The post Israeli Military Attack on Gaza Hospital Puts ICU Out of Service appeared first on Iran News Daily.

TEHRAN (Iran News) –A military operation in Rafah, southern Gaza, will take “several weeks”, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday, adding he will push ahead with an offensive that has sparked international alarm and outrage.

The post Military operations in Rafah will take “several weeks”: Israeli PM appeared first on Iran News Daily.

Major General Mohammad Hossein Baqeri made the remarks during a meeting on Sunday with Iraqi Interior Minister Abdul Amir al-Shammari on Sunday.

Iraq has already taken steps to relocate anti-Iranian terrorist groups away from the Kurdistan region’s borders with Iran, a move that won Bagheri’s appreciation.

The Baghdad government is anticipated to continue its actions until the terrorist groups are completely disarmed, the Iranian general noted, stressing that there are still worries and hints regarding the presence of a number of terrorist elements near the shared border.

“There is still evidence and concern about the presence of certain terrorist elements in the border region, and the Iraqi government is expected to keep up the border control job until the complete disarmament of those groups,” the top Iranian general added.

According to the commander, the 1,500-kilometer border between Iran and Iraq must be secure for fostering friendship, trade, and tourism.

To guarantee complete border security, he detailed measures for close collaboration between the border guards of Iran and Iraq.

For his part, the interior minister of Iraq praised the Iranian Armed Forces’ joint efforts with Iraq to strengthen border security.

According to Shammari, Iraq prioritizes obtaining total control over all Iranian border crossings.

At the end of the meeting, General Baqeri toured an exhibition of Iraqi defense equipment.

Iraq conducted a series of operations to allay Iran’s concerns after Tehran set a deadline of September 19 for the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) to take action against militant separatists stationed along the common border.

In 2022, the IRGC initiated a series of military strikes on the locations of separatist groups in Iraq’s Kurdistan Region.

Iran and Iraq inked a security deal in Baghdad on March 19, which included border protection coordination.

In accordance with the deal, the Iraqi government agreed to disband separatist and terrorist groups operating in the Kurdistan region by September 19, relocate them from their military barracks to camps run by the Baghdad government, and abandon their military barracks.

On September 23, Iraq’s Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein declared that his nation had put the security agreement’s terms into effect.

Bagheri arrived in the Iraqi capital Baghdad on Saturday night for a three-day visit. He was in Baghdad upon an invitation by his Iraqi counterpart. Baqeri was accompanied by a number of high-ranking military and political officials.

Upon arrival in the Iraqi capital, the commander and his accompanying delegation visited a site near Baghdad’s international airport where General Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis were assassinated in a U.S. drone attack in January 2020. Bagheri and his delegation paid tribute to the martyr commanders.

At a meeting with his Iraqi counterpart, Abdel Emir Rashid Yarallah, on Sunday, he said that Tehran signaled readiness to thwart any possible threats against Iraqi territorial integrity and national sovereignty.

Iran’s top general cited the positive relations and shared experiences between the two neighbors as evidence that Iraq was moving toward peace and durable security.

In another meeting on Sunday, General Baqeri and Iraqi Defense Minister Thabet Muhammad Al-Abbasi talked about a range of issues.

The leading military figures from Iran and Iraq emphasized their nations’ support for Palestine, stating that the two neighbors share similar opinions regarding the Gaza war.

The senior Iranian commander stated that the two Muslim neighbors also share similar opinions about Palestine and the ongoing Israeli war on Gaza, pointing to the same positions of the Iranian and Iraqi governments and religious leaders about significant regional and global events.

The post Iran’s military chief urges Iraq to take more action against KRG-based militants appeared first on Iran News Daily.

Major General Mohammad Bagheri, the chief of staff of the Armed Forces, said Iran’s military industry has achieved significant strides in a number of areas, including missiles, drones, cyberwar, artificial intelligence, and ground, naval, and aerial combat.

The world recognizes that Iran’s significant military potential in several fields is derived from indigenously generated expertise rather than reverse engineering and replicating foreign products, the Armed Forces chief said in a message to Defense Minister Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Ashtiani on National Defense Industry Day.

The commander emphasized the necessity of increasing the country’s military force and expanding the capabilities to produce systems, equipment, and advanced deterrent items.

Additionally, he said that the great Islamic Republic is attempting to conquer the pinnacles of advancement in accordance with world technical breakthroughs.

Bagheri continued by saying that despite all the adversaries’ constraints, sanctions, and acts of sabotage, the Iranian Armed Forces have managed to develop sophisticated technology and systems.

He also reassured the Iranians that despite media and psychological campaigns by the Zionists and the vile hegemonic system, the country’s Armed Forces will continue to advance and guard defense accomplishments.

The general also issued a warning that any act of violence will be met with a swift response from the Armed Forces, adding that such a response would cause the aggressors to regret their action.

Recent innovations by Iranian engineers and military professionals in the production of a wide spectrum of domestically produced equipment have made the armed forces self-sufficient.

Iran’s military might, particularly its missile capability, which is only intended for defense, will be strengthened without hesitation, according to officials. They have emphasized repeatedly that the country’s military might will never be negotiable.

On Saturday, General Bagheri said that China is seeking to boost its military with the aim of confronting the United States, stressing that Russia and China are standing up to the West.

Underlining that the arrogant powers seek to maintain a unipolar world order, Bagheri said, “American power is declining. Today, Russia is standing against the expansionism of the North Atlantic Treaty, and China is also seeking to strengthen its military power to confront the United States.”

He added, “All this shows the decline of American power. Also, international unions such as the Shanghai [Cooperation Organization] and BRICS have shown their power in the world.”

The post World powers trying to buy arms from Iran: military chief appeared first on Iran News Daily.

“We have no restrictions on providing equipment to countries and we are in contact with all countries and continue this relationship with authority. Any country that is committed to the interests, security and maintenance of international peace and thinks about common global security, we will definitely help it,” Ashtiani said when asked about the likelihood of Iran exporting military equipment to Venezuela.

Hailing the military cooperation between Iran and Venezuela, Ashtiani said, “Venezuela is a big country located in a sensitive area, and we have had relations with this country since the past years. Perhaps it can be said that the most interactions of our presidents were with Venezuela. In the Ministry of Defense, as the head of the joint economic commission of the two countries, we organize all the internal capabilities in various fields, one part of which is security and defense issues.”

In response to another question about some speculations and news about the purchase of the Sukhoi 35 fighters from Russia and the possibility of its arrival in the country in the near future, the Minister of Defense said, “We are a manufacturer ourselves and work in the aviation industry in the field of fighters, transport aircraft, training aircraft and other sectors. But if we feel the need for our defense power, we will try to get it from any country that has technological facilities or equipment.”

He also said that discussions about the Sukhoi fighter are more speculative. “Of course, we follow the work based on the contracts that the Islamic Republic of Iran has already had with different countries in various fields. It is possible that some of them will come to a conclusion at any point, and then we would say that the case that we signed a contract for, for example, 5 years ago, has now come to a conclusion.”

Ashtiani pointed out that there are no restrictions on Iran purchasing military equipment. “No, it is not prohibited, wherever we need.  We do not feel any restrictions in providing the needs or exporting.”

In late April, the Iranian defense minister visited Moscow to take part in a joint meeting with counterparts from Russia, Turkey, and Syria.

Earlier this month, Iranian media reported that Iran would receive the first shipment of Russian SU-35 warplanes within weeks.

Facing severe Western sanctions, Tehran and Moscow have started to strengthen their relationship.

In recent months, Iran and Russia have inked significant agreements to expand their economic, commercial, energy, and military ties.

It was first reported by Iran’s Persian-language media, which did not go into detail about the shipment.

The SU-35 is a fourth-generation fighter aircraft primarily built for air superiority missions.

There have been media reports in recent months alleging that Iran has received SU-35 aircraft from Russia.

In March, Iran’s permanent delegation to the United Nations acknowledged that the government had sealed a contract to acquire the plane.

According to Iranian media sources at the time, 24 units of the fighter jets will be delivered to Iran.

The post No limits on exports and imports of military equipment: defense chief appeared first on Iran News Daily.

TEHRAN (Iran News) –The leader of Yemen’s Revolution, Sayyed Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, says enemy’s efforts to destroy the army have failed as a delegation returns from Amman after holding talks on the truce with Saudi Arabia.

Speaking at a military parade where the Yemeni armed forces celebrated the graduation of thousands of new recruits in Hodeidah province; Sayyed Abdul-Malik al-Houthi pointed out the goal of the parade was to reassure “our dear people” and deliver “a message to the enemies”.

Sayyed Abdul-Malik hailed the latest recruits to the armed forces saying “our army today is stronger than ever before,” noting that the enemies’ goals to occupy the country and control its people have turned into a mirage and real disappointment due to what he labeled as the shocking events on the ground.

He added, “the Yemeni army now has the honor of representing the people and country in its identity, combat doctrine along with its sincere attitude in defending its people and homeland and its freedom, independence, dignity, and pride.”

Saudi Arabia launched a devastating bombing campaign on its southern neighbor in March 2015. The airstrikes led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people with many women and children killed. The air raids also saw a complete land, air, and sea blockade that caused the United Nations to declare Yemen as the world’s largest humanitarian disaster.

However, the Yemeni armed forces hit back and over the last couple of years, Saudi Arabia saw a steady stream of retaliatory operations that Yemeni officials say stopped the operation from achieving any of its objectives and forced the Saudi coalition to accept a truce.

The truce which has been holding since April has been renewed for an additional two months through October second. However, Yemeni officials have demanded that the U.S.-backed Saudi coalition uphold the humanitarian side of the truce.

The head of a national Yemeni military delegation that had been in Amman to discuss violations of the truce and the opening of roads gave a press conference on his return to Sana’a. Major General Yahya Al-Razami stressed the urgent need to complete and implement the humanitarian aspect of the truce before any military negotiations can take place.

Speaking at Sanaa Airport al-Razami explained the humanitarian aspect is the “payment of salaries, the lifting of restrictions on airports and all other ports, and the lifting of the siege on Yemen completely before engaging in any other discussions or agreements on the military front until a decision is made on the handling of the humanitarian file.”

Addressing the people of Hudaydah which has seen some of the worst fightings during the Saudi onslaught against Yemen he said “they stood with all sincerity and loyalty to their country and their people. I also salute all the people of the neighboring provinces who stood in the back and supported the people of Hudaydah province, as is the case with the rest of the loyal and free people of these people, who stood with all sincerity and diligence in defending this province and the rest of this country”.

He noted that despite the military parade in a city that has repeatedly come under attack there were “tens of thousands” of troops stationed on the front line and the enemies helped motivate the people to turn hardship into opportunities and helped beef up the military capabilities.

He also stressed the failure of the enemies’ efforts to “distance our country from the Palestinian cause under the idea of normalization with the Israeli enemy”, pointing out that Yemen today, both officially and by public demand, is stronger and more adhering to its religiously principled position in support of the Palestinian people and unity among Muslims.

The Ansarallah chief noted the ongoing work to build an army that reached a sufficient level of deterrence against the enemies and to significantly contribute in supporting the nation’s causes foremost of which, he noted, is the Palestinian cause.

He said “the Yemeni army, after cleansing it of all the traitors remained very strong with thousands of loyal officers and tens of thousands of the best sons of this people, from its loyal men, who carry their patriotic responsibility in defending their country, the independence of their country, and the freedom and dignity of their people. Therefore it became an army that is oriented in its tasks and assumes its responsibilities out of its conscious attachment to its homeland, identity and people”.

Sayyed Abdul-Malik renewed his advice to the coalition waging war on Yemen to seize the opportunity of the truce, stop the aggression completely, and end the siege and occupation, calling on them to absorb the lessons that have been demonstrated during the past eight years.

He stressed that the Yemeni people will continue to defend their legitimate rights to freedom and independence, and to constantly strive to lift the unjust siege, pointing out “we are not aggressive, we face aggression, we confront the aggressors, and we strive to achieve real and honorable peace for our dear country and people.”

Yemen’s naval force revealed a new land-to-sea missile including the Falaq 1, that can reach any point in the sea from any Yemeni province. The long-range Mandab 2 missile was also unveiled, which is a winged projective with higher accuracy in targeting and can detect its targets by a radar seeker attached to it. The Mandeb 1 missile, which was previously used to protect the Yemeni coast in the face of attacks, was also on display.

Reports have emerged that the military parade was attended by units of the country’s Fifth Region, the Victory Brigades, the Navy, the Coastal Defense, the Air Force, and the Air Defense. The number of forces participating is said to have been 25,000 troops.

This was followed by a large force of armored vehicles, tanks, and land and sea weapons of all kinds. The army put on display its drone power which was made by local and national experts.

The commander of the Victory Brigades gave a speech, in which he affirmed that “all those affiliated with the Yemeni army will continue in the battle of Yemen until its liberation from the occupation”.

The President of Yemen’s Supreme Political Council, Mahdi Al-Mashat, said that “the high level that our army has reached is one of the gains of steadfastness in the face of arrogance and aggression.” He stressed that the military will “continue to stand in the face of any dangers that threaten the West Coast region.”

Addressing the countries in the Saudi coalition he added that “what poses a threat to international navigation is your brutal measures and taking pleasure in the suffering of our people. And the fleets that you have mobilized and mobilized near the coasts of our country in order to besiege and destroy it do not terrify the smallest child in our people.”

Al-Mashat stressed that “the Yemeni armed forces are now able to strike any point in the sea from anywhere in Yemen, not only from the coast.”

He explained that “our land and sea weapons have recently been developed, and they are able by land and sea, to hit their targets.” Al-Mashat pointed out that “evading the obligations of the truce and returning to the seizure of ships endanger the truce and will render the agreement worthless”.

The post Yemen showcases military might appeared first on Iran News Daily.

TEHRAN (Iran News) – The United States has waged nearly 400 military interventions since its founding in 1776, according to new research published this week that studied available databases and other resources on the matter.

According to the study by the Military Intervention Project: A New Dataset on U.S. Military Interventions, 1776–2019, half of those conflicts and other uses of force occurred between 1950 and 2019.

More than a quarter of them have taken place since the end of the Cold War. Out of the nearly 400 military interventions, 34 percent have been in Latin America and the Caribbean; 23 percent in East Asia and the Pacific region; 14 percent in West Asia and North Africa; and 13 percent in Europe and Central Asia.

The authors find that U.S. interventions have “increased and intensified” in recent years. While the Cold War era (1946 – 1989) and the period between 1868 – 1917 were the most militaristically active for the United States, the post-9/11 era has already taken the third spot in all of U.S. history and most of that military adventurism has been in West Asia.

It says “these interventions have only increased and intensified in recent years, with the U.S. militarily intervening over 200 times after World War II and over 25 percent of all U.S. military interventions occurring during the post-Cold War era.”

Until the end of the Cold War, U.S. military hostility was generally proportional to that of its rivals. Since then, “the U.S. began to escalate its hostilities as its rivals deescalate it, marking the beginning of America’s more kinetic foreign policy.”

The study reads “that some scholars have explained such increasing interventionist trends as part of the new norm of ‘contingent sovereignty,’ which explicitly challenges the traditional principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states. Particularly regarding the U.S., one perspective is that the country is evolving past its Cold War doctrine.”

The study notes “U.S. military interventions to promote geopolitical interests cannot explain the dynamics of the post-Cold War era. If the U.S. primarily intervenes when its security interests are threatened, we expect the U.S. to intervene less in an era void of peer competitors where fewer vital interests are arguably at stake.”

The authors point out that other researchers have asserted the U.S. uses force abroad “without a clear organizing principle and thus its military missions have had disastrous long-term and unintended consequences.” In 2018, a co-author said “current patterns of U.S. military engagement as kinetic diplomacy, diplomacy solely through armed force,” the research says, in the past years “while U.S. ambassadors are operating in one-third of the world’s countries, U.S. special operators are active in three-fourths”.

A challenging aspect of measuring military interventions is how to define an intervention, the research notes. The study highlights “that the definition of U.S. military intervention may fall under any of the following categories.”

The movement of regular troops or forces (airborne, seaborne, shelling, etc.) of one country inside another, in the context of some political issue or dispute. To separate higher intensity interventions from minor skirmishes, this definition excludes paramilitaries, government-backed militias, and other security forces that are not part of the regular uniformed military of a state.

Similarly, “events must be purposeful, not accidental.” Inadvertent border crossings are not included in this definition and neither are unintentional confrontations between planes or naval ships. The definition excludes soldiers engaging in exercises in a foreign land, transporting forces across borders, or on foreign bases. Furthermore, the definition categorizes international military interventions by temporal guidelines so that interventions are continuous if repeated acts occur within 6 months of one another.

Instances in which the United States has used its Armed Forces abroad
in situations of military conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes…Covert operations, disaster relief, and routine alliance stationing and training exercises are not included here, nor are the Civil and Revolutionary Wars and the continual use of U.S. military units in the exploration, settlement, and pacification of the western part of the United States”

The political use of military force involving ground troops of either the U.S. Army or Marine Corps in an active attempt to influence the behavior of other nations.

Any deployment of U.S. ground troops on the territory of another country that included at least 100 person-years.

Use of armed force that involves the official deployment of at least 500 regular military personnel (ground, air, or naval) to attain immediate term political objectives through action against a foreign adversary. Routine military movements and operations without a defined target like military training exercises, the routine forward deployment of military troops, non-combatant evacuation operations, and disaster relief should be excluded.

Militarized interstate disputes are united historical cases of conflict in which the threat, display, or use of military force short of war by one member state is explicitly directed towards the government, official representatives, official forces, property, or territory of another state.

This recent pattern of international relations conducted largely through armed force, it noted, has increasingly targeted West Asia and Africa. These regions have seen both large-scale U.S. wars, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, and low-profile combat in nations such as Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, and Tunisia.

The authors say “the U.S. has increased its military usage of force abroad since the end of the Cold War. Over this period the U.S. has preferred the direct usage of force over threats or displays of force, increasing its hostility levels while its target states have decreased theirs. Along the way, the regions of interest have changed as well. Up until World War II, the U.S. frequently intervened in Latin America and Europe,” but beginning in the 1950s, the U.S. shifted its focus to West Asia and the North Africa region.

The data comprises confirmed covert operations and low-profile interventions by Special Operations forces, however, it points out that U.S. government secrecy and scrupulous sourcing standards of the public database it studied guarantees that the post-9/11 tally is an undercount.

Despite the post-9/11 era appearing to be the third most active for U.S. interventions of relatively higher hostility levels. In this era, threats of force are absent, while the use of force has been overwhelmingly commonplace. Since 2000 alone, the U.S. has engaged in at least 30 military interventions.

Experts say that the Pentagon has likely used secretive authority to carry out combat beyond the scope of any authorization for the use of military force or permissible self-defense.

They point out that while secretive “127e” programs in Somalia and Yemen for instance overlap with well-known U.S. military interventions, other uses of the authority, such as in Egypt and Lebanon, may not. The same goes for even lesser-known programs like “Section 1202”.

U.S. military conflicts have provided American arms manufacturers with ample opportunity to make a profit and prolong the country’s history of violence based on its founding.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Global military expenditure is estimated to have been $1917 billion in 2019, the highest level since 1988.

With a military expenditure of $732 billion, the U.S. remained by far the largest spender in the world in 2019, accounting for 38 percent of global military spending. The U.S. spent almost as much on its military in 2019 as the next 10 highest spenders combined.

Today, SIPRI puts the cost of the US military at more than $800bn annually, accounting for almost 40 percent of global military spending.

The post U.S. has launched ‘almost 400 military interventions’ since its founding appeared first on Iran News Daily.

Speaking at the International Conference on Iran and Neighbors on Tuesday, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi said the current century will witness the Muslim world as a new pole of power with a cultural, civilizational, economic, and demographic nature that would put up great resistance against Western and Eastern powers.

The geopolitics of resistance means “changing the social, cultural (religious), economic, and military structures and processes of the Islamic Ummah (community) so as to gain freedom and independence and form the Islamic world’s power in competition with the dominating powers of the West and East at various national, regional, and global levels,” Rahim Safavi said.

“The flag-bearer of this new geopolitics is the Islamic Revolution forces, the Islamic Awakening movements and the Resistance Front led by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution and the late founder of the Islamic Republic [Imam Khomeini],” he added.

Rahim Safavi also noted that following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the resistance focused on the issue of Palestine and the Zionist regime’s aggression and occupation, followed by the struggle against corrupt and oppressive governments in Islamic countries.

He also stressed Iran’s role in presenting and institutionalizing the concept of resistance after the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s imposed war against Iran in the 1980s.

The commander further cited Lebanon’s Hezbollah resistance movement, Palestinian resistance groups, Iraq, and Syria as members of a new resistance bloc, saying, “With the birth of the Ansarullah movement in Yemen, this bloc or axis is having another official member today.”

Rahim Safavi, a former chief commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), hailed the IRGC Quds Force as “the engine and operating agent of the resistance.”

“In fact, what has made the United States angry with the Islamic Republic is the process of generating power in Iran’s regional politics. This power has been created in the first layer in West Asia with the wise and courageous leadership of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution and the role of the Quds Force in the battlefield under the command of the martyred general, Qassem Soleimani,” he said.

“In parallel with the advent of the new arrangement or order led by the Islamic Republic in West Asia, based on the shared goal of countering American hegemony, Latin American countries, including Venezuela, Cuba, and Peru, have also strengthened their ties with the resistance front,” he added.

General Soleimani, Iran’s world-renown anti-terror commander, was assassinated alongside Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy head of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), in a US drone strike directly ordered by former president Donald Trump near Baghdad International Airport on January 3, 2020.

Both commanders were highly popular because of the key role they played in eliminating the Daesh terrorist group in the region, particularly in Iraq and Syria.

The post Iran, Resistance Front Flag-Bearer of New Regional Geopolitics appeared first on Iran News Daily.

The deal will cost an estimated total price of around $3.1 billion. The funds will come from military aid the U.S. hands out to dictatorships and apartheid regimes annually, the latter of which receives the biggest chunk of that money. $3.8 billion is the total amount that the regime receives from America annually in military aid.

So it’s perhaps important to highlight that the biggest losers of this deal are U.S. taxpayers, especially the lower and working-class American families who are financially struggling, even more, this year amid the Pandemic. Americans are suffering from the biggest infections and deaths from Covid-19 in the world. This is taxpayers’ money that could have gone to use, serving Americans instead of sending it in the form of military hardware to the biggest terrorist entity in West Asia and adding to its arsenal of helicopters to attack the Palestinians.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute had it right, the Pandemic has had no effect on the transfer or sale of military hardware. The monitoring research group said “arms sales increased even as the global economy contracted by 3.1 percent during the first year of the pandemic. ‘The industry giants were largely shielded by sustained government demand for military goods and services.”

Some analysts say the timing of the deal is to perhaps try and influence the duration of the terms in the ongoing talks in Vienna between Iran and the P4+1 group – Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany to revive the Iran Nuclear Deal. The U.S. delegation is also in Vienna but does not negotiate directly with Iran or sit at the negotiating table because Washington withdrew from the accord under former President Donald Trump.

That means mediators go back and forth with messages from the negotiating table and the very nearby location of the American delegates.

Israel vehemently and regularly voices its disapproval at the negotiations let alone any lasting agreement. This is while Iran’s lead negotiator in the Austrian capital, Ali Bagheri Kani among the other party’s envoys, have reported some good progress during the latest round of talks aimed at removing the illegal and unilateral American sanctions on Iran in exchange for Iran returning to the set of retaliatory steps it took away from the deal in several stages in line with its legal contractual rights under the agreement.

However, other analysts say the deal to send helicopters and refueling planes will not have any impact on the talks, but rather satisfy Israel’s (alleged) military superiority in the region.

After all, U.S. envoys have been shuffling from Washington to Tel Aviv, over the past month or two, more times than mediators have been shuffling between Iranian and the American delegations in Vienna.

What is surprising is the silence of the other parties to the nuclear deal of advanced offensive military aircraft being sent to the source of instability and terror in West Asia.

When Iran made technological advances last week by sending three research devices with the aim of reaching orbit, another milestone in the country’s space research program. The West made a lot of noise.

So, when it comes to peaceful space research, the U.S. State Department said, “The United States remains concerned with Iran’s development of space launch vehicles, which pose a significant proliferation concern.” Germany also urged Iran to stop sending satellite launch rockets into space, while France said, “these activities are all the more regrettable as they come at a time when we are making progress in the nuclear negotiations in Vienna.”

An Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman noted, “as previously stated, the Islamic Republic of Iran has the right to use peaceful technologies in the path of its scientific-research development according to international standards, and in so doing, it will not await the opinions of some countries that seek to impose their dictates.”

The West claims that Iran can use its indigenously made rockets to place a nuclear warhead. Critics argue the argument lacks any merit as almost every intelligence agency in the world, including that of Israel, acknowledges Tehran has no intention of seeking nuclear weapons. Its missile program is for defensive purposes.

Western parties involved in the Vienna talks (preaching about diplomacy) issued their prescript statements of condemnation of Iran’s space research advancements, yet they have not said a single word denouncing Israel receiving 12 war helicopters and two more refueling planes. Diplomacy? gone out of the window when it comes to serving Israel’s dangerous thirst for military hardware.

No words to even denounce the timing of the military deal is a very clear and unfortunate sign of the double standards, which analysts say they have become accustomed to the West exercising.

The first helicopters are expected to arrive in Israel in 2026, while the refueling planes are expected to be delivered before 2025. The regime is making attempts to bring forward the delivery of the refueling planes, and reportedly wants four of these eventually.

Israeli media have of course linked the refueling planes with a military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israeli warplanes have the ability to fire missiles, the regime can, for example, flatten an entire neighborhood of residential buildings in the besieged Gaza Strip to the ground but when it comes to an attack on Iran that idea or plan gets a little more complex.

For the past two decades, reports have surfaced that Israeli warplanes cannot travel roughly 2000 kilometers to reach Iran and strike its nuclear facilities. The long journey would require planes that can refuel the fighter jets which the U.S. has but has refused to carry out that mission on behalf of Israel.

The signing of the new deal has reportedly made the same headlines feature across all Israeli media and around some parts of the globe as well.

Speaking to U.S. media some current and former senior Israeli military officials and experts say that Israel lacks the ability to stage an attack that could destroy, or even significantly delay, Iran’s [peaceful] nuclear program, at least not anytime soon. One current high-ranking Israeli official told the New York Times, it would take at least two years to just prepare an attack that could cause damage to Iran’s nuclear project.

Here are some (not so quick) fire questions for the sake of clarity.

Q. Can Israeli warplanes travel from the occupied territories to Iran to target Iran’s nuclear program?

A. No. Hence the refueling airplanes from Boeing.

Q. Can Israel fly its jets from a country closer to Iran, that way not requiring refueling planes? 

A. Yes. But that country hosting the Israeli jets will get a taste of Iran’s missiles too.

Q. Can Israel with the refueling planes take out Iran’s nuclear facilities which are spread across the country? 

A. No. The regime is struggling with a small called the besieged Gaza Strip.

Q. Can Israel jets with refueling planes damage Iran’s nuclear facilities? 

A. Not according to former Israeli military intelligence officers.

Q. Can Israel jets with refueling planes drop a bomb on an Iranian site? 

A. No. Iran has built up advanced defense systems and radar capabilities

Q. For argument’s sake. What if an Israeli fighter jet passes the defense systems and manages to launch a strike? 

A. The jet won’t make it back to the occupied territories.

Q. What does that mean? 

A. Jets fly from a base or airport, an Iranian missile would have reached and destroyed that base or airport before the Israeli jet returns.

Q. Where would that Israeli jet land? 

A. It would need to search for the closest airport or airbase.

Q. Like somewhere in the Persian Gulf? 

A. Doesn’t make a difference. Whoever doesn’t want an airport or airbase intact can make an offer.

Q. So why get the refueling airplanes? 

A. Ask the American taxpayers first. Any Israeli attack would need a green light from Washington.

If you want to know about the nature of Iran’s retaliatory attacks and the precision of Iranian missiles that can travel up to 2000 kilometers and strike the intended target, Iraq’s Ain al-Assad in the aftermath of the assassination of Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani is a good example.

The post Further $3.1bn of U.S. taxpayers’ money goes to Israeli military appeared first on Iran News Daily.

“Any hostile action by our enemies will face a comprehensive and definitive response from the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran that would change the strategic equations significantly,” Raisi, head of the Supreme National Security Council, said upon the successful holding of the military drill.

On Friday and in the last day of the five-day maneuver, the IRGC simultaneously fired 16 precision guided missiles at a predetermined target. The firings were conducted at the presence of senior military commanders, including IRGC Commander Major General Hossein Salami and Armed Forces Chief of Staff Mohammad Baqeri.

Major General Baqeri said the maneuver had been planned before but military threats against Iran by the Zionist regime in the recent days made Iran to hold the drill earlier.

The post Raisi praises successful military drill appeared first on Iran News Daily.