&w=3840&q=100)
Killing the programme, one mind at a time: Inside Israel's Operation Narnia
During the operation, Israeli intelligence classified Iran's nuclear scientists into four tiers based on priority for elimination, ranking them from highest to lowest threat. Those with the most critical military knowledge and hardest to replace were placed at the top read more
Israel's 'Operation Narnia' against Iran was a well-coordinated and much-sought-after mission that culminated after years of planning. The 12-day-long conflict between Israel and Iran reportedly killed members in the central leadership of the IRGC as well as nuclear scientists believed to be working at uranium enrichment sites of the country.
While the US largely took credit for 'destroying' Iran's nuclear facilities after it joined the conflict over the weekend, Israel's 'Operation Narnia' brought supposed victory to the country by eliminating people associated with Tehran's nuclear programme.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Here's how the mission took shape:
'Operation Narnia': The improbable attack
Israel was initially unsure if it could conduct the operation when its military began charting out some plans more than a decade ago. The name reflects the operation's improbable nature, something that cannot happen in reality and is straight out of fantasy.
During the operation, Israeli intelligence classified Iran's nuclear scientists into four tiers based on priority for elimination, ranking them from highest to lowest threat. Those with the most critical military knowledge and hardest to replace were placed at the top. Israel then drew up a hit list, ready to be activated on command, with the most dangerous figures leading the list.
The precision of the strikes was made possible by the Intelligence Directorate's inputs. The scientists who were targeted and eventually killed in the attacks were pivotal to Iran's nuclear program. The nine eliminated scientists, according to the Jerusalem Post, are:
Fereydoun Abbasi, a nuclear engineering expert
Mohammad Mahdi Tehranchi, a physics expert
Akbar Matlali Zadeh, a chemical engineering expert
Saeed Beraji, a materials engineering expert
Amir Hassan Faqahi, a physics expert
Abd al-Hamid Minushahr, a reactor physics expert
Mansour Asgari, a physics expert
Ahmad Reza Davalparki Daryani, a nuclear engineering expert
Ali Bakhayi Kathehremi, a mechanical expert
How was the operation planned?
'120 individuals from Military Intelligence and the Air Force were brought into a facility in Unit 8200 to plan the operation. By January, the pressure was mounting as no solutions had been found. The consensus was clear - we needed to develop solutions targeting air defense systems,' a senior IDF official told JP.
Over the past year, Israel started building a target database and made a breakthrough after locating an intelligence base and an air force base. Still, the list of targets was insufficient. Different teams were assigned specific objectives like taking out nuclear scientists, destroying command centres, and disabling radar systems, which marked the beginning of Operation 'Rising Lion,' the official added.
Operation Narnia operated in concert with the larger overt air campaign Operation Rising Lion.
An op that took decades to plan
Operation Narnia was not a product of short-term planning. It took several years since the mid-1990s for Israel to finally launch the mission earlier this month. During the 90s, Israel identified signs of Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. In response, it built a covert network inside Iran to carry out sabotage missions, including assassinations of nuclear scientists and attacks on enrichment facilities. But officials eventually concluded that only a direct airstrike could fully dismantle Iran's nuclear program.
But an airstrike was a long shot considering Israel's size and resource strain at the time. However, by 2008, the country tested its long-range strike capabilities with Operation Glorious Spartan, sending over 100 fighter jets to Greece to simulate a mission to Iran.
Over the next several years, Israel weakened Hamas and Hezbollah, and Syrian opposition forces toppled the pro-Iran regime. With a new anti-Iran government in place, Israel gained unimpeded access to Syrian airspace, removing a key barrier to launching a full-scale strike.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


India Today
34 minutes ago
- India Today
Zohran Mamdani's Gujarat Muslim claim draws flak, called out for 'blatant lies'
Since the scintillating victory of Zohran Mamdani - son of award-winning Indian-American filmmaker Mira Nair - in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary, an old video of him attacking Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the 2002 Gujarat riots and alleging that Muslims were eradicated from his home state of Gujarat has gone viral again. The remarks have drawn criticism not only from Indians, but from many in the nearly two-lakh-strong Indian American community in his 33-year-old, who is en route to becoming the first Muslim mayor of New York City, claimed last month that so many were killed in the 2002 riots that 'people don't even believe we exist anymore," while revealing his Gujarati Muslim remarks came at a candidates' forum in the run-up to the mayoral elections, in response to a question about whether the mayoral candidates would appear alongside Prime Minister Modi during his visit to New York. Mamdani even likened Prime Minister Modi to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, claiming that Modi should be seen as a "war criminal" in the same manner as his Israeli 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Metropolitan Magistrate and later the High Court to accept the top court-appointed Special Investigation Team's (SIT) clean chit to PM Modi and others in connection with the 2002 Gujarat it was Mamdani's claim that only a few Muslims remain in Gujarat that drew criticism from several quarters, including Opposition leaders in India, who were quick to fact-check the far-left figure. Many cited the last published census data of Gujarat, according to which Muslims made up at least 10 percent of the state's population in 2011—amounting to six GETS FACT-CHECKEDLeading the charge against Mamdani's claims, senior Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi, on Thursday, wrote on X: 'When Zohran Mamdani opens his mouth, Pakistan's PR team takes the day off. India doesn't need enemies with 'allies' like him shouting fiction from New York."Indian-American and New Yorker, Indu Viswanathan — who identifies herself as a liberal on her X profile — lashed out at Mamdani's "blatant lies," calling him "a projection of an illiberal, anti-intellectual left-wing authoritarianism that has sunk its teeth into progressive politics."I question his integrity because he blatantly lies, and he blatantly lies because he will be rewarded for lying. His lies fit neatly into a narrative that he can ride to the mayor's office. The ease with which people are willing to reduce entire groups of New Yorkers to immoral actors, unless we acquiesce to their narrative about us, is the kind of bullshit that no real New Yorker would or should put up with. Nor should anyone who believes integrity still matters in public life," she out Mamdani for "years of indoctrination, misinformation, and venom," another Indian-American Sidharth, who calls himself geopolitical strategist on his X profile, tweeted, "As of today, there are over 6.8 million Muslims in analyst, Omer Ghazi, pointed out that Mamdani's statements were 'not only provocative and false, [but one that] insults the 6 million-plus vibrant Muslim population in Gujarat by denying their existence." "This shows Mamdani will lie through his teeth for his ideological goals," he added.- Ends


Mint
42 minutes ago
- Mint
No end to wars: Trump, Pakistan and the art of self-congratulation
Amar Patnaik , Kartikey Singh Pakistan's cynical nomination of the US president for a Nobel Peace Prize tells us something grim about today's world. Yet, as we just saw, performative diplomacy can quickly collapse. Both Pakistan and the US need to ponder the principles that underpin that prize The episode underscores how performative diplomacy, rooted in a 'transactional calculus' rather than strategic coherence, can quickly collapse under the weight of real-world events. Gift this article Two days after US President Donald Trump was 'officially recommended" for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize by Pakistan, the United States joined Israel in launching airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites. Now, six months into Trump's second presidency, the world is not witnessing the peace he promised but an intensification of the very wars he vowed to end 'in 24 hours". Two days after US President Donald Trump was 'officially recommended" for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize by Pakistan, the United States joined Israel in launching airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites. Now, six months into Trump's second presidency, the world is not witnessing the peace he promised but an intensification of the very wars he vowed to end 'in 24 hours". Against this backdrop, Pakistan's nomination seems to be motivated by strategic sycophancy, aimed at currying favour with Washington in exchange for 'diplomatic goodwill.' Also Read: There we go again: Will America ever rid itself of its Pakistan delusions? In West Asia, Trump has openly favoured Israel across multiple wars. His stance on the Gaza conflict, a war triggered by Hamas's October 2023 incursion into Israeli territory, gruesomely killing 1,195 people and taking 251 hostages, is marked by inconsistency and opportunism. While he helped broker a three-phase ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas in January 2025, it collapsed within weeks as both sides traded accusations of violations. Nevertheless, Trump made no substantial effort to salvage the agreement. Instead, he oscillated between contradictory plans, endorsing Israel's military operations, proposing the US occupation of Gaza and suggesting peace negotiations with Hamas. Further, Trump's diplomacy has followed a similarly incoherent arc in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. Rather than finding a genuine long-term solution, he has repeatedly pressured Kyiv, even tying US military aid to concessions on 'rare earths.' Simultaneously, his approach to Iran has been equally erratic. After having withdrawn from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the Obama sponsored nuclear deal with Tehran—in 2018, Trump initiated talks earlier this year, only to undercut them by carrying out three airstrikes in Iran. On India, Trump's claims of a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, through late-night calls, 'trade-for-peace" overtures and personal negotiations with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have been categorically denied by New Delhi. Recently, the PM himself made it clear to Trump that India has never accepted mediation—and will never do so. This clear stance is not reactionary, but reflects India's long-standing 'strategic autonomy.' India maintains robust diplomatic ties, among others, with Iran, deepening security partnerships with Israel and growing defence interoperability with the US, without allowing any single axis to influence its regional posture. Islamabad also hopes to secure US backing on Kashmir and deepen economic and tech ties. In a broader perspective, the US president must learn from past episodes. In 2001, the US invaded Afghanistan, promising to eliminate Al Qaeda, defeat the Taliban and establish democracy in the country. Yet, two decades later, power was returned to the Taliban. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq, claiming that Baghdad harboured weapons of 'mass destruction.' Additionally, in 2011, it intervened in Libya, citing the need to protect civilians from their government. Importantly, the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded 'for the greatest benefit to humankind," has been awarded to US presidents since Theodore Roosevelt (1906). Awards given to Woodrow Wilson (1920) for the League of Nations, Jimmy Carter (2002) for human rights and Al Gore (2007) for climate action were consistent in recognizing a commitment to institutional architectures, multilateral cooperation and universal values. Even Barack Obama's 2009 award, widely seen as aspirational, was granted less than a year into his presidency amid ongoing conflicts. He himself humbly acknowledged that he might not have deserved it. Yet, this award has long reflected a clearly stated vision and commitment to international diplomacy and 'global collaboration.' In essence, it recognized efforts to build bridges. In contrast, Trump's pursuits starkly deviate from that end. President Trump's departure from multilateralism is not incidental. It signifies a deliberate shift away from both global and domestic institutionalism. His administration's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the WHO and the UN Human Rights Council; exit from arms control treaties like the INF and Open Skies Agreements; defunding of UNRWA; and departure from Unesco all demonstrate a clear disregard for an 'international consensus.' The Trump administration's actions have frequently been unilateral and without credible alternatives. Domestically, policies such as protectionist tariffs, aimed at shielding US industries, may ultimately raise consumer costs, strain American businesses and disrupt global trade flows. The episode underscores how performative diplomacy, rooted in a 'transactional calculus' rather than strategic coherence, can quickly collapse under the weight of real-world events. It is a sharp example of how easily performance is mistaken for policy. As the world's most powerful nation's leader, Trump is uniquely positioned to shape the architecture of peace, not perform it. If he truly alters the global trajectory, the recognition he seeks will follow, as it always has—for substance, not show. The authors are, respectively, a lawyer, former Member of Parliament and civil servant (@Amar4Odisha), and a lawyer based in New Delhi. Topics You May Be Interested In


United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
Iranian FM admits US-Israel strikes caused ‘serious damage' to its nuclear sites
Tehran, June 27 (UNI) Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Thursday acknowledged that US and Israeli strikes had done "serious harm" to its nuclear sites, directly contradicting the stance of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the country's paramilitary group, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). "This damage has not been minor — serious harm has been done to our facilities. They are currently conducting a thorough assessment of the damage," he said in an interview with the state broadcaster IRIB News, referring to Iran's Atomic Energy Agency, reports Iran International. Khamenei had earlier boasted that Iran had dealt a 'crushing blow' to the Israeli Defence Forces, and said that the US airstrikes on June 22 did very minimal damage to its nuclear facilities, a stance maintained by the IRGC's top commanders, though the statement was staunchly rebuked and mocked by Jerusalem. Araghchi added that Tehran would not allow the UN nuclear watchdog chief Raphael Grossi into the country as the parliament considers exiting the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which mandates inspections. "For now, we do not intend to allow Mr Grossi into Tehran. As for the inspectors, it still needs to be reviewed — if their presence aligns with parliamentary law, we'll consider it. But clearly, if they want to inspect the destroyed facilities, it means they're trying to assess the extent of the damage." He further accused Israel and the US of starting a war with the country, even though Tehran was willing to come to the negotiating table regarding its nuclear programme. The primary interlocutor behind the Iran-US talks in the last two months, which ended with Israel's surprise attack earlier this month, the FM further warned against the triggering of United Nations "snapback" sanctions. "Iran's nuclear issue will become far more complex and difficult if the snapback mechanism is triggered — just as they made things more complicated by launching a war," Araghchi added, signalling a hard line on reviving talks or making a nuclear deal. "They thought they could destroy our nuclear facilities, leave us empty-handed at the negotiating table, and then say, 'Come, let's negotiate.' That didn't happen.'" UNI ANV PRS