Trump pretending to resist Israel attack on Iran; constrained because open support would push Saudi into China camp
Date: June 16, 2025; update June 18, 2025
My comments are shown {thus}; write to me at contact.html.
You are at https://mailstar.net/Israel-attack-Iran.html
Copyright: Peter Myers asserts the right to be identified as the author of the material written by him on this website, being material that is not otherwise attributed to another author.
(0) Trump constrained because open support for Israel would push
Saudi into China camp
(1) Letting Israel attack Iran while USA escapes blame - laid out in 2009
ZOG policy paper
(2) 2009 Brookings/Saban ZOG policy paper lists options for attacking Iran
(3) Saban Center at Brookings Institution is part of Israel Lobby - Mearsheimer
& Walt
(4) US supplied Hellfire missiles; Trump "pretending" to resist
Israel's attack plans
(5) Trump used the threat of Israeli strikes as leverage to get Iran to
make a deal
(6) Israel urges U.S. to join war on Iran; Trump declines, lest it push
Saudi into China camp
(7) Netanyahu seeks Regime Change in Iran
(8) Mossad drone base in Iran - similar to Ukraine tactic in Russia, shows
Mossad involvement in Ukraine war
(9) Mossad used drone bases and commandos smuggled into Iran
(10) Iran shoots down several F-35s
(11) US Loses Peace Mask; Israel's strikes don't happen without US refueling,
intel, and bombs
(12) Media make no mention of Israel's own nukes, nor of Mordecai Vanunu
(13) Hanan Ashrawi: "Madleen" have more courage than Israeli
genocidal army
(14) Israel is the world's most awful regime - Mary Kostakidis
(15) Attack on Iran implements 30-year-old "Clean Break" strategy
- Jeffrey Sachs & Sybil Fares
(0) Trump constrained because open support for Israel would push Saudi into China camp
- by Peter Myers, June 16, 2025
Trump's assassination of General Soleimani in 2020 leaves no doubt about where his allegiance lies. But, since that time, Saudi Arabia has establshed ties with China, made up with Iran, and declined to renew the PatroDollar agreement with the U.S.
In recent months, Saudi Arabia publicly warned Israel not to attack Iran.
The Saudis did not want Iran to develop nukes, but with Iran knocked out by a dominant Israel, that leaves genocidal Israel dominant over the whole Middle East.
Further, the Saudis have made themselves dependent on the U.S., which they now realise is hostage to the Zionist lobby. The Saudis fly U.S. jets, which may have a 'kill switch' were they to engage in combat with Israel, and they host U.S. bases on their soil. Given the power of the Israel Lobby in the U.S., this reduces Saudi Arabaia to impotence; its only way out from occupation would be to join BRICS and China's Belt and Road.
Were Trump to publicly support Israel's attack on Iran, Saudi Arabia would likely move closer to China, which is one of Trump's greatest fears.
No worry. A Zionist think-tank, the Saban Center at the (ZOG) Brookings Institution, laid out a scenario in a 2009 paper, by which Trump can covertly assist an Israeli attack on Iran, while keeping his own hands clean.
The question is, is the Sauidi government buying it?
The only thing that constrains Trump is Saudi playing the China card.
(1) Letting Israel attack Iran while USA escapes blame - laid out in 2009 ZOG policy paper
from George Christensen, a former Member of the Australian House of Representatves.
https://nationfirst.substack.com/p/proof-the-deep-state-planned-this:
Proof the Deep State Planned This War for Years
Nation First outlines how the Israeli attack on Iran was planned by the Deep State and the Military Industrial Complex over 15 years ago.
JUN 14, 2025
Dear friend,
What just happened in Iran wasn't a surprise attack. It wasn't a last-minute decision. It wasn't even Israel acting alone.
It was a war plan written years ago - by men in suits, sitting in think tanks in Washington and New York. And yesterday, that plan was finally put into action.
Here's the truth they don't want you to know: this war was cooked up long before Trump ever became President - and it was designed to happen exactly this way. ...
Israel has executed a surprise assault on Iranian territory, demolishing nuclear installations and eliminating senior commanders.
Brookings' 2009 paper Which Path to Persia? outlined using Israel as the proxy attacker so Washington could avoid copping the blame. ...
The Brooking Institution is a fancy name for what's basically a war-planning factory dressed up as a research centre. Back in 2009, Brookings published a report called <https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf> Which Path to Persia?
It laid out exactly how to get the U.S. into a war with Iran - without looking like the bad guy.
Here's the sickest part:
"The United States would encourage - and perhaps even assist - the Israelis in conducting the strikesÉ in the expectation that both international criticism and Iranian retaliation would be deflected away from the United States and onto Israel." They literally suggested using Israel to start the war, so America could stand back and say, "Wasn't us!"
They even titled a chapter of this report: "Leave It to Bibi" - naming Netanyahu as the guy to light the match.
(2) 2009 Brookings/Saban ZOG policy paper lists options for attacking Iran
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf
ANALYSIS PAPER Number 20, June 2009
WHICH PATH TO PERSIA? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran
Kenneth M. Pollack Daniel L. Byman Martin Indyk Suzanne Maloney Michael E. O'Hanlon Bruce Riedel
In this paper the term "Regime Change" occurs 85 times, "Sanctons" 143 times, "Containment" 143 times, Coup (military coup d'etat) 75 times, Insugency (meaning "Popular Uprising" aka Color Revolution) 47 times.
This paper, which canvasses ways to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, makes no mention that Israel itself posseses nuclear weapons and has not signed the NPT.
QUOTE
Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran is a product of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. The essays were written by Saban Center scholars Daniel L. Byman, Martin Indyk, Suzanne Maloney, Michael E. O'Hanlon, Kenneth M. Pollack, and Bruce Riedel. Kenneth Pollack also served as the overall editor.
Chapter 5 LEAVE IT TO BIBI
Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike
In short, there is considerable reason to believe that under the right (or wrong) set of circumstances, Israel would launch an attack - principally airstrikes, but possibly backed by special forces operations - to destroy Iran's nuclear program. This could create either an opportunity for or a threat to American interests with regard to Iran and the broader Middle East. It could constitute an opportunity, and thus a possible policy option, if the United States would like to see Iran's nuclear program destroyed but prefers not to do it itself. It could be a threat if the United States believes that an Israeli attack would destabilize the region and would not advance (or would harm) American interests in relation to Iran. ...
As in the case of American airstrikes against Iran, the goal of this policy option would be to destroy key Iranian nuclear facilities in the hope that doing so would significantly delay Iran's acquisition of an indigenous nuclear weapons capability. However, in this case, an added element could be that the United States would encourage - and perhaps even assist - the Israelis in conducting the strikes themselves, in the expectation that both international criticism and Iranian retaliation would be deflected away from the United States and onto Israel. The logic behind this approach is that allowing Israel to mount the airstrikes, rather than the United States, provides a way out of the dilemma described in the previous chapter, whereby American airstrikes against Iran could become self-defeating because they would undermine every other American initiative in the Middle East, an outcome exactly the opposite of what a new Iran policy is meant to accomplish.
ENDQUOTE
(3) Saban Center at Brookings Institution is part of Israel Lobby - Mearsheimer & Walt
Haim Saban is a member of the Board of Trustees at the Brookings Institution. In 2002 the Brookings Institution established the Center for Middle East Policy, formerly the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.
Although the Brookings Institution purports to be American, it is akin to the Project For a New American Century (PNAC), a think tank composed largely of Zionist Jews who originally worked for Netanyahu.
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt depicted the Saban Center at Brookings Institution as part of the Israel Lobby. They published the following article in the London Review of Books because they could not find an American publisher.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby
The Israel Lobby John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
Vol. 28 No. 6 · 23 March 2006
For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread Ôdemocracy' throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. ... the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ÔIsrael Lobby'. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country in this case, Israel are essentially identical. ...
Take the Brookings Institution. For many years, its senior expert on the Middle East was William Quandt, a former NSC official with a well-deserved reputation for even-handedness. Today, Brookings's coverage is conducted through the Saban Center for Middle East Studies, which is financed by Haim Saban, an Israeli-American businessman and ardent Zionist. The centre's director is the ubiquitous Martin Indyk. What was once a non-partisan policy institute is now part of the pro-Israel chorus.
(4) US supplied Hellfire missiles; Trump "pretending" to resist Israel's attack plans
US quietly sent hundreds of Hellfire missiles to Israel before Iran attack
Hellfire missiles would have been used for precision strikes by Israel during Iran attack, US officials say
By Sean Mathews
Published date: 13 June 2025 22:19 BST | Last update: 1 day 22 hours ago
The US quietly delivered hundreds of Hellfire missiles to Israel before its unprecedented attack on Iran on Friday, Middle East Eye can reveal.
The US sent around 300 Hellfire missiles to Israel on Tuesday in a large-scale stock-up of supplies before its <https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/whether-through-green-light-or-grudging-acceptance-trump-enters-war-iran> attack, and as the Trump administration was saying it was ready to continue engaging Iran in nuclear talks.
The transfer of such a large quantity of Hellfires suggests that the Trump administration was well-informed of Israel's plans to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran, two US officials told MEE on the condition of anonymity.
The US's delivery of Hellfires or other large quantities of weapons in the lead up to Friday's attack has not been previously reported.
The US military helped shoot down Iranian missiles that were headed towards Israel, two US officials told Reuters on Friday.
Hellfires are laser-guided air-to-ground missiles. They would not be useful for Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, but for precision strikes.
Israel's military used more than 100 aircraft in its attack on Friday, which used precision tracking to target senior military officials, nuclear scientists, and command centres.
"There is a time and place for Hellfires. They were useful to Israel," one senior US defence official told MEE.
Israel killed scores of senior Iranian officials and nuclear scientists on Friday. ...
But Trump's behaviour in recent months gave observers, and potentially the Iranians, the impression that he would continue to resist Netanyahu's very public lobbying to go along with strikes.
Axios reported on Friday, citing two Israeli officials, that the Trump administration was only "pretending" to resist Israel's attack plans, but privately did not resist them.
Trump has since framed his approach as saying that he gave Iran a 60-day window to agree to a new nuclear agreement with his administration before launching strikes. Israeli media reported the 60-day deadline in March 2025.
The Trump administration began talks with Iran on 12 April 2025, and the Israeli attack took place exactly 61 days later.
The talks in recent weeks hit a wall over the US's insistence that Iran agree not to enrich any uranium, while Tehran said that preserving its right to a low level of enrichment was a red line.
Throughout the negotiations, the Trump administration continued a steady supply of arms and weapons to Israel in recent months, two US officials told MEE.
The US did not have to provide public notification of the transfer because it was already <https://media.defense.gov/2025/Feb/10/2003643923/-1/-1/1/PRESS%20RELEASE%20-%20ISRAEL%2024-104%20CN.PDF> approved as part of a $7.4bn arms deal that included bombs, missiles, and related equipment that Congress was notified of in February 2025.
(5) Trump used the threat of Israeli strikes as leverage to get Iran to make a deal
Whether with a green light or grudging acceptance, Trump enters war with Iran
US President Donald Trump will be unable to stay out of the war between Israel and Iran, experts say
By Sean Mathews
Published date: 13 June 2025 20:20 BST | Last update: 2 days 12 mins ago
After Israel pummelled Iran in an unprecedented attack and the Islamic Republic launched a barrage of missiles targeting Tel Aviv, US President Donald Trump has portrayed himself as above the fray.
"I gave them 60 days and they didn't meet it," Trump told The New York Post on Friday. "Today's 61, you know. Today's day 61."
Trump was referencing Israeli media reports from March 2025 that said he had sent Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei a letter laying out a two-month window to agree to a new nuclear deal, or face an attack.
The US and Iran held their first round of nuclear talks on 12 April.
For two months, Trump used the threat of Israeli strikes as a form of leverage against Iran, as his administration tried to impose an agreement on it that would strip it of all ability to enrich uranium.
On Friday, Trump answered the question that had been gnawing at diplomats, analysts and even intelligence officials: whether the president of the United States would give the green light to an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear programme.
"Israel struck for many reasons - fear Iran's program might soon enter a zone of immunity; [a] risk ready Israeli prime minister for whom striking Iran was a lifelong mission. But the key was Trump's willingness to green light the attacks - or at least not to say no," Aaron David Miller, a former State Department Middle East negotiator, wrote on X.
CIA briefed on unilateral Israeli attack plans
It's clear Trump knew about Israel's plans for some time.
Middle East Eye revealed earlier this month that the CIA was briefed in April and May on Israeli plans to unilaterally attack Iran's nuclear sites. Israel's Target Systems Analysis and battle plan for cyberattacks combined with precision strikes without any direct US involvement "impressed" the administration.
But Trump's behaviour in recent months gave observers, and potentially the Iranians, the impression that he would continue to resist Netanyahu's very public lobbying to go along with strikes.
Trump surprised Netanyahu in April when he announced at a White House meeting that he would begin direct talks with Iran on curbing its nuclear programme. In early May, he brushed aside his hawkish national security advisor, Mike Waltz, and then snubbed Netanyahu on a visit to the Middle East.
For good measure, Trump even cut a unilateral ceasefire with the Houthis in Yemen that left out Israel.
On the eve of the Israeli attack, Trump said he did not believe it was "imminent" but was "something that could very well happen". ...
The best Trump can hope for is that Israel replicates its success with its takedown of Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2024.
The worst outcome is that he brings the US into the very type of Middle East "forever war" he was elected not to.
(6) Israel urges U.S. to join war on Iran; Trump declines, lest it push Saudi into China camp
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/14/israel-iran-war-us-nuclear-program-trump
Israel urges U.S. to join war with Iran to eliminate nuclear program
Barak Ravid
Israel has asked the Trump administration over the past 48 hours to join the war with Iran in order to eliminate its nuclear program, according to two Israeli officials.
The big picture: Israel lacks the bunker buster bombs and large bomber aircraft needed to destroy Iran's Fordow uranium enrichment site, which is built into a mountain and deep underground. The U.S. has both within flying distance of Iran.
But the Trump administration has so far distanced itself from Israel's operation, and argued that it would be illegitimate for Iran to retaliate by striking U.S. targets. Directly attacking Iran, even if the U.S. involvement is limited to bombing a single site, would pull the U.S. directly into the war. However, if Fordow remains operational after the operation ends, Israel will have failed in its goal to "eliminate" Iran's nuclear program.
Behind the scenes: An Israeli official claimed to Axios that the U.S. might join the operation, and that President Trump even suggested he'd do so if necessary in a recent conversation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
A White House official denied that on Friday. A second U.S. official confirmed on Saturday that Israel has urged the Trump administration to join the war, but said currently the administration is not considering it. A senior White House official told Axios Saturday that "whatever happens today cannot be prevented," referring to Israel's attacks.
"But we have the ability to negotiate a successful peaceful resolution to this conflict if Iran is willing. The fastest way for Iran to accomplish peace is to give up its nuclear weapons program," the senior official added.
What they're saying: "The entire operation... really has to be completed with the elimination of Fordow," Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter told Fox News on Friday.
(7) Netanyahu seeks Regime Change in Iran
https://en.majalla.com/node/326037/politics/nuclear-claims-are-smoke-screen-hopes-toppling-iran
Nuclear claims are a smoke screen for hopes of toppling Iran
The Israeli strikes aren't about facilities or centrifuges, but regime change
LAST UPDATE ON 15 JUN 2025
For some people in Israel and the United States, the nuclear programme itself is the security problem. They don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, and so it makes sense to incentivise the Islamic Republic to behave better. That way, you can offer a deal: Don't build nuclear weapons or support terrorism, and we will remove sanctions and welcome the Iranian people back into the global community.
For others, the problem is the very existence of the Islamic Republic itself, which they sincerely believe is incapable of changing its foreign policy and is building weapons to annihilate Israel, not deter it. For these people, any diplomatic solution is a false peace that only strengthens Iran, because an illicit nuclear programme is a broadly acceptable reason to maintain sanctions that they hope will cripple an Iranian regime they view as irredeemable.
There is no way to resolve that difference in opinion. And never has it been clearer than today that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in the latter camp. These strikes weren't primarily targeted at nuclear facilities, but at the top military leaders of the Islamic Republic. Israel isn't trying to knock out Iran's centrifuges; it's trying to knock out the regime itself.
On Sunday, Netanyahu told Fox News that Israel would do whatever is necessary to remove the "existential threat" posed by Tehran and that regime change could be a result of Israel's military attacks on the country.
Asked if regime change was part of Israel's military effort, he said: "It could certainly be the result because the Iranian regime is very weak."
"We're geared to do whatever is necessary to achieve our dual aim, to remove two existential threats: the nuclear threat and the ballistic missile threat," Netanyahu said in one of his first interviews since Israel's attacks began.
Meanwhile, Reuters reported, citing two unnamed US officials, that President Donald Trump vetoed an Israeli plan in recent days to kill Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
"Have the Iranians killed an American yet? No. Until they do, we're not even talking about going after the political leadership," one of the sources, a senior US administration official, said. ...
Although the United States and Iran have been in talks in Oman, with the US even offering Iran a watered-down version of the previous nuclear deal, those talks dragged past a 60-day deadline set by the Trump administration.
The IAEA Board of Governors - who are just ambassadors from various member states of the IAEA, including the United States - voted 19-3 with 11 abstentions that Iran's actions "constitute non-compliance with its obligations" under its safeguards agreement. The Iranians were, obviously, not psyched about this.
Iran nuclear sites
Iran, in response, notified the IAEA that it had constructed a third underground enrichment site and would soon be installing new centrifuges there. The notification to the IAEA is a "design information questionnaire" (or DIQ) that indicates Iran intends to put the new facility under IAEA safeguards, as are all of its other known facilities with nuclear material.
Then Israel struck - and at an unexpected set of targets.
While the initial wave of Israel's air strikes was widely described - including by Netanyahu himself - as an attack against Iran's nuclear and missile facilities, the only nuclear facility that Netanyahu mentioned in his speech was the large enrichment facility at Natanz.
For years, the consensus has been that Israel probably can't meaningfully eliminate Iran's nuclear programme, mainly because the most important elements are safely buried deep underground at places like Natanz and Fordow. Getting at those facilities would require much more powerful weapons of the sort that only the United States possesses.
The Iranians also told the IAEA that while Natanz was targeted, other sites with nuclear material were operating normally. The strike on Natanz is the only strike on a nuclear facility that my colleagues and I at the Middlebury Institute have been able to verify with open-source information so far. Satellite images seem to show that Israel targeted a small number of above-ground buildings at Natanz, including the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant and buildings associated with the power supply.
The loss of those buildings will interfere with operations at the site, but it is unlikely to destroy many centrifuges. Israel did not strike the underground facility at Fordow on the first day, where Iran is enriching material to 60%, although that will presumably change. Netanyahu has promised continued strikes, but at this point, it doesn't seem like Israel is attempting more than a minimal attack on the nuclear infrastructure, just enough to be able to characterise the strike as an act of preemptive self-defence.
What the first wave does seem to have accomplished is to kill a lot of senior Iranian military officials. Several nuclear scientists were reportedly killed as well, but the strikes were far more sweeping than that. The Israelis seem to have struck the residences of Iran's leadership, reportedly killing Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff of Iran's armed forces; Hossein Salami, commander in chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC); Gholamali Rashid, deputy commander in chief of the armed forces; Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the IRGC's ballistic missile unit; and Ali Shamkhani, who was leading nuclear talks with the United States.
One reason that many hawkish Israelis and their Washington fanboys opposed the nuclear deal was precisely because it might work. Resolving the nuclear issue would have removed some sanctions on the regime. This initial wave of attacks isn't about the nuclear threat; it's about using the nuclear threat to justify an attempt to topple the regime. Netanyahu essentially admitted this, telling Iranians: 'Our fight is with the brutal dictatorship that has oppressed you for 46 years. I believe that the day of your liberation is near.' ...
So why is Netanyahu acting now? First, he has a compliant partner in the Trump administration, which doesn't seek to be directly involved but also isn't interested in restraining him. Netanyahu seems to have given Trump his 60 days to reach a deal, but not a day more.
Then there's the domestic politics. As has been evident throughout the military operation in Gaza, an ongoing security crisis is an essential element of Netanyahu's strategy for prolonging his hold on political power and delaying his verdict for corruption.
If Israel succeeds in toppling the Islamic regime in Tehran, the strike will have been worth it. But if Israel doesn't - and honestly, regime change by air strike alone has a pretty lousy track record, from Libya's Muammar Gaddafi in 1986 to Iraq's Saddam Hussein in 1991 and after or Yugoslavia's Slobodan Milosevic in 1999 - Iran will retain a residual nuclear capability. Israel's national security advisor has already admitted as much. What then?
The answer from the Israelis, which I don't believe, is that maybe Iran will then make a deal with Trump to disarm itself. It seems more likely to me that Iran will follow North Korea's example, withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and finally getting around to building that nuclear weapon.
It seems very unlikely that either Russia or China will support additional sanctions on Iran for doing so, given what has transpired, nor will they enforce existing sanctions. Russia, after all, is a major customer for Iran's military drones, and China buys a lot of Iranian oil. ...
When I asked one Israeli friend about the problem of Iran picking up the pieces and starting over, he compared it to 'mowing the grass' - a comparison I didn't find very compelling at the time. But having watched the carnage in Gaza, followed by Netanyahu's speech telling Israel's soldiers and citizens to prepare for a protracted conflict, I realise endless carnage may suit Netanyahu and his government just fine.
(8) Mossad drone base in Iran - similar to Ukraine tactic in Russia, shows Mossad involvement in Ukraine war
Ukraine used the same method - setting up a drone bases on Russian soil - in Operation Spiderweb - Peter M.
Mossad set up drone base in Iran; UAVs were activated overnight to strike surface-to-surface missile launchers aimed at Israel
By LAZAR BERMAN
13 June 2025, 10:37 am
Israel spent years preparing for the operation against Iran's nuclear and missile programs, a security official tells The Times of Israel, including building a drone base inside Iran and smuggling precision weapons systems and commandos into the country.
The effort hinged on tight joint planning between the IDF and the Mossad intelligence agency.
According to the official, Mossad agents set up a drone base on Iranian soil near Tehran. The drones were activated overnight, striking surface-to-surface missile launchers aimed at Israel.
In addition, vehicles carrying weapons systems were smuggled into Iran.
These systems took out Iran's air defenses and gave Israeli planes air supremacy and freedom of action over Iran.
The third covert effort was Mossad commandos deploying precision missiles near anti-aircraft sites in central Iran.
The operations relied on 'groundbreaking thinking, bold planning and surgical operation of advanced technologies, special forces and agents operating in the heart of Iran while totally evading the eyes of local intelligence,' says the official.
(9) Mossad used drone bases and commandos smuggled into Iran
https://en.majalla.com/node/326007/politics/where-israels-unprecedented-iran-attack-taking-region
Where is Israel's unprecedented Iran attack taking the region?
While Israel's attack dealt a severe blow to Iran's military and nuclear infrastructure, the long-term impact remains uncertain as Tehran's potential for retaliation introduces new risks
Michael Horowitz
last update on 13 Jun 2025
During the night of 12-13 June, as part of an operation dubbed 'Rising Lion', Israel carried out hundreds of strikes within Iran, focusing on a number of targets, namely nuclear sites, air defences, missile bases and Iranian officials. While details are still sparse, this is likely to be one of the most complex operations carried out by Israel in the country's history - and according to Israeli sources, it is not over.
At 3:00 AM Tehran time, the first wave of missiles penetrated Iranian airspace, seemingly without being intercepted. Pictures later published by the Israeli army show that it used F-35 stealth fighters, which may have been capable of carrying out the first wave of strikes. Another tactic used in the past relies on the air-launched ballistic missiles that are fired far from Iran and can travel longer distances - a technique Israel likely used last year in two retaliatory strikes.
The most recent strike package included over 200 aircraft deploying more than 330 precision munitions, according to Israeli statements. The operation unfolded across the vast expanse of Iranian territory, with Israeli forces penetrating deep into Iranian airspace to strike nuclear facilities, military installations, and command centres across multiple provinces.
The operation appears to have caused significant damage in Iran, including the destruction of Iran's Natanz Fuel Enrichment Site, the killing of the heads of Iran's military and Revolutionary Guards and six nuclear scientists, and possibly Ali Shamkhani - a key advisor to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.
Israeli intelligence had identified and tracked the locations of Iran's top military commanders. In a series of precision strikes, Israel eliminated Major General Hossein Salami, Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and Major General Mohammad Bagheri, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces. Six nuclear scientists, including prominent figures Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani and Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, were also killed in targeted strikes.
Air dominance
The coordinated strikes disabled most - if not all - of Iran's air defences. There is little evidence of serious attempts by Iran's air defences to take down Israeli planes, as opposed to a previous attack, during which images circulated of interceptors being fired. Israel appears to have gained complete operational control of the Iranian sky, which is not surprising given previous operations carried out last year that disabled some of Iran's main air defence systems.
Though it involved mostly Israel's air force, one of the most daring parts of the operation appears to have also been carried out by cells within Iran. According to multiple Israeli media outlets, Mossad commando teams deployed operational systems of precision-guided weaponry in open areas near the locations of Iranian surface-to-air missile systems. At the onset of the Israeli assault, these systems were activated, and the precision-guided missiles were launched to neutralise Iran's remaining air defences.
Most notably, Israeli sources have even claimed that Mossad also established a base for explosive-laden drones that were smuggled deep into Iran long before the attack by Mossad agents. During the Israeli strike, the explosive drones were activated and launched toward surface-to-surface missile launchers located at the Asfajabad base near Tehran.
Not only did Israel use assets on the ground, but it also later published footage of the operations, showing Israeli commandos operating inside Iran. The release of this footage is unprecedented: Israel had, so far, tried to keep a low profile on its operations inside Iran, likely as a way to give Iran the opportunity to de-escalate. This time, Israel decided to publicise details of the operations, including footage of strikes against Iran's air defences and ballistic missiles using smaller explosive-laden drones.
The use of such drones is reminiscent of Ukraine's own operation 'Spider Web' against Russia, just a few weeks ago, in which Kyiv used drones deployed from containers to target Russia's strategic bombers. These attacks show how small drones are changing the face of warfare. ...
What next?
What is clear, however, is that Israel's attack sends the region into uncharted territory, and Thursday's strikes were touted as only the opening act. Israel has now gained complete air dominance in a target-rich environment and will be looking to go after several key nuclear facilities that it didn't hit in the first wave, including the deeply buried Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant. Doing so would require more complex and broad strikes - possibly with the help of the US, though Israel may have its own capabilities.
Beyond Iran's nuclear programme, Israel's attack hints at broader objectives. The name of the operation, 'Rising Lion', is a not-so-subtle reference to the previous symbol of Iran under the Shah, suggesting Israel may be looking not only to set back Iran's nuclear programme, but also to weaken the regime. The targeted assassinations would suggest the goal is far more ambitious than 'simply' neutralising or delaying Iran's nuclear programme.
Iran will now have to decide how to respond. Some of Israel's first strikes appear to have hit ballistic missile depots and launchers, while Israel's ability to operate freely above Iran means Tehran is unlikely to win out in a longer conflict. To be clear, Iran's missile and drone arsenal can do real damage to Israel.
But Iran's defence system relied on key allies - and particularly on Hezbollah's missile arsenal - which has now been largely neutralised. Tehran could look to retaliate against the US - and some Iranian officials have already blamed Washington for supporting the strike - but this may encourage Trump to allow US involvement in future strikes.
Iran's main escalatory option is to threaten the maritime and energy supplies in the Arabian Gulf. This possibility is already being considered and 'priced' into market reactions. The international economic impact of the attack was immediate as oil prices surged over 6% on Brent crude markets before stabilising as traders assessed the likelihood of sustained disruption to energy supplies.
An expansion of the conflict to the Gulf would have significant global implications and likely compel the US to become involved. It may also anger one of Iran's main allies - China - whose supply depends on this critical route.
Israel's operation marks a significant escalation with far-reaching implications. While it dealt a severe blow to Iran's military and nuclear infrastructure, the long-term impact remains uncertain. Tehran's potential for asymmetric retaliation, regional destabilisation, and disruption of global energy markets introduces new risks.
Whether this strike deters further escalation or ignites a broader conflict will depend on the next moves by both Iran and the international community's ability to find a diplomatic solution that allows Iran to save face.
**At the time of publishing, Iran had responded to the attack, hitting Tel Aviv with two missile barrages, with a third one on the way.**
(10) Iran shoots down several F-35s
Iran becomes first country to shoot down fifth-gen F-35 fighter jets belonging to Israel
Friday, 13 June 2025 8:05 PM [ Last Update: Saturday, 14 June 2025 1:33 PM ] Iran has earned the distinction of being the first country in the world to successfully <https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/06/14/749816/Iran-air-defense-forces-Iranian-Army-shoot-down-f-35-fighter-jet-> shoot down fifth-generation fighter jets by targeting two stealth F-35 fighters belonging to the Zionist regime. ...
The F-35I, Israel's customized variant of the stealth fighter, is designed to evade radar detection, allowing the Israeli occupation military to conduct deep penetration missions with a lower risk of interception or tracking.
However, in a significant setback for the Tel Aviv regime and its American backers, the Iranian Army <https://x.com/PressTV/status/1933847789546672291> managed to down two of these advanced jets during Friday's confrontation.
On Saturday, reports suggested that one more F-35 jet was downed in the Iranian airspace. ==
Iranian Army says it shot down another F-35 fighter jet belonging to Israeli regime
Saturday, 14 June 2025 1:18 PM [ Last Update: Saturday, 14 June 2025 4:00 PM ] Iran's air defense forces have shot down another fifth-generation F-35 fighter jet belonging to the Zionist regime, amid the continued exchange of fire between Tehran and Tel Aviv.
The Iranian Army's Public Relations Office said in a statement on Saturday that its air defense forces had successfully struck and destroyed another F-35 fighter jet belonging to the Israeli regime over the western part of the country.
It also noted that the fate of the pilot remains unknown and is currently under investigation. ...
Press TV's website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses: www.presstv.co.uk
(11) US Loses Peace Mask; Israel's strikes don't happen without US refueling, intel, and bombs
https://sputnikglobe.com/20250614/us-loses-peace-mask-in-israel-iran-crossfire-1122249612.html
US Loses Peace Mask in Israel-Iran Crossfire
Ekaterina Blinova
The US is running the same old neocon playbook - now aimed at Iran. How will it pan out? 'This is a neocon agenda being played out, not a MAGA peace agenda,' Ret. Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, ex-Pentagon analyst, tells Sputnik. As Israel's war machine escalates in Gaza and strikes Iran with US support, the illusion of neutrality crumbles. Trump's base may find his 'peacemaker' branding impossible to square with this unfolding proxy war.
The US is already at war with Iran - just like in Ukraine, it's a proxy fight.
Israel's strikes don't happen without US refueling, intel, and bombs.
What are the Results?
'The complete elimination of any credibility Donald Trump and his administration have regarding peace and 'deals.''
Like in Ukraine, expect no war declaration by the US, just more weapons to Israel and sanctions against Iran. The wildcards are global energy shocks and whether other nations seize the moment to confront Israel over its repeated regional offenses. ...
Trump is now in a tighter corner than ever about trying to bring peace to the region. ...
(12) Media make no mention of Israel's own nukes, nor of Mordecai Vanunu
If Israel itself were squeaky clean, the world might empathise with its pre-emptive attack. But for ONE nuclear power - a major one - to attempt to stop a rival getting nukes is hypocritical. Further, its genocide of Palestinians is now well-known, and it has attacked numerous countries. It's now widely see as a belligerent bully.
Any mention of Israel's nukes is likely to name Mordecai (Mordechai) Vanunu, who revealed them to the world, and who spent 18 years in jail (11 solitary) for doing so. If he speaks to the media, he will be jailed again. If he were currently a free man, he would be on the front pages, pointing out that Israel itself has nukes.
To check if the New York Times has mentioned Vanunu in the last week, do this Google search:
'vanunu' site:nytimes.com
(NB you should enclose the search string between double quotes, even if it's just one word)
and under Tools > Time, select Past week
Here are the results:
Your search - 'vanunu' site:nytimes.com - did not match any documents.
Now repeat the search but omitting the site parameter. Your search is now just
'vanunu' specifying Part Week.
This will list worldwide media wehich mentioned Vanunu in the past week. No Mainstream Western Media show up; but a number of social media posts show up.
(13) Hanan Ashrawi: 'Madleen' have more courage than Israeli genocidal army
https://x.com/DrHananAshrawi/status/1931973294737023339
<https://x.com/DrHananAshrawi> @DrHananAshrawi The twelve brave men & women of the 'Madleen' have more courage than the whole Israeli genocidal army, more principles than the whole ineffectual multilateral system, more integrity than all Western governments who have betrayed the people of Palestine. We send them our love, respect, & admiration. Quote Assal Rad @AssalRad · Jun 9 #GazaGenocide <https://x.com/AssalRad/status/1931871083667587507/photo/1> Jun 9, 2025
(14) Israel is the world's most awful regime - Mary Kostakidis
https://x.com/MaryKostakidis/status/1934020627985514621
https://x.com/MaryKostakidis Mary Kostakidis
@MaryKostakidis
Spot on Dan Lieberman. Not much common sense being used.
'The uncalled for attack on Iran by the most insane group of people who ever inhabited this planet is expected; what do the insane do, they do the insane. Not expected is that recognized people do not recognize the insanity of the action. Put in simple. Iranians are not eager to have a nuclear bomb. Why would they when knowing Israel cannot be attacked with a weapon that will release radioactivity in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria, and they will be labelled as international killers. An attempt to nuke anyone will be retaliated by a devastation that will erase their ancestral Persian land and its inhabitants from the Earth. It is obvious to their educated minds. Why isn't it obvious to the rest of the world?' 8:50 AM . Jun 15, 2025
https://x.com/MaryKostakidis/status/1934021321937297902
@MaryKostakidis
'Now we must worry about a future in which the world's most awful regime, Israel, takes advantage of international ignorance to maintain unique possession of the most dangerous weapons. Israel's strike is a display of scheming madness for which we should all be fearful and will one day regret. Not knowing where this madness will lead, except to know the madness will not be calmed and will lead into more madness' 8:53 AM . Jun 15, 2025
(15) Attack on Iran implements 30-year-old 'Clean Break' strategy - Jeffrey Sachs & Sybil Fares
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/netanyahu-war-on-iran
Stop Netanyahu Before He Gets Us All Killed
We could soon see several nuclear powers pitted against each other and dragging the world closer to nuclear annihilation.
JEFFREY D. SACHS and SYBIL FARES
Jun 16, 2025
For nearly 30 years, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has driven the Middle East into war and destruction. The man is a powder keg of violence. Throughout all the wars that he has championed, Netanyahu has always dreamed of the big one: to defeat and overthrow the Iranian Government. His long-sought war, just launched, might just get us all killed in a nuclear Armageddon, unless Netanyahu is stopped.
Netanyahu's fixation on war goes back to his extremist mentors, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Yitzhak Shamir, and Menachem Begin. The older generation believed that Zionists should use whatever violencewars, assassinations, terroris needed to achieve their aims of eliminating any Palestinian claim to a homeland.
The founders of Netanyahu's political movement, the Likud, called for exclusive Zionist control over all of what had been British Mandatory Palestine. At the start of the British Mandate in the early 1920s, the Muslim and Christian Arabs constituted roughly 87% of the population and owned ten times more land than the Jewish population. As of 1948, the Arabs still outnumbered the Jews roughly two to one. Nonetheless, the <https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party> founding charter of Likud (1977) declared that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." The now infamous chant, "from the River to the Sea," which is characterized as anti-Semitic, turns out to be the anti-Palestinian rallying call of the Likud.
Israel's war on Iran is the final move in a decades-old strategy. We are witnessing the culmination of decades of extremist Zionist manipulation of US foreign policy.
The challenge for Likud was how to pursue its maximalist aims despite their blatant illegality under international law and morality, both of which call for a two-state solution.
In 1996, Netanyahu and his American advisors devised a "<https://www.dougfeith.com/docs/Clean_Break.pdf> Clean Break" strategy. They advocated that Israel would not withdraw from the Palestinian lands captured in the 1967 war in exchange for regional peace. Instead, Israel would reshape the Middle East to its liking. Crucially, the strategy envisioned the US as the main force to achieve these aims - waging wars in the region to dismantle governments opposed to Israel's dominance over Palestine. The US was called upon to fight wars on Israel's behalf.
The Clean Break strategy was effectively carried out by the US and Israel after 9/11. As NATO Supreme Commander General <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAnNJW9_KYA> Wesley Clark revealed, soon after 9/11, the US planned to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years - starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran."
The first of the wars, in early 2003, was to topple the Iraqi government. Plans for further wars were delayed as the US became mired in Iraq. Still, the US supported Sudan's split in 2005, Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 2006, and Ethiopia's incursion into Somalia that same year. In 2011, the Obama administration launched CIA operation Timber Sycamore against Syria and, with the UK and France, overthrew Libya's government through a 2011 bombing campaign. Today, these countries lie in ruins, and many are now embroiled in civil wars.
Netanyahu was a cheerleader of these wars of choice - either in public or behind the scenes - together with his neocon allies in the U.S. Government including Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, <https://www.commondreams.org/tag/victoria-nuland> Victoria Nuland, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, and others.
<https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg83514/html/CHRG-107hhrg83514.htm> Testifying in the U.S. Congress in 2002, Netanyahu pitched for the disastrous war in Iraq, declaring "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." He continued, "And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone." He also falsely told Congress, "There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking, is working, is advancing towards to the development of nuclear weapons."
The slogan to remake a "New Middle East" provides the slogan for these wars. Initially stated in 1996 through "Clean Break," it was popularized by <https://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/69331.htm> Secretary Condoleezza Rice in 2006. As Israel was brutally bombarded Lebanon, Rice stated:
"What we're seeing here, in a sense, is the growing -- the birth pangs of a new Middle East and whatever we do we have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East not going back to the old one."
In September 2023, Netanyahu presented at UN General Assembly a map of the "<https://www.gov.il/en/pages/epmungaspeech> New Middle East" completely erasing a Palestinian state. In September 2024, he elaborated on this plan by <https://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/79/il_fl.pdf> showing two maps: one part of the Middle East a "blessing," and the otherincluding Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Irana curse, as he advocated regime change in the latter countries.
Israel's war on Iran is the final move in a decades-old strategy. We are witnessing the culmination of decades of extremist Zionist manipulation of US foreign policy.
The premise of Israel's attack on Iran is the claim that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Such a claim is fatuous since Iran has repeatedly called for negotiations precisely to remove the nuclear option in return for an end to the decades of US sanctions.
Since 1992, Netanyahu and his supporters have claimed that Iran will become a <https://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/08/weekinreview/the-world-israel-focuses-on-the-threat-beyond-the-arabs-in-iran.html?pagewanted=all> nuclear power "in a few years.' In 1995, Israeli officials and their US backers declared a <https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/05/world/iran-may-be-able-build-atomic-bomb-5-years-us-israeli-officials-fear.html> 5-year timeline. In 2003, Israel's Director of Military Intelligence said that Iran will be a nuclear power "<https://www.haaretz.com/2003-10-21/ty-article/u-s-iran-nuclear-move-positive-if-fully-implemented/0000017f-e37e-d568-ad7f-f37f72850000> by the summer of 2004." In 2005, the <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4203411.stm> head of Mossad said that Iran could build the bomb in less than 3 years. In 2012, <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/d-ir/dv/netanyahu_un_sep20/netanyahu_un_sep2012.pdf> Netanyahu claimed at the United Nations that "it's only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb." And on and on.
This 30-year-plus pattern of shifting deadlines has marked a deliberate strategy, not a failure in prophecy. The claims are propaganda; there is always an "existential threat." More importantly, there is Netanyahu's phony claim that negotiations with Iran are useless.
Iran has repeatedly said that it does not want a nuclear weapon and that it has long been prepared to negotiate. In October 2003, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production and use of nuclear arms - a ruling later <https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/2005/infcirc657.pdf> officially cited by Iran at an IAEA meeting in Vienna in August 2005 and referenced since as a religious and legal barrier to pursuing nuclear weapons.
Even for those skeptical of Iran's intentions, Iran has consistently advocated for a negotiated agreement supported by independent international verification. In contrast, the Zionist lobby has opposed any such settlements, urging the US to maintain sanctions and reject deals that would allow strict IAEA monitoring in exchange for lifting sanctions. ...
Israel's attack on Iran now threatens to escalate to a full-fledged war that draws in the US and Europe on the side of Israel and Russia and perhaps Pakistan on the side of Iran. We could soon see several nuclear powers pitted against each other and dragging the world closer to nuclear annihilation. The Doomsday Clock is at 89 seconds to midnight, the closest to nuclear Armageddon since the clock was launched in 1947.
Over the past 30 years, Netanyahu and his US backers have destroyed or destabilized a 4,000-km swath of countries stretching across North Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean, and Western Asia. Their aim has been to block a Palestinian State by overthrowing governments supporting the Palestinian cause. The world deserves better than this extremism. More than 180 countries in the UN have called for the two-state solution and regional stability. That makes more sense than Israel bringing the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in pursuit of its illegal and extremist aims.
END
Copyright: Peter Myers asserts the right to be identified as the author of the material written by him on this website, being material that is not otherwise attributed to another author.
END
Write to me at contact.html.