logo
Israel considering military strike on Iran, sources say

Israel considering military strike on Iran, sources say

NBC Newsa day ago

Israel is considering taking military action against Iran — most likely without U.S. support — in the coming days, even as President Donald Trump is in advanced discussions with Tehran about a diplomatic deal to curtail its nuclear program, according to five people with knowledge of the situation.
Israel has become more serious about a unilateral strike on Iran as the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran appear closer to a preliminary or framework agreement that includes provisions about uranium enrichment that Israel views as unacceptable.
A unilateral strike or action by Israel against Iran would be a dramatic break with the Trump administration, which has argued against such a step.
The renewed threat of an Israeli strike comes as the Trump administration is awaiting a response from Iran on a proposed framework of a nuclear deal, and as the president has publicly said Tehran has become more hardline in its negotiations.
The notion of a new front in a simmering conflict has prompted the Trump administration to order all embassies within striking distance of Iranian missiles, aircraft and other assets (including missions in the Middle East, Northern Africa, and Eastern Europe) to send cables with assessments about danger and about measures to mitigate risks to Americans and U.S. infrastructure, according to two sources familiar.
U.S. and other officials are on alert awaiting the possibility of Israel striking Iran, the officials said.
The White House has not briefed senior lawmakers on the issue, according to that aide and a U.S. official.
One major concern is Iran retaliating against U.S. personnel or assets in the region for any action.
Israel, which relies on intelligence or other direct and logistical assistance from the U.S., may be in a position to take unilateral action against Tehran, the source familiar said. The sources familiar and officials were not aware of any planned U.S. involvement in the possible action. The U.S. could support with aerial re-fueling or intelligence sharing rather than kinetic support but the sources and officials were not aware of plans for that either at this point.
U.S. officials have announced that the voluntary departure of non-essential employees from the region. And the Pentagon announced the voluntary departure of military families from locations all across the U.S. Central Command area of operations.
CENTCOM Commander General Erik Kurilla was due to testify on the Hill on Thursday, but the hearing was postponed late Wednesday without explanation. A source familiar said Kurilla had to focus on this unfolding situation.
Another possible factor: Iran is rebuilding its strategic air defenses, and manned strikes will soon be exponentially more dangerous for Israeli pilots. In October, Israel damaged nearly every one of Iran's strategic air defense systems (mainly S-300s) but much of the damage was to the radars or other parts that can be rebuilt. It's possible Israel's window for manned strikes, without being threatened by Iran's coordinated strategic air defenses, is closing.
While Israel would most likely prefer U.S. military and intelligence support for strikes — especially against Iranian nuclear facilities — they showed in October that they can do a lot alone.
Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the evacuation of non-essential staff at the U.S. embassy in Iraq will send a message to Tehran that Trump will not necessarily hold Israel back from launching a threatened attack on Iran.
'It's about trying to get Iran to respect the president's wishes,' Knights said.
Iran has failed to meet a two-month deadline set by Trump to reach an agreement on the country's nuclear activities, and the president is frustrated, he said.
Both Knights and a source with knowledge of the matter said it was unclear if Israel would undertake a limited military strike now or wait until nuclear negotiations played out further.
Trump has expressed growing frustration over Iran's stance at recent indirect talks, portraying Tehran as inflexible and slow moving.
'They're just asking for things that you can't do. They don't want to give up what they have to give up,' Trump told reporters on Monday. 'They seek enrichment. We can't have enrichment.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Starmer's approach to global trade is clearly not ‘pragmatic' at all
Starmer's approach to global trade is clearly not ‘pragmatic' at all

The National

time30 minutes ago

  • The National

Starmer's approach to global trade is clearly not ‘pragmatic' at all

The UK Government estimates that annual economic output will be a stunning 0.1% higher by 2040 than it would have been without the India trade deal. In contrast, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) noted in Spring 2023 that Brexit's impact in the long run reduces our overall output by around 4% compared with what we would have had we remained in the EU. The amount gained by the 'landmark' India deal is therefore one-fortieth of the amount lost due to Brexit. READ MORE: UK-India post-Brexit free trade deal agreed after years of negotiation Prime Minister Starmer has described the Indian trade deal as a 'pragmatic' approach to global trade. Such an approach would, however, involve the UK Government restoring frictionless trade with the UK's largest trading partner, the European Union. If the UK Government were looking to deliver a 'pragmatic' approach on the economic front, Sir Keir would be looking to get the UK back into the European single market as soon as possible. This would be far more productive than trying to deliver trade deals with far-off countries and deliver immensely higher economic benefits than the paltry 0.1% generated by the India trade deal. Alex Orr Edinburgh THE world must be having laugh at Starmer as they did with Boris Johnson. Starmer considered he had done well to claim first prize with his Trump deal, being the first in the world to do so. Then along came Joseph Stiglitz, an American Nobel-prize-winning economist, on Laura Kuenssberg's Sunday show stating that Trump's method for changing his business bargaining tariffs is to choose the weakest first, then move on to the other countries, which is indeed what he did with the UK. READ MORE: Scottish care sector chief compares Keir Starmer to Enoch Powell in damning comments Stiglitz was a breath of fresh air in his interview, even stating that Scotland did things differently to Westminster especially where student fees are concerned. Starmer behaved like a school boy bringing an apple for his teacher when he presented Trump with an invitation for tea with King Charles. 'What a pushover', Trump must have thought, 'this guy is gonna be no trouble.' And so it was with Starmer claiming a success story with his 10% tariff in exchange for the 1.8% tariff on UK goods to America. Even more than before Brexit when we were part of the EU market. Alan Magnus-Bennett Fife STARMER'S Trump appeasement and grovelling is reaching the point where we're all reaching for the sick bag. Put aside the smarm-fest that was the 'royal' invitation. Put aside the bizarre trade deal, with oligarch-pal and yacht-botherer Peter Mandelson first lapping it up at Trump's left shoulder before looking like a puppet with cut strings when a real reporter (Scottish) pointed out it was all smoke and mirrors. Put aside all the UK's debasement. READ MORE: Police and fire brigade attend fire at Keir Starmer's house I ask again, when is enough going to be enough? Presidential adviser Stephen Miller, creep of creeps, has just announced a possible end to habeas corpus – the foundation stone of the most basic democracies. This follows the deportation of US citizens by ICE and Trump's befuddlement over whether or not he has to 'follow the constitution'. I just wait to see who Westminster will send along to represent Britain (England) at Trump's birthday military parade. Yes – the military parade for the draft dodger who has mocked veterans and banned transgender people from serving in the US military. Might I nominate Tony Blair as the perfect envoy to watch real heroes march by as slimeballs look down from a gold balcony? Amanda Baker Edinburgh I KNOW that modern journalists are generally illiterate about anything to do with religion these days but I would have thought that a journalist for The National would know a little more about the Scottish Catholic Church than shown in your article of May 9 on the election of Pope Leo XIV. The journalist quotes 'international development charity Cafod' about the Pope, obviously oblivious to the fact that this is the aid and development agency of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. Scotland's equivalent, Sciaf (Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund) is ignored, as is any source from the Scottish Catholic Church. READ MORE: Richard Murphy: Pope Leo can yield power stronger than political force The Vatican is the only state in the world which recognises Scotland as a separate entity from the rest of the UK. The then Pope Leo XXIII restored the Scottish hierarchy in 1878 and the current Scottish Bishops' Conference was born. The current pontiff has taken the name of Leo because he wants to acknowledge Leo XXIII's first modern Catholic Social Teaching encyclical, Reurum Novarum, which protected the rights of workers at the height of the industrial revolution – a sign that he will follow in the footsteps of Pope Francis. By the way, Sciaf, which transforms the lives of the poor, not making them comfortable in their poverty, is at the top of the recipients of funds for projects from the Scottish Government's overseas development fund (which would be much bigger had we been independent, of course). Please note for the future! Dr Duncan MacLaren KCSG Glasgow Former Director of SCIAF and former Secretary General of the Vatican-based Caritas Internationalis I HAD to laugh about the RBS bank notes article in last Monday's National. For the last two years, the ATM inside the Falkirk branch of the RBS only appears to dispense English bank notes (seven out of seven visits). All part of the anglicisation of Scotland, after the Tories changed the name of the parent company from RBS to the NatWest (National Westminster) Group in 2020? A Wilson Stirlingshire

Israel launches an attack on Iran—without America
Israel launches an attack on Iran—without America

Economist

time33 minutes ago

  • Economist

Israel launches an attack on Iran—without America

THE FIRST indication Israelis received that their country was at war with Iran was a siren a few minutes before 3am on June 13th, accompanied by an alert on their mobile phones. In Iranian cities, people were shaken awake by huge bomb blasts. For over two decades, Israeli leaders have spoken of the need to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, if necessary by force. Now they have launched a full-scale campaign on Iran that could last for days, without clear American backing, plunging the region into turmoil. The oil price surged by 13% in the hours after the first attacks. Huge uncertainty now looms over how Iran will retaliate, how resilient Iran's regime is to a new war and whether America is inevitably dragged into a conflict.

Israel is just getting started, but can a weakened Iran respond?
Israel is just getting started, but can a weakened Iran respond?

Telegraph

time36 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Israel is just getting started, but can a weakened Iran respond?

Israel's warplanes were in the air barely two hours after Donald Trump, the US president, had laid out the case for continuing talks with Iran at the weekend. 'We remain committed to a Diplomatic Resolution to the Iran Nuclear Issue,' he posted on his Truth Social site. 'My entire Administration has been directed to negotiate with Iran.' Had Benjamin Netanyahu, the headstrong prime minister of Israel, not got the memo? Or was he sending a clear signal to Washington that he was not going to take orders from anyone. As ever in the Middle East's quagmire of religious strife and decades of power struggles, it was all a lot more complicated than that. The Americans had been forewarned that Israel had run out of patience with Iran and its deadly pursuit of nuclear weapons. Just a day earlier, the State Department had announced it was reducing its diplomatic footprint in Baghdad and other regional facilities, Mr Trump warning the Middle East 'could be a dangerous place'. The US president was asked directly whether Israeli strikes were imminent. 'Well, I don't want to say imminent,' he told reporters in the East Room of the White House, 'but it looks like it's something that could very well happen'. Strikes, he said, could upset delicately poised negotiations. Or, maybe, he mused, it 'might help it actually'. So when explosions echoed across Iran early on Friday morning, Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu were settling into rather familiar roles. The American president had spent the day as good cop – talking up the idea of a negotiated settlement and trying to keep his people in the region from becoming targets. However, while officials said negotiators were on their way to Oman for a sixth round of talks on Sunday – he was happy to let the Israeli prime minister play the bad cop, pulling the trigger. 'In my assessment, the timing of an Israeli strike on Iran reflects a convergence of interests between Trump and Netanyahu,' said Avi Melamed, a former Israeli intelligence official. 'From Trump's perspective, as long as the US is not directly militarily involved, there is an advantage to a situation in which Israel takes military action aimed at forcing the Iranian regime back to negotiations from a significantly weaker position. 'The one who will pay the price for this move is Israel.' As he announced Operation Rising Lion to his nation, Mr Netanyahu set out the scale of the threat just a few hundred miles away. For decades, the tyrants of Tehran have 'brazenly, openly called for Israel's destruction,' he said, describing how their weapons programme had produced enough highly enriched uranium for nine nuclear bombs. The strikes, said Gabriel Noronha, president of POLARIS National Security and a former adviser to the State Department, were simply the first in maybe a week of attacks, starting with command and control centres, top leadership, and aerospace headquarters that would have launched drone and missile retaliation. The question now is whether Iran will have the ability or the intent to strike US facilities or at any of the 40,000 military personnel in the Persian Gulf and the rest of the Middle East. 'They've threatened the US for a long time,' Mr Noronha said. 'The question is whether they will have the munitions and the capability to strike US bases or they say, 'We barely have enough to inflict damage on Israel. We're going to keep it at that.'' Either way, it is just the start.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store