Latest news with #IranianNuclear
Al Arabiya
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
A pause or a prelude? The fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel
On June 25, 2025, a ceasefire between Israel and Iran came into effect, bringing a sudden and dramatic halt to twelve days of direct and unprecedented military confrontation. The truce surprised many observers around the world. For weeks, tensions had escalated rapidly after Israel launched airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, followed by a wave of Iranian missile and drone retaliation. The ferocity of the exchange, coupled with long-standing hostilities between the two states, led many analysts and politicians to assume that Israel would pursue the campaign until Iran's nuclear infrastructure was completely dismantled or until the Islamic Republic's central authority was irreparably shaken. Many expected Israel to press its military advantage and continue striking; There were even speculations that the broader goal might be to destabilize or collapse the Iranian government altogether. Yet the ceasefire, as unexpected as it may have seemed to some, was ultimately the product of deeper historical patterns, strategic calculations, and logistical realities. First, a look at the history of Israel's military conflicts reveals that temporary ceasefires are a consistent feature of its wartime strategy. During past wars with Hezbollah in Lebanon or in operations against Hamas in Gaza, ceasefires were accepted at key junctures. These pauses have rarely signaled the end of conflict. Instead, they have served multiple purposes – providing breathing room for the population, allowing the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to assess battlefield performance, and giving political leaders time to navigate shifting diplomatic and military conditions. In that context, the current ceasefire with Iran should not come as a shock. Though the stakes and geography are dramatically broader in this case, the strategic logic remains consistent. Ceasefires could be tactical pauses. For Israel, this ceasefire most likely offers significant, albeit temporary, advantages. First and foremost, it allows the government and military command to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of their twelve-day aerial campaign. With advanced surveillance, satellite imaging, and digital tracking systems, Israel can now measure the success of its strikes, identify which Iranian assets remain intact, and prepare for any future engagements. These kinds of reassessments are critical in an era of high-tech, multi-front warfare. Second, the truce enables Israeli civilians to return to a semblance of normalcy. Throughout the conflict, cities like Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Beersheba were subjected to repeated Iranian missile and drone attacks. For many residents, life had ground to a halt. The ceasefire now allows citizens to reemerge, regroup, and recover from the psychological strain of continuous alerts and air raid sirens. The return to normal life – no matter how temporary – is a crucial relief for the country. Third, the ceasefire grants Israel a valuable diplomatic opportunity. By agreeing to halt its military operations – even after successfully striking key targets – Israel projects to the international community that it is not pursuing escalation for its own sake. This move can help mend some of the frayed ties with Europe and parts of the Global South, where criticism of Israeli military policy has grown. At the same time, it reinforces Israel's image as a responsible actor, capable of restraint even in the face of provocation. Fourth, the IDF now has time to replenish its resources, repair any damage to bases or weapons systems, and evaluate operational weaknesses. Despite Israel's superiority in the air, the Iranian counterattacks – especially the use of longer-range drones – provided Israel with a sobering glimpse into Iran's evolving tactics. This ceasefire gives the Israeli military the space to adapt, train, and integrate new technologies into their defense apparatus. Fifth, and no less important, the ceasefire allows Israel to redirect its focus to other strategic concerns. With the Iranian front on pause, Israel can recalibrate its posture and attend to other critical theaters. From Iran's perspective, the need for a ceasefire was even more urgent. For nearly two weeks, Israeli air dominance over Iran was overwhelming. Precision strikes targeted military installations, air defense systems, radar units, and multiple nuclear-related sites in Natanz, Fordow, and Arak. In addition, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) suffered major losses, including several high-ranking commanders. The Iranian public – already under severe economic pressure from international sanctions – faced further hardship as oil refineries and power grids were damaged. More than 100,000 residents fled Tehran in a matter of days, fearful that the next wave of Israeli strikes would devastate the capital. Internally, the government faced growing frustration: How could a country with one of the region's largest militaries be so vulnerable? Why had the government not anticipated the scale of Israeli retaliation? The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reportedly faced intense pressure from within the elite circles of the IRGC and clerical establishment. In such a climate, agreeing to a ceasefire was less about diplomacy and more about necessity. Iran needed to stop the bleeding – militarily, politically, and psychologically. The pause offers Tehran a chance to evaluate the damage, regroup its forces, and attempt to fortify what remains of its nuclear infrastructure. It also gives the leadership time to address domestic unrest, recalibrate messaging, and possibly shift blame onto external enemies to consolidate control. Yet the key question remains: will the ceasefire hold? If past history is any indicator, the prospects are not encouraging. Ceasefires in this region are rarely long-lasting. They are fragile by design – stopgaps between rounds of fighting, not solutions to the underlying tensions. In this case, the balance of power has shifted dramatically, and that creates an incentive for renewed confrontation. For Israel, walking away from a conflict while the Iranian government is at its weakest point in decades might be seen as a strategic blunder. This is a rare window – one where Iran's command structure has been shaken, its nuclear plans disrupted, and its population demoralized. Some in the Israeli cabinet may argue that allowing Iran to recover from this moment would be tantamount to leaving a wounded enemy alive on the battlefield. Moreover, from a strategic standpoint, Israel now faces the risk that Iran – having experienced such a devastating attack – will accelerate its push for nuclear weapons. Even if Iran had not made the political decision to pursue a bomb before, this war may have changed that calculus. The logic of deterrence could now dominate Iran's thinking: Only by acquiring a nuclear weapon, Iranian strategists may argue, can the country prevent another catastrophic strike. Iran has already announced the suspension of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a worrying signal that transparency is no longer a priority. In this environment, trust is virtually nonexistent. Finally, the ceasefire's fragility is also reinforced by the broader geopolitical context. Proxy forces aligned with Iran – particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and various militias in Iraq – remain active. They can resume attacks on Israel or US allies at any time, either with or without Tehran's direct orders. Any incident along these fronts could easily unravel the ceasefire. Similarly, internal politics in both countries can lead to escalation. An assassination, a rogue militia strike, or even a political crisis could reignite hostilities overnight. In conclusion, while both Israel and Iran found compelling reasons to agree to this ceasefire – strategic breathing room, humanitarian concerns, and domestic stability – the truce rests on shaky foundations. It is, in many ways, a pause born of exhaustion rather than reconciliation. As history has repeatedly shown, these kinds of ceasefires in the Middle East are inherently unstable. Unless profound diplomatic engagement follows – and there is little sign of that at present – the risk of renewed war remains not only possible, but probable.
Fox News
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
One-on-One: Vice President JD Vance
Last Saturday the United States launched airstrikes on three key Iranian nuclear facilities. While many Americans feared the country was on the brink of full-scale war, many were surprised when the President announced Monday on Truth Social that a 'Complete and Total CEASEFIRE' had been reached. Moments after this announcement, Bret sat down with Vice President JD Vance for an exclusive interview — where the Vice President reacted live to the ceasefire agreement and explained why he supported America's attack on Iran despite long-standing hesitation about getting directly involved in the past. Follow Bret on X: @BretBaier
Fox News
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
FBI investigating Iran strike leaker, Leavitt says: 'They should be held accountable'
Those who leaked a preliminary assessment — rejected by the White House — on the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities will face justice for sharing the document, according to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. President Donald Trump and multiple leaders are saying that the strikes destroyed three Iranian nuclear sites. A leaked report from the Defense Intelligence Agency, published by CNN and the New York Times, cast doubt on that though, saying that the strikes only set back Iran's nuclear program by several months. CNN first reported the assessment's findings, citing seven people who were briefed on the report. The outlet reported the findings were based on a battle damage assessment from U.S. Central Command. Leavitt pushed back on the early assessment's credibility, claiming the report was "flat-out wrong." "Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration," Leavitt said in a Tuesday statement. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the FBI is conducting an investigation to get to the bottom of the matter and who shared the document with the media. Additionally, Leavitt told reporters that leaking classified information is a criminal offense and that those who fail to follow the law "need to be held accountable for that crime." "This administration wants to ensure that classified intelligence is not ending up in irresponsible hands, and that people who have the privilege of viewing this top secret classified information are being responsible with it," Leavitt told reporters Thursday. "Clearly, someone who had their hands on this and it was a very few people, very few number of people in our government who saw this report," Leavitt said. "That person was irresponsible with it. And we need to get to the bottom of it. And we need to strengthen that process to protect our national security and protect the American public." Meanwhile, the U.S., Israel and Iran's Foreign Ministry have all said that the three nuclear sites U.S. forces struck have encountered massive damage. Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baghaei told Al Jazeera Wednesday that the country's nuclear facilities were "badly damaged," and Israel's Atomic Energy Commission said the U.S. strikes were "devastating." On Sunday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said that initial battle damage assessments suggest "all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction." Trump issued a word of caution to Iran Wednesday, should it attempt to repair its nuclear program once more, and said the U.S. wouldn't hesitate to launch another strike against Iran. Trump personally called for the firing of one of the reporters who authored the story about the initial assessment, claiming in a Wednesday Truth Social post that the reporter should be "IMMEDIATELY reprimanded, and then thrown out 'like a dog.'" Even so, CNN came to the defense of the reporter, Natasha Bertrand. "We stand 100% behind Natasha Bertrand's journalism and specifically her and her colleagues' reporting of the early intelligence assessment of the U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities," CNN said in a Wednesday statement. "CNN's reporting made clear that this was an initial finding that could change with additional intelligence. We have extensively covered President Trump's own deep skepticism about it."
Yahoo
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Watch Anderson Cooper React To Missile Alert Urging Him To Go To Bomb Shelter
CNN host Anderson Cooper and colleagues managed to wring a laugh out of a warning that Iranian missiles were headed Israel's way during their broadcast from Tel Aviv early Monday. (Watch the video below.) Cooper and reporters Clarissa Ward and Jeremy Diamond kept their cool as a 10-minute alert urged them to seek refuge in a bomb shelter. Cooper calmly explained the system and noted the trio would try to broadcast from the shelter and perhaps on the way down. 'Do you guys wanna ...' Cooper began. 'Should we go down or do you wanna finish this?' Ward interjected. Cooper laughed. 'Uhhhhhh, we should probably go down,' he said. 'We should probably go down,' Ward echoed with a smile. While the journalists waited for the crew to prepare for transmission below, Ward calmly analyzed Iran's retaliation options after the U.S. reportedly crippled much of Iran's nuclear capabilities with three surprise bombings. Diamond noted that Israelis have faced a significantly larger threat from Iran's arsenal than what militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah have fired at the Jewish state. (The building damage has been significant, while the death toll, at least 24 Israelis, has been relatively low from Iranian counter-strikes, Diamond said. Israel began the hostilities with an attack on Iran's nuclear sites before the U.S. launched its own operation.) Cooper walked viewers through the corridors of his hotel being evacuated. The three conversed further as they waited for the elevator. The transmission froze as the journalists descended in the lift, prompting Kristen Holmes to take over the broadcast from the States. But the feed cut quickly back to Anderson and Co. in the deep basement. As they waited for the 90-second alert to impact, Anderson noted with a laugh they had no other options at the moment for reporting. 'We're stuck talking with each other.' Ward calmly revisited her discussion of Iranian options to respond to the U.S. offensive. Business as usual in unusual circumstance. According to Israeli reports, Iranian missiles struck a power plant in southern Israel and another was intercepted in the north early Monday. Critics Point Out Glaring Contradiction In Trump's Iran 'Regime Change' Post Kayleigh McEnany's 'Every Dictator' Take On Trump Iran Strike Draws Online Fire How Trump Got To 'Yes' On Bombing Iran
Fox News
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: America must not go to war with Iran
American involvement in the war against Iran remains unclear. On Saturday, President Donald Trump launched an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities. On Sunday, he talked about the possible need for regime change there. On Monday, he thanked Iran for their restrained military response, and shortly afterward announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. What will tomorrow bring? I have no idea. But I do know that the United States must not get involved in a war with Iran. We do not need another unnecessary and costly war. We have had enough of them. In 1964, the U.S. Congress voted, with little debate, for a Gulf of Tonkin resolution giving President Johnson the authority to escalate American military involvement in Vietnam. As a result, the U.S. expanded its presence in that country and was dragged fully into Vietnam's civil war. Eventually, some 2.7 million Americans served in Vietnam, and more than 58,000 died, with over 300,000 wounded. The Vietnam War devastated an entire generation. It also killed millions of Vietnamese and destabilized the region. In Cambodia, that instability gave rise to the Khmer Rouge, who oversaw a genocide that killed between 1.5 and 3 million Cambodians. The war cost U.S. taxpayers many hundreds of billions of dollars. The Vietnam War was based on a series of lies. Years later, the U.S. government concluded that the supposed attacks that prompted the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution did not happen as reported. The so-called "domino theory" – the ideological foundation of the war – was bogus. This was a war that never should have been fought. In 2002, as a member of Congress, I can recall vividly how politicians and the media relentlessly beat the drum about the need to go to war against Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein. Over and over again, we were told that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction, and that if we did not act quickly, nuclear weapons would soon fall on America. Among those pushing for war in Iraq in 2002 was none other than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who testified to Congress that: "There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is weapons." Netanyahu promised: "If you take out Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations." President George W. Bush similarly said: "Saddam's regime is seeking a nuclear bomb." He argued for a preemptive attack, saying: "We cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun, which could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." The United States, against my vote in Congress, invaded Iraq and became involved in a brutal sectarian war there that lasted almost a decade. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found. The war was based on a lie – a lie that cost us 4,500 young Americans killed, 32,000 wounded, and $3 trillion in taxpayer dollars wasted. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also died, and the entire region was destabilized for a generation. War often has awful and unintended consequences. It should only be considered as a last resort. We should not be at war with Iran. First, let me state the obvious: Trump's attack against Iran is unconstitutional. Congress alone has the authority to take this country to war, not the President. Trump, at this point, does not have that authority. Second, nobody seriously believes that Iran is a military threat to the United States. Just a few months ago, Trump's own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified to Congress that the American intelligence community "continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003." There was no imminent threat justifying a preemptive attack. Third, Benjamin Netanyahu should not be dictating U.S. foreign and military policy. Trump's attack on Iran would not have occurred if Israel had not launched an illegal, unprovoked surprise attack on Iran on June 13th, sabotaging U.S. diplomatic efforts to address Iran's nuclear program. In fact, Israel assassinated the Iranian official overseeing those talks. If the people of Israel support Netanyahu's decision to start a war with Iran, that is their business and their war. The United States should not be a part of it. Fourth, in this moment in history, the United States should not be allied with the Netanyahu government in any military effort. Netanyahu is a war criminal indicted by the International Criminal Court for starving and killing civilians in Gaza. His government is systematically destroying the Palestinian people. Israel has killed over 55,000 Palestinians and wounded nearly 130,000 – two-thirds of whom are women and children. The entire physical infrastructure of Gaza – housing, hospitals, schools, and water systems – has been almost totally destroyed. To this day, Israel continues to prevent the U.N. and other aid groups from delivering desperately-needed humanitarian aid to starving civilians, in violation of U.S. and international law. Fifth, this war is about more than Israel and Iran. It is about the very concept of international law and preventing a world where every dispute is settled through force. Whatever you think of the brutal and authoritarian Iranian regime, Netanyahu's surprise attack was a clear violation of international law and the United Nations Charter. One nation does not have the right to attack another country anytime it wants for any reason. The world appropriately condemned Russia for its unprovoked attack against Ukraine. The world appropriately condemned Hamas for their unprovoked terrorist attack against Israel. Israel should be condemned for its unprovoked attack against Iran – and the United States should not be part of that illegal action. Finally, wars are extremely expensive. At a time when the working class of this country faces major crises in housing, health care, childcare, education, climate, and other areas, we should be investing our resources in improving life for the American people, not wasting money on illegal and unnecessary wars. Last year alone, the United States provided $22 billion in military aid to Israel. Enough is enough. It is beyond absurd that we continue to finance Israel's wars while neglecting the needs of our own people.
