Iran Working On Nuclear Weapons Capable Of Long-Range Strikes: Report
New Delhi:
Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons programme capable of launching missiles over long distances, a new Austrian intelligence report has claimed. The assessment by Austria's Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the country's domestic intelligence agency, directly contradicts the position of the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).
"In order to assert and enforce its regional political power ambitions, the Islamic Republic of Iran is striving for comprehensive rearmament, with nuclear weapons to make the regime immune to attack and to expand and consolidate its dominance in the Middle East and beyond," the Austrian report said on Monday, as per Fox News.
The report added that "the Iranian nuclear weapons development programme is well advanced, and Iran possesses a growing arsenal of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads over long distances."
The 211-page Austrian intelligence report mentions the threat posed by Iran 99 times. It identifies the Iranian embassy in Vienna as one of the largest in Europe and alleges that it "disguises intelligence officers with diplomatic" cover.
"Iranian intelligence services are familiar with developing and implementing circumvention strategies for the procurement of military equipment, proliferation-sensitive technologies, and materials for weapons of mass destruction," the agency said.
The report also references a 2021 conviction in Belgium of Asadollah Asadi, a former Iranian diplomat based in Vienna, for planning to bomb a 2018 opposition rally outside Paris. The event was attended by tens of thousands of Iranian dissidents, including Rudy Giuliani, who then served as Trump's personal attorney.
This stands in contrast to the US view. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in March that the American intelligence community "continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme he suspended in 2003."
The Austrian agency also alleged that "Iran has developed sophisticated sanctions-evasion networks, which has benefited Russia."
The latest findings could complicate efforts by US President Donald Trump, who has expressed a desire to negotiate with Tehran over its nuclear activities. Responding to the report, a White House official told Fox News, "President Trump is committed to Iran never obtaining a nuclear weapon or the capacity to build one."
In 2023, European intelligence agencies found Iran continuing to bypass US and EU sanctions to acquire technology needed for its nuclear weapons programme, with intentions to test an atomic bomb.
These efforts reportedly took place both before and after the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal.
The Austrian report also said that Iran continues to arm groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and Syrian militias, all of which are designated terrorist organisations by the US.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
War Clouds Over Europe as Ukraine Hits Russia
On the eve of peace talks, Ukraine and Russia sharply ramped up the war with one of the biggest drone battles of their conflict, a Russian highway bridge blown up over a passenger train and an ambitious attack on nuclear-capable bombers deep in Siberia. After days of uncertainty over whether or not Ukraine would even attend, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Defence Minister Rustem Umerov would sit down with Russian officials at the second round of direct peace talks in Istanbul on Monday. The first round of the talks more than a week ago yielded the biggest prisoner exchange of the war - but no sense of any consensus on how to halt the fighting. Amid talk of peace, though, there was much war. At least seven people were killed and 69 injured when a highway bridge in Russia's Bryansk region, neighbouring Ukraine, was blown up over a passenger train heading to Moscow with 388 people on board. No one has yet claimed responsibility. Ukraine attacked Russian nuclear-capable long-range bombers at a military base deep in Siberia on Sunday, a Ukrainian intelligence official said, the first such attack so far from the front lines more than 4,300 km (2,670 miles) away. The official said the operation involved hiding explosive-laden drones inside the roofs of wooden sheds and loading them onto trucks that were driven to the perimeter of the air bases. A total of 41 Russian warplanes were hit, the official said. RUSSIA ACKNOWLEDGES AIR BASE ATTACKS, SAYS FIRES PUT OUT Ukraine did not tell the Trump administration about the attack in advance, Axios reporter Barak Ravid said on X, citing an unnamed Ukrainian official. Russia's Defence Ministry acknowledged on the Telegram messaging app that Ukraine had launched drone strikes against Russian military airfields across five regions on Sunday. It said the attacks repelled the assaults in all but two regions — Murmansk in the far north and Irkutsk in Siberia - where "the launch of FPV drones from an area in close proximity to airfields resulted in several aircraft catching fire". The fires were extinguished without casualties. Some individuals involved in the attacks had been detained, the ministry said. Russia launched 472 drones at Ukraine overnight, Ukraine's air force said, the highest nightly total of the war so far. Russia had also launched seven missiles, the air force said. Russia said it had advanced deeper into the Sumy region of Ukraine, and open source pro-Ukrainian maps showed Russia took 450 square km of Ukrainian land in May, its fastest monthly advance in at least six months. U.S. President Donald Trump has demanded Russia and Ukraine make peace and he has threatened to walk away if they do not - potentially pushing responsibility for supporting Ukraine onto the shoulders of European powers - which have far less cash and much smaller stocks of weapons than the United States. According to Trump envoy Keith Kellogg, the two sides will in Turkey present their respective documents outlining their ideas for peace terms, though it is clear that after three years of intense war, Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart. Putin ordered tens of thousands of troops to invade Ukraine in February 2022 after eight years of fighting in eastern Ukraine between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian troops. The United States says over 1.2 million people have been killed and injured in the war since 2022. Trump has called Putin "crazy" and berated Zelenskiy in public in the Oval Office, but the U.S. president has also said that he thinks peace is achievable and that if Putin delays then he could impose tough sanctions on Russia. In June last year, Putin set out his opening terms for an immediate end to the war: Ukraine must drop its NATO ambitions and withdraw all of its troops from the entirety of the territory of four Ukrainian regions claimed and mostly controlled by Russia. Ukrainian negotiators in Istanbul will present to the Russian side a proposed roadmap for reaching a lasting peace settlement, according to a copy of the document seen by Reuters. According to the document, there will be no restrictions on Ukraine's military strength after a peace deal is struck, no international recognition of Russian sovereignty over parts of Ukraine taken by Moscow's forces, and reparations for Ukraine. The document also stated that the current location of the front line will be the starting point for negotiations about territory. Russia currently controls a little under one fifth of Ukraine, or about 113,100 square km, about the same size as the U.S. state of Ohio.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
There is an 'imminent' threat to Taiwan, America warns
UNTIL RECENTLY America reassured nervous Asian friends that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan was 'neither imminent nor inevitable". But in a dramatic shift on May 31st Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary, said the Chinese threat 'could be imminent"; and he implied any assault would lead to war with America. China sought 'hegemonic power" in Asia but America 'will not be pushed out of this critical region, and we will not let our allies and partners be subordinated and intimidated". Mr Hegseth's tough talk appears designed to deter China and reassure allies worried about President Donald Trump's 'America First" foreign policy. Yet it raises two questions. The first is whether his assessment of Chinese intentions is correct. The second is whether his tough talk and effort to rally America's friends in Asia is credible, given the Trump administration's record of erratic behaviour and contempt for its allies. The speech was the clearest declaration yet of the administration's stance on Asia. The defence secretary spoke during his first appearance at the Shangri-La Dialogue, a gathering of defence establishments in Singapore run by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think-tank. He pointed to China's military build-up, threatening exercises around Taiwan and 'grey-zone" bullying of the Philippines. China, he said, was 'credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific". It wanted its forces to be capable of taking Taiwan by 2027, and was 'rehearsing for the real deal". Any attempt to use force or coercion to change the status quo in the 'first island chain" (which runs from Japan to Malaysia), was 'unacceptable". An invasion of Taiwan 'would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world". And in a phrase that made the audience sit-up, he added: 'The threat China poses is real, and it could be imminent." Is Mr Hegseth's assessment correct? In fact a fog of uncertainty hangs over Taiwan. Last year American officials played down the importance of 2027 as a target date for the Chinese government, and suggested that the danger of invasion had receded. They cited China's shortage of amphibious landing craft and repeated anti-corruption purges in the top ranks of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) that suggest Xi Jinping, China's leader, lacks confidence in his commanders. Western defence officials say there is no intelligence indicating an imminent assault on Taiwan. They note, however, that Chinese war games have become so large and frequent that a limited attack—the takeover of outlying islands, say, or a blockade—could take place at any moment. China's defence minister, Dong Jun, stayed away from the conference. But Rear Admiral Hu Gangfeng, of the PLA's National Defence University, rejected Mr Hegseth's 'unfounded accusations" against China, suggesting they were designed to 'provoke, split and instigate confrontations" in the region. The second question is whether Mr Hegseth's warning of American intervention is credible. The urgent call to confront the threat from China is striking from an administration that says it seeks peace in a strife-torn world. Mr Trump has accused Taiwan of 'stealing" the chip industry. Even a stalwart defender of Taiwan, Elbridge Colby, the under-secretary of defence for policy, seems to have bent to isolationism, saying this year that an invasion of Taiwan would not be an 'existential" threat to America. After imposing 145% tariffs on China earlier this year Mr Trump backed down. That indicates that he would lack the stomach to impose a crippling economic embargo on China in response to any Taiwan coercion. Some Chinese delegates implied Mr Hegseth lacked authority to speak about China. A few non-Chinese delegates may have wondered about that, too. The defence secretary, a former major in the National Guard and Fox News talk-show host, has made headlines for his culture war to purge 'woke" ideology from military ranks and kindle the 'warrior ethos". Like many in the administration his attitude towards allies has been erratic. He shocked Europeans in February by dismissing much of the three-year Western effort to help Ukraine repel Russia's invasion. He said Ukraine could not regain territories it had lost to Russia, and could not join NATO. He admonished allies about low defence spending: 'President Trump will not allow anyone to turn Uncle Sam into Uncle Sucker." In Singapore he re-embraced Western and Asian allies alike, and several officials were pleasantly surprised by his willingness to listen. He adopted something akin to Mr Colby's earlier view that Taiwan must be defended through 'deterrence by denial", ie, by deploying sufficient mobile defensive weapons to make a Chinese invasion too costly. He hailed America's network of allies as an advantage that China 'envies" and a 'force multiplier" for Uncle Sam. Unexpectedly, he said European countries were models to emulate as they have rushed to raise defence spending, up from about 2% of GDP to perhaps 3.5%. Nonetheless his warming to allies in Singapore had limits. Mr Hegseth indicated Europe should stay out of the Indo-Pacific, notably the naval patrols there featuring British, French and Italian aircraft-carriers. 'We believe that N in NATO stands for North Atlantic and that our European allies should maximise their comparative advantage on the continent." That position is in tension with America's military leaders who privately welcome the European presence as raising the political cost to China of any military action. The tensions and contradictions in the Trump administration's position were highlighted by the comments of Shangri-La's other headline speaker, Emmanuel Macron. The French president called for a 'coalition of action" between European and Asian countries to promote trade, support global order and avoid 'being bullied" by America and China. In any regional war in Asia, Mr Macron admitted, Europe would offer little military help. 'The day China decides a big operation [...] will you intervene on day one? I would be very cautious." But, he added, 'everybody will be very cautious"—by implication, even America. Mr Hegseth insisted that President Trump had promised that 'Communist China will not invade Taiwan on his watch." Informed sources said he was referring to private comments by the president, omitting an important rider: that Mr Trump thinks China will take Taiwan after he has left office.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Why stricter voting laws no longer help Republicans
'The Republicans should pray for rain'—the title of a paper published by a trio of political scientists in 2007—has been an axiom of American elections for years. The logic was straightforward: each inch of election-day showers, the study found, dampened turnout by 1%. Lower turnout gave Republicans an edge because the party's affluent electorate had the resources to vote even when it was inconvenient. Their opponents, less so. The findings offered an empirical reason for Republicans to make voting harder for marginal or 'low propensity' voters. The party and its conservative allies had already adopted voting restrictions as an ideological plank, one previously advanced by southern Democrats courting white support in the Jim Crow era. In 2013 the Supreme Court gutted the preclearance system under the Voting Rights Act that had forced most southern states to vet changes to their voting rules with the federal government. Alabama, Mississippi and Texas immediately enacted voter ID laws that had been previously blocked. Over the next decade 29 states passed nearly 100 bills to restrict voting and Donald Trump's obsession with 'election integrity' became Republican doctrine. Yet Mr Trump's takeover of the Republican Party has scrambled the voting coalitions that underpinned the pray-for-rain logic. Rich people used to vote Republican and poor people Democrat. But the correlation started to wane in the 2000s and ultimately flipped for white voters when Mr Trump ran, according to research by Michael Barber and Jeremy Pope at Brigham Young University. Poor blacks and Hispanics still voted Democrat, but in 2024 they too moved to the right. At the same time, voters without college degrees took to the Republican Party and the college-educated moved in the other direction. Today voters who may or may not bother to turnout for elections no longer vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Having embraced voting restrictions for so long Mr Trump and his party are reluctant to abandon them, even if they no longer help them win elections. In his second term the president is jostling for even tighter rules. Amongst his barrage of executive orders just one has dealt with elections, but it is one of his most constitutionally ambitious. In it Mr Trump criticises America's 'patchwork of voting methods' and calls for a national set of rules that require voters to prove their citizenship before registering. The attorney-general, it said, would also force states to stop counting absentee ballots that arrive after election day. A judge blocked the order, writing that Congress and the states set election rules under the constitution, not the president. She noted that Congress is considering a similar bill and Mr Trump should not 'short-circuit' that. The SAVE Act, which cleared the House in April, also makes voters prove citizenship. But it is very unlikely to pass the Senate. States, however, are passing voter restrictions with gusto. Since January at least 25 states have introduced new voter ID bills, 30 have ones related to citizenship verification and 26 are trying to change the rules around absentee voting. Florida lawmakers decided to punish non-citizens who vote with up to five years in prison and Wisconsin voters enshrined a voter ID requirement in their state's constitution. Americans want it to be harder to cheat in elections and 'that's why states aren't waiting for a solution from Washington,' says Lee Schalk of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative group that writes model legislation. Indeed, Gallup polling shows that more than 80% support stricter ID and citizenship rules. In every country in Europe, where politics tends to be more liberal, voters must show ID at the polls. Would even stricter rules affect election outcomes in America? Consider Georgia, a swing state controlled by Republicans. When an omnibus election bill that tightened voter ID rules passed in 2021 Stacey Abrams, a Democrat who had run for governor, warned that it would disenfranchise black voters. She called it 'Jim Crow in a suit and tie'. But turnout in the next year's midterms surged and a consensus grew among election wonks that the suppression effect was negligible. Analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice, a public-policy institute, found that the turnout gap between white and black voters did widen in Georgia between 2020 and 2024. But the new rules may not have been to blame. The drop-off was mostly limited to younger black men, who were particularly unenthused by Kamala Harris. Fewer young women of both races voted for the first time, but white women slid more than black women. Democrats across the country argue that new citizenship verification policies will cause mass confusion and get citizens tangled up in bureaucracy. The hassle would be more justifiable if the new laws solved a big problem, but non-citizens rarely vote. An audit by Georgia's secretary of state from the summer of 2024 found just 20 non-citizens out of 8.2m on the voter rolls. Most were registered before Georgia checked for citizenship and had never cast a ballot. The best evidence seems to be that the impact of restrictive laws is minimal. An analysis published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics of 1.6bn voting records from every state in America found that strict voter ID rules, on average, neither significantly suppressed votes nor prevented fraud. Nor do ID laws hurt Democrats any longer, other research by Jeffrey Harden and Alejandra Campos shows. While in 2010 voter ID laws reduced Democratic vote share by 3%, by 2020 they increased it slightly. Because of the changes in party voting coalitions, the overall effect of the next phase of even tighter voting rules could now 'easily be a wash' when it comes to benefitting one party or the other, says Nicholas Stephanopoulos, who studies elections at Harvard University. Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
