Iran sends ‘heaviest payload ever' into space
Iran has launched its heaviest payload ever into space using its home-grown Simorgh carrier rocket, state television reported on Friday.
The launch included an advanced module for transferring satellites into higher orbits, the Saman-1, as well as the Fakhr-1 communications satellite developed by Iran's military. Both were 'successfully placed in an elliptical orbit with a high point of 410 kilometers,' the broadcast said, according to Reuters.
It added that the weight sent into space, just over 660 lbs, marked a 'national record for the heaviest payload launched into orbit.
The launch comes as tensions between Iran and the West have been growing over conflicts in the Middle East, and over Tehran's nuclear program, which Western nations, including the US, France, Germany and the UK have branded a 'threat' to international security. The West has also accused Tehran of transferring ballistic missiles to Russia amid its conflict with Ukraine.
The Simorgh rocket was launched from the Imam Khomeini Spaceport in the rural Semnan province, some 220 kilometers (about 140 miles) east of Tehran, where its civilian space program is located. Iran used the Simorgh rocket for the first time in January, sending three satellites into space.
A US intelligence report in July suggested that Tehran's space launch program would probably 'shorten the timeline' for it to produce an intercontinental ballistic missile, since similar technologies are used for both systems.
UN Security Council resolutions, which expired in October 2023, urged Iran to halt activities involving ballistic missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
Tehran has always maintained that both its nuclear and space programs are entirely peaceful. Under the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the country agreed to curb its nuclear program in exchange for partial sanctions relief. However, when then-US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the deal in 2018, diplomatic efforts to revive it failed and Tehran stepped up its uranium enrichment to 60%.
Last year, media reports claimed that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was investigating Iran for enriching Uranium to 84%, which is 'just 6% below what's needed for a weapon.' However, Tehran dismissed this at the time as 'slander and a distortion of the facts.'
In November, French intelligence claimed Tehran could acquire a nuclear weapon within months, which it called a 'most critical threat.'
A senior aide to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei confirmed last month, however, that Tehran possesses 'the technical capabilities necessary to produce nuclear weapons.' He said while there is no plan to create the weapons, Iran reserves the right to 'reconsider' if its survival is under threat.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
7 hours ago
- Russia Today
Mission: Regrettable – Ukraine's drone strike blows up in its face
For most people, June 1st is a cheerful date – the start of summer, a celebration of children. But from 2025 onward, it may also be remembered as the day Ukraine launched its largest covert operation in Russia since the start of the conflict. While the full impact of the operation is still unclear, estimates suggest anywhere from a handful to several dozen Russian aircraft were damaged or destroyed. The precise details will likely remain shrouded in speculation. What is certain, however, is that the Russian military must rethink how it defends strategic facilities. The traditional approach – based on intercepting missiles and deploying advanced air-defense systems – has proven inadequate against cheap drones that can be assembled from off-the-shelf parts and launched from almost anywhere. That lesson is now painfully clear. But the military will draw its own conclusions. Our focus should be on the political meaning of what happened. Make no mistake – this was not just a military act. Like much of what Ukraine does, this was political theater, staged for a very specific audience: Donald Trump. Kiev's objective was simple. Derail the Istanbul negotiations and paint Russia as the intransigent party. How? By provoking a furious response – one that would make headlines, stir outrage inside Russia, and force Moscow to walk away from the table. The idea was to provoke a reaction that Ukraine could then parade before Washington. The message? 'See? We told you they don't want peace. Arm us more!' It's not the first time they've tried this tactic. From the attack on the Kursk Bridge to the shelling of Donbass civilians, Ukraine has repeatedly used provocation as a diplomatic weapon – seeking to engineer Russia's diplomatic isolation by sabotaging any steps toward negotiation. And yet, once again, it didn't work. Despite outrage from parts of Russian society, Moscow did not take the bait. Our delegation flew to Istanbul as planned. There, negotiators presented Ukraine with a memorandum reiterating the same terms previously offered. Not a step back. At the same time, humanitarian agreements were reached – including a new exchange of prisoners and the return of fallen fighters' remains. So did Russia 'turn the other cheek'? Hardly. Moscow has adopted a strategy one might call an 'Italian strike' – doing the bare minimum to deny our enemies a propaganda victory, while withholding the kind of breakthroughs that would reward bad-faith behavior. Yes, the humanitarian measures agreed upon in Istanbul are important. But let's not kid ourselves – they are not steps toward a peace settlement. Politically, the situation is unchanged. However, there is a deeper issue now at play – one with far more serious implications. On June 1st, Ukrainian forces didn't just target military bases. They targeted components of Russia's nuclear deterrent. Under our official doctrine, an attack on the strategic nuclear infrastructure is grounds for the use of nuclear weapons. Now, no one is suggesting we nuke Kiev over a few aircraft, no matter how advanced or expensive. That would be disproportionate. But here lies the paradox: If Russia does nothing, it risks undermining the credibility of its own deterrence posture, and that sends a dangerous message. In the Western capitals and among Ukrainian hawks, there are already whispers: 'If they didn't respond to this, maybe they'll tolerate even more.' That may sound absurd – but that's how these people think. Their fantasies become policy more often than one would like. So what is the answer? Let's be honest: repeating slogans like 'our response will be success on the battlefield' won't cut it here. Ukraine's leadership isn't acting out of military logic, but emotional desperation. Their calculation is political. So Russia's response must be political, too – emotionally resonant, unmistakably firm, and, above all, creative. This doesn't mean rash escalation, but we can't rely on the old playbook. Hitting the same military targets again and again achieves little. Striking Ukraine's energy infrastructure? Done. Launching another missile as a 'demonstration'? Predictable. Escalating to mass casualties? Unnecessary and, frankly, counterproductive. So what's left? Innovation. Russia must now think asymmetrically. That might mean a covert action so unexpected that it catches Ukraine completely off guard. Or it could involve striking symbolic targets that shift the psychological balance. The key is to remind Kiev – and its patrons – that nothing they do goes unanswered, and that the cost of provocation will always outweigh the benefit. In truth, Russia has spent too long responding conventionally to a conflict that is anything but conventional. Our adversaries deal in optics, symbols, and theater. To counter that effectively, we must speak the same language – without abandoning our principles or resorting to theatrics of our own. The June 1st attack was not a turning point. But it was a warning. Not just about drones or airfields, but about perception and power. The next move, as always, is Russia's to make. And this time, it must be something they don't article was first published by the online newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team
Russia Today
11 hours ago
- Russia Today
Kiev sends the living to die, but won't accept its dead
It is sad, but peace remains elusive in the war between, on one side, Ukraine and – through Ukraine – the West and, on the other, Russia. Recently, the US has at least admitted that Moscow has plausible and important interests at stake and that the West has been using Ukraine to fight a proxy war against Russia. While very late and still incomplete, such truthfulness could help fashion the kind of realistic compromise needed to end this war. Yet Washington's European vassals have chosen this moment to discover their usually terminally atrophied capacity for talking back to the US: They clearly want the war to continue, even though that means Ukraine – about which they pretend to care – will lose even more people and territory. Against this backdrop, it was no wonder that the latest round of the renewed Istanbul talks between Russia and Ukraine produced no breakthrough, little progress, and only very modest concrete results. Also, on the eve of the talks, the Zelensky regime launched terror attacks on civilian trains in western Russia and a series of sneak drone strikes throughout the country that – in the most generous reading – involved the war crime of perfidy: That, obviously, did not help find a way forward either. Indeed, by now it is clear that Kiev's sneak drone attacks in particular have only further undermined the Zelensky regime's already fragile standing in Washington: US President Donald Trump has been explicit that he accepts Russia's right to massively retaliate, or, in the original Trumpese, 'bomb the hell' out of Ukraine. Luckily for Ukraine, Moscow is generally more restrained than America would be in a similar situation, and it should stay so. Yet the fact remains, Kiev's sneak drones have made no substantial military difference in its favor, but they have done significant political damage – to Kiev, that is. Regarding the Istanbul talks, it is likely that these assaults were meant to torpedo them. Yet Moscow did not fall for that rather transparent play. Its delegation turned up; so the Ukrainian one had to do the same. In addition, Russia ended this round of the negotiations with several good-will gestures, including an agreement to exchange POWs who are particularly young or in bad health and the offer to hand over the frozen (a common practice in war) bodies of 6,000 fallen Ukrainians. Both initiatives have run into trouble. To be precise, both are being impeded by the Ukrainian leadership. The POW swap has been delayed, and Ukrainian officials have failed to show up at the border to receive the first 1,212 of their deceased soldiers. Regarding both, Kiev has blamed Russia. Yet, remarkably, the Ukrainian statements, in reality, prove that it is indeed Kiev that is – at the very least – slowing these processes down. For what Ukrainian officials are really accusing Russia of is moving faster. The reasons for this obstructionism are unclear. The Ukrainian authorities have not shared them with the public. But there are some plausible guesses. One very likely reason why Kiev is reluctant to accept the 6,000 bodies of its own fallen soldiers is that the 'preponderant majority' of them, according to a Ukrainian member of parliament, were killed specifically during Ukraine's insane and predictably catastrophic incursion into Russia's Kursk region. Started on August 6 of last year, the operation was initially hyped by Ukrainian propagandists and their accomplices and useful idiots in the West. For the clear-eyed, it was obvious from the beginning that this was a mass kamikaze mission, wasting Ukrainian lives for no military or political advantage. Was the Zelensky regime trying to create a territorial 'bargaining chip'? Or once more 'shift the narrative,' as if wars are won by rewriting a movie script? Influence last year's US elections? Prepare for a possible victory by then presidential candidate Donald Trump? All of the above? We don't know. What we do know is that nothing Kiev may have fantasized about has worked. Indeed, by now the Kursk fiasco has only made Kiev's situation worse. Russia has retaken the territory in Kursk Region that Ukraine had seized and is advancing on the Ukrainian side of the border, taking settlements at an accelerating pace and getting close to the major regional city of Sumy. Clearly, those fallen during that particular suicide mission are evidence of Kiev's recklessness, hypocrisy, and incompetence. No wonder they seem to be less than welcome at home. A second reason for Kiev's reluctance may be even more sordid. There is speculation, for instance on social media, that it is financial. More importantly, a Russian diplomat, Sergei Ordzhonikidze, has made the same claim on the Telegram channel of the Izvestiia newspaper. For according to Ukrainian legislation, the families of the fallen soldiers are entitled to substantial compensation. Painful as it may be to acknowledge it, the Zelensky regime is not incapable of such a massive lack of piety. Whatever the precise reasons for Kiev's odd refusal to take back its prisoners and dead, they are certain to be base. This may jar with the West's well-organized and stubbornly delusional Zelensky fan club. But the best they could do for 'ordinary' Ukrainians is to put pressure on their worn-out idol to accept the prisoners and the fallen. And, of course to finally end the war.
Russia Today
12 hours ago
- Russia Today
Musk deletes Trump-Epstein post
Elon Musk has deleted an X post claiming that US President Donald Trump's name was in the sealed Jeffrey Epstein files, suggesting that this is the real reason they remain classified. On Thursday, Musk wrote: 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.' He added: 'Have a nice day, DJT! Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.' In another inflammatory post no longer visible in the entrepreneur's X account, Musk responded 'yes' to a message that said 'Trump should be impeached' and Vice President JD Vance 'should replace him.' The businessman has not commented on the issue yet. Both posts became part of a public feud between Trump and Musk. During last year's election, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX set up and funded a pro-Trump political group, donating over $260 million, and was appointed in January to co-lead the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), tasked with reducing federal bureaucracy and wasteful spending. Musk stepped down last week. The rift started after the billionaire condemned Trump's massive tax-cut bill, which is estimated to add $2.4 trillion to the $36.2-trillion US debt over 10 years, calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' The US president then threatened to cancel federal contracts with Musk's companies. The clash then escalated into a series of jabs on social media. Musk accused the president of 'ingratitude' and threatened to paralyze the US space program by decommissioning the Dragon spacecraft. Trump, for his part, said that the tech billionaire had gone 'crazy' and claimed that Musk was actually upset because he 'took away his EV Mandate.' Following the feud, Tesla's shares dropped by about 14.2% on Thursday at market close, wiping roughly $152 billion off the value of the company. Trump Media stock also fell 8%. Trump had previously pledged to declassify the Epstein files, and in February, US Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the release of the 'first phase' of documents. However, key materials – including flight logs, client names, and contact lists – have remained under seal, fueling speculation about who could be implicated. Epstein, an investment banker with deep connections to political and business elites, was arrested in July 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges. He died the following month in a New York jail in what was officially ruled a suicide, though his death instantly sparked widespread controversy and conspiracy theories.
