Israel reveals how Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei evaded assassination during 12-day war
Israel came close to targeting Iran's Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
during the recent 12-day conflict, but he managed to evade a potential assassination by going into deep hiding, according to Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz.
Speaking to Israel's Kan public broadcaster on Thursday, Katz said, 'If Khamenei had been within reach, we would have taken him out. But he knew the risk, disappeared underground, and cut off communications with key commanders. In the end, it wasn't feasible.'
The war, which began on June 13, saw Israel eliminate several top Iranian commanders and nuclear scientists. Both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President
Donald Trump
had hinted during the conflict that Khamenei's life could be in danger, raising the possibility of regime change. The war ended Tuesday with a U.S.-brokered ceasefire.
Khamenei Resurfaces with Threats
On Thursday, Khamenei made his first public appearance since June 19 in a video message broadcast on Iranian state TV. He declared that Iran had dealt 'a slap to America's face' with its missile strike on a U.S. airbase in Qatar and warned of more retaliation if provoked further.
Looking visibly weary and speaking with a hoarse voice, the 86-year-old Supreme Leader delivered a fiery 10-minute speech aimed at both Israel and the U.S., downplaying the recent U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. 'They could not achieve anything significant,' he claimed, dismissing Trump's statement that the attacks had 'completely obliterated' Iran's nuclear capabilities.
Live Events
Notably, Khamenei avoided any direct mention of Iran's nuclear infrastructure or the condition of its centrifuges post-attack.
War Toll and Aftermath
According to Tehran, 606 Iranians were killed and over 5,300 wounded in the conflict. However, the Human Rights Activists group, based in Washington, reported higher figures—1,054 dead and 4,476 wounded, including 417 civilians and 318 security personnel.
Israel reported 28 deaths and over 1,000 injuries. During the war, Iran launched more than 550 missiles at Israel, 90% of which were intercepted, according to Israeli authorities. In response, Israel claimed to have struck over 720 Iranian military targets and eight nuclear-related sites.
Khamenei stated the U.S. only entered the conflict to prevent Israel's total defeat. 'They came to save the Zionist regime and got nothing in return,' he said, adding that Iran's attack on the U.S. base proved its reach and resolve.
'The Islamic Republic was victorious,' he said. 'If needed, we will repeat this slap.'
Outlook for Peace?
Despite the high tensions, Trump hinted that talks between U.S. and Iranian officials may take place next week. While Iran has not confirmed any upcoming dialogue, U.S. Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff acknowledged both direct and indirect communications.
A planned sixth round of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks in Oman earlier this month was canceled following Israel's strike on June 13. Meanwhile, Iran's parliament voted Wednesday to fast-track legislation that would severely limit cooperation with the IAEA, reinforcing its commitment to continue its nuclear programme.
Economic Times WhatsApp channel
)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
38 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
How US used its bunker-buster bombs at Iranian nuclear sites
The deep penetrating bombs that the US dropped into two Iranian nuclear facilities were designed specifically for those sites and were the result of more than 15 years of intelligence and weapons design work, the Pentagon's top leaders said Thursday. US Air Force B-2 Spirit bomber, assigned to the 509th Bomb Wing out of Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, performs a fly-over during the Speed of Sound Airshow, at Rosecrans Air National Guard Base in St. Joseph, Missouri, U.S. September 14, 2024.(Reuters) Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a press briefing that they are confident the weapons struck exactly as planned. Caine, the nation's top military officer, offered new details about the work that went into building the "bunker-buster" bombs and how the US used them to burrow into the Iranian sites. He sought to show the level of destruction but did not directly address President Donald Trump's assertion that Tehran's nuclear programme has been "obliterated." A classified briefing that pushed US work on bunker busters The bombs, called the GBU-57 A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator, have their roots in a decades-old classified briefing "of what looked like a major construction project in the mountains of Iran," Caine said. That turned out to be the Fordo fuel enrichment plant, with construction believed to have started around 2006. It became operational in 2009, the same year Tehran publicly acknowledged its existence. The classified briefing was shown in 2009 to a Defense Threat Reduction Agency officer, who with a colleague "lived and breathed" Fordo for the next 15 years, studying the geology, construction dig, the earth moved and "every piece of equipment going in and every piece of equipment going out," Caine said. What they concluded: The US didn't have a bomb that could destroy those sites. So the Pentagon got to work, Caine said. "We had so many PhDs working on the mock programm — doing modelling and simulation — that we were quietly and in a secret way the biggest users of supercomputer hours within the United States of America," he said. How the bunker busters are designed The 30,000-pound bomb is comprised of steel, explosive and a fuse programmed to a specific detonation time. The longer the fuse, the deeper the weapon will penetrate before exploding. Over the years, the military tested and retested it hundreds of times on mock facilities, Caine said. Crews fine-tuned the bombs to detonate in the mock enrichment rooms, delaying detonation until they had reached a position to send a pressure blast through open tunnels to destroy equipment underground. How the US said it bombed an Iranian underground nuclear facility Fordo had two main ventilation routes into the underground facility — and officials carefully eyed these entry points as a way to target the site. Each route had three shafts — a main shaft and a smaller shaft on either side, which looked almost like a pitchfork in graphics provided by the Pentagon. In the days preceding the US attack, Iran placed large concrete slabs on top of both ventilation routes to try to protect them, Caine said. In response, the US crafted an attack plan where six bunker-buster bombs would be used against each ventilation route, using the main shaft as a way down into the enrichment facility. Seven B-2 stealth bombers were used, carrying two of the massive munitions apiece. The first bomb was used to eliminate the concrete slab, Caine said. The next four bombs were dropped down the main shaft and into the complex at a speed of more than 1,000 feet per second before exploding, he said. A sixth bomb was dropped as a backup, in case anything went wrong. In addition to the 12 bombs dropped on Fordo, with six on each ventilation route, two more hit Iran's main Natanz facility, Caine said. Each crew was able to confirm detonation as they saw the bombs drop from the aircraft in front of them: "We know that the trailing jets saw the first weapons function," Caine said. The pilots reported back that it was the brightest explosion they had ever seen — that it looked like daylight, he said. Questions remain about the whereabouts of Iran's highly enriched uranium Caine said the munitions were built, tested and loaded properly, guided to their intended targets and then exploded as designed. "Iran's nuclear facilities have been destroyed," Hegseth said. However, questions remained as to whether the highly enriched uranium that Iran would need to develop a nuclear weapon was at the site at the time. Asked repeatedly, Hegseth did not say if the uranium had been destroyed or moved. "I'm not aware of any intelligence that I've reviewed that says things were not where they were supposed to be — moved or otherwise," Hegseth said.
Mint
40 minutes ago
- Mint
White House claims ‘no indication' Iran moved uranium before US strikes
The White House said on Thursday (June 26) that American intelligence had been monitoring Iran's nuclear facilities 'for weeks' before launching airstrikes that destroyed the country's uranium enrichment infrastructure. But a few reports suggest Iran may have succeeded in moving substantial quantities of near weapons-grade uranium to secret sites before the attack. 'We were watching these sites very closely,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters. 'There was no indication that Iran moved its enriched uranium out of the facilities before Operation Midnight Hammer.' She described the strikes as 'one of the most secretive and successful operations in United States history.' Leavitt pointed out that the operation remained hidden from the media until bombs began falling. 'I think many of you in this room would agree with that because none of you knew in this room about the strike on Saturday until it took place,' she said. She emphasised President Donald Trump's goal of avoiding a prolonged military confrontation. 'He does not want the United States to be dragged into these conflicts again,' she said. 'He's not afraid to use strength if he has to, but the president has already proven he can put America first and deliver on peace.' Leavitt and Hegseth fielded questions about the durability of the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran. 'I think the fact that the president was able to successfully negotiate a ceasefire when nobody thought that was possible… it was a surprise to everyone in this room,' Leavitt said. 'It was a surprise to the world, but the president got it done because he wants to see peace.' US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaking earlier in the day said at Pentagon news conference he had seen no evidence Iran moved nuclear material in advance. 'I'm not aware of any intelligence that I've reviewed that says things were not where they were supposed to be, moved or otherwise,' Hegseth said. 'The cars and small trucks at the site were those of concrete workers trying to cover up the top of the shafts. Nothing was taken out of [the] facility,' Trump wrote. However, there is a different picture. Satellite images captured by Maxar Technologies on the days leading up to the strikes showed a long line of vehicles at the entrance to the deeply buried Fordow site. Analysts said the images pointed to a 'coordinated transfer operation.' A senior Iranian source told Reuters that 'most of the near weapons-grade 60% highly enriched uranium had been moved to an undisclosed location before the U.S. attack.' Two Israeli officials, cited by The New York Times, said intelligence reports indicated Iran removed roughly 400 kilograms—about 880 pounds—of uranium enriched to 60% purity in recent days. That level is just below the 90% threshold used for nuclear weapons. US bombers used more than a dozen 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs to hit Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan early Sunday local time (June 21), in what Hegseth described as 'historically successful strikes.' The full extent of the damage and Iran's remaining nuclear capacity remains under review.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Following NATO summit, Trump and Europe still at odds over Putin's ambitions
* Following NATO summit, Trump and Europe still at odds over Putin's ambitions US, NATO allies disagree on Putin's ultimate aims * Rubio says Russia wants Ukrainian territories; Rutte warns of attack on Europe * Lack of Russia strategy a blot on otherwise successful summit By Gram Slattery THE HAGUE, - For U.S. President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin is a man looking for an off-ramp to his bloody three-year assault on Ukraine. But according to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Russian leader may be just getting started. If the alliance does not invest in its defense capabilities, Rutte warned the annual NATO summit on Tuesday, Russia could attack an alliance country within three years. By most measures, this year's NATO summit in The Hague was a success. Member states largely agreed to a U.S. demand to boost defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product. Trump, who once derided the alliance as a "rip-off," said his view had changed, while a budding bromance blossomed between him and Rutte, who compared the U.S. president to a stern "daddy" managing his geopolitical underlings. But the summit, which ended on Wednesday, also highlighted the widening gap between how the U.S. and Europe see the military ambitions of Russia, the bloc's main foil. That is despite some lawmakers in Trump's own Republican Party hardening their rhetoric in recent weeks, arguing that while the president's ambition to negotiate an end to Russia's war in Ukraine is laudable, it is now clear that Putin is not serious about coming to the table. In a Wednesday press conference, Trump conceded that it was "possible" Putin had territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine. But he insisted that the Russian leader - buffeted by manpower and materiel losses - wanted the war to end quickly. "I know one thing: He'd like to settle," Trump said. "He'd like to get out of this thing. It's a mess for him." Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Trump's view in a sideline interview with Politico, saying the U.S. was holding off on expanding its sanctions against Moscow, in part to keep talks going. "If we did what everybody here wants us to do - and that is come in and crush them with more sanctions - we probably lose our ability to talk to them about the ceasefire," he said. The message from others at the summit was starkly different. A senior NATO official told reporters in a Tuesday briefing that Putin was not in fact interested in a ceasefire - or in engaging in good-faith talks at all. "Regardless of battlefield dynamics, we continue to doubt that Russia has any interest in meaningful negotiations," the official said. Russia's ambitions, the senior official said, go beyond control of "certain territories at their administrative lines," as Rubio put it. Putin is instead bent on imposing his "political will" on neighboring states. Rutte put the Russian threat in existential terms. "If we do not invest now," he said on Tuesday, "we are really at risk that the Russians might try something against NATO territory in three, five or seven years." RUSSIA STRATEGY REMAINS ELUSIVE The U.S. is not the only NATO member with a more optimistic view of Russia. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a longtime Trump ally and critic of European institutions, said Russia was "not strong enough to represent a real threat to NATO." Still, as the alliance's largest contributor and most powerful member, Washington's position is a central preoccupation in most NATO capitals. The White House, asked for comment, referred to Trump's comments at the Wednesday press conference. In response to a request for comment, a separate NATO official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, disputed that there were differing assessments within the alliance, pointing to a NATO declaration on Wednesday which referenced the "long-term threat posed by Russia." The Russian embassy in Washington referred to Thursday comments by Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, who criticized NATO for wasting money on defense. "It seems that only by invoking the fabricated 'Russian threat' will it be possible to explain to ordinary people why their pockets are being emptied once again," she said. The U.S. State Department and the Ukrainian embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment. The lack of a common understanding about Putin's goals will complicate future diplomatic plans to wind down the war, said Philippe Dickinson, the deputy director of the Transatlantic Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council and a former British diplomat. "To reach a peace agreement, it's not just something that Trump and Putin can agree themselves," Dickinson said. "There does need to be European involvement. That needs to mean that there is some sort of sharing of views among allies on what Putin is trying to achieve." European leaders likely have not given up on trying to change Trump's views on Russia, Dickinson said. But they were always unlikely bring up thorny conversations at the NATO summit. The alliance's main goal was to simply get through it without major blowups, he said, an aim that was accomplished. Still, peace came at a cost - the lack of substantive discussion around Ukraine and Russia, he argued, was conspicuous. "The lack of a Russia strategy is a real glaring omission from what the summit could have produced," Dickinson said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
