circle of aides were read in: VP JD Vance, CIA chief Ratcliffe, defense secretary Hegseth, national security envoy Steve Witkoff, and secretary of state Marco Rubio, among others. Some in the broader White House apparatus were in the dark until the bombs had already fallen. The final decision, it seems, was not so much a moment as a mood. Trump's two-week bluff? Trump's claim that he might take "two weeks" to decide on striking Iran was a calculated deception, designed to throw Tehran off balance. Behind the scenes, however, the decision had already been made, and stealth bombers were preparing for takeoff. A senior administration official later admitted the delayed talk was "our attempt to throw the Iranians off guard," though there was 'some truth' to it, according to The Washington Post. The public indecision masked a fast-moving, tightly held operation that unfolded just 36 hours later. Iran's red line: Nuclear enrichment At the heart of the conflict: Iran's refusal to halt its nuclear fuel enrichment program, an issue that has vexed American presidents for decades. In Geneva last week, European diplomats met with Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, but the talks stalled. Tehran wouldn't budge unless the bombing stopped. Trump, in turn, wouldn't stop unless Iran surrendered its nuclear future. This time, the ultimatum came with an unmistakable threat: Trump warned Tehran to "immediately evacuate" and told Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei that "he could be next." Despite the bombast, Trump never spoke to Iranian officials directly. Instead, Witkoff held backchannel negotiations. Trump's demand: zero enrichment, full dismantlement. Iran's answer: no. Behind the scenes: Friction, fundraisers, and the MAGA war room While B-2s sped across the Atlantic, Trump wasn't in a bunker, he was at a fundraiser. Vice President JD Vance was flying back from California. The air of normalcy masked the imminent shockwave. But inside the Situation Room, the president's loyal cadre assembled. Among them: social media gatekeeper Dan Scavino, press secretary Karoline Leavitt, and even AG Pam Bondi, who hadn't been involved in the planning but was brought in at the eleventh hour. Top US officials in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) Outside the government, Trump's populist whisperers, Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, and Jack Posobiec, were kept in the loop to shore up political backing. The strike wasn't just a military message, it was a campaign moment in the making. "He was listening to people across the ideological perspective" of his political base, The Washington Post quoted the senior administration official. "Ultimately, the president felt this is a decision the base should support and get behind, because ultimately, he's preventing a conflict that very well could have happened if the supreme leader instructed Iran to create the nuclear weapon," he added. Global fallout and strategic calculations The strike was timed precisely, coming just days after Israel launched its own offensive against Iran on June 13. By midweek, Israeli air dominance helped tilt US military calculations toward optimism. Ret. Lt. Gen. Charlie "Tuna" Moore put it bluntly: "Although we could have executed our operation unilaterally, without a doubt it was beneficial to the United States to have that as the predicate." Even VP Vance, who had privately raised concerns, ultimately signed off. His Iraq War experience made him cautious, but not obstructionist. "He wanted the tires kicked," one official said." Bunker Busters: The bomb that digs to destroy A calculated gamble In the end, Trump's decision marked a sharp pivot from decades of American hesitation. Every president since Carter has baulked at the idea of a full strike on Iranian territory. Trump just did it. Whether it stabilises or further inflames the region remains to be seen. Rubio has begun briefing European allies post-strike. Iran, for now, is unlikely to let this go unanswered. In Sunday interviews, Vance admitted no one truly knew when Trump made the call, not even him. "I don't know that any of us knew exactly when the president made the decision except for the president himself," he said on "Meet the Press."
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
Pope Leo's Peace Cry, Just Before US B2 Bombers Hit Iran, Sparks Online Backlash
As global tensions reached a breaking point, Pope Leo XIV took the stage at St. Peter's Square and delivered a powerful cry for peace. Just hours before U.S. strikes rained down on Iranian nuclear sites, the Pope called on world leaders to 'silence the weapons' and choose diplomacy over destruction. His words quickly went viral, striking a nerve online as war clouds loomed over the Middle East. 'No armed victory can compensate for a mother's tears or a child's fear,' he declared, urging humanity to recognize that no war is truly distant when dignity is on the line. Denouncing conflict as a wound that echoes across generations, he called on nations to write their future with the ink of peace, not the blood of the innocent.
