Israel could strike Iran as soon as Sunday, WSJ reports
WASHINGTON, June 12 (Reuters) - Israel is prepared to attack Iran in the coming days if Tehran rejects a U.S. proposal to limit its nuclear program, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, citing U.S. and Israeli officials.
The newspaper cited a senior Israeli official as saying a strike could come as soon as Sunday unless Iran agrees to halt production of fissile material, which can be used to make an atomic bomb.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu raised the possibility of strikes in a phone conversation with U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday, WSJ reported, citing two U.S. officials.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
10 minutes ago
- Times
Israel gambles that Iran's enfeebled regime is on its last legs
T he Israeli bombardment of Iran's nuclear complex is codenamed Operation Rising Lion. That points to Israel's broader hopes for the campaign: not only to halt Tehran's gallop towards acquiring a nuclear weapon but also to encourage domestic resistance to the clerical regime and incite an uprising. Iran's quest for the bomb was always supposed to establish it as a regional leader, the defender of Shia Muslims everywhere and the ultimate answer to US interference in the Middle East. But Friday's assault showed that the Iranian regime is incapable of defending the nation, that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei cannot guard his country's strategic treasure, cannot stay true to the principles of the Islamic revolution or even keep his people happy. He is a supreme leader in name only.
The Guardian
13 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Benjamin Netanyahu must be stopped
Benjamin Netanyahu must be stopped. The Israeli prime minister's lust for war as a solution to his myriad problems is nothing short of a threat to us all, one that extends far beyond Israel's neighbors. Netanyahu knows no other way. War is his doctrine. War is his reflex. War is his answer. He believes the power of war will unite Israeli society and will stifle any American criticism of him, necessary since the machinery he needs to make his wars comes mostly from Washington. And, with his aggression against Iran, he seeks to drag the United States further into another endless military quagmire in the region and light the world on fire. Early Friday morning, Israel launched a series of unprovoked strikes against Iran, targeting Iran's nuclear energy facilities, its top scientists, its military commanders, and parts of its military and civilian infrastructure. Television images show a residential building in Tehran damaged by what looks like a missile attack. Iran, which has not suffered an assault this severe since its war with Iraq in the 1980s, is reporting at least 70 people killed and 320 injured thus far. Meanwhile, Israel's genocidal campaign in Gaza continues out of the public eye, as an internet blackout halted most aid operations. Netanyahu argues that the Israeli attack on Iran was a 'pre-emptive strike' against a clandestine nuclear weapons program. But that's simply a lie. A 'pre-emptive' strike requires an imminent threat of invasion or military force. Iran was not imminently to attack Israel, with or without a nuclear weapon. What Israel engaged in last night was better described by its defense minister as a 'preventive' strike against an opponent's infrastructure. Regardless of what you think about Iran's nuclear energy program, about the status of negotiations with the United States regarding its nuclear program, or about recent pressure the International Atomic Energy Agency has brought on Iran, a preventive strike by Israel against a sovereign nation is a blatant act of aggression. It is fundamentally illegal under international law and will further erode the prospect of sovereign states living in peace and security with each other. Iran has long claimed that it is only pursuing a civilian nuclear energy program and has no ambition to make a nuclear weapon. That might also be a lie, but who would blame them for wanting such a deterrent now? It's widely understood that North Korea's nuclear arsenal effectively functions as a deterrent against an American attack, after all. Israel, which is believed to have about 90 nuclear warheads and enough plutonium for many more, refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the only country in the region to do so. That refusal has also made the long desired goal of a nuclear-free Middle East impossible. And anyway, there's always been something deeply racist about which country is or is not permitted to develop nuclear weapons. In a briefing paper, the Nobel Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons states that 'racism is ingrained in nuclear weapons history and doctrine', and that non-western states are regarded 'as 'irrational', 'emotional' and somehow 'less capable' of negotiating a Treaty than Western governments'. Let's remember that the United States is the only country to use a nuclear weapon. Twice. As the briefing paper points out, the US 'public widely supported the bombing partly due to anti-Japanese racism, depicting Japanese people in subhuman terms, in some cases fit for extermination'. Netanyahu needs his external enemies to survive his internal divisions. A day before launching this aggression on Iran, his coalition barely survived a vote to dissolve parliament. (The issue driving the vote was the compulsory military service of ultra-orthodox men.) As war with Iran has now become a very real possibility, talks about his fragile coalition will recede. This is the same Netanyahu who propped up Hamas for years to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state. This is the same Netanyahu who broke the ceasefire in Gaza in March of this year. This is the same Netanyahu who, in the latest negotiations about a ceasefire in Gaza, reportedly won't even agree to Hamas relinquishing power in Gaza, so dependent is he on creating and maintaining external enemies for his own survival. Is Donald Trump getting dragged into a war of Netanyahu's making or is he willingly joining a partnership of aggressors? Netanyahu has said the US knew about the attack in advance, but even if the US is sleepwalking its way into war, the prospect of another US-sponsored conflagration is a terrible one (and certainly won't get Trump his much-desired Nobel Peace Prize). If there is one thing the people of this region do not need, it is more war, the effects of which could also reverberate terribly around Europe and the rest of the world. Where are the European leaders now? Will Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, and Friedrich Merz stand up to Netanyahu and Trump? Will they use some real power to reject Netanyahu's warmaking barbarism, based as it is on naked domination, supremacy, violence, and conquest, or will we hear only vague and useless platitudes about 'restraint' after the fact? Western European leaders constantly talk about how much they value peace, justice, equality, and the rule of law. Now is the time to put those words into practice. Moustafa Bayoumi is a Guardian US columnist
Sky News
14 minutes ago
- Sky News
The politics and controversy behind FIFA's reshaped Club World Cup
Among Donald Trump's gilded additions to the Oval Office, one ornament stands out: symbolising power plays in sport and geopolitics. The outlandish, elaborate golden discs form football's newest prize: the Club World Cup that will be handed out in New Jersey on 14 July, after 63 matches across 11 American cities. The trophy has become part of presidential theatre, prominent for all the major announcements - from nuclear warnings to Iran to celebrating the trade deal with Britain. It was hand-delivered to Mr Trump three months ago by Gianni Infantino, the FIFA president whose name is etched into it. Twice. This whole competition - supersizing an old, little-regarded format from seven to 32 clubs - is very much Mr Infantino's creation to reshape world football and extend FIFA's reach into the club game. For a trophy inspired by NASA missions into space - featuring astronomy and maps - it also signals how Mr Infantino has gained influence in Mr Trump's orbit. Becoming the commander-in-chief's closest non-American associate has secured invites to political speeches as well as sporting trips. The alliance - contentious given Mr Trump's rhetoric and interventions on topics such as immigration and diversity - is defended as fast-tracking decision-making at the highest level. This Club World Cup (CWC) is in many ways the test event for the more complex tournament next summer, as the World Cup is contested by 48 men's national teams across the US, Canada, and Mexico. "I think it is absolutely crucial for the success of a World Cup to have a close relationship with the president," Mr Infantino said. But the CWC begins against the backdrop of immigration raids and violent protests in Los Angeles amid concerns fans could be targeted or denied entry to FIFA events. Saudi Arabia's role This was a tournament intended to launch in China in 2021 until the pandemic shook the world and interest in football waned in the country once heavily courted by FIFA. And so attention shifted to Saudi Arabia. It can appear that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has bailed out Mr Infantino, bankrolling his pet project. There was little interest from FIFA's usual World Cup broadcasters - BBC and ITV in Britain - until loss-making streamer DAZN stepped in with a $1bn (£736m) deal, just around the time Saudi Arabia was handed the hosting of the 2034 World Cup. That was followed by DAZN selling a 10% stake to SURJ, an investment firm owned by Saudi's sovereign wealth fund, chaired by MBS. And then, completing the circle, the Public Investment Fund signed up as a CWC sponsor less than two weeks before the tournament begins. PIF also owns Al-Hilal, who qualified as Asian Champions League winners for the CWC in a group featuring Real Madrid. A Super League? Given Mr Infantino maintains the extravaganza features the 32 best teams in the world, what, for example, are RB Salzburg doing there? While four of Europe's slots went to recent Champions League winners, the other eight went to the best-performing teams ranked by European results in recent years. And while Liverpool should have made the cut by that measure, FIFA imposed a cap on two teams per country unless they had all qualified as competition winners. So FIFA only has Chelsea and Manchester City, although Lionel Messi's Inter Miami were handed a place as national champions despite not actually winning the main American soccer title. To some, this could seem to be the genesis of a Super League - the aborted European breakaway in 2021 - in a different guise. Champions League organiser UEFA once tried to thwart the CWC, given it could diminish the status of its own competition, before caving-in to FIFA. And while selling tickets and finding viewers will be challenging, it will be lucrative for the participants. That Saudi $1bn (£736m) is all going back to clubs, with up to $125m (£92m) for the winners. Workload concerns Chelsea and City have already played 57 matches this season - now up to seven more are being bolted on. 1:37 And their players could have had up to 10 international matches over the last year, including two in the gap between the end of the domestic season and the CWC trip. It is why - in plans first revealed by Sky News in 2023 - global players' union FIFPRO has launched a legal challenge claiming FIFA has abused a dominant position to risk the health of players. But the European Commission has not officially taken up the case to prevent this launch. And, given that other FIFA events have already expanded - or are expanding - to 48 finalists, the Club World Cup could be here to stay - and even get even bigger. There is also still the delayed women's tournament, which is set to finally launch in 2028.
