Netanyahu says promise to destroy Iran's nuclear programme 'fulfilled'
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that his promise to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities had been "fulfilled" following strikes carried out "in perfect coordination" between the Israeli and US militaries.
The level of damage to the nuclear sites is not immediately clear.
"From the beginning of the operation, I promised you that Iran's nuclear facilities would be destroyed, one way or another. This promise has been fulfilled," Netanyahu said in a video message posted to social media.
"A short while ago, in perfect coordination between me and President Trump, and in perfect operational coordination between the [Israeli forces] and the US military, the United States attacked Iran's three nuclear facilities Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan," he added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
an hour ago
- Arabian Post
Evacuation Flights Bring UAE Citizens Home from Iran
UAE authorities have flown back several nationals and residents from Iran as part of a security-driven emergency operation amid intensifying regional uncertainty. The coordinated move, which involved direct communication between officials in Abu Dhabi and Tehran, was aimed at ensuring swift and safe repatriation in light of mounting geopolitical instability in the region. The evacuation operation, which took place without prior public notice, was disclosed by the UAE government through an official communication that framed the development as part of the country's strategic priority to protect its population at all times, both within and beyond its borders. Government officials described the mission as successful and said it underscored both the preparedness of UAE institutions and the cooperation extended by Iranian authorities. This operation followed a period of escalating concern across Gulf capitals regarding the shifting security calculus in the region. Heightened tensions along multiple flashpoints, including Israel's confrontation with Hezbollah, increased Israeli military activity in Syria, and broader US-Iran rivalries, have prompted many regional states to reassess the safety of their citizens in neighbouring countries. ADVERTISEMENT Evacuations were undertaken with what authorities called 'full coordination' from the Iranian side, with logistical support extending to airport access and departure clearances. Officials said the operation reflects a commitment by both nations to preserve civilian safety despite broader political differences. While Iran and the UAE maintain diplomatic ties, their strategic positions in the Gulf have occasionally placed them on opposite sides of regional disputes. The successful completion of this evacuation marks a rare point of cooperation amidst an increasingly polarised environment. UAE officials did not specify the exact number of people evacuated, but confirmed that both Emirati nationals and residents were part of the group brought back to UAE territory. The evacuees were met with standard health and security protocols on arrival, in line with the country's emergency response procedures. No medical emergencies were reported among those returned, and the process was completed without logistical complications. Iranian authorities, while not releasing an official statement on the matter, were reported to have facilitated the operational groundwork needed for the departures, including transit permissions and support from local airport personnel. This was seen as part of a longstanding, if cautious, bilateral understanding that civilian welfare must be insulated from geopolitical frictions. This development comes amid a broader trend of diplomatic recalibrations across the Gulf and wider Middle East. Several states, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have publicly and privately raised the stakes around citizen security in conflict-adjacent zones. The UAE, in particular, has enhanced its foreign evacuation protocols, building on its previous experiences in Afghanistan, Sudan, and Ukraine, where its response teams worked to airlift both UAE citizens and international residents. The latest operation involved a combination of government aircraft and commercial chartered flights, with air corridors carefully planned to avoid disputed or high-risk airspaces. Although details of the exact flight paths have not been disclosed, air traffic tracking data indicated movement between Tehran and major UAE airports over a 24-hour window, matching the timing of the reported repatriations. ADVERTISEMENT Geopolitical observers view the UAE's evacuation effort as a signal of both risk awareness and logistical capacity. As tensions simmer along multiple borders, particularly those surrounding the Strait of Hormuz and the Levant, Gulf countries have been intensifying contingency planning. With Tehran's political and security position under increasing international scrutiny, the possibility of further evacuations or advisories remains open. This latest evacuation adds to a growing list of strategic exercises undertaken by the UAE to secure its global citizenry. The country has been steadily building its capacity to respond to foreign crises, supported by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, in close alignment with regional air traffic authorities and international embassies. The execution of these evacuations further demonstrates Abu Dhabi's investment in scalable and swift civilian response mechanisms during volatile periods. Diplomatic analysts suggest that the UAE-Iran coordination for this mission could act as a low-key confidence-building measure, even as major disagreements over regional policy persist. The UAE has continued to balance economic pragmatism with strategic caution in its dealings with Tehran, keeping open commercial and diplomatic links while aligning more broadly with Western defence strategies.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Trump's strikes are a major setback for Iran's nuclear programme, but the regime remains intact
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initiated a war he knew Israel could not win on its own, wagering instead that he could get US President Donald Trump into finishing the job for him. So far, the gamble appears to have partially paid off: Mr Trump, despite his well-known aversion to entangling the US in another 'forever war', nonetheless authorised a strike that significantly degraded Iran's nuclear infrastructure, effectively removing the prospect of nuclear weaponisation in the near and medium terms. Tactically, it was a success for Israel. Strategically, however, the outcome remains far less certain. The Islamic Republic's core command-and-control architecture remains intact, at least for now. The political leadership, including supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, retains operational cohesion. Iran's coercive institutions – the IRGC, the Ministry of Intelligence and the Basij paramilitary forces – continue to function with efficacy. Even former establishment insiders and political dissidents, such as former parliamentary speaker Mehdi Karroubi, issued calls for national unity under enemy bombardment. No high-level defections have been reported. The Iranian public did not rise against its rulers. Faced with existential threat, most Iranians retreated into survival mode. There are signs of a limited 'rally-around-the-flag' effect, as nationalist sentiment temporarily bridges the divide between establishment and society. The outlawed Mojahedin-e-Khalq, which had supported Iraq's war against Iran in the 1980s, remains marginal. Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince who publicly endorsed Israeli air strikes, may find himself in a similar position as the number of civilian casualties rises. Equally disheartening from the perspective of Israeli strategic planners is the absence of internal insurgency. The editorial pages of The Jerusalem Post called for support to Iran's Baloch, Kurdish and Arab minorities, long marginalised and intermittently restive, but apart from minor incidents, no large-scale armed uprisings have materialised. Iran's centralised security state, hardened by decades of internal unrest, appears firmly in control, even in the historically volatile border regions. This leaves Israel trapped in an open-ended conflict. The air campaign continues, but with diminishing returns. Iran has so far demonstrated strategic patience, avoiding retaliation against US military assets. This restraint reflects a calculated decision to avoid full-scale American involvement. Mr Trump's address to the nation following the strikes was consistent with his long-standing reluctance to engage in major overseas military commitments. Regime change in Tehran does not appear to be part of Washington's current agenda. This posture places Mr Netanyahu and Israel in an increasingly precarious position. Without a decisive knockout blow and lacking a regional coalition to share the burden, Israel risks strategic overextension. Worse still, Iran retains escalation options. There is the risk of Tehran, under continued bombardments from Israel, internationalising the conflict by targeting energy infrastructure in the region or blocking international waterways. It is possible that Israel, as the initiator of the war, finds itself diplomatically isolated by the resulting global outcry, while the regime it sought to dismantle claims victory through survival. The Iranian leadership, adept at constructing narratives of resistance, would present endurance as triumph, not through battlefield success but through continued existence. As with the war with Iraq from 1980 to 1988, the longer the war continues, the more it may consolidate the regime's position. This is the central miscalculation of Mr Netanyahu's strategy. It was predicated on the flawed assumption that external pressure alone could produce regime change or mass revolt. It underestimated the establishment's institutional resilience, overestimated the opposition's capacity to mobilise and misread the limits of American political will. It also conflated tactical success – the destruction of centrifuges – with strategic transformation. But Iran is not Gaza, and the IRGC is not Hamas. The Islamic Republic has a deeper state apparatus and a long record of survival under duress. If Israel's objective was to delay Iran's nuclear ambitions, it has done so, temporarily. But if the broader aim was to induce regime collapse or significant internal instability, current indicators point to failure. The greater risk now is that Israel becomes entangled in a protracted war of attrition against a regime that specialises in strategic endurance. The longer the conflict drags on without resolution, the more Mr Netanyahu's gamble threatens to backfire, both diplomatically and domestically, as Israeli society confronts the toll of a campaign with no clear exit. In the end, the Islamic Republic may emerge from this conflict damaged but intact. If Israel is eventually compelled, by international pressure or operational fatigue, to suspend its bombing campaign, Tehran will claim victory. And in the political logic of authoritarian regimes, mere survival in the face of overwhelming external force is often enough to do so. Mr Netanyahu may succeed in delaying Iran's nuclear programme, but at the price of strategic stalemate – and an emboldened adversary.
Arabian Post
2 hours ago
- Arabian Post
Oil Traders Brace As US Bombs Iran Nuclear Sites
Arabian Post Staff -Dubai Oil markets swung sharply following the US Air Force's striking of Iran's Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan nuclear facilities on 21 June, triggering a fresh wave of geopolitical risk. Brent crude futures jumped over 11 per cent earlier this week after Israeli attacks, and traders are now preparing for further price volatility once global trading resumes. President Trump described the operation as a 'spectacular military success' and warned that more targets await if Iran does not seek peace. The US employed six B‑2 bombers laden with GBU‑57 'bunker‑buster' bombs—ordnance only capable of penetrating Fordow's deep underground vaults. Natanz and Esfahan were also hit, reportedly using Tomahawks from submarines. ADVERTISEMENT Market analysts warn that disruption to Iran's 2.5 million barrels per day export capacity, plus the threat of a shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, would lift risk premiums sharply. Oxford Economics estimates oil could reach $130 a barrel if Iran decides to close the Strait, sending inflation soaring. Investors are preparing for turbulence in equities and a rush towards safe-haven assets like the US dollar and gold. Potomac River Capital's CIO, Mark Spindel, warned of markets being 'initially alarmed' with heightened volatility continuing until the extent of the damage is confirmed. Global markets have seen mixed signals: while crude prices surged up to 18 per cent since Israel's June 13 raids, equities such as the S&P 500 have remained relatively steady. Predicting a deeper sell-off may depend on whether Iran follows through with threats — including disrupting the Strait, leveraging regional proxies, or escalating cyber campaigns. Iran's official response has been defiant rather than conciliatory. Tehran's Atomic Energy Organisation assures no radiation has been released, and lawmakers claim the damage is superficial and repairable. Iran's foreign ministry has labelled the strikes 'outrageous' and cautioned that the consequences will be 'everlasting'. Global leaders have voiced alarm. New Zealand's foreign minister urged all parties to 'de-escalate and return to diplomacy', while Australia and Mexico emphasised restraint and dialogue. Venezuela and Cuba condemned the strikes as violations of international law, calling for immediate halt to military action. Oil market specialist Saul Kavonic warns Brent could move towards $100 a barrel 'depending on Iran's retaliation'. While Saudi output increases may buffer short-term shortages, traders recognise that any direct counterstrike on Gulf tanker routes or infrastructure would compound risk. The destruction of key nuclear enrichment sites may set back Iran's nuclear programme temporarily. Yet experts caution that the regime's scientific expertise cannot be fully neutralised and the damage might harden Tehran's resolve to pursue a bomb. This may also hinder diplomatic engagement, as Iran could withdraw from the Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty and cease cooperation with the IAEA. In financial hubs and oil centres from London to Shanghai, traders are reviewing risk models, stress-testing portfolios and hedging energy exposure. Asian markets, heavily reliant on Gulf crude, could face inflationary pressure if shipping routes are disrupted. A key question now is whether the United States and its allies will pursue further strikes or shift to diplomatic pressure. Trump's administration insists that Iran now has a binary choice: embrace peace or face further 'precision' strikes. Critics warn that without congressional authorisation, deeper military involvement risks entangling the US in a long-term Middle East conflict.
