Three Muslim countries will become the cause of Iran's destruction, 40000 US soldiers on alert in…, Trump in fear of…, the countries are...
Iran's missiles reaching over 2,300 km to hit Israel in just minutes because… technology behind it is…
Tehran: The conflict between Iran and Israel entered its seventh day on Friday, the world's eyes are fixed on the United States as it has indicated to join the war. Meanwhile, Iran has threatened that it will not back down from targeting American bases in West Asia. Tehran has already shown its strength by launching its lethal missiles on major cities of Israel. Now, the question arises that if US jumps into the war and support Tel Aviv, how would Tehran retaliate?
As per a report by The Guardian, after Donald Trump approved the plans to attack Iran, the US defence department is considering the ways to attack the Middle East country. Amidst the tension, America has deployed its 40,000 soldiers in the Gulf region, including UAE, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, on high alert. Iran Has Options
It is worth noting that, Tehran has several options to retaliate against US and missile attack is the most prominent among them. Tehran has several lethal ballistic missies and it has already shown its might by firing hundreds of ballistic missiles on Israel. According to US intelligence officials, these missile attacks can be carried out by Iran on American military bases in Arab countries.
America has at least 20 military bases in West Asia and surrounding regions, most of which fall within the range of 2,000 kms of Iran's Sejjil-2 ballistic missile. In such a scenario, expert believe that the US bases in Iraq and Syria will be the first target and after than Tehran may attack bases located in Arab countries. Attack At Sea
Notably, the US has stationed two large aircraft carriers in West Asia and the third war ship is on its way. Iran can also target these ships. The Strait of Hormuz, which is located between the Arabian Peninsula and the western shore of the Persian Gulf, is the place where Iran can show its strength there.
The recent attacks on Israel have shown that how difficult it is to stop Iran's ballistic missiles. In such a situation, the US has started deploying its Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defence in West Asia to stop these lethal ballistic missiles. The Pantagon has deployed its patriot batteries in OIraq
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
Banks are financing their own multitrillion-dollar nightmare
If you come home early from vacation and find robbers ransacking your house, you could call the police and try to stop the crime. But the true alpha move would be to help the robbers load your valuables onto the truck and then tell them which of your neighbors are also on vacation in exchange for a cut of the profits. Banks are choosing the alpha option, basically abetting theft from themselves by backing new projects to extract and burn fossil fuels, thus stoking the planetary heating that stunts economic growth and their own insurance and mortgage businesses. Of course, these financial companies do get a cut of the short-term profits from this environmental sabotage. And by abandoning the pretense of siding with the climate, they avoid political blowback from a US government that has declared war on it. But the long-term result will be a global economy trillions of dollars poorer and far less stable, impoverishing just about everyone, including the banks. The world's 65 biggest banks delivered $869.4 billion in financing to fossil-fuel companies last year, up $162.5 billion from 2023, according to a new report by the Rainforest Action Network, the Sierra Club, and several other nonprofit groups. Banks have funneled $7.9 trillion in loans and underwriting to these polluting industries since the Paris climate accords took effect in 2016, by the report's measure. This doesn't include any investments by banks' asset-management units, which amount to hundreds of billions of dollars more. Bloomberg Last year's financing surge reversed two years of declines and coincided with a turn of political sentiment against 'woke' environmental, social and governance considerations in business. Climate actions drew some of the harshest attacks, with President Donald Trump and other conservatives blaming them for rising energy prices. Such claims helped Trump win a second term. On his first day in office, he declared that his predecessor's foolish concern for the climate had created a 'national energy emergency' that hurt Americans' finances. His prescription has been to attack any public or private activity meant to slow the burning of fossil fuels. Live Events Banks saw the direction that the wind was blowing and quickly changed tack. The biggest immediately quit the Net Zero Banking Alliance, a group that vows to help eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. They claim to still have their own goals for curbing emissions, but they've apparently given up trying to make their actions match their words. To meet the Paris Agreement 's rapidly fading stretch goal of holding global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial averages, energy financing should favor green projects over fossil fuels by a 4-to-1 ratio, according to BloombergNEF. In 2023, the latest data available, the ratio was just 0.89-to-1. Boosting fossil-fuel financing last year probably didn't move that ratio in the right direction. Bloomberg Meanwhile, the economic damage caused by a heating planet keeps mounting. Global climate-related costs — including insured and uninsured losses, government relief spending and higher insurance premiums — have topped $18.5 trillion since January 2000, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated recently. The US alone accounted for $7.7 trillion of the damage, or 36% of its growth in gross domestic product over that stretch. In just the 12 months through April, US climate-related costs totaled nearly $1 trillion, BI said, roughly matching bank financing for fossil fuels during that time. You might argue economic activity is economic activity, that building a house is basically the same as rebuilding a house, that government disaster relief is no different from any other flavor of government spending. But simply responding to disasters again and again is no way to grow an economy. Money spent to rebuild houses, bridges and roads is money not spent on college educations, better infrastructure or other productivity-boosting measures. It steals growth from the future. A National Bureau of Economic Research paper last fall estimated that a planet hotter by 3C — its current trajectory — would have a GDP that was smaller by more than a third. A study last week from the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy found that a complete rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act's climate measures, something Trump and congressional Republicans have been working hard to do, would shave $1.1 trillion from US GDP alone over the next decade. It would also kill 22,800 Americans, take $160 billion from American incomes and cause the average home's energy bill to be $206 higher. Talk about an emergency. But if you need a more immediate climate threat to finance profits to be convinced, you can already see one in the growing crisis in home insurance. Every new wildfire, flood, tornado and hurricane exposes just how underinsured and underprepared Americans are for such disasters, putting possibly $2 trillion in home valuations at risk. Given the political reality, it's understandable for banks to speak softly about protecting the planet and their own future profits. Helping fossil fuels build an even bigger stick with which to beat them makes much less sense.
Economic Times
28 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Banks are financing their own multitrillion-dollar nightmare
Bloomberg Live Events Bloomberg (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel If you come home early from vacation and find robbers ransacking your house, you could call the police and try to stop the crime. But the true alpha move would be to help the robbers load your valuables onto the truck and then tell them which of your neighbors are also on vacation in exchange for a cut of the are choosing the alpha option, basically abetting theft from themselves by backing new projects to extract and burn fossil fuels, thus stoking the planetary heating that stunts economic growth and their own insurance and mortgage businesses. Of course, these financial companies do get a cut of the short-term profits from this environmental sabotage. And by abandoning the pretense of siding with the climate, they avoid political blowback from a US government that has declared war on it. But the long-term result will be a global economy trillions of dollars poorer and far less stable, impoverishing just about everyone, including the world's 65 biggest banks delivered $869.4 billion in financing to fossil-fuel companies last year, up $162.5 billion from 2023, according to a new report by the Rainforest Action Network, the Sierra Club, and several other nonprofit groups. Banks have funneled $7.9 trillion in loans and underwriting to these polluting industries since the Paris climate accords took effect in 2016, by the report's measure. This doesn't include any investments by banks' asset-management units, which amount to hundreds of billions of dollars year's financing surge reversed two years of declines and coincided with a turn of political sentiment against 'woke' environmental, social and governance considerations in business. Climate actions drew some of the harshest attacks, with President Donald Trump and other conservatives blaming them for rising energy prices. Such claims helped Trump win a second term. On his first day in office, he declared that his predecessor's foolish concern for the climate had created a 'national energy emergency' that hurt Americans' finances. His prescription has been to attack any public or private activity meant to slow the burning of fossil saw the direction that the wind was blowing and quickly changed tack. The biggest immediately quit the Net Zero Banking Alliance, a group that vows to help eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. They claim to still have their own goals for curbing emissions, but they've apparently given up trying to make their actions match their meet the Paris Agreement 's rapidly fading stretch goal of holding global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial averages, energy financing should favor green projects over fossil fuels by a 4-to-1 ratio, according to BloombergNEF. In 2023, the latest data available, the ratio was just 0.89-to-1. Boosting fossil-fuel financing last year probably didn't move that ratio in the right the economic damage caused by a heating planet keeps mounting. Global climate-related costs — including insured and uninsured losses, government relief spending and higher insurance premiums — have topped $18.5 trillion since January 2000, Bloomberg Intelligence estimated recently. The US alone accounted for $7.7 trillion of the damage, or 36% of its growth in gross domestic product over that stretch. In just the 12 months through April, US climate-related costs totaled nearly $1 trillion, BI said, roughly matching bank financing for fossil fuels during that might argue economic activity is economic activity, that building a house is basically the same as rebuilding a house, that government disaster relief is no different from any other flavor of government spending. But simply responding to disasters again and again is no way to grow an economy. Money spent to rebuild houses, bridges and roads is money not spent on college educations, better infrastructure or other productivity-boosting measures. It steals growth from the future.A National Bureau of Economic Research paper last fall estimated that a planet hotter by 3C — its current trajectory — would have a GDP that was smaller by more than a third. A study last week from the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy found that a complete rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act's climate measures, something Trump and congressional Republicans have been working hard to do, would shave $1.1 trillion from US GDP alone over the next decade. It would also kill 22,800 Americans, take $160 billion from American incomes and cause the average home's energy bill to be $206 higher. Talk about an if you need a more immediate climate threat to finance profits to be convinced, you can already see one in the growing crisis in home insurance. Every new wildfire, flood, tornado and hurricane exposes just how underinsured and underprepared Americans are for such disasters, putting possibly $2 trillion in home valuations at the political reality, it's understandable for banks to speak softly about protecting the planet and their own future profits. Helping fossil fuels build an even bigger stick with which to beat them makes much less sense.
Time of India
31 minutes ago
- Time of India
From Holocaust to Hydrogen: How Israel become a 'nuclear power'; with help from America
In the deserts of southern Israel, tucked away near the town of Dimona, lies one of the world's worst-kept secrets—an undeclared nuclear weapons program that has shaped Middle Eastern geopolitics for over half a century. I srael neither confirms nor denies its nuclear arsenal. It has never conducted a public test, never declared its warheads, and has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Yet among world capitals, intelligence agencies, and military strategists, it is taken as a given: Israel has the bomb. And in a region where tensions simmer perennially, that fact continues to cast a long and powerful shadow. This is the story of how Israel built its nuclear capability—quietly, cleverly, and far from the spotlight—and how it has maintained an aura of ambiguity while standing alone as the Middle East 's sole nuclear-armed state. From Holocaust to Hydrogen: The Origins A desolate landscape embodies the potential devastation of nuclear conflict, with symbolic representations of Israel and Iran clashing in the background. The seeds of Israel's nuclear ambition were sown not just in the sands of the Negev desert, but in the ashes of Europe. For David Ben-Gurion and the architects of the fledgling Israeli state, nuclear weapons represented more than deterrence—they were survival. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Esse novo alarme com câmera é quase gratuito em Nova Iguaçu (consulte o preço) Alarmes Undo By the early 1950s, Israel had established the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, and began exploring uranium deposits in the Negev. But it was the secret alliance with France that truly turbocharged the program. In the aftermath of the 1956 Suez Crisis, Paris and Tel Aviv grew closer, and in this strategic intimacy, France agreed to help Israel build a heavy-water reactor at Dimona. Officially described as a textile plant, the Dimona facility was built with French blueprints, French technicians, and French nuclear expertise. At its core was a heavy-water reactor capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium—a clear sign that this was no energy programme. By the mid-1960s, Israel had reportedly produced enough fissile material for its first nuclear weapon. And by the time the world began to take notice, the programme was already well advanced. American Winks and European Loopholes The United States—Israel's most important strategic partner—was not unaware of what was happening in Dimona. By the early 1960s, American intelligence had raised red flags. But successive US presidents, from Kennedy to Johnson and beyond, ultimately chose quiet diplomacy over confrontation. While Washington occasionally pressured Israel to sign the NPT or submit Dimona to international inspections, these efforts were largely symbolic. Israel would allow U.S. inspectors periodic access—but only to non-sensitive areas, and often with time to prepare. The reactor's most secretive components, including the underground plutonium reprocessing plant, remained off-limits. Meanwhile, European countries played their part—sometimes knowingly, sometimes not. Norway and the UK provided heavy water. Argentina and South Africa, at various points, supplied uranium. And in the shadows, Israeli operatives ensured the procurement of sensitive technologies by any means necessary. Operation Secrecy: Mossad's Global Shopping List Israel's nuclear success didn't come from laboratories alone—it came from suitcases, ships, and subterfuge. In one of the most daring and little-known operations, Israeli agents orchestrated a covert mission to obtain 200 tonnes of uranium yellowcake from Europe. Disguised as a shipment of lead, the cargo was rerouted under the cover of night onto an Israeli vessel and quietly spirited to the Middle East. This was just one of many such missions. Over the years, Israeli intelligence—particularly the secretive units responsible for scientific and technological collection—secured blueprints for centrifuges, acquired materials under false company names, and built an informal global network of suppliers, sympathisers, and strategic traders. Israeli agents also worked hard to keep the lid on the programme. When Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at Dimona, leaked photographs and details of the weapons programme to the British press in 1986, Mossad lured him to Rome, kidnapped him, and brought him back to Israel, where he was tried and imprisoned for 18 years. A Doctrine of Silence: The Policy of Ambiguity Israel's nuclear posture is defined by one of the most unique doctrines in modern defence: deliberate ambiguity. Israeli leaders have consistently refused to confirm or deny the existence of nuclear weapons. The official line—repeated by every prime minister—is that Israel 'will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East.' The sentence is a masterpiece of political sleight of hand: vague enough to deflect, but strong enough to deter. This policy has allowed Israel to maintain its strategic deterrent without the diplomatic backlash that might follow an open declaration. It sidesteps international condemnation, avoids sanctions, and denies adversaries the ability to point to a formal arsenal. But ambiguity does not mean invisibility. Satellite images, intelligence leaks, and decades of analysis have made it clear that Israel possesses an advanced arsenal—reportedly including not just gravity bombs, but missile-mounted warheads and possibly submarine-based second-strike capabilities. A Regional Monopoly Israel stands alone in the Middle East as the only country believed to have nuclear weapons. Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Iran have all explored nuclear options at different times—some more aggressively than others—but none have succeeded in acquiring a bomb. Why has Israel succeeded where others have not? The answer lies in timing, alliances, and intelligence. Israel's nuclear development began before the NPT was established in 1968, and it refused to join the treaty, thus avoiding its restrictions. Meanwhile, strong relationships with Western countries—especially the U.S. and France—provided cover and cooperation at critical junctures. Other regional players were not so lucky. Iraq's reactor at Osirak was bombed by Israel in 1981. Syria's nascent programme met the same fate in 2007. Iran has faced years of sanctions, sabotage, and diplomatic isolation for its nuclear ambitions—partly because it is an NPT signatory and therefore subject to inspections and compliance. This disparity has become a lightning rod for criticism across the Arab world. Why, many ask, is one country allowed to operate outside the global non-proliferation regime while others are punished for even exploring nuclear technology? The Geopolitical Fallout Israel's nuclear monopoly has had profound strategic consequences. On one hand, it has likely deterred major conventional wars. During the Cold War and beyond, neighbouring states knew that Israel possessed a last-resort option. Some analysts argue that this 'Samson Option'—the ability to bring down regional enemies in the event of an existential threat—has preserved a tenuous peace. On the other hand, Israel's opacity has created deep resentment. It has made negotiations around a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East virtually impossible. Arab states have long demanded that Israel disarm or at least declare its arsenal. Israel counters that peace and recognition must come first. The unresolved nuclear imbalance also complicates efforts to curb Iran's programme. Tehran routinely points to Israel's undeclared arsenal as evidence of Western double standards. Until this asymmetry is addressed—or at least acknowledged—diplomacy in the region will always be fraught. The Future of the Arsenal Israel's nuclear weapons have never been used, and many hope they never will be. But as regional threats evolve—from Iranian missiles to non-state actors and cyber warfare—the rationale for retaining a nuclear deterrent remains deeply embedded in Israeli defence thinking. In recent years, Israel has focused less on expansion and more on survivability. Submarine-based platforms suggest a move towards second-strike capability. Missile defence systems like Iron Dome and Arrow complement the nuclear umbrella with layered deterrence. But there is also growing international pressure for transparency. As the global non-proliferation regime is tested by North Korea's defiance and Iran's ambitions, calls for Israel to 'come clean' grow louder. So far, they have fallen on deliberately deaf ears. A Strategic Silence That Roars Israel's nuclear program is the paradox at the heart of Middle East security: an arsenal that officially doesn't exist, protected by silence, sustained by history, and tolerated by allies who know better. It began in secrecy, survived by deception, and now endures by design. While the rest of the world debates inspections, treaties, and transparency, Israel's greatest nuclear weapon may not be a warhead—but its policy of never saying anything at all. In the Middle East, where everything is personal, tribal, historical, and existential, Israel's nuclear silence remains the loudest sound in the room.
