Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

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

espionage

Declassified evidence reveals Obama admin meddling to undermine Trump’s 2016 win

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

Tulsi Gabbard released documents that ‘detail a treasonous conspiracy by officials at the highest levels of the Obama White House to subvert the will of the American people.’

President Barack Obama and his national security cabinet members manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Donald Trump, according to Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard, who just released a trove of newly declassified documents providing hard evidence of the Obama administration’s subterfuge.

On Friday, Gabbard released a series of statements making damning claims about the Obama administration’s actions “subverting the will of the American people and undermining our democratic republic.”

“For months preceding the 2016 election, the Intelligence Community shared a consensus view: Russia lacked the intent and capability to hack U.S. elections,” Gabbard wrote on X. “But weeks after President Trump’s historic 2016 victory defeating Hillary Clinton, everything changed.”

“On Dec 8, 2016, Intelligence Community officials prepared an assessment for the President’s Daily Brief, finding that Russia ‘did not impact recent U.S. election results’ by conducting cyber attacks on infrastructure,” Gabbard continued. “Before it could reach the President, it was abruptly pulled ‘based on new guidance.’ This key intelligence assessment was never published.

“The next day, top national security officials including FBI Dir James Comey, CIA Dir John Brennan and DNI James Clapper gathered at the Obama White House to discuss Russia,” Gabbard said. “Obama directed the Intelligence Community to create a new intelligence assessment that detailed Russian election meddling, even though it would contradict multiple intelligence assessments released over the previous several months.”

 

“Obama officials immediately leaned on their allies in the media to advance their falsehoods,” she noted. “Anonymous Intelligence Community sources leaked classified information to The Washington Post and others that Russia had intervened to hack the election in Trump’s favor.”

“On January 6, 2017, just days before President Trump took office, DNI Clapper unveiled the Obama-directed politicized assessment, a gross weaponization of intelligence that laid the groundwork for a years-long coup intended to subvert President Trump’s entire presidency,” Gabbard explained. “According to whistleblower emails shared with us today, we know Clapper and Brennan used the baseless discredited Steele Dossier as a source to push this false narrative in the intelligence assessment.”

“This betrayal concerns every American. The integrity of our democratic republic demands that every person involved be investigated and brought to justice to prevent this from ever happening again,” she averred.

“The issue I am raising is not a partisan issue. It is one that concerns every American. The information we are releasing today clearly shows there was a treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government. Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years-long coup with the objective of trying to usurp the President from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by the American people,” Gabbard said in a statement. “Their egregious abuse of power and blatant rejection of our Constitution threatens the very foundation and integrity of our democratic republic. No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. The American people’s faith and trust in our democratic republic and therefore the future of our nation depends on it. As such, I am providing all documents to the Department of Justice to deliver the accountability that President Trump, his family, and the American people deserve.”

The declassified files cited by Gabbard have been available to the public at DNI.gov.

Continue Reading

Great Reset

U.S. rejects WHO pandemic amendments, citing threat to sovereignty

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

The U.S. has officially rejected the WHO’s 2024 pandemic rule changes. In a joint statement, Secretaries Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Marco Rubio said the amendments threaten American sovereignty, free speech, and privacy—handing too much power to unelected global bureaucrats.

Key Details:

  • The U.S. State Department and HHS transmitted the official rejection of the 2024 amendments to the WHO’s IHR.
  • Officials cited threats to national sovereignty, vague terminology, and the WHO’s political susceptibility—particularly to China—as grounds for rejection.
  • The amendments would have mandated WHO-led responses, digital health documentation, and “equitable access” initiatives regardless of U.S. withdrawal from the WHO.

Diving Deeper:

The rejection represents a sharp rebuke of the World Health Assembly’s 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005), which sought to centralize global pandemic decision-making power within the WHO. Kennedy and Rubio emphasized the amendments’ “vague and broad” language and their potential to create policy rooted in politics and global “solidarity” rather than science and national interest.

Among the most controversial changes were new authorities for the WHO to unilaterally declare health emergencies, coordinate international responses, and guide member states toward “equitable access” to vaccines and other health commodities. The amendments also encouraged countries to implement digital health documents—raising red flags for privacy and surveillance concerns.

“The amendments risk unwarranted interference with our national sovereign right to make health policy,” the joint statement read. Kennedy and Rubio specifically criticized the lack of public input in drafting the new rules and warned that WHO directives could suppress legitimate scientific debate and restrict Americans’ freedom of speech under the guise of “controlling misinformation.”

The officials pointed to the WHO’s well-documented failures during the COVID-19 pandemic, including its deference to the Chinese Communist Party, as a stark example of why international bodies should not be granted binding authority over U.S. domestic policy. “These amendments… fail to adequately address the WHO’s susceptibility to political influence and censorship—most notably from China—during outbreaks,” the statement noted.

Even more alarming, the statement highlighted that the amended rules would have bound the U.S. regardless of its current status in the WHO, essentially imposing obligations on a nation that is no longer part of the organization. This drew particular concern from Rubio, who has long warned against ceding U.S. autonomy to global institutions.

In reaffirming their commitment to “put Americans first,” Kennedy and Rubio vowed to continue resisting international encroachments on U.S. freedoms. “We will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans’ speech, privacy, or personal liberties,” they declared.

This formal rejection marks a victory for critics of globalism and top-down health mandates, signaling that under the current administration, American decision-makers are prioritizing sovereignty, transparency, and constitutional protections over global consensus driven by unelected bureaucrats.

Continue Reading

Trending

X