Israel army says striking Iran missile launchers
Israel's military said Saturday it was striking dozens of missile launchers in Iran, after Tehran fired multiple barrages in response to its strikes on military and nuclear facilities.
The Israeli air force 'continues striking dozens of surface-to-surface missile launchers in Iran,' the military said in a statement.
It said that overnight the air force 'struck dozens of targets, including surface-to-air missile infrastructure, as part of the effort to damage the Iranian regime's aerial defense capabilities in the area of Tehran.'
'For the first time since the beginning of the war, over 1,500 kilometers (well over 900 miles) from Israeli territory, the Israeli air force struck defense arrays in the area of Tehran.'
Iran struck Israel with multiple missile barrages overnight, after a massive onslaught against its nuclear and military facilities on Friday killed key generals and nuclear scientists.
Israeli emergency services said two people were killed when a rocket hit a residential area early Saturday, as the two sides traded fire for a second day despite international calls for de-escalation.
The commanding officer of the Israeli air force, MG Tomer Bar, said the overnight strikes in the Tehran area carried 'operational and national significance.'
'We damaged -- and will continue to damage -- strategic sites and enemy sources of knowledge,' he was quoted as saying in a military statement.
'Activities like these require complicated coordination and collaboration between different sources and capabilities in the force.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Has the Russia-Ukraine conflict taken a back seat?
Nearly 150 days after returning to the Oval Office, US President Donald Trump is no closer to brokering a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia than he was on Day 1. This was a signature issue of his campaign. He regularly criticized President Joe Biden's handling of the conflict and claimed that had he been in office, the war would never have started. Although foreign policy did not dominate the 2024 election, Trump consistently argued that only he could bring the two sides to the negotiating table and deliver results where others had failed. Upon taking office, however, he quickly discovered that the reality was more complicated. After initially promising he could achieve peace in 24 hours, almost five months later any reference to a timeline has quietly disappeared. The problem of finding a path to peace stems from several overlapping challenges. Firstly, the Trump administration is trying to address too many major foreign policy issues at once. This scattershot approach has diluted focus and prevented a sustained effort on any single objective. In addition to the pursuit of peace in Ukraine, Trump is also renegotiating major trade agreements. The deteriorating US-China relationship, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, consumes a significant share of attention. Meanwhile, the revived nuclear talks with Iran and the Israeli attack on Iran have emerged as another top-tier priority, often bumping other diplomatic efforts — such as Ukraine — down the list. Another major hurdle is the lack of internal coordination within the US government. Disjointed messaging and inconsistent policy execution have plagued the administration's approach. The Department of Defense and intelligence agencies have paused or scaled back various forms of assistance to Ukraine at different points over the past few months. Congressional pressure, especially from those Republicans who remain committed to aiding Ukraine, has helped keep support flowing but uncertainty looms. Most estimates suggest existing funding will run out by late summer. Yet the administration has offered no clear plan for what happens next. Moscow knows this and is stalling to buy time. More troubling is the apparent reluctance to exert serious pressure on Russia. In recent months, most of the diplomatic pressure has been directed at Ukraine, which has complied with nearly every US request since Trump returned to office. This lopsided approach is unsustainable. If the administration is truly committed to peace, then some of the burden must also be placed on Moscow. Perhaps the most damaging dynamic at play is the internal division within the president's own party. The Republican coalition is fractured when it comes to America's role in the world, and those divisions are spilling into the administration's foreign policy. The Republican coalition is fractured when it comes to America's role in the world. Luke Coffey One faction, small but principled, consists of Reagan-style conservatives who believe in strong American leadership abroad. They argue that support for Ukraine advances US national security by weakening one of America's top adversaries. But they are increasingly isolated within a broader conservative movement that is shifting toward skepticism, and in some cases outright hostility, toward international engagement. A second, and more vocal, faction is the isolationist wing. These conservatives view America's involvement in Ukraine as a costly distraction and argue that US interests are not at stake. They want a reduced global footprint and see aid to Ukraine as a waste of taxpayer money. Then there are the so-called 'prioritizers,' who argue that all US resources — strategic, diplomatic and military — should be redirected toward confronting China. They believe that maintaining global commitments in Europe or the Middle East undermines America's ability to face its greatest long-term challenge, in Asia. Finally, there is a fringe, but increasingly vocal, group within the party who believe that Russia should be considered a potential US partner. They argue that Washington should seek detente with Moscow as a way of counterbalancing China. Not only is this dangerously naive, it also ignores Russia's record of aggression and subversion against the West. This internal infighting is not only undermining US policy toward Ukraine, it is also creating uncertainty among other traditional American allies. These partners, who have long relied on steady and predictable US leadership, are increasingly unsure of Washington's commitment. The lack of consensus within the White House is weakening America's global credibility and making it more difficult to rally coalitions in defense of shared interests. So what can Trump do? There is no question that he wants to end the war. Beyond the humanitarian interest, he sees a successful peace deal as a way to define his legacy as the leader who brought peace to Europe when others could not. But good intentions are not enough; if he is serious, he must take concrete steps. Firstly, the White House must work with Congress to pass a strong package of sanctions that could be enacted if Russia refuses to negotiate in good faith. Secondly, there must be a contingency plan to ensure continued military and financial support to Ukraine if current funding expires. To reassure those concerned about the cost, the recently signed critical minerals agreement between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky could help finance continued US aid. Trump must also intensify his diplomatic outreach. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, both of which have played meaningful roles in prior negotiations, could serve as conveners for future talks. The White House should actively coordinate with these actors, and others who can help bring both sides to the table. While the path to peace remains uncertain, the right strategy — one that combines pressure, incentives, and diplomacy — could get peace talks back on track. If Trump can get this right, he will not only bolster his own legacy, he could end a brutal war, bring a just and fair peace to Ukraine, reaffirm American leadership, and help bring lasting peace to the transatlantic region. • Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
The enemy of my enemy could be my enemy as well
Not every proverb that sounds plausible is necessarily universally true, and 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend,' which is thought to originate from an Indian Sanskrit treatise, the Arthasastra, dating back to around the 4th century B.C., is no exception. On more than one occasion in history, the enemy of one's enemy has proved, in fact, to be one's enemy as well. I was reminded of this proverb when I learned that Israeli authorities have been arming a Palestinian militia in Gaza — as if there was not already enough weaponry there to cause horrific bloodshed — as part of their efforts to 'eliminate' Hamas. For more than a year we have repeatedly heard from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel was 'a step away from victory' in this effort. This has proved to be more a case of wishful thinking than reality. Netanyahu has now publicly acknowledged that Israel is arming what it calls a 'clan' that operates in the Rafah area and is led by Yasser Abu Shabab who, according to the European Council on Foreign Affairs, is a gang leader who is widely accused of looting aid trucks, has been jailed by Hamas for drug smuggling, and 'has alleged ties' with Daesh. Not your ordinary guy who you would want to mix with, then. His group consists of anything from 100 to 250 armed men, and is somewhere between a militia and a criminal gang — most probably both. To find an ally in times of conflict is to gain an asset, and to divide and rule is another war tactic known since the dawn of history. But if allies are not selected carefully, the long-term unintended consequences can be worse than the immediate supposed benefits. The Soviet Union was hardly a friend of the West after the Second World War, but the US decision to arm the mujahideen when the Russians invaded Afghanistan came back to haunt Washington, for example. Similarly, Israel's support of Hamas in its early days, as a counter to Fatah, and continuing to do so until the disastrous consequences of this manifested themselves on Oct. 7, 2023, was an act of sheer self-harm. Why they would now repeat that mistake with a similar folly is incomprehensible. Netanyahu did not hide his true intentions when asked about arming Abu Shabab's group. He said: 'We have mobilized clans in Gaza that oppose Hamas. What's wrong with that?' The answer to his question is: Where do we start? Netanyahu's interpretation of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' reveals ignorance and an extreme lack of judgment, possibly signs of desperation, and the air of a colonialist approach. He is confusing the concept of a clan with what is simply a band of criminals, wrongly equating the latter with legitimate local leaders who represent the best interests of their people — alliances that have been a method of maintaining control that occupying forces have employed for centuries. But forging an alliance with legitimate local leaders is very different from being in cahoots with those who for months have been accused by Palestinians and international humanitarian organizations of looting aid lorries and profiting from the misery of their own people. In their inability to achieve the unrealistic goal of eliminating Hamas, Israeli authorities are instead coming up with ideas that are detached from reality. In this case they are looking for allies that appear uninterested in helping to fulfill the national aspirations of the Palestinian people and instead are more interested in enriching themselves, and possibly gaining political power. Netanyahu has now publicly acknowledged that Israel is arming Yasser Abu Shabab, a gang leader who is widely accused of looting aid trucks. Yossi Mekelberg It is obvious why Israel opposes Hamas remaining in control of Gaza. But the organization has said — though the claim has yet to be tested — it is prepared to hand over governance of the territory to any Palestinian organization that is agreed upon nationally and regionally. However, it insists it will not disband, and so a formula is required to ensure the organization does not pose a threat to Israeli security or Palestinian unity. Netanyahu also rejects postwar Palestinian Authority governance of Gaza, having declared this year that 'the day after the war in Gaza, neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority will be there.' This approach raises the suspicion that by supporting armed militias, Israel is deliberately becoming an agent of chaos whose goal is not necessarily to defeat Hamas but to prolong the war indefinitely, thus helping to ensure Netanyahu's government remains in power, at least until next year's general election. In recent weeks, we have seen demonstrations of spontaneous popular opposition to Hamas, despite a brutal crackdown on such dissent by the organization, with hundreds of demonstrators calling for it to be ousted and the war to end. Considering the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza — recently described during an interview with the BBC by International Committee of the Red Cross President Mirjana Spoljaric as 'worse than hell on Earth' — it is only to be expected that ordinary Gazans, who for nearly two years have been enduring such a hellish situation, would vent their anger against both Israel and Hamas. But the engagement by Israel with clans and militias, and even gangs, has nothing to do with trying to alleviate the suffering of the 2.3 million people of Gaza; it is all about creating a force to counter Hamas, and to undermine the Palestinian Authority and also the Palestine Liberation Organization's position as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. While some clans in Gaza were approached last year with the aim of creating an opposition to Hamas, the Abu Shabab gang is not regarded as a clan but calls itself, according to media reports, an 'antiterror service,' with no clear aims or indication of who it serves. If this is truly the case, Israel is creating a monster that will take a long time to contain once it is let loose, as we have seen with similar situations in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. And it will pose a threat, first and foremost, to Israel itself. When countries embark on risky experiments of this kind with nonstate actors, they toy with the idea that they will always be able to control and even disarm them when they have outlived their usefulness. History shows us that in many cases, such groups develop their own sets of interests and revenue streams, not to mention coalitions with like-minded armed groups, sometimes even those they were initially supposed to contain. Meanwhile the country that initially sponsored them tends to lose control of them. Worse still for Israel, since Abu Shabab is depicted on social media in Gaza as 'the Israeli agent' — in other words a traitor, which in the middle of a bitter war is as good as putting a bounty on his head — he has an incentive either to eventually join forces with Hamas, or simply turn on Israel using the weapons it put in his hands. This might be the right time for the Netanyahu government to recognize that there are better ways to undermine extremism and fundamentalism than encouraging civil war. In this case, they begin with ending the killing of innocent civilians, allowing humanitarian aid to reach those that so desperately need it, and then recognizing the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. It would be well worth checking this alternative path in place of the one Israel is on. • Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg
Asharq Al-Awsat
an hour ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Israel Says Campaign on Iran to Intensify as Tehran Pledges 'Destructive' Attacks
Israel pounded Iran for a second day on Saturday and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said its campaign would intensify, while Tehran stated that "heavy and destructive" attacks by Iran against Israel were expected within the coming hours. Netanyahu said Israel's strikes had set back Iran's nuclear program possibly by years and rejected international calls for restraint. "We will hit every site and every target of the Ayatollahs' regime, and what they have felt so far is nothing compared with what they will be handed in the coming days," he said in a video message. In Tehran, Iranian authorities said around 60 people, including 29 children, were killed in an attack on a housing complex, with more strikes reported across the country. Israel said it had attacked more than 150 targets. Iran had launched its own retaliatory missile volley on Friday night, killing at least three people in Israel. Air raid sirens sent Israelis into shelters as waves of missiles streaked across the sky and interceptors rose to meet them. In the first apparent attack to hit Iran's energy infrastructure, Iranian media reported a fire on Saturday after Israel bombed the South Pars gas field in southern Bushehr province. The semi-official Tasnim news agency said some gas production there was suspended following the attack. "If (Supreme Leader Ali) Khamenei continues to fire missiles at the Israeli home front, Tehran will burn," Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said. Iran said 78 people were killed on the first day and scores more on the second, including 60 when a missile brought down a 14-storey apartment block in Tehran, where 29 of the dead were children. A military official on Saturday said Israel had caused significant damage to Iran's nuclear facilities at Natanz and Isfahan, but had not so far taken on another uranium enrichment site, Fordow, dug into a mountain. The official said Israel had "eliminated the highest commanders of their military leadership" and had killed nine nuclear scientists who were "main sources of knowledge, main forces driving forward the (nuclear) program.'
