Israel hits Iran nuclear facilities, missile factories; Tehran vows revenge
Israel launched widescale strikes against Iran on Friday, saying it targeted nuclear facilities, ballistic missile factories and military commanders and that this was start of a prolonged operation to prevent Tehran from building an atomic weapon.
Calling the offensive "Rising Lion," Israel said it was also targeting Iranian commanders and declared a state of emergency in anticipation of retaliatory missile and drone strikes by Tehran. "We are at a decisive moment in Israel's history," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a recorded video message.
Israel targeted Iranian scientists working on a nuclear bomb, its ballistic missile programme and its Nantanz uranium enrichment facility, in an operation that would continue for days, he said.
Iranian state television reported that Hossein Salami, the chief of the elite Revolutionary Guards corps, had been killed and the unit's headquarters in Tehran had been hit. Several children had been killed in a strike on a residential area in the capital, it said.
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a statement that Israel would receive "a bitter fate for itself".
A witness in Nantanz city said multiple explosions were heard near the facility, and a senior Iranian official told Reuters that the country's leadership was holding a top security meeting.
Iran's state TV said several explosions were heard in Tehran and the country's air defence system was on full alert. It reported that at least two nuclear scientists, Fereydoun Abbasi and Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi were killed in Israeli strikes in Tehran.
Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport was closed until further notice, and Israel's air defence units stood at high alert for possible retaliatory strikes from Iran.
The US said it had no part in the operation, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio adding that Israel acted unilaterally because it believes the operation was necessary for self-defence. "Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region," Rubio said in a statement. "Let me be clear: Iran should not target US interests or personnel," he added.
US and Iranian officials were scheduled to hold a sixth round of talks on Tehran's escalating uranium enrichment programme in Oman on Sunday, according to officials from both countries and their Omani mediators. But the talks have appeared to be deadlocked.
Trump said on Thursday an Israeli strike on Iran "could very well happen" but reiterated his hopes for a peaceful resolution.
US intelligence had indicated that Israel was making preparations for a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, and US officials said on condition of anonymity that Israel could attack in the coming days.
The US military is planning for the full range of contingencies in the Middle East, including the possibility that it might have to help evacuate American civilians, a US official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
3 hours ago
- Arabian Post
India Abstaining During Voting On UN Resolution For Ceasefire In Gaza Is The Lowest Point Of Diplomacy
By Nitya Chakraborty On Thursday June 12, Indian diplomacy under the Prime Minister Narendra Modi reached its lowest ebb when India abstained in the United Nations General Assembly from a vote on a resolution demanding an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The 193 member UN general assembly passed the resolution overwhelmingly with 149 countries in favour, 12 against and 19 countries including India, once the real leader of the global South. India did not support this resolution at a time when Israel is engaged in genocide in Gaza and other areas of Palestine killing even the hungry and sick people who were going for food and medicines to the aid centres. Even the G-7 members excepting the U.S. have strongly spoken against the latest killings by Israel and they all excepting USA voted for the resolution. But India did not, it abstained. The 19 countries who abstained included apart from India, countries like Albania, Cameroon, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Malawi, Panama, South Sudan and Togo. These countries are not significant players in UN. All the leading members of the Global South including BRICS and SCO voted in favour of the resolution. USA and Israel, as usual, voted against the resolution. The Indian abstention from voting in such a critical situation when Israel is in its most aggressive form even without listening to the U.S. President Donald Trump, has triggered a big distrust among the leading members of the developing countries as also the two big powers Russia and China. The next summit of BRICS will be taking place in July this year in Brazil. Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be attending that. Israel's action including its attacks against Iran on June 13 will also be on the agenda. How Can Indian Prime Minister face the other members of the BRICS at the summit on the issue of Israel and Gaza? In the explanation of vote on the resolution titled 'Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations', India's permanent representative to the UN, ambassador Parvathaneni Harish said the resolution comes against the backdrop of worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza.. He then said India is deeply concerned at the deepening humanitarian crisis and condemns the loss of civilian lives but a joint effort should be directed towards bringing the two sides closer. So, India would abstain from the resolution. What an argument under the new normal Modi doctrine? Everyone knows what is the latest attitude of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to any bilateral talks? The immediate need is to save the lives of Gaza people and organize humanitarian aid for sick and hungry. The ceasefire is imperative for that. 149 countries out of the total of 193 members supported the resolution on the basis of this understanding. They wanted to stop the killings with immediate effect. The resolution demanded that Israel, the 'occupying power', immediately end the blockade, open all border crossings and ensure that aid reaches the Palestinian civilian population throughout the Gaza Strip immediately and at scale, in line with its obligations under peace international law and humanitarian principles. It seems that the Narendra Modi government has objection to the term 'occupying power' given to Israel. Even France, Britain are agreeing to this resolution, why not India? The resolution demanded that the parties fully, unconditionally and without delay implement all the provisions of Security Council resolution of June 2024, including an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages, the return of the remains of hostages who have been killed, the exchange of Palestinian prisoners, the return of Palestinian civilians to their homes and neighbourhoods in the Gaza Strip and the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip. The UNGA vote came after the 15-nation Security Council failed to adopt a similar resolution last week after the sole veto by permanent member the United States. For the active members like South Africa and Brazil, there was no other way but to organize a fresh resolution for voting in the UN general assembly where the resolution is decided by voting and no veto power is allowed. On Thursday, the draft resolution was moved by Spain which is a member of the European Union. Prime Minister Sanchez belongs to the socialist part of the coalition and Deputy Prime Minister is Yolanda Diaz, a prominent leader of the Communist Party of Spain.. Spain could organize most members of the European Union in favour of the Resolution. The latest Israeli attack on Iran on Friday and the possibility of the war spreading with serious implications for the Middle East as also global peace poses another challenge to the Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The PM has cultivated special relations with Israel while Iran is very crucial from India's geopolitical strategy. It will be another big challenge to PM's diplomatic acumen. (IPA Service)
Middle East Eye
5 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
These questions are often ignored in the Israel-Iran story. We asked a panel of experts
Israel's attacks on Iran on Friday and the killing of several high-level figures in its military and science sectors have roiled the region. Tensions between the two nations are well-documented and longstanding, and both the US and Israel have carried out attacks like this, albeit on a smaller scale, on other prominent Iranian figures in the past. But why does this keep happening, and how is the US trying to distance itself from it? Can Israel go this far without expecting its own officials to be targeted? And exactly how dangerous is it to strike nuclear facilities on either side? Middle East Eye put the lesser-asked questions to five experts on international relations, conflict, nuclear proliferation, and the region at large. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Here is what they said, edited for length and clarity. If the US was informed ahead of time and also supplied weapons to Israel, how can Secretary of State Marco Rubio say the US was not involved? Jamal Abdi, President, National Iranian American Council: "This is about creating a narrative of plausible deniability to potentially give Iran a face-saving way to continue talking to the United States [towards a new nuclear deal]. I don't think it's going to work, and I think Trump has already stepped all over that by now, basically taking credit, after seeming to distance the US." Anthony Wanis-St John, conflict resolution specialist, American University: "It's a verbal obfuscation. It means that operationally, we didn't support it." Miles Pomper, Senior Fellow, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation: "Because the Russians and the Chinese are affiliated with the Iranians, [the US will] try not to elevate the level to something beyond a regional conflict, to some global conflict." What is the difference between a 'preemptive strike' and a 'preventive strike'. Are they not both acts of war? Wanis-St. John: "These are certainly acts of war. There's no question about it, the Israelis like to call attention and use "preemptive" and "preventive" doctrines in their military strikes, since every country under international laws and norms is allowed to defend itself against aggression, but no country is supposed to lawfully commit aggressions against another country." Sam Ratner, policy director, Win Without War: "'Preemptive strike' does seem to be, from a definitional standpoint, a misnomer from Israel... this is a war of choice from [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu." Pomper: "It's not a preemptive strike, because that would be [like] the Six Day War, where the planes are on the tarmac and about to attack you, and then you hit them. 'Preventive' is a stop to a long-term threat to Israel. And you know the Iranians aren't shy about threatening." Negar Mortazavi, host of the Iran Podcast: "If it's not [couched as] preemptive, then it will be seen differently both from the public opinion and the global opinion... and we know that Israel cares a lot about its image, about its standing in the international community, and that has deteriorated very fast [since its war on Gaza]." The international community has long tolerated, and sometimes cheered on, Israel's string of extra-judicial assassinations. Why? Abdi: "Israel has a lot of political power and very important friends, most importantly, the United States." Mortazavi: "Powerful western countries have provided not just financial and armed support, but also diplomatic support and cover to Israel in the UN Security Council... the contradiction - or in a way, that oxymoron - that Israel is dealing with, is that they're a country that came out of the United Nations [in 1948]." Ratner: "In the post-9/11 era in particular, we've seen not just from the Israeli government, but from Iranian governments, including our own, in fact, and in particular our own, a real sort of generational change of attitude toward the use of assassination. We see it in our drone programme. The erosion of the norm against assassination is bad for diplomacy, bad for international relations, and bad for peace." Looking at the nature of Israel's attacks, can Iran retaliate in the same way? Wanis-St John: "I'm not sure that they can, operationally. I've never seen Iran do that against Israel.... you really need a lot of information about where [targets] are and where they're moving and how they're protected at night. That requires a lot of infrastructure. I'm not sure that the Iranians have that." Abdi: "If we're saying there are no laws, there is no accountability, you can conduct extra-judicial killings with impunity, then it would seem that would no longer restrain any actor from engaging in the same types of activities. But we know that that's not how the world works, and that certain countries have been given a carte blanche to do whatever they want." Mortazavi: "The condemnation would be so different... imagine if the same was done by Iran. Israeli officials also have homes and families." Why can't Iran have a nuclear bomb if Israel does? Mortazavi: "Iran is a signatory to the NPT, the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They have committed to not building nuclear weapons [and] they have a civilian programme. According to US intelligence, they don't have a weapons programme. At the same time, Israel has an undeclared weapons programme [and] many nuclear warheads. They're not a signatory to any international monitoring and safeguards." Ratner: "Our position on this is that we are opposed to nuclear proliferation and [in favour of] nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons are unimaginably destructive forces, and the more hands those weapons are in, the more likely that nuclear warfare becomes. If we add another country to the nuclear club, how many more countries will join?" Abdi: "Iran has threatened before that if something like [Friday's attacks] happened, they would abandon the NPT, and then there would be no international law saying they're not allowed to build nuclear weapons. They could do what Israel did, and develop a clandestine programme, and not be held accountable to any treaties or agreements or anything, and it's just the law of the jungle, and everybody gets a nuke." Israel has always said it wants to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Isn't that dangerous? Pomper: "I think, as opposed to attacking a nuclear power plant that's got actual radioactive material, like Zaporizhzhia in Ukraine, it's different... You don't have that kind of concentration. And so you may have environmental and other damages, but you're not likely to get a widespread radiation danger from it." Wanis-St John: "They shouldn't really be targeted if they're not military programmes. No one has said that the Iranians are building a nuclear weapon at this time. They don't claim to be making one, and nobody on the outside claims that they are making one... The Israeli attack is really meant to send them a signal that any progress towards weapons-grade enrichment is not going to be tolerated by Israel." Ratner: "The bigger concern... is that Iran has made clear statements and threats that if the Israeli government strikes its nuclear facilities, that it will respond by striking US targets in the region. And what we see from Benjamin Netanyahu is a desire for exactly that to happen. His interest is in starting a chain of events that drags the US into war on his side, because the Israeli military would have a very difficult time pursuing regime change in Iran on its own."
Middle East Eye
5 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Exclusive: US quietly sent hundreds of Hellfire missiles to Israel before Iran attack
The US quietly delivered hundreds of Hellfire missiles to Israel before its unprecedented attack on Iran on Friday, Middle East Eye can reveal. The US sent around 300 Hellfire missiles to Israel on Tuesday in a large-scale stock-up of supplies before its attack, and as the Trump administration was saying it was ready to continue engaging Iran in nuclear talks. The transfer of such a large quantity of Hellfires suggests that the Trump administration was well-informed of Israel's plans to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran, two US officials told MEE on the condition of anonymity. The US's delivery of Hellfires or other large quantities of weapons in the lead up to Friday's attack has not been previously reported. The US military helped shoot down Iranian missiles that were headed towards Israel, two US officials told Reuters on Friday. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Hellfires are laser-guided air-to-ground missiles. They would not be useful for Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, but for precision strikes. Israel's military used more than 100 aircraft in its attack on Friday, which used precision tracking to target senior military officials, nuclear scientists, and command centres. 'There is a time and place for Hellfires. They were useful to Israel,' one senior US defence official told MEE. Israel killed scores of senior Iranian officials and nuclear scientists on Friday. Whether with a green light or grudging acceptance, Trump enters war with Iran Read More » The dead include: the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Major General Hossein Salami; Major General Mohammad Bagheri, the chief of staff of Iran's armed forces; and Ali Shamkhani, a close aide to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Trump administration knew about Israel's attack plans for months. MEE revealed earlier this month that the CIA was briefed in April and May on Israeli plans to unilaterally attack Iran's nuclear sites. Israel's Target Systems Analysis and battle plan for cyberattacks combined with precision strikes without any direct US involvement 'impressed' the administration. But Trump's behaviour in recent months gave observers, and potentially the Iranians, the impression that he would continue to resist Netanyahu's very public lobbying to go along with strikes. Axios reported on Friday, citing two Israeli officials, that the Trump administration was only 'pretending' to resist Israel's attack plans, but privately did not resist them. Trump has since framed his approach as saying that he gave Iran a 60-day window to agree to a new nuclear agreement with his administration before launching strikes. Israeli media reported the 60-day deadline in March 2025. The Trump administration began talks with Iran on 12 April 2025, and the Israeli attack took place exactly 61 days later. The talks in recent weeks hit a wall over the US's insistence that Iran agree not to enrich any uranium, while Tehran said that preserving its right to a low level of enrichment was a red line. Throughout the negotiations, the Trump administration continued a steady supply of arms and weapons to Israel in recent months, two US officials told MEE. The US did not have to provide public notification of the transfer because it was already approved as part of a $7.4bn arms deal that included bombs, missiles, and related equipment that Congress was notified of in February 2025.
