Netanyahu will obliterate Iran's nuke empire on his own terms – and could snub Trump in final plan to cement legacy
An IDF source told The Sun they had worked for months to clear the path for a major strike on Iran
ENEMY NUMBER ONE Netanyahu will obliterate Iran's nuke empire on his own terms – and could snub Trump in final plan to cement legacy
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
BENJAMIN Netanyahu is plotting to bomb Iran as it is his "main goal for his legacy" to destroy its nuclear scheme, his ex-advisor said.
But government insiders in Europe have echoed Donald Trump's warning not to undermine talks with Tehran and strike without US backing.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
7
Iran test fires a long-range S-200 missile in the port city of Bushehr
Credit: AP
7
Benjamin Netanyahu, pictured in Jerusalem last week, wants to blitz Iran
Credit: AP
7
It comes as the UN's nuclear watchdog revealed that Iran has secretly amassed near weapons-grade levels of uranium and could soon have enough for nine bombs.
Israeli PM Netanyahu has been making preparations behind the scenes to swiftly blitz Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities as he deems the country "enemy number one".
Trump, however, has firmly insisted Israel take no action that could jeopardise his administration's efforts to thrash out a deal with Iran.
It culminated in a heated phone call this week between the leaders as they continue to clash on how to curb Tehran's nuke programme, sources said.
The Sun reported in April how Israel was poised to unleash a huge strike on Iran within weeks and do "whatever it takes" to stop the regime's nuclear strength.
But Trump called off any potential blitz - vowing to try and solve the pressing matter through diplomatic means before resorting to bombing.
Nadav Shtrauchler, a former adviser to Netanyahu, told The Sun how the PM could give the green light to bomb Iran to cement his legacy.
The strategic adviser said: "In his eyes, two things are highly important. One of them is Iran. The second is Saudi Arabia and the following of the Abraham Accords.
"Number one is Iran before everything else.
"He sees that as a threat as an immediate threat to the state and after the last two big strikes from Iran, people understood that next time it could be different material on those weapons.
Trump says Iran deal is 'well on its way' - as regime builds ring of steel around deeply buried nuclear fortresses
"His main goal is to stop Iran and he needs to put every pressure he can.
"Of course, you want to do it with Trump and with the American administration - but I think he would not avoid attacking there.
"This is his main number one goal in this war."
Shtrauchler said although Netanyahu would want America's help, he will make sure Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's nuclear ambitions are destroyed "at all costs".
"He changed the equation from the start," he added.
"Iran was choking Israel from both sides from north, south and from other sides and he changed the equation by attacking Hezbollah and putting this threat out.
"There is no real threat rocket threat from Gaza today. And we know the situation with Syria has changed rapidly since the start of the war.
"We also know that Iran has been folded or been attacked on these anti-aircraft missiles.
"So he has a clear way, if he wants to do it.
"Of course, he will want to do it with the American administration but nevertheless, this is his main goal.
"So if it's just knocking on a door before getting inside, it could be a sign but for sure is getting planned on that.
"He wants to do it [strike Iran] and he's working on how to do it. And I think in the end he will try to do it with the Americans.
"But if he sees it's not going, he will find a solution to change the equation with Iran and make sure that they don't have any nuclear weapon at all costs."
7
Donald Trump, pictured boarding Air Force One last week, is trying to negotiate with Tehran
Credit: Reuters
7
IDF sources, speaking to The Sun in Israel, previously said how Tehran is now 'many, many steps back' as forces have been working for months to clear the path for a major strike on Iran.
They told how three air campaigns in Iran have eliminated strategic aerial defences which were 'the main obstacle' protecting the rogue nation's nuke facilities.
The insider said the IDF has also worked to significantly downgrade the threat posed by Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthi - effectively leaving Iran isolated.
Vitally, this would allow Israeli aircraft to get to Iran's borders with diminished fear of being blasted.
The IDF source told The Sun: 'We struck in Yemen three or four times, and we had three air campaigns in Iran, eliminating on the way most of the aerial defence systems in Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
'They were the main obstacle when thinking about a big aerial operation on the way to Iran. Their proxy aerial defence systems.'
Netanyahu believes this gaping weakness in Iran's defence makes it the prime time to strike as it will not last.
But Trump has argued that negotiation coupled with the back-up threat of bombing is the ideal exploitation of Iran's vulnerability.
Iran's secret nuke site 'Rainbow'
Exclusive by Katie Davis, Chief Foreign Reporter (Digital)
CHILLING satellite pictures reveal Iran's sprawling secret nuclear site codenamed "Rainbow".
Sources in the country have uncovered how the base is being used to develop nuclear-capable missiles with a 2,000-mile range - able to strike US bases in the Middle East.
Tehran's tyrannical regime is using oil and chemical facilities as a cover for nuclear bases, bombshell docs shared with The Sun by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) reveal.
Haunting aerial images expose a network of clandestine sites - including "Rainbow" - used by iron-fist leaders to create terrifying nuclear weapons.
A powerful nuclear blast from Iran could have disastrous consequences for the Middle East - and beyond - thanks to the capability of the warheads.
Now sources inside Iran have revealed the regime's nuclear weaponisation entity, Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research's (SPND) secret project to accelerate nuclear ability.
Hidden under the guise of a chemical production facility, the crowning jewel of the operation is a base known internally as the 'Rangin Kaman (Rainbow) Site".
It is some distance from Iran's already known nuke bases, and is masked as a chemical production company known as Diba Energy Siba.
READ MORE HERE
Ex-Israeli foreign affairs minister Gabi Ashkenazi warned military force will be the only alternative if talks hit a wall.
The former IDF chief of general staff, speaking at a gathering of officials attended by The Sun is Paris, said: "From the national defence perspective, definitely the most important issue is Iran.
"I think definitely we have to solve the issue of Gaza, but Iran is the most challenging issue for a simple reason.
"This is the only potential existential threat to the state of Israel. And I think no government is going to accept a nuclear Iran.
"Imagine the 7th of October, and the Iranian nuclear umbrella. Can you imagine what would happen then? So we cannot do it.
"Hopefully it will be solved through diplomacy, and if not, we will have to use military force, because we don't have any other alternative."
Israel has not been involved in talks between Washington and Tehran and continues to push for military action.
Government sources in both Israel and Europe, however, have resonated with Trump and cautioned Netanyahu to refrain from striking.
Former Israeli ambassador Daniel Shek told The Sun: "I do hope that there will be an agreement because I think diplomacy has more to gain on the Iranian issue than military intervention.
"And people forget, historically wars aren't won on the battlefield. Battles are won on the battlefield.
7
Smoke rises following an explosion over Beirut's southern suburbs after an Israeli strike on Lebanon in October 2024
Credit: Reuters
7
"Wars are won around the negotiating table for an exit strategy for stable arrangements that avoid the next war etc.
"That's how it's done. When did you see in history a war that ended simply because you killed the very last of the opposing soldiers?
"It doesn't work that way.
"So what should concern Israelis - and especially the Israeli government - is that the US seems to be much more motivated in that direction than them.
"Currently you have an American president who just goes above our heads and things are happening and things will be concluded.
"It's not done until it's over without including Israel simply because Israel is dragging its feet and doesn't show any enthusiasm."
A source close to the French government meanwhile insisted Iran must be bombed "immediately" if they develop the capacity to explode a nuke - but not before.
The insider told The Sun in the French capital: "Iran has the capacity to have about three to five bombs.
"But that is only about the uranium. What they don't have is the industrial capacity to make a bomb explode.
"Something worrying is that Russians or North Korea could give them this capacity.
"If Iran develops capacity to explode a nuclear bomb, they must be bombed immediately.
"Nobody wants to have a nuclear Iran.
"If we discover one day that they could make a nuclear test, the only way would be to bomb Iran.
"Israel says that we have to bomb it in advance, before they have the capacity to explode a nuclear bomb."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
10 minutes ago
- Spectator
Lisa Nandy, Nigel Farage and a tale of two silly political shirts
Two shirts were in the news at the weekend, both worn by politicians. In the light blue corner, we had Nigel Farage launching his personally branded football strip top – in Reform colours, with the name Farage and the number 10, a bargain at £39.99 (£99.99 if you want it signed by the man himself). In the red corner, meanwhile, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy attended Wigan Pride – one of the never-ending LGBTQ+ moveable feast days that populate the calendar on either side of the holy Pride month itself – wearing the official t-shirt of the event, emblazoned with a 'trans rights' slogan. Farage's football top has gone down very well with the people it was intended to go down very well with, selling 5,000 units in its first day on sale. And it put ants in the pantaloons of Reform's detractors – another intended outcome, one suspects – who spent Sunday on the socials spluttering about how this was the acceptable face of the hard right, etc etc. Some sniff a whiff of burnt horsehair whenever Farage appears. This derangement, strangely, increases whenever he does something naff, like launching personalised schmutter. It's much the same syndrome as when Boris Johnson's slapdash demeanour was vaunted, often by the very same detractors, as the lid on a pot of simmering evil. People on the right aren't allowed the leeway of just being corny or erratic. The Reform FC shirt provided a tiny morsel of levity, which in these doomy times is much needed. A friend of mine has many of the same misgivings about Reform that I have, but thinks that while we wait we might as well vote for what is, undoubtedly, the campest of the political parties. You'd think Wigan Pride, festooned with the glitter and bunting that decorate all things LGBTQ+, might be a rival for the camp crown, but – as ever with such events – the sparkle was dimmed by shadows of contention, in this case Nandy's 'Protect The Dolls' t-shirt. This slogan, for those of you who are unaware, is an American rallying cry to extol the 'rights' of men who claim to be women to vault over the barriers placed around all other men. The 'dolls' in question are those chaps who make a better fist of convincing anybody that they might actually be ladies. (The ones who don't are known as 'bricks'.) So to sum up, this is the Culture Secretary taking a position aligning herself with the extreme fringes of a deeply unpopular campaign that her own administration is now trying, somewhat cackhandedly of course, to back away from. You may remember how Nandy declared, on being appointed to her cabinet role, that the culture war was now over. Peace in our time! Here she is, a year later, still fighting it, the Neville Chamberlain of 2025. Nandy is a born follower of whatever her milieu considers right and proper on a given day, however bizarre. She has form on this issue, telling an audience back in 2020 that rapists should be accommodated in women's prisons if they fancy it. And here she is again, doing and saying what is politically expedient, slipping on the Wigan Pride t-shirt. As Philip Patrick noted here the other day with reference to Nicola Sturgeon, one of the big problems with the trans issue is the enthusiasm for it from party workers and staffers. Added to this, Nandy, as an MP, has to engage with 'communities' and 'stakeholders' – which means wearing an item of their choosing and posing for photos wearing it. These are not the parish pump affairs of the old local politics. Political figures of all the main parties have been beclowned at Pride events, from Boris Johnson in a Pink Stetson to Keir Starmer swathed in glitter – which just made him look as if he'd contracted a particularly nasty case of psoriasis. I can't imagine someone as toxically agreeable as Nandy handling the awkwardness of the T-shirt situation in any other way but acquiescence. She shouldn't have had to. There should be a simple rule for politicians on their visits to Prides, mosques, or anywhere else: no merch, no slogans, no cultural frills or campaigning furbelows. This rule would enable the politician, when presented with a hat marked 'UP THE TALIBAN' or a badge marked 'DOWN WITH KITTENS' to sigh and say 'so sorry, obviously I'd love to don this tasteful item, but it's against the rules, I'm afraid; my hands are tied'. Today, silly emblems and slogans and campaigns abound in public life, and this rule would at least take politicians out of that loop. Another news story at the weekend, for example, informs us that the BBC has purchased 10,000 badges, 7,000 mugs and 6,000 lanyards branded 'Call It Out', at a cost of £61,000, in an effort to remind their staff not to harass and abuse each other. There is something quintessentially perfect about this story – a modern British institution thinking it can solve a serious problem of criminality with branding. The Blairite consensus smashed up our common culture and morality, forged after centuries of trial and error, and now seeks to replace it – with merch. Politicians should, if they absolutely must, slip into their own silly campaign wear, but they shouldn't go near anybody else's.
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Appeasing bullies never works': Readers split over Trump's push for Putin-Zelensky peace talks
It comes after the US president used last night's White House talks with European leaders to float the idea of a three-way summit with the Ukrainian and Russian presidents, which he said he hoped to arrange within the next two weeks. He later confirmed on Truth Social that he had spoken to the Russian president to begin making arrangements, raising the prospect of the first meeting between Zelensky and Putin since 2019. Reacting to the news, our community were united in the view that peace is urgent, but many worried Trump's involvement could destabilise efforts. 'Appeasing bullies never works,' one reader warned, while another concluded grimly: 'Both Trump and Putin use war for their own ends – small countries do not count.' Some feared the US president would concede too much in pursuit of a Nobel Prize and while many argued Ukraine cannot defeat Russia outright, there were warnings that ceding land would only embolden Putin. Others felt Macron and other European leaders must play a central role in negotiations to balance Trump's unpredictability. Another recurring theme was scepticism about security guarantees, with many doubting promises from either Trump or Putin would be 'worth the paper they are written on'. Here's what you had to say: There needs to be a strong European voice In February Trump chewed Zelensky in his mouth and spat him out. Yesterday all changed – why? Because Zelensky was backed by seven European leaders. Of course, Ukraine will have to cede territory because there is no chance of Ukraine defeating Russia, as in bringing it to its knees. But Putin can't keep losing fighting men forever, so there could be a compromise. If Zelensky meets Putin and Trump, Trump will give too much away so he gets his peace prize. Macron is smart – there needs to be a strong European voice in quadripartite negotiations. Truthfirstwarcasualty Trump could never negotiate peace Art of the Deal my foot! Trump couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag. If he had been the President of Ukraine instead of Zelensky, he would be taking orders from the Kremlin by now. Pomerol95 Where should talks be held? Where and how will any talks between Presidents of Ukraine and Russia occur? In my opinion, the "where" cannot be in USA, Russia, NATO nations, EU nations, or even the 46 Council of Europe nations. It is also likely that the host should not be a member of the ICC, and also be seen as neutral. That perhaps leaves Qatar as a front runner. Fair enough, as the ruler Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani is a diplomatically pragmatic and highly educated individual. His presence/oversight would solve the issue of such talks being not only neutral as possible, but being seen as such; obviously no member of NATO or EU can attend, let alone mediate. To keep the dialogue on path, there has to be a ceasefire, if only for a limited period, say seven days before, during, and after such a meeting. This to include no military actions, movements, supply, or any combat-related action. All else is solely between the two parties and their translators. Understandably, there will be facilities for private communication between parties and their governments or allies. We are not in the past era of "Great Powers" deciding things for others. The role of external parties is to facilitate the end of the conflict in a manner equitable to all parties. Jonathan Mills Appeasing bullies never works Trump isn't wrong – that is what Putin will demand to 'end' the war. But the big question for Ukraine, and for the rest of the world, is if he gets what he wants for being an aggressor, how long will his version of peace last? When will he decide to grab more land and make more demands on neighbours? The simple fact is appeasing bullies never works. Putin is the 'artful dodger' Given there's no ceasefire, and Trump knowingly put the onus back on Zelensky – by caving to Putin on territorial claims and Ukraine being prevented from joining NATO – Zelensky needs to stand his ground. Whilst Crimea is likely lost, he must oppose any further unlawful territorial gains from Putin. With respect to security guarantees from the US akin to NATO Article 5 stipulations, of course Putin has indicated his willingness to that, but I doubt they would be worth the paper they are written on. Putin will make claims Ukraine has been attempting to seize back Crimea or other parts of its territory, and all bets will be off. I reckon it's a ploy unwittingly agreed to by Trump – but would you trust either of these Presidents to keep their word? Trump regularly flip-flops and changes position all the time, and Putin is the 'artful dodger' when it comes to manipulating Trump and breaking peace agreements at will. StigStag The parallels with the 1930s are deeply worrying The parallels between now and the late 1930s are uncanny and deeply worrying, and the response of 'the leader of the free world' would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic, predictable, and serious. The continental Europeans know, or should remember, what it was like to have a war rage across their lands – something the Americans and British have never experienced. Surely we can learn and realise that the precautionary principle is key and take action to prevent another invasion. That means being appropriately armed and ensuring the territorial integrity of sovereign states is respected – and where military action has attempted to change that, then territorial integrity is restored by whatever means is necessary, hopefully by robust diplomacy. That means we need to cut Trump out of it and deal with this ourselves. Geejay Get serious in arming Ukraine This war has shown that agreements and opinions mean nothing. All that matters is capabilities. Ukraine already had a commitment from NATO to defend it in the Bucharest agreement. But Russia attacked anyway. However, this war has shown that Russia is no longer a first-class military power. The front has barely moved in three years – and that's despite Ukraine being severely outnumbered, having no tanks, aircraft, or long-range missiles, and being supplied with mostly old, outdated NATO weapons. If Europe got serious in arming Ukraine, how long would Russia last? So Ukraine definitely does have a hand at the table – especially considering how unpopular Trump and Putin are in Europe (and elsewhere) at the moment. Ajames Trump dividing Europe The truly scary thing is that Trump, via his tariffs and deals, has already succeeded to a large extent in dividing and thus dominating Europe. People are afraid to upset him – apparently Zelensky is wearing a suit to the meeting! Will they get tariffed, or lose their special deals? Or even be thrown out of the White House? A year ago, Europe would firmly have rejected the idea of Ukraine ceding territory – now it seems they may be putting pressure on Ukraine to do so, even though it isn't spoken out loud. Hungubwe Trump rambles, Putin manipulates Trump rambles, and clearly harbours grudges – not least against Joe Biden, who beat him in 2020. What all this has to do with the actual point of the meeting yesterday is difficult to fathom. It looks like just another Trump rant. There is plenty of precedent for postponing elections during wartime. Britain should have had one in 1940, but by cross-party agreement suspended them for the duration. Trying to get full and fair coverage when a war is raging is almost impossible. It seems to me both Trump and Putin are using war for different ends but with the same basic outcome – small countries do not count. Despite the bluster and accusations Trump threw at Biden yesterday, it was Putin who unleashed his forces against Ukraine on 24/2/2022. If that is not a blatant act of aggression then I do not know what is. Good thing European leaders were there yesterday. There is much more at stake in terms of our security in this war. Allowing Russia to keep its ill-gotten gains is not something we could support. Did they manage to pull Trump back from his favourable opinion of Putin? Who knows with Trump? We live in dangerous times. 49niner
Daily Mirror
11 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Keir Starmer asked how he felt seeing Putin get red carpet treatment by Donald Trump
Keir Starmer heaped praise on Donald Trump's efforts to end the war in Ukraine after being asked by BBC Breakfast how he felt seeing Vladimir Putin given red carpet treatment in Alaska Keir Starmer has praised Donald Trump's efforts as he swerved a question on Vladimir Putin being given the red carpet treatment. The PM was asked by BBC Breakfast how he felt seeing the Russian leader being given a VIP welcome by Trump in Alaska last week. On Monday Mr Starmer jetted to the White House to meet the US President along with Volodymyr Zelensky and seven other European leaders. It came days after Trump held a face-to-face meeting with tyrant Putin, whose forces are mercilessly pursuing his illegal invasion after more than three years. The PM was asked: "How did you feel personally when you saw Putin being given a red carpet?' He responded: "Well, I support President Trump's efforts to bring about a lasting outcome and peaceful settlement of this conflict that's been going on for over three years now… 'Today has shown that we have moved forward, and that in the end for me has always been the test, are we making real progress?' Putin's visit with Trump - which did not include a meeting with Ukrainian leader Mr Zelensky - made observers around the world deeply uneasy. The two warmly shook hands, while a red carpet was rolled out for the despot. There was also a flyover for the two leaders to enjoy. On Monday Trump said he had spoken to Russia about organising direct talks with Ukraine about ending the war. Mr Starmer went on: "I'm really pleased, that in two materials facts, we've had a breakthrough on security guarantees and real moving forward on the bilateral and trilateral meetings. That's what I wanted to happen today. And I'm really pleased that we've got to that point." He was one of several European leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian PM Georgia Meloni and Nato secretary general Mark Rutte in attendance. Mr Trump said he spoke directly with Vladimir Putin to begin planning a meeting between the Russian leader and Mr Zelensky. He also said Moscow will "accept" multinational efforts to guarantee Ukraine's security. Mr Starmer described the talks as "good and constructive", adding: "There was a real sense of unity between the European leaders that were there, and president Trump and president Zelensky". The Prime Minister highlighted "two material outcomes" from the talks, firstly that the coalition of the willing "will now work with the US" on security guarantees. "That's really important for security in Ukraine, for security in Europe, and for security in the UK," he said. "The other material outcome was the agreement that there will now be a bilateral agreement between president Putin and president Zelensky, that was after a phone call between president Trump and president Putin during the course of this afternoon, followed by a trilateral which will then add in president Trump. "That is a recognition of the principle that on some of these issues, whether it's territory or the exchange of prisoners, or the very serious issue of the return of children, that is something where Ukraine must be at the table. "These were the two outcomes that were the most important coming out of today. They're positive outcomes, there was a real sense of unity. We've made real progress today." Posting on his Truth Social platform after the meeting, Mr Trump also described the talks as "very good", adding: "During the meeting we discussed security guarantees for Ukraine, which guarantees would be provided by the various European countries, with a coordination with the United States of America. "Everyone is happy about the possibility of PEACE for Russia /Ukraine. At the conclusion of the meetings, I called president Putin and began arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between president Putin and president Zelensky. "After the meeting takes place, we will have a trilat which would be the two presidents plus myself."
