IDF Strikes Six Airfields Across Iran, Says 15 Aircraft Destroyed
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched coordinated airstrikes on six Iranian regime airports located across western, eastern, and central Iran, destroying 15 aircraft and helicopters. The strikes, conducted using remotely manned aircraft, targeted runways, underground bunkers, and multiple aircraft including F-14s, F-5s, AH-1 helicopters, and a refueling plane, all reportedly intended for counter-operations against Israeli Air Force missions.
According to the IDF, the operation was aimed at deepening Israeli air superiority in Iranian airspace by disrupting Iran's ability to launch air attacks and support its aerial operations. By damaging infrastructure and neutralising key assets, the Israeli Air Force effectively hindered takeoff capabilities from the targeted airports and reduced the operational strength of the Iranian army's air power.
The Israeli military on Monday announced it was conducting airstrikes on military infrastructure in Kermanshah, located in western Iran, as hostilities between the two countries entered their 11th consecutive day.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) carried out a series of airstrikes targeting launch and storage sites for surface-to-surface missiles in the Kermanshah region of Iran, which were aimed at Israeli territory. According to the military, the strikes were executed by more than 15 Air Force fighter jets, guided by precise intelligence provided by the IDF Intelligence Directorate.
The IDF stated that the operation is part of its broader effort to weaken the Iranian regime's military capabilities and achieve air superiority, vowing to continue its operations to ensure the security of the State of Israel.
Israel launched large-scale attacks on Iran on June 13 targeting its missile and nuclear facilities, as well as military leaders and security services.
Aerial assaults raged between the two foes early Monday, while Tehran vowed retaliation over the bunker-buster bombs American warplanes unleashed at the weekend on three nuclear sites.
US President Donald Trump insisted the attack had 'obliterated" Iran's nuclear capabilities, but other officials said it was too soon to determine how significantly Tehran's nuclear programme had been impacted.
First Published:
June 23, 2025, 12:26 IST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
9 minutes ago
- Time of India
US declines to comment on Pakistan F-16 losses during Operation Sindoor despite IAF Chief's claims
The United States government is silent on whether Pakistan lost F-16 fighter jets during Operation Sindoor. This is unlike previous instances where the US confirmed the status of Pakistan's F-16 fleet. India claims to have shot down Pakistani aircraft and damaged an F-16 hangar. Pakistan denies these claims and suggests a third-party review. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads US contractors have access to Pakistani F-16's Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads IAF claims F-16 damage at Jacobabad during airfield strikes Air-to-air claims and Pakistan's rebuttal No response from US to formal information requests The United States government has declined to comment on whether Pakistan lost any of its US-supplied F-16 fighter jets during Operation Sindoor , the 88-hour conflict between India and Pakistan from May 7 to May 10. Responding to NDTV 's queries, the US State Department stated, "We refer you to the Government of Pakistan to discuss its F-16s."This position contrasts with previous disclosures highlighted in an NDTV report, which cited a 2019 article by Foreign Policy magazine. At the time, shortly after India's Balakot air strikes, the magazine reported that two senior US defence officials with direct knowledge of the situation had said all of Pakistan's F-16s were accounted for. The clarification followed India's claim that it had shot down a Pakistani F-16 fleet is governed by detailed end-use agreements with the United States. Under these agreements, American contractors—known as Technical Support Teams (TSTs)—are deployed in Pakistan around the clock to monitor the aircraft. These teams are contractually obligated to ensure that the aircraft are used in compliance with the agreements and to maintain full knowledge of the operational status of each presence of these oversight mechanisms has typically allowed the US to confirm or deny reports of losses, making its silence in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor believes several F-16s may have been lost during the operation, either destroyed on the ground or shot down in aerial combat. On Saturday, Indian Air Force Chief Air Chief Marshal AP Singh said that Shahbaz Jacobabad airfield , which houses an F-16 hangar, was among the major Pakistani air bases targeted."One half of the hangar is gone. And I'm sure there were some aircraft inside which have got damaged there," he to the Air Chief, the IAF carried out strikes on three critical airfield hangars: a UAV hangar at Sukkur, an AEW&C facility at Bholari, and the F-16 hangar at Jacobabad. He said indications pointed to at least one AEW&C aircraft and several F-16s under maintenance being present at the time of the air base is home to Pakistan's 39 Tactical Wing and is located west of Indian Air Force also claims to have shot down six Pakistani aircraft during the operation—five fighters and one larger platform, possibly an electronic intelligence (ELINT) or AEW&C aircraft. The IAF has not disclosed the exact types of fighter jets it believes were shot meanwhile, has rejected India's claims. Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif challenged India to allow a third-party review of both sides' air force inventories. "If the truth is in question, let both sides open their aircraft inventories to independent verification – though we suspect this would lay bare the reality India seeks to obscure," he said. India has not responded to this also submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the US Department of Defense, asking similar questions to those recently posed to the State Department. The Pentagon replied that the FOIA does not require agencies to 'compile information, conduct research, answer questions, or create new documents in response to FOIA requests.' Subsequent queries to the Pentagon and the office of the Secretary of Defense received no response.
Time of India
9 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's 50% tariff threatens India's manufacturing ambitions
Bloomberg Live Events India's largest shoemaker Farida Group had already staked out the land — a 150-acre plot in southern Tamil Nadu — for a sprawling new export plant. Then came a blow from Washington: President Donald Trump announced he was doubling tariffs on Indian exports to 50%.For Farida, which supplies brands like Cole Haan and Clarks and depends on the US for about 60% of its business, the impact was immediate. New orders stopped. The 10 billion rupee ($114 million) project froze.'With 25% tariffs, you can still work, you can give some discount, negotiate with the buyer and make some adjustments in your profits,' Rafeeque Ahmed, the company's chairman, said in an interview. 'At 50%, you don't have anything.'Farida is hardly alone. Trump's move would give India the highest tariff rate in Asia, threatening a manufacturing sector that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has spent a decade trying to build to take on the likes of China. The 'Make in India' campaign was supposed to lift manufacturing to 25% of the economy. Last year, it stood at just 13% — lower than the 16% in 2015, according to World Bank last few years did offer glimmers of the future Modi had envisioned. Apple Inc. scaled up iPhone assembly in India, making the country the second-largest smartphone producer after China. Pharmaceuticals and green tech have also gained ground. The US — whose policies and actions accelerated companies' adoption of a 'China Plus One' strategy to diversify supply chains — is now India's biggest export market and one of its top sources of foreign progress is suddenly vulnerable. While the tariff hike spares smartphones and pharmaceuticals for now, it puts the rest of India's $87 billion in US-bound exports on the line.'Forget China Plus One right now. Companies are thinking India Plus One,' Ahmed said. 'They are making plans to move out of India.'India's Ministry of Commerce and Industry didn't immediately respond to a request for says the tariff hike is punishment for India's purchase of discounted oil from Russia, which he argues helps fund President Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. But India was the only major economy to be hit with such 'secondary tariffs,' even though China is the largest overall buyer of Moscow's the 50% rate holds, Bloomberg Economics estimates US-bound exports from India could fall by 60% and put nearly 1% of gross domestic product at risk. Without exemptions for pharmaceuticals and electronics, the decline could reach 80%. Even the earlier 25% rate — already higher than in Vietnam, Malaysia or Bangladesh, was enough to threaten a 30% drop in exports. For comparison, Chinese goods face about a 30% US tariff.'In addition to the economic challenge, politically it's difficult for Prime Minister Modi that India now pays a higher blanket rate than China,' said Alexander Slater, head of the India practice at consulting firm is pressing on other fronts as well. Beijing wants to limit tech transfers and equipment exports to India and Southeast Asia, aiming to deter companies from relocating production, Bloomberg previously reported. China's rare earth curbs also hit Indian automakers earlier this the same time, Trump's tariffs have opened the door for closer India-China ties. Direct flights may resume as soon as next month, and Beijing has eased restrictions on urea exports to the factory floor, anxiety over the US tariff is palpable. Ajay Sahai, chief executive officer of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations, said exporters could see demand fall 20% in the short term. The timing couldn't be worse: summer 2026 orders are being placed right now, but with tariffs sitting at 50%, buyers are balking.'I've been getting 80 to 90 calls every day concerning these issues from exporters seeking solutions and ways out,' he said. 'It's difficult to do business in such a tariff environment.'Some factories are slashing prices to hold on to customers. The only way to retain buyers is by giving huge discounts, said Sudhir Sekhri, managing director at apparel maker Trend Setters Group. Spring and summer orders account for roughly 65% of his firm's Mumbai, Sharad Kumar Saraf, managing director of Technocraft Group, which produces scaffolding, textiles and other goods, is running the numbers to reduce costs for buyers. About a third of its sales are headed for the US. 'Additional tariffs is unwarranted and uncalled for and will impact our trade severely,' he said.
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
China-US-Pakistan: Why questions need to be asked about India's diplomacy
Decision-making in foreign policy is not an isolated act. In the economically interdependent and security-centred world, it takes domestic issues into account. Therefore, serious public debate and critical public scrutiny of foreign policy matters are essential. Unlike in an authoritarian state, a mature democracy provides sufficient space where interested individuals can critically examine an event, differently from the government of the day. Constitutional and political responsibility to create such free space lies with democratic institutions, including the media. It becomes even more important in the context of recent developments in India's foreign policy and diplomatic affairs. US President Donald Trump's imposition of exorbitant tariffs on India mainly for buying crude oil from Russia, the external affairs minister S Jaishankar's proposed visit to Moscow, possibly paving the way for Vladimir Putin's early visit to New Delhi,Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi' is visiting New Delhi and Indian PM Modi's plans to meet the Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the SCO meetings, indicates how fast changes can happen in international affairs and bilateral ties. Further, threatening statements made by Pakistani Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir and his seemingly growing relations with Washington give us an increasing reason to critically assess the future of India-Pakistan ties. Post-Operation Sindoor debates largely remain one-sided. Most conclude with supporting the government's position or raising comfortable questions. The government and its supporters defend the ceasefire, while the Opposition questions it. In this political slugfest, some of the relevant questions remain untouched: How to deal with Pakistan? All previous Indian Prime Ministers have dealt with Pakistan in their own way. Soon after his election, PM Modi briefly engaged in talks with Pakistan, but they could not be taken forward, largely due to historical and structural reasons. Then, what options does India have? Are we going to fight with Pakistan for years? Should India engage in talks with Pakistan? How do continuous tensions with Pakistan impact communal ties in India? These and related questions need critical public debate. After India and the US began developing close ties in the early post-Cold War years, many Indian analysts started believing that Washington would support New Delhi in dealing with Beijing. Conversely, over the years, the US leadership has supported India's stance against China mainly to secure its interests and not those of New Delhi. The Donald Trump administration has always been seen as the friendliest American government by a big section of the Indian population, obviously, before the latest tariff war. Many Indian Americans supported Trump, and some Indians publicly celebrated Trump's last presidential win. But India failed to learn from history. Historically, the US has never been a reliable friend to many countries. The past of US-Pakistan ties is an example. Until a few weeks before, a big section of Indian media had discussed India-US ties without critically evaluating the history and politics of its foreign relations. Now, the same anchors are against the Trump administration. Even though China has remained India's important trading partner, most public debates in the country mainly consider Beijing as a 'threat' to New Delhi's security and larger strategic interests. At present, the two countries are in the process of resetting their bilateral ties, which were affected after the confrontation in Galwan Valley. However, political differences and disputes remain intact. During India-Pakistan tensions in April-May this year, several Indians accused China of backing Pakistan against India. Wang Yi's visit to New Delhi and Modi's visit to China may help the two countries to clear some of the obstacles on the road. However, as the talks will be held in the backdrop of India-US tensions over tariffs, New Delhi may not be in a strong position vis-à-vis Beijing. In such a situation, the following questions need to be critically examined: How should India deal with the US and China? Does India need friendly ties with China to deal with Trump's administration? Will a 'Dragon-Elephant Tango' benefit India and China? How can India secure its interests in Asia without the US? Modi's 151 foreign visits to 72 countries, including 10 to the US, in the last 11 years, have certainly improved bilateral ties with some of those countries. These visits have also helped in deepening India's ties with them. However, many foreign policy-related challenges remain unsettled. Foreign policy has its politics and economics affecting a big population in a country like India, and thus, critical debate is essential. In a democracy, serious debates, differences in opinion, and dissenting views on any matters, including foreign policy-related issues, should be accepted even if one strongly disagrees with the state and the elites. The writer is a fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies, NUS, Singapore
