We will end this war: Iran's fresh threat to 'gambler Trump' after US strikes
Iran said on Monday that the U.S. attack on its nuclear sites expanded the range of legitimate targets for its armed forces and called U.S. President Donald Trump a "gambler" for joining Israel's military campaign against the Islamic Republic.Ebrahim Zolfaqari, spokesperson for Iran's Khatam al-Anbiya central military headquarters, said the U.S. should expect heavy consequences for its actions."Mr Trump, the gambler, you may start this war, but we will be the ones to end it," Zolfaqari said in English at the end of a recorded video statement.advertisement
Iran and Israel traded air and missile strikes as the world braced for Tehran's response to the U.S. attack on its nuclear sites over the weekend, which Trump suggested could lead to the overthrow of the Iranian government.Commercial satellite imagery indicated Saturday's attack on Iran's Fordow nuclear plant far underground had severely damaged or destroyed the site and the uranium-enriching centrifuges it housed, but its status remained unconfirmed, experts said.In his latest social media comments on the U.S. strikes, Trump said: "Monumental damage was done to all nuclear sites in Iran.""The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!" he wrote on his Truth Social platform.Trump earlier called on Iran to forgo any retaliation and said the government "must now make peace" or future attacks would be "far greater and a lot easier", fuelling global concern about further escalation of conflict in the Middle East.advertisementThe U.S. launched 75 precision-guided munitions, including bunker-buster bombs and more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles against three Iranian nuclear sites, the chairperson of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, told reporters.The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said no increases in off-site radiation levels had been reported after the U.S. strikes. Rafael Grossi, the agency's director general, told CNN that it was not yet possible to assess the damage done underground.A senior Iranian source told Reuters that most of the highly enriched uranium at Fordow had been moved elsewhere before the attack. Reuters could not immediately corroborate the claim.Tehran, which denies its nuclear programme is for anything other than peaceful purposes, launched a volley of missiles towards Israel in the aftermath of the U.S. attack, wounding scores of people and destroying buildings in Tel Aviv.But it has not acted on its main options for retaliation: to attack U.S. bases or choke off the 20% of global oil shipments that pass through the Strait of Hormuz.Attempting to strangle the strait could send global oil prices skyrocketing, derail the world economy and invite conflict with the U.S. Navy's massive Fifth Fleet based in nearby Bahrain.Oil prices jumped on Monday to their highest since January. Brent Crude futures were up $1.11 or 1.44% to $78.12 a barrel as of 0653 GMT. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude advanced $1.08 or 1.45% to $74.87.Must Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
24 minutes ago
- NDTV
The Latest G7 Was A Disaster, Thanks To Trump
As expected, the G7 summit in Kananaskis in Canada proved somewhat of a disaster for the group. With the deep differences between the US and the other six members from Trump's first term getting accentuated after his re-election, the prognostics for this summit were, in any case, not good. The European leaders were openly against Trump's re-election. This lack of empathy between him and the other six members was bound to affect the solidarity of the G7 at Kananaskis. This solidarity had actually got reinforced on the security front under the Biden administration by the overwhelming hostility of the G7 countries towards Russia over the Ukraine conflict. With Trump disowning Biden's Russia policy, spurning President Volodymyr Zelensky and initiating a dialogue with Russia to end the war and explore the possibility of normalising ties with Moscow, the rift with Europe has become deeper, with the latter remaining bent on supporting Ukraine with arms and funds to counter Russia. The Growing Rift Other than this fundamental security issue in the eyes of Europe, Trump's use of tariffs as a weapon against other members of the G7 totally contrary to World Trade Organization (WTO) provisions, has deeply soured US ties with them. The original objective of the G7 was to promote financial and economic stability at the global level. We now see that the US seeks to disrupt this objective by US-centric policies premised on the belief that the country has been the victim of unfair trade practices and that its economy has been hollowed out because its partners have not shared equally security burdens at the global level. The slogan 'Make America Great Again' is at the cost of US allies, too. The US and the other G7 members are, therefore, not on the same page on strategic political, economic and security issues. The G7's raison d'être is being undermined by the US under Trump. The Tensions With Canada Adding to all this is Trump's contemptuous attitude towards Canada, the host of the G7 meeting. The new Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, has been combative and has sought to hit back at the US on tariffs and other economic measures. This did not necessarily provide a more conducive setting for the G7 summit. However, as host - and in order to save the summit - Carney tried to ingratiate himself to Trump, flattering him by saying publicly that "The G7 is nothing without U.S. leadership, your personal leadership". This, however, did not work. Trump snubbed the G7 by departing early because of some momentous decision he had to make - presumably on Iran- and dispensing with planned bilateral meetings, including with President Zelensky. The meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi also could not take place (The chance to clear the air personally after many loose statements by Trump on his role in bringing about a ceasefire between India and Pakistan and his desire to mediate on Kashmir was missed. India, therefore, decided to make a statement publicly countering Trump's false narratives on his role and firmly reject any mediatory role by him). A Short, Thin Statement Given all these differences, the other six members had come to terms with the fact that it would not be possible to issue a joint communique, and that a Chair's summary would be issued instead. If the expectation was that the Chair's summary would spell out robustly the united position of six members on issues over which the US differed, it has been belied. It was probably thought that it was not advisable to isolate the US in this manner. The Chair's summary is short and terse. It contrasts dramatically with the inordinately lengthy communique; of last year's G7 summit in Italy, which had a total of about 240 paragraphs and sub-paragraphs, with 18 on Ukraine, 10 on Gaza, four each on Iran and Africa, 14 on Sustainable Development Goals, 16 on the Indo-Pacific, nine on China, 26 on energy and climate change, 10 on the global economy and finance, eight on trade, 14 on economic resilience and economic security, and nine on health. The Chair's summary at Kananaskis, in contrast, has only 14 paragraphs. This shows how much the ambit and substance of this G7 summit got reduced due to the Trump factor. The Chair's summary lists issues of concern, such as the need for greater economic and financial stability, technological innovation, an open and predictable trading regime, energy security and the digital transition underpinned by secure and responsible critical mineral supply chains, and more collaboration within and beyond the G7. With China in mind, the G7 leaders have undertaken to safeguard their economies from unfair non-market policies and practices that distort markets and drive overcapacity. This would include de-risking through diversification and reduction of critical dependencies. The new Canada-led G7 initiative - the Critical Minerals Production Alliance - is mentioned. This would aim at working with trusted international partners to guarantee supply for advanced manufacturing and defence. In the single paragraph on Ukraine, the G7 leaders have accommodated Trump by expressing support for his efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace in the country. This is a remarkable turnabout because Europe is, in fact, deeply opposed to Trump's peace efforts, which exclude it. Zelensky has been thrown a crumb by recognising that Ukraine is committed to an unconditional ceasefire to which Russia must agree, adding that the G7 Leaders are resolute in exploring all options to maximise pressure on Russia, including financial sanctions. Nothing On Middle East, Divisions Over China The para on the Middle East is devoid of any real substance, with the G7 leaders reiterating the importance of unhindered humanitarian aid to Gaza, the release of all hostages, an immediate and permanent ceasefire, and the need for a negotiated political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that achieves lasting peace (no mention of a two-state solution). The leaders exchanged views on "the active conflict between Israel and Iran", affirming Israel's right to defend itself, and were clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. The G7 released a statement on recent developments between Israel and Iran, which essentially reiterates these bare points. On China, Trump and the six others are not entirely on the same page, but some concerns are shared. The G7 leaders, while stressing the importance of constructive and stable relations with China, have called on it to refrain from market distortions and harmful overcapacity. They discussed their ongoing serious concerns about China's destabilising activities in the East and South China Seas and the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. The leaders acknowledged the links between crisis theatres in Ukraine, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. What these links are is not clear. The Irony With 'Foreign Interference' According to the Chair's summary, the G7 leaders condemned foreign interference, underlining the unacceptable threat of transnational repression to rights and freedoms, national security and state sovereignty. The irony is that foreign interference and threats to national security and state sovereignty primarily emanate from the G7 countries themselves, as we experience in India ourselves. With Trump having walked out of the Paris Climate Change agreement, it is not surprising that the only indirect reference to climate change is the discussion by the G7 on the impact of increasingly extreme weather events around the world. On the G7 meeting with invited leaders, including India, the focus was on ways to collaborate on energy security, just energy transitions as well as sustainable and innovative solutions to boost energy access and affordability, mitigating the impact on climate and the environment, technology and innovation, diversifying and strengthening critical mineral supply chains, building infrastructure, and mobilising investment. The G7 leaders have agreed to collaborate with partners on concrete outcomes, to which end they agreed to six joint statements, including securing high-standard critical mineral supply chains, driving secure, responsible and trustworthy AI adoption, boosting cooperation on quantum technology, etc. India is already engaged in discussions in all these areas with most of the G7 members. PM Modi's Interventions: Energy And Terrorism At the summit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made two interventions. He spoke of India's energy security plans and ambitions, noting that at present, renewable energy accounts for about 50% of our total installed capacity. He also mentioned India's launch of global initiatives such as the International Solar Alliance, Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure, Mission LiFE, Global Biofuels Alliance, One Sun One World One Grid. India, he said, considered it its responsibility to bring the priorities and concerns of the Global South to the world stage. Not surprisingly, the Prime Minister drew the attention of G7 leaders to the grave issue of terrorism bluntly and forcefully. He recalled the Pahalgam attack and spoke of India's neighbourhood becoming a breeding ground of terrorism. He reminded the leaders that there must be no place for double standards when it came to terrorism, and that any country that supported terrorism must be held accountable. He regretted that the reality was quite the opposite. He challenged the G7 leaders when he said: "On the one hand, we are quick to impose various sanctions based on our own preferences and interests. On the other hand, nations that openly support terrorism continue to be rewarded. I have some serious questions for those present in this room". In his second intervention, Prime Minister Modi spoke about technology, AI, and energy. For AI's energy needs, India, he said, was focusing on solar energy and small modular reactors. He pointed out that AI models developed and tested against the benchmark of India's diversity will hold immense relevance and utility for the entire world. The G7 summit provided him with an opportunity to meet the Canadian Prime Minister bilaterally and discuss the state of India-Canada relations and the way ahead. The two leaders agreed to take calibrated and constructive steps to restore stability in the relationship, beginning with the early return of High Commissioners to each other's capitals, restarting senior ministerial as well as working-level engagements across various domains, and exploring opportunities for future collaboration in various areas. The importance of restarting the stalled negotiations on the Early Progress Trade Agreement (EPTA) was flagged. Although the G7 summit was a bit of a damp squib because of internal cracks within the group between the US and others, the invitation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, despite serious bilateral differences with Canada, was a continued recognition of India's mounting global geopolitical and economic importance.
NDTV
24 minutes ago
- NDTV
Ayatollah Khamenei Asks Putin To Do More For Iran After US Air Strikes
Iran's Supreme Leader sent his foreign minister to Moscow on Monday to ask President Vladimir Putin for more help from Russia after the biggest US military action against the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution over the weekend. US President Donald Trump and Israel have publicly speculated about killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and about regime change, a step Russia fears could sink the Middle East into the abyss. While Putin has condemned the Israeli strikes, he is yet to comment on the US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, though he last week called for calm and offered Moscow's services as a mediator over the nuclear programme. A senior source told Reuters that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi was due to deliver a letter from Khamenei to Putin, seeking the latter's support. Iran has not been impressed with Russia's support so far, Iranian sources told Reuters, and the country wants Putin to do more to back it against Israel and the United States. The sources did not elaborate on what assistance Tehran wanted. The Kremlin said that Putin would receive Araqchi but did not say what would be discussed. Araqchi was quoted by the state TASS news agency as saying that Iran and Russia were coordinating their positions on the current escalation in the Middle East. Putin has repeatedly offered to mediate between the United States and Iran, and said that he had conveyed Moscow's ideas on resolving the conflict to them while ensuring Iran's continued access to civil nuclear energy. The Kremlin chief last week refused to discuss the possibility that Israel and the United States would kill Khamenei. Putin said that Israel had given Moscow assurances that Russian specialists helping to build two more reactors at the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran would not be hurt in air strikes. Russia, a longstanding ally of Tehran, plays a role in Iran's nuclear negotiations with the West as a veto-wielding U.N. Security Council member and a signatory to an earlier nuclear deal Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018. But Putin, whose army is fighting a major war of attrition in Ukraine for the fourth year, has so far shown little appetite in public for diving into a confrontation with the United States over Iran just as Trump seeks to repair ties with Moscow.
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Israel-Iran war and threats of regime change
The US attack on Iran's three nuclear facilities – Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan – has escalated tensions in the ongoing Israel-Iran war, mounting fears of a wider regional conflagration as Iran weighs its military options for retaliation. Adding to the volatility of the situation, President Donald Trump has hinted at the possibility of regime change in Iran. Since the early morning surprise attacks by Israel on June 13 on military and nuclear targets across Iran, the two longtime foes have been attacking each other using air force, UAVs and ballistic missiles. The tit-for-tat attacks have so far led to serious casualties and injuries in Iran, with reportedly hundreds of deaths, including several high-profile military leaders and nuclear scientists. Israel, too, has reported over 20 deaths and scores of injuries. A large number of civilians have been affected on both sides, with many civilian installations, including energy infrastructure, ports, media houses and hospitals being hit by both sides. When Israel started the military attacks against Iran, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that the objective of the operation was to destroy Iran's nuclear programme, which has long been a bone of contention between the two regional powers. Israel has also targeted some of Iran's nuclear sites, such as in Natanz, Fordow and Arak. Meanwhile, Iran has been able to consistently breach the Israeli air defence, causing damages across Israel. As the Israel-Iran conflict continues to escalate, the international discourse has shifted from the Iranian nuclear programme to regime change in Tehran. The issue has gained global attention mainly due to the statements of Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu, who have on several occasions articulated that a regime change in Tehran is the only way to resolve problems facing the region. Israel has for long accused Iran of flaming fires in the region by arming proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian Territories, who have often threatened Israeli security. Israel also suspects Iran of backing Hamas's attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023, that triggered the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip, which has continued for sixteen months now. Israel also views Iran's nuclear programme and its regional military pursuits as an existential threat. Prior to the US joining the war, there have been reports about Arab Gulf countries trying back-channel diplomacy to prevent the expansion. With the US eventually joining the Israeli war against Iran and Trump's hint at regime change in Iran, it might be useful to recall that similar US military endeavours in the past have spelt disaster for West Asia and have proven costly for the US as well. The post-9/11 'war on terror' had led the US to first attack Afghanistan in 2001 and then enter Iraq in 2003. On both occasions, the US military met with early success, removing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and toppling Saddam Hussein in Iraq in quick times. However, the US got embroiled in long wars in both countries with mounting economic and human costs. In the case of Iraq, it finally withdrew its troops in 2011 under the Obama administration, only to be drawn back due to the rise of the Islamic State in the wake of the 2011 Arab Spring. The American intervention in Afghanistan proved costlier, with the exit completed in 2021, only for the Taliban to take back control of the country. More recently, the US-led NATO intervention in Libya in 2011 spelt disaster for the country, with Libya still facing the brunt of a civil war endangering security in North Africa. Nonetheless, the past experiences and the opposition among his support base to the US getting involved in foreign wars couldn't deter Trump. With the US now involved in the war, the region is likely to pay a heavy price. Despite being a weaker military power compared to the US and Israel, Iran is unlikely to capitulate easily. Even in a scenario where the major regime figures perish in the war, the likelihood of the war engulfing the entire Persian Gulf and West Asia region cannot be ruled out, especially as Iran enjoys the support of armed militias in countries like Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon. Moreover, as Iran has shown in its conflict with Israel, it can reach long-distance targets, which means the US bases in the region could come under Iranian attacks. Further, Iran may even target oil and gas installations in the area to disrupt the global energy market and leverage it to its advantage. Iran's Parliament has already approved the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, which can drastically affect the global petroleum supply chain. Additionally, all parties involved will have to pay a huge economic and humanitarian cost if the war is prolonged. Given the above scenario, the regional countries, especially the GCC States, have been forthcoming in expressing their concerns over the possibility of escalation and expansion of the Israel-Iran war. Although none of the regional countries, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and others, have been comfortable with the idea of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, they have maintained that a diplomatic approach might be more fruitful instead of opening a war front. This is mainly because the regional countries are at a critical juncture of their developmental journey, prioritising economic diversification and social opening in preparation for a post-oil future. Peace, stability, and security are prerequisites for them to achieve this. The regional countries, therefore, fear that if the Israel-Iran war spirals into a wider conflict with now the US involved in it, it will push the entire region into instability. What do America's past interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya tell us about the risks in Iran? Can the Israel-Iran conflict be contained, or is a wider West Asian conflagration inevitable? What role, if any, can international diplomacy play in de-escalating the crisis? What are the risks of attacking active nuclear sites like Natanz, Fordow, and Arak? Despite its weaker military capabilities, how is Iran attempting to deter or outmaneuver the U.S.-Israel alliance? Read other articles from the series on Conflicts in West Asia: Conflicts in West Asia: India's trade and diaspora at risk amid prolonged Gaza War Conflicts in West Asia: Implications of escalating Gaza war for India Conflicts in West Asia: Israel-Iran war of abrasion Conflicts in West Asia: A brief history of the Israel-Palestine conflict Conflicts in West Asia: Iraq in disarray Conflicts in West Asia: Israel-Hamas war and the Yemen quagmire Conflicts in West Asia: Kurds and their struggle with statelessness Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X. (The author is an Associate Professor of Middle East studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Views are personal. @MuddassirQuamar ) ... Read More
