Israel's unprecedented attack shows Iran has become a 'playground' for the Mossad
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here BREAKING Australian killed, another injured in Bali villa shooting incident Israeli intelligence agency Mossad had smuggled weapons into Iran ahead of the strikes, according to Israeli security officials, and would use the weapons to target Iran's defence from within. The officials said Israel established a base for launching explosive drones inside Iran, and the drones were later used to target missile launchers near Tehran. Military personnel stand near the flag-draped coffin of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh during his funeral in Tehran, Iran, in November 2020. (Iranian Defense Ministry/AP) Precision weapons were also smuggled in and used to target surface-to-air missile systems, clearing the way for Israel's Air Force to carry out more than 100 strikes with upward of 200 aircraft in the early hours of Friday local time. The plan to disable Iranian defences seems to have been effective; Israel said all of its aircraft returned safely from the first waves of strikes, appearing to show Israeli air superiority over parts of a country hundreds of miles away. Intelligence gathered by the Mossad in Iran also gave Israel's air force the ability to target senior Iranian commanders and scientists. In this photo released by the official website of the Iranian Defense Ministry, military personnel carry the flag draped coffin of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a scientist who was killed on Friday, in a funeral ceremony in Tehran, Iran, Monday, November 30. (AP) In an incredibly rare move, the Mossad released video from some of its operations, showing drones attacking what appear to be unsuspecting missile launchers. It is the latest operation to show how deeply Israel's intelligence services, including the Mossad, have penetrated some of Iran's most closely guarded secrets. The operations have made the Mossad appear a nearly unstoppable force in Iran, capable of hitting at some of its highest-ranking officials and most sensitive sites. "Mossad has treated Iran like its playground for years now," said Holly Dagres, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute and curator of the Iranist newsletter. "From assassinating top nuclear scientists to sabotaging Iranian nuclear facilities, Israel has proved time and time again that it has always had the upper hand in this shadow war that has now been playing out in the open since the first tit-for-tat strikes in April 2024." Firefighters and people clean up the scene of an explosion in a residence compound after Israel attacked Iran's capital Tehran, Friday, June 13, 2025. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi) An Israeli security source said the latest operation required commando forces operating deep within Tehran and across the country while avoiding detection from Iran's security and intelligence agencies. The source said Mossad teams targeted air defence missiles, ballistic missiles, and missile launchers as the attack from the Israeli Air Force began. A second Israeli security source said the Mossad operations were years in the making, involving both intelligence-gathering efforts and the deployment of Mossad commandos deep behind enemy lines. Some of the Mossad commando forces operated in the Iranian capital itself, according to the security source. In addition to the drone base established by the Mossad long before Wednesday's attack, Mossad commandos deployed "precision-guided weapons systems" near Iranian missile air defence systems, which were activated at the same time as the Israeli air force began striking its targets. A second operation deployed sophisticated vehicle-mounted weaponry to target other Iranian defence systems. The Mossad operation also involved assassinations of top Iranian officials. Israel has shown – flaunted even – the Mossad's ability to operate with near impunity in Iran in the past. Starting in the early-2010s, Iran accused Israel of carrying out a campaign of assassinations against the country's nuclear scientists. Smoke rises up after an explosion in Tehran, Iran on Friday, June 13. (AP) Former Defence Minister Moshe Ya'alon tacitly acknowledged the targeted killings when he said in 2015 that Israel cannot be held responsible "for the life expectancy of Iran's nuclear scientists." From 2007 to 2012 Israel allegedly carried out five covert assassinations, nearly all in Tehran, through remote-controlled bombings, or remote-controlled machine guns. Only one of Iran's key nuclear scientists survived the assassination attempt, Fereydoon Abbasi. Just last month, Abbasi told Iranian state media that any attack on production sites would have little impact on the timeline of developing a bomb, saying, "our capabilities are spread all over the country. If they target production sites, it will be inconsequential to our timetable, because our nuclear materials are not stored above ground for them to hit." Abbasi was one of the scientists killed in Israel's early morning attack in Tehran. The Mossad's actions soon became much more public. In early-2018, Israel stole Iran's nuclear archive from Tehran, displaying the intelligence coup in a live broadcast from Jerusalem. Speaking in English, Netanyahu showed off the archive, including what he said were copies of 55,000 pages of Iranian nuclear information and a display of discs he said were 55,000 files. Israeli Iron Dome air defense system fires to intercept missiles over Tel Aviv, Israel on Friday, June 13. (AP) Iran tried to dismiss Netanyahu's comments as "childish" and "laughable," but the plundering of the archive showed the confidence Israel had in the Mossad's ability to function in Tehran. The operation, which would have required extensive planning and an intimate knowledge of the archive's location and security, pushed the first Trump administration to withdraw from the original nuclear agreement with Iran, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In November 2020, Israel assassinated Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Iran's chief nuclear scientist, while he was in a bulletproof car travelling with his wife. Fakhrizadeh's car was moving in a convoy with three security vehicles when he came under fire. Iranian state media said a remote-controlled machine gun opened fire on the nuclear scientist, who had been a long-time target for Israel. The operation, which Israel has not publicly acknowledged, was carried out with remarkable precision, and it displayed a deep knowledge of Fakhrizadeh's pattern of life. And yet despite its repeated inability to stop the Mossad, Iran has proven incapable of improving. Ram Ben Barak, the former deputy director of the Mossad, said the organisation's continued success is "due to a very, very disliked regime, even hated by most of the public, so this allows for intelligence penetration on one hand, and on the other, you have the sophistication and professionalism of the Israeli intelligence personnel." After the start of the war in Gaza, Israel assassinated Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in the heart of Tehran. A source familiar with the matter said Israel planted an explosive device in a guest house where Haniyeh was known to stay. The bomb was concealed in the room for two months before the targeted killing and detonated remotely once Haniyeh was in the room. World
Iran
Israel
Middle East CONTACT US
Property News: The last inner Sydney suburbs where houses cost under $2m.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Israel has the upper hand but a humiliated Iran is still a serious threat
Iran is wounded, humiliated and weakened — and extremely dangerous. Senior military and nuclear chiefs have been assassinated, some in their homes. Israeli commandos have struck tightly-guarded air defence installations. Agents have smuggled drones deep inside the state, exposing Iran's feared internal security as inattentive and hapless. Maybe it was looking the wrong way: when I was in Tehran, in 2019, I was accused by one muttering security agent of being a spy, despite being accompanied everywhere I went by a government-provided minder. It might be able to arrest student protesters and enforce head-scarf rules — but it can't touch Mossad's operatives. It is harder now for Iran to retaliate. Its Syrian ally, Bashar al-Assad, is gone. Its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, has been decapitated. The Houthis, in Yemen, harass shipping and launch the occasional missile, but they're not an existential threat to Israel. Iran's supreme leader, the 86-year-old Ali Khamanei, will be under immense pressure to respond. There's no real danger that his regime will be overthrown — there are plenty of disgruntled citizens, weary of sanctions and tired of the "death to America" chants of the religious autocracy, but there is no significant opposition or effective anti-government movement — but inaction makes Khamanei and his supporters seem weak. The easiest, quickest act is to launch more missiles. That's the immediate threat to Israel right now, and it'll keep Israeli citizens inside their bunkers and basements over the weekend and into next week as they anticipate more strikes. Ballistic missiles are much harder to intercept than drones, and waves of missiles launched simultaneously can overwhelm Israeli air defences. We saw that last October, when around 180 missiles were launched from Iran and about two dozen made it through, some striking Israel's biggest city, Tel Aviv. But any significant death toll in Israel from missile attacks would prompt more severe Israeli strikes on Iran — and next time, Israel might not confine itself to attacks on military installations and nuclear research sites. Surface-to-air missile sites have been destroyed across Iran, and its weakened air defences have yet to take out a single Israeli jet. The paranoia inside Iran right now must be overwhelming — if Mossad can pinpoint figures like revolutionary guards commander Hossein Salami and army chief of staff Mohammad Bergheri, it can take out political and religious leaders, too. Iran's proxy army in Lebanon, Hezbollah, retains the capacity to launch missiles across the Lebanon/Israel border, but it's not the threat that it once was. The militia was devastated by months of airstrikes, the pager attack that wounded an estimated 2,700 of its senior operatives in September and the killing of its leader, Hassan Nasrallah. It's so difficult for Iran to directly attack Israel that its leaders might be tempted to authorise attacks on other targets: like US troops in Iraq, Saudi oil refineries, shipping in the Persian Gulf, or Israeli or US civilians around the world. The US said it was not involved in the strikes on Iran, but Iran is already treating it as an American-backed attack and both Donald Trump and Marco Rubio have said they were told of the imminent attacks, and were in favour of this type of unilateral act. US employees and their families had already been withdrawn from some foreign postings. Negotiations to freeze Iran's nuclear program were going nowhere. The attacks might push Iran back to the table — Israel hit key nuclear sites but didn't directly attack Iran's stockpiles of enriched uranium, which are buried deep underground. But it's also possible that Iran will now abandon the pretence of negotiations and push ahead with enrichment, deep underground, out of reach of both Mossad and the Israeli Air Force.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
I'm a working mum. Here's why I oppose Labor's universal childcare
Like every other parent I know right now, one of the biggest expenses in my budget is childcare. Of course, I greatly value it because it allows my partner and I to work, and offers amazing benefits for my child. But seeing how much we fork out on this service every week makes my stomach drop. Since 2006, the cost of childcare has risen across Australia by 48 per cent for couples and 76 per cent for single parents. In Victoria alone, the current average fee for childcare is $145 a day before subsidies. So it's hardly surprising that for years now, people have been desperately calling for more to be done. And when you combine those numbers with the facts that I'm both a working mum myself and passionate about making women's return to work easier, you might think I'd be all for the government's plan to introduce universal childcare. But you know what? I'm actually not. There are a few reasons for this, and the first one is simple: the government's plan ignores expert advice, something I'm a big fan of. When the Productivity Commission looked into the government's proposed model - which would see childcare fees cost no more than between $10 and $20 a day for all Australian families - they found it would cost taxpayers an extra $8.3 billion each year, taking the annual total cost of childcare to $21 billion. They also found it would increase demand, potentially reduce the quality of care, cost taxpayers much more than the commission's suggested model, and would not be equitable. Their report to the government spelt this out plainly, stating: 'A disproportionate share of the increased government support would go to the families whose incomes are in the top 25 per cent of income distribution.' In other words, those who need the least help stand to gain the most. Surely the goal should be to have a policy that is universally beneficial, not just universal in name. So what was the alternative proposal? The commission suggested maintaining the existing system but changing the eligibility criteria, so that families earning less than $80,000 with one child and families earning up to $140,000 with multiple children in childcare can receive three free days of care each week for 48 weeks per year. They also recommended removing the subsidy for families with a combined income of $580,000 or more. This model would cost an additional $4.7 billion annually – $3.6 billion less than the government's plan.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
I'm a working mum. Here's why I oppose Labor's universal childcare
Like every other parent I know right now, one of the biggest expenses in my budget is childcare. Of course, I greatly value it because it allows my partner and I to work, and offers amazing benefits for my child. But seeing how much we fork out on this service every week makes my stomach drop. Since 2006, the cost of childcare has risen across Australia by 48 per cent for couples and 76 per cent for single parents. In Victoria alone, the current average fee for childcare is $145 a day before subsidies. So it's hardly surprising that for years now, people have been desperately calling for more to be done. And when you combine those numbers with the facts that I'm both a working mum myself and passionate about making women's return to work easier, you might think I'd be all for the government's plan to introduce universal childcare. But you know what? I'm actually not. There are a few reasons for this, and the first one is simple: the government's plan ignores expert advice, something I'm a big fan of. When the Productivity Commission looked into the government's proposed model - which would see childcare fees cost no more than between $10 and $20 a day for all Australian families - they found it would cost taxpayers an extra $8.3 billion each year, taking the annual total cost of childcare to $21 billion. They also found it would increase demand, potentially reduce the quality of care, cost taxpayers much more than the commission's suggested model, and would not be equitable. Their report to the government spelt this out plainly, stating: 'A disproportionate share of the increased government support would go to the families whose incomes are in the top 25 per cent of income distribution.' In other words, those who need the least help stand to gain the most. Surely the goal should be to have a policy that is universally beneficial, not just universal in name. So what was the alternative proposal? The commission suggested maintaining the existing system but changing the eligibility criteria, so that families earning less than $80,000 with one child and families earning up to $140,000 with multiple children in childcare can receive three free days of care each week for 48 weeks per year. They also recommended removing the subsidy for families with a combined income of $580,000 or more. This model would cost an additional $4.7 billion annually – $3.6 billion less than the government's plan.
