Would have killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei if possible: Israel Defence Minister
Israel would have targeted Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during the recent 12-day war if the opportunity had arisen, Defence Minister Israel Katz said Thursday.In an interview with Kan public television, Katz stated, 'I estimate that if Khamenei had been in our sights, we would have taken him out.' He added that Khamenei likely recognised the threat and went deep underground, severing contact with the new commanders who had replaced those killed by Israel.advertisementAccording to the Associated Press, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has not appeared in public since taking shelter in a secret location following Israel's June 13 strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, which killed several senior commanders and scientists.
At the start of the conflict, both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump hinted that Khamenei could be a direct target, as regime change was considered a possible outcome of the war.The fighting concluded with a US-brokered ceasefire on Tuesday. Khamenei made his first public appearance on Thursday through a recorded video aired on Iranian state television, declaring victory over Israel and dismissing US involvement as ineffective.'The Islamic Republic emerged victorious and delivered a harsh slap to America's face,' he said, adding that the US 'gained no achievements from this war.'- EndsWith inputs from ReutersMust Watch
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Double standards': Spain slams EU inaction on Israel deal
AP image In the wake of a damning EU review of Israel's human rights record in Gaza, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez slammed his colleagues for not moving to suspend a trade deal with Israel despite what he called "the catastrophic situation of genocide. " More than 55,000 Palestinians have been killed in the enclave over more than 18 months of Israeli bombardment, according to Hamas-run Gazan authorities. Israel vehemently denies accusations of genocide, maintaining that it is at war with the ruling militant Islamist group Hamas following a massive terror attack on Israeli territory in 2023. In a report distributed to the member states last week based on the findings and allegations of major international bodies, the European External Action Service found "indications" that Israel was breaching its duty to respect to human rights. The document, not public but made available to DW, highlighted possible indiscriminate attacks affecting the civilian population, Israel's blockade on food and medicine plus attacks on medical facilities as potential breaches. "There are indications that Israel would be in breach of its human rights obligations," the report concluded. Arriving at an EU summit in Brussels on Thursday, Sanchez said it was "more than obvious that Israel is violating Article 2 of the EU-Israel agreement." "We have had 18 sanctions packages against Russia for its aggression [in Ukraine], and Europe, with its double standards, is not capable of suspending an association agreement," Sanchez said. Suspension off the cards Spain and Ireland are isolated among the 27 EU states in openly calling for the suspension of the deal in full, a move that would require unanimity and has therefore never been a serious prospect. Greece, Germany, Hungary, Austria, and Bulgaria remain close allies of Israel. Berlin in particular has made its views clear, with Chancellor Friedrich Merz describing the move as "out of the question with the federal [German] government." Doing so would be a major commercial disruption, particularly for Israel, which buys a third of its goods from the EU. The accord, in force since 2000, covers everything from the two sides trading relationship – worth $50 billion each year for goods alone – up to political dialogue, and cooperation on research and technology. Another possibility, requiring only a qualified majority of 15 out of 27, would be the partial suspension of the deal, for example, its provisions on free trade or shutting Israel out of EU research funding programme Horizon. But multiple diplomatic sources told DW that the numbers weren't there either. Top EU diplomat: Goal not to 'punish Israel' Earlier in the week, EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas officially presented the document to the member states for a first debate, already making clear there would be no immediate moves. "It is not intended to punish Israel, but to trigger concrete improvements for the people and the lives of people in Gaza," she said on Monday. "If the situation does not improve, then we can also discuss further measures and come back to this in July." On Thursday, EU leaders at the summit only "took note" of the report in their joint statement, making no reference to potential rights breaches, and said ministers should revisit the topic next month. At the same time, the 27 leaders deplored the "dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, the unacceptable number of civilian casualties and the levels of starvation." 'No foreign policy topic' more divisive than Israel Spain has also been calling for an EU embargo on the sale of arms to Israel, with Germany one of the country's major suppliers, as well as more sanctions. However, Berlin recently reaffirmed it would keep selling Israel weapons, and without Germany on board, the move wouldn't have much impact. A few other countries, including Belgium, France and Sweden, have supported imposing additional EU sanctions on Israel, but these too require unanimity. Echoing Sanchez, Irish leader Michael Martin said he would tell his colleagues at the summit that "the people of Europe find it incomprehensible that Europe does not seem to be in a position to put pressure on Israel." According to Lisa Musiol of conflict resolution think tank Crisis Group, maximum pressure would entail an arms embargo, large-scale sanctions against members of the government or a full suspension of the association agreement. "But almost no European leader speaks about such measures," Musiol told DW in a written statement. "There is probably no foreign policy topic within the EU where member states are so divided." Iran tensions push member states back to old positions Last month, it looked for a brief moment like the EU was indeed collectively hardening its stance. The Dutch proposed the review of the association agreement, and the move was greenlit by a majority of EU states on May 20. This came shortly after France, Britain and Canada issued a rare joint statement condemning Israel's latest offensive in Gaza and described its restrictions on aid as being "wholly disproportionate," and possibly in breach of international humanitarian law. There was a distinctive feeling that policy could be shifting. Musiol of Crisis Group said that that window seemed now to have closed. "It seems that after the recent escalation between Israel and Iran, many member states have fallen into their old positions," she said. "Even those member states that have traditionally been strong supporters of Israel but had started to be more outspoken or critical, such as Germany or Italy, have changed their tone."
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
How the US helped oust the Iranian government in 1953 and reinstate the Shah
When US missiles struck Iran's key nuclear facilities on June 22, history seemed to repeat itself. Seventy-two years ago, a covert CIA operation toppled Iran's democratically elected government. Now, as American rhetoric drifts once more toward regime change, the ghosts of 1953 are stirring again. The coordinated US air and missile strike, codenamed Operation Midnight Hammer, targeted three of Iran's principal nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center. The attack immediately reignited fears of a broader war in the Middle East. In the hours that followed, US President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social: 'It's not politically correct to use the term 'Regime Change. But if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Though officials in Washington, including Vice President JD Vance, rushed to clarify that regime change was not formal policy, many in Iran heard echoes from 1953, when the US and UK orchestrated the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. After being appointed as the prime minister of Iran in 1951, Mossadegh moved to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, then controlled by the British, who had long funneled Iranian oil profits to London. 'He ended a long period of British hegemony in Iran… and set the stage for several decades of rapid economic growth fueled by oil revenues,' wrote Mark Gasiorowski, a historian at Tulane University, in an essay for the volume The Middle East and the United States: History, Politics, and Ideologies (2018). 'He also tried to democratise Iran's political system by reducing the powers of the shah and the traditional upper class.' Mossadegh argued that Iran, like any sovereign state, deserved control over its resources. Appearing before the International Court of Justice in 1952, he laid out Iran's case: 'The decision to nationalise the oil industry is the result of the political will of an independent and free nation,' he said. 'For us Iranians, the uneasiness of stopping any kind of action which is seen as interference in our national affairs is more intense than for other nations.' Britain saw the nationalisation as both a strategic and economic threat. It imposed a blockade and led a global oil boycott, while pressuring Washington to intervene. The British adopted a three-track strategy: a failed negotiation effort, a global boycott of Iranian oil and covert efforts to undermine and overthrow Mossadegh, writes Gasiorowski . British intelligence operatives had built ties with 'politicians, businessmen, military officers and clerical leaders' in anticipation of a coup. Initially, the Truman administration resisted intervention. But President Dwight D Eisenhower's election ushered in a more aggressive Cold War posture. 'Under the Truman administration, these boundaries [of acceptable Iranian politics] were drawn rather broadly,' Gasiorowski wrote. 'But when Eisenhower entered office, the more stridently anti-Communist views of his foreign policy advisers led the US to drop its support for Mossadegh and take steps to overthrow him.' Fear of communism's spread, particularly via Iran's Tudeh Party, believed to be the first organised Communist party in the Middle East. 'Although they did not regard Mossadegh as a Communist,' Gasiorowski wrote, 'they believed conditions in Iran would probably continue to deteriorate… strengthening the Tudeh Party and perhaps enabling it to seize power.' While Britain lobbied for a coup, Mossadegh appealed directly to Eisenhower. Eisenhower, in a letter in June 1953, offered sympathy but warned that aid was unlikely so long as Iran withheld oil: 'There is a strong feeling… that it would not be fair to the American taxpayers for the United States Government to extend any considerable amount of economic aid to Iran so long as Iran could have access to funds derived from the sale of its oil.' Mossadegh's response was blunt. He accused Britain of sabotaging Iran's economy through 'propaganda and diplomacy,' and warned that inaction could carry lasting consequences: 'If prompt and effective aid is not given to this country now, any steps that might be taken tomorrow… might well be too late,' he wrote. Weeks later, in August 1953, the CIA and Britain's MI6 launched a covert operation to oust Mossadegh and restore the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to power. 'A decision was made to develop and carry out a plan to overthrow Mussadiq and install Zahedi as prime minister,' Gasiorowski wrote. 'The operation was to be led by Kermit Roosevelt, who headed the CIA's Middle East operations division.' The mission, code-named Operation Ajax, used anti-Mossadegh propaganda, bribes, and orchestrated street unrest. After an initial failure and the Shah's brief exile, loyalist military units staged a successful coup on August 19. Mossadegh was arrested, tried, and placed under house arrest until his death in 1967. In 2013, the CIA officially acknowledged its role, releasing declassified documents that described the coup as 'an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government.' In Iran, schoolchildren learn about the 1953 coup in classrooms. State media airs annual retrospectives on Mossadegh's downfall. His name recurs in graffiti, political speeches, and university lectures. In his book The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the Roots of Modern U.S.-Iranian Relations, the historian Ervand Abrahamian called the operation 'a defining fault line not only for Iranian history but also in the country's relations with both Britain and the United States.' It 'carved in public memory a clear dividing line — 'before' and 'after' — that still shapes the country's political culture,' he wrote. While Cold War defenders portrayed the coup as a check on communism, Abrahamian sees oil and empire as the true motivators. 'The main concern was not so much about communism as about the dangerous repercussions that oil nationalisation could have throughout the world,' he argues. Following the coup, the Shah ruled with increasing autocracy, supported by the US and bolstered by SAVAK (Sazeman-e Ettela'at va Amniyat-e Keshvar), a secret police trained by the CIA. Decades of repression, inequality, and corruption gave way to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which toppled the monarchy and established the Islamic Republic. 'The strategic considerations that led US policymakers to undertake the 1953 coup helped set in motion a chain of events that later destroyed the Shah's regime and created severe problems for US interests,' wrote Gasiorowski. On November 4, 1979, the US Embassy in Tehran was seized. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days. Revolutionaries repeatedly cited 1953 as the origin of their mistrust. Though Washington denied involvement for decades, few Iranians ever doubted the CIA's role in Mossadegh's fall. 'The coup revealed how the United States began almost instinctively to follow in the footsteps of British imperialism,' write David W Lesch and Mark L Haas editors of The Middle East and the United States: History, Politics, and Ideologies . 'Demonstrating a preference for the status quo rather than the forces of change.' Even President Barack Obama, in a 2009 speech in Cairo, acknowledged the long shadow of 1953, noting that the coup had created 'years of mistrust.' No US president has ever issued a formal apology. Dr Omair Anas, director of research at the Centre for Studies of Plural Societies, a non-profit, non-partisan, independent institution dedicated to democratising knowledge, sees the 1953 events as not just a turning point but a template for today's impasse. 'The 1953 coup was staged in the backdrop of the Cold War which resulted in Iran's inclusion into the CENTO alliance along with Pakistan and Turkiye,' he said. He is sharply critical of current regime change rhetoric, describing it as detached from Iran's internal political conditions. 'The most important player is Iran's domestic politics,' he said. 'At this stage, it is not willing and prepared for a regime change.' Anas points out that the government has already absorbed considerable dissent: 'Previous anti-hijab protests have already accommodated many anti-regime voices and sentiments.' But absorbing discontent, he suggests, is not the same as welcoming systemic change. 'Any regime change at this stage would immediately lead the country to chaos and possible civil war, as the new regime won't be able to de-Islamise the state in the near future.' Trump's rhetoric, therefore, landed with particular resonance. While senior officials have attempted to distance the administration from talk of regime change, many in Iran and beyond see a familiar playbook: pressure, provocation, and the threat of externally imposed political outcomes. Dr Anas contends that many of the so-called alternatives to the Islamic Republic are politically inert. 'Anti-regime forces since 1979 have lost much ground and haven't been able to stage a major threat to the revolution,' he said. 'The West is fully aware that the Pahlavi dynasty or the Mujahidin-e-Khalq (MEK) have the least popularity and organisational presence to replace the Khamenei-led regime of Islamic revolution.' As he sees it, the system's survival is not merely a matter of repression but of strategic logic. 'Khamenei can only be replaced by someone like him,' he said. 'The continuity of the Islamic revolution of Iran remains more preferable than any other disruptive replacement.' He also warns that a forced collapse of the current order could have serious regional implications. 'In the case of violent suppression of Islamist forces, the new Iranian state might seek the revival of the Cold War collaboration with Pakistan and Turkiye and a strong push against Russia.' For India, a country that has generally maintained a policy of non-intervention, such a development could be deeply destabilising. 'Any abrupt change would complicate India's West Asia and South Asia strategic calculus,' he said, 'and more fundamentally India's Pakistan strategy.' Dr Anas also sees Western credibility as severely eroded across the region. 'The West has left no credibility whatsoever about human rights, freedom, and democracy after the Israeli-Gaza war,' he said. 'The Middle Eastern public opinion, including that of Kurds, Druze and Afghans, have lost hope in Western promises. They prefer any autocratic regime to West-backed regimes.' India, he said, risks being caught flat-footed if political transitions come suddenly. 'India generally stays away from the normative politics of the Middle East,' he said. 'While this shows India's principled stand on no intervention in internal politics, it also puts India in a weak position once the regime changes, as happened in Syria.' His recommendation? 'India needs to engage more actively with West Asian civil society to have more balanced relations beyond states.' Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
India-US trade deal: Here's what Washington DC wants from New Delhi and what we know so far
US President Donald Trump on Thursday said that a 'very big trade deal' with India is on the cards as negotiators from New Delhi reached Washington DC, where America has reportedly demanded a few tariff cuts that India is not ready to agree with. Chief Negotiator Rajesh Aggarwal is leading a delegation from India to the US as the team works with officials from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), navigating through a July 9 deadline to secure an interim deal before temporary tariff protections expire. However, roadblocks in the conversations have been delaying progress in securing a bilateral trade agreement during the high-stakes negotiations, reportedly due to some demands from the US. Here's what we know so far. According to a report by ANI, several contentious issues have surfaced during the trade negotiation conversations between the US and India. The US is pressuring India into lowering duties on American agricultural and dairy products and to provide market access for genetically modified (GM) crops. However, India has resisted these demands firmly, saying that it would impact domestic food safety, public health and leave millions of farmers unprotected. The Indian delegation has also reportedly resisted an offer of broad-based access to the US agricultural and dairy sectors, which can be politically and economically sensitive. As per a report by Reuters, the Indian side wants to push for a rollback on the now-paused 26 per cent tariff that the US imposed on New Delhi, which is set to take effect if a deal is not reached by July 9. Negotiators are also demanding concessions on existing US tariffs on steel and auto parts, which American negotiators have not yet agreed to, according to Indian government sources quoted by Reuters. 'The US side first wants India to commit to deeper import tariff cuts on farm goods like soybeans and corn, cars and alcoholic beverages along with easing of non-tariff barriers,' an Indian official was quoted as saying by Reuters. This has led to a disagreement between India and America. However, Indian officials have ensured that protecting the country's interests will be of supreme importance during the trade talks. "Protecting India's interests will be supreme in India-US BTA talks," an Indian official close to the negotiations was quoted as saying by ANI. Despite these challenges, both sides remain committed to reaching an interim agreement before the deadline.
