'Pakistan will attack Israel with nuclear missile': Top Iranian official; can Shaheen-3 reach Tel Aviv?
"Pakistan has told us that if Israel uses nuclear missiles, we will also attack it with nuclear weapons," Rezaei said during an interview on Iranian state television.
Pakistan's Shaheen-3 missile can strike targets as far as 2,700 kilometers, giving Pakistan the capability to target any region in Israel. Its deployment has not been commented by the Pakistani military but Shaheen-III is currently deemed as operational in the strategic command of Pakistan army.
However, despite Pakistan's strong verbal support for Iran amid Israeli attacks, no official Pakistani statement has confirmed any intent to use nuclear weapons against Israel.
Rezaei also mentioned that Iran possesses undisclosed tactics and capabilities yet to be revealed.
Pakistan's firm support for Iran
Pakistan has expressed firm solidarity with Iran following Israeli attacks.
Pakistan's defense minister Khawaja Asif, speaking in the National Assembly on June 14, called for Muslim nations to unite against Israel, warning that Israel's aggression targets not only Iran but also Yemen and Palestine, and that failure to unite would leave all Muslim countries vulnerable to similar attacks.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Вы забудете о боли в суставах благодаря этим простым способам!
Здоровые Суставы
Undo
He urged Muslim countries maintaining diplomatic ties with Israel to sever them immediately and called on the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to convene and devise a joint strategy.
Asif emphasized Pakistan's deep ties with Iran and pledged support for Tehran at all international forums to protect its interests.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also reaffirmed Pakistan's solidarity with Iran in a phone call with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, condemning Israel's attacks as violations of Iran's sovereignty and a threat to regional and global peace. He urged the international community and the United Nations to take urgent action to halt Israel's aggression and reiterated Pakistan's commitment to promoting peace in the region.
Meanwhile, Israeli airstrikes have targeted Iranian nuclear and military facilities, prompting retaliatory missile strikes from Iran. Casualties have been reported on both sides amid ongoing hostilities
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
7 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Trump administration wants to end U.N. peacekeeping in Lebanon; Europe pushing back
The future of U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon has split the United States and its European allies, raising implications for security in the Middle East and becoming the latest snag to vex relations between the U.S. and key partners like France, Britain and Italy. At issue is the peacekeeping operation known as UNIFIL, whose mandate expires at the end of August and will need to be renewed by the U.N. Security Council to continue. It was created to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon after Israel's 1978 invasion, and its mission was expanded following the month-long 2006 war between Israel and the militant group Hezbollah. The multinational force has played a significant role in monitoring the security situation in southern Lebanon for decades, including during the Israel-Hezbollah war last year, but has drawn criticism from both sides and numerous U.S. lawmakers, some of whom now hold prominent roles in President Donald Trump's administration or wield new influence with the White House. Trump administration political appointees came into office this year with the aim of shutting down UNIFIL as soon as possible. They regard the operation as an ineffectual waste of money that is merely delaying the goal of eliminating Hezbollah's influence and restoring full security control to the Lebanese Armed Forces that the government says it is not yet capable of doing. After securing major cuts in U.S. funding to the peacekeeping force, Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed off early last week on a plan that would wind down and end UNIFIL in the next six months, according to Trump administration officials and congressional aides familiar with the discussions. It's another step as the Trump administration drastically pares back its foreign affairs priorities and budget, including expressing scepticism of international alliances and cutting funding to U.N. agencies and missions. The transatlantic divide also has been apparent on issues ranging from Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza and the Russia-Ukraine conflict to trade, technology and free speech issues. Europeans push back against a quick end to U.N. peacekeeping in Lebanon Israel has for years sought an end to UNIFIL's mandate, and renewal votes have often come after weeks of political wrangling. Now, the stakes are particularly high after last year's war and more vigorous opposition in Washington. European nations, notably France and Italy, have objected to winding down UNIFIL. With the support of Tom Barrack, U.S. ambassador to Turkiye and envoy to Lebanon, they successfully lobbied Rubio and others to support a one-year extension of the peacekeeping mandate followed by a time-certain wind-down period of six months, according to the administration officials and congressional aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private diplomatic negotiations. Israel also reluctantly agreed to an extension, they said. The European argument was that prematurely ending UNIFIL before the Lebanese army is able to fully secure the border area would create a vacuum that Hezbollah could easily exploit. The French noted that when a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Mali was terminated before government troops were ready to deal with security threats, Islamic extremists moved in. With the U.S. easing off, the issue ahead of the U.N. vote expected at the end of August now appears to be resistance by France and others to setting a firm deadline for the operation to end after the one-year extension, according to the officials and congressional aides. French officials did not respond to requests for comment The final French draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, does not include a date for UNIFIL's withdrawal, which U.S. officials say is required for their support. Instead, it would extend the peacekeeping mission for one year and indicates the U.N. Security Council's 'intention to work on a withdrawal.' But even if the mandate is renewed, the peacekeeping mission might be scaled down for financial reasons, with the U.N. system likely facing drastic budget cuts, said a U.N. official, who was not authorised to comment to the media and spoke on condition of anonymity. One of the U.S. officials said an option being considered was reducing UNIFIL's numbers while boosting its technological means to monitor the situation on the ground. The peacekeeping force has faced criticism There are about 10,000 peacekeepers in southern Lebanon, while the Lebanese army has around 6,000 soldiers, a number that is supposed to increase to 10,000. Hezbollah supporters in Lebanon have frequently accused the U.N. mission of collusion with Israel and sometimes attacked peacekeepers on patrol. Israel, meanwhile, has accused the peacekeepers of turning a blind eye to Hezbollah's military activities in southern Lebanon and lobbied for its mandate to end. Sarit Zehavi, a former Israeli military intelligence analyst and founder of the Israeli think tank Alma Research and Education Center, said UNIFIL has played a 'damaging role with regard to the mission of disarming Hezbollah in south Lebanon.' She pointed to the discovery of Hezbollah tunnels and weapons caches close to UNIFIL facilities during and after last year's Israel-Hezbollah war, when much of the militant group's senior leadership was killed and much of its arsenal destroyed. Hezbollah is now under increasing pressure to give up the rest of its weapons. U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said UNIFIL continues to discover unauthorised weapons, including rocket launchers, mortar rounds and bomb fuses, this week, which it reported to the Lebanese army. Under the U.S.- and France-brokered ceasefire, Israel and Hezbollah were to withdraw from southern Lebanon, with the Lebanese army taking control in conjunction with UNIFIL. Israel has continued to occupy five strategic points on the Lebanese side and carry out near-daily airstrikes that it says aim to stop Hezbollah from regrouping. Lebanon supports keeping U.N. peacekeepers Lebanese officials have called for UNIFIL to remain, saying the country's cash-strapped and overstretched army is not yet able to patrol the full area on its own until it. Retired Lebanese Army Gen. Khalil Helou said that if UNIFIL's mandate were to abruptly end, soldiers would need to be pulled away from the porous border with Syria, where smuggling is rife, or from other areas inside of Lebanon — 'and this could have consequences for the stability' of the country. UNIFIL 'is maybe not fulfilling 100% what the Western powers or Israel desire. But for Lebanon, their presence is important,' he said. The United Nations also calls the peacekeepers critical to regional stability, Mr. Dujarric said. UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti said deciding on the renewal of the mandate is the prerogative of the U.N. Security Council. 'We are here to assist the parties in implementation of the mission's mandate and we're waiting for the final decision,' he said.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
7 minutes ago
- First Post
Pakistan's war on women: Honour killings expose a nation built on misogyny
For countless women, Pakistan is no longer a country to live in, but a graveyard that buries their voices, their dignity, and their very existence Every year, between 300 and 1,000 women are executed by their own families in Pakistan under the pretext of honour. Image: X/@iMaryammm The recent brutal murders of Arak and Sheetal are not isolated tragedies; they are the latest entries in Pakistan's long catalogue of bloodletting carried out in the name of honour. While governments in Islamabad posture about morality and sovereignty, the reality is this: Pakistan has become a slaughterhouse for women, where patriarchal violence is not only tolerated but embedded in the fabric of society and shielded by state institutions. Every year, between 300 and 1,000 women are executed by their own families in Pakistan under the pretext of honour. These are not crimes of passion; they are premeditated executions. And they happen with such frequency, such brazenness, that they expose Pakistan for what it is: a state incapable of protecting half its population and unwilling to confront the barbarity it shelters. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The killings of Arak and Sheetal are horrifying, but they are also predictable. They happened in a country where misogyny is weaponized, where women who dare to love, marry, or simply make choices of their own are punished with death. Pakistan has normalized this slaughter to such an extent that it barely registers as shocking anymore inside its borders. Instead, honour killings are treated as 'family matters,' excused by police, and whitewashed by local media using euphemisms like 'tragedy' or 'dispute.' Murder is softened into culture. Violence is disguised as tradition. Pakistan likes to paint itself as a victim on the world stage, forever crying about conspiracies from India, America, or foreign lobbies. But the real enemy of Pakistan is Pakistan itself. No outside force orders fathers, brothers, or husbands to strangle, burn, or shoot their daughters and sisters. No foreign conspiracy instructs police to look the other way, or courts to allow murderers to walk free under so-called forgiveness laws. These are Pakistani crimes, born of Pakistani traditions, sanctioned by Pakistani cowardice. The much-celebrated 2016 legal reforms supposedly 'closed loopholes' that allowed killers to escape punishment. Yet years later, nothing has changed. Families still shield perpetrators. Jirgas and tribal councils still bless honour killings as acceptable justice. Politicians still play to the misogynistic gallery, afraid to challenge the same patriarchal structures that keep them in power. Laws in Pakistan are theatre; the stage props look modern, but the blood on the floor is real. Murder Disguised as Tradition The deaths of Arak and Sheetal make clear what Pakistan's rulers refuse to admit: women in this country live in a permanent state of siege. Their bodies are not their own. Their choices are treated as threats. Their existence is conditional upon obedience to a code that sees them as property. To step outside that line is to sign one's own death warrant. And when that death comes, the killers are rarely punished. Pakistan's honour killing crisis is not a side issue or a cultural quirk. It is central to how the state operates—through fear, violence, and the crushing of dissent, whether political or personal. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Just as Baloch voices are silenced by enforced disappearances, just as journalists are intimidated into submission, women are murdered to enforce obedience. Honour killings are not random crimes but instruments of control. Yet Pakistan has the audacity to call itself a democracy, a land of values, a country of pride. Where is the pride in the corpses of women dumped in shallow graves? Where is the honour in strangling daughters because they chose whom to love? Where is the morality in a state that passes laws it never enforces, that pretends progress while presiding over medieval brutality? A Graveyard for Women The truth is harsh but undeniable: Pakistan is not merely failing its women—it is destroying them. A nation where hundreds of women are killed every year with impunity cannot be called a civilised state. It is a patriarchal fortress built on blood and silence. And yet, Pakistan's rulers still try to deceive the world. They hold up reforms, quote statistics selectively, and tell the international community that things are improving. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Meanwhile, women like Arak and Sheetal are being executed behind closed doors. For every case that surfaces in the media, dozens more are buried, literally and figuratively, in the darkness of rural villages or urban slums. The global community must stop indulging Pakistan's excuses. Enough of the handshakes, the aid packages, the polite acceptance of empty promises. Every dollar given to Islamabad, every speech that praises its progress, is complicity in this violence. Arak and Sheetal will soon be replaced by other names—different women, same story. The killings will go on. The police will shrug. The politicians will preen. The mullahs will remain silent. And Pakistan will continue to bleed its daughters, one by one, while claiming to defend honour. But there is no honour in murder. There is only shame, and it belongs entirely to Pakistan. Pakistan has reached its lowest depths. A state that cannot protect its women inside their own homes offers them no place of safety anywhere. In this land, every wall becomes a prison, and every street a threat. For countless women, Pakistan is no longer a country to live in, but a graveyard that buries their voices, their dignity, and their very existence. As the late scholar Nawal El Saadawi once said, 'The home, the family, and the state are often the most dangerous places for women.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Nowhere does that ring truer than in Pakistan. Tehmeena Rizvi is a Policy Analyst and PhD scholar at Bennett University. Her areas of work include Women, Peace, and Security (South Asia), focusing on the intersection of gender, conflict, and religion, with a research emphasis on the Kashmir region, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Hans India
7 minutes ago
- Hans India
Political Storm Erupts Over Chidambaram's Comments On Pahalgam Terror Attack Origins
Senior Congress politician P Chidambaram found himself at the center of a heated political controversy on Monday after defending his recent statements about the Pahalgam terror incident, which he claimed were being deliberately distorted through a coordinated misinformation effort. The veteran leader pushed back against accusations from the Bharatiya Janata Party, who alleged he was providing unwarranted support to Pakistan's position on terrorism. In a social media post on X, Chidambaram expressed frustration over what he described as selective editing and misrepresentation of his comments from a recent television interview. He criticized those spreading misinformation as the "worst kind" of trolls who deliberately suppress complete recorded interviews, extract isolated sentences, silence specific words, and present speakers in a negative light to serve their political agenda. The political firestorm began following Chidambaram's interview with The Quint, where he raised questions about the government's assertions linking Pakistan to the devastating April 22 attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam region. The assault resulted in 26 fatalities, with the majority being innocent civilians caught in the violence. During the interview, Chidambaram challenged the official narrative by questioning whether authorities had successfully identified the perpetrators or determined their origins. He suggested that the attackers could potentially be domestic terrorists rather than foreign infiltrators, emphasizing the absence of concrete evidence supporting claims of Pakistani involvement in the deadly incident. The BJP responded with fierce criticism, accusing the opposition Congress party of compromising national security interests and aligning with Pakistan's official stance on terrorism. Party officials characterized Chidambaram's remarks as providing undeserved legitimacy to Pakistan's denials of involvement in cross-border terrorism. Amit Malviya, who leads the BJP's information technology cell, used social media to condemn what he viewed as Congress's pattern of defending Pakistan following terrorist attacks. He questioned why Congress leaders consistently appeared to advocate for Pakistan's position rather than supporting India's security forces in their fight against state-sponsored terrorism. The criticism intensified when BJP Member of Parliament Nishikant Dubey escalated the rhetoric by labeling the entire Congress organization as traitorous. Speaking to the ANI news agency, Dubey referenced various allegations against Congress leadership, including claims about Rahul Gandhi's interactions with China's Communist Party and unsubstantiated corruption charges, while praising Prime Minister Modi's leadership as an obstacle to what he characterized as Congress's anti-national agenda. Another BJP parliamentarian, Deepak Prakash, echoed similar accusations, claiming that Congress was aligning itself with those who oppose India's interests and warning that the Indian population would never forgive political leaders who undermined national security. Several prominent Congress representatives rallied to defend Chidambaram against the mounting criticism, arguing that the BJP was attempting to deflect attention from its own shortcomings in addressing terrorism effectively. They characterized the attacks on Chidambaram as a deliberate diversionary strategy designed to avoid accountability for security failures. Congress MP Manickam Tagore specifically pointed to what he described as the BJP's failure to properly execute Operation Sindoor, suggesting that the governing party was using the controversy to distract from more substantive issues surrounding the Pahalgam attack and the government's counter-terrorism efforts. He emphasized Congress's unwavering support for India's armed forces in their ongoing battle against terrorist threats. Veteran Congress leader Pramod Tiwari raised pointed questions about the investigation's progress, highlighting that three months after the attack, the perpetrators remained unidentified. He questioned the government's effectiveness in tracking down those responsible for killing what he described as the husbands of 26 women, criticizing the administration's handling of the security situation in Kashmir as potentially harmful to national interests. The controversy also drew commentary from outside the Congress-BJP divide, with Shiv Sena (UBT) Member of Parliament Priyanka Chaturvedi offering criticism of Chidambaram's position. Drawing on his extensive experience as a former Home Minister and cabinet member in multiple portfolios, she argued that his comments were inappropriate given the well-established pattern of Pakistani involvement in similar attacks over several decades. Chaturvedi referenced the initial claim of responsibility by The Resistance Front (TRF), which was subsequently withdrawn, and noted Pakistan's advocacy for such groups in international forums like the United Nations as clear evidence of the source of terrorist threats facing India. She maintained that the origins of such attacks should be obvious given historical patterns and Pakistan's documented support for militant organizations operating in the region. The debate reflects broader tensions over how political parties approach discussions of national security and terrorism, with opposition parties seeking to hold the government accountable for security failures while governing parties demand unity in facing external threats. The controversy also highlights the challenges of maintaining productive political discourse on sensitive security matters without compromising either democratic debate or national solidarity in confronting terrorism. As the political storm continues, both sides appear entrenched in their positions, with Congress defending its right to question government claims and demand accountability, while the BJP maintains that such questioning undermines national security and provides comfort to hostile foreign actors. The resolution of this controversy may depend on whether new evidence emerges regarding the Pahalgam attack or whether political attention shifts to other pressing national issues.
