US reportedly preparing for possible weekend Iran strike
The conflict between Israel and Iran has spilled over into the digital world.
On Tuesday, a pro-Israel hacking group claimed responsibility for a disruptive cyberattack against a major Iranian bank, and Iran's state-run IRIB News reported that Israel had launched a full-scale cyberattack on the country's critical infrastructure.
Then on Wednesday, the pro-Israel hackers announced a new breach targeting an Iranian crypto exchange.
Predatory Sparrow's claims that it hacked Iran's Bank Sepah and Iranian crypto exchange Nobitex are the latest manifestation of that digital tit-for-tat.
And on Thursday, there were reports that the state-run TV was hacked.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
24 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Iran's threats attempt to deter American involvement amid 15-tonne bomb scare
FDD Iran Program Senior Director Behnam Ben Taleblu has weighed in on the power needed to destroy Iran's nuclear facility. According to reports, a 15-tonne 'bunker buster' bomb is needed to destroy the last nuclear facility in Iran, which the US would need to provide Israel with. 'Already you have Iranian officials as well as Iranian government-linked social media channels threatening to widen the war,' Mr Taleblu told Sky News Digital Presenter Gabriella Power. 'Before American entry, these threats of widening the war were designed to deter American involvement and raise the cost of that involvement.'
ABC News
29 minutes ago
- ABC News
Iranian missile hits main hospital in southern Israel, as IDF target Arak nuclear facility
An Iranian missile has struck the main hospital in southern Israel, wounding people and causing "extensive damage," according to a spokesperson. Separate Iranian strikes early on Thursday local time hit a high-rise apartment building in Tel Aviv and other sites in the country as Israel carried out strikes on Iran's Arak heavy-water nuclear facility. The missile that hit the Soroka Medical Center, which has more than 1,000 beds, was supposed to hit the Israeli military and intelligence headquarters near the hospital, Iran's Revolutionary Guard said after the strike. Speaking about the strike, Israel's prime minister said: "We will exact the full price from the tyrants in Tehran." "Iran just hit Soroka Hospital in Be'er Sheva with a ballistic missile," Israel's Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Sharren Haskel said. "Not a military base. A hospital. Many hospitals in Israel activated emergency plans in the past week, converting underground parking to hospital floors and moving patients underground, especially those who are on ventilators or are difficult to move quickly. Iranian state TV, meanwhile, reported an attack on the Arak site, saying there was "no radiation danger whatsoever". An Iranian state television reporter, speaking live in the nearby town of Khondab, said the facility had been evacuated and there was no damage to civilian areas around the reactor. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) confirmed it struck the Arak reactor's core seal, which it claims is a key component in plutonium production — the material used to produce nuclear weapons. "The reactor was originally intended for the production of weapons-grade plutonium, capable of enabling the development of nuclear weapons," the IDF said on Telegram. The military said it also hit a nuclear weapons development site in Natanz that contained specialised equipment used to advance nuclear weapons production. Israel had warned earlier on Thursday morning it would attack the facility and urged the public to flee the area. ABC/Wires
The Advertiser
44 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Too much huffing from the AUKUS caucus
There is a lot of hyperventilating at present over the Prime Minister's "failure" to score a face-to-face sit-down with Donald Trump. Much of it turns on a surprisingly credulous absorption of official talking points about the supposed necessity of the colossally expensive multi-decade AUKUS nuclear submarine pact. Trump's late cancellation of a scheduled bilateral meeting, then, is depicted as a blow to the $368 billion AUKUS deal and, axiomatically, therefore, to Australia. But is it? Words like "snub" and "debacle" have flown about on Sky After Dark and in pro-Coalition newspapers. Docile commentators seemed convinced that Anthony Albanese has been humiliated and claim he should have pushed harder and earlier for a Trump meeting. This naively overstates Australia's powers of persuasion in the current unique circumstances, understates Trump's singular attachment to an "America first" mindset, and underplays the gravitational pull of global events to which a mercurial America, sadly, is unnervingly central. If the previously unthinkable happens in coming days and Trump directly intervenes in Iran militarily, all the bleating over a cancelled bilateral in Canada will look even sillier than it does now. A common refrain, too, is that the Australian PM should have been prepared to fly to Washington, DC months ago for an Oval Office assignation (to which he was not invited?) rather than rely on talks on the sidelines of an international summit. The trouble with this is, well, everything. First, there's the epic US lid-doffing coursing under such arguments. Like the teenage pop fan who spends the entire concert filming their idol because without "likes" on social media you weren't really there, these gushing American supplicants betray a flimsy sense of Australia - one that requires validation through repeated external (read: American) recognition. Their reasoning goes like this: No meeting, no respect, we must not deserve respect. The more obvious explanation - that of a flawed, ego-maniacal president ignorant of history, dismissive of alliances and being skilfully played by Bibi Netanyahu - scores only the vaguest of references in some of these accounts. This toadying informs a second flawed assumption. That the AUKUS deal secretly hatched by the instinctively secretive Morrison government and too hastily embraced by a quaking Labor in opposition, is, ipso facto, vital to Australia's national interest. This, despite serious criticism from credible defence and security experts, and senior political figures on both sides of politics. That many journalists either explicitly or implicitly infer only benefits from AUKUS without acknowledging these substantive criticisms is convenient for the government and generally for its pro-America defence champions. Mature, objective journalism, however, it is not. MORE FROM KENNY: Those who say Albo should have been prepared to risk becoming a punching bag for Trump in the bear pit of the Oval Office seem to ignore the reality that such an outcome would be at least as bad for Australia as for the PM personally. A collapse in bilateral civility before the world's media could end up affecting trade, the ANZUS alliance, and Australian access to top-shelf education, medical science and digital technologies, let alone access to lucrative US markets. Besides, the idea of Albanese being personally intimidated is so much conservative wishful thinking. Through three decades in Parliament, and time before that as the sole left-aligned party organiser in the ruthless right-controlled NSW branch of the ALP, the one thing you can be certain of is that Albanese can assuage difficult people and can handle himself in an argument, should it come to that. There is a lot of hyperventilating at present over the Prime Minister's "failure" to score a face-to-face sit-down with Donald Trump. Much of it turns on a surprisingly credulous absorption of official talking points about the supposed necessity of the colossally expensive multi-decade AUKUS nuclear submarine pact. Trump's late cancellation of a scheduled bilateral meeting, then, is depicted as a blow to the $368 billion AUKUS deal and, axiomatically, therefore, to Australia. But is it? Words like "snub" and "debacle" have flown about on Sky After Dark and in pro-Coalition newspapers. Docile commentators seemed convinced that Anthony Albanese has been humiliated and claim he should have pushed harder and earlier for a Trump meeting. This naively overstates Australia's powers of persuasion in the current unique circumstances, understates Trump's singular attachment to an "America first" mindset, and underplays the gravitational pull of global events to which a mercurial America, sadly, is unnervingly central. If the previously unthinkable happens in coming days and Trump directly intervenes in Iran militarily, all the bleating over a cancelled bilateral in Canada will look even sillier than it does now. A common refrain, too, is that the Australian PM should have been prepared to fly to Washington, DC months ago for an Oval Office assignation (to which he was not invited?) rather than rely on talks on the sidelines of an international summit. The trouble with this is, well, everything. First, there's the epic US lid-doffing coursing under such arguments. Like the teenage pop fan who spends the entire concert filming their idol because without "likes" on social media you weren't really there, these gushing American supplicants betray a flimsy sense of Australia - one that requires validation through repeated external (read: American) recognition. Their reasoning goes like this: No meeting, no respect, we must not deserve respect. The more obvious explanation - that of a flawed, ego-maniacal president ignorant of history, dismissive of alliances and being skilfully played by Bibi Netanyahu - scores only the vaguest of references in some of these accounts. This toadying informs a second flawed assumption. That the AUKUS deal secretly hatched by the instinctively secretive Morrison government and too hastily embraced by a quaking Labor in opposition, is, ipso facto, vital to Australia's national interest. This, despite serious criticism from credible defence and security experts, and senior political figures on both sides of politics. That many journalists either explicitly or implicitly infer only benefits from AUKUS without acknowledging these substantive criticisms is convenient for the government and generally for its pro-America defence champions. Mature, objective journalism, however, it is not. MORE FROM KENNY: Those who say Albo should have been prepared to risk becoming a punching bag for Trump in the bear pit of the Oval Office seem to ignore the reality that such an outcome would be at least as bad for Australia as for the PM personally. A collapse in bilateral civility before the world's media could end up affecting trade, the ANZUS alliance, and Australian access to top-shelf education, medical science and digital technologies, let alone access to lucrative US markets. Besides, the idea of Albanese being personally intimidated is so much conservative wishful thinking. Through three decades in Parliament, and time before that as the sole left-aligned party organiser in the ruthless right-controlled NSW branch of the ALP, the one thing you can be certain of is that Albanese can assuage difficult people and can handle himself in an argument, should it come to that. There is a lot of hyperventilating at present over the Prime Minister's "failure" to score a face-to-face sit-down with Donald Trump. Much of it turns on a surprisingly credulous absorption of official talking points about the supposed necessity of the colossally expensive multi-decade AUKUS nuclear submarine pact. Trump's late cancellation of a scheduled bilateral meeting, then, is depicted as a blow to the $368 billion AUKUS deal and, axiomatically, therefore, to Australia. But is it? Words like "snub" and "debacle" have flown about on Sky After Dark and in pro-Coalition newspapers. Docile commentators seemed convinced that Anthony Albanese has been humiliated and claim he should have pushed harder and earlier for a Trump meeting. This naively overstates Australia's powers of persuasion in the current unique circumstances, understates Trump's singular attachment to an "America first" mindset, and underplays the gravitational pull of global events to which a mercurial America, sadly, is unnervingly central. If the previously unthinkable happens in coming days and Trump directly intervenes in Iran militarily, all the bleating over a cancelled bilateral in Canada will look even sillier than it does now. A common refrain, too, is that the Australian PM should have been prepared to fly to Washington, DC months ago for an Oval Office assignation (to which he was not invited?) rather than rely on talks on the sidelines of an international summit. The trouble with this is, well, everything. First, there's the epic US lid-doffing coursing under such arguments. Like the teenage pop fan who spends the entire concert filming their idol because without "likes" on social media you weren't really there, these gushing American supplicants betray a flimsy sense of Australia - one that requires validation through repeated external (read: American) recognition. Their reasoning goes like this: No meeting, no respect, we must not deserve respect. The more obvious explanation - that of a flawed, ego-maniacal president ignorant of history, dismissive of alliances and being skilfully played by Bibi Netanyahu - scores only the vaguest of references in some of these accounts. This toadying informs a second flawed assumption. That the AUKUS deal secretly hatched by the instinctively secretive Morrison government and too hastily embraced by a quaking Labor in opposition, is, ipso facto, vital to Australia's national interest. This, despite serious criticism from credible defence and security experts, and senior political figures on both sides of politics. That many journalists either explicitly or implicitly infer only benefits from AUKUS without acknowledging these substantive criticisms is convenient for the government and generally for its pro-America defence champions. Mature, objective journalism, however, it is not. MORE FROM KENNY: Those who say Albo should have been prepared to risk becoming a punching bag for Trump in the bear pit of the Oval Office seem to ignore the reality that such an outcome would be at least as bad for Australia as for the PM personally. A collapse in bilateral civility before the world's media could end up affecting trade, the ANZUS alliance, and Australian access to top-shelf education, medical science and digital technologies, let alone access to lucrative US markets. Besides, the idea of Albanese being personally intimidated is so much conservative wishful thinking. Through three decades in Parliament, and time before that as the sole left-aligned party organiser in the ruthless right-controlled NSW branch of the ALP, the one thing you can be certain of is that Albanese can assuage difficult people and can handle himself in an argument, should it come to that. There is a lot of hyperventilating at present over the Prime Minister's "failure" to score a face-to-face sit-down with Donald Trump. Much of it turns on a surprisingly credulous absorption of official talking points about the supposed necessity of the colossally expensive multi-decade AUKUS nuclear submarine pact. Trump's late cancellation of a scheduled bilateral meeting, then, is depicted as a blow to the $368 billion AUKUS deal and, axiomatically, therefore, to Australia. But is it? Words like "snub" and "debacle" have flown about on Sky After Dark and in pro-Coalition newspapers. Docile commentators seemed convinced that Anthony Albanese has been humiliated and claim he should have pushed harder and earlier for a Trump meeting. This naively overstates Australia's powers of persuasion in the current unique circumstances, understates Trump's singular attachment to an "America first" mindset, and underplays the gravitational pull of global events to which a mercurial America, sadly, is unnervingly central. If the previously unthinkable happens in coming days and Trump directly intervenes in Iran militarily, all the bleating over a cancelled bilateral in Canada will look even sillier than it does now. A common refrain, too, is that the Australian PM should have been prepared to fly to Washington, DC months ago for an Oval Office assignation (to which he was not invited?) rather than rely on talks on the sidelines of an international summit. The trouble with this is, well, everything. First, there's the epic US lid-doffing coursing under such arguments. Like the teenage pop fan who spends the entire concert filming their idol because without "likes" on social media you weren't really there, these gushing American supplicants betray a flimsy sense of Australia - one that requires validation through repeated external (read: American) recognition. Their reasoning goes like this: No meeting, no respect, we must not deserve respect. The more obvious explanation - that of a flawed, ego-maniacal president ignorant of history, dismissive of alliances and being skilfully played by Bibi Netanyahu - scores only the vaguest of references in some of these accounts. This toadying informs a second flawed assumption. That the AUKUS deal secretly hatched by the instinctively secretive Morrison government and too hastily embraced by a quaking Labor in opposition, is, ipso facto, vital to Australia's national interest. This, despite serious criticism from credible defence and security experts, and senior political figures on both sides of politics. That many journalists either explicitly or implicitly infer only benefits from AUKUS without acknowledging these substantive criticisms is convenient for the government and generally for its pro-America defence champions. Mature, objective journalism, however, it is not. MORE FROM KENNY: Those who say Albo should have been prepared to risk becoming a punching bag for Trump in the bear pit of the Oval Office seem to ignore the reality that such an outcome would be at least as bad for Australia as for the PM personally. A collapse in bilateral civility before the world's media could end up affecting trade, the ANZUS alliance, and Australian access to top-shelf education, medical science and digital technologies, let alone access to lucrative US markets. Besides, the idea of Albanese being personally intimidated is so much conservative wishful thinking. Through three decades in Parliament, and time before that as the sole left-aligned party organiser in the ruthless right-controlled NSW branch of the ALP, the one thing you can be certain of is that Albanese can assuage difficult people and can handle himself in an argument, should it come to that.
