Connect with us

International

Israel’s Decapitation Strike on Iran Reverberates Across Global Flashpoints

Published

16 minute read

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

Vice President J.D. Vance predicted in 2024 that a war between Israel and Iran could spiral, complicating the Pentagon’s pivot to Taiwan defense

Israel launched a sweeping series of coordinated airstrikes early Friday morning against key Iranian nuclear and military assets, delivering what Israeli officials described as a preemptive blow to prevent the advancement of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

The assault marked an explosive turning point in the long-running shadow conflict between the two states, potentially introducing worst-case scenarios of expanding regional conflict that could draw in global powers. This risk, which complicates Washington’s highest-level strategies of pivoting its military focus to counter the increasing risk of China invading Taiwan, was anticipated in a September 2024 interview with Vice President J.D. Vance, recorded shortly before the Trump administration’s surprising return to the White House.

The ongoing aerial, ground, and cyber assaults represent the first time Israel has successfully struck Iran’s nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz and assassinated multiple top Iranian security leaders in a single operation.

According to initial battlefield assessments and official statements, Israel’s campaign struck at least six military installations in and around Tehran, targeted missile bases and aerial defense systems, and penetrated deeply buried infrastructure at the Natanz uranium enrichment site. Iran confirmed that residential buildings and secure housing used by senior commanders were also hit. The operation was described by Western intelligence analysts as a long-prepared precision offensive combining cyber, signals intelligence, and advanced aerial munitions, including deep-penetration bombs.

The strikes killed at least three of Iran’s most senior security officials, including Maj. Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, Iran’s armed forces chief of staff and second only to the Supreme Leader in military command hierarchy. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the IRGC’s Aerospace Force and widely seen as the architect of Iran’s missile and drone doctrine, was also reported killed by Israeli officials with direct knowledge of the operation. Several senior nuclear scientists and other members of Iran’s strategic command structure were believed to be among the casualties, according to Israeli assessments and Iranian government-linked media outlets.

Israeli officials with knowledge of the operation reportedly indicated that a key element of the strike relied on real-time signals intelligence, including the tracking of encrypted communications and location pings from senior Iranian officials. In some areas, Mossad operatives were believed to be active on the ground, identifying targets and, in at least two instances, directing portable guided missile systems at convoy vehicles or secured compounds. These small, high-precision strike platforms—similar to man-portable air-delivered munitions—enabled Israeli forces to hit leadership figures with minimal collateral damage. The integration of live surveillance feeds, cyber disruption, and embedded human assets represented a new level of Israeli operational reach deep inside Iran’s urban and military zones.

Within hours, Iran launched approximately 100 drones in retaliation toward Israeli territory. Most were intercepted by Israeli air defenses, and damage assessments were ongoing as of Friday afternoon. The drone response, while immediate, was viewed by analysts as limited relative to the scope of the Israeli attack. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed retaliation and ordered national security forces on heightened alert. Internally, Iran moved quickly to reassert military continuity, appointing Maj. Gen. Abdolrahim Mousavi as the new chief of staff of the armed forces, replacing Bagheri.

The broader regional and diplomatic implications began to unfold rapidly. In the days preceding the strike, the Trump administration had been engaged in indirect nuclear negotiations with Iran via intermediaries. President Trump publicly cautioned against a premature military strike, suggesting as recently as Thursday evening that such a move might derail diplomatic progress.

“Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement last night.

“Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense. President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel,” Rubio said.

As of Friday morning, Trump had not issued a public statement, though reports confirmed his national security cabinet was preparing to meet in the White House Situation Room to assess the developments.

Global markets responded sharply to the escalating crisis. Oil prices jumped nearly eight percent on concerns of broader conflict across the Gulf, while gold surged to multi-month highs.

Israel’s stunning strike complicates the other two geopolitical flashpoints—surrounding Taiwan and Ukraine.

In September 2024, prior to the U.S. election, Trump’s running mate J.D. Vance had warned during a podcast interview that confrontation between Iran and Israel represented the most dangerous geopolitical flashpoint. He predicted that such a war could spiral into a region-wide conflict or potentially even a global one involving multiple powers.

“I think the most likely and most dangerous flashpoint right now is Iran and Israel,” Vance told former CIA operator Shaun Ryan, a popular podcaster in U.S. military and intelligence veteran communities.

“Obviously, the Israelis are on high alert. They just experienced a terrorist attack and are dealing with Hamas,” Vance said, while identifying a Chinese invasion of Taiwan and nuclear escalation in Russia’s war against Ukraine as the two other most dangerous global war scenarios.

“What happens if, in northern Israel, Iranian-backed militias start killing thousands of civilians?” Vance continued. “The Israelis would likely invade. The Iranians would counterattack. Now you’ve got Israel and Iran locked in a regional war. Then the Turks probably have to get involved. The Saudis likely get drawn in. And suddenly, that’s the kind of scenario that could ballon into World War III.”

While Israel has conducted targeted strikes on Iranian proxy infrastructure in Syria and Lebanon for years, and exchanged limited direct fire with Iran itself, this marks the first known large-scale attack on Iran’s strategic interior, including its nuclear infrastructure and senior command housing. The strike stunned observers in both countries for its scale and success, cutting through layers of Iranian defenses and hitting hardened targets deep inside Tehran’s military zones.

The Israeli military stated that the operation struck underground sections of Natanz designed to house Iran’s advanced centrifuge cascades. Although the full extent of the damage is not yet verified, defense analysts reviewing video footage said the density and plume dynamics of explosions at multiple sites were consistent with high-velocity, penetrating munitions. In addition to Natanz, long-range missile batteries and several air defense systems around the capital were reportedly hit, further degrading Iran’s deterrent capabilities.

Inside Tehran, scenes of confusion unfolded. Fire and smoke were visible in multiple neighborhoods, and state television broadcast images of bombed-out structures. Civilians formed long queues at gas stations and grocery stores, fearing further conflict. Internet connectivity was disrupted across parts of the capital.

Beijing, an ally of Iran and increasingly assessed to be covertly supporting Russia’s war against Ukraine with supplies of war materiel that breach sanction barriers erected by NATO powers, issued a pointed response last night. The Chinese government has consistently supported Iranian sovereignty in multilateral forums and is a key economic partner in Tehran’s oil and energy sectors.

Lin Jian, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry, said on Friday that China was “deeply concerned” about Israel’s strike on Iran and opposed the “violating” of “Iran’s sovereignty, security and territorial integrity.” He called on all parties to avoid escalating tensions and stated that China would play “a constructive role in promoting the easing of the situation.”

Washington’s political elite have mostly been circumspect in the early hours of this major conflict. But at 10 p.m. Eastern Thursday, shortly after reports of Israeli strikes emerged, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy issued one of the first scathing public rebukes of the operation and of President Donald Trump.

In a statement posted to social media, Murphy said Israel’s attack was “clearly intended to scuttle the Trump Administration’s negotiations with Iran” and warned it “risks a regional war that will likely be catastrophic for America.” He continued: “Iran would not be this close to possessing a nuclear weapon if Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu had not forced America out of the nuclear agreement with Iran that had brought Europe, Russia, and China together behind the United States to successfully contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”

Murphy called the strikes a “disaster of Trump and Netanyahu’s own making” and said that a war between Israel and Iran “may be good for Netanyahu’s domestic politics, but will likely be disastrous for both the security of Israel, the United States, and the rest of the region.” Referencing earlier remarks from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Murphy emphasized that “we have no obligation to follow Israel into a war we did not ask for and will make us less safe.”

In Israel, the strikes have so far produced rare political consensus. Opposition leader Benny Gantz, a former defense minister and longtime rival of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, publicly endorsed the military action. Gantz called the strike a “first-rate strategic operation” and stated that “in this historic hour, we stand united behind the defense establishment,” adding a message of support for Israel’s political leadership.

While Iran’s leadership has vowed a harsh response, it faces pressure to avoid triggering a broader war that could draw in U.S. and allied regional forces. Meanwhile, Israel has stated its military remains on high alert and is prepared for extended conflict, potentially including actions against Iranian proxies in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq.

A full version of Vance’s September 2024 response to podcaster Shaun Ryan is posted here:

“How close are we to potential World War III and nuclear warfare?” Ryan asked.

“Way too close,” Vance said. “I’m sure Russia has red lines—some of which we’re not even aware of. In Ukraine, you could reach a situation where a Russian red line is crossed. Then what? Do they respond with nuclear power? Do they start using tactical nuclear weapons in eastern Ukraine?

If that happens, at least some Eastern European countries—like Poland—would probably have to get involved. And that balloons into a World War III scenario.

But I think the most likely and most dangerous flashpoint right now is Iran and Israel. Obviously, the Israelis are on high alert. They just experienced a terrorist attack and are dealing with Hamas. What happens if, in northern Israel, Iranian-backed militias start killing thousands of civilians? The Israelis would likely invade. The Iranians would counterattack. Now you’ve got Israel and Iran locked in a regional war.

Then the Turks probably have to get involved. The Saudis likely get drawn in. And suddenly, that’s the kind of scenario that could escalate into World War III.”

“And then the final thing is, China wants Taiwan, right? Everything that we have tells us the Chinese want Taiwan. America, I think, has left Taiwan in a really crappy position because we’ve sent all our weapons to Ukraine. The Taiwanese, I don’t know that they could repel a Chinese invasion right now. And so do the Chinese invade Taiwan? That leads to some sort of accelerating conflict there. So there are basically at least three hotspots in the world right now that each have the potential to become a major worldwide conflict.”

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

BC Ferries Deal With China Risks Canada’s Security

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Scott McGregor

A BC Ferries contract with China risks national security, public transparency and Canadian safety. Why are we still looking the other way?

Scott McGregor exposes how a billion-dollar BC Ferries deal with a Chinese shipyard reflects a deeper failure: Canadian institutions are shielding Beijing’s interests—at taxpayers’ expense—while ignoring glaring national security risks.

BC Ferries, the taxpayer-owned company operating ferry services along the B.C. coast, didn’t just sign a billion-dollar shipbuilding contract in China; it handed Beijing leverage over Canadian infrastructure.

Behind the bureaucratic talk of cost and efficiency lies a deeper scandal: a taxpayer-funded deal that puts national security, public transparency and Canadian citizens at risk, all to benefit a hostile regime.

When theBreaker.news, an independent investigative outlet in BC, filed freedom of information requests to uncover the contract’s details, BC Ferries refused to release a single page. The excuse? Disclosure might threaten its financial position, safety and the “interests of third parties.”

This refusal didn’t happen in a vacuum. It came the same day Chinese President Xi Jinping stood next to Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Beijing, giving a vivid display of authoritarian solidarity.

BC Ferries’ secrecy is bad optics. It flies in the face of multiple rulings by the B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner, who has repeatedly upheld the public’s right to see contracts signed by public bodies. Cities and Crown corporations have been ordered to disclose their agreements with FIFA, the international soccer governing body, and with B.C. Place Stadium.

In fact, public institutions have disclosed deals far less sensitive than this one. Yet BC Ferries, propped up by a $1-billion loan from the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB), insists its Chinese shipbuilder must remain shielded from scrutiny. The result isn’t protection for taxpayers. It’s protection for Beijing’s leverage.

And that’s just the beginning. The more dangerous problem is legal. Canada has no bilateral agreements with China to guarantee fair legal treatment of its citizens. No non-prosecution provisions. No mutual legal assistance mechanisms. No safety net.

At home, corporations can sign remediation agreements to avoid prosecution if they cooperate and commit to reforms. But those agreements stop at Canada’s borders. They offer no protection for Canadians working in Weihai, the Chinese city where the vessels are built. If a dispute arises or Beijing flexes its power, those Canadians could face arbitrary detention, exit bans or national security charges. In a diplomatic crisis, they could become pawns.

This isn’t a theoretical risk. Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor spent nearly three years in Chinese prisons after Canada detained Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou. That episode exposed the Chinese Communist Party’s playbook of hostage diplomacy. It should have ruled out any deal that places Canadian citizens or Crown assets under Chinese jurisdiction.

Yet even with that memory still fresh, the arrangement continues, quietly, with little public debate.

What we’re witnessing is a textbook case of hybrid warfare. Economic deals masked as trade. State financing disguised as commercial contracts. Political leverage embedded in infrastructure projects. And Canada, still clinging to the outdated promises of globalization, is paying for its own exposure.

At the moment when Beijing is supplying components for Russia’s war machine, Ottawa is greenlighting the outsourcing of core coastal infrastructure to a state-owned Chinese shipyard.

Parliament appears to be taking notice of the situation. The House of Commons Transport Committee has initiated a review of the $1 billion federal loan associated with the BC Ferries deal. The expected witnesses for this review include the CEO of the corporation, the CEO of the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB), Transport Minister Chrystia Freeland and Infrastructure Minister Gregor Robertson.

The review follows political pushback, including criticism from Freeland, who resigned from cabinet on Sept. 16, and had previously called the outsourcing decision “disappointing.”

This review is necessary because BC Ferries is a Crown-owned utility, governed by an NDP-appointed board and funded through federal support.

When a public entity conceals the terms of a massive contract and hands work to a Chinese state-controlled firm, it’s not just acting secretively. It’s normalizing a culture of opacity that weakens Canadian sovereignty and shields foreign interests from democratic accountability.

BC Ferries defends the deal by pointing to its projected economic benefits: four new major vessels, hybrid propulsion systems, 50,000 job-years and more than $4.5 billion in forecasted economic output.

But those figures come at the cost of strategic blindness.

Time and again, Canadian policymakers treat China like an ordinary business partner, even as the Chinese Communist Party uses law, finance and supply chains as tools of global influence. While other democracies are pulling back from partnerships with Chinese state firms, Canada looks the other way, tethered to outdated trade assumptions and short-term economics.

The remedy starts with sunlight. Contracts signed by public bodies must be disclosed, especially when they involve authoritarian regimes. But transparency is only the first step.

Canada must adopt a hybrid warfare lens for every major economic decision. That means asking hard questions: Does this deal strengthen or weaken our position? Does it open the door to foreign influence? Does it endanger Canadians abroad? Short-term savings can breed long-term dependency, and in China’s case, geopolitical exposure.

BC Ferries’ shipbuilding contract with China isn’t just a procurement mistake. It’s a warning.

Without legal safeguards, public oversight and strategic foresight, Canada isn’t just buying ferries; it’s handing over control.

And Canadians deserve better.

Scott McGregor is an intelligence consultant and co-author of The Mosaic Effect. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Countering Hybrid Warfare and writes here for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

International

Trump says he won’t back down on Antifa terrorism designation

Published on

From The Center Square

By

President Donald Trump is moving quickly against an organization that he blames for destruction, looting and protests, another indication the president is acting faster during his second term.

Trump has long wanted to take action against the decentralized, leaderless  collection of groups, networks and people who claim to be anti-fadcist. But it didn’t get done during his first term in office. 

Trump proposed taking action against Antifa amid violence in Portland in 2019. During the George Floyd protests in May 2020, Trump made a similar announcement, but nothing followed.

“Major consideration is being given to naming ANTIFA an ‘ORGANIZATION OF TERROR,'” Trump wrote in a social media post in August 2019. “Portland is being watched very closely.”

This week, months into a fast-paced second term, Trump formally designated the organization after The Center Square asked him about it in an Oval Office news conference and said he could take it further with an international designation.

Trump’s second-term move came after a spate of political violence in the U.S., including the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

“I am pleased to inform our many U.S.A. Patriots that I am designating ANTIFA, A SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER, AS A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION,” Trump posted on Monday. “I will also be strongly recommending that those funding ANTIFA be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the highest legal standards and practices.” 

Trump designated Mexican drug cartels and violent foreign gangs as a foreign terror organization early in his second term. He has used those designations to go after drug traffickers and Tren de Aragua, among other cartels.

A foreign terror organization designation would pressure other countries to do the same. According to the U.S. Department of State, a foreign terror organization designation for Antifa would isolate the organization internationally and “deter donations or contributions to and economic transactions with named organizations.”

Some have been critical of the designation.

A Cato scholar said Trump’s move to designate Antifa a domestic terror organization was misguided.

“George Orwell, one of the most well-known anti-fascists of the last century, is undoubtedly rolling over in his grave right now,” Patrick Eddington, a senior fellow in homeland security and civil liberties at the Cato Institute, wrote. 

Eddington said, legal or not, Trump has shown he’s ready to take action.

“What matters is that the administration asserts the authority to do this, and it has thousands of armed and armored federal law enforcement agents ready and able to carry out Trump’s orders,” he wrote.

The White House cited “coordinated efforts” to “obstruct” federal law enforcement, specifically immigration enforcement operations through “organized riots” and “violent assaults,” including doxing.

The White House said the designation will allow law enforcement to use federal resources to investigate and “dismantle” the group or anyone “claiming to act on behalf” of the group. In addition, it will allow the federal government to investigate and prosecute those responsible for funding Antifa.

U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, said Trump is using the designation to target left-leaning groups he doesn’t like.

“Designating Antifa – which has no defined organizational structure or leadership – as a domestic terrorism organization is not only incorrect, it serves no purpose other than an excuse for the Trump administration to stifle dissent, investigate anyone – or any group – they don’t like, punish their enemies, and potentially label any American they want as a terrorist,” he said in a statement. “Never in our history has the U.S. government named a domestic terrorist organization.”

Thompson said domestic terrorism has been on the rise, but blamed right-wing groups for that violence, not left-wing groups.

“Domestic terrorism has been on the rise for years, but government officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations – along with all available data – are clear: the real threat is from right-wing violent extremism,” Thompson said. “Sadly, the Trump administration ignored this threat in its first term and has so far this year as it has diverted vast resources and personnel away from countering this very real threat towards its extreme mass deportation agenda.”

The Center Square contacted Thompson’s team for an interview and additional comment. A spokesperson referred The Center Square back to Thompson’s statement.

A June 2020 report from the Congressional Research Service noted that Antifa groups can differ widely.

“Contemporary U.S. antifa adherents likely do not share a list of enemies, as the movement lacks a unifying organizational structure or detailed ideology that might shape such a list,” the report noted. “Local groups do not necessarily listen to each other’s pronouncements and might aim their animus at enemies specific to their group. Further, ‘fascism’ is notoriously difficult to define. Thus, particular antifa groups may oppose different things based on how they identify who or what is fascist.”

That same report said not all antifa members were violent.

“Some members are willing to commit crimes, some violent, to promote their beliefs, although much antifa activity involves nonviolent protest such as hanging posters, delivering speeches, and marching,” according to the report. “As a core purpose, antifa groups track and react to the activities of individuals or groups they see as advocating fascist views, such as neoNazis, racist skinheads, white supremacists, and white nationalists.”

However, Antifa has not been afraid to use violence.

“Violence by U.S. antifa members is not new. For example, in 2012 Anti-Racist Action (ARA; an antiracist group now known as The Torch Network or Torch Antifa) attacked a meeting of the Illinois European Heritage Association, consisting of white supremacists from the National Socialist Movement and people from other groups. Brandishing items such as hammers, baseball bats, and police batons, the attackers entered a Chicago-area restaurant and assaulted meeting attendees,” the Congressional Research Service report noted.

Republicans have been trying to go after Antifa for years. 

U.S. Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced a resolution in the Senate in July 2019 to condemn the violent acts of Antifa and to designate the group a domestic terror organization.

“Looting, destroying personal property, and violence cannot be tolerated. Antifa seized upon a movement of legitimate grievances to promote violence and anarchy, working against justice for all,” Cassidy said in May 2020. “The President is right to recognize the destructive role of Antifa by designating them domestic terrorists.”

Earlier this summer, Cruz and others introduced the Stop Financial Underwriting of Nefarious Demonstrations and Extremist Riots Act. The one-page bill would add rioting to the list of racketeering predicate offenses. Doing so would enable the Department of Justice to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which provides for extended criminal penalties for those involved in racketeering. 

“Every American has the right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest, but not to commit violence. Domestic NGOs and foreign adversaries fund and use riots in the United States to undermine the security and prosperity of Americans,” Cruz said.

U.S. Rep. Beth Van Duyn, R-Texas, filed companion legislation in the House.

“It is time we empower our law enforcement with a commonsense tool to treat these violent mobs, their funding sources, and their organizers as the criminal enterprises they are by passing the Stop FUNDERS Act,” she said in a statement at the time. “Since the days of the George Floyd riots, to the violence we see across American cities and college campuses today, it is obvious there are well funded, well outfitted, and highly coordinated efforts to plan and execute violent and potentially deadly missions of chaos and mayhem. This is organized crime, and we need to attack it as such.”

Van Duyn also filed a bill to prevent anyone convicted of rioting from getting a loan from the Small Business Administration.

The Center Square contacted Van Duyn for additional comment, but did not hear back before publication.

In a fact sheet released by the White House shortly after the designation, it listed several acts of violence attributed to Antifa, including a July ambush on an ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas, resulting in one officer being shot in the neck.

Continue Reading

Trending

X