Trump Says US Knows Where Iran's Supreme Leader Is Hiding
H-Tayea
On Tuesday, US President Donald Trump stated that the United States knows the exact location of Iran's Supreme Leader but has no intention of targeting him.
'We know exactly where Iran's Supreme Leader is hiding — but we won't kill him,' Trump said, according to Al Qahera News Channel.
Trump added that Iran must agree to an 'unconditional surrender,' emphasizing that while Iran has access to advanced equipment, it is no match for US military capabilities.
read more
Gold prices rise, 21 Karat at EGP 3685
NATO's Role in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
US Expresses 'Strong Opposition' to New Turkish Military Operation in Syria
Shoukry Meets Director-General of FAO
Lavrov: confrontation bet. nuclear powers must be avoided
News
Iran Summons French Ambassador over Foreign Minister Remarks
News
Aboul Gheit Condemns Israeli Escalation in West Bank
News
Greek PM: Athens Plays Key Role in Improving Energy Security in Region
News
One Person Injured in Explosion at Ukrainian Embassy in Madrid
News
China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier
Sports
Former Al Zamalek Player Ibrahim Shika Passes away after Long Battle with Cancer
Lifestyle
Get to Know 2025 Eid Al Adha Prayer Times in Egypt
Business
Fear & Greed Index Plummets to Lowest Level Ever Recorded amid Global Trade War
Arts & Culture
Zahi Hawass: Claims of Columns Beneath the Pyramid of Khafre Are Lies
News
Flights suspended at Port Sudan Airport after Drone Attacks
Videos & Features
Video: Trending Lifestyle TikToker Valeria Márquez Shot Dead during Live Stream
News
Shell Unveils Cost-Cutting, LNG Growth Plan
Technology
50-Year Soviet Spacecraft 'Kosmos 482' Crashes into Indian Ocean
News
3 Killed in Shooting Attack in Thailand
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Egypt Independent
an hour ago
- Egypt Independent
Israel claims 40% of Iranian missiles destroyed: Fox News
The Israeli occupation army announced it has destroyed approximately 40 percent of Iran's missiles, according to Fox News. The New York Times reported that US military bases across the Middle East have raised their alert levels, citing officials in Washington. The newspaper further affirmed, quoting officials, that 'Iran has prepared missiles to strike American bases if the United States joins the war.' Officials also explained that 'if an attack occurs, Iran might begin planting mines in the Strait of Hormuz to blockade American ships.'
Egypt Today
3 hours ago
- Egypt Today
Middle East tensions highlight fragile regional stability, say UN conference leaders
CAIRO – 17 June 29025: The co-chairs of the United Nations High-Level International Conference on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution (France and Saudi Arabia), along with the chairs of the conference's working groups (Brazil, Canada, Egypt, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Mexico, Norway, Qatar, Senegal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the Arab League), said in a joint statement that recent events validate earlier warnings about the region's fragility and underscore the urgent need to restore calm, uphold international law, and strengthen diplomatic engagement. The joint statement expressed deep concern over the ongoing escalation and recent developments that have led to the suspension of the High-Level UN Conference. "At this critical juncture, we can only reaffirm our full commitment to the conference's goals and to ensuring that its work continues and its objectives are met," the statement read. The co-chairs announced that they would soon set new dates for the conference's roundtable discussions to incorporate the input of the working groups and work toward coordinated and clear international commitments that reflect a shared determination to implement the two-state solution. The statement emphasized that the current situation demands more than ever a renewed push to uphold international law, respect the sovereignty of states, and promote peace, freedom, and dignity for all peoples in the region. It reiterated unwavering support for all efforts aimed at ending the war in Gaza and achieving a just and sustainable resolution to the Palestinian question through the implementation of the two-state solution, ensuring security and stability for all countries in the region.
Al-Ahram Weekly
3 hours ago
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Netanyahu's unstoppable conflagration - World - Al-Ahram Weekly
In launching Operation Rising Lion against Iran last week, Israel crossed a threshold few in the international community dared imagine that it would. What Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented as a decisive strike against Iran's nuclear infrastructure is increasingly being seen in world capitals as a reckless gamble that has destabilised the region and shattered fragile hopes for a diplomatic resolution to Iran's nuclear programme. In the early hours of Thursday last week, more than 200 Israeli aircraft crossed into Iranian airspace in waves, targeting nearly 100 strategic sites. Among them were the nuclear enrichment facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Arak; missile assembly and production plants; Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) command centres; air-defence batteries; radar stations; and logistical hubs. The operation was coupled with extensive cyberattacks that disrupted Iran's radar systems, severed communications between key defence units, and paralysed air-defence responses in critical zones. Israeli officials described it as the most complex military action the country had carried out since the destruction of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. The strikes were surgical in design, aiming to degrade Iran's ability to produce weapons-grade material while minimising civilian casualties. Bunker-busting munitions were used against hardened targets, while drones were employed to hit mobile launchers and missile depots. The precision of the attacks was praised in the Israeli media, yet their political and strategic consequences have cast a long shadow. For all its technological superiority, Israel's operation did not eliminate the deeper threat posed by Iran's dispersed and resilient nuclear programme. In Washington, US President Donald Trump's initial public reaction was brief but revealing. Declaring that 'Israel is doing what it must,' he offered what many interpreted as tacit approval. The administration's posture appeared to be designed to align with Israel's objectives without formal entanglement. But beneath the surface, unease has mounted in the Pentagon and State Department. Senior military officials have warned that the strikes risk dragging the United States into a conflict it has not planned for. 'If Iran's retaliation touches a US base or our forces in the region, this could become our war overnight,' a CENTCOM officer reportedly warned. Analysts pointed to what they described as dangerous ambiguity. Commentator Aaron David Miller argued that 'by giving Israel space to act without consequence, the US has encouraged Netanyahu's calculus that this was a risk worth taking.' Robert Gates, a former US defence secretary, added that 'a first strike does not guarantee safety. It raises stakes, complicates diplomacy, and makes containment harder.' European capitals responded with alarm, though many echoed Israel's right to defend itself. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz described the strikes as a deliberate provocation at a moment when the priority should have been de-escalation, yet reaffirmed Israel's right to protect its people. French President Emmanuel Macron called the attack a destabilising act that threatened to engulf the region in war, urging restraint on all sides. Kaja Kallas, the EU's Foreign Policy chief, said the operation undermined what little remained of efforts to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions. China and Russia condemned the strikes outright, calling for an emergency session of the UN Security Council and accusing Israel of violating international law. Inside Israel itself, Netanyahu framed the operation in existential terms. In a televised address, he declared that Israel had acted to prevent a 'second Holocaust,' invoking national trauma to rally support. His hard-right allies, including government ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, praised the action as a necessary defence of the state. But dissent was quick to surface. Former Israel Occupation Force (IOF) chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot, in a closed-door briefing, said the strikes were tactically brilliant but strategically blind. 'We have exposed ourselves to multi-front retaliation with no clear plan for what comes next,' he warned. Smotrich himself expressed discomfort that such a monumental decision had been taken without full cabinet debate. Opposition leader Yair Lapid accused Netanyahu of exploiting national security to deflect from domestic crises – ballooning inflation, unrest over the Gaza war, and mass protests in Tel Aviv and Haifa. IRAN'S RESPONSE: Iran's response was immediate and multilayered. Within hours, the IRGC launched waves of ballistic missiles and suicide drones aimed at Israeli military and civilian targets. While Israel's Iron Dome and David's Sling air-defence systems intercepted the majority of incoming projectiles, several made it through. A missile struck near the Haifa port, wounding civilians and damaging infrastructure. In Tel Aviv, the impact of a drone attack near the city's outskirts caused widespread panic, though no casualties were reported. Air-raid sirens blared across the country, and schools were closed in multiple cities. Hizbullah, Iran's most formidable proxy, escalated tensions along Israel's northern border. In Southern Lebanon, rocket fire targeted Israeli outposts in the Galilee region. The Israeli Air Force responded with surgical strikes on Hizbullah command centres near Nabatieh and Tyre. Meanwhile, in Iraq and Syria, Iranian-aligned militias launched coordinated attacks on American positions and Israeli intelligence outposts. In Yemen, the Houthis attempted to strike Eilat with long-range drones, one of which reached southern Israel before being shot down. The unfolding exchange revealed not only the scale of Iran's retaliatory capacity but also the resilience of its regional proxy network. Israel's military superiority in technology and precision warfare was clear, but Iran's ability to open simultaneous fronts in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen underscored the limits of unilateral deterrence. Israeli military officials confirmed that over 1,000 projectiles including missiles, rockets, and drones had been launched at Israel within 72 hours. The Israeli response included retaliatory airstrikes, cyberattacks, and covert sabotage operations against missile launch sites and logistical nodes in the Iranian-backed network. Yet, even as Israel hit back effectively, the scope of the escalation left the strategic landscape altered. Tal Inbar, a senior defence analyst in Tel Aviv, said the strikes may have delayed Iran's nuclear timeline, 'but they have simultaneously legitimised a more aggressive Iranian posture. Tehran now has both a narrative of victimhood and a motive for acceleration.' Inbar also warned that the Iranians had likely dispersed their enrichment capabilities across dozens of secret underground locations in anticipation of such strikes. Tehran responded by severing cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), expelling inspectors, and declaring its right to enrich uranium 'without constraint.' Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, addressing the country's parliament the Majlis, said that 'from this day forward, the Islamic Republic will determine its path with no interference. We will not be bullied into submission.' Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei vowed 'strategic patience,' but hinted that Iran's future steps would be 'calculated to ensure a historic reversal of Israeli aggression.' Former Israeli Mossad chief Tamir Pardo argued that Netanyahu's operation had shifted Israel from a strategy of calibrated deterrence to one of precarious dominance. 'We've broken the regional order without knowing how to remake it,' he said. Uzi Arad, Netanyahu's former National Security adviser, warned that 'Israel has made itself the focal point of a regional conflagration it cannot manage alone.' ARAB RESPONSE: Across Arab capitals, alarm was growing that a broader regional war could erupt. Marwan Muasher, Jordan's former foreign minister, said the strike 'not only shattered fragile diplomatic channels – it handed Iran a golden opportunity to rally allies and delegitimise Israel on a global scale.' Emile Hokayem of the International Institute for Strategic Studies added that 'this is not 1981. The world is not applauding.' In the Gulf, public reaction was muted but nervous. While governments in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have long viewed Iran's nuclear programme as a destabilising threat, both states urged immediate restraint. The UAE called for an emergency session of the Arab League, while Saudi Arabia signalled concern that further escalation could unravel regional economic and security gains. Qatar and Kuwait condemned Israel's action more explicitly, warning that the use of force outside legal frameworks set a dangerous precedent. Egypt, while expressing sympathy with Israeli concerns, called on all parties to return to diplomacy before the conflict spiralled further. At the United Nations, the Security Council failed to adopt a resolution condemning the Israeli strikes due to US opposition, but discussions highlighted growing isolation. China accused Israel of acting as a 'rogue nuclear saboteur,' while Russia likened the strikes to 'state-sponsored terrorism.' Western allies of Israel walked a finer line recognising its right to self-defence but urging proportionality and a return to negotiations. Canada, Australia, and the UK joined NATO in calling for calm. The Trump administration, under pressure from Congress, reiterated support for Israel's security while avoiding direct endorsement of the strikes. 'Israel has the right to defend itself,' the White House statement read, 'but our shared goal remains regional stability through diplomacy.' Despite Israel's military success in executing Operation Rising Lion, the price of that success is becoming clearer. Netanyahu, having framed the strikes as a historic necessity, faces a dramatically altered security and diplomatic environment. His declaration that 'weak nations wait; strong nations act' captured the bravado of the moment, but behind closed doors Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and senior IOF commanders reportedly warned that Israel is now navigating uncharted waters. 'One miscalculation could ignite a region-wide war, with no exit ramp,' Gallant is said to have told Cabinet colleagues. The domestic political impact inside Israel was immediate. A temporary rally-around-the-flag effect boosted Netanyahu's support in overnight polls, but protests resumed within days, with thousands gathering in Tel Aviv demanding clarity on Israel's long-term plans and accusing the prime minister of risking national security for personal survival. The opposition, led by Yair Lapid and Benny Gantz, has demanded an emergency debate on military and diplomatic options. Within the governing coalition itself, fissures appeared, as more moderate voices warned against pushing the confrontation beyond the point of no return. Iran, meanwhile, appears to have seized the opportunity to unify its domestic audience. The strikes, widely seen as an assault on national sovereignty, have emboldened hardliners and marginalised moderates who once advocated limited engagement with the West. In a speech broadcast nationwide, Pezeshkian promised 'decades of resistance' and vowed that Iran's nuclear programme would advance at a pace and scope 'never before witnessed.' Khamenei, adopting a tone of steely resolve, warned that Israel would 'face the full force of the axis of resistance in due course'. Regional diplomacy has entered a period of intense activity but with few signs of progress. NATO continues to call for de-escalation. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) convened an emergency summit, issuing a statement that balanced concern about Iranian capabilities with condemnation of Israel's actions. The Arab League's united voice in condemning the Israeli strikes was notable for its rare cohesion, reflecting widespread fears that further escalation would destabilise the entire Middle East. Russia and China, seeking to capitalise diplomatically, offered to mediate, though Israel swiftly dismissed such overtures as 'insincere and unhelpful.' In Washington, divisions within the administration became increasingly visible. While Trump and his closest advisers praised Israel's 'decisive action,' others in the Pentagon and State Department warned that the strikes could undermine years of effort to contain Iran diplomatically and risk dragging the US into a direct military confrontation. Former officials, including Robert Gates, argued that 'the focus must now shift to containment and de-escalation before events overtake policy.' Aaron David Miller added that 'Netanyahu's gamble may well reshape the region but not necessarily in ways that serve Israel's long-term interests or those of the United States.' CONSEQUENCES: The balance of power has shifted but not as Netanyahu may have hoped. Israel's military advantage remains intact, but its political capital has been depleted. Its deterrence may have been demonstrated, but at the cost of emboldening Iran's nuclear ambitions, strengthening its proxies, and uniting adversaries. Iran's asymmetric capabilities – its network of partners and proxies, its missile forces, and its growing cyber capacity – remain intact, and perhaps more motivated than ever. The prospect of a prolonged, multi-front conflict now looms larger than at any point in recent memory. Leading think tanks have warned that the region's strategic landscape has entered a period of dangerous flux. While Israel demonstrated unmatched precision and technological might, striking at the heart of Iran's nuclear infrastructure and missile production sites, it did not achieve what some had hoped would be a decisive shift in the balance of power. Analysts argue that Iran's geographic depth, combined with its layered system of proxies across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, grants it a resilience that cannot be neutralised through airstrikes alone. Rather than collapsing under pressure, Iran appears poised to recalibrate its strategy, leaning even more heavily on asymmetric tools that can sustain a long-term campaign of attrition against Israel. Strategic assessments emerging from Western and regional policy institutes suggest that Iran's response to the Israeli strikes will likely be twofold. On one front, Tehran is expected to redouble its investment in missile and drone technologies, deepening partnerships with its regional allies to offset its conventional military losses. On the other, Iran is predicted to accelerate efforts to disperse and harden its nuclear programme, taking critical activities deeper underground and beyond the reach of conventional air power. This dual strategy, experts warn, will not only complicate future pre-emptive actions by Israel but also embolden Iran's position in the region, transforming it from an embattled actor to one that can claim the mantle of resistance in the face of external aggression. Within Israel, sober voices in the military and intelligence communities have cautioned that technological superiority, while vital, does not in itself guarantee lasting security. The capacity to strike with precision has done little to blunt the determination of Iran's leadership or its allies. On the contrary, the current confrontation appears to have strengthened the hand of Iranian hardliners, marginalising voices that once entertained the possibility of limited engagement with the West. Israeli planners now face a dilemma: how to contain the multifaceted threats posed by Iran and its proxies without becoming bogged down in an open-ended confrontation that could drain resources and erode public confidence at home. The confrontation between Israel and Iran has entered a critical phase, as Iran urgently signals its willingness to de-escalate and return to negotiations over its nuclear programme, provided the United States refrains from direct involvement in the conflict. According to messages relayed through Arab intermediaries, Tehran seeks to contain the violence and prevent further damage to its already battered military and nuclear infrastructure. Yet, with Israeli airstrikes continuing unabated, targeting key Iranian military leaders and energy facilities, Israel shows little inclination to halt its offensive. Netanyahu insists the campaign will continue until Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities are neutralised. As Gulf states urge Washington to pressure Israel towards restraint, the risk of a wider regional war looms, with energy security and global markets hanging in the balance. As the dust settles, what will emerge is a balance of power that remains as precarious as ever, albeit with new complexities and risks. Israel will retain its edge in air power, intelligence, and missile defence, but its margin for unilateral action has narrowed, with international patience wearing thin and regional tensions at a breaking point. Iran, though bruised, is far from broken. Its capacity to wage asymmetric warfare remains intact, and its determination to assert its influence across the region seems only to have hardened. The coming period is likely to see both sides engaged in a tense, high-stakes chess match, with the risk of miscalculation casting a long shadow over an already volatile region. As air-raid sirens fall silent, and as the region assesses the wreckage from this dramatic escalation, the fundamental questions remain unresolved. Will diplomacy regain its footing? Or will the Middle East slide further into conflict, driven by miscalculation, vengeance, and hardline posturing on all sides? The choices made in Jerusalem, Tehran, Washington, and beyond in the coming days will determine whether Operation Rising Lion is remembered as a turning point towards a new, more dangerous era or as the moment when leaders chose, against all odds, to step back from the brink. * A version of this article appears in print in the 19 June, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
