Israel says it killed Iran's new wartime commander in airstrike
June 17 (UPI) -- Israel claimed Tuesday it had killed Iran's highest-ranking military chief after just days in the job in an airstrike by Israeli warplanes.
"Ali Shadmani, Iran's senior-most military official and Khamenei's closest military adviser, was killed in an Israeli Air Force strike in central Tehran, following precise intelligence," the Israel Defense Forces said.
Shadmani was appointed as the new head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Emergency Command to replace Gholam Ali Rashid in the hours after Rashid was among five of Iran's most senior military commanders killed in the initial phase of Israel's surprise attack early Friday.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the commander-in-chief of the country's armed forces.
The development came as both sides continued to trade deadly attacks into a fifth day -- Israel leveraging its stranglehold on Iranian airspace to ramp up its airborne assault on key military and nuclear targets while Iran launched 30 ballistic missiles with blasts reported in northern Israel.
Israel's health ministry said another 154 people had been injured overnight, with 149 admitted to hospital in a moderate condition or with only minor injuries.
However, Israel said there had been noticeably fewer missiles incoming than on previous days.
Two dozen people in Israel have been killed since Friday, mainly in missile strikes on residential districts in the center and north of the country, while Iran's Health Ministry says Israel's attacks have killed 224 people and injured more than 1,200, mostly in Tehran.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One after cutting short his meeting with world leaders at a G7 summit in Canada to head back to Washington, President Donald Trump, in a somewhat cryptic comment, denied an Israel-Iran truce was afoot, saying "we're looking at better than a cease-fire."
Before departing Calgary, Trump had told Iranians they needed to evacuate Tehran immediately.
Analysts were trying to figure out whether Trump intends to try to go the diplomatic route and get Tehran to return to the negotiating table to deal on its nuclear development program or double down on his support for Israel.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian issued renewed but vague threats Tuesday, warning Iran "will have to show more painful responses," unless the United States reined in Israeli aggression and repeated the claim that none of what was occurring could take place without Washington's involvement.
"If the U.S. government does not prevent the spread of insecurity to the region by bridling that savage [Israeli] regime, Iran will be obliged to give heavier and more painful responses beyond what has occurred so far," Pezeshkian warned in a call with Omani sultan Haitham bin Tariq.
Oman has been hosting talks on Iran's nuclear program between top U.S. negotiator Steve Witkoff and Iranian officials that began in April.
Pezeshkian insisted all regime officials, political factions of all persuasions and the people of Iran were willing the armed forces to succeed in their fight against Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, similarly, gave away no indication of wanting to end the conflict any time soon, saying Israeli air power was operating freely while the city of Tehran burned.
"The Israeli Air Force controls the skies over Tehran. We strike regime targets -- not civilians. That's the difference between us and Iran's terrorist regime that aims to murder women and children," he said in a post on X.
"I am proud of our security forces and our wonderful people. Together we will win."
At least two European countries have already begun implementing plans to evacuate their citizens from the region.
A Czech government evacuation flight touched down Tuesday with 66 people on board, according to Defense Minister Jana Cernochova, with another 11 due to be brought out on a Slovakian government flight in the coming hours.
Another flight that landed in Bratislava from Jordan on Monday evening had 14 other Czech citizens aboard.
Poland is sending planes to collect up to 300 of its nationals who have asked to be repatriated from Israel, Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said Monday.
Deputy Foreign Minister Henryka Moscicka-Dendys said initial evacuations would be via Egypt and Jordan, with a government-chartered aircraft due to depart Sharm el-Sheikh early Wednesday, followed by a military flight out of Amman on Thursday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil Slips as Trump Ramps Up Diplomatic Push to End Ukraine War
(Bloomberg) -- Oil slid as traders weighed the outlook for a ceasefire in Ukraine, with President Donald Trump pushing for a summit between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskiy after a series of high-level talks. A Photographer's Pipe Dream: Capturing New York's Vast Water System Chicago Schools Seeks $1 Billion of Short-Term Debt as Cash Gone A London Apartment Tower With Echoes of Victorian Rail and Ancient Rome Festivals and Parades Are Canceled Amid US Immigration Anxiety Princeton Plans New Budget Cuts as Pressure From Trump Builds Brent dropped below $66 a barrel, remaining within the narrow range in which prices have been stuck for the last two weeks. Any eventual peace deal could pave the way for fewer restrictions on Russian crude exports, though Moscow has largely kept its oil flowing since the conflict began. Trump called the Russian president and urged him to start making plans for a one-on-one meeting with Zelenskiy after discussions with the Ukrainian leader on Monday at the White House. The talks between Trump and Zelenskiy appeared to represent a reversal of fortune for Kyiv just days after the US president met Putin in Alaska and said the onus to end the conflict rested with Ukraine. Oil is more than 10% lower this year due to concerns about the fallout from US trade policies and the outlook for oversupply as OPEC+ brings back barrels. Any impact from the talks on the Ukraine war is still uncertain. 'Crude may be in for a holding pattern,' said Vandana Hari, the founder of oil market analysis firm Vanda Insights in Singapore. 'The path to resolving the conflict has opened up but could be a long one.' Despite the diplomacy, attacks from both sides continue. Ukraine said it carried out a fresh strike on Russia's Druzhba oil pipeline system on Monday, halting a conduit that's important for crude supply to parts of central Europe. Ukraine said Russia hit a domestic oil refinery in the country overnight. While crude prices have been largely sandwiched in a range as a result of thinner summer trading volumes and ongoing efforts to end the war, other market gauges have had a busier August. On the US Gulf Coast, crude barrels are fetching some of their biggest premiums in months, in a sign that more supplies could be heading for export over the next few weeks. At the same time, the US benchmark is trading at its biggest discount relative to Brent since April, another factor that could boost overseas shipments. --With assistance from Charlie Zhu and Sarah Chen. Foreigners Are Buying US Homes Again While Americans Get Sidelined What Declining Cardboard Box Sales Tell Us About the US Economy Women's Earnings Never Really Recover After They Have Children Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates Yosemite Employee Fired After Flying Trans Pride Flag ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
Newsweek
22 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Has a Chance To Stop Putin—But He Can't Do It Alone
Donald Trump's second-term foreign policies are turning out to be a string of disasters—alienating allies, driving India towards Russia, sowing uncertainties with whipsaw tariff changes that rattle markets, zeroing out foreign development aid, and continuing to supply an Israeli prime minister who has descended into a frenzy of revenge killing and destruction. Now Trump's latest bid to end the long war of attrition in Ukraine, parts of which Russia has occupied since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, appears only to have strengthened Vladimir Putin's hand. Before meeting the Russian president in Alaska, Trump had for weeks threatened new sanctions on Russia if Putin did not agree to a ceasefire and the start of peace talks. Instead, Putin got validation, refused to stop his total war on Ukraine's civilian infrastructure, and Trump has backed off the sanctions threat, right when Russia's economy is starting to falter. Worse, Trump now looks likely to press Ukrainian leaders to give up not just Crimea, but the country's eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk, where Putin ginned up separatist movements before his February 2022 invasion. And worse still, Trump may pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to yield most of Ukraine's vital southeastern provinces on the Black Sea as well. Such an outcome would reward the greatest violations of international law in Europe since Adolf Hitler's occupation of Poland. That would be a catastrophe of epic proportions that is sure to enourage dictators worldwide. In exchange, Trump's foreign envoy Steve Witkoff is talking about a "security guarantee" that would promise Ukraine direct military intervention by the U.S., Britain, and France if Russia tries to bite off more Ukrainian lands in future. But Witkoff and Trump appear not to know that Ukraine already received such supposed protection at the end of the Cold War in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons: Russia promised to respect Ukraine's new borders, and the U.S., U.K., France, and China promised to enforce this deal. TOPSHOT - Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump participate in a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on August 18, 2025. TOPSHOT - Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump participate in a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on August 18, 2025. MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images Putin proved that 1994 guarantee to be hollow, just as Hitler's meeting with Neville Chamberlain taught the "Fuhrer" that he could get away with seizing part of Czechoslovakia. So it's no wonder Putin is willing to trade another such Western "guarantee" in exchange for total triumph in Ukraine's east and southeast. In his eyes, that is a lot of something for nothing. But Trump's instincts, if naive, are not entirely wrong: a tighter economic vise could move Putin to concessions. Direct and secondary sanctions, like tariffs, can be used as effective tools of pressure under the right conditions. Trump's fundamental error lies in not realizing that these tools would be far stronger when wielded not by the U.S. alone, but by a global alliance of democracies of the kind that John McCain had the foresight to advocate in 2008. Such a league of democratic states has to be broader than Europe. It must include Asian and potentially southern hemisphere partners that are not part of NATO. While we should try to coordinate with our European partners on any new sanctions against Russia, U.S. leaders must also be realistic: the EU is not going to mount a credible challenge to Putin's mass-murdering depravity, which has violated all the most sacred principles of international law. Europe's paper tigers could have placed forces from their own nations into eastern Ukraine in January 2022 to enforce the 1994 treaty, thereby preventing the entire war. Instead they dithered, wrung their hands, and eventually imposed largely ineffective sanctions, while delaying shipments of tanks, long-range missiles, anti-missile defenses, and fighter aircraft to Ukraine. And as usual, they shamelessly waited for the United States to take the lead against yet another assault on democracy and human rights on their own continent. About this, Trump's instincts have been correct: weakness, cowardice, and appeasement has been the EU's policy against tyranny since the 1990s—and this has weakened NATO as well. Even with the strong resolve of British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to get European members to rebuild credible offensive armed forces and do their share within the NATO alliance, it will take time for them to catch up—time that Ukraine does not have. But imagine a broader alliance that includes most of NATO and the EU, along with South Korea, Japan, Australia, the Philippines, and potentially also India. Imagine that all the governments within this new bloc collectively imposed new sanctions banning commerce of all kinds coming from Russia (including natural gas)—and combined this with 50 percent extra tariffs on goods coming from any country that trades with Russia. That would put China in danger of losing over half of its export markets unless it cut economic ties with Putin. If Trump could manage this feat, he might actually end Russia's total war on Ukraine's people, and force Putin to abandon most of the stolen territory. Trump needs to learn that a united front of many large-economy nations is far more powerful than the U.S. acting alone. Imagine how much stronger the free world would be as a result. Trump could offer to make such a new alliance into a free trade bloc with mutual economic protections, which would bring nations into an economic alliance of all democracies in the OECD. Instead, he has returned to the unilateralist strategy that failed under George W. Bush, which led McCain to his landmark proposal. Such a global democratic alliance would be the sort of institution that, like NATO, can give a real security guarantee. With inspiring leadership, it could endure the stress that enforcing a total global embargo on Russia would mean. Its allied leaders would have to explain to their peoples that we have reached a critical moment: it is now or never to break Putin's tyrannical empire. This would also require a massive new effort to supply Europe with natural gas from non-Russian sources and to supply India with oil, which would cut off Russia's main revenue stream. It would be a bit like the Berlin airlift, an act of shared sacrifice and determination to return the arc of history to its proper trajectory—towards freedom, democracy, and hope for all peoples on Earth. Then we, rather than Putin, would be "holding all the cards." John Davenport is professor of philosophy and director of peace and justice studies at Fordham University. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Newsweek
22 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Court Ruling Kills Congressional Purse Power
Whatever happened to judges just reading the law and doing what it says? After a D.C. appellate court last week ignored a duly enacted law and gutted congressional control over spending, the late Justice Antonin "Nino" Scalia must be spinning in his grave. It was Scalia, after all, who said: "The text is the law, and it is the text that must be observed." Apparently, not in the D.C. Court of Appeals, and our cowardly Congress will rue the day this emasculating ruling remains the law of the land. The case was all about congressional power. Did President Donald Trump have the power to refuse to spend as mandated by the budget passed by Congress? President Donald Trump takes a question from a reporter aboard Air Force One on Aug. 15, 2025, in flight. President Donald Trump takes a question from a reporter aboard Air Force One on Aug. 15, 2025, in whether you like or dislike the things Congress chose to fund. Someday the answer will affect things you like and don't like. The point is that the Constitution says that Congress has the sole power to decide what the country spends on, and with a bit of jiggery-pokery, this court let all the air out of those words. The jiggery was for the court to ignore how important it is for a court to rule directly on the real issue in front of it whenever possible. Rather than uphold the words of the Constitution, two of the three judges invented an idea that a party who claims the president violated a law passed by Congress can't also claim that the president violated the Constitution. Why? Beats me, but it also beat half of the claims in the lawsuit. The pokery was even worse. To restrict presidents from grabbing congressional budget power by what's known as "impoundment," Congress passed a law creating strict rules for how a president can ask Congress to cancel spending it mandated. It also authorized the comptroller of the United States to sue presidents to stop them from ignoring the federal budget. Again, ignoring the words of the law, the two-judge majority held that only the comptroller could sue to stop the president, not people whose lives and fortunes were destroyed by the president's impoundment decisions. Incredibly, they ignored that Congress explicitly said in the law that allowing the comptroller to sue must not be seen as "affecting in any way the claims or defenses of any party to litigation concerning any impoundment." Tell me, how does destroying those claims not affect them in any way? Forgive them Nino! The net result of the decision is that the Constitution can't be enforced against presidents whenever they might also have violated some statute too, and stopping the president rests on the whim of a single individual—the comptroller. And perhaps the panel knew something about the current comptroller. This comptroller, Gene Dodaro's term ends in December, and guess who gets to appoint his replacement? That's right, Donald Trump, the man the comptroller would have to sue. Game over? Maybe not. One of the three judges wrote a blistering dissent. There are 11 judges on this court, and they could decide to rehear the case with everyone participating. They can fix it. If they don't, the Supreme Court should. And don't expect it to automatically agree with Trump. The justices have actually been more nuanced than people give them credit for. They seem to agree that the Constitution gives the president more power over personnel issues in the executive branch than previous courts. But, when it comes to spending, the Court has repeatedly held that it's sacrosanct—it's controlled by Congress. They even overturned a law that allowed the president a line-item veto. They said it violated the separation of powers. And this is a good time to remember this pivotal principle. We have three branches of government: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. They are supposed to be equal, so they can keep each other's ambitions in check—and—you know—avoid a dictatorship. If the courts want to avoid dictatorship, they need to overturn this ruling. No excuses. No tricks. Just make it clear now that there are limits to presidential power. Think about what's at stake. Let's say you support President Trump. How will you feel if he is replaced by President Zohran Mamdani, and the man has absolute power? Is that OK with you? Thomas G. Moukawsher is a former Connecticut complex litigation judge and a former co-chair of the American Bar Association Committee on Employee Benefits. He is the author of the book, The Common Flaw: Needless Complexity in the Courts and 50 Ways to Reduce It. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
