| DAILY ALERT |
Friday, June 20, 2025 |
|
News Resources - North America, Europe, and Asia:
Appearing before Congress in March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that U.S. intelligence agencies assessed that Iran, despite its uranium enrichment work, has not restarted a nuclear weapons program it halted in 2003. However, CIA Director John Ratcliffe told a closed-door Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing Tuesday that the formal U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran has not decided to build a bomb is of limited use. "It's like saying a football team marched 99 yards down the field, got to the one yard line and, oh, they don't have the intention to score," he was quoted as saying. (Washington Post) See also Mossad Says Iran 15 Days from Bomb - Julian E. Barnes Karoline Leavitt, the White House spokeswoman, said Thursday that Iran had the material it needed to make a bomb. "Let's be very clear: Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon....It would take a couple of weeks to complete the production of that weapon." Some American officials said those new assessments echoed material provided by the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, which believes that Iran can achieve a nuclear weapon in 15 days. (New York Times) President Donald Trump said Thursday he will decide within two weeks whether the U.S. military will get directly involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran. (AP) See also Netanyahu Says Israel Doesn't Need Help to Reach Its Goals in Iran - Isabel Kershner Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that Israel has the capability to achieve all its goals alone when it comes to Iran's nuclear facilities and that it is up to President Trump if he wants to join in or not. Though the U.S. has not struck Iran, Netanyahu said it was already helping Israel a lot with its defense. "American pilots are intercepting drones alongside our pilots." He also mentioned the THAAD advanced missile defense system that the U.S. sent to Israel last October and the deployment of U.S. destroyers equipped with the Navy's Aegis combat system. (New York Times) Israel is not directly targeting Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in its attacks on Iran but his removal would ultimately benefit the Iranian people, Israeli President Isaac Herzog said Thursday. Herzog emphasized that Israel's main goal is focused on eliminating Iran's nuclear and missile programs. "I think that this is a rare opportunity to remove a threat which has been looming over the world....We are defending Europe. We're defending the United States." Asked what would happen if the U.S. chose not to intervene, Herzog said: "We know what to do. We've shown that we know what to do." (Politico) 14 military cargo planes from the U.S. and Germany arrived in Israel, the Israeli Defense Ministry said Thursday. The batch is in addition to more than 800 military cargo planes that have arrived since Oct. 7, 2023. (Anadolu-Turkey) Daniel Meron, Israel's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, on Thursday accused the World Health Organization of a deafening "selective silence" after Soroka Hospital in Beersheba was hit in an Iranian missile strike. (AFP) News Resources - Israel and the Mideast:
The IDF announced Friday that Israel's air force had attacked dozens of targets in Iran Thursday night. Several industrial sites for missile production were attacked in the Tehran area, as well as the Spand headquarters for research and development of nuclear weapons. Earlier Thursday, Israel attacked the Arak heavy-water nuclear reactor, which would be capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium. The Arak reactor was supposed to have been disabled under the 2015 nuclear deal. Iran claimed to have filled the reactor core with concrete. However, in 2019, Ali Akbar Salehi, then head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told Iranian television that the country had secretly acquired duplicate core piping, allowing it to reassemble the reactor quickly. (Ynet News) Magen David Adom emergency services reported Thursday that in the past week its teams have treated 1,007 casualties - including 23 fatalities, 14 severely wounded, 26 moderately wounded, 591 lightly wounded, 149 suffering from anxiety, and 204 who did not require evacuation to a hospital. (Ynet News) Global Commentary and Think-Tank Analysis:
War with Iran Israel had no choice than to strike when it did. There are some risks you do not take. Perhaps the greatest is to allow acquisition of nuclear weapons by a fanatical religious tyranny with a track record of unrestrained violence that repeatedly declares its intention to annihilate you. No Israelis that I have spoken to over here in the days since Israel launched its pre-emptive war doubt the need for it. Even opposition leaders, sworn political rivals of Prime Minister Netanyahu, are four-square behind his actions, unheard of in this country. Of course all Israelis recognize the current dangers to themselves, and almost all of them have been forced to take refuge in bomb shelters several times every day since last weekend. But they understand they would face hugely greater dangers in just sitting back and watching Iran becoming a nuclear armed state. The writer, a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, was chairman of the UK's national crisis management committee, COBRA. (Daily Express-UK) On June 18, 2025, Iranian state television aired a recorded message from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. On screen appeared a weary figure, with tense body language. His presence seemed designed to send the message: I am still alive. His words were a familiar litany of empty threats. This was not a speech meant to project strength, but to conceal vulnerability. It offered an attempt to maintain the illusion of stability - an image that has visibly fractured. What is clear to Khamenei is that, for now, he has lost control over the nuclear program. Whether the Americans bomb Fordow or defeat him through a new agreement, the outcome is the same. His overriding objective is to preserve his rule at any cost. The challenge troubling him is how to return to the negotiating table with minimal damage to his image, to his authority, and ideally, with some elements of the nuclear program still intact. Persian culture places deep value on personal and familial honor, where public humiliation is seen as one of the gravest indignities. Yet humiliation is the only way to act against one who fears humiliation. Khamenei's strategic assessment is that to save himself and the regime, he must endure the shame of an agreement. Israel must act swiftly while time remains - accelerating its strikes on nuclear and missile targets before the window closes and American pressure brings them to a halt. Even if a new agreement is eventually signed, Israel must understand it as a continuation of Iranian deception. In the Iranian view, the ultimate goal remains unchanged: the destruction of Israel. Therefore, Iran will never truly abandon its nuclear ambitions - only delay, disguise, or reposition them. The writer, Senior Director for Security, Diplomacy, and Communications at the Jerusalem Center, has served in senior government positions for over 25 years. (Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs) In recent history, total victory is increasingly rare, and most wars end through negotiated ceasefires. In the war between Iran and Israel, occupation is not a realistic option. At this stage, as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly declared, the war will not end until all of Iran's missile and nuclear facilities are destroyed. All of the major facilities in Tehran's nuclear program were acquired and operated through deception under the facade of a "civilian" program. For 25 years, Iran used a range of excuses to prevent inspections and interfered with the safeguards required by the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but the "international community," particularly the European governments and the UN, failed to uphold these requirements. Another core requirement for any negotiations would be direct talks with Israel. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, the leadership has refused direct contact with Israelis. The negotiations that ended the 1973 war could serve as an important precedent. As U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger orchestrated the ceasefire negotiations, top generals from the two enemies met in the Sinai desert in the first official contact between the two countries. The writer is founder and president of NGO Monitor and professor emeritus of political studies at Bar-Ilan University. (JNS) The notion that the Islamist regime in Iran was the "strong horse" of the Middle East, whose terrorist allies and nuclear program could threaten Israel's destruction and intimidate moderate Arab states into subservience while maintaining its iron grip on despotic power at home, has been demolished. Moreover, the belief that the U.S. would always stop Israel from striking at Iran's nuclear program out of fear of retaliation has also turned out to be mistaken. By making it clear that Israel could no longer tolerate a terrorist state on its border, Hamas's Oct. 7 attacks set in motion a series of events that have become disastrous for Iran. The regime's allies in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria have been essentially demolished. And its ability to defend its own territory has been exposed as a myth by Israel. The indefinite survival of a government that oppresses its own people with the same revolutionary fervor and medieval Islamist ideas that it seeks to foist on the rest of the Middle East - and the world, for that matter - has always been questionable. Yet it's possible to argue that, as much as the current campaign to strip Iran of its ability to harm other nations is justified, the question of replacing its government should not be a war goal for Israel or the U.S. It may be that the Islamist fervor of 1979 is gone, along with faith in the regime. But the forces that back it, primarily the IRGC, remain vast, with no sign that they are going to let their domestic opponents win without a fight. The finances and the survival of a vast number of government operatives and allies depend on the regime remaining in power. Nor should we count on the Iranian people rising up in rebellion. No evidence exists of a coherent or effective political opposition inside Iran. Rather than counting on finally finishing the conflict in the near future, those who understand the necessity for stopping the Iranian nuclear threat should be prepared to settle for something short of regime change. As long as the U.S. makes it clear to other nuclear regimes, like China, Russia and North Korea, that it will not tolerate their helping Iran to get a weapon, a satisfactory end to the current campaign might be possible without it involving America or Israel in the dubious pursuit of a friendly government in Tehran. The focus seems clear: obliterating Iran's nuclear facilities and military power. But nation-building should be off the table. It's up to the Iranian people to free themselves, not Israel or the U.S. (JNS) There are risks for both the U.S. and Israel with U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran war. For the U.S., consideration needs to be given to potential Iranian retaliation against U.S. interests and the effect this will have on the American homefront. Such retaliation can come in the form of plans the Iranians already have to attack U.S. bases in the region or even to attack U.S. allies that include Sunni states in the region. Any such action would be perceived by Americans as paying a price that they may not be prepared to pay. While there is solid base support for Israel versus Iran in the U.S., there is much less support for American military involvement. Based on studies we have conducted since the start of hostilities against Israel on October 7, 2023, we can isolate several trends related to American public opinion other than the base of support for Israel. "Both siders" hold that since no universal truth exists, there is no objective "right" and "wrong." We found about 20% of our samples in this category. Around 18% were "no siders" who come from an isolationist philosophy that is against any American involvement in outside wars. Around 40% responded with "I don't know" or "I don't care. Seeing the issues as non-existent in their daily lives, many Americans simply do not see the relevance of offering or carrying an opinion. A key question is what price is the average uncommitted American willing to pay to see a denuclearized Iran and what level of discomfort is one willing to bear toward this end. The writer is a clinical psychologist and a fellow at the Jerusalem Center specializing in political psychology. (Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs) The direct war between Iran and Israel has now reached an intensity and level of escalation never seen in the history of the Islamic Republic. What was once limited to proxy warfare, cyberattacks, and covert assassinations has now evolved into a full-scale aerial war between two regional powers. The ferocity, precision, and sustained nature of Israeli strikes mark a dramatic departure from past confrontations, and the Iranian government now finds itself in the most precarious and dangerous position since the 1979 revolution. Iran's military doctrine has always rested on the assumption that the next war would be fought on land or through proxy groups. However, the current confrontation with Israel is being waged from the skies - via drones, advanced fighter jets, and precision missile strikes - and in this arena, Israel holds overwhelming superiority. As the war continues, the Islamic Republic's ability to retaliate effectively diminishes by the day. Iran's missile barrages have failed to significantly alter the course of the war and its missile arsenal is rapidly being depleted. Without it, the Iranian government loses both strategic leverage and internal confidence. Meanwhile, Israel is conducting daily operations against high-value military and nuclear targets across Iran. Even if the Iranian government begins to seek a ceasefire or de-escalation, will Israel agree to pause its operations? From the Israeli perspective, this may be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fundamentally degrade Iran's military capacity and prevent it from ever becoming a nuclear-armed state. If Jerusalem believes it can achieve that objective now, with limited long-term risk, it may choose to continue its campaign rather than agree to a ceasefire that would allow Iran to regroup. (Al Arabiya-Saudi Arabia) The security doctrine of the Islamic Republic of Iran is not based on survivability but on martyrdom. The regime's internal strategic rationale is apocalyptic. During my time in Iran, I was privy to high-level discussions in which regime officials outlined a chilling scenario. Should Israel and its allies engage in a concerted campaign to threaten the leadership's hold over the state apparatus, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has provisioned for maximum harm to be exacted within Iran's borders - what Iranian insiders have termed the "Kamikaze protocol." Critical infrastructure, including oil refineries, dams, energy hubs, and even civilian urban centers, have reportedly been seeded with strategic weaponry and chemical agents - to be activated by IRGC operatives in acts of sabotage. Western powers continue to operate under the dangerous illusion that the Islamic Republic can be moderated through incentives and diplomatic engagement. This is a profound misreading of the regime's ideological DNA. Iran's leaders are operating from a strategic paradigm where deterrence is achieved through the threat of martyrdom on a national scale. The writer, executive director at the Forum for Foreign Relations, is an associate scholar at the Jerusalem Center. (Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs) Gaza Col. (ret.) Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, visited the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) site at El-Bureij in central Gaza on Wednesday. He told the Jerusalem Post, "I have never seen anything like this. It is brilliantly conceived and extremely well executed. They are feeding the people of Gaza until such time as it becomes unnecessary." "When I arrived...there were already 20 truckloads of aid loaded into the site. The citizens were allowed in and collected their aid. Most of the interactions between the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and people getting aid is through local employees, Palestinians working for the GHF. There is pretty limited interaction between the mainly American staff" and the Palestinian civilians, as the Americans are focused mainly on "security and the logistics of running the place." "Aid is stacked up row by row in a compound, with 20,000 people, around 1,000 coming in" at a time. "The vast majority were extremely happy." Despite numerous incidents reported in the media about mass shootings of Palestinian around or on their way to GHF sites - reports that GHF says are invented - the Palestinians Kemp spoke to had "no apprehension whatsoever" of being shot by IDF or GHF security guards. Local Palestinian employees working with GHF "were saying Hamas really hates the GHF sites, and they threaten people not to use them. They hate them because they want to get their hands on the aid themselves." These Palestinian employees "feared for their own lives if they were identified as cooperating with GHF. Their faces were covered when in proximity to people coming to collect the aid." Kemp met with GHF managers, who "are pretty frustrated that the UN has refused to cooperate with them, and also that there is so much bad press, which they think is unwarranted." They thought "the UN ought to be cooperating with them, combine efforts, and then aid could be much more efficiently delivered. I agree with that. It is a really big mistake that the UN and other aid agencies won't cooperate with GHF." (Jerusalem Post) Observations: This Strike on Iran Makes Israel the Leader of the Free World - Melanie Phillips (Jewish Chronicle-UK)
The writer is a columnist for The Times-UK. |
|